The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 09/24/2019 Item # 9A (GMPA for Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd. E. Residential Subdistrict)09/24/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve by Ordinance the single 2018 Cycle One Growth Management Plan Amendment specific to the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict petition. (Adoption Hearing) (This is a companion to agenda item 9.B) OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to approve (adopt) the single petition in the 2018 Cycle 1 of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and to approve said amendment for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required agencies. CONSIDERATIONS: Petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 is submitted by Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, for Global Properties of Naples, LLC requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) to re-designate the subject site from the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict to the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict. The Subdistrict site comprises 35.57 acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. With this re-designation, the property would allow for residential density up to 8.55 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 304 DUs; requires the property to be rezoned to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and limits residential development to 249 multi-family units (7.0 DU/A) until two or more Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy facilities and/or interconnections [approved by companion RPUD Development Commitments] have been completed. Note: A companion PUD rezone petition is scheduled for this same hearing. (Also, there is a discrepancy in acreage between the proposed Subdistrict and PUD but this causes no concern - it has no impact upon proposed uses, density or compatibility. The PUD is approximately one-third of an acre larger due to the petitioner acquiring a sliver of land after the GMP amendment petition was in progress, which was submitted prior to the PUD rezone petition.) Staff analysis of this petition is included in the Transmittal CCPC Staff Report. Additional considerations: • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government’s adopted Plan. • County Resolution 12-234 provides for a public petition process to amend the Collier County GMP. • For this Adoption hearing, the sole petition in the 2018 Cycle 1 of GMP amendments being considered is PL20170004419/CP-2018-1, Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict. It is an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text and Countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series. • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the “local planning agency” under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held its Transmittal hearings for the subject petition on January 17, 2019 and February 7, 2019. The BCC held its Transmittal hearing on March 26, 2019. Their respective transmittal recommendations/actions are contained in the CCPC adoption hearing Staff Report. • The CCPC held its adoption hearing on August 1, 2019. The staff and CCPC adoption hearing recommendations are presented further below. • After review of the proposed GMP amendment, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), the Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental 9.A Packet Pg. 32 09/24/2019 Protection (DEP), and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) rendered Comment Letters indicating “no comment” within the agencies’ authorized scopes of review or found no adverse impacts to State resources would result. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a planning level analysis and rendered comments within their authorized scope of review. FDOT reviewers’ comment s and recommendation may be seen in their entirety in FDOT’s review letter of May 29, 2019. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) conducted a geographic information system (GIS) analysis and rendered comments and recommendations within their authorized scope of review. FWC Office of Conservation Planning Services reviewers’ comments and recommendations may be seen in their entirety in FWC’s review letter of May 3, 2019. The Comments Letters received are located within materials provided to the CCPC. The remaining reviewing agencies did not provide Comment Letters. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: “plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” 163.3177(1)(f), FS. In addition, s. 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area, as applicable including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non- conforming uses 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 need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. i. The discouragement of urban sprawl. j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. And FLUE map amendments shall also be based upon the following analysis per Section 163.3177(6)(a)8.: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires an affirmative vote of four for approval because this is an Adoption hearing of the GMP amendment. [HFAC] 9.A Packet Pg. 33 09/24/2019 FISCAL IMPACTS: No fiscal impacts to the County result from this amendment if it is adopted. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACTS: This public hearing is to consider approval (adoption) of the single, previously transmitted Growth Management Plan amendment petition in the 2018 Cycle 1 of amendments to the GMP. This GMP amendment is presumed to be “in compliance” with applicable Florida Statutes. If adopted, the DEO and other applicable review agencies will have (30) thirty days (from the date DEO determines the adoption packages are complete) to review the adopted Plan amendment; and, should they believe the amendment is not “in compliance”, to file a challenge [appeal] to the presumed “in compliance” determination with the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). Similarly, any affected party also has (30) thirty days (from the date of BCC adoption) in which to file a challenge. If a timely challenge is not filed by the DEO, a review agency or an affected party, then the amendment will become effective. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the CCPC forward petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 as approved for Transmittal by County Resolution 2019-54 to the BCC with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and reviewing agencies that provided comments. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission held its Adoption public hearing on August 1, 2019. At the CCPC hearing, eleven persons spoke in opposition expressing concerns regarding density; compatibility; traffic impacts; precedent being set; need not demonstrated; doesn’t meet statutory requirements for a GMP amendment; for a density increase, should provide affordable housing which is needed. At the CCPC hearing, the petitioner offered to amend the petition (this GMP amendment petition and/or the companion PUD rezone petition) to: provide 55 restricted units - to be marketed to essential services personnel for 60 days, and to market resale of those units for 30 days to essential services personnel; and to restrict 28 of those 55 units to occupants earning 80%-100% of the area median household income. The CCPC recommended that the BCC not adopt this petition (motion to approve failed by vote of 2/3), citing concerns that included the density requested, compatibility with surrounding properties, and traffic impacts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: That the BCC adopt petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1, as approved for Transmittal by the BCC, and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and reviewing agencies that provided comments. Prepared by: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division, Growth Management Department ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Adoption Staff Report_signed_CP-18-1 (PDF) 2. Adoption Ordinance - 090619 (PDF) 3. Transmittal BCC Transmittal Ex. Summary (PDF) 4. Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (PDF) 5. Resolution 2019-054 (PDF) 9.A Packet Pg. 34 09/24/2019 6. [Linked] PL20170002219-CP-18-2 Transmittal Emails & Petitions Against ALLURA Apts (2) (PDF) 7. [Linked] PL20170002219-CP-18-2 Transmittal Emails & Petitions Against ALLURA Apts (1) (PDF) 8. Affidavit of Sign Posting-Sign Photos (6-28-2019) (PDF) 9. Legal Ad - Agenda ID 9801 (PDF) 9.A Packet Pg. 35 09/24/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.A Doc ID: 9801 Item Summary: ***This item to be heard no sooner than 10:00 a.m.*** Recommendation to approve by Ordinance the single 2018 Cycle One Growth Management Plan Amendment specific to the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict petition. [Adoption Hearing] (This is a companion to agenda item 9.B] Meeting Date: 09/24/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 08/20/2019 9:32 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 08/20/2019 9:32 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 08/20/2019 12:02 PM Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 08/20/2019 1:11 PM Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 08/20/2019 6:27 PM Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 08/21/2019 5:15 PM County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 09/10/2019 9:27 AM Office of Management and Budget Laura Wells Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 09/10/2019 2:57 PM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 09/12/2019 11:41 AM Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 09/13/2019 10:01 AM County Manager's Office Leo E. Ochs Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 09/17/2019 3:09 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 09/24/2019 9:00 AM 9.A Packet Pg. 36 Page 1 of 4 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: July 18, 2019 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20170004419/CP-2018-1, 2018 CYCLE 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [ADOPTION HEARING] (Companion to PUDR-PL20170004385) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE PROPOSED AMENDMENT Petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 is a large-scale Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to establish a new Subdistrict in the FLUE text, and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the FLUE 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 petition proposes the new Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District that: allows residential density up to 8.55 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 304 DUs; requires the property to be rezoned to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and limits residential development to 249 multi-family units (7.0 dwelling units per acre (DU/A)) until two or more Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy facilities and/or interconnections [approved by companion RPUD Development Commitments] have been completed. The subject property comprises 35.57 acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection. The non-corner property fronts approximately 660 feet on east side of Livingston Road and 660 ft. on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The property lies within the North Naples Planning Community, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Note: A companion PUD amendment petition is scheduled for this same hearing. Transmittal hearings on the amendment were held on January 17 and February 7, 2019 (Planning Commission) and on March 26 (Board of County Commissioners). The Transmittal recommendations/actions are presented further below. Within CCPC materials provided, you will find the Transmittal Executive Summary from the Board hearing, and the Transmittal CCPC staff report for the petition, which provides staff’s detailed analysis of the petition. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_signed_CP-18-1 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Page 2 of 4 In accordance with Chapter 163.3184(3)(b)1., F.S., pertaining to the Expedited State Review Process, this Transmittal package was provided to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and other reviewing agencies on December 20, 2017. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS After review of the proposed GMP amendment, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), the Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) rendered Comment Letters indicating “no comment” within the agencies’ authorized scopes of review, or found no adverse impacts to State resources would result. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a planning level analysis and rendered comments within their authorized scope of review. FDOT recognizes the amendment will result in an increase in p.m. peak hour trips in the area, and understands if the proposed use results in additional impacts to State facilities. [They point out how the TIS study area did not extend to State facilities, and concede the Department could not quantify the number of trips accessing I-75.] In recognition of the localized impacts, FDOT provides three Technical Assistance Recommendations. In brief, the technical recommendations encourage 1) the County to advance the Veterans Memorial Boulevard roadway extension project*, 2) the applicant/developer to evaluate pedestrian and bicycle facilities, together with, the County to analyze signal timings and operations – to improve the intersection and provide a safer environment in proximity of existing and proposed schools; the applicant/developer to work with CAT and the County to enhance the multimodal network within the transit plan with additional service and transit stops along Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard; the County to support and indorse more roadway connectivity, and 3) the County to [more intently] monitor the speed of traffic on Livingston Road (again, to provide a safer environment in proximity of existing and proposed schools). * Note: The Veterans Memorial Boulevard capacity enhancement project (60198) appears in the 2018 AUIR as a new 2-lane roadway extension to relieve increasing congestion Immokalee Road between Livingston and Goodlette-Frank Roads. This project involves right-of-way acquisition and advanced construction scheduled during fiscal years 2020 through 2022, with construction slated for FY 2022. FDOT Growth Management reviewers’ comments and recommendation may be seen in their entirety in FDOT’s review letter of May 29, 2019. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) conducted a geographic information system (GIS) analysis and rendered comments and recommendations within their authorized scope of review. FWC confirms the potential for listed species to be found onsite, in particular, Big Cypress fox squirrel and Florida bonneted bat. In addition, the project area is located near, within, or adjacent to: • Potential Florida Black Bear habitat • Big Cypress fox squirrel nest • Florida bonneted bat and other Federally listed species In recognition of these potentially affected resources, FWC provides recommendations specific to each of their concerns. FWC Office of Conservation Planning Services reviewers’ comments and recommendations may be seen in their entirety in FDOT’s review letter of May 3, 2019. 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_signed_CP-18-1 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Page 3 of 4 The Comments Letters received are located within materials provided to the CCPC. The remaining reviewing agencies did not provide Comment Letters. TRANSMITTAL • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: to Transmit to DEO. • CCPC RECOMMENDATION: to Transmit to DEO (vote: 4/2; Chairman Strain and Commissioner Fryer opposed). The CCPC recommended limiting the maximum residential density to 8.55 DU/A, yielding 304 DUs, and limiting the units to market rate only. • BOARD ACTION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 4/1), per CCPC recommendation; Commissioner Taylor opposed. The Board limited the maximum building height to three (3) stories. ADOPTION Within CCPC materials provided is an Ordinance with Exhibit “A” text (and maps) for the petition; this exhibit reflects the text as approved for Transmittal by the Board. No revisions have been made to the exhibit Transmitted by the County and reviewed by reviewing agencies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the CCPC forward the single, 2018 Cycle 1 petition to the Board with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and reviewing agencies that provided comments. LEGAL REVIEW This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on TBD, 2019. 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. [HFAC] [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_signed_CP-18-1 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Page 4 of 4 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_signed_CP-18-1 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 090619 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 090619 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 090619 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 090619 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 090619 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 090619 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) - 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve by Resolution the single Petition within the 2018 Cycle One of Growth Management Plan Amendments for an Amendment specifically Proposed to the Future Land Use Element to Establish the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for Review and Comments Response. (Transmittal Hearing) (PL20170004419/CP-2018-1) OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to approve the single petition in the 2018 Cycle One of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies. CONSIDERATIONS: • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. • Collier County Resolution No. 12-234 provides for a public petition process to amend the GMP. • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the “local planning agency” under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for the 2018 Cycle 1 petition on December 6, 2018, January 17, 2019 and February 7, 2019 (one petition only, PL20170004419/CP-2018-1). • This Transmittal hearing for the 2018 Cycle 1 petition considers an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The GMP amendment requested is specific to a non-corner 35.57-acre property, fronting approximately 660 feet on the east side of Livingston Road and 660 feet on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East (North Naples Planning Community). The approximate northerly 660-feet portion of the property (17.25 ac.) is zoned A, Rural Agricultur al, and is undeveloped. The southerly portion of the property is zoned RPUD, Della Rosa Residential Planned Unit Development, approved for 107 DUs (7 DU/A), and is undeveloped. An ±8.5-acre portion of the property is also designated ST, Special Treatment Overlay. This petition seeks to amend the GMP, adopted by Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the FLUE by adding a new Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District, revising 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 new residential subdistrict will: allow a maximum residential density up to 8.55 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 304 DUs; require the property to be rezoned to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); limit allowable uses to multi -family rental dwelling units of market rate housing; and, utilize Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. In Summary, the new Subdistrict derives its residential density using the Density Rating System as follows: Base Density of 4 DU/A + Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Bonus of 3 DU/A = 7 DU/A. The Density Rating System states that density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each respective density bonus – in this case, utilizing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. These 7 DU/A applied to the subject site’s 35.57 acres allows up to 249 DUs. The additional density of 1.55 DU/A is derived not from the FLUE’s Density Rating System, but from the ask within the amendment itself. Subdistrict provisions require TDM strategies to be written into PUD Developer Commitments. The Subdistrict limits project development to 7 DU/A until the facilities and interconnections associated with the TDM strategies are completed (such as, providing an on-site Collier Area Transit shelter and interconnection(s) to abutting commercial development). 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Transmittal BCC Transmittal Ex. Summary (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) - 2 - In preparation for the December 6, 2018 CCPC hearing, the staff based their analysis of this petition on the originally-requested 420 dwelling units. The initial Subdistrict proposal allowed a maximum residential density up to 12 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), yielding 420 DUs, required the property to be rezoned to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), limited allowable uses to multi-family rental dwellings, and required utilization of two TDM strategies. Based on the review of this petition, including the supporting data and analysis, staff made the following findings and conclusions: • The subject site is undeveloped, partly zoned A, Rural Agricultural and partly 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 Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), an area where the Plan encourages compact urban development and utilizes transportation demand management strategies to reduce traffic impacts. • 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 appropriate for the site. 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 Florida Inventory of School Houses (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. • 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. The applicant explained that changes they made in November 2018 to their companion PUD application materials included reducing intensity from 420 to 350 DUs. Additional time was needed to properly prepare for similar changes in GMPA materials, and the applicant requested to continue this hearing to a later date. At the January 17, 2019 CCPC meeting, changes presented by the applicant would limit the maximum residential density to 9.8 DU/A, yielding 350 DUs. Numerous speakers presented extensive public testimony, expressing concerns related to intensity, density, compatibility and traffic congestion. Transportation Planners reported further that the reduced number of dwelling units [to 350] affects their findings differently, and commented: • According to the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), Livingston Road is currently and projected to operate at an acceptable level-of-service. • Additional improvements within and near the TCMA will assist in maintaining the acceptable level-of- service on a link specific basis as well as areawide. These improvements include: Veteran’s Memorial Boulevard is slated to be constructed between Livingston Road; Old 41 Project Development and Environmental study from US 41 to the Lee County line to determine future improvements; and, Logan Boulevard improvements will soon be completed from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road ‒ another parallel north-south connection that will provide relief. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Transmittal BCC Transmittal Ex. Summary (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) - 3 - • Due to the project’s location within the TCMA, if the project were to impact a deficient or projected deficient roadway, the project would be eligible to seek an exemption from link by link concurrency. • Though the applicant does not need to seek an exemption for link-specific concurrency (as there is sufficient capacity on links identified and the link that does have a projected deficiency would have a de minimis impact at this time for transportation consistency purposes, the applicant has committed to executing at least two transportation demand strategies to gain an additional 3 DU/A density. • A second exit-only access on Livingston Road is proposed [by the companion PUD] which does not meet access management distance separation requirements. The Access Management Policy (Resolution 13-257) represents desirable requirements; however, the ultimate goal is to exceed these standards. Transportation Planning staff does not recommend approval of the second access point as it is not consistent with the Access Management Policy. Transportation Planning staff finds that the proposed development can be found consistent with the Access Management Policy if the second access point on Livingston Road is removed from the companion PUD master plan. The CCPC continued this hearing to February 7. At the February 7, 2019 CCPC meeting, the applicant proposed to provide 10% of the dwelling units as affordable housing at 80 to 120% of median income. Numerous speakers presented continuing public testimony with the same concerns as previously as well as concerns about affordable housing units. Changes presented by the CCPC recommended limiting the maximum residential density to 8.55 DU/A, yielding 304 DUs, and limiting the units to market rate only. The proposed Subdistrict text, as recommended by the CCPC, is depicted in Resolution Exhibit “A”. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts to Collier County result from this amendment, as this approval is for the transmittal of this proposed amendment. Petition fees account for staff review time and materials, and for the cost of associated legal advertising/public notice for the public hearings. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of the proposed amendment by the Board for transmittal and its submission to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies will commence the Department’s thirty (30) day review process and ultimately return the amendment to the CCPC and the Board for its Adoption hearing tentatively to be held in late Spring of 2019. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: “plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” Section 163.3177(1)(f), F.S. In addition, Section 163.3177(6)(a)2, F.S., provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area, as applicable including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non- conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Transmittal BCC Transmittal Ex. Summary (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) - 4 - g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. i. The discouragement of urban sprawl. j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. And FLUE map amendments shall also be based upon the following analysis per Section 163.3177(6)(a)8.: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires a majority vote for approval because this is a Transmittal hearing. [SAS] STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the CCPC forward petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the Board, with the maximum residential density up to 9.8 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 350 dwelling units; as heard at the January 17, and February 7, 2019 meetings, and to transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition at their January 17, and February 7, 2019 meetings, and voted [4/2] to forward the subject petition to the Board, with the maximum residential density up to 8.55 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 304 dwelling units; with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies. There is public opposition to the petition and therefore it cannot be placed on the Board’s Summary Agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: To approve the draft Resolution and transmit petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies, as recommended by the CCPC. Prepared by: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, Gr owth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division, Growth Management Department 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Transmittal BCC Transmittal Ex. Summary (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 1 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE REVISED STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2019 – CONTINUED FROM 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 and is located in the southeast quadrant of the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection. The non-corner property fronts approximately 660 feet on east side of Livingston Road and 660 ft. on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The property lies within the North Naples Planning Community, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 2 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 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; I-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 (CR 881) 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 I-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. A ±8.5-acre portion of the property is also designated ST, Special Treatment Overlay. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 3 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 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 R oad 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. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 4 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan am endments 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. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 5 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. 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 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 6 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 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 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 appropriate for the site. 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 I-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side. In addition to Comprehensive Planning staff’s review of applicable FLUE Policies, Collier County Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition and contributed the following analysis and findings: 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 7 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE FLUE Policy 2.3 states: “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.” Transportation Planning Staff finding: The applicant’s April 12, 2018, Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that it will impact Immokalee Road from Airport Road to Livingston Road which has been projected to exceed the adopted level of service in 2023. Based on this information, the developer shall either construct the needed facilities or defer development until improvements can be made. The 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report and associated Capital Improvement Element proposes the construction of a parallel facility, Veterans Memorial Boulevard from Livingston Road to Old 41. Therefore, in order to be found consistent with this provision of the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant shall either construct the Veterans Memorial Boulevard or defer development until the roadway is complete. FLUE Policy 6.1 states: “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 [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 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. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 8 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE It is Transportation Planning staff’s opinion that the first two TDM strategies do not apply for the proposed development. The applicant has not proposed a commercial use within the development. The development is located outside of the Collier Area Transit (CAT) service area (no service expansion is identified in the adopted Transit Development Plan or the 2040 Long Range Transportation Cost Feasible Plan). Therefore, to meet the two required TDM strategies both c) and d) must be provided. Staff will be requiring a developer commitment for both of these TDM strategies and require that the adjacent commercial development be constructed before this development reaches 30 percent occupancy as part of the companion RPUD petition for this development. A Transportation Impact Statement (TIS), dated April 12, 2018, prepared by TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., was submitted with this petition (Exhibit “V.E.3”). (A revised TIS, dated November 16, 2018, was submitted for the companion PUD rezone petition [which is not under formal consideration with this GMPA Transmittal hearing] which reduces the number of dwelling units to 350 for studying alternative transportation impacts.) It should be noted that a reduction in units could change staff’s findings of this petition as thresholds may not be exceeded that would trigger additional requirements. However, since the GMPA was not revised to reduce units, staff has continued its review based on the original request of 420 units. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: In evaluating this project, Transportation Planning staff reviewed the applicant’s April 12, 2018, TIS for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project ’s significant impacts on all roadways.” 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 9 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition the proposed rezoning to allow a maximum 420 multi-family residential units (residential condo/townhouse) will generate a projected ±176 PM peak hour, two-way trips on the immediately adjacent roadway link, Veterans Memorial Boulevard, and Livingston Road. Veterans Memorial Boulevard is a two-lane facility and is not currently tracked for capacity in the AUIR. Following is a table that provides information related to the current operations of the impacted roadway network: Link ID # Link From/To P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume 2017 P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume Remaining Capacity Level of Service (LOS) Petition has significant impacts? 51.0 Livingston Road Imperial Street to Immokalee Road 3,000/North 1,279 1,721 B Yes 42.1 Immokalee Road Airport Road to Livingston Road 3,100/West 2,795 305 D No 42.2 Immokalee Road Livingston Road to I-75 3,500/East 2,489 1,011 C No Link ID 42.1 (Immokalee Road from Airport Road to Livingston Road) is projected to become deficient by 2023. While the petition will impact Link ID 42.1, it will be a de minimis impact to the link as defined in Policy 5.2 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Therefore, the subject petition may be found consistent with this section of the GMP. However, the petition is subject to further evaluation as it relates to the applicable Transportation Concurrency Management policies. Policy 5.2 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “Project traffic that is 1% or less of the adopted peak hour service volume represents a de minimis impact. Authorization of development with a de minimis impact shall be pursuant to Section 163.3180(6) Florida Statutes.” Staff finding: The petition is projected to impact Link ID 42.1, a projected deficiency, however, it is anticipated to be a de minimis. However, the petition is subject to further evaluation as it relates to the applicable Transportation Concurrency Management policies. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 10 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA): Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “...In order to be exempt from link-specific concurrency, developments within the TCMA must provide documentation to the Transportation Planning Section that at least two (2) Transporation Demand Management (TDM) strategies utilized meet the criteria of the LDC...” Staff finding: The applicant is not required to seek an exemption for link-specific concurrency as the there is sufficient capacity on links identified and the link that does have a projected deficiency, the petition would have a de minimis impact. Therefore, TDM strategies are not required by this policy. This does not negate that TDM strategies may be required to fulfill other requirements of the GMP such as density bonuses. Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “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.” Staff finding: Per the 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report, the Northwest TCMA current has 98.9% of the lane miles operating at an acceptable LOS. Policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “Should the TIS for a proposed development reflect that it will impact either a constrained roadway line 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 lane 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 by7 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. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 11 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE d. No impact will be de minimis if it exceeds the adopted LOD standard of any affected designed hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA. Hurricane routes in Collier County are shown on Map TR7. 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.” Staff finding: The proposed development’s area of significant impact does extend to link 42.1, Immokalee Road from Airport-Pulling to Livingston Road. This is an identified hurricane evacuation route. Transportation Planning staff will be requiring a developer commitment for the proportionate share congestion mitigation payment consistent with Policy 5.8.d above as part of the companion RPUD petition for this development. Based on this condition, the proposed development can be found consistent with these policies. Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy as adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial and collector system’s capacity and integrity.” Staff finding: While the GMPA application does not provide the level of specificity to review this provision, the applicant has submitted for concurrent reviews of both the Planned Unit Development and associated Site Development Plan. The development proposes a main access on Veterans Memorial Boulevard which is a ‘Class 7’ facility. This access is approximately 600 feet from the intersection of Livingston Road and meets access management minimum standards of 125 feet. This access will require a right turn lane and c ompensating ROW. A second exit- only access on Livingston Road is also proposed which does not meet access management distance separation requirements. The Access Management Resolution 13-257 represents desirable requirements; however, the ultimate goal is to exceed these standards. Transportation Planning staff does not recommend approval of the second access point as it is not consistent with the Access Management Resolution 13-257. Transportation Planning staff finds that the proposed development can be found consistent with this Policy if second access point on Livingston Road is removed from the plan. Policy 7.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County shall implement, through its Land Development Code and Code of Laws and Ordinances, the provision of safe and convenient onsite traffic flow and need for adequate parking for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles as a primary objective in the review of Planned Unit Developments, Site Development Plan, and other appropriate stages of review in the land development application review process. Coordination shall occur with County Engineering staff where traffic circulation is outside the limits of the public ROW.” Staff finding: The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project as noted above. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required. This TIS will be required to analyze major intersections that are part of the significantly impacted roadways, major intersections that are within 1,320 feet of the site access, and all site-access intersections. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and Transportation 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 12 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Concurrency Management Area requirements when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection of such local streets.” Staff finding: While the GMPA application does not provide the level of specificity to review this provision, the applicant has submitted for concurrent reviews of both the Planned Unit Development and associated Site Development Plan. The proposed developments master plan and subsequent site development plans must provide for potential-future interconnection to an adjacent undeveloped commercial (C-1) parcel to the west. Transportation Planning staff finds that the proposed development can be found consistent with this Policy and notes that the interconnection is tied to the TDM strategies related to the density bonus. Policy 9.5 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County shall encourage projects which provide local resident, pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist movement between and among developments on neighborhood streets in a deliberate balance with its efforts to route cut-through traffic away from neighborhoods and to the arterials and collectors designated in the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan.” Staff finding: As noted above in Policy 9.3, while the GMPA application does not provide the level of specificity to review this provision, the applicant has submitted for concurrent reviews of both the Planned Unit Development and associated Site Development Plan. The proposed developments master plan and subsequent site development plans must provide for potential - future interconnection to an adjacent undeveloped commercial (C-1) parcel to the west. The specific design of the neighborhood street will be addressed in the companion PUD document. Transportation Planning staff finds that the proposed development can be found consistent with this Policy and notes that the interconnection is tied to the TDM strategies related to the density bonus. Transportation Planning Staff Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP with the noted development commitments staff will recommend as part of the companion Allura RPUD PL2017-4385, and further recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PL2017-4419 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval for transmittal. [Michael Sawyer, Principal Planner, Transportation Planning Section Trinity Scott, Planning Manager, Transportation Planning Section, and Amy Patterson, Director, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management] 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 13 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 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 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 14 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 16280 Livingston Rd., which is located along Livingston Rd., adjacent to the southwestern portion of the property. 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 been 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 the school, west across the intersection). Their comments and concerns included: 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 15 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE • Traffic congestion; inc. the age and validity of the traffic counts used in the proposal’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 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% one bdrm. and 55% two bdrm. apartment styles. Concerns regarding the general transient nature of tenancy, problems with management companies and the vetting of potential renters [shared personal worst-case scenarios], and lower standards rental properties; the agent and applicant addressed these concerns, with examples of their existing projects, general nature of their expected tenants, and their management offices. • The incompatibility of this high-density project with the established surrounding low-density residential area (single-family, coach homes), as now planned and expected by previous homebuyers and neighbors; the agent pointed out how the County’s Plan, along with incentives within the TCMA’s work to encourage such development. • Asked if the developers are prepared [or should be] with alternate plans to the high density/intensity of current proposal? • Impacts on the neighborhood taxes? The agent explained how affects are minimized, as Impact Fees paid by the developer absorb the costs of new or additional services required by the development. • Emergency services and the conflicts of introducing new traffic onto Livingston Road are where problems already apparent; agent answered that Fire District representatives review these proposals for the impacts on their ability to provide services and are addressing these concerns. The strong consensus was expressed that developing the property was not opposed, but the proposed intensity and density of this project and this specific development is opposed. The information meeting was ended at approximately 6:40 p.m. This synopsis provides the annotated NIM proceedings. An audio and a video recording of the entire Neighborhood Information Meeting are available on the County’s “I” drive, at I:/GMD/Comprehensive Planning/NIM Recordings & PREAPP Notes. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 16 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 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. A ±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. • 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 appropriate for the site. 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 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] 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 17 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 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 strikethrough text is deleted, as proposed by staff.) 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 or more 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. Occupancy of multi-family dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total number allowed until after these bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular facilities are constructed and the functioning connections and interconnections are provided. d. The RPUD shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding land uses. e. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 2.3 by either constructing Veterans Memorial Boulevard or deferring development until the roadway is complete. f. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with Policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element by providing a Congestion Mitigation Payment at the time of the first development order approval. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 18 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 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] 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 19 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) RESOLUTION NO. 19 - 5.4 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 304 MULTI FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VETERANS- MEMORIAL BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 35.57± ACRES. PL20170004419] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, SD Livingston, LLC, requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to the Urban Mixed-Use District; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019 and February 7, 2019, 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 March 26, 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-01000/1460584/1197 3/27/19 Page 1 of 2 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Resolution 2019-054 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 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 alp day of M cf-eAt" 2019. ATTEST: BOARD OF J COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K: KI ZEL, CLERK COLLIE 4 04 I i 'IDA I Iia .i_ BY: 1-_ [ ChairmaVn Wi f am L. Mc an1e1, Jr., Ch" an it as to a signature only. 'Q ,,,-.. Appr1 ed as to form and legality: lir , Scott . tone' Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text Amendment& Map Amendment 18-CMP-01000/1460584/1197 3/27/19 Page 2 of 2 e 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Resolution 2019-054 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 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 21. 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 *** *** *** *** 21. 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 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 8.55 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 304 units of market rate housing. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.1 by providing two or more of the following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; 1 Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Resolution 2019-054 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Transmittal Exhibit PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 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. Certificates of occupancy shall not be approved for more than 249 multi-family units (a density of 7.0 units per acre) until the applicable facilities and/or interconnections, as described above and approved as Development Commitments in the RPUD, have been completed. d. The RPUD shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding land uses. e. Buildings shall be limited in height to a maximum of three stories. As an alternate to all of the above, this Subdistrict may be developed in accordance with the Urban Residential Subdistrict. text break *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Page 147] 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 2 Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Resolution 2019-054 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) aS I T46S I T47S I T48S I T49S I T50S I T51S I T52S I T53S0NaUWiEaS8m-8 R s _ _ - pSeHRsN ap p5T 0-- n'mow iJ 7,w dw l% w.6OiS{O{ o;WI or wuS=n wi:Od ou.'v =jndIIOo02 =o 202 npry0OaIIII3 { w o_°w°woos oawow oo°aoa oEwo oo zo°z$o io ioio io id gb?o QoZgQq ' aile= 11 a sa $ << a a a < < a < a a a < a a < a a a a a < a < aiNioSJhed3iBsIi$i i _0J aadMoiRNno ycdcoa ot -liiii 00[10®o w3Cr0 a iY2N fi I m it 12 j ; re 111f11'1- 1z111 S; CO R' e sa $s g s $ a $ jiw F#i 4 i w a g a .b la as a$w t I '1 pi a1 €i - I'll'gg Igl(; 1 u s ,4 t $a ep3s(pd z a a ao € als _ = s I gyp w f- • ® Ra11111 11111, i(¢ r p W 1 I M K I w I J Q I e' m S W i W cc Es n 1 E..... ._7 W § A u a g i r W o CO k a w ro_ rc w ICC 1 Imi rIrA*11 Pg p w of tt CM IL G = wj I 3f. i W o' 1111101111E ' 1 W r ek '.to qa im C•1 , ' o ¢acca la CO t N 7 J/ is.1 / /.rrr.-. .. ixb re NZ Z. c wNo o Q r U aw w U O N 1 w W Ci 5'' a err Gast iv %/ Lre 0 1J 3 CO iiimiiipiiil , J// m wwnprwNn1i, CO ff N N 6-0'.=Q VA; N re D o < Iillt Obi. Svm.. .,.M e x ti Co kik LL 1 o < i i, s r lvi 7465 T47 T48S T49S T50S T51S T52S T63S rilW9.A.5Packet Pg. 74Attachment: Resolution 2019-054 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) EXHIBIT A PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 1 LIVINGSTON ROAD/VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD os-_____:--EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA i ter' --- -~T tI 21 1 L_ x-11 s*•••••••.„.. .) 1 i 1 ! \\ '..%. , 1 f: , 1 .......\--- 1 O I T i 1 \ , '<? k: 1 I ' 1 1 I 1 ,...... ......1/ 1ieefriaCT.rj y cy) Veterans Memorial BLVD r- I i- 1rI1 Y 1 r I ! I l 1 r 4,11 11 , , ,1_,....____ _____......,7 1_ 1__.--.1_.._______..___T.------ .---- d, PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT i 1 1------------- 1 II j i Aber- i en i VE ;.,:. I 11— 1 ! __— 1_ 1 ! Learning I.__. — I,T- h. T/X 7N,III111Ij l11J\ I 1 I T y / rF7-", r=j ! f I ADOPTED-XXXX,XXXX LEGEND Ord. No. XXXX-X) 0 250 500 1,000 Feet t i PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT I I I I I I I 0 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Resolution 2019-054 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.8Packet Pg. 76Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting-Sign Photos (6-28-2019) (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting-Sign Photos (6-28-2019) (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East 9.A.8 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting-Sign Photos (6-28-2019) (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East 9.A.9 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda ID 9801 (9801 : Livingston Veteran's Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@me.com> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 10:09 PM To: StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Fwd: Stock development off Livingston and Veterans From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@me.com> Subject: Stock development off Livingston and Veterans Date: December 22, 2018 at 9:59:03 PM EST To: markstrain@colliergov.net Dear Mr. Strain, Due to the cancellation of the Stock Development session on the afternoon before the December 6th meeting many of the neighborhood residents could not attend. Many took time off work of flew in for the meeting. We have over 1000 signatures on the petition to deny this development. We have contacted the Planning office unsuccessfully to see when the meeting has been rescheduled. I visited the Stock Lely “inspire” development off Rattlesnake Rd and toured inside and outside. It is a huge 4 story 5 buildings facility over many acres of land. I was surprised to discover that there are only 5 large buildings for 304 apartments. The Stock proposal at Livingston and Veterans is 20% larger! 350+ apartments and 6 buildings. It does not belong in the Livingston neighborhood of one story homes for many reasons. Please read over my 4 minute, 50 second talk I had planned to give on December 6th. Thank you for your consideration. Tim Diegel (Barrington Cove) timdiegel@mac.com GOOD MORNING. I’m Tim Diegel from Barrington Cove. The intersection at Livingston and Veterans Memorial is a very unusual intersection because Veterans is a dead end each way. It goes nowhere. Eventually it may extend West to 41 which will increase our traffic significantly. This type of intersection creates unique problems. All traffic on Livingston can’t leave the road to any exit to dissipate the traffic in a 4 mile stretch between Bonita Beach Road and Immokalee Road. Barrington Cove and the proposed development are about 1/2 way between these two roads. The congested Immokalee Road is also a Hurricane Evacuation Route. Each long established single family home development on Livingston will now be affected by the increase in traffic. That’s extended time to drive and more stress involved for the all residents. The addition of cars and motorcycles from this sub-district will enter only on to Livingston adding to the present congestion today and additional new noise pollution. Livingston is a 4 mile “race track” described by some, since even outside traffic of the neighborhood uses it as an alternative to 75 and 41, especially in the rush hours. There are only two stop lights on this 4 mile stretch & most travel at 50 to 60 miles per hour and rush the lights on yellow with some going through on red due to their speed. Last Wednesday at 8:10 in the morning the left turn lane was backed up almost to the Fire Station for about 1 & 1/2 blocks. The backup was close to the proposed new exit of the sub-district. Cars were overflowing into the active left fast lane. In the afternoons, cars can be backed up from Bonita Beach Road back to Talis Park & Mediterra limiting their resident’s egress on to Livingston. These are present problems we now deal with. When all the cars that exit from this highly dense development go on to Livingston in the mornings, probably half will go North toward Bonita and half will go South toward Naples. I’m not sure what the zoning is for cars per unit in Collier but in Jacksonville it is 1.75 cars per unit. For 330 to 400 units discussed here - that’s up to 700 cars. How many will exit during the peak hours? 700? 600? 500? The Traffic analysis supplied by the developer states the answer IS - 83. NOT surprising, there is no documentation for this subjective and arbitrary number but final conclusions in their analysis are made based this and other numbers. Their conclusion is that there will be NO new traffic issues at all. Hard to believe. I question the validity of this analysis and for many reasons. Part of this analysis may have mixed up from another unrelated analysis because at the top of each page 34 through 37 it states that the location studied was in Bonita Springs which is in Lee County with probable different guideline numbers that were used. Those cars that would egress daily from the new development going South will have to cross over quickly to make a left U-turn to go south on Livingston. This is a very dangerous maneuver. It is also dangerous to exit with the oncoming traffic from the South and then to turn in front of the oncoming traffic from the North to make the U-turn. Each way high speed is involved. Then consider distraction, texting, not seeing motorcycles, visual issues, impaired drivers and other additional factors. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that a left turn causes 50% of all auto crashes across the United States. Other studies support this statistic. There is even a lawyer in Miami that calls himself a “left turn lawyer”. The 59 page traffic analysis supplied by the developer had errors of COmmission - a chart showing that ZERO U-turns will aoccur during the peak hours ( page 34) and Omissions - the intersection analysis was conducted AFTER the start of school (page 7). School starts at 8:25 when the peak traffic is tapering down. No mention of the left turn lane issue was ever reported. Any expert should agree that a significant increase in crashes will occur at this left turn. With such an increase in traffic on an already congested road, especially in the mornings and afternoons with parents driving their kids. There would be no surprise that an increase in crashes will happen. In addition, there is a risk for pedestrians and kids walking to school. There are 3 schools within a mile from the sub-district. There are nine lanes to cross at this intersection. One is a standby left turn lane. The “pedestrian hit” risk is directly related statistically to the number of lanes that have to be crossed. 9 is a lot.The State of Florida is number 1 in bicycle accidents. These will also increase. I feel that such a high density sub-district does not belong in this neighborhood for safety reasons and many other reasons you are hearing today. Thanks. 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 li Conf. Rm. C_ Requested by: xxx of xxxxx Phone: xxxxx; Email: xxx Representing: [per PAO GIS, owner Marlac LLC, Marie L Catalano Rev. Trust, Richard Alan Sommerville Trust, Doreen L. Parrish/Dernis G. Baar Rev. Living Trust] Folio #s: 00150520003, 00149200004, 00150560005, 00150280000, 00150160007, 00149280009 (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 proapplicationmeetings 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: NIA, 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: • Compliance with the FLUE/FLUM (Urban Mixed Use District); • Compliance with FLUE Objective 5 and its applicable policies, esp. sls 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 — Comrnunily 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 spocific market segment. Devote attention to accumulating the most recent housing data available, as certain market needs are being met ata rapid pace by new construction and units becoming available. Lies within Northwest TCMA, as seen on TE map Ti 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 ofleutcomes from these discussions with application materials. [Staffsuggests] 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 -showed) development effects the existing and potential development of uses in these designations, including, but not limited to: Appropriateness of useslcompatibility 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 fer the text exhibit "to preserve the internal consistency' of the Gi and include: • A listing of new subdistrict name under Policy 1.1.2; Proposed subdistrict provisions; and, • Alisting 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- Anew nclude: Anew 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 IaterAdoption phase (if petitioner desires companion review), The application and consideration of these companion items may require 2 separate Nli All Neighborhood information Meeting (NIM) activities and reviews are arranged directly with the Comprehensive Planning staff/the assigned Project Coordinator; these activities include: reviewingfapproving the draft notification to surrounding property owners; reviewinglapproving the draft newspaper advertisement; review inglapproving/coordinating proposed NIM meeting dates, times and locations; the draft NIM notification to surrounding property owners; accepting/filing applicant -prepared Affidavit of Notification (from Ni posted Public Hearing sign photograph, and, NIM transcript/minutes/notes and clearly audible in its entirety, an audio/video recording, PLUS, BEGINNING DECEMBER 2017. 3 flash drives containing the full, clear NIM audio recording." Substantial changes to proposal after Transmittal will trigger need for an additional NIM prior to adoption hearings,'" The petition fee is $16.700.00, which is non-refundable, plus a proportionate share of the legal advertising costs (the $500.00 pre -app meeting fee, which was received, is applicable to the petition fee if petition is submitted within 9 months of the pre -app meeting date); a total of four (4) public hearings ars held - Transmittal hearings (T) conducted in front of CCPC and BCC, Adaption 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 lime." 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 sureof consistencylconformitylharmonywith 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 LiJC 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 fullyfcorrectly referenced on the pages of the application; he 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 ether corporations; it is necessary to provide a list of individuals as officers or stockholders of the corporations) 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 (paperiess) agenda process for the Board of County Commissioners' hearings; Note:.. denotes staff information I 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. Clod Y County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34144 www.collier ov.net (239) 252-2400 Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet PL#201700043$5 (RPUD), PL20170004419 (GMPA) Collier County Contact Information: Updated 1/9/2018 Page 14 of 5 Name Review Discipline Phone Email David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 david.anthony@colllercountyfl.gov SummerAraque Environmental Review 252-6290 summer.brownaraque@coliiercountyfl.gov ❑ Claudine Auclair GMD Operations and Regulatory Management 252-5887 claudine.auclair@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov 71 Ray Bellows zoning, Plannino Manager 252-2463 raymand.beliows@colliercountyfl.gov Laurie Beard PUD Monitoring 252-5782 laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov Craig Brown Environmental Specialist 252-2548 craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst_ County Attorney 252-8773 heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov Kay Deselem Zoning Services 252-2586 kay.deselem@coiliercountyfl. ov _.1 Dale Fey North Collier Fire 597-9227 dfey@northcollierfire.com Eric Fey, P.E. Utility planning 252-1037 eric.fey@coliiercountyfl.gov Tim Finn, AICP Zoning Division 252-4312 timothy_finn@colliercountyfl.gov LJ Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paula.fleishman@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ James French Growth Management Deputy Department Head 252-5717 ames.french@colliercountyfi.gov L� Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Storm Gewirtx, P,E. Engineering Stormwater 252-2434 storm.gewirtx@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Nancy Gundlach, A1CP, PLA Zoning Division 252-2484 nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Shar Hingson Greater Naples Fire District 774-230D shingson@gnfire.org ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Subdivision 252-5757 john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 'odi.hughes@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Alicia Humphries Right-OVWay Permitting 252-1326 1 alicia.humphries@coiliercountyfl.gov ❑ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marcia.kendail@colliercountytl.gov ❑ John Kelly zoning Senior Planner 252-5719 John. kelly@coiliercount .gov rl 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 rl Michele Mosca, AICP Capital Project Planning 252-2466 michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 1 annis.moxam@co11iercountyfl. ov Updated 1/9/2018 Page 14 of 5 Gorier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collieritay.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 1239) 252-2400 Stefanie Nawrocki Development Review - Zoning 252-2313 stefanie.nawrockl@colliercountyfl.gov Richard Orth Starmwater Planning 252-5092 richard.orth@coliiercountyfl.gov Bra ndyOtero Transit 252-5859 brandy.otero@coliiercountyfl.gov _l Brandi Pollard Utility impact fees 252-6237 bra ndi.pollard@colliercountyfl. ov Fred Reischl, AICP Zoning Division 252-4211 Fred.reischl@colliercountyfl.gov I Todd Rig all North Collier Fire 597-9227 triggall@northcollierfire.com Daniel Roman, P.E. Engineering Utilities 252-2538 daniel.roman@colliercountyfl.gov u Brett Rosenblum, P.E, Development Review 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 rnichael.sawyer@coiliercountyfl.gov Corby Schmidt, AICP Comprehensive Planning 252.2944 Corby.schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov Chris Scott, AICP Development Review - Zoning 252.2460 chris.scott@colliercountyfl.gov 1 Peter 5hawlnsky Architectural Review 252-8523 peter.shawinsky@coliiercountyfl.gov 71 Camden Smith Zoning Division Operations 252-1042 Camden.smith@colliercountyfl.gov -1 Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-5740 scott.stone@colliercountyfl.gov _l Mark Stfain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 mark.strain@colliercountyfl.gov ] Mark Templeton Landscape Review 252-247S mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov Jessica Velasco Zoning Division Operations 252-2584 jessica.velasco@collietcountyfl.gov J Jon Walsh, P.E. Buitding Review 252-2962 jonathan.walsh@colliercountyfi.gov David Weeks, AICP Comprehensive Planning Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 david.weeks@colliercountyfl.gov Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirsten.wilkie@colliercountyfl.gov !_i Christine Willoughby Development Review - Zoning 252-5748 Christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov Additional Attendee Contact Information: Updated 1/9/2018 page 1 5 of 5 6 *1 4w+ Name Representing Phone Email ltiSkC•tV\- a�L Yt�t� ri- �exew�itc�ne.��o iN�' �IYIA[ri b r �e ,,,.. �. �, . �,aao �..tirx , %lrr' ,� �i�l ��v�... �� ,�+cvr'• yes -91 �c� . !s� �'4��>( `� C 3� `fit `�t�elc�c�•_ks��la 4 L J rvtitTJ �1 �� S "�� snvJ• E �C7 �h.. 4 334-3 e5rv.@Aa-vlvr er.c.0 Updated 1/9/2018 page 1 5 of 5 6 *1 4w+ AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION Altura PUD (PL -207.700043$5) FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) Ae ' dential Subdistrict GimA (PL -20170009419) i eRvetx, orncrc (print name), as MOR (tide, If applicable) of sou"NasroN.Lrc (company, If applicable), swear or affirm r'✓ under oath, that I am the (choose one) owne_] appllcantQcontract purchaserand 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 tke questions in This application and any sketches, data or other suppiementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action, 5• title/) authorize ROBERT.?, wwERE', rAICP & R"RDYOYANOYICIi, EBQuIRE to act as ❑urimy representative In any matters regarding this petition Including I through 2 above, "Notes: . If the applicant 1s a corporation, then It is usually executed by the carp. pres. or v. pros. • If the applicant Is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically Le signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • !f 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 wards 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 ownershlp. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that 1 have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in i re true. Signature Date BRIAN K. STO K, MGR SD LIVINGSTON, LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Tho f egoing instru e t w sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me or qj3- 6 (M (date) by (name of person providing/ -vath or affirmation), as who is personally known t❑ pr who has produced (type of identification) as identification. /LJ gj�� STAMPISM Signatur of Notary Public JUDITH M SEALE Hulary Public - State cl Florida _ Commission # GG 027265 Nay Comm. Expires Sep 28, 2020 'F�`ftp 8andedthr' hNationalNotary Assn. CP108-C0Aa0a1151155 REV 3124/14 CATALANO REDACTED AGREEMENT A.GI�I)LMl,ltl']f']FOI� 1'XI?<RCIlA81; sl1VI3 5AS � OTS g�t�Pi�kt'i'i' This AGREEMENT FOR PURCIME AND SALE OF PROPERTY (the "AgLeement") is male and e'ffectivc as of the of kW.MhCC 201?'(dhc "&ff'ecdVe Batc A) by and betwomMarc L. d4tafaao, as Tiustee of :tie Marc L. Cstalano Revocable Inter Vivol Trust ("$eller„, and Stock Acvclopment, LLC, a Florida limited liability cot ynny ("Sujef), in consideration of the mutual covcnanto and agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable considerations, theineipt and sufffoiancy of whfoh are he by mutually acheRvfedged, Seller and Buyer agree as follows: AUTO .E 1.2 `1 MPROPERTY 1•l. PR0PFTt'I'1��_9CRTPTI0X Subject ,ta Ilia terms anti provinons of this Agtoement, Soll6r agrees to sell and• oonvq-'!o Guyer, -And Buyer agrees 0 •ptucliuse-from Scf[96 That cartain prbparty 16oa1ed at in ColtierCounty, Florida, compromising tEteprppertyidenti£scl as Pastel IDldos. 0.0150560005, 00150160007, and 00149200004, more particularly described as follows (referred to as the” ra a '); (a) That real property desorlbedintheattached Exhibit "A" incorporatedhexeinbyreferenee, being approximately 7.5 acres of unimproved land, together with all rights, privileges, tenements, hereditaments and apptutenattoes parWrting thereto (the "Land"); the sand shall include all interests, if any, nFSetlar In (i) strtpa or gores, if arty, bahvcm H)ri T. -"d and abutting properties, (ii) any land lying is or under the bed of arty street, alley, road or right-of-way, opened or proposed, abutting or adjacent 10 the Ltmd, and (W) all buildings, structures, and other improvements on the Land; and (b) All other privileges, easements, licenses, rights-of-way, riparian, Littoral and water rights, ' xuinexals, oil, gas and other hydracarbon rights and substances an the Land, development rights, air rights ` and all other rights, vile cs and appurtenances owned b Salla and in an way rolatcd to, ertainia to } $ ,Pn g PF Y Y Y P g i or accruing to the use or benefit of the Property. 1.2 Plt PMZT)Y MNYBYANCE SU&. 01,05 G. Seller's obligation to convey to Buyer all of the Property shall survivc 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 i conveyed to Buyer prior to or at Closing as provided in this Agreement. AGREEMENT FOR PaacuASE AM) SALE PAGE 3.6 ZONING ENTl'ME E TS AND PE--RMDM. 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 govemmentxl, 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 multifamily development consisting of no less than 300 dwelling units and an amenity center to serve such units (the "PrQicct" ). 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-governmentai 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- governmcmtal agencies shall be option for Seiler. In addition, Seller shall net object to or otherwisc hinder Buyer's pursuit of or ability to obtain the Approvals. If Buyer does not obtain the Approvals within the Approval Peried, Buyer may, within two (2) days after expiration of the Approval. Pcriod, (i) terruinatc tbis 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 alt 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 dircetly 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 hereundcr, 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. Arrear rax PURMI ASEANn SALK PAca 4 ARTICLE 4.2 CONDITIONS 4.1 CONDHIONS ?RECEDENT TO 33 L'S OBLIGATION TO CLOSE. Buyer's obligation to consummate the transaedon 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 3.5; (b) None of the representations and warranties of -Seiler 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 maternal agreements or obligations substantially in the manner and within the time periods provided hcreirt, 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 tcrmivatiou hereof and this Agreement shalt be automatically canceled and rendered of no further force and effect; (ii) if Seller proposes to cure or satisfy, extend the applicable Clesing Date up to one hundred and eighty (180) days to allow additional time to satisfy the requirements; or (iii) waive such candition(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. Aomfm ENT FOIL P uRcRA sE AN t) SA LE PAGE5 ARTICLE $.2 CLOSING, DOC:l3NST NTA-riao, AND POST -Cosh IC 5,1 CLOSING AND CLOSING DATA. This transaction shall be closed and title to the Property conveyed from Seller to Buyer by delivery of the fully executed Deed and other closing documents, including, without limitation, those described below in Section 5.2, to Buyer from Seller (the "Closing") at the offices of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34103, on the date that is the later of: (i) thirty (30) days following l3uylm's receipt of the Approvals, or (ii) December 15, 2018; provided, however, in no event shall Buyer he required to close if the conditions precedent set forth in Section 4.1 have not been satisfied. AoRT..RMENr MR PURCHASE AND SAIF. PAoss 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agreement has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year set forth below. WITNESSES: BUYER; STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited 'ability Company �-san K_� tock, Manager [SIGNATURES CONTINUE aNFOLLOWING PAGE] AGMEMENT FOR P URCHASP. AN D S ALE PAQEII SELLER: P r ick, Dame' a printm 'i 'Trustee of thr, Marc L. Catalano rint N k c-,: 'l,'4 N6mCatA-4no, as Revocable Inter Vivos Trust ,AGILEFM ENT FOR P UkrKAS12 AN D S A LE PA01318 s MANDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROP)E+ R'1'Y TIPS AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT ("Amendment" is mads this EZday of 0�v_� . ter 2017 by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalaao Revocable Inter Vivos Trust ("5efi_er"j and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida linumd liability company (" ygffr'�. WfTEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Aerwment for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15`s day of November, 2017 ( rurn n , for the purchase and sale of the real Property described therein ("Prnnertaad WHEREAS; Scher and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement for tbr, purpose of clarifying the same. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($l0.dl}), 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. ecu ls; Definition . The above recitals are true and convect and are hereby incorporated in their entirety into this Amendment_ Any capitalized term not exVessly dsfrned herein shall leave the meaning described thereto in the Agreement 2. Thi- Property. The Parties agree and acknowledge dust the Property, as defured in the Agreement, referred to the description shown on Exhibit "A", which was not attached to the Agreement in error. The Parties agree that the description of the Property on Exhibit "A" attached hereto shall be incorporated into clue Agreement by reference as if attached to the original ,A.greernear and hereby ratify the description of the Property as shown thereon. 3. Miscellaneozrs. Executed counter -part copies of the original of this Amendmwt shall be treated as if the original where so executed and sliall bind the executing party and shall have the same force and effect as the orl&aL 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 fi tR force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: Marc . C-aWatto, as Trustee of the Mare L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust BUYER: STOCK DEVEL41,,ManZag;ter 13TC By: K. S .F-xHrBIT Ile Legal Description ParGel..� The Southwest, c�f•#�i�rt �� eTY � a!� Pf the Northeast 114 Of Section *1 T n hip 48 �a h,j t�� 11ier,Cnunt Florida r i °. 1 �r assn known as 1 n� a Acresn Parcel IdNo- _ 40150560605 Parcel 2: The Southeast he Northwest 1 /4"ff�t e . hrweA 114 of the Northeast 1/4 of S cti4i�j3, Township 4 VA ange 25 Fast, Collier County, Fla�,1� ._Wes �-k`) eet thereof, �. Parcel m Na_: 00130160007 Parcel 3: The Northeast quarter (NE _� �rrr (NW if4) ofthe Narth►Fest } �� r clts rter ] 4 of Northeast �t Section ]3, Township 48 South, Range ?S East, Collier County, Florida, less the West thirty (30) feet thereof reserved for road right-of-way purposes, shown as Truct#2 ofunrecorded plat of said Northeast quarter. Parcel idNo.: 00149100004 Amendment to Ageemcnt for Purchase and Sale of Property 2 LUf QND AMEi4DMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SATE DF PROPERTY THIS SECOND AMENDN ENT TO AGEtEENIENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY ('Amendmew ') is made this 12 -dad+ of January, 2018 by and between Marc L. CaudaW. as Trustee of the Mare L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Tnrst("S�,gl ''j, and Shack DevelopmertL LLIL, a Florida limited babillty company ("Buyer'). Vn4RREAS, Seller and Buver entered into that Certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 1511, day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended (eoliect vely, ft "AW7atmcnt" ), for the purchase and sale of the real property desen'bed therein t"Pr�'l and WHEREAS. Scher and Suver desire to amend the AWeemtnt as expressly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of't'en Dollars ($10 00), the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable cotmderauGn, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hemby acknowledged„ Sciler and Buyer hereby ages as follows: 1. its - pcfjnj'ow. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in thcir entirety into this Amendment. Any capitatimd term not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agrrcmcni. 2. IE =nsion of Invc Z&p Period. Notwithstanding atrything contained in the Av=rnent to the contrary, including, without limitation, Section 3.5 thereof, the Investigation Period is hereby extended and shill expire at 11:59 P.M_ (Eastern Time) on February 15, 2018. Any and allrefemnres to "Investigation Period" in the Agrecment shallmean and refer to the time period eq)iaing on the date set forth in the immediatrrly-preceding sentence. 3.i 1s1 ce lamps. Executed wuatet-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 originai. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terns 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 eftect_ IN 'WITNESS V*rUREOF_ this Ameadmat has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: SAYER: ataiana, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust SE^o?4I7 AMP--ImM0,: PAa81 STOCK DEVELOPMENT. LLC, a Florida limited liabil# compaw By: aK S ger 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 ("S_uyer"}. WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 1511' day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended (collectively, the "Aereement"), for the purchase and We of the real property described therein ("Pro a "); and WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as expressly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seiler 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, Entitlemen#s 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 Selier 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 Clio 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: are L. Ca lano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Cata ano evocable Inter Vivos Trust BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida lnnited liability company By: Brian K. Stock, Manager THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERT TMS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY ("Amendment") is made this _ day of January, 2018 by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust (" eller"}, and Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (`Bu er"). WHEREAS, Seiler and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property dated the 15`s day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended (collectively, the "Agreement"), for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein ("Prope "); 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 16 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, flings, 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 farce and effect as the original. Execution oftlus Agreement by facsimile shall be treated as an original. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee afthe Marc L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited ]ia hty company By. Brian K. Sock, Manager FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT.FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY THIS i•OURTR AMEWDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCUASE AND SALT; OF PROPERTY ("Amendment') is made this2lstday of February, 2018, by and between Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable inter V ivos Trust ("Seller"), and Stock Development, LLC, a 1- lorida limited liability company (" Buyer'). W13EREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Properly dated the 151" day of November, 2017, as subsequently amended (collectively, the "Agreement" ), for the purchase and sale of the real property described therein CTro a "); and WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as expressly set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the exchange of mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sutticiency of which is hereby acknonvledged, 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 terns not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning described thereto in the Agreement. 2. Unowned Prop=, The Parties acknowledge that Seller does not currently onvn 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 olear 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 tate 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 Btuyer�s continued efforts to obtain clear and marketable, fee simple title to the Unowned Property prior to or after Closing; and (b) execute acid 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, ally consideration to be paid to the unknown title holders of the Unowned Property. The tennis 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 sliall bind the executing party and shall have the same l' ouRu I A M L'N nMr:Nl' m AOM WENT FOR P VRCRASE AND SAIL' or PROPERTY PAGE I 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 mnain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, [lie ton -ns and provisions of this Amendment shall control and be given effect. Signatures al)pea). on the, fallM,ing page. Fouwrii AuLT7f)NUNT TO AGREEMENT roR PURCHASF AND SASE OF PROPrRTY I'Acz 2 IN W17NESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above. SELLER: i L Cltalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable liter Vivos Trust BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT, JA C, a Florida limited liability company m Brian K. Stock, Manager Fouiuti AMENDMNrrn Aonm7mrNrFon PURCHASH' ANO SAG>:of PnpPInir PAu 3 IN WiTNTSS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the, date first written above. SELLER: Marc L. CaWano, as Trustee of the Maio L. Catalano Revocable Inter Vivos Trust BUYER: STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited 'ability company r B la K.St c , Manager F=RTII AAST7 omr.N"rTo AGIL l_A F:N'r FOR PURCHASE AND SAIA OF PROPFRI-Y PAQlF 5 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description ofUnowned Property The westerly fifteen (15) feet of the Southeast 114 of the Northwest 114 of the Northwest 114 of the Northeast 114 of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Parcel Id No.: 00 15 0 1 60407) TOGETHER WITH; 'Tile Nvesterly thirty (30) feet of the Northeast quarter (NE 114) of the Northwest quarter (NW i14) of the Northwest quarter (NW 114) of the Northeast quarter (NE 114) Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Plodda, sheen as Tract #i2 of unrecorded pint of said Northeast quarter. (Parcel Id No,: 00149200004, together with that cerlain unnumbered Parcel immediately west of and adjacent to said Parcel Id No_ 00149200004) FOUR'n-i AN1F.NnMFNTl'o AaizVJ:NIF:NT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PRLrPITTY PAcr 4 ASSIGNMENT OIC AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE O1N PROPE]KEY This Assignment of Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property ("Assignment 1) is made effective the �214day of January, 2018, by and between Stock Development, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Assignor'), and SD Livingston, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("AsslQnee'). 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 (" recnrenf% 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 ($1U0) 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: I . Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporalcd in their entirety in this Assignment. 2. Assi gnrnent and Aceeptance, 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. A SSIONMEW OF AGRE54ENT FOR PURCKAS13 AND SALE OF PROPERTY PAUL I IN VnTNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment on the day and year first above written. ASSIGNOR: STOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited ]i ility company By: $rtan K. Suck, Manager ASSIGNEE: SD LIVINGSTON, LLC, a Florida limited Ha 'city company By: Baan K_ St ck, Manager AS9rnN4FNT OF AGRWWEW FOR PURCHAV AND SALE OF PROMTY PAG52 SOMMERVILLE REDAC'T'ED AGREEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY This AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY (the "A:4reement") is made and effective as of the "3f day of -� r, �.4;r-; 2018 (the "Effective Date") by and between Richard Alan Sommerville, Trustee of the Richard Alan Somerville Trust dated 4/26/2004 ("Seller"}, and 5D Livingston, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, or its permitted successors or assigns ("Buyer' ). Inconsideration 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: AR'T'ICLE 1.2 THE PR Pp ERTY 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. 00150280040, 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 ofunimproved 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, (ti) any land lying in or under the bed of any sheet, allay, 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 shalt 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 AGR6EMrNTP0R PURCHASE AND SALE PAU I 9734134.1 3.6 ZONING ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS. Provided Buyer has not otherwise terminated the Contract pursuant to Section 3.5, following the expiration of the Investigation Period, Buyer shall have twelve (12) months ("Approval Period") to obtain (i) stonnwater and environmental resource permits from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, (ii) regulatory permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, (iii) non -appealable zoning, land use and development approvals by Collier County, and (iv) any all other governmental, quasi -governmental or other permits, approvals, documents, consents, and/or site development plans (collectively, the "Approvals") necessary for Buyer's proposed development of the Property and the Additional Parcels as a multi -family development consisting of no less than 300 dwelling units and an amenity center to serve such units (the "Proieet'); 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 sucb 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 packet 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/orhearings with a governmental agency regarding the Approvals, and Seller and Seller's attorney shall have the right to attend and participate in such meetiag(s). in connection with Buyer's pursuit of the Approvals, Buyer shall not be permitted to burden the Property with any "Irrevocable ObliLiation" (as defined below) that does not presentlyexist 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 witliheld 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, satisfactoryto Seller, thatsuch 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 Propertyar to construct, install or maintain any improvements of public or private nature on or off the Property. Additionally, notwithstanding any provision in any permit, license, approval or other Approval to the contrary, all commitments and development obligations that are a requirement of the "Permitee", "Applicant", or "Land Owner" or Approval shall be the sole responsibility of Buyer as to the Property while this Agreement remains in effect and after Closing. It is expressly agreed and acknowledged by Buyer that Buyer shall be solely and absolutely responsible for all costs and expenses Ar,Resns FNT FnR PURCHASE AMD $Ali; PAoE 4 9134I34.1 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 nolice thereof at least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of the Approval Period, subject to payment of the extension fee, or (C) waive such condition and proceed to close as set forth in Section 4.1 hereof If Buyer elects to extend the Approval Period pursuant to subsection (B) above, then Buyer shall immediately pay to Seller an extension fee equal to Ten 'Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), which fee is immediately earned by Seller, non-refundable (except in the event of a Seller default) and shall not be a credit against the Purchase Price. if Buyer fails to timely elect one of the options set forth in subsections (A), (B) or (C) above, then Buyer is deemed to have elected the remedy set forth in subsection (A). 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; (6) 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 Agreomont within the appropriate periods of time specified for the same; Co) 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 f°B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Additional Parcels") via separate sales contracts (collectively, the "Acc uisition 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 Parcelsprior to or simultaneously with the Closing on the Property. In connection therewith, should Buyer fail to acquire fee simple title to the Additional. Parcels on or prior to the Closing Date (as defined below and as may be AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SAT -F, PA085 2734!34.1 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 Ns 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 he 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 (18 0) 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 byBuycr, 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 Jutentionally 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 Buyerby 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 Tarniami 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 Agr=mcnt; provided, however, in no event shall Buyer be required to close if the conditions precedent set forth in Section 4. t 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 hcrrin, AGR MM&NT TOR PORMAW AND SALC Nor,6 9734134.3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agreement has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year set forth below, u�rrivc�c�cc. 9734134.1 BUYER: SD LIVINGSTON, LLC, a Florida lunitcdAk,.M company ByBrian K. Stager [SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SA..E PAGE 18 03•.13-1.1 :, S ! (. 1, �J': AIGP.M4Wr FOR SALE P"wL- 0 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Northwest one-quarter(NW 114) of the Northeast one-quarter (NF -1/4) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW 114) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE114) of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Amtmm ENT FOR PURCHASE AN B SALE PAGE2Q 9734135.1 PARRISH-BARR REDACTED AGREEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY This AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY (the "Agreement') is tnE do and effective as of the ?; day of I() -vVV.?6 ! 2018 (the "Effec4ive Date") by and between Doreen L. Parrish, an unmarried woman, andI] sennt G ] ar, as Trustee of the Revocable Living Trust of Dennis 0. Baar, dated March 28, 2013, as tcmants in common (collectively, the " eller'), and 5D Livingston,l.LC, a Florida limited liability company, or its permitted sueeeswzs or assigns ("Buyer"j. In consideration of the mutual coveuauts and agrcemeuts hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and su.ff%eienoy of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, Seller and Buyer agree as follows: ARTICLE 1.2 THE PROPERTY 1.1 PROPERTYDESt,1PTRIPiIQN. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement, Seller agrees to sell and convey to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller, that certain property located in Collier County, Florida, compromising the property identified as Parcel ID No. 00148280009, more particularly described as follows (referred to as the "Pro a '); (a) That real property described in the attached Exhibit "A" incorporated hereiu by reference, being approximately 5.00 acres of unimproved load, 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 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 bydroearbon rights and substances on the Land, development rights, air rights and all other rights, privileges and appurtenances awed by Seller and in any way related to, pertaining W or aocruing to the use or benefit of the Property. 1.2 PROPErRTYCQNVEYANQE St;IRVNESCLOSING, Seller's obligation toeaweytoBuyer all of the Property sball 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, AGRR9 M, TFOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE1 9926975.1 3.6 ZONING, ENTITLEMENTS AND PER=. Provided Buyerhas not otherwise terminated the Contract pursuant to Section 3.5, following the expiration of the investigation Period, Buyer shall have twelve (12) months ("Apnruval 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 coning, 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 "Anr)rovals") 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 "Prroiect"); 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 ]imitation, 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 Buyeror as required byany such governnsental 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 expenae5 paid to third parties, including professionals and attomeys, in connection with such cooperation in an amount not to exceed $2,540.00, which payment shall be made by Buyer to Seller within five (5) days after demand thereof. As requested by Seller, Buycr shad l 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 anyin-person scheduled meetings and/orhearings with a governmental agmeyregarding the Approvals, and Sal ler and Seller's attomey 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 Ob . ation" (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 publi c or private nature on or off th e Prop erty. Additionally,notwithstandingany provisioninany 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 AoREamfw FOR Puitca&ss ANN SAU PAOBA 9926975.1 Buyer as to (he 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 Farther 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 asset forth in Section 4.1 hereof_ If Buyer elects to extend the Approval Period pursuant to subsection (B) above, then Buyer shall immediately pay to Seller an extension fee equal to Ten 'Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), which fee is immediately earned by Seller, non-refundable (except in the event of a Seller default) and shall not be a credit against the Purchase Price. If Buyer fails to timely elect one of the options set forth in subsections (A), (B) or (C) above, then Buyer is deemed to have elected the remedy act forth in subsection (A). ARTICTF 4.2 CONDITIONS 4.1 CONI DMONS 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 ruudltlons, unless said conditions is waived by Buyer in writing; (a) Buyer obtaining the Approvals; (b) None of the representations and warranties of Seller set forthbcreiu shall be untrue or inaccurate in any material respect as of the Effective Date or as of the Closing Date; (e) 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 ofthe 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 AIIxELMENT roR l-'vxc iAm AND VALE PAUF5 9926975.1 to or simultaneously with the Closing on the Property_ In connection therewith, shquld Buyer fail to acquire fee simple title to the Additional Pareels 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 he ofno furthcr force and effect, and the parties hereto shall be relieved of all further obligations or liability under this Agreement, exceptftse obligations and liabilities that expressly survive termination of this Agreement. In the event that anyone or more of the above conditions contained in this Section 4.1 is not satisfiod 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 Agreemcnt, Buyer may. (i) terminate this Agreement by written notice to Seller, whereupon the parties hereto sball 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 suoh 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 berein 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 CLOSENG 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, talose described below in Section 5.2, to Buyer from Seller (ihe "Closing") at the offices of Coleman, Yovanovicll & 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 iFthe conditions precedent set forth in Section 4.1 have notbeen satisfied or waived (the "Closing Dote'). The Closing shall automatically be extended to allow for expiration of the applicable title cure periods set forth in Section 3.4 herein. ACREEMEN7 FOR PURCHASE AND SALE PAGE 9926975.1 Priat XCIMO: Pibrt• 1Vamr: Dmiti: G. Saar, as Trustee of the P.evneah% Living Trost at Donn is G. Baa, dated March 28, 2013 AGRMIE-NTFORPURGLESEAHO SALE IIAGk 19 02/0812018 2:33 Ptd FAX ++i-+2[18 2 5 7542 0+ CORD [a0003/0003 W Cf NESSES: Print N=O: Jrrol Namer Priat Tlt,me; Frim emc SFLLERS: !?yeah L. Ptvr C DtTwis(]. Saar, m 1'MMs afthe Roombk Living T= o(f)mais G. Scar, 430'6 mpi ch 28, 2513 ACRMCv m F PWACMAJiJA nM a Au7: ?A= 19 w�� r CXMBIT "4" LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Southeast a t� t ea t quarter of the Northwest quarter t o r h q a t r;� AND the Southwest quarter of the Nort a & th ast quarter, of the Northeast quarter, on 13, To ns�B o� h, Range 25 East of Collier county, Flor Amr.-E Ew FOR PURCMkSE A'ND SALE PAGL 24 9926975.1 Coer Co�.l.ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www,colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0I3bPl;RY.OWNERSFiIP'•IJI5CLOSURE-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 submlt 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 P RM C. CI t.CI ILtl6V UI JULIIII ILUJCJL. Name and Address % of ownership If the property is owned by a CORPORATION fist the officers and stockholders and the X •UlLCnL1261= UI JLULR UHVIR: Uyl COLI 1. Name and Address f of Ownership 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 CIo er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address % of Ownership SD LIVI NGSTON, 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 c tticers, stocKhotders, neneticiaries, 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 af` I IL.C17, Ii n L.VI}]VI CLIVI I, JdGl LIIG131IV, VI LI u31. Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of tease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Date of option: CAT County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Date option terminates: _, or Anticipated closing date: AFFIRM PROPERTY.OWNERSIIIP.INFORMATIO.N :... Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, .will not he accepted without this form. Requirements forpetltion 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 thissubmittal package. I understand that failure to Include aP necessary submittal informatlon 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 mn. Agent�Cwner signature Brian K. Stock, MGR Agent/Owner Name (please print) SD LIVINGSTON, LLC Date Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 ,r•„� CATALANO COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX:1239) 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 96 of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the lercentage of stock owned by each: Dame and Address % of Ownership C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE. list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percents a of interest: Name and Andress % of Ownership Marc L Catalano, as Trustee of thc.Murc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivins Trust dated November 23, WJ 100% The Stuthmxst 1 at c or Cast 114 ol the Northwfst 114 cttlic Northea&t 1/4 of action 13, Tca%rni Florida, aim known as Lot 11 in ltarecorded Bryan ACUTS subdivision AND Wp 48 South, Range 2TTas[ e out ear a e ar HKs (ie nr west o e or ear[ a eruon137FRE Florida, LFSS the Westeriv IS het thereof ANT) rap IS South,ange as �furc 1.. {:uhsLtnn, indt\1du illy uld at'rruacu of the lvfare 1.. {tet rlanr; Rcvucahlc Lsia rvivir v'I'nrst d;ud Nr;vunhcr'L3, 211[1.1 l od"d T oreast quarter I e o west gwarier ( 114 o the o[ west 1l•l] 01 a Tovmship 4R South Range 25 Ease, C011ler Cnun , FlaridaJ.E55 the Westertyr thirty (30) feet thereof ileserved or east gtsartex ] a for road A&t-of-Surto Created 0*23V tt2 of unrecorded plat orsald Northeastq=ter. Page 1 of S illier Counw, )flier County, action 13, urpose5• N °1 4 ca 5ey County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROVI fH MANAGEMENT DEPA63TIMENT PJAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 +�r3 rva.cnliirza .cro.roet (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-G3SS d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the eneral 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: Klause and Address % of Ownershio Date of Contract. - f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or of ,or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired EJ Leased. Teras of lease years Imombs If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the flowing: Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT ENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT wlwt.9l.c0lliereo V. net Bate of option: Co 1-116 County 2900 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAR: (2391252-6353 Pate option terminates: _ . or Anticipated closing date: t�rj yznte �T AFFIRM PROPERV ®1lt NERSHIIP lWFaRs"+J'i€is3l0ii! Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. 8equirementsfor petitiorttypes are Ionated on the associated application form. Anychange in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee. Company or other Interest -holding party, must be disclosers to Collier County Immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public heaving. As the authorized agentlapplicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand thatfailure to Include all necessary submittal Information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN; Bus!ness Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 c z Z� Agent/Ov6er Signature Dat�_/ e Marc L Catalano Agent/Cwner Name (please print) Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 PARRISI UMA R d&r Coanty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2900 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.coillergov.net (239) 25Z-2400 FAX: (239) 25Z-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.INQIVIDUAL. tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all partles with an ownership interest as well as the percents a of such interest: _ Name and Address % of Ownership !)arrn !.. PaorLtA, 0rl tlflldAYtI+A! 14l+1tlil17 G L)enula [:Ospr, as'rruatcc pf die Rtl�uerhle liclug irut[ ariknnls G. IIant, dnlyd Murch aN, R413 7�nSouihcnsequedarot"1�it•NvnhanclquprleruFl6eNorlhweslqu+rsrr'r O'.N.�,heeuyuarier;AN)t r$nud—stquPvora i e juxrtrro(lheNatiUnattquxner�itheNn�iltt¢st,v�ncrorScrilonl.l,TnwnrhV 4RSou1b RatI+e35 ius;,f:elprrCeun{. Fiuritl. b. If the property Is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stocK owneca dy eacn; Name and Address % of Ownership ............ ..................... C. If the propertv is In the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the ger[enrage nr m�eresr. Name and Address 9b of ownership Created 9/28/2017 Page I of 3 h+rth-cst C+i lh'r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2900 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 347.04 www.colllerEay.pet (239) 252-2400 FAX: (x39) 252-8358 d. if the vooertv is in the name of a GENERAL cr LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. list the name of the eneral and/or limited partners; F 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, beneficiarles, or partners Name and Address % of Ownershlo Date of Contract: f, if anv contineencv clause or contract terms involve additional parties. list all indlvldualc nr officers, if a corporation, partnership, ortrust: Name and Address 9. date subject property acquired ❑ teased: Term of lease years /months if, Petitioner has optlon to buy, Indicate the following. Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 Gam ��e� �zz�liy .... -w� COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colli4orvo%j.net Date of option: Date option terminates: Anticipated closing date: F"Arl—yz- 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-&358 o AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownershlp disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are locatedun the assoclated 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, M the authorized agenVappllcant for this pet1 lon, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist Is included in this wbrnittai package. I understand that failure to include ail necessary submittal Information may result In the delay of proressing this petition. The completed apple rWon, all required submittal materials, and fees shall he submitted to: Growth Managementaepartment ATTN; Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 , -4Z lt, ,L- Ori Agent/Owner Signature Dnrcen L. harrtsh _ Agert/Owner Name (please print) slgn'diun�. 4/26/2018 D ate Date Created 9128/201.1 Page 3 of 3 ! PAIII(NOFL1AA C00'r Goatnty COLLIER COON TY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROMH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPL> 5, FLORIDA 34104 u+vyw.collierao�.neL 12afl 252-2.406 FA%I (2347 252-6358 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM Thi* Is a sequtrod'form with all land use petitions, e:iceptidr Appeals and Zoning VerlficaUun Letters. Shaufd anychanges of ownership oe changes in contrasts'for purchase.occur subsegQ@nt to the date of applltation, but ptioito=the date.of the final public hearing, it is the fesponsibility of the applicant, or agent osthis behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest farm. Please Complete the following, us$ additiona)'sheMs if necessary. a• if the property ls•maned.fee simple by an. INDIVIDUAL ten2r y bythg imtlrety,lenancy In common, or joint tenahcy, list all parties with aro ownership interest as wail as the gnrce n tage of such interes s• YO me and Address % of Ownerihip �rnn5[n.11a.Y,Sl7'ruHRailhV Rnw.Llp S,i,i,y7u•LaYPenMr[i. H•nr.Ja7..l FiorJ,.5. 24l3. _ 4 `1v5nui�'-' ipus.ivwr-- irc�hi lionsa*i.h +r hr--F[uNsrcru rPirnP�wllY: v'Ti-i unn'..ti �Ihr Inrtyl.}aanrrnI _,y,.1y¢rnflhrA'n,iBn,.ln�t[�J do�nrllim.„,v:Ix,uY!k lion lA.'V�wmM.,aR i,wlA-Ww�rs' [:nllfe'r:onnlV'ni�,iJ' b. IF the property is owned by a CORPORkTIQN, list the officers and stockholders and'the percentage of stock owned b yeach: NameandAddress %ofawnership , c_ If the property is in the name of a TRU TEE flit the benefkiarles of the trust with the percents eofinterest, Name and Address• %ofOwnershi . SAA? -+c �igf*F,�l��ti_n-_4 (1 lrr�Y riro-F 1 f C IeMF �• u- n Created 9J28%2aV Page 1 of 3 nxa,r:rn �o�I7er GorAnty COLLIER 03UMTV'G0VERiVMENT 2800 NOR rH HORS M OE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NR f'LES, FLORIDA 38104 WWW-colllereoV.net 12391 252-2400 FAX; (2 39} 752-6358 If the property is in the,name of a GEN ERAtor UNITE) PARINFRSHtP list the name of the general andjor Ilrriited partners: Name and Address %pf dwriership .. J If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the.nar.06 Of the cgntract purchasers below, including the officers, stodho{ders, beneficierks. or partners: _ Naineand Address 9; oFtJwnershfp Date of Contract; If any contingency clause or cant ract terms involve additional oartles. list all indivtdunls nr Rate subject property acquired 1:1 LAased: Tern of lease years f rnonthn If, Petitioner WIN option tO buy, Indicate the f0howing: Created 9)2912017 Page 2 of 3 ter. collrer GoRnty COLLIER COU NtV GOVERNMENT 2000 NORM! -1 HORSESHOE Dft}VE GROWTH MANAGEMENT LIE PAR7NIENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www,svlllercovrnet 1239} ZSZ-2490 FAX: (239) 252.6353 Date of eptian: Date option terminates., or Anticipated closing dale: r+hnwt av�� AFPIIZM PRGPC-RTY OWNERSH[P tfdFORttA-nON Any petltiva required to have Property Ownership Dlstlasurc, will not be accepted without th4 farm. Requinmenta for Petl0on types are located on the associaie4 appl[tai fah fnrrit. Any change In ownership whether ind{vidualiy or whN a trustee, Company or other Tnt"vA-lialding party, saust he disclosed to router County imMedlately itsuch change occurs prior to the pgtlrloh's final puhlfc hearing. As the autherhad agentjapppcant for this petition, f attest thaE all DI the information indicated on this checklist is Included im this subsnittal pack age. 'I understand that i� iivre to InBude all necessary submittal fa[vrma tion may result In the tieldy of prof;sling this pritltfon. The Completed WOO tin n, all required submittal materials, and Ieessha[I b¢ sobmitred to: Growth N{attagement Lepartment ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horsesnoe Odve Naples, FL 34104 Age ntjOwn er 5igna to re Date Doreen..ysirnh Agent/Ovmer Name (please print) nm nMhfa., nor, created 9/78/2017 Page 3 of 3 9 CO ZIP Coui' v +,r.� titwVanMt'�hn+^r�"�.r�°dta,.o-i+•"v'""�w. COLLIER COUNTY GOWRNMENT GROWTH MANAGWENT 13FPA1tTM1114T wyuw.colliergov xiet SOM MERVII,11- 2800 NORTH i,JORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 25x-2408 FAX: (239) 252-635Z pRoppRTY f,1V' NEl SHIP INSCLOSLIRE 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 sugsequent 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 Ws 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 ars INDj Vi0UAl_, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION. list the officers and stockholders and the percents a of stock awned by each; lvame and Address _ %of Ownership C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE. list the beneficlaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: r4ame and Address _ % of Ownership Richard Aiast Somniertiille,Trustee of the Richard Alan 5rnnniervil3e Trual dated112612004 300' See lcgal description below Created 9J28/2017 Page 1 of 3 113e; inrtljwest ane -quarter (My i 14)of theNorlheast one-quarter (NE 114) of dic Northwest onr-ciuurtcr (I'M 1!4) n£ihe Qinrthe e;( aiie-rluurrezr (hil.. 114} ofSec1ion l'i,'rnunshlp 48 tioutli, R:ingc25 EasL, ColEts County, Florida. COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT w-WLA t:01iie,rw-v.net C 16� Cob mty 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVr NAP -F-5, fiLOFUDA 34104 (233) 252-2400 FAX. (239) 2S2-6358 d. if the property is in the name of a GE.NERAG or LIMITED PARTNER5i-1€p list the name of the eeneral and/or limited partners: Name and Address I9 of 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, orpartners: F _ e and Address � % of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all Individuals or p p, officers €f a cor ora4ion, partnership, Name an_._....._.......__.__..._..---.._.__.....____._. jL"�..�._.__—..___......._...._._.._.. d Address g. date subject property acquired ❑ Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Created 9/28/707.7 Page 2 of 3 COLLIFR COUNTY GOVERgMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT UFPARTMENT Wnh!+,v.roIflerep—m rmet Mate of option: r q', U Vie' COU14ty 2800 moRTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, fLOMDA 34104 (2.39) 257-74DO FAX: (2391257-63,58 Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: _ April 2019 AFIFIRMt PROPERTY OWNERSHIP iNF0RtAAr10N Atly petition required to have Property ownership ❑isdasure, will not be accepted withaut this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated applicatlon form. Any change in ownership whether indiNls{ually or with a Trustee, Company or uther interest -holding party, must he 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 an this checklist is Included in this submittal pockage, l understand that Failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this pet itian. The completed application, @II required s0nlitt it materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center ?goo North Horseshoe Drive / Naples, FL 34104 % Agent/Owner Signature RaCa IdAud Alun Srnnmervillc Agent owner Name (please print) Created 9J28J2ii17 Page 3 of 3 INSTR 5587588 OR 5534 PG 1$6 RECORDED 7/1$/2018 9:32 Am PAGES 3 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $18,200.00 REC $27.00 CONS $2,600,000.00 ATTACHMENT "A" This Document Prepared Without Opinion of Title By: Carlo F. Zampogna, Esquire Zampogna Law Firm 1112 Goodlette Road North, Suite 204 Naples, Florida 34102 Telephone: (239) 261-0592 PareelID No: 00150600004,00149080004,00150440002,00150520003,00150400000,00149840008 Deed Consideration, $2,600,000.00 Documentary Stamps Due on Transfer. $18,200.00 THIS INDENTURE, Florida limited liability co Hawthorn Woods, 1L G0047. company as GRANTEE*, I Naples, FL 34119. WITNESSETH, tha 'lh ($10.00), and other good and the receipt whereof is hereby and Grantee's heirs and assigns the County of Collier, State of F arr�antu deed Vis '�"- t.��--day of whose -most office See Exhibit "A" attached hereto ged, has graTA" 'a the following d b ma mase a p 8, between MARLAC LLC, a s: 25397 North Northbridge, LC, a Florida limited liability P fessional Circle, Suite 141, f the sum of TEN DOLLARS in hand paid by said Grantee, and sold to the said Grantee, land, situate, lying and being in SUBJECT TO taxes for the year 2018 and subsequent years not yet due and payable; zoning, building code, and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. TOGETHER WITH all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. And the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. To have and to hold in fee simple forever. *Singular and plural are interchangeable as context requires. **The subject property is not the homestead of the Grantor. Page S of 3 ok 5534 PG 187 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: MARLAC LLC, a Florida limited liability company ff .By. L Witness'#1 John ach ( � Its: Man ging Member Print N Iffo Witness #2 Print Name STATE OF Z l t co COUN'T'Y OF The foregoing instru was acknowledge a c is I day of July 2018 by John Lach, as Managing Mem MARLAC LLC,`la ited liability company, who is _� personally kn r� to me who L 1�r produced � Z otary Public ignature ENC. - E A MOODY Printed Name: c � Ma -- fficial Sea! lic-StateoflilinoisCDm1n15SiDnND.: �� nExPesAug27,2019 My Commission Expires: A,j e9'��' aAr (SEAL) Page 2 of 3 *** as 5534 PG 188 *** EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: The West %x of the Southwest % of the Northwest % of the Northeast'/a of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. PARCEL 2: The Northeast `/ of the Southwest I/ 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 V. of the Northwest'/. of the Northeast'/ of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.. PARCEL 4: The Southeast '/4 of the Southwest I/ of the Northwest '/a of the Northeast % of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 Eas itom lorida. PARCEL 5: The Northwest '/ o $ �utheast V¢ of the y st % of the Northeast % of Section 13, Township 48 South, Rang 2 ast jollier County, Flo 'da. PARCEL 6: The Northeast 13, Township 48 South, Ra Page 3 of of the Northeast V4 of Section INSTR 5587586 OR 5534 PG 161 RECORDED 7/16/2018 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) 251-0592 Parcel ID No. 00148200005 Deed Consideration: $25,000 Documentary Stamps Due on Transfer: $175.00 THIS INDENTURE, limited liability company, wh 60010, as GRANTOR*, GRANTEE*, whose post ofP WITNESSETH, th t�. {$10.00}, and othergood an the receipt whereof is hereby and Grantee's heirs and assign the County of Collier, State of Tarrant Deed 'R co S day of July 8, etween LIVVET LLC, a Florida t -office address is: 18 s ne Way, North Barrington, IL lo-o—L—Ltl, a Flo 'da invited liability company as I cle, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34119. i const e ati�� the sum of TEN DOLLARS eonsi eratton o sai in hand paid by said Grantee, edged, has gra , ar 'n and sold to the said Grantee, :r, the following and, situate, lying and tieing in �o-wIt: r� The Northwest '/a of the No { 1ko( {,4r ffiwest '/a of the Northeast 1/e of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range East, Collier County, Florida. SUBJECT TO taxes for the year 2018 and subsequent years not yet dire 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 l of 2 *** OR 5534 PG 182 "* IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of - I kQ— Print Name STATE OFi COUNTY OF lA�K 2 The foregoing in: John Lach, as Managing [� personally KATIE R MOODY Official Seal Notary Public - State of ISllnais My Commission Expires Aug 27, 2019 LIVVET LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: John ch Its: Managing Member Was UQWlVbe s `day of July 2018 by of LIVVET h ted liab�ilit�y �co anywha is to ho I *� 1 produced as identrE Notary Public Signature Printed Name; C Q a� Commission No, : 9.)-S13D 41 My Commission Expires:01 Page 2 of 2 Preparsd by, Record &Return to Santiago i ljaiek FII, Esq. Alvarez, Taylor, Eljatek & Rodriguez, P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive Sulte 600 Coconut Grave, Florida 33133 3585584 4R: 3876 PG: 1542 I1COIDIO A 0111CIAL WOODS of COLLIII COUI't'1, It OO f 2512005 at 02:0719 DVIW 1. DIM, CLIH UC III 33,50 OoC-.70 .74 Rete: ALVk0Z IWAI11 14 AL 2601 S BAI88411 9I 1700 XIAII 1L 33133 Pra e Appra.1sers Parcel I.D. F do Numher s Folio No.:001505600DS WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED' is made as of the a y day of _ .TLj-Y . _, 2445 by Marc Catalano, a married man (the "Grantor"), whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15d, Court, Davie, Florida 33325, to Marc L. Catalano, as Trustee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November 23, 2004 (the "Grantee"), whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15's Court, Davie, Florida 33325, WITNESSETH: That Grantor, f d-in-�isideration of the sun of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and for other good �115c� ' s, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby conclusively acknowi� `�' ereby gran s, i , sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto Gr fe successors and assig for ver, all that certain real property axj situate in Collier County, Flora, I,{rtore a�caul3, dese ed follows: The Southwest 114 of Section1 , I also known as t, referred to as" THIS CONVEYANCE ".IECT T 114 �f the Northeast Iller County, Florida I , Taxes and assessments R-1-M411W-W-b-sequent years, which are not yet due and payable. 2. Covenants, easements, and restrictions of record a1ld all matters appearing on the Plat, without intending to reimpose the same. ' Note to Examiner: THIS CONVEYANCE IS TO TRUSTEES NOT PURSUANT TO A SALE, THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RULE 12B -4.014(2)(b), THIS CONVEYANCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAXES. OR: 3876 PG; 1543 3. Zoning restrictions and conditions imposed or required by any governmental authority and matters appearing on the plat or common to the subdivision, including utility easements, if any, without intending, to reimpose any of the same. TOGETHER, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto or appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, in fee simple forever. AND Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. AND GRANTOR hereby confirms and certifies that the subject Property is not and has never been the homestead property of Grantor as defined in Article X, Section. 4 of the Florida Constitution , nor contiguous to his homestead, and that neither Grantor nor any member of his family (or any person claiming by, thio g, or) resides, nor has ever resided, at the subject Property, and that Grantor's ell ted at 11935 SW 150` Court, Davie, Florida. r`� r� Full power and autho' is erg ante a Grante (h einafter also referred to as the "Trustees") to either protect co 4 r t encumber, or to otherwise manage and dispose said Pr e o too t s r o do s to purchase, to sell on any terms, to convey either with r t ;zs d r i n o co s Vd roperty or any part thereof to a successor or successors in t f, o grant to such cces or cessors in trust all of the title, estate, powers and authorities in said Trustees, n to dicate, to mortgage, pledge or otherwise encumber said Prope y part thereof, t to real estate or any part thereof, from time to time, in possession r on, by leases t nce in praesenti or in future, and upon any terms and for any period r ri9-d ding in the case of any single demise the term of ninety-nine (99) years, and to teti 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 pant 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 Pfi, 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 ether 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, (e) 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 risme of the then beneficiaries under said Trust, as their attorncy-in-fact, hereby irrevocably appointed for such purpose, or, at the election of said Trustee, in his own n sexpress Trust and not individually, and the Trustees shall have no obligati ever v�i e to any such contract, obligation or indebtedness, except only so far rust property f in the actual possession of the Trustees shall be applicable for e d discharge the of, d all persons and corporations whomsoever and whatsoever all a It d w] no of this n 'tion from the date of the filing for record of this Deed. 7% 57 IN WITNESS t r uted i w ty deed the day and year first above written. h Signed, sealed and delivered, G in presence of-. _ (� Print Name: re C talano (Notary acknowledgment on the next page) *** OR: 3876 PG: 1545 *** STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) The foregoing instr4ment was acknowledged before me this _!�� day of 2005, by Marc Catalano. He is personally known to meea idcrmfrcutien. tary Public, State of Florida Print Name:, 1A 1V4,cJ My Commission Expires: Coramission/Seriai No.: FUOIIC • STATE OF f�URip1 ■[H inii1 ES 060711406 1-US4601ARYI v/� �G Yf' � ��E CIRCA Prepared by, Record &Return to Santiago Eljoiek Ili, Esq. Alvarez Taylor, Eljaiek & Rodripez, P.L. 2601 South Snyshore Drive Suitt 600 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Propeqy Appraisers Parcel I.D. Folio IVumbtr s Folio No -0015008006 and OD150160007 3686585 OR: 3876 PG, 1546 RICOIDID in OIdICIAL WORDS of COLLI1t COOITI, 1'L 06/15/2405 at 02:07Pk HIM I, $WE, CUM HC 211 35.54 DOC-. 74 ,11 Aetil: ALTkUt WAIT[ It U 2601 S SAISHOU DI 1740 MIMI IL 33133 WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED' is made as of the 0 day of .Td14 , 2005 by Marc Catalano, a married man (the "Grantor"'), whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15'h Court, Davie, Florida 33325, to Marc L. Catal o—as—Tratstee of the Marc L. Catalano Revocable Intervivios Trust dated November i { V whose mailing address is 11935 SW 15' Court, Davie, Florida 33325. 00 WITNESSETH: Dollars ($10.00) and for otl are hereby conclusively ai conveys and confirms unto situate in Collier County, I the sum of Ten and No/100 seipt and sufficiency of which Is, aliens, remises, releases, , all that certain real property follows: The Southeast the Northwest 1/44Mtlle west 114 of the Northeast 114 of c ' 13, Township 48u ange 25 East, Collier County, Flo eet thereof, and JE C The Southwest 114 ((SW 114) of t e Northwest 114 (NW 114) of the Northwest 114 (NW 114) of the Northeast 114 (NE 114) 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"). 1 Note to Examiner: THIS CONVEYANCE IS TO TRUSTEES NOT PURSUANT TO A SALE, THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RULE 12B4.014(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 2045 and subsequent years, which are not yet due and payable. 2. Covenants, easements, and restrictions ofrecord and all matters appearing on the flat, 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 P 6-t rty and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons ever. rt, AND GRANTOR h reb cce s that a bject Property is not and has never been the homestead op 'cl X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, nor contiguo s t h e to d, t t e Gr for nor any member of his family (or any person claim o .. e Gran r re }zLr , nor has ever resided, at the subject Property, and that Or 's permanent rest ee is cat 11935 SW 15'h Court, Davie, Florida. _10, rr Full power and authority i {ranted to said Y (hereinafter also referred to as the "Trustees") to either protect, copse e, or to encumber, or to otherwise manage and dispose said Property or tot!! y a grant options to purchase, to sell an any terns, 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 azry part thereof, to -lease said real estate or any part thereof, from time to time, in possession or reversion, by leases to commence in praesenti or in 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 inrelation 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, obligatio connection with said Property under said Trust, as their atto c election of said Trustee, in s { the Trustees shall have no lid indebtedness, except only s A Trustees shall be applicable whomsoever and whatsoever for record of this Deed. IN WITNESS above written. CO debtedness, incurt e entMd into by them e charged with tered into by the Trustees in name of the then beneficiaries i ed for such purpose, or, at the st and not individually, and n such contract, obligation or ,p the actual possession of the all persons and corporations ition from the date of the filing warranty deed the day and year first Signed, sealed and delivered GRANTOR: in presence of: prqt Name: Print Name: talano [Notary Acknowledgment to follow on next page] *** OR; 3876 PG; 1549 *** STATE OF FLORIDA } ) SS COUNTY OF MIAMI -DARE } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this `% day of -72al , 2005, by Marc Catalano. He is personally known to ide> e"iOK. N ary Publie, State of Florida Print Name: A-Vq Wa.G7x'*,4A/ My Commission Expires: Commission/Serial No,: R Cor SYLVANOuve-M paESor�nz�oaa 0 o�aaaa+aru�vti 4 INSTR 4535827 OR 4744 PG 3049 RECORDED 12/9/2011 4:29 PPS PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUXT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA 000.70 $840.00 REC $35.50 CONS $120,000.00 Record aad return to: Sant'tagD Eljaiek DT Esq. Marin, Eljaiek & Lopez, P.L. 2601 South 13ayshore Drive Suite Tao Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Property Parcel I.D. (Folio) No. 00149200004 TRUSTEE'S DEED 114, THIS TRUSTEE'S DEED, made the Xday of November, 2011, by and between Richard J. Steinien, a single man, individually and as Successor Trustee of the Emma M. 5teirtlen Irrevocable Trust Agreement dated July 17, 1998 (Wa Emma M. Steinlen Revocable Trust Agreement dated Jul s address is 12107 Hitching Post Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852-4427 ] v `!� TUR") and Marc L. Catalanoy a married man, individually a �ee of the a atalano Revocable Intervi�vibs Trust dated November 23, 0 ollectively, the "GRA EE , whose address is 11935 SW 15th Court, Davie, Florida 33 25.-'� WITNESSETH: Tat n t era ion of the sum of Ten and 00/100, ($10.00) dollars, a do a go d n v l a cc i ra i n to the GRANTOR in hand paid by the GRANTEE, the > ack does hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto GRAN all of GRANTOR, ht tit , terests, claims and demands in and to the following desc real property, situ , i being in St. Lucie County, Florida, to wit (the "Property" 1 The Northeast quarter (N1r a a > lu r (NW 114) of the Northwest quarter (KNV 114) of the Northeas e 14 Sectlon 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, less the West thirty (30) feet thereof reserved for road right-of-way purposes, shmvxt as Tract 42 of unrecorded plat ofsaid Northeast quarter, SUBJECT TQ; Taxes for the year 2012 and all subsequent years, which are not yet due and payable. 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. Applicable zoning and governmental regulations affecting the Property, without intending to reimpose any of same. ATTACHMENT "A" OR 4744 .PG 3050 TO HAVE AND TO HOI,D 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: [Notary Acknowledgment to follow on next page] n 7, OR 4744 PG 3051 lJ��7-T('Li•Cr7 of % STATE OF -xaN p L ss COUNTY DF } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this fJ day of November, 2011, by Richard I Steinlen, a single man, individually and as Successor Trustee of the Emma M. Steinlen Irrevocable rust Agreeme dated July 17, 1998, who is personally known to me or who has produced I- (4 C4,US f as identification and who di id not take an oath and executed such instrument for the purposes therein stated. fig• C ul l' tate of tS ssion Expires: t J Comrn' sra Serial No. DAf'i NIS TPIQT aF COLUt 514 cr• ^Ivgra'er S", 24I" TNSTR 4635826 OR 4744 PG 3042 RECORDED 12/9/2011 4:29 PM PAGES 7 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $61.00 Record and return to; Santiago Eljaiek III, Esq. Marin, Eljaiek & Lopez, P.L. 2601 South Sayshore Drive Suite 850 Coconut Grave, Florida 33133 STATE OF MARYLAND - ) )SS COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY) Before me, the undersigned Trustee of the Emma K Steinle Revocable Trust Agreement dat deposes and states: 1. That the Affiant has 2. ThatAffant,asSucces property, to -wit; TRUSTEE'S AFFIDAVIT co rsonally appeared f�h� R¢je ust Agreement d ei 17,,,k998 tirefe U9, , who I �jhc��et eit—is , isu] o e A,. Q Steinlen ("Affiant") us Successor fl7/1998 Ma Emma M. Steinlen Eby me first duly swom, on oath, following describedaeal The Northeast quarter dll f the Northwest q r e W 114) of the Northwest quarter (NW 114) of the No a•rtu-(Nllil, lkj � on 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, 'esrih (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 'Crust and that, acting as Successor 'trustee, has full power and autlrority to sell, convey and transfer the property and there are no contrary powers or provisions of the Trust. 4. That the Property is not the homestead property of the Successor Trustee or any member of the Trustee's family, nor does it lie adjacent or contiguous thereto. 5. That attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit "A" is a true, correct, and complete copy of the excerpt pages from the, Trust, confimiing 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 Stale of Florida for falsely s%yearing to statements made in an instrument of this nature. Affrant further certifies that helshe has read or has had read to him/her the full facts of this Affidavit and understands its coritents, OR 4744 PG 3443 This affidavit is given for the purpose of clearing any possible qucstion or objection to the title to the above referenced property and, for the purpose of inducing Marin, Eljalek & Lopez, P.L. and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company to issue title insurance on the subject property, with the imowledge that said title companies are relying upon the statements set forth herein. Seller hereby holds Marin, Elja"tek & Loper, P.I., and Fidelity National 'Title Insurance Company harmless and fully indemnifies some (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", "Salter" and "Buyer" include singular or plural as context so requires or admits. Seller further states that helshe is familiar ►vith the nature of an oath and with the penalties as provided by the laws of the United Stales 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 ofthis Affidavit and understands its context. Under penalties of perjury, 1 declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit and that the facts stated in it are true. Stale of'r County of [ The foregoing instrument was swa as Successor rustee, under the Em known or �as produced a driver's I y R C�tJ -e-11 Ri and J. S I le , Successor rustee subscribed before Wth6�' ay of November, 2011 by Richard J. Steinlen, tvinten Irrevocable Trya , gr ment dated July 17, 1998, who L] is personally [Notary Seal] MICNII.LE LE Rotary P*jo mompomuy Catuiq 1ltuytrtttd my CctrrrtthslonExpirrs M17,?Dtff Notary Public Printed Natno: `LM1,[ G! C f(C Le. My Commission Expires: i'Ctt iJ 20j-� OR 4744 PG 3144 11/18/2011 07:41 FAX 2029683D.12 PHILIPS&STEINLEN EMMA M. STE=EN REVOCABLE TRUST AGRZEMENT THIS TRUST AGREEMENT entered into on this -Z7-day of by andbetween EMMAM. STErN"LEIN, as GRANTOR and EMMA M. UTEZNLETI, as TRUSTEE-, WITNESSETH: That the GRANTOR has this day delivered to the TRUSTEE one hundrad dollars ($100-001 and the TRUSTEE agrees to hold, administer and distrz 0 L` foresaid assets (together with all additions -ereto and all e vestments thereof) as the corpus of a tr st` Maceta fo the b refit of the GRANTOR in accordance wi h h e m n, s ons herein set out 'the �-+ GRANTOR a.nteridin ��e�yr u NTORi S lifetime, to create a Grantor Ta� l� RT LE X - FID E5 As set forth in th & aa6 Bement, 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 11 -- GRANTORS As set forth in this Trust Agreement, the berm "GRANTOR" v shall include and apply to the GRANTOR or GRANTORS, as the case may be, as set forth therein. EXHIBIT "LA It OR 4744 PG 3045 11/18/2011 07:42 FAX 242969301.2 oil ARTICLE VI --TRUSTEE POWERS The GRANTOR hereby grants to the TRUSTM 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 ❑r Judicial authority, and no person dealing with the TRUSTEE shall be rE ad -,to inquire into the propriety Of any of its ac t Ri 0T any way limit -in the generality of the f ]ego-ing,' the GR ID hereby grants to the TRUSTEE hereunde , he fad �n 'Spec. is Powers and authority in addition to ndnt i s n v powers conferred by law, and the stat of the Stat of F1 %1 a; A. To compr e, settle o any claim or demand by or against the sta e o agree to any recision or modification of any canE�� agreement, B . To retain any security or other property owned by the GRANTOR at the time of the GRANTOR'S death, so long as suc}z retention appears advisable, and to exchange any security or property for other securities or Properties and to retain such items received in exchange. C. To sell, exchange, assign, transfer and convey any securities or properties, read, or personal, held in the GRANTOR'S Frust 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 arty property in its own name but without thereby increasing or decreasing its liability as fiduciary. 4 17� oR 4744 PG 3046 11/18/Zoll 07:42 FAQ 2020665012 PHILIPS&ST'EIRLEN Z009 A.RTICLB 'SK -- 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 Taws of the State of Florida for the recording of a deed of real property and filed with the TRUSTEE, to with8saw all or paxt of the principal free and discharged of the terms and conditions of s Trust Agreement, and of the Trusts hereby create /d nd amend this Agreement, and to alter and to -V I te the 'rusts re y created. 1.sc11 u - ••_•�•�, This agreem nt 1 e n d a d regulated in all respects by the T,a h a f The 'TRUSTEE h V accepts th�r reby created. ART C Z - SVCCE �R[1STEE In the event of t n,• disability or death of the GRAN'CDR, GRANTOR hereby nominates, constitutes and appoints as SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE the fzzst in the order named who is able and willing to serve of the following: first, the GRANTOR'S son R-TCTM D J. ST'EINLEN of Rockville, rilarylars , second, the GRANTOR'S daughter, JANE M. STEINLEN of Tampa, Florida, and third, the GRANTOR'S Son, MICHAEL G. STEINLM of Dunnellon, .Florida. 10 QR 4744 PG 3947 11/18/2031 07:44 FAX 2029663012 PHILIPS&STEIINIEN 11022 IN' WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunder set their hands and seals this � 7—* day of 9-u. , 19IN . Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: kit) I rh 0ZA11- 6in,rw (wx I•iss} --- E[3L�A fit. S�.'EII�LEN (GRANTOR) cod (WITNEB } (WYT ESS} S EINLEN UU (T V T 4 5xgz?ed, sealed, i01 2I d to 3arey the ahave•named �� GRANTOR, EMMA M. STBINLEN, as and for her WrUst Agreement, and we after she. signed her name theretor in•our presence, at her request and in the presence of each other, have affixed our names as witnesses an this r 7�k day of -�, 19 g$ . 20 *** OR 4744 PG 3048 *** 11/13/2011 {17:42 FAX 2028003012 IT ESS) ( auecan cC��1%N PHILIPS&STEINLENi014 (CITY. STAT ) 4 4��2� t AtITNES STATB OP FLORIDA COUNTY OF HILLSBOPOUGH on the l7� before me person known to be the same- or Who pro who executed the CITY, 5 T My Commission Expires; OFHOM NOFARYSEAL GREGG G HECKL£Y NOTARY MtIC 5{ ACE O7• FLORmA 'COMMISSION NO, CC.SWS6 MY COM MISSION EXP. NOV_ 27 21 Prepared without opinion by: Mark J. Alderuccio 5425 Park Central Court Naples, Florida 34109 Return to: Mark J. Alderuccio 5425 Park Central Court Naples, FL 34109 Grantee #1 S.S. No. Grantee #2 S.S. No. Property Appraiser's Parcel Identifiication/Folio No. 00150280000 W (STATI This Indenture, made and SUSAN S. SOMI SOMMERVILLE, TRUE E FIE# 1 DATED 4/26J2004, (with fu _ c lease. convey, grant, encum otherwise to herein) , whose residence a d dress is 3. GRANTEE**, 3504559 OR; 3675 PG, 1026 11C01D1O In 01rICI11L 11CO1DS Of COLLIII COWT, IL 11/01/2004 at 02:41Pr DWIGHT 1, 11OC1, CL11i 11C 111 19.54 DX -.70 .70 Beta: KH1 d ALD110CC10 5425 ?UK CIVIAL CT KAPL19 IL 34109 EED �9.02,F.S.) " tweeh RIHARD A. SOMMERVILLE V e wh se esidence and address is 3580 R, and RICHARD ALAN L SOMMERVILLE TRUST and ii tee to protect, conserve, sell, �nd did T of the real property described Witnesseth that said Grantor, fora 1' cit aerf"Of the sum of TEN Dollars, and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever, in fee simple, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to -wit; Northwest one-quarter[NW1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (NEI/4) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW 114) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE 114) of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 Fast, 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 sarne 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. *** 4R, 3675 PG; 1027 *** In Witness Whereof, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written, Signed, sealed, and delivered in our presence; Witness as to bbf printed irarrie:_f-�/T`�l U�f�f(J Witness as1..� to -both printed name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER THE FOREGOING INS' 2004 by RICHARD A. S known to me or who has identification, RICHARD A. SOMMERVILLE, �nfwl - SUSAN B. SOMMERVILLE C) this a day of October, RVILLE, who is personally as �aeazt` &Lc') Ft6ary Fablic My commission expires: aoi""Y:ue DIANEMVATORE MY 00M MISSION I DD 1667U WIRE& Dwsmkr 17, 2008 V}� ortt�A BoM#d M BWpH Namy Serrkas INSTR 4$24667 OR 4908 PG 204 RECORDED 4/15/2013 11:11 AM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $18.50 w E' Return Address: Codd Law Offices 15401 First Ave. South, Seattle, WA 98148 #A QUIT CLATM DEEB THE GRANTOR, DENNIS G. BAAR, a single person and Trustor of the Revocable hiving Trust of Dennis G. Haar, under the Agreement dated aT,MAAvs 2cD in consideration of no consideration - transfer ng Trust and mere change in ownership identity -- ys and q ijns to DENNIS G. SAAR, as Trustee of the Rev e Living 'gust ennis G. Baar, all of his interest in the 1. ig g- s cri d re I operty situate in Collier County, F1or d `° �� The Southeastq a tW t t quarter of the ea Northwest quarter t o r h q a t AND the Southwest quarter of the Nort a e th - ast quarter, of the Northeast quarter, on 13, Towns 8 h, Range 25 East of Collier County, Flor0 The above describ .(� erty is n ntor's homestead and not encumbered. This de �R+e a in ownership via a transfer to revocable 1 v s ere is no consideration. Together with all, the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances belonging or in any way appertaining Co it, and all the right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever which grantor has in and to the property. Property,Appraisers Parcel SD # 00148280409. ated this aTL.5 day of R GH , 2013. J�tnessss 41 gnature DENNIS G. BAAR, Trustor, Printe am a J. Codd s fr2 signature Printed name: W. Tracy Codd Quit Claim Deed Page 1 of 2 *** OR 4908 PG 205 *** STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. County of King ) I. Julie M. Codd, Notary Public in and\fothe state of Washington, do hereby certify that on this fes~ 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. ME UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this � day of Quit Claini Deed Page 2 of 2 rERSONAL REPRESENTATWES' DEED This indenture made this of November, 2005, BETWEEN )Doreen L,. Parrish and Denais G. Saar, as Personal Representative of the Estate ofGeorge Sear, deceased, referred to below as "Grantor," and Dorew L Parrish, a married woman, villose postal address is P.Q. 240602, Apple Valley, kl[mri la 55124 and Dennis G. Bala, an unmarried man, as tenants in common. whose postai 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 shell include atasaadidir►e, feminine, and neuter as the context requires). 3774823 OR: 3972 PG: 2069 RMUID in MICIAL RICORpr of MUR1 Ca1RTf, E4 11)21gol6 at 19tssit V1 ICER 1. BROCI, Cull He III Lo. 50 DOC.. 10 .7t Reto: SIRSII MON It AL Me SAMIAXI 7R 1 0201 HAPLY t1 11162 6AIRA 063 WITNESSETH: not the Gmntnr, acting under audwrity granted in an order enwre d io the Estate of Cm pAkm, dweascd. Case MD. 05-CP463, Probate DMuoN Cuzwl Cmd fur Let Co maty, Fionda� dated January 27, 2005. and to dation of the premiss for and is consideration dithe sum err TFN DOLLARS AND N011 DO, glue odw tDod and veluab k ourddonmat4 to it in hadd paid by the Gnntw. rhe receipt whn=f is hereby ecYnowlodgod, has gmmred, bugainA lad sold to the Grams, its suoc i0a and assigns famvts, the following described land sinrate, lying and being is the County of 031liar and the Slam of Ftarida4 to -wit: The Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, AND the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East of Collier County Florida. Subject to easements, restrictions reservations of record common to the subdivision and taxes for the curre m year and subsequent years. The above drscribtd properly is not G to the benerieiuurin named under the r Property Appraisers Parcel ldent:dc � o Together with all the tenements, t� all the right, title, interest, claim IN WITNESS. Wi1EREOF, Signed., sealed aednd deliver1 in the presence of'. Witness 41 sij cure Print name atness ff2 signedsare Print K4SSM 14 UD encumbered. This deed is From tht Estate Gcorea Naar for minimal coosidcration. or in anyway appett4ning to it, end and to the property. seal the day and year above written. Doreen 1G PanW in her capaaty as. Representative, GRANTOR 19: W= salla ;1' Signed, seal de'v red in the pre ce ' . Win {#I tore DennisG. Baan, inhis capacity as o- em Representative, GRANTOR Print mtnt0 - - aL Wi #2�S-ig�najtu%re Print name Personal Rep hued M 00M2WM9 Page I of 2 *** OR: 3972 PG: 2070 It* STATE OF ACQqESGYA COUITl'Y OF DAKOTA THEREBY CERTIFY thatmduadayb cwmv-mui�mdulY4m"adtoeakaarSaow3cdg�amt�resmafly+ipQrasedI}�RfTE11L.PARRISK LD me bwwu w be the pm:xm desaibod is asd who axcm od the fo.rgrng imtr, t ur who bas produced as idmkSmu n asd who uk wwiedgod bufasu mo that she wxcw d the sum- WrMESS my hind and othcLd zeal iu The Cotmty and Stals lag afasesaid this zY 0 day of 2045. r Rams". ;; . Nt71M 0pjj -MMNEWT4 prior rF/.s.0 yrpyttiditdivw*m MAD My Comaiseim Egkm: STATE OF WASHR N3TOTi COUNTY OF YIN43 I HFREEY CERTIFY that m dris day W— -c, asofar duly qudif d to text a¢ksowledgmrnts, FAsmaY app-vd DENNIS G. BAAR, tamekbowntobethepaeanimmbedhe and who mEwukdthefmVgo*itszu�wwb�+d .aoadWbFicatiogand who Bcknnwkdged hefrav me that be c onAc i tba smc. VATNESS my hand and official sad m the (SEAL) Ptepaed Witdww Oprniaa Ry PATRICIA). KITTER. ESQ. 1004 N. Tamiami Thu K. Suits 241 Ntapkx. FL 34102 (239} 263-8292 Persartal Rep Deed ID 00148280609 Page 2 of 2 d� e]IC r,5 do Attachment "B" Livingston RoadlVeterans 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=L 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 Pature Land Use Element reads as follows (highlighting added for emphasis): Urban designated areas will accommodate the following uses: (N) a. Residential uses including single family, multi family, duplex, and mobile home. The maximum densities allowed are identifed in the Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays that follow, except as allowed by certain policies under Objective S. The "Urhan 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 1.5.38 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.1201712017092\VMQNVA\Rcsu6mittallAttachment B 3u.6ficationand Supplemental Infestation (mvised 5-24-2018).doox Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued Policy 5.2: Land use policies supporting Objective 5 shall continueto he implemented upon the adoption of amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.3:,411 rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. Policy 5.4' All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The companion RPUD can be deemed to be consistent with all applicable Goals, Objective, and Policies of the GMP, assuming the amendment establishing the Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict is adopted. Policy 5.5: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future .Land Use Map .... The Subdistrict is located with the Counties Urban designated area and within a designated 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 onsite 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/Traffie 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:12017120170921wP1Gb PA%ce ubmittallAttacbrnent B Justification and Supplemental Information (revised 5-24-2018).docx Livingston RoadNeteram 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 Arenas (TCMAs) as geographically compact areas where intensive development exists, or such development is planned. Policy 61: 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 existingpublie facilities, and promotingpublie 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 trap 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 TC2VM shall require a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment provided the remaining LOS requirements of the TCMA. are maintained. Page 3 of 6 13:121)171211170921VJPIGMPA1ResuhmittalUttachmevt B Jusfifieation and Supplemental h&rmation (revised 5-24-2018).do= 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 ill 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 Pian (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 OMPA. Policy 5.7: 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 H. 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:1201712017Q921WP1GbTAlResuhmittalLAtt(ichment B Justification and supplemental Information (revised 5,242018).dacx Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict dustiflcation & 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 S, 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 ti EL-1201712017[392\*71O PAli =bmittallAttachmmt 8 Iustificadon and Supplemental information (revised 5-24-2018).doex Livingston RoadlVeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued 1. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. -163.3177 (6)(a) 8. -Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability offacilities and services. b. 14n 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 necessaxy 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 d of 6 H:12x1712ol7o921wAGWSp.A\ResubmittallAttaobment]3 Justification and Supplemental in£urmation (revised 5 24-2018).doex ATTACHMENT "C" This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a 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 MA1 �C7E RE- E77 File [HVOPCHII£C�I�SLLRA'C ��►► 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(d)�dexbender_c0m. 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, Eman M. Vovsi, Ph.D. Data Base Analyst Florida Master Site File Emart.V vsi DOS.M Florida.com 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 www.flheritage.comlpreservation/sitelile 850.245.6440 ph I 850.245.6439 fax 1 SiteFile@dos.stateJLus Vii° T 1 gal A'i•:� ��!'�!'"! rat ' .� ._�.fr APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT DATE RECEIVED 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 (Fox 239-252-2946). The appiication -must be reviewed by staff for sufflclency 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 (bofh 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 Presldent Company 5D Liv! n stole LLC Address 2639 ProfesslonaJ Circle #101 I City Naples _State Ftorida Zip Code 34119 Phone Number 239-592-7344 _ Fax Number 239-592-7541 B. Name of Agent * Robert J. Where, FAICP, VP, Planning & Business_ Development ■ THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Hole Mantes, Inc Address ,950 Encore Way City Naples State Florida Zip Cade 34110 Phone Number 239-254-2000 Fax Number 239-2542099 Name of Agent * Richard D. Yovanovich. Esquire Company Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, A Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 City Napies 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 Zlp 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;1a017120170921W1'1GMPA\ResuhiniftallOMPA Application (revised 5-16-2018).dao 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@trtrons.net ' Craig M. Smith, M.S., P.W.S., Senior Ecologist l DexBender Environmental Consulting 4470 Camino Real Way, Ste, 101, Fort Myers, FI. 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: KJQhnson@jroeng.com 11. 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, fist the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stack I ' I E C. If the property Is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the i percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest i f D. if the property Is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. I Name and Address Percentage of Ownership j • i l i 2 H:12017129170921WP\GMPA\Rosubmitla11GMPA Application (revised 5-16-2018).doe 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 SD LMn :)n,, LLC 639 Professional Circle, #101 Naples, FL 34119 Brian IC Stock Manage Date of Contract: Percentage of Ownership 1007.- F. 007 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 tease-yrs./mos. if, Petitloner 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 suppiemenfal disclosure of interest form, 11111. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attachment "A" Warranty Deeds B. GENERAL LOCATION Southeast corner of the 'intersection of Livin sto Roar{ a d Vetera s Memorial Boulevard C. PLANNING COMMUNITY o h Na 1 -01 E. SIZE IN ACRES 35.57 D. TAZ 85 F. ZONING PUD & AG G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN See Exhibit "V.13.1" Future Land Use Ma H, FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Urban Mixed Use Dlst ict Urban Residential Subdlst ict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (5) 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:12017\20 i,7U921WP1GMPA%zsubmittallGMPA Appliontion (revised 5.3 6-2U 18),doc B. AMEND PAGE (S) L9j,,[471, [1451_ -_OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT A5 FOLLOWS: (Use &#Un + oto identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: See Exhibit "IVB 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 A5 FOLLOWS: (Nairne & Page #j FLUM: Ekhibi "I D.1" E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: NIA V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN 1"=4001. At least one copy reduced to a- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE Exh. V.A._I 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. 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 Ex V.B.1 Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designations) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL Exh, VC_ Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native & V.C.1 habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED - ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. Exh. V_ ,C.2 Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g, panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.),Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. 4 14:12017=170921WP1(3MPA\Resvhmittal\G- IPA Applicatiuri (revised 5.16-2018).dvc D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9.1-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 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 9.l -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. 2 (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 identifled (commercial, industrial, etc,) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or dlstrict8 (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysts 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 ", Exhiblt "V.D.I " and Exhibit "V.E.3" E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Exh. V.E-I 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.I- Sanitary Sewer Exh. V.E.3 Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS Exh. V.E.I Drainage Exh. V.EJ 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 andlor 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. Ex . 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:12b17120170921VJ13NOMPA1R%iubmitlahGMPA Appiinfian (revised 5-16.2018),dac F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property, Exh.V.F.I Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). iL Location of wellfieIds and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Toning Maps) NLA Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable fL High Noise Contours (65 LOO 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) f/A $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) Yes Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Yes Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) Yes 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments inciuding maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency Is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. * Maps shall include; North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1 "=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre -application meeting. 6 H:12017 20170921WP1GMPA\ResubmittellGNTA Application (revised 5-16.2018).doc AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION AlluTe PUD (PL -20170004385) FOR PETITION NlJMBERS(S)o ft ' dentia s z district GFJFA (PL -2017p00991$} i BRwsx, srac c (print name), as molt (title, If applicable)of s wytxas roN. ux (company, If a licable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the (choose one) ownerQ appllcant=contract purchaserEand that: ' 1. I have full autharn to recurs 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 14usstlons in this applicadon and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true, 3: l 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 subiect to the cand}tlons and restrictions Imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize ROBERT J.MULHERE:PAICP&RICRARDYOVANOMCKESQUIRE to act as ourlmy representative In any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 abava. `Nates: • If the applicant is a corporation, then It is usually executed by the carp. pros. or v. pros. e If the applicant Is a Limited uabllity Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), than the documents should typically be signed by the Campany's "Managing Member." a If the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign ars behalf of the parinershlp. If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and 6s ldenbfled as the "general partner" of the named partnershlp, • If the applicant is s trust, then they -must include the trustea's name and the words as trustee" In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., Individual, corporate, twist, partnership, and than use the appropriate format for that ovrnershlp, llndsr panaltles of perjury, I declare that: I have read the foregotrtg Affidavit of Authorisation and that the facts statedin 1 re true. Z4;177 Signature Date BRIAN K. STO K, MGR SD LIVINGSTON, LLC STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The f agoing Instru e t wa sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on ' c7Xa (date) by (name of person providingjoath or affirmati❑n), as who Is Persa_n t kn�l�r who has produced (type of identification) as identification. BTANiPISEAl Signator of Notary Public J11011H M STALE Nutary Pubfic - State of F[orlea = Commissten # CG 027255 My Comm. Explees $up 28, 2020 p9 fion6edihrau9h National Notaryksa. CP1p8-COAAGIM155 REV 3124114 LIVINGSTON ROAD -- VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA APPLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS • Exhibit "IV.B.1" —Proposed GMPA Amendment Language + Exhibit "IV.D.I" — 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 11V.B.1" — Future Land Use Map • Exhibit "V.C" — Vegetation Map ■ Exhibit "V.C.1" — Soils Map • Exhibit "V. C.2" —Listed Species Table • Exhibit "V.D" — Myers Research Needs Analysis • Exhibit "V.D. I" — 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. I" — Firm Data Map Ii:12017120170921WP1GMPA1ResubmittaIVrable of Contents (5-24-2018).docx NOTE: This was the last resubmittal version. This has been replaced with the Staff version which is Exhibit "A" Future Lane Use Element to the Ordinance reflecting the SCC Transmittal conditions. EXHIBIT "11V.B.1" PROPOSED GMPA AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Proposed amendment to the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) related to +/- 35 Acre Livingston RoadlVeterans 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. UR13AN - MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 18. Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict 19. Livin stop RoadNeterans 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 ibeginning page 271 ** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 19. Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict The Livingston RoadlVeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57-L 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 - H:\2017120170921WP1GMPAICCPC - Adoption\Exiiibit IV.B_ 1 - Proposed GMPA Laaguagc (8-23-2618),docx b. Allowable uses are limited to multi -family rental dwellings. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUB Policy $.5 by providing two of following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier Countx Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PINE) Division; ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west: and. iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial proe* 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 RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Map NOTE: This was the last resuhmittal version. This has been replaced with the Staff version which is Exhibit "A" Future Lane Use Element to the Ordinance reflecting the BCC Transmittal conditions. H:12017120170921WP\GMPAICCPC - AdoptionTxhibitN.B.1- Proposed GMPA Language (8-23-2018),doex Y, LIMITS OF SUBJECT SITE 950 Encore Way Np Ies, FL. 34110 Phana: 7239) 254-2000 "LE LIVINGSTON AD. -VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. CRECHEC BY : J.c. PRCJ=CT No. 2017.492 DRAWN 8Y. CAD FILE NAME ONTE Florida Certificate of EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT E.ILN. Exhlb[UV[11 DATE : EXHOT -ITE,+ oww Authorizaflon No.1772 EXHISiT IV.D.1 5 24TB 1 ■ LIMITS OF SUBJECT SITE LIVINGSTONNOAB- HSR VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD.aulxscs000 EASTSUBDISTRICT HCLEMCNTES •d - wmw.u>,w.im SUBJECT SITE PROJECT LOCATION MAP HOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT V.A.1*•� LOCATEON MAP '— m 1 DAROES AR 'llo DAROES AR 50d IiADri:S taraune mn'. _ 4 Y — � L Veer LPYVJ MfM elea rleeueew MtmpW IAd.91y4MVr evo lMaGier.e� •••• fie••• � r acrir Ful)" res4nBY 'gym"' � eau eer�da' awo m � .re,... wr ® , wudr Needs [Nlfxsbr aateea9Glhy LewM7IAr�Wm} m". ® a/f!i YaonN�Wa4 vevpueneawa FA ones hieplae Yaa@A Vu04gaLlaLey � aru .n � � �� PROPOSED SL60157ReCT l 1 raw acv ay.w xveese eonn•.o u r x et I A° r� AA" RPUO� A c + ® LIMITS OF SUBJECT SITE LIVINGSTON ROAD- 95aa1a«.xvy " " VETERANS MEMORIALBLVD. , rminaFLasamoo EXHIBIT V.A.3 EAST SUBDISTRICT KoLeMorTes rn.e.aaw.x ZCNINGMAF e »o.ns mttma 1 a 9 LEGENO F7URBAN RESIDENTFAL SUBDISTRICT LJVINGSTONROAD CI MEMORIAL BLVp, COMMERCIAL I N f I LL SU BD ISTRICF NGTE: THE SU13JECT SITE IS NOT LO CATEU WITH I N TH E COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (35.57 ACRES) IS DESIGNATED URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT LIMITS OF SUBJECTSITE QL��ffllm W-1111 oY90ME 4; `oi��pdW�n- Aleaeooa 00000! r�� 1 �^� ��i *>r. ! 11. ��,.i:H ,• .� I�iN""'.j'�.T I... 1��.- ��:: :• l 1 , 'n1 �I.'Al1lBllill .meq _. ..; � �•" II I _. � �, �; r Ir-Y�J a9,%J"r; .•� . _,.. SCII;,Mg G a �v•"T 'i�.�'1 F. as l�� _ seer::, , -�■ ........ ...' i*••� OAF :.;•� RIs ii "°x:`!,`-�' 4. � o `�" `',' -J• I� u .�ZE� � ISI �� ,a, gull ■ �tiN+ �',�;,la lciRll1111.,141 Il�r.>>1 ' "+ 'r—" ii; llllllliilil1111111{I I - y •moi.' PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES MAP ©© - � PROPO 161X1 W CAU - LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY --- SUBJECT SITE IN FLOO D Z DNE AH , AE & X FIRM PANEL 12021 C0192 BASE FLOOD ZO NE ELEV =I 2.0'(NAVD) LIMITS OF SUBJECT SITE EFF DATE: 511 612 01 2 LIVI NGSTON ROAD- m EXHIBIT V.F.1 xn�mc VETERANS MEMORIALBLVD. HOLEMONTES rr �KRxau rmrc sin FIRM DATA MAP """ "'•' EAST.SURDIS'TRIQT gY�6gN10tl�p{MR ...wr�en�e.,rn m+�pX '1 � 1 1 asssf I 1 , --------------- 0 100 206 SclqLH FEET Asannw 12 snd # To"FAMP, 406 R4AiM- 2SE l S9end 1A-Plneda Ane sand, lka Wne auWmtum 1 SCS 21-B— Ana sand =25.8a ,RMera, Ihmwm-bwbaWm 6 Copeland nnesand drp—lonl 1 ulnmlen Aeea rro bac 7. r.Ly 8aw+dary i. o+rded by Nbes and Octo TLmd w—VtohSurwHng, Mc R hk mnRa+ obleAud hom me Fkrldo p�gie Ldrcty PRJWT USB ONLY, NOT FOR CONSTP.L7MD-V Asa ou XBENDER SONS map Mril F#W �1N�FrOIVMENTAL CONSUL77NO EXHIBIT "V.C.1' Fp7f YlsJ¢5 R79-.zJd-38a0 EXHIBTT 11V.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. FL_UCCS CODE Species Name 411 El Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corals couper►) 411 E2 Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus) 411 E4 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Red -cockaded Woodpecker (Ficoides 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 Felis concolor cor i 450 Butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) 618E Butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Wood Stork M cteria 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 (Haliaeotus feucocephalus) 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 Felis concolor co ► FLUCCS CODE Species Name 624E2 Butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculafa) 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-flat (Eumops floridanus) Florida Panther Felis concolor co i 625DE2 Butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) 625E2 Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculafa) Giant airplant (Tillandsia utriculata) Northern needleleaf (Tillandsia balbisiana) Twisted airplant (Tillandsia flexuosa) Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corgis couperi) 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 Felis concolor co r 744 None A survey for listed species on the property was conducted by DexBender during mid-day hours of December 6, 2617. One dead slash pine and one live bald cypress containing potential cavities entrances were identified. No evidence of Florida bonneted bat utilization (bat vocalizationlchatter 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 2617) 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. YASTaCK-17ICountylComp PlanTialed Species Tabre.Qacx t k f Meyers RESEARCH CONTACT INFORMATION This analysis was prepared by Meyers Research, a market research and consulting firm specializing in the real estate industry. It was commissioned by Stock Development, Inc. during the due diligence stage of the project. Michael Timmerm2n served as Project Director and managed the day-to-day aspects of the assignment. Follow-up questions should be directed to him at 239-269-9769 or mtimmerman@a meyersllc.com. OBJECTIVE The objective of the engagement is to provide a needs analysis of market rate rental apartments in Collier County, Florida in order to satisfy the market study requirement for a growth management plan amendment. She site is located on Livingstor. Road in North Naples and consists of 12 separate parcels totaling 35.68 +I- acres of land. The client is proposing the development of up to 420 multi -family dwelling units that will be rented based on current market conditions. LIMITING CONDITIONS Stock Development, Inc. is responsible for representations about its development pians, marketing expectations and for disclosure cf any significant information that might affect the ultimate realization of the projected results. There wili usually be differences between projected and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and the differences may be material, We have no respcnsibility to update our report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of our report. Payment of any ar.d all of our fees and expenses is not in any way contingent upon any factor other than our providing services related to this report. Aqui %nta3 Ararmlg its 18=x Develupmenl 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS Meyers RESEARCH a Kmnnj iW.—Co y, Key Findings 4 Development Assessment 7 Locational Analysis 14 Economic and Demographic Profie 17 Market Rate Apartment Analysis 22 Market Demand Analysis 28 Appendix 34 Allure Rental ,Apartments I $ick; NVebpM4I( 13 Meyers RESEARCH a Re—ir it•• f—C6 ,W th Key Findings Allura Apartments 'Hut. R'n'al APA"Os I Steck Qevelzpnan: G ALLURA'S SUPPLY WILL SATISFY FUTURE DEMAND Meyers RESEARCH • Collier County gas ample demand for new market based rental apartments due to the anticipated growth in population and employment. Based on our analysis, we estimate the cumulative demand for market rate rental by the of 2622 to be over 5,300 units. The annual need starting in 2018 is 446 units, grooving to 1,373 units by the end of 2022. The net demand is the cumulative demand fess the approved future units. As of 2418, the net demand is 355 units growing to 2,627 units by the end of 2022. Located below is a summary of the net demand calculation and the list of additional planned units, with the anticipated delivery date. Year Current Supply Annual Cumulative Approved Need Demand units Net demand 2012 320 Legacy Naples New Hope Ministries 2018 304 Addison Place 2015 5,648 134 134 340 134 2(116 5,648 236 371 483 371 2017 5,944 392 763 420 763 2018 6,248 456 1,219 864 355 2919 6,248 688 1,907 1073 (30) 2020 6,248 932 2,838 375 526 2021 6,248 1,148 3,986 420 1,254 2022 6,248 1,373 5,359 2,627 Apartment Est Delivery Year Total Units Briarwood Apartments 2018 320 Legacy Naples New Hope Ministries 2018 304 Addison Place 2018 240 Springs at Saba] Bay 2019 340 Ave Maria Apts 2019 250 Journey's End 2019 483 Pine Ridge Commons 2020 375 Allura 2021 420 Total units 2732 Including the additional 420 units proposed at Allura, there are a total of 2,732 units in eight projects that are in varying stages of development or planning. The projects are located throughout the county, with location and community amenities influencing rental rates. Newer communities in the North Naples planning district tend to have higher rental rates due to its location closer to the recreational amenities of the Collier and southern Lee County. AilureRAnlal Apanrr enis I SL-rk dsyslopmwn 1 5 COLLIER APARTMENT MARKET 1S HEALTHY Meyers RESEARCH sW12—a-W* • The rental rates for market based apartments steadily increased from the beginning of 2011. Annual growth rates increased at a sustainable pace through mid 2013, where the demand exceeded supply resulting in rates and occupancies increased dramatically. The additional supply that became available starting in 2015 has lowered the annual rate increases to more sustainable levels, and has leveled occl.pancies. The demand for market based apartments is forecasted to continue, with the currently approved supply helping to satisfy the demand_ • Current market occupancy is estimated at 9211/a, however it does include several projects that are currently in the lease up stage. Occupancy of stabilized projects in closer to 95%, which is considered to reflect full occupancy. $1.80 SIM $1.40 $720 SLOO $0.80 Historical Rate -Market P•d•d — 1 Bed —T 8•d —3 Bed --4 BM 98% 9e� 9MJ5 E � 779E yg� 6 9� 88${ 06% Historical Occupancy -Market Pemod —A40a p5 V nwCd Pentri A"nme=115 I SMck Dsvelopment � Meyers RESEARCH Development Assessment__ Allura Apartments AlluraRaval Ap rnams I STmt 3 PROJECT SUMMARY Meyers RESEARCH ra,..,yuv,,,, Allura Apartments is a proposed market rate rental community located on a site at the northeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd in Naples, Collier County, FL. The vacant site is surrounded by detached residential prcduct on the east and south, a vacant site to the west and Veteran Memorial Blvd on the north. The site's location offers good access to the employment, shopping and recreational amenities of North Naples. Transportation infrastructure in the area is very good and allows for easy access north to Bonita Springs via Livinsgton Road and to 1-75 via Bonita Beach Road. Veterans Memorial Blvd will be extended west to intersect with Old US 41, which will improve access to areas west of the site. • Based on the Collier County Property Appraiser's office, the site consists of 12 parcels owned by five owners and is urder contract to the applicant. The combined parcels total 35.68 +I -acres and are proposed for a market rate rental apartment community not to exceed 420 units. • The site is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Collier County FLUE. The purpose of this Urban Res!denfial Subdistrict is to provide higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. • Current zoning is split between a 15.38 acre parcel zoned PUD and 20.19 acres currently zoned A-2, Agricultural. The combined sites will be rezoned as a Residential Planned Unit Development known as the Allura RPUD. • The client is seeking an amendment to the FLUE to create the Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict that will consist of the rezoned aforementioned parcels. The Subdistrict will allow for up to 420 residential multi -family dwelling units, reflecting a density of 12 units per gross acre. The objective of this study is to provide market support for high density residential need to satisfy the needs analysis requirement of the Land Use Amendment process. • Located below are maps showing the site's location, aerial surroundings, future land use and proposed FLUE Subdistrict boundary. Allure Renal Al I Sit& devalopneht i 6 LOCATION MAP I -I MITS OF S UBJ ECT SITE Meyers RESEARCH SUBJECT SITE •--•- PROJECT LCCATICH MAP r m)T To SCALE OF Mum Ran -W Apemnants E 3wit DmpiopmW � a Meyers AERIAL MAP RESEARCH d Awamy uim. ❑�,ey ?.Ilura Cental AMranenia � 8lock Df*.lgomc 1J FUTURE LAND USE AND PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT MAP Meyers RESEARCH AIlL ra Ram AparlrWis I St& Qetltl Tent I 11 LEGEND URBAN ' a�'- 1 f A Q , LIVIN . VC.. moNOTMEMORIAL o o: �oosavd a ��o14a o0�q��Af� E! THE SLIeJECT SCFE IS N401T COASTALLOCATED WITHIN THE HAZARDHIGH AREA•b ,��o lk- �'lli'�� ol �� II�f d �QOI ■ r7 LIMITS O F SU BJ EcT SITE — -- �MEMORIAL LIVINGSTON RD. -VETERANS SLVD. EAST SUB DISTRICT ja'3�WRESIDENTIAL ORM AIlL ra Ram AparlrWis I St& Qetltl Tent I 11 PLANNING COMMUNITY AND SUBJECT SITE MAP The subject site is located within the North Naples Planning Community and is serviced by local fire and EMS district. The Noah Naples Planning district has a 2018 estimated population of 59,000 according to the Collier County Planning Department, making it the most populated planning community is the county son U Mb Md" Legend North Naples Planning Community SiteBoundary 1.5 U.T5 a PEE.L cw-m.fias, W—A I MVrL EX0 C— 1H=J W —Mwhl. l N 05 YfY 19 Meyers RESEARCH Mara Renta] Ap"nin &o& DqveloDrmam 112 IMPERIAL LAKES SITE MAP Meyers RESEARCH Wthin the North Naples Planning Community, only the Imperial Lakes PUD, located west of the subject site, has approval for 430 rrLOtifarrilly sites. It should be noted that the sites multifamily approval does not specify rental units, therefore the true potential of land with approval may be none. Albin Rocal ApArunPrt Dsvaloonqm Spring& - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - Legend Imperial Lakes -430 Units North N aple5 Planning Community Site3oundary 1Z 0,76 a 1.5 Miles 1EM CV—, U -GS. W, .1k 4.—a "I Albin Rocal ApArunPrt Dsvaloonqm Meyers RESEARCH u K—ir Mr Co m Locational Analysis Allura Apartments Mura Rend.7Mmanlz 1 Sled ❑evekamm I 14 ALLURA HAS GOOD ACCESS TO SUPPORT FACILITES Meyers RESEARCH .: A'rxmdr iLw Cn �F The site is located in a desirable area of Collier County proximate to schools, shopping and employment centers. The immediate area is near buildout with a parcel of land located across Livingston Road to the west planned for residential development in the future. Veterans Elementary SchJol is located lz mile to the west on Veterans Memorial Blvd and North Naples Middle School is located'/ mile southwest of the site on Livingston Road. Walkable access to these schools adds to the viability of market success for the project. Ailuro Rand Aparrrn M I Staci DevaioaTne n:l is Meyers EMPLOYMENT IS LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE SITE RESEARCH The darker areas of the map show the concentration of major employment centers where residents In the subject area travel to work. Residents in this zip code generally work the west and south of the subject site at employment centers along Tamiami Trail, Immokalee Road and Bonita Beach Road. A significant portion of the residents in this area are retired, therefore employment location is not a major factor. The lack of rental communities in thib area will draw a large portion of the working population that desire to be closer to this employment centers of this region of the county. . � G*TA- . wc.cn wo-1 h• :. .- - _- y /F\ Jee Cnmrcs trya41 Wa eAEirectlon In 2a15 M1iff•,G--.*'A.. A11Wtikers v t � �.84.&5SF1. i631P68 W E Vie:: -as Radar Chart Jeirt b7 OkiWU -1101.9 C—Wx W %Ck So WCIk i CM06511I06k 2015 Ceara 5ken Tc1alAYJObi 7,9p7 100.0%i wi nun inm.Yn 3657 96.m. ■IC 1e2+.e;-t 1a= 96.9% Ur 12 SO, Wa Id 1.9:5' 1.7% 71.8% Ahura Rend Apar"ents l 3taO, Dewlvoment 110 Meyers RESEARCH ., K—W. lKb.n m} Economic and Demographic Profile Allura Apartments AOur Rgnml Apartmante 15!nn@ Qavabn ant 1 IT POPULATION GROWTH WILL CONTINUE IN THE COLLIER Meyers RESEARCH •I•i mrq'Ai�nfs N+F The Collier County area has seen significant population growth since 200% with one of the highest percentage change in the population noted in the state in 2015. Annual population growth in 2017 was temporarily suppressed due to the Hurricane Irma which direct y hit Collier County, Population growth forecast are significantly higher in the next few year based on the Econorry,com analysis. The consultant has adjusted the population forecast in the analysis to account for future market risk. wz na0t<laLan 316,84 318,466 322,fi91 327,667 332,556 339.483 318.216 357,194 366,095 MARC 76;735 309.G91 41703 437.755 447539 Pn1v Y.r ChM10 27A4 1,879 1 4.111 9,60 9,8 13,4ss 14,756 14,913 16,157 16,763 M Source: Ecouomy.oam Allwa Rwal Apartment; I S1ou+1 de veIcomen; 1 16 i II �1 �I Source: Ecouomy.oam Allwa Rwal Apartment; I S1ou+1 de veIcomen; 1 16 HOUSEHOLD FORMATIONS CONTINUE IN COLLIER Meyers RESEARCH r 8hmdj MI.. r rl> Household formations in the Collier County area have expanded significantly since 2009 due to price reductions as a result of the Great Depression and the migration of Baby Boomers from the northeast and Midwest. Projections call for accelerated levels of household formations between 2018 and 2022. The consultant made more conservative estimates of the household formation growth in the demand analysis. This was corelated with the consultants population adjustments. zdmw�nowb 132,537 132,783 133,824 135,293 136.755 139,583 142.636 145,194 147.758 151,4u1 157,2S3 164.692 172,332 180,426 188,976 5,892 7,399 7440 8,694 9.579 9,000 -- e.ow 7000 6.000 o` a s.o-7o 4,OOo a 3,000 2,000 1.000 s a r ta N Sourca: Economy. corn A1;Jra Renml Aparin M I StOC4 6aWl00merr. 1 19 Meyers PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ARE DOMINANT RESEARCH Construction has been the fastest growing employment sector in the past year due to the rebuilding of homes and businesses atter Hurricane Irma. This rebuilding, coupled with the natural growth in housing as a result of population, has influenced the supporting Professional and Business Services sectors as a result. Trade has suffered due to the term porary contraction of tourist, h owever It is expected to rebound as the year progresses. 2,500 2,000 1,so0 r; C 0 {500 Financial Activities intornalion Professional and Construdon Education & Health Govemment easiness Services services Source' Cwrwmyaam Leisure & Manufacturing Other Savices Trade, Trarrsp. and Hospitality vtli6es Altura RentalAparimeals 15iod�Development 20 HOUSING STARTS WILL CONTINUE TO EXPAND Meyers RESEARCH • F*•+Yj iPBun G.ywy Housing starts have grown steadily since 2010, with the annual change in Multifamily Starts expected to continue as pricing of single family homes rise. The increase in Multifamily starts include both fee simple condominiums and rental apartments. Growth of both designs will satisfy the population increases and employment changes. Total Housing.5tarts 1,007 X8011 1,190 1.279 1,571 2,443 3,334 3,980 3,911 4,322 4,01B 4,970 5,312 6,346 7,172 SFO Housing Starts 676 622 807 929 1,284 1,725 2,418 3,039 3,093 3,114 3,327 4,476 5.050 5,639 6,001 MF Housing starts 331 179 383 350 286 718 916 891 8® 1.208 992 494 262 707 1.172 cl - s.00u 000 7,000 8,000 � 5,000 m 4,000 3,000 a,aoa �.oao Z.V n Source: Ecanomyr.com IW ra R;n"Ai aparmenu I smek b2*00myni 12 Meyers RESEARCH n K-010 Vibe, Compri Market Rate Apartment Analysis Allura Apartments Alhira Kemal kpertmants i Sok ;evslovmel, j 22 EXISTING PROJECTS ARE LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY MeyeCS Existing dental Apartment Communities are located east and south of the beaches and the City of Naples. Access to employment centers, support facilities and recreation amenities of the county are easily accessible from all the rental communities. ExistingApartmenis ._r+. 79 ca JR ° nrwr."r 3 Legend � ExisNngM arke[RateJurte2olt1 - 'n MaplD Apartrnent Year Built Total_Unit YearsOld 18 Naples 701 1975 188 43 19 Naples Place 1-4II 1965 160 33 2 Belvedere 1986 162 32 33 Summer Wind (ARIUM Gattshore) 1986 366 32 25 River Reach 1987 556 31 21 Northgate Club 1988 120 30 15 Laguna Bay 1989 456 29 29 Shadowcod Park 1989 96 29 36 Waverley Place 1990 273 28 22 Oasis of Naples jArbor Walk) 1991 216 27 14 La Costa 1995 276 23 6 Bryn Mawr 1998 240 20 3 Berkshire Reserve 2090 146 18 12 Ibis Club 2000 134 18 28 San Marina (Aventine) 2001 350 17 5 Brittany Bay I & II 2002 392 16 16 Malibu Lakes 2002 356 16 40 Aster Lely 2014 308 4 41 Sierra Grande 2014 273 4 42 Orchid Run 2015 282 3 43 Milano Lakes 2017 296 1 115 Inspira at Lely Resort 2018 304 a 3 1.5 0 3 Miles ffy a £ Ina-�nlPCtry,HFCTfI. FeliJ�p"n, MErl-Exl Ghm v K�j. Efn p LXERE �el.arme,VSGS. rnl�reuP u4LnerlYpmylnd"-OC—SXwW"p—i.b .Ne km W& WM C&—F. iNp Altura Rental Apamaenl< i Reek ! 23 PROJECT SIZE IS TYPICAL TO OTHER MARKETS The typical rental apartment project size in Collier County ranges from 250 to 500 units. This is considered an industry norm as it provides for increased property management efficiency and adequate resident amenity usage. Many of the larger projects located in the northern portion of the county are also some of the oldest. i ,`-=•��. Market Rate Apartment Project size 22 x.PYaPr1 - .� � r..�.... ■a❑ . p.aey. • 3 swren e+r 15 M i .w�a. r.. n' ... r.. ,.�r,..� Meyers RESEARCH H rar WE s 3-w Fmt MRRF D.C.— US". --. Incerrm PCp HA"CIW, Efrl1-1101. Uy; --Ixrnp-0). ESH fllu'rnel.�f 00"Ww p=WY .— V. ms user cemrwrq Ahura Rental Apnrnenls I SVGeier PMM 124 23 u r3 � 19 42 12 8 ryy f. 0 t6 r40 29 L6gBRd Z Total Units �• — •^ 0 Less rasa zoo 0 201 W2W Np.. wMer 251 !0351 . 35010 500 -^ 0-500 3 1.5 0 3 Miles Meyers RESEARCH H rar WE s 3-w Fmt MRRF D.C.— US". --. Incerrm PCp HA"CIW, Efrl1-1101. Uy; --Ixrnp-0). ESH fllu'rnel.�f 00"Ww p=WY .— V. ms user cemrwrq Ahura Rental Apnrnenls I SVGeier PMM 124 NEWER PROJECTS ARE LOCATED SOUTH Meyers RESEARCH The majority of the rental apartment housing stock is more than 20 years old, with the newer products located in southern Collier County. Southern Collier County has lower land cost which results in lower rental rates. Available land in the south county is diminishing rapidly due to development of rental and for sale product. -� i �= �• I'� Market Rate Apartment Age in Years N�IwPd arrsM� ti 50-s i NERE, DKtl U$W. In1�m.A inrtmenl PCpP . MRLNe. [-{riJ.(iR, 1.✓iETI, 7ssriCtlu 1Xpg Npgj, F?ri R},aYM7. A1�Penylntlfa.9 OGCIS}MVllL anV'iO,tra. Intl � GH' Lase Cderx.,niy { � F PrNPP ea '' 15 i NrslYpr�2 Ilaw. fl �14 42 � 12 �� Ewlwpa Pr.� N+� SA Legend yeamold Q Less Ilan 5 N.PIa urr E to 10 i Tl S 26 75I6Q r wore than 27 3 1.5 q 3 Miles ti 50-s i NERE, DKtl U$W. In1�m.A inrtmenl PCpP . MRLNe. [-{riJ.(iR, 1.✓iETI, 7ssriCtlu 1Xpg Npgj, F?ri R},aYM7. A1�Penylntlfa.9 OGCIS}MVllL anV'iO,tra. Intl � GH' Lase Cderx.,niy MORE DIVERSIFIED UNIT MIX IN NEWER PROJECTS Meyers RESEARCH The historical development trends by unit size and unit mix provide an insight into the changes seen fi the Collier County rental apartment market. The chart on the left shows the historical units size by bedroom count. The trends indicated a slow reduction in size for 1 BR units and a slow increase in size for the 2 and 3 bedroom units. The chart on the right shows the historical development of units by bedroom count. We can see that early development focused on 1 and 2 bedroom units with a change to an increase of 3 bedroom units starting in 2000. Unit mix changes since 2004 indicate a increased demand for 3 bedroom units based on the development trends. Project Locations also have also impacted unit mix, with more desirable locations demanding a higher percentage of 3 bedroom units and lower percentage or 1 bedroom units. AsalpsallBft 5lxc A1e!gM�Sfee. lvxep¢d7BR S� AwaW?of4B1L9k Historical Size By BR Size 3870 1500 1400 - ..... .... - 800 SW AM 197$ J9g6 1961 1968 5969 1990 1995 1939 2000 3073 2001 1014 2015 1017 1992 7013 3018 YJAin i AYPAEC pF16A S1c ^ A'.r`ror d 2685kQ —Aic rdMKS'e I�DVCr46�`d46R 51[ •••• ••• LinCUr{AYff4eL'Ol362 Sifc7 ••••••••• LJ0 (AwL go Of 28R Uml Lina (A-5 o(35R521.) YerBu!„ �T. [4.�..T MairketRent`i�' Vie_. - - Sillllof Ih16.Stwvf28Ri14k9. 91ma[38BLI . 5NnOF�{37nR Supply by BR Counr 1000 770 407 3W- 2170 SLO 1975 1985 4906 1987 1966 1969 1990 I992 7565 1996 3000 2001 7607 2010 2014 7015 7617 x018 ■ SWM1 Ol 10A Units ■Srrtn oFINA U fts Sum O14RR Unils Y'W DA. - A.Lvrn Ramal Apamna= I Stack 6eu91aMOW i 25 RATES AND OCCUPANCY REFLECT A HEALTHY MARKET Meyec5 Rental rate trends have Increased over the past 5 years due to a prior lack of supply, The addition of new apartment supply in 2015 has resulted in a slowing of the annual rate Increase. The additional supply has provided a softening of occupancy, however not to a point where rental rates will be adversely impacted. The current market occupancy of 92% reflects some projects currently in the lease up stage. Stabilized projects are experiencing) an average 95% occupancy rate, Historical Rate -Market $1A0 $1fi0 Sti4o a jL20 c SLoo Saaa so.fia i s a ire' a n AEr6ntl —i aed _2 Bed _2 Bed —a ted Relationship of Avg Size to Rate per sqft-Market sLes a � gtlp S1.s5 < Sz-as Boa $0.95 16eJ 2 M 3B d 4aed UWTM _AmrA—May20IMIe Historical Occupancy -Market 98% 9676 94% x 92% c 90% 88% 85% 84% a K d Period Avg Occupaney Album Rental ApanrrgRs I Slack Demootr4m 1 27 Meyers RESEARCH N,:—A ,ErmaC—,—„, Market Demand Analysis Altura Apartments Altura RameFAparvneats ; "Slat+, 28 Meyers DEMAND IS GROWING DUE TO INCREASED SF HOME COST RESEARCH The demand for market rate rental apartments is not isolated to a specific area of Collier County, however, the rental communities within the North Naples planning district are some of the oldest in the county. The demand for rental apartments is based in part on the lack of available supply, resulting in record occupancy of the existing facilities over the past 24 months. Rental apartment demand is a function of population growth and employment. Most of the occupants for rental apartments are single andlor couples, are employed, and vary in age from millennials to baby boomers or from 26 to 66 years of age. The forecast for rental apartment demand starts with a review of the current market status. Data used to support this forecast is based on the US Census Estimates, Economy,cam, the American Community Survey (ACS) housing Summary and the National Multifamily Housing Council. The supporting documentation is included in the addendum of this report. Located below is the calculation of demand for market rate rental apartments in Collier County, with an explanation and support of the forecast on the following slides. A Year B Population C Total Housholds ❑ I Persons perHH E F G I H I I Pct income demand Rental Annual Rental between for Units Rental Households 35K and Market with J K Total Market Current Demand Supply I L M Annual Cumulative Need Demand 2012 332,556 138,755 2.40 2015 357,194 145,194 2.46 15% 21,779 45.0% 9,861 59% 5,782 5,648 134 334 2016 366,095 147,758 2.48 15% 22,164 45.0% 9,974 59% 5,884 5,643 236 371 2017 372,880 151,461 2.46 1595 22,710 45.0% 10,220 62% 6,336 5,944 392 763 2018 379,555 155,186 2.45 15% 23,278 45.0% 10,475 64% 6,704 6,248 456 1,219 2019 389,044 160,550 2.42 15% 24,083 45.0% 10,837 64% 6,936 6,248 688 1,907 2020 399,441 166,195 2.40 15% 24,929 45.0% 11,218 64% 7,180 6,24$ 932 2,538 2021 407,969 171,202 2.38 15% 25,680 45.0% 11,556 64% 7,396 6,248 1,148 3,986 2G22 421,834 176,405 2.39 15% 26,461 45.0% 11,907 64% 7,621 6,248 1,373 5,359 Allure Rental AparmenY I Slew• GevelcvP� r:: . MARKET DEMAND CALCULATIONS Meyers RESEARCH .: � � •rpt The estimate of market rate rental unit demand is based on the relationship between rental unit supply and population. Column B and Column C reflect Population and Household figures as reported by the US Census from 2012 to 2017. The 2418 through 2022 population and household estimates are from the Economy.com forecast, which is reported in the Economic and Demographic Profile section of this report. After a review of the Collier County population projections which are in based on BEBR projections, the consultant adjusted tate 2018-2022 forecast of population and h❑useh❑ld formations down to account for potential future market risk. The adjustment calculations are located in the appendix of this report. Column D is the calculation of the persons per household, a calculation derived by dividing total population by the total households. • Column E is the percentage of households in Collier County thatare identified as reserved for rental. As of the 2018 Demographic and Income Profile, there are a total of 44,317 units in CvllierCounty that are reserved for use as rentals, which represents 2936 of the total units in the county, including seasonal rental units. We have estimated that approximately half of the total rental units or 15% of the total units in the county are rented on an annual basis. • Column F is the estimated number of Rental Households. It is calculated by multiplying Column C (Total Households) by Column E, (the percentage of households that represent annual rentals) • Column G reflects tie percentage of households that have income between $35,040 and $99,000 within the County based on the 2018 Demographic and Income Profile. The households with income in this range are most iikelyto rent apartments in the county. The household income range represents 45'A of the total within the county. • Column H is the estimate of total market rate rental households based on the household income range and is calculated by multiplying Column F by Column G. • Column I reflects the percentage of rental units that have month rental rates between $800 and $2,500 per month. This is obtained from page 2 of the ACS Housing Survey that provides support for the percent of units that In ave rental rates in this range. Based on the 2018 estimate, 64% of the rental units in Collier County have a monthly rental rate between $800 and $2,500 per month. Prior year estimates were 59% and 62%, which is reflected in the prior year calculations. Those units with rental rates below we considered subsidized housing, with those with monthly rates above, typically represent condominiums in superior locations. • Column J is the estimate of total market rate rental households. It is calculated by mulbp ying Column H, (Annual Market Rate Demand) by Cc umn 1, i.the percentage of rentals that have a rental rate consistentwiih market rates from the ACS Housing Survey). • Column K reflects the total market number of market rate rental apartment units in Collier County as of June 30, 2018. This includes the recenJy completed Inspire Rental Community in Lely Resort. Column L is the diference between the Column J, the total demand for market rate rental apartments, and Column K, the supply of market rate rental apartments as of June 30, 2018. This reflects the annual need for market rate rental apartment units. • Column M is the Cumulative number of annual market rata rental units needed until 2022. Based on this analysis, we fa recast that by the end of 2018, there will be demand for an additional 1,208 market rate rental apartment units over the current supply of 6,218 units. The demand is anticipated to grow to a total of 5,375 over the current supply by the and of 2021 Allure Renra Aparimeris I Sto DSvelopner; I ;0 NEW SUPPLY 1S LOCATE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY Meyers RESEARGH In addition to the existing 6,248 market rate rental apartment units, there are currently eight properties with a proposed total of 2,732 units that are in varying stages of completion, or pending approval in Collier County. Assuming all 2,732 units are delivered at their projected delivery year, these units must be subtracted from the estimated demand to reflect the net need for additional market rate apartments units. The eight projects and their estimated delivery dates are below. Total Units 2732 The eight properties are located throughout the county, providing the market with many designs and rental rate opportunities. The estimated delivery date of the projects is based on a review of each properties construction status as in .lune of 2018. It should be noted that not all the projects will be completed on the estimated date. Alkim ReniaMparrne Ms 1 Sind Dzmbamen: 131 Est Delivery Apartment Year Total Units Briarwood Apartments 2018 320 Legacy Naples New Nope Ministries 2018 304 Addison Place 2018 240 Springs at Saba IBay 2019 340 Ave Maria Apts 2419 250 journey's End 2019 483 Pine Ridge Commons 2020 375 Allura 2021 420 Total Units 2732 The eight properties are located throughout the county, providing the market with many designs and rental rate opportunities. The estimated delivery date of the projects is based on a review of each properties construction status as in .lune of 2018. It should be noted that not all the projects will be completed on the estimated date. Alkim ReniaMparrne Ms 1 Sind Dzmbamen: 131 FUTURE PROJECTS ARE IN GOOD LOCATIONS MeyersRESEARCH The geographic distribution of future rental apartments is more diverse as it includes more apartments in the North Naples that have not seen new apartment development in over 15 years. Available land in the south county is diminishing rapidly due to development of for sale product and the environmental constraints to the east. mts . � Irv.. ..... ,....,.. � FAddl;-r. Fi�w- Pine Ridge Cc--Q- Brian" Apartment New; ope Wi-rnsrw :7 Springs am Sable day 'ea Legend 3 1.5 0 3 Miles E FUIUMAPOMMMSiF L H ERE DgL—. "*—A innv j P C.M., r4RCAM- EvIjry . METI. E i Chiu cK-ii K-01. Bs S — C,--.* Alam ReitalApatnw."I 32 Meyers Demand Forecast assumes shift from SF to Rental Apartments RESEARCH ,X—d. Rita P'A' The analysis above indicates an increasing demand for market rate rental apartments in Gooier County. Currently, eight facilities are proposed for a total of 2,732 additional market rate rental apartments that will be added to the current supply to help to satisfy the proposed future demand. Located below is a summary table showing the net demand for market rate rental apartments assuming the delivering of the eight proposed projects. Year Current Supply Annual Cumulative Appraved Need Demand Units Net Demand 2012 2015 5,648 134 134 134 2016 5,648 236 371 371 2017 5,944 392 763 763 2018 6,248 456 1,219 864 355 2019 6248 688 1,907 1073 (30) 2020 6,248 932 2,838 375 526 2021 6,248 1,148 3,986 420 1,254 2022 6,248 1,373 5,359 2,627 Assuming all of the proposed facilities are delivered to the market near the estimated delivery date, by the end of 2022 there will be a need for an additional 2,627 market rate rental units. The increased demand is driven by population growth and corresponding employment, along with an increasing number of semi -retiree and seasonal residents who are electing to rent properties vs buy. The lack of vacant sites with adequate size and functional utility will continue to limit the development of new facilities unless the repurposing of existing facilities are considered alternative sites to help satisfy the future demand. Pura Renta rlparlmerfia f Stack Oew.]Wmani + 33 Meyers RESEARCH xR'—,lr W—Ca ,—m Appendix Allura Apartments Allura Ranrl ApaMu M j stDcR ❑sveloomen; j 3c ACS Market Supply of Rental Units By Monthly Rate Meyers RE5r=ARCH ,t.,.nnsw. �, Prepared by Faris tau-.cvo _ ACS Estimate Peketrt. MDE(3]---ReJla6ility RENTER -OCCUPIED HOUSING UMTS BY CONTRACT RENT Total 37,288 100.0% 1.3611m W tth msh rent 34,768 93.2% 1,263® Less than $100 890.29A Slm $1017 to $149 119 0.3 A $150 to 4199 159 0.4% 69m $200 to $Z49 291 a a% 117M $250 to $299 275 0.7% 1031]3 ;300 to $349 574 1.5%171M $350 to $399 283 0.8% Isom $400 to$449 293 0.8% 122M ;450 to $499 372 1.0% 125[n $509to $549 827 2.2% 236E1] $$59to $599 553 15% 204 ID $600 t. $649 B57 2.4% 2153]] $550to $599 1,144 3.196 269 ] $700 to $749 £,639 4.4% 2543E))i3 $750to $799 1,837 4.941 2673M $800to$899 4,640 12.4% 5631M 4900t.099 4,525 1Z.1% 5940 $1, 000 to 51,249 5,679 15.8% 56offil $F,250 to $1.499 4,371 11.7% 5o5{m $1, 500 to$1,999 3,527 $2,000 to $2,499 1,151 3.1% 2461]] $2,500 to $2,999 394 1.1% 1351]] $3,000 to $3,499 337 0.9% 143E $3,540 or more 605 1.6 187M No cash rent 2,580 6.8% 435[m Median Contract Rent $975 $15p Average Contract Rent $1,117 $ 643] ,dura R4n7n Ap ri mrls j Slo&. iga=kwment [ 35 ESRI Demographic and Income Profile Demographic and Income Profile Collier County, FL --_ Prepared by EsK -- - - --- Co lfier Cc unty, FL(1202d; _-.--� Geog ra phyt County Summary Cel 2010 2018 2023 Population 321,520 366,709 401,866 Households 133,179 152,265 367,090 Famlies 89,276 101,247 110,734 Average Household Size 2.38 7.36 2.39 Own e OCC upied Housing Units 96,159 197,948 122,17.8 Renter Occupied Housing Units 37,020 44,317 41,962 Median Age 46-9 50.2: S1.9 heads: M18 - 2023 Annual Rate Area State National Population 1.859k 1.41% 0.sa% Households 1.86% 1.36% 0.79% Families 1.8196 1.3C% 0.71% Owner HHs 2.50% 1.91% 1.16% Median Household Income 3.351A 2.52% 2.50% 2610 20233 Households by Income Number perceslt Number Pertent -415,000 11,814 7.6% 9,588 5,7% $15,000- $24,999 12,289 811% 10,194 6.19E $25,000 - $34,999 14,985 9.6% 13,361 8.0% ;35,000- 5491999 20,684 13.6% 29,624 12.3% $50,000- $74,999 29,977 19.0% 31,824 19.0% $75,000- $99,999 18,833 12A% 22,394 13.4% $100,000 - $149,999 21,008 13.8% 26,715 16.0% $150,000 - $199,999 8,490 5.61/0 11,115 6.7% $200,000+ 15,185 10.9% 21,275 12.7% Median Huusehotd Income $61,684 $72,747 Average Household Income $97,081 $116,367 Per Capita income $49,758 (46,792 Meyers RESEARCH Acura Reaml Apanmenk [ SIocK ce'Aloomeh: � 36 ESRI Demographic and Income Profile VDemographic and Income Profile F 'Celller County, FL ��Prepared by Fsra Collier County, FL (17021 j Geography: County Summary Census 2010 7018 ZOi3 Population 321,520' 366,709 401,866 Households 133,179 152,265 167,090 Families 89,276 101,247 110,734 Average Household 5¢e 2.38 2.38 2.38 Owner occupied Housing Units 96,159 107,948 122,128 Renter Occupied Housing units 37,020 94,317 47,962 Median Age 46.9 50.Z. 51.9• Trends. 7018 - 2023 Annual Rate Area State NaNaual Population 1.85% 1.41% 0.83% - Households 1.88% 1.36% 0.79% Families l.Rl%. 1.30% 0.71% Owner HH9 2.59% 1,9i% 1.16% Median Household Income 3.35% 2.32% 2.SO% 2018 2023 Households by zacome Number Percent Nulrber Percent 415,000 11,614 7.8% 9,598 5.7% $15,000 - $24,999 1Z,Z89 8.1% 10,194 6.14% $25,000 - $34,999 14,965 9.lrk 13,361 8.0% 535,000 - $49,999 20,684 13.6% 20,624 12.3% $50,OW - $74,999 29,977 19.0% 31,824 19.0% $75,000 - $99,999 18,833 12.4% 22,394 13.4% $100,000 - $149,999 21,008 13.84% 26,715 16.0% 1150,000 - ¢199,999 8,490 5.6% 11,115 6.7% $200,000+ 15,185 10.0% 21,275 12.7% Median Household Income $61,584 $72,747 Average Household Income $97,081 $116,357 Per Capita Income $40,758 $48,792 Meyers RESEARCH Ahura P.enisl "dirnenls I Slob: Dig%loonnem 137 CONSULTANT POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD ADJUSTMENTS Meyers RESEARCH . s:..,,rfr u,5av cry JS Census Houshold Forroattnns 136,755 139,563 Actual 164,692 Forecast 180,426 188,976 Source 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 202, is Census PopulaJon 332,555 339,483 348,216 357,194 366,095 372,880 385,335 399.691 414,603 430,755 447,538 2onsultants Population Est 371,880 379,666 389,044 398,770 408,739 416,914 ,ensus Forecast Annual Change 3.3% 3.79'0 3.7% 3.9% 3.9% ronsu€tants Forecast Annual Change 2.1% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.01Y, JS Census Houshold Forroattnns 136,755 139,563 142,635 145,194 147,758 151,401 157,283 164,692 172,332 180,426 188,976 'onsultants Household Est 151,441 166,186 160,880 166,196 171,202 176,406 3ensus Forecastec Annua l Change 3.9% 47% 4.6% 4-7% 4.7°4 'onsuitants Forec--sed Annual Chane 2.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.0`.0 3.0°/ Anu2 Renrei dp rrmmnLa ! Sin&. ❑evelmr,r ten? 138 APPENDIX Company Experience Meyers Research, a Kennedy Wilson Company, is a nation-wide research firm guiding real estate investors throughout the country, Our highly educated and experienced consulting staff believes in providing the highest quality service possible to our clients, which means completing the exact analysis they need. Based in Beverty Hills, we are home to over 140 experts in 10 offices across the country. Our company offers a unique research tool known as Zonda that offers an edge to our research with easy access real-time data at a local level across the United States. Our local Zonda database provides our team with a history of new and resale housing information, maps, comprehensive data, and many other metrics we use in our analyses to begin the reporting process with greater accuracy — qu[ckly, accurately and cost- effectively — with on the ground and in person research. Zonda provides access to over 275 metrics influencing the housing industry including monthly and annual historical trends, future projections and real-time narrative reported by seasoned analysts across the country. Our senior executive team are thought leaders that individually have more than 3D years of expedenoe in housing and real estate research. With our advisory services, we have navigated builders through different housing cycles and have a deep understanding of local markets. Our consulting team has a broad range of housing expertise and experience spanning the country including consumer research, feasibility studies, portfolio valuation, business planning, and custom research designed to make better decisions related to any real estate investment AAura RerAsl Apafmrenf a l 3redr Gavnlnnman: 1 39 Meyers RESEARCH Zonda and Our Research • Competitive Analysis throughout the Country • Exclusive Access to our Research & ConsuItig Executives • Metro Analysis & Housing Trends • Apartment Analysis & Forecast • Exclusive Client Events • Presentations & Web[nars • Proprietary Surveys Advisory • For -Sate, Apartment, Commercial & Mixed Use • Resort & Intemational Development - Strategic Direction & Planning • HomeBuil der OperatiDns Assmi-rant • Demand Analysis • Consumer Research & Focus Groups • Custom Economic AnaWs & Forecasting + Litigation Support & Expert Witness • Financial Modeling • Project & Product Positioning Consumer and Product Strategy • Consumer and Product Insights - Tactical and Marketing Strategies • Product Design Advisory • Custom Consumer Research - Customer Shop Research AAura RerAsl Apafmrenf a l 3redr Gavnlnnman: 1 39 This analysis was Drepared by Meyers Research, LLC, a Kennedy Wilson company. Meyers RESEARCH a A:"" dy IVV,v4 c:w /gw Thank you! Alvra Ro"I .l0ertrn3nfs f Stack ro"1Qpmv, ! 40 0 i. I r 4, its si 'got AXIOMETRICS� d RealPage company t 1 Th �l 1 t 14 � 1, AXIOMETRICS� � Is it #� I'�lI��N i !� a RealPage company Ito am i� �all TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY......................................................................................................I.... 'I PropertySummary...... ............................................................................................................ 1 Naples Metro Area Apartment Market Summary .................................................................... 1 UnitMix Analysis ,... _ ............................................................................................................. 2 RentRecommendation...................................................................................................---._... 2 AbsorptionRate..........................................................................................................._._.... 3 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 4 NAPLESMARKET.................................................................................................................... 5 Naples Submarket Apartment Market Fundamentals.............................................................. 6 Supplyand Demand... .......... .................................................... ........................................ 7 Occupancyand Rent Growth............................................................................................. 9 Occupancy and Rent Growth by Class..............................................................................10 Occupancyand by Bed Type............................................................................................11 NewSupply ..................................................---................................................................._ 13 Lease -Up Performance............................................................ ......................................... 14 Naples Submarket Apartment Cycle ................................ .................................................. 15 Pipeline-. Under Construction/Planned...................................................................................17 Under Construction or Planned....................................,....................................................17 NaplesFundamentai drivers.................................................................................................19 Employment......................................................................................................................19 Employmentby Industry ................... ..... ........... ................................................................. 21 TopEmployers.. ........................................... •--..........................................................-.---..22 Population Characteristics and Growth..............................................................................23 Households................................................................................................. .28 HouseholdIncome............................................................................................................30 PROJECT ANALYSIS: LIVINGSTON ROAD...........................................................................32 Propertysummary.................................................................................................................32 PropertyLocation . ...... __...................................................................................................32 Property Characteristics . .... ...................................................................................... ...__.33 Comparable Properties and Analysis.....................................................................................33 UnitMix.............................................................................................................................35 ComparablesDescriptions............................................................................................._36 CommunityAmenities............................................................................................................40 InteriorAmenities..................................................................................................................41 Subject Unit Mix and Pricing Summary ..............................................................................,...42 Reasonabilityof Rents...........................................................................................................42 Household Income and Ability to Pay....................................................................................46 Leasing Schedule Summary..................................................................................................48 Summary Evaluation of the Project........................................................................................50 Disclaimer Notice All advice, consultations, queries, data, forecasts and reports (collectively referred to as the "Reports') provided herein are prepared from data believed reliable without verification or investigation and are not guaranteed or warranted by Axiometrics, a RealPage company, its directors, officers, employees, and contractors and do not purport to be complete or error free or useful for any purpose. While great care has been taken to ensure accuracy, the facts and opinions contained herein are not guaranteed or warranted to be complete or error free or useful for any purpose. The opinions expressed in such information are subject to change without notice. Axiometrics, a RealPage company, its directors, officers. employees, and contractors assume no liability for or from its advice, consultations, queries, and reports provided HEREIN. Please use such information at your own risk. Et LI! ` AXIOMETRICSOMi E. ��_"�; „n ,,., Ufi a RealAage company � 1111 W1El11 i i St ' 'y� �y°■ , iNll9 :� , ! r.�� 1�� 1a If t�� - F S+� Iilpt « e 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 2621. The development is recommended to feature 320 apartment units encompassing 328,346 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 lop 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, Axiomelrics' 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. JlI Kr AxIG ITT;I1 ! IV " i ull.d :: 1! AXIOMETRICS■,��'01.144` ;ter sit ' Ih1.R 11. a Realfte cnmparry F �� f fill i ll �!I �.m [ 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 Unit Cornparables Average SQFT Mix Subject Average SQFT Mix IBR 812 35% B39 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 tap -of -market fit and finish elements and features that will position s IRirli , II AXIOMETRICSO { �,� < , .� 4. 111 /.. li,: � As r �lIBM! ,l�}INI , !, 11! a Reaftge company:1 � � ° ,IIS : < e 1 Ji. liii lid' i!!;Y! iA 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) •� i i �i . fit � :,; Wi.{ i ��i ii it � r.r ' t ,�llil�� AXIOMETRICSO j'�ii iii it �s x y lit! hill a Realpage companyit is [in AN If 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 Maples 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. s iiir - % IFi�t 4f ! '� F Ilii IES AXIOMETRICS ��irig a RealPage company lie9.1-1 � �Ill!lt I11EE -I N JE1 { f . -, 11 1 IIEE NAPLES MARKET 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 (Fart 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 10111111 4 _17 Til 11(f AXIOMETRICS510 ept a RealPage company is I: -{t #� r��l<<' =l Iii 11'§11 I -- -- - -■REQ.■.� s ., �A to, K ( r ZEN 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 homeowner&ip 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 Napies' $1,380. Naples Submarket Apartment Market Fundamentals The table below summarizes the apartment fundamentafs for the Naples submarket. 1996 52,276 1997 54,503 7 727 4,130 9n 81% $ 726 it.0 % $ 659 (10% 5,973 959% 78 59). 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 5B,997 2,9D4 2,659 921% $ B00 4_1% $ 737 5.6% 5,214 44.0% 43.7A 5.2% 3.8 4.30% 359 2000 61,428 2,441 3,349 92,4% S 620 2.5% $ 757 2.8% 5,432 47,6% 56.7% 4.1% 7.4 7.9% 188 2001 64 020 2,592 2,614 928% $ 844 29% $ 783 3 3% 5,193 48.1% 59 3% 42% 52 51% 214 2002 65,758 2,738 29 90.8% S 650 0.8% S 772 -1.4% 6,075 496% 1.4% 4.3% 4.4 4.1% 3 2003 68,645 1,887 619 88.0°% $ B42 -1.0% $ 741 -4.0% 8,346 55.0°% 17.7% 2,8% 42 3.8% 50 2004 70,475 1,830 5,224 92,6% $ 902 7.1% $ 635 12,7% 6,492 518% 51.3% 2.7% 70 6.1°% 214 2005 72,285 1,810 3,633 95.4% $1,000 10.90/6 $ 954 14.2% 4,243 48.99'° 40.5% 26% 8.0 6.5% 163 20G6 73,769 1,484 (2,337) 93.5% $1,083 8.2% $1,013 8,2% 4,173 41,8% 142,1% 2.1% 4.4 3.4°% (163) 2007 74,589 920 (7,815) 85,5% $ 991 -8.5% $ 847 -16.4% 8,867 44.0% 73.8% 1.2% (6.3) 43% 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% (118) 2009 75,599 165 2,629 87.1% $ 631 -7.9% S 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 32% 233 2011 76,159 371 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% $ 92.2 19.8% 2,953 35.6% 42.9% 0.4% 3,0 2,69/ 116 2013 76,627 391 886 97.1% $1,029 7]°% $ 999 8.3% 2,450 35.51A 54.2% 0.2% 6.3 5.2% 52 2014 77,335 708 804 97,2% $1.145 11.3% $ 1,113 114% 2,346 37.9% 48.4% 0.9% 6.8 5.4% 36 2015 78,203 868 826 97.1% $1,291 12.6°% $ 1,254 12.7°% 2,428 44.9°% 37.3°% 1.1% 6,8 5,1% 38 2016 76,740 537 (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) 938% $1,380 18% $ 1,295 -01% 4.796 53 5°% -673°% 10% 2.5 1.5% (43) 2018F 80,104 600 1,405 94.6% $1,418 2.8% $ 1,341 3.6% 4,706 52.9°1 51.6% 08°% 3.4 2.3% 167 2019F 80,634 530 1.310 957% $1.472 3 8% $1.40 5 0% 3,765 490% 49 6% D7% 38 2.5°% 1" 202OF 82,005 1,371 824 95.5% $1,514 2.9% 51,445 2.6% 3,913 52.5% 54.1°% 1.7% 2.0 1.3% 104 2021F 82,960 1375 1,G77 90.0% $1,572 3.9% $ 1,509 4.5% 3,722 40.9% 93.2% 1.2% 4.0 2.5% 2211 2022F 84,261 1,02.1 1.231 9551/. $1.627 44% $ 1.553 5 0% 4217 457% 45 8% 1 2°A 32 20% 158 s a`hIn t1� " , AXIOMETRICS a RL-OaW comparry■ll�iiia�in #��S e 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. 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 -2,000 -4,000 -6,000 -8,000 Submarket Supply and Demand n New Supply � Demand -Occ Rate N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 2 V m f�0 O W A Cali M 0 W (0 o N W A M ❑1 4 W W o Sources: Axiometrics, a RealPage company, Census 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 813% 86% 84% 82% 80% 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. r— �� Ell AXIOMETRICSwl t 11 --t 144'.: NNi!1[a RealPage compartyr �_��{t1. IL I r4e t i! 60% 50% —q 40% Q a 30% 0 20% 10% Submarket Share of Metro Absorption and Available Supply —% of Metro Available _ % Metra Abs 200% 150% 100% IS, EL N 50% o_ 0% 50% 0% -100% N N N N N N N N N N IQ N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O P O_ P P_ P P P P o_ O_ O_ 0 a O cfl [O iD O O O O O o C3 O o o N N N V cp P N W A M O7 J W � O -+ N W A 0 W V CO �➢ 0 N source: Axiometrics, a RealPage company -rt 7 _n T � 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 (4017) 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. ® i i►*i_�f �L,r 51 "W a >j Ilii' i AXIOMETRICS ; . { a: ;!i r# �= i:a si 1i"- r �,'!i fll IIIr! i a RealPa company i I.. BION Y :iW 1 �r rs !i4 •rwYfs s �. tt �: 1'�!!r kr lie Occupancy and Rent Growth 100% 95% 90% 85% 8D% 75% 70% Submarket Occupancy and Rent Growth 0ac Rate Eff RG ip to c4 a s a oooaaaoaaaoaooooaa o o N v� V W +n o iV W A U1 0) V W +D D Source: kdometrics, a Real Page company -" " -n -r -" 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 4,004 units but average effective rents declining by 8.9%. The next few years saw similar demand/supply performances, but rents bottomed out in 2009-2010 and grew by healthy levels, averaging 7.3%, from 2011-2013. Occupancy plateaued at a nearly full average of 97.2% from 2013-2015, while rent growth hit 12.7% in 2015. The net move -outs in 2016-2017 dropped the occupancy rate to 93.8% by 2017 and annual rent growth dropped to 1.8%. Three-year and five-year average occupancy is forecast to be 95.2% and 95.4%, respectively as the market returns to a growth mode. Axiometrics forecasts rent growth in the Naples submarket to ramp up slowly to more moderate levels by 2019, with 2.8% annual effective rent growth in 2018, 3.8% in 2019. It will slow to 2.9% in 2020 before climbing to 3.9% in 2021 and 4.4% in 2022. Three-year and five-year rent growth is forecast to average 3.1 % and 3.5%, respectively. AXIOMETRICS 0 a RealPage wmparry r 250 200 150 W a 100 5o 0 -50 Submarket vs. Metro: Occupancy and Rent Growth -Submkt Minus Metro RG (Bps.) -Submkt Minus Metro 0 c (Bps.) -100 mmN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o a o 0 0 to fo 0 O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 N N N N W A 0 0 —1 W CD fn M V M (P P N Source: Axiometrics, a RealPage company m -" m 7 T 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. 10 i�lE �CII.l� AXIOMETRICS _ �� i AI { aRealPage mparry ' fn1E:'refill, tp _alt'�i�i�r!"� IIS lair -W +l1a rE R 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 18R —2BR - -- -3BR 92% ■ — I_ -- `,,-- 90 % BB%a 86% 0 400 0 L] A 0 O A D D A fJ 2 D 0 £] LD v 0 o o Q 0 0 A 0 0 W A N W A N W A N W A N W A W A N W A -� N W A O P O O j s i N N N N W W W W A .P A A L" U! 0 0 M O M M -4 V- N Source: Axiametdcs, a RealPage company Revenue Growth 16% 14% 12% i0% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% -10% -12% -14% -16% -18% Submarket Revenue Growth _ _ s Rev Growth lAvg Revenue Growth Avg Revenue Growth In Positive Years N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d 0d d b q a o O 0 o d d d d d d o O D O O d �O Q 4 4 a o o O O O O rn V m 0 O y N W AM 67 V m T O til 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 2002-2403. 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°/c in 2007, and fell an additional 12,6%'[n 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 fent 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. 12 :y � �;'��';~ i �r�� • tl a �� . !!e aK�Ll: AXIOM�� 3l I '1to a fiealPage comparry „ it o New Supply 3,500 3.000 2,500 2,000 1.500 1,000 500 0 Submarket New Supply New Supply -LTA New Supply -Inv Growth N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N [O [O co o a O D D o 0 o O 9 4 0 0 0 D O O o 0 o G C O [D Co O O O C] p O O 0 O to N j N _4 �j W Ip O N W A CT V W to O s N L] A (71 d] V m -n N T -n �l 71 "il Tl Sources: Axiometrics, a RealPap company, Census 6% 4% 2% 0% 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. Submarket New Supply and Job Growth New Supply Job Growth 3,500 14.0% 8.0°/a 3,000 6.0% 2,500 4.0% 10% 2,000 0.0% 1,500 - -2.0% 1,000 -4.0% -8.0% 500 - -40%a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 10 c0 �D a v v b G O o O O O v C v v v 4 Q O o o O v W o O O O A W M o nW W O rQ o N Sources: Axiometrics, Census, BLS -n 71 _U Residential demand is driven by employment growth and, generally, new supply is a response to increased demand. As seen in the chart above, new supply in the Naples submarket slowed and nearly halted during times of weak to negative employment growth, usually after about a two-year lag. This lag allows the construction pipeline to clear, but it creates pent-up demand over time when the economy recovers. As the Naples economy improved and job growth resumed after each downturn, new multifamily development returned. Constraints in the lending environment, limited land availability and developers' caution shou[d rein in reckless development in the next few years, mitigating the possibility of overbuilding. Lease -Up Performa»ce An average of 28 units per month have been absorbed during initial lease -up of projects completed in 2614 through August 2416 in the Naples submarket. Despite limited new supply growth, strong rent growth can dampen leasing enthusiasm in the short term. 14 AXIOMETRICSIre; a RealPage camparry �. 5 �: 1 rr It5� r�! 1! ■■ 1� itIt s 11 Hill I •, O. p -y 9-d. Tale U h Mar 14 21.6% 4(14 24.5% May 14 34.0°% Jun 14 39.Vd JVJ 14 5001h Naples AUD 14 61.0% Submarket Sap 14 05.0% Ocz 14 77.3% Noy 14 88.0% Rt? 16 24.8% A@F 16 30.5% Apr 15 57.5:: fAay 16 56.0% Jun 16 87.0% JW 16 844% A. -A Sri" A6smpban P1W a 25 14 30 30 66 -2t 61 24 16 65 12 25 49 23 Ab..FA.n Rale Per Roperty Pc NM2s8 26 14 30 3a 66 (21) 61 24 15 65 12 25 49 23 A:kN FWL $1250 $1252 51252 $1226 $1229 $1259 $1203 $1241 $1233 $1554 S1651 51650 St689 $1662 $1662 S1669 As kg fad P. Sguxe Faf $1.10 $1,10 $1.10 $1.08 $1.98 $1.11 51.13 $1.09 $1.09 S1A5 $1.55 $1.% SIS% $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 Asbg Fb" 4k -1h 0.1% 0.0% -1.9% 0.1% 24% 1R% .33% -06'6 83% 03% 07% DA% 0.0% DA?5 E.W. RLL $1250 $I= $5202 $1176 $1204 $1244 $125a $1241 $1233 $1556 41653 51656 V669 51682 $1662 St669 LvKt7e Idyl Fla Square Po01 $1.10 $1.06 54.08 $1.04 31.06 $1.08 $1.11 $1,09 $1.09 $1.45 $1.56 $1.55 $1.56 $1.55 $1.55 $1.56 W -W. WnL4G h -3.9% 0.0% -7.0% 2.2% 3.0% 1-5% .13% 46% 83% 03% 07% •0496 0.091 OA% 6}rres .Vay. $00 (550.0) ($50.0) ($50.0) (529.0) {SISA) X525.01 $0.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 $0.0 30-4 $0.G S0.0 Cms-w Vakx as °; d As Yig Pwi 0A4 dA% 4-1-A -2.0% -1.5% -1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% G.0% 0.016 0.0% 0.0% 00% 0.0% Naples Submarket Apartment Cycle Expansion p„�t3u '051' 11 f' 121' 131'14! pp 191'21 15 ■ 18 ■ .'Ofil'161'22 '20 '17 a.6% Equilibrium '0s '491'10 '07 Recovery Contraction The Axiometrics Apartment Market Cycle Model is a purely objective graphical representation of where a market is in the real estate cycle in a given year. Based on apartment market supply/demand conditions and drivers, the market is assigned a position along the cycle curve falling into one of four quadrants (see graphic above); Recovery (blue line), Expansion (green line), Oversupply (yellow line) and Contraction (red line). 15 AXIOMETRICS `� 'BPI `,` a Reatpage company stVVIL ; its kt I go, H9 fill 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 _J Rfo 1 11.11 11 ,,.' ,■ ,,r r,r • !a�pr t!li.. III tn1 sm I na fAXIOMETRICS 411 a RealPage company it' t !, ! 'lilEi tll111Raj 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 Pk)orwd a Undar [oWruStlon NpOlinO LLga -V Naples li iktila,wtams u1 tial ra al l e ly Resort 0 VlneE-11 14n Vl lldq_ e 0 Jotrmey's End Vnli. 1!•J ■ ■ -8166066 NO 111 bre Mono lake rK, uC s93 3G�JiesidehSFal ' 304 slx,ngs at (Jor [ aast sntu� -81.69221 E fJurlhPnln; [kwrialxr+, 1tEgMti[roSi,ltg5 M lot uc u ■ C hl"Sah "., oak( reek • OHomna rx, I1xiGt. P 5ublecto 26.13967 ` Vincentian Village AdOIsom P14ce -81.72069 LLga -V Naples li iktila,wtams u1 tial ra al l e ly Resort 0 VlneE-11 14n Vl lldq_ e 0 Jotrmey's End 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. 17 UC ■ ■ -8166066 ■ 26.11905298 rt Maples uC -81-70415 26-1078 304 P -81.69221 26.04725 483 uc -81.69144 26.27538eacaes 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 Residentiai uc -81.93297 26,4959 224 S rin s at Gulf Coast UIL -81.77402 26.44018 203 Greystone Lake P-81.78363 26-49287 300 Subject P 61.761611 1 26.301769 1 320 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. 17 F il7r B 11 ISN �� tfJ� �� 11 1T M lip I AXIOMETRICS� �:1,.,M AIN a RealPage cnmpaRy�a'��[�]� �A 360 Residential is developing a 224 -unit apartment community in Fort Myers featuring four, four- story buildings with elevators and garage parking. The community will also offer such amenities as: a salt water pool with tanning ledges, water features, chaise lounges, grilling stations, a fire pit and a 24-hour fitness center. First units are expected to deliver in the summer of 2018, with a completion date of February 2019. No preliminary lease rates have been determined to date but if it leases at close to its sister community (Aster at Lely Resort), it should be in the $1.50-$1.60 per square foot range. Stock Development's 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. i F ■— , fill AXIOMETRICS� loIt r1 N � �';, � ��i�1�� I� 1�' !! g �� e r 1 ' a Reaftge company .__ x:1 1 F be i1 sig 6 b .Rlli ..,tum I. it 11 Ill .r 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 Coilier 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 8.0 3.0 (2.0) Naples Job Gain and Growth Job Gain ('000) Job Growth (%) 8.0% 3.0% -2.0% -7.0% (12.0) -iz.ar A A A A A A A P A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A g n n❑ n❑ fl❑❑❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Y i-+ F+ F• .� V CO �D o +.i w a in m .l m 1e o w .• n, w a in a) v M oo .n o N v Sources: Axiometrics, a RealPage company, BLS 12A% 11.0% 10.0°% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 610% 5.0% 4.0°% 3.09, 2.0% U.S., Florida, & Naples Unemployment Rates W W W W W W W 1-- H H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Z �D u7 W w IO W to lG to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 CCD o 0 0 0 0 0 F- F' W W F C 0 W N w 4' Ln ❑1 V 00 kO O F-' N w ,P- [n Q] V cO LO n H N w A In In H V Sources: Axiometrics, a RealPage company, RLS ® t �s7ru� kl" AXIOMETRICS �� f,,: �� # ;Ito a RealPa oDmaarry � t �' 9e i 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 regi 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. Other Sere 6.5% Leisure and Hospitality, 18.7% LULl. o ncaiiii Activities, 15,0% Naples MSA Industry Mix Mining & Government, Construction, 9,3% 11.5% iufacturing, 2.8% Trade, Trans. & Utilities, 18.6% nformation, 1.1% =inancial witles, 5.546 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. 21 AXIOMETRICS� a RealPage romparry o Top Employers The following table lists the top 50 major employers in Collier County. Collier County - Largest Em 1 Collier County Public Schools 7,041 Education 2 NCH Healthcare System 4,000 Medical / Healthcare 3 Publix Supermarkets 2,021 Grocery Chain 4 Ritt-Carlton Naples 1,100 Hospitality 5 Garquilo Produce 1,100 Agriculture 6 ArthreK Inc. 1,056 Medical/Healthcare 7 Collier County Sheriff's Office 1,029 Safety 8 Comcast 994 Telecommunications 9 Hope HealthCare Services 880 Healthcare 10 City of Fart 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 marry in the region, with more than 6,400 employees among the top 15 employers_ White Collar occupations 22 rozawra.c.n.,,<. _n,i- 91,187 1l WZ71 M to 3pj 14SIu54i � S!Mln 1-7,1p3 �— ]r `�isili.11 ,1 - {h RN 111' s11n�f' : i fi1!AXIOMETRIS Ftk1� IN a :i{'.�:3!''3'jz^...�•;:3^•; z �" i! I l i s11 9 11'•' ��.• .411 Ixi, �k� w� kl[fit, 1 ' [ 111111 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 populations 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). 23 3 - tit: :L fail! � iii 1 1 1 ' J AXIOMETRICSIn a ReatPap company i�� i � I�ddILK Population Naples MSA Population & Growth Population -°! Change 440,4x0 16.00% 354,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1111111111111�� NN W W W W YHHN H N HN1+NH F+YYV-`YF' YYYYY F+M1 NN NN N NNNNN N NNNNN �w�n�D �9 �p W W �A�Lm � IC�tC10�G to �D1D�D�V7 ��b�D b bbbbb 004000O0obb rW�wa"rn H N W A LJ� Ql V W �G N N Sources: Aulometrics, a Real?age company, Census Bureau 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8,00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 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°/x-2.2% over the next four years, adding another 38,600 residents, for a metra 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 Five-YearProjottod Population Gravlth Pato i ftPOW1M prnrth M l0;7•=W i 1E.230ta •1.7.70 1.3P6 to 0.70 o.oa�o•uo .btpSa S }10 5.716t67i0.OW 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 20,006 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 -roomer and Gen -X populations, however, will have an effect on mousing preferences of the overall population in the coming years - AXIOMETRICS® � Realpage com�rry �,. 26 Population by Age Group Comparison 80% ■ Naples 2016 U.5,2016 ♦ Naples 2465 `. U.S. 2005 /l A 6.0% — s,C% A 4.0% 3.0% 2,096 2.o°.6 0.0% 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 3S 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 - -IIE V-7 MM I'l-jsW l tl l! s. v i Dcl! IIIA �� ® � =,i� Til : ,1 � kirk � i��i ! �� ! nil. �. AXIOMETRICS M- in, �:,�; „� Ii ; �. tl!!I �I �� Ii !� 111 :, � IN ��Nil a RPaIPa company ; 'IfN ,.VIII !! !'.' fig n 111 .� [ �� 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 Mcldian Ago Educational Attainment 2011 044 (Mlit"I N O.00 to 11.00 .t iJ'4eoyr.lo 38_IQ W ALIO d 41.701.46 10 ae lot. 05. lO 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. 27 AXIOMETRICS� It 1m Jill ,i 1 �H a Realpage companyn is s, r +� , Ir !Ea Jul 114 All" 40i1 [ Educational Attainment 30,096 Naples MUS. 25.0% 2o.arA 15.0% 10.0°% s.o1,s ' 111111111111 ao% 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. Rentor Occupied Units i Household Tenure ■ Naples Owner ■ U.S. Owner ■ Naples Renter ■ U.S, Renter 30.00/6 25.0°,6 20.0% 15.0% 1010% 5.0°% 0.0% —� I 15 to 24 25 to 34 years years 29 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 64 to 64 years years years years Sources: Axiametrics, a RealPage company, Census Bureau 2012 /MSc 0KNP41 NIW dn/ untt. oNrn J*u tru urnlhs ]h91n7?". 11111111 65 to 74 75 and over years r,7 ' p 1� � 'b 11 lid AXIOMETRICS � ° , ;� ;� rnrnparry, itj■Wjggq ,7A 11 Ito it .ag 131E s •IMI It:. ! ! 1�il1 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 $69,228 during 2016, and income has grown by an annual average of 3.1 % in the past three years. Healthy household income growth becomes an important indicator for apartment revenue growth. Historically, income and revenue growth have lead/lag relationships - Median Household Income uIw :IO,OOD I O.Ow uyid, 1170 it F4 -I m u "400 O fikWa 10 Si 200 ■& MwsaLW 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 74 l top AXIOMETRICS ')r,Ir,;3r r Y r41:i�� !i q +�ili� ■ Gln c1 !i ' �1lltl t ill r1 41 ! !II A Household Income 14.0% ■ Naples ■ U.$. 12.0% 10.0% 8.0°% 6.a°% 4.0°/. 2.0% ac ti° 0�° do �° �° �° �° �° �° �o ti h ��r o� yip a� hod D � h� oda o hoQo oh ss. y�o 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. 31 11,111 oil 11 'll AXIOMETRICS �� _t.: , a Realpage company r- �! nil:srla� x• �'.'1;i1 it R I 1 ' e ! 7� PROJECT ANALYSIS: LIVINGSTON ROAD Property Summary 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 Immokaiee 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 BIvd 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 32 AXIOMETRICS ii� r:, lr� 1 �� l! # ��■■■ u � ►ul I I{r q a Realpage comparry . I-r�� Epi lid Ile xlt: Mapt �� tE 1 tilYl , Jill 1 �1 and Delasol subdivisions. Homes in these two subdivisions run from $400,000-$800,000. Neighborhood Scout states that the median real estate price in the area is $458,455, greater than 68% of the neighborhoods in Florida. The average rental cost (of all types) is $1,580 and roughly 23% of the housing inventory is seasonally occupied. The subject will draw residents from both the immediate and adjacent areas surrounding the site, as well as from outside the Naples metro. Property Characteristics The Subject is a planned four -level, multi -building, multifamily development featuring a recommended 320 apartments. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin about January 2020 and finish in January 2021. The unit mix is recommended to consist of 144 one -bedroom units (45%), 144 two-bedroom units (45%) and 32 three-bedroom units (101%). 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 10,400 sf clubhouse with recommended features including state of the art fitness center with premium equipment and (recommended) towel service, yogalspin 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, winelbeverage 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 was}, 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, agelquality, 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. 33 Community Year Built Comparables Total Units Table Size Ra ngelAvg Size Ave Ell Rent Ave Eff RentISQFT 1 hdr 2bdr 3bdr 4hdr 812-1,388 108 126 48 Orchid Run 2016 282 1,070 $1.948 $1,82 38% 45% 17% 758-1,397 96 120 24 Addison Place' 2018 240 954 $1,738 $1.82 40% 50% 10% 784-1.348 88 168 48 Inspira at Lely Resold 2018 304 1,051 $1,862 $1.77 29% 550A 16% 821-1,435 126 158 24u Aster atLefyResort 2018 308 1,036 $1,701 $1.54 41°/0 51Ja c - 8/a 759-1,617 118 152 74 12 YGMMalil7uLakes 2003 356 1.047 $1,672 $1.60 33% 43% 21% 3% 700-1,307 108 180 36 Spectra 2Q17 324 993 $1.571 $1.58 33/0 56/0 11% 895-1,313 83 163 27 Sierra Grande at Naples 2014 273 1,135 $1,721 $1.52 30% 60% 10% +r1,067 281 2014 20870• I-Wingston Road i 775-1,355 1.026 + 450A 45% 10% Upon completion, the Subject will be the most luxurious apartment community in the Naples/Fort Myers area with little to no pure competition among the existing apartment market. Orchid Run is considered the closest existing comparable to the Subject as it commands some of the highest rents in the Naples market. The Subject will, however have a more centralized location between Naples and Fort Myers and access to some of the best schools in the Naples area. Additionally, Livingston Road will feature premium amenities and finish beyond that of Orchid Run. A selection of apartment communities were selected as rent comparables for the Subject despite their differences in age, location, amenities, and rent levels. The properties selected were all built after 2002 and achieved average rent per square foot levels of at least $1.50. The numbers of units in each of the Subject's rent comparables ranges from 240 at Addison Place to 356 at TGM Malibu Lakes. The Subject is recommended to have 320 units. The oldest comparable (TGM Malibu Lakes) was built in 2003, while the newest is Addison Place, which is currently under construction and not yet leasing. Completion is expected in 2419 for this property. Average unit sizes per complex per unit ranged from 951 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 1,442 square feet. All comparable projects have a unit mix somewhat similar to Livingston Road Apartments with one-, two- and three-bedroom units, but no studios {TGM Malibu Lakes includes four-bedroom units in its mix). The Subject's overall recommended average unit 34 AXIOMETRICS� j rM ;�I It r, 1, f F410 I00 11: s+ 1Lji �pill 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'. Unit Comparables Average SQFY Mx Average SOFT Mix 1 BR 812 35% 839 45% 2BR 1,113 51% 1,140 45% 38R 1,340 13% 1,355 101110 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. 35 ! SIMCtra',.> ,ry C u Addison mace 0 TGNI Malft Lakes W arddd R W r Sierra Grarmrle at wples lfmpu rd at telt' Resort Aster at telt' Re.arl Comparables Descriptions Orchid Run • Year Built: 2015 • 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 Ins ira at Lely Resort 7486 Grand Lely Dr Naples 304 Addison Place Immokalee and Collier Naples 240 Orchid Run 10091 Last Lake Dr Naples 282 Aster at Lely Resort 8120 Acacia St Naples 308 TGM Malibu Lakes 2115 Malibu Lake Cir Naples 356 Spectra 15500 Spectra Cir Fort Myers 1 324 Sierra Grande at Naples 16975 Sierra Club Cir Naples 1 273 Subject IlLivingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd Naples 1 320 Comparables Descriptions Orchid Run • Year Built: 2015 • 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 AXIOMETRICSZ�.c i. �i�� ;s i 't. "•, :�� Its �� !!"!1 pll� !!, !! � �.H �� !i ori �•.+ rA !� �! � r a RealPage company�'�l� �r i !t b y • nl�} , 1 l Opt 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 Maples 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 yogalwellness 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 37 • 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 cafe, 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 VVi-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 the 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 ficorplans offer a separate shower as well as a bathtub in the master bedroom. The rest of the floor plans have showerltub 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 n '! silie 111. s4� �T guilfil€l.. Row - 1P. ' fr T-4 :I romrkr AXIOMETRICSO ;, !� ss�:: fl I��!!!t i� y! 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 2417 and is in the final stages of initial lease -up. Built by Stack Development, Spectra is managed by Greystar. Although located near the more affordable properties in the Fort Myers area, it is indicative of the newer construction and amenities in the marketplace. Community amenities include resort -style pool and hot tub, cabanas, fire pit, a dog park, playground, tennis court, nature trail, and a sundeck with lounge and grilling areas. The fitness center features weight training, cardio stations, and a yoga studio. The property has controlled access gates for security. In -unit amenities include granite counters, vinyl wood flooring, stainless steel appliances, kitchen isfands, shaker -style cabinets, oval tubs, full-size washers and dryers, and ceiling fans. Parking options include surface parking and detached garages. Addison Place and Inspira at Lely were described in the Pipeline section on page 17 39 —Y BRINIIf � � I I # r a► a °�� its Ir�tY Ilq !!! AXIOMETRICS � i�' �` IrF ne I' lit" 0 I'. � u �, ` ,� ,� �. , � � � a Rea#Page company x IC��;i .q J! n H Community Amenities The tables below show community amenities for the comparables and Subject e Pa n!Ga ❑etas age ]50 195 165 r+ - Attachea 21r] 150 S Visitor Recommen e Y Y Y Y a et gtaragePro a res Cluh House Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r+ Business Center Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y E evator cress Recommended Y Y Controlled Access Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Le sure Recreation Yardarcl Poo r Resort Style Pool Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Spa/HotTub Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r� . Cabanas Recommended Y V Y Y Fire Pit Recommended Y Y Y Sports F tness Fitness Center Recommen ed Y Y Y Y V Y Fitness Programs Recommen e Towel Service Recommended Y Tennis Bas etba ICpurt Recommen ed Y Y Y Y oga Pi ates Spm Room Recommended Y Y Y Y Bocce Pick eball Recommended Y Soci al Area Acti vitles Game roam Recommen e Y Y Y Media meater Recommer+ded Y Y Y Y Wine Storage Recommen357 Y PEzyground RecornmEncled Picnic Area/BBQ Gri Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y V Per Conven ence metfIV communily Wide Wi-Fi , Wi-F1 Hot5pot5 Recommen e Y Y Y Y Y Y Security 24 Hr Maintenance Recommen e Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Security 66ard onsite Trash Vaet Trash Recommen e Y Recycl ing Center Recommende 0t er Coffee Bar Lounge Recommended Y Y Y - OrWash Recommerl e Y Pet Play Area Recommen e Y Y V Y Y ets Al I owed Recommended++ 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. 1 40 1 oil .Its 111'! + -'I ::iAXIOMETRICS if a ReafPage comparry !U1 IE Got Interior Amenities The table below shows interior amenities for comparables and the Subject. M., , - . Laundry Washer/Dryer Recommended Y YY Y Y Y Y W/DConneciions Y Y Y Y Y Y Kitchen Dishwasher Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y +� Gas Range +' Electric Range Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ++'- Granite/quartxCountertops Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Itemaker Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Island Microwave Recommended Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ++'- WineCooler/Fridge Recommended +' Nook Recommended Y Y Pantry Self Cleaning Oven I Recommended Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y V Y Y Y ++'. Y r+' Stainless Steel Appliances Recommended Y Y Y Y All White Appliances r Black on Black Appliances Y Y Y Bathroam Private Bathroom Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Double Vanities Recommended Y Y Y Y Garden Tub/Roman Tub Separate Shower Recommended Recommended Y Y Y Y Y V Elechonie Media Features Prewired Intrusion Alarm Recommended Y Y Y intrusion Alarm monitoring t Structural Features Ceiling Fans Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y +r', Crown Molding Recommended r PatioJBalcoay/Lanais Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r r Track Lighting Recommended Y Y Y Y Walk-in Closets Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r r' 9 Foot Cellin s Y Y Y Y Y Y 10FOotcellings Floor to Ceiling Windows Recommended Y r Floorin Wood (vinyl) Recommended Y Y Y Y Y Y Ceramic Me Y Y Berber Ca et l• Recommended Y r. Y 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 •If i ff 1 t{ ` - aAXIOMETRICSO It�41 C a ReaiPa cam EIS 11 Ini 1� Rill 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. 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 $1.95 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 2420 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 andfor 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 ►!Ultiyr, r�;i �• 1• AXIOMETRICS "all aRealPagecomparry �'4i :n � �� i1 Ito •,•�'t.,ri [tx t 1 !1 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 toot 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 • i � . Ali Sub[c<t sr.iu Orchid Rtm till --_- _ Inspira atlefy Imp i ra at Lely Addison Pia{e - - Orchid Rim pr[hld Run N Insp lr_A8t Lely_ lu $1.90 Sprrtra OrtTtldRwl Spectra Inspira at Lely - - _prrhld Ruu Uter at Lely Resort 5lerra Grande at Naples TGIA i,tatlbu Lakes • 51.71Aster at Lely Raswl Sierra 4raiOr at rleprrs Sierra Grande at Naples Mo I, ! i 1;{: 1{ n 1419 800 WD 840 860 800 90Q 920 Area Rents for the comparables' one -bedroom units cluster generally around the regression line for this data set, indicating a somewhat similar pricing. The three eldest 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 orae -bedroom units, but most one -bedroom units range from $9,600-$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 43 n� T oil ►! !�` IN AXIOMETRICS :��::.. nil ' I ! _,! MIN JA It a 13ealpage aamparryit � �Ni 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 _0„ $1.90 • 3t,gp AddMa Place W ss.tio 3 t.sv • Suh�ect OrcltldRun � Orchld Rwi a • SAW Ran Ord 111d Rim tnsplraat Lcly • --�� I�nSplraaTlely • DrchldRun Orchld Run —` - - Orchld Run Aster at Lety Resort TOM Manta[ Lakes 7611 Mal;bu takes Spectra Spectra Aster at Lely Resort Sterra6randeAt Mapks • Skna6rnnde At Nsplrs Lnlb I1;•iit I0t.fi 1.ba1? 1.100 1,170 1 11 l 150 1.180 I.'!-�� I.:su t.r•�� Arca 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°/c 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. PIZ AXIOMETRICSjz a Reall"age comparry �� 1� ii it ;It��:�s�� 11 rt ELS r _FIs 11 f1R Three -Bedrooms Three -Bedroom Sl.b5 SI.GO f Ght AialVbu lakes $1.54 � sl.as W W SIM $1.35 $1,30 $1.25 • SLPl Urc lrid kin ln5pIra at Lely S 1;^.I 5d. r h i�u L akrs Spectra • Sierra Grande at. Naples Sierra Grande at Naples w AdilKoii puce • OrdJd Run it Malibu Lakes Aster at Lely Resort • l ',1) 1.370 1.340 1.410 1.430 Arta 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 $1,684 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: $1M ($2,2$0 monthly) for the 1,355 -square -foot three-bedroom units AXIOMETRICS nri It If a RealPage comparty f (!1111 �i :i e `1=a tt Household Income and Ability to Pay Naples Household Income Distribution by Age 15,000 ■ Under 25 ■ 25 to 44 17 4S to 64 = 65 and over 14,000 12,000 - — -- — 10,000 8.000 6.000 4,0[30 — 2,000 — 0 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $154,000 or more Sources: Axiomerrics Inc., Census Bureau The above chart show the number of households indifferent 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 rentats 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 $900,000 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 ; E . ii I Wtt!! $fall s llryl AXIOMETRICS ..i:: :,�i';p �� ,,:41,�� ;f ,� fill ,A ,;, �`; i ;€�,�� ate l.gillol aRealPagecomparry�jj�l� �:j , ,I ate A1r91,In more than one-third of all baby -boomer households in Naples have median incomes exceeding $100,000 per year. $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 $2270 $5,675 $8,333 27°% $90,800 $120,000 $2,230 $5,575 $10,000 22°/a $89,200 The estimated 2016 median household income in Naples is a little more than $61,000, and the average monthly effective rent in Naples is $1,380 resulting in a market -wide rent -to -income ratio of 27%, indicating a generally affordable market chat falls under the 30% ratio threshold. The national average is about 35% The recommended monthly rent forthe 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°Io. 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 9 n a 11 I 1! 3r AXIOMETRICS "�r�!'��' fie k� �,t,l;oIr ,_ k � ��<: i{ .3t lift Lim a RealPage companya 19 it!�' ' Er a M I Leasing Schedule Summary The table below summarizes the leasing schedule per month for the Subject. 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 SCHEDULESUBJECT LEASING Total Basting 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 occupancyatStabilization 96.5% Tu mover Ra to 45% Retention Rate 55% Conversion Rate of Total Traffic (Incuding All Denials) 210% 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 SUBJECT 12 -MONTH ENDING DECEMBER 2020 2021 2022 Average Gross New Leases 1 month 53 18 16 Traffic/ Weekly (Based on Gross New Leases) 61 21 18 Average Total Units Coming Off Lease / month 18 28 Average Tum -aver 1 month B 13 Average Units Retained 1 month 10 15 Average Market Occupancy (Based on Stabilization) / month nla 97.2% 98.5% Average Effective Rent (Based on Stabilization) I 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 �«1. .i::. �� ,.�� trai1 > fl a fl �. AXIOMETRICS r �f11j�� Ya#Sun °i r4 g a RealPage cvmparry �: � 3L :� 1, tie 1! �� •■ !H All Irr��l r �! -I a.0% 320 8.2% 2014 202012 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202003 0,0% 320 3.2% 20% 202004 0.0% 320 82% 20% 202005 0.0% 320 82% 2a% 252008 0.0% 320 8.2% 20% 202007 DA% 320 a.2 % 20% 202W0 0.3% 320 0.2% 2a% 202009 60 87 07 07 21.1% 370 0.2% 8.2% 21.1% 20% 78 212016 160 53 53 f2f 37.7% 253 6.5% 8.5% 21.1% 20% 01 202011 240 42 42 163 50,8% 199 5.1% 5.1% 21.1% 20% 48 782012 328 50 50 312 65.4% _ 157 4.0% 5.0% 315./. 201 57 702101 320 50 - - - 58 270 84.5% 168 2.096 3.5% 54.8% 20% 67 702102 320 29 - - 20 299 03.6% 50 1.3% 1.7% 58.5% 20% 33 202103 320 9 - - 9 303 96.51. 21 0.61/1 0.6% 45,0% 20% 11 202104 3211 1 - - - 1 303 95.6% 11 D.3% 0.0% 4.5% 20% 1 202105 320 0 - - 0 31D 08.0% 11 0.3% 0.0% 4.5% 217% 1 202108 320 a - 0 310 95.896 10 0.1% 0.0% 4.6% 20% 1 202107 320 0 - - 0 311 07.1% f0 0.195 D.D% 4.5% 20°.5 1 202108 320 0 - 0 311 072% 0 0.3% 0.0% 4.5% 20% 0 202109 320 0 67 30 37 37 311 97.3% 0 0.2% 0.0% 4.5% 20% 43 202110 320 0 53 24 29 30 312 974% 9 6.2% 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 2D2f42 320 2 50 22 21 28 314 99296 7 0.2% 0.1% 225% 20% 33 207201 -5-2❑ 0 55 25 32 32 31499.2% 6 02% 0.0% 2.296 20% 37 202202 320 0 39 13 18 18 314 08.3% 0 0.1% 0.0% 22% 20% 19 202100 320 a 9 4 5 5 315 98.3% 5 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 20% 8 202204 310 a 1 0 0 0 315 90.3% 5 0.1% 0.0% 22% 20% 0 202205 320 0 0 0 0 0 315 98.4% 5 0.1% 0.6% 2,0% 28% 0 202205 310 0 0 0 0 0 315 08.4% 5 0.1% 0.0% 3.2% 20% 0 202307 3X1 0 0 0 0 0 315 99.5% 6 0.1% 0.0% 4.3% 20% 1 202208 320 0 0 0 0 0 315 00.8% 5 0.1% 0.0% 4.3% 2a% I 2D2209 320 0 75 34 41 41 316 00.0% 5 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 2096 47 202210 320 0 59 27 32 32 315 90.5% 4 0. f% 0.8% 2,2% 4% 37 281211 370 0 47 21 20 26 376 95.7% 4 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 20% 30 202212 320 0 s6 25 31 31 310 98 7% 4 0 1% 0.C% 2.2-A 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 hate 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 AXIOMETRICS a a ReaiPage company 50 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 paint. 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°/x, with average effective rent growth of 3.4%. EXHIBIT V.E.I 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 fiscai 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 (1 I1% 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 (99% 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. HiU01712017092MKGMPAl2nd ResubmittahExhibit V.E.I -Public Utilities Report (7-13- 201 B).doex 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 - S500) (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 30, 2019 2726 OAK RIDGE COURT, SUIrF 503 FORT MYERS,FL 3356 TRANSPORTATION OFFICE 239.278.3.278,3095 ;A7TRCONSULTANTS, FAX 239.278.1906 INC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SIGNAL SYSTEMS/DESIGN TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD/VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPUD PL#20170004419 (GMPA) PL#20170004385 (RPUD) (MAJOR STUDY REVIEW FEE - $1,500) (METHODOLOGY REVIEW FEE - S500) (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 30, 2019 ''/ITR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC CONTENTS INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT & REZONING IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION V. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY VI. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS VII. CONCLUSION ''/ITR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC 1. INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for projects seeking Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and rezoning approval. The approximate 35.92 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 35.92 acre subject site to be developed with up to 304 multi -family residential units. 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 20.54 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 35.92 acre subject site to be developed with up to 304 multi -family residential units. The analysis in this report will determine the impacts of the proposed change in land use as well as rezoning to allow the approximate 35.92 acre subject site to be developed with up to 304 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. Page 1 .i . µy�y � ` , �) _ i ' +{'� 15'_ �y�� :yp is . • - y.. '`� y vy�' �'� i .�w� 3•` f J- I� rA::ris..�rt''�yS" f - Q)5 pit s E aa. .: w' •t ~ - agyNriiiii44iii!. �i i 'l y. 1 7► V •'.. ,• •* i. - v •��V4. i e _ ay -_ - t' a•`_ - *!Ing` w� 9 l I'+frs � l i [ .. � ) • , �o Y • � mss, w-' .. i .,. [c ,� +, z - 1 t -v A'.e. 7„r'r_-'—`r, . rc:a• h$iwi 41 Yip+ f D f- • YM �' I F. VI r A,T,,,. _—. _ __T.-- I' ` iWrp_ , ►1�4` - ji ! - I•F. - m m ok*a I e iR;d ir f! �.- ^' .` a �• �3/ 1 ',tom 10 ■ �; �t ax ■■ ... „�■ . ■ , ;7ATR 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 2018 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 ;7ATR 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 35.92 acre subject site from Urban Residential Subdistrict to establish a Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict which will allow the subject site to be developed with up to 304 multi -family residential units. 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 I 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 RoadNeterans 304 Multifamily Proposed Memorial Boulevard East Dwelling Units Residential Subdistrict 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 20.54 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 35.92 acre subject site to be developed with up to 304 multi -family residential units. 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 7A TRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Table 2 Livingston Rd/Veterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict (GMPA) & Allura RPUD Land Uses Existing/ Weekday AM Peak HourWeekda PM Peak Hour Daily (2 -way) Proposed Zoning District Intensity Existing RPUD (15.38 acres) 111 Multi -family 76 A -Agriculture (20.54 acres) Dwelling Units Proposed Allura RPUD (35.92 acres) 304 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 9`h 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 10tE' 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 Trin Generation Flased an Pronnsed Land Use Amendment and Rezoning Land Use Weekday AM Peak HourWeekda PM Peak Hour Daily (2 -way) In Out Total In Out Total Multi-Famity Housing (304 Dwelling Units) 26 76 102 79 50 129 1,655 Page 5 TR TRANSPORTATION 7ACONSULTANTS, INC The trips the proposed development is anticipated to generate were assigned to the site access drive 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 drive 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 2018 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). Based on the information contained within Table IA, no roadways are 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 2018 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 2018 peak hour peak direction traffic volumes from the 2018 AUIR were adjusted by the appropriate growth rate. These projected volumes were then compared with the 2018 existing plus trip bank volumes from the 2018 AUIR. The more conservative of the two volumes was then utilized as the 2023 background traffic volume. Page 6 LEE COUNTY _ _ N COLLIER COUNTY W E ca S N.T.S. (79) 26� 0 Lo � N a, k27 (18) VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY. *,r49 (32) r � I N LL V SITE o Z O Lo co c� z_ J Ln r.0 M -Lo N � r- IMMOKALLE RD. ,► k6 (16) ♦30%♦ (24) 8-0* ♦20%♦ N 0 LEGEND ♦ 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC ♦(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC ♦20%♦ PERCENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 7AITRCONSULTANTS, TRANSPORTATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION & SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT INC LIVINGSTON RDJ VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPD Figure 2 ;7ATRTRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC The concurrency analysis was then 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 TRANSPORTATION 2023 REMAINING CAPACITY ON SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED LINKS // TRCONSULTANTS, INC LIVINGSTON RD./ VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPD Figure 3 ''/ITR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Based on results shown in Table 2A, Immokalce 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 Immokalce 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. An intersection analysis was conducted utilizing the latest version of the program SYNCHRW, 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 ofFuture Year Background Turning Volumes. Page 10 ''/ITR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC The SYNCHRO° summary sheets, attached to this report for reference, indicate that the signalized intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS in 2023 both with and without the project trips in the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. In the A.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "C" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. In the P.M. peak hour conditions, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS "B" both with and without the project traffic added to the intersection. Therefore, no intersection improvements will be warranted based on the intersection analysis conducted as part of 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 35.92 acre subject site to be developed with up to 304 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 2018 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 '// 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: 3017 12 December 10 Della Rosa RPUD Zoning Comp Plan Collier May Update (No access to Livingston) 4-30-2019 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 : 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 Y: LUC 221 — Multi -Family Housing Mid -Rise Proposed number of development units: 420 Dwelling Other: NIA Description: Multi -Family Housing 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 reguest the land use chane 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: Chane 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 Immokalce Road_ (Links #51.0, 52.0 and 53.0), Immokalee Road east and west of Livingston Road Links #42.1 & 42.2 based upon the Collier County 2%-2%-3% Significant Impact Criteria. Additional intersections to be analyzed: Livinston Road @ Veterans Pkwy Horizon Year(s): 2023 Analysis Time Period(s): AM & PM peak hours Future Off -Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation, 10`i' 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 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, 3.0% to/from the west on Immokalee 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, l Och Edition Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: SIGNATURES Study Pr a er Reviewers Applicant TRIP GENERATION LIVINGSTONNETERANS GMPA/PUDA ALLURA Table 1 Trip Generation Multi -Family (Mid -Rise) ITE Land Use Code 221 Land Use Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily I (2 -way) In Out Total In Out Total Multi -Family Housing (420 Units) 36 104 140 107 69 176 2287 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 „yam Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition • Vo[ume 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 flour 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) tier Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location Number of Studies Avg Num. of D,,velling Units Directional Distribution General UrbanlSuburban 27 205 50% entering. 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates 5.44 1-27-1250 Data Plot and Equation Standard Deviation 2.03 ,der Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2: Data - Residential (Land Uses 200-299) 73 3.000 X 2.500 X X zX X 2,000 m C C X EL X X X 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 Rtted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 5.45(X) -1.75 RI= 0.77 ,der Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2: Data - Residential (Land Uses 200-299) 73 Multifamily Housing (Mie! -Rise) (221 ) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between i 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 036 0.06-1.61 0.19 Data Plot and Equation 300 X m W X a 200 X x X X X, X X X t co X X X X X X X X X X XX X X 00 200 400 600 800 X= Numbero#Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.98 Ln(X) - 0.98 R�= 0.87 74 Trip Generation Manual 10th Edtion - Volume 2: Data • Residential (Land Uses 200-299) 1_ �r Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Emits 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. Nurn. 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 -I'll 0.13 Data Plot and Equation 4a 30 W F M 20 10 X X X X X X X X X X XX X X< - X X X X X X X� x X X X X X X �n 2no 401] Ann X= Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.96 Ln0 0 - 0.63 R1= 0.72 .9nn Rg Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition - Volume 2: Data - Residential (Land Uses 200-299) 75 TABLE 1A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CALCULATIONS LIVINGSTON - VETFRANS GMPAIRPUDA TDTAL AIN PEAK HOUR PRnJFCT TRAFFIC 140VPH IN= 36 OUT- 104 TOTAL PW PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC 176VPH IN= 1W OUT= 69 SEGMENT P£RC£NT PROJECT INBOUND AM PROJECT TRAFFIC PM PROJEGT TRAFFIC NUMBER SEGMENT ROADWAY TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION TRAFFIC NORTWEAST SOUT"AVLST RORTWEAST SOUTHWEST SIGNFFICANT ROADWAY 5EGMENT PER13-3 IDS CLASS LOS STO INSOUND OUTBOUND DIRECTION VOLUME %LOS VD VOLUME %LQSSTD VOLUMF 5&LOS STD VOLUME %LOS STD IMPACT? LmNsl00 Road Naf Ve lcan5 Pkwy 2 51.0 8LA 3.00o 35% 35% SOUTH 36 121% 15 0.42% 24 0.01% 3' 1.25% NO S. of V elera ns P kwy 2 52.0 BLD 3.000 601h 66% NORTH 23 0.76% 58 225% 70 2.32°,6 45 150% N0 S. ollmmakale a Rp. 2 53.0 BLD 3,100 15% 15% NORTH 5 0.17% is DSO% 15 0.52% 10 0-351% NO ImP+oaslea Rmd E. 0J'Iflomn Rd. 2 12.2 BLD 3,500 MA 20% WEST 21 0.59% 7 0.24% 14 0.39°.6 21 0.61% NO W of Liwmgslon Rd. 2 12.1 SLD 3.100 34% 30% EAST 11 0.35% 31 "1% 32 1.04% 21 0.67% NO DENOTES GREATEST PERC EN T IMPACT OF PRO_ECT TRAF FIC TO .EVEL OF SE R V ICE STAN DARD Mme mp xes� :u. xvr, rim. �rnnrav Iallml rnw rrnnYs � r a.� rmn rwa inrn i�r+ � +..r tiwr :els xole x¢Ix .ns an Tr.lr 1�]enn�r aw I[qv Rd� Veal IWI. ]I1r x111 Ir11Y !/1MTR ['w�i 6a�1 PRY�Ur Ilw� Ilex A—1 NO IMY Tewl I+IlA T� tWT I. leer Yrr. IMES®�' GT.�I��' � "'��'�.' ImLa® mmffllS� ®mires ffcmmMlis �w�a®�]i iLT1c wmmii�MIFMOTII� iii®IQ�Ow�� f�7®�ii��®Ei�#��®ice®��ii®�®®ow• Iglo m .30�6;xnpfp�r r�®®isaa��cuio�maw� w�� w ram w� rim w��w��r.,�•�++,�r��*�m r� �� m��®®®�w� �� o� wpm 1F�7m03EM® ffwzm �mw mL�r78�f�f3i91rr�T7�F]lll�Ei�['R�1®®®©�� ®�7[J =OM �t�[�mmm am mMIEM � mwma w•�a��®®o ��®�i� wm� iii �� [� mwm• �iiE�l-®moo ©rr®®irr��e ®ia.� �i��w®�oa��r• iwi �u�m� �� smmwm•�m®Q©��iF* m=in im®�A wows �om�m�m �wr R7�10 i�� ii"ia�i'g®IAR�®�S➢i_.'^i��®�i� Fmmri��m PEM i -m om®ice ®m=€�[:i]®m�mmwo�rw� mmmmwMummw c im lmlwm iiW ®M�rrrr� ff®mwa� .1 TABLES IA, 2A & 3A TABLE 1A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CALCULATIONS UVINGSTON RD! VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPU❑ TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC 102 VPH IN= 26 OUT= 76 TDTAL PM PEAK HOUR FROJECTTRAFPIC 129 VPR IN= 79 OIJT= 50 SEGMENT PERCENT PROJECT IN13OUR13 AM PRO:6CT TRAFFIC PIA PROJECT TRAFFIC NUMRER SEGMENT ROADWAY TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION TRAFFIC NORTHlEAS7 SOUTHMEST NORTRIEAST SOUTHWEST SIGNIFICANT ROADWAY SEGMENT PER 2-23 IOR CLASS LOS INBOUND OUTBOUND DIRECTION VOLUME %LOS SID VOLUME %LOS STD VOLUME %LOS STI) VOA %LOS ST O IMPACT? Lvnq%on Road N olvetemra MamomI&wd 2 510 611) 3.100 35°/. 35y. SCUTH 27 Q0% 9 D. 30% 18 D.513ti 28 NO S, of V eMwns Memmial Blvd 2 51.0 6113 J.W0 e&% 5516 NORTH 17 056% 49 1-65% 51 1.71% 33 IN% NO S0mmokalde Rd 2 529 6LD 3.,00 19% 15% NORTH 4 0.1$% 11 U.3T% 12 0.361 8 024% NO Im rtmka lea Road E, dLMngston Rtl. 2 42.2 6LD 3.:00 20% Z", WEST 15 0Q3% 5 0.15% 10 0.20% 16 0.45% NO W,of Liwr.aslon R d. 2 42.1 6LD 3.700 30% 30% EAST 6 0.26% 23 0.7455 24 0.76% 1$ 048% NO - DENOTES SIGNIFICANT PERCENT IMPACT OF PROJECT TRAFFIC T 0 LEVEL OF SER4ACE STANDARD TABLE 2A CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS LIVINGSTON RDI VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT (GMPA) & ALLURA RPUD TDTAL AM PEAK HOUR PROJ EOT TRAFFIC• 102VP4 R1= a OUT= 76 TOTALPMPVAx HOURPROJECTTRAFFIC• 179VP4 IN= 79 OUT= 50 AUIR AUIR AUIR 4973 7029 CAPACITY • WILL THERE BE FROJ TRIPS 2016 2018 2618 CURREM' ANNUAL FUTURE PROJECTED AFTER SUFFICIENT SEGMENT AUIR ROADWAY Pi! EIR OP ROACIWAY TRAFFIC TRIP TOTAL REMAINING GROWTH BCKGRHO REMAIMt1G PROJECT CAPACITY ROADWAY SEGMENT 199 LQ&m PK OIR 6m VOLUME U&M VULUME CAPACnY RAIC DKA�j—, rAt$CT7 M L AYAIL AH LE'J Unngs Paad N. o1 V.I—nS Me it l&rd 519 3.000 NORTH 27 '8 1,360 fit 1.321 1.679 2.Sl'A '512 1,586 I.dG1 1,579 YES 501 Vete, a� Merllonal BPon 519 3,000 NORTH -r 51 1.250 61 1.321 1579 2.31% ;A,2 1.566 1.671 1.536 Yes S of 1.r rale9 R0. 52.9 3.100 W)ATH 4 t2 1.640 26 1.868 1432 2.UC% 5,811 1,289 1,185 1,277 YES Immcxelee Rase E of Lmr,plx Rd 422 3,500 FAST -5 :0 2.580 49 1.fi2O 871 2.00% zim 551 935 941 YES W. ofL ql mn Ra. 42.1 3.100 WEST 73 15 2,900 7 5.907 191 3.0870 3.372 ,272 -294 -287 NO Prujeeterl Deficianty P—!Qe etoprnent Fc roadways wilh regal- or low grdtR rales, a mImmUm amm growth rale of 2Oc6 was ase med. TABLE M ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED UPON HISTORICAL AUIR DATA 2011 2018 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH ROADWAY SEGMENT IQ# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE Livingston Road Imperial Parkway to Immokalee Road 51.0 1,074 1,260 7 2.31% 2.31% Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road 52.0 1,667 1,640 7 2.00% -0.23% Immokalee Road Livingston Road to 1-75 42.2 2,461 2,580 7 2.00% 0.68% Airport Road to Livingston Road 42.1 2,349 2,900 7 3.06% 3.06% All traffic volumes were obtained from the 2011 & 2Q1S 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 2018 AUIR ^(1IYrs of Growth) Annual Growth Rate (AGR) _ -1 2011 AUIR 1,260 "(117) AGR (Livingston) _ -1 1,074 AGR (Livingston) = 2.31% 2018 AUIR REPORT .1 U.M I Tly 7,TA 1.r- T,! mom sssor�ac�ar� KCMA IMUMMMEN EMIZIESME EM M=SM MM IMIMMM MMK2ww=w KMi—M—= Frxumzu� 0 ou'llimmmiam 2;�M'Nllwo" Dam IM IMAIM E� RIMMMOMMOMM anfr� �mMffs m010- MI= WMM � - wMMMMMw MMM MMM xx��®Mpn ��MMKUMM� STIM 9100= area m KTM WVM �Wwwsmm® ME117-n ®Ial= 9=2� - MIMEMME =11.1,111�01M an �KNMIMMM MOMMI �Ezuwu== UM I= 9M maw ®MWM®MMZM M" IMMI ®W�Ilm gaor=� IM"Erms sm I= REM IM moms MINIM 22011c� 2T gen ®c ul mamM MMKr2 =MMMM MA ZE Nam EM wmz MM2=02 EM WI17M onr� aim�Wrus MEMO KMEMA REIMMUIRM NAM Ai Mt329 MONW�� am�awErMOMM®ora®a® ..... ...... Oman= MR,""IMMIME COLLIER COUNTY NEEDS PLAN & PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT ROADS ATTACHMENT "H" Papamn - Needs- IClla'. 101 Linty in- t 23rd Street SW Brantley -Keane Avenue Golden Gate Boulevard loom Enhanced 2 -Lane Ciiii-tor ROW Required 60 leaf Mile},is 30 2 A!r nPCWin Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road CR B46 &Lane Divided Ate nal 132 feel 2.0 9] bald Cs le Or Collier 8oulavard San 1 Rand A land -e 100 11 1.3 3 Benfield Road Tamaml Trail Easl US 41 Wi€son Boulevard E.dension 4-Laue Divided Arledel 200 Net 7.6 4 Cam Keais Road Oil Well Road CR &58 Immakalee Road CR 846 4La- Divided Arterial 20D feel 52 5 Collier Boulevard CR 951 Golden Gala Ca.1 Green Boulevard &Lane Divided Arterial 132 Feet 2.0 e CR 951 Evferwlon I._kale;Road GR 846 Hedta a My Properties 4-Lar1e Divided Arterial 120 feel 1.5 7 CR951 Extension Heritage RaProryes Lee Count Lina 2 -1 -ars, Arterial 80 feel 1.5 6 Enter rise Avenue AimortPulli Road Livi Ston Roatl 4,Lane Divided Mirror CalleCtor 146 feet 1.0 9 Eva lades Boulevard Golden Gale Boulevard Imn skalee Road CR 846 4La-Divided A4edal feel 9.3 9b Eve lades Boulevard Interstate 75 I-75 Golden Gale 4Lane Divided Arterial eel 5 3 10 Florida Trade rt Boulevard New Market Road SR 29 Lao Roed 2 -Lane Arterial Leel 2.6 11 Golden Gale Boulevard Wllmn Boulevard Desoto Boulevard 4 -Lane Divided Arterial feet 5 E. 12 Goodlete-�rank Read Ora Blossom Dns, Vanderbilt Beach Road 6 -Lane Divided Arsenal f t r40 0.9 13 Goodlatle-Fra.k Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Immokalee Road Cft 846 4Lane Divided Arterial 6 feet 1.6 14 Green Boulevard Extension W est I -Ni slop Road Sante Rarhara Boulevard 4Lane MAW Arterial eel 20 14a Gnean Boulevard Eaerision Wast OvErlmrsate 75 1.75 4Lane Dihdrxf Arl-al eer 02 15 Green Eoulovad Santa Barbara) L an Boulevard Sunshine Boulevard 4 -Lane Divided Collector 100 feet 1.0 16 Grcen ROuievad FA I With Ave SW Collier Boulevad GR 951 231d Slneel SW 4 -Lane Olvided Collector 148 feel 2-1 17 Green Boulevard EA f 161h Ave SW 23rd Street SW Eve lades Boulevad 2 -Lane Collector 80 foot 68 18 Interstate 75 1-75 Collier Boulevard 5R 951 Golden Gale Patewa &Lane Fneewa 360 feel 3.7 19 Imersate 75 1.75 Golden Gale ParkwayPine Rld a Road CR 686 &Lane Freewa 360 feat 26 20 Imerstate 75 fI-75) High Occupancy Ve€ticles HOV lanes Pine Ride Road CR 806 Lee C-rty Lim 4 -Lamed Limited Access 360 feet 7.4 21 Immokalee Road CR846 Oil Wel! Road CR 858 Shad Hollow Rulevard 5 -L. -Divided Medal 160 feet 1.4 22 ImSaree Road mdCR 646 Shetl Hollow Bou€evard Cam Keels Road 4Lane Oivitled Arterial 120 feel 17.2 23 Immokalee Road CR a4s Cam Keais Road Eustis Avenue 4Lane Dihded Arland€ 120 feel 2.5 24 Immokalee Rand CR 846 SR 29 Air rk Boulevard 4 -Lane Divided Arterial 120 feel 0.4 25 Immokalee Road PAenslonLam Keais Road SR 29 2 -Lana Collector 80 feet 2.7 26 Keane Avenue 23d SIM SW -7 Road 2 -Lane Undivided Minor Golleobr 15-124Iee1 0,9 26a Keane Avenue Inez Road Wilson Boulevard Ed-mr, 2 -Lane Undivided Minor Colector 18-124 Leel 2.0 27 Uti League Road Lake Trafod Road 5R 32 4 Lane Divided Atenat 160 feel 4.1 28 Logan Boulevard Green Boulevard Pine Rid a Road CR 896 &L. -Divided Arterial 172 feet 2.6 29 Logan BOWevad Is- Ridge Rdad CR 896 Immokalee Road CR 843 4 -Lane Divided Ma'or Cahector 148 feet 42 31 Manse Street Vanderbilt Reach Road lien alee Road CR 896 2-Lane Collector 80 feet 2.0 32 New Gordan River Cross Goodlette-Fmuk Road Airport Pulls Road 4 -Lane Divided Minor Colleclor 1021-1 2.3 32. New Gordan River Bride at Go Mon River Atone reined median brill a 95 feet 0,4 33 Nothuhmake On. lin--1 lee Road CR 846 north 10 end of uHic ray nhance -ane ivided a)or Conecmr 60 feet 2.1 34 Old DG41 Tamiami Trail Nodh U541 Lee Court Line 4-1- Divided Ma'or Collector 150feel 1.5 35 Oil Well Road fCR 658 Eve iad%Poulevad 01 Well Grade Road &Lane Divided Arterial 216feel 3.9 36 Oil Well Road I CR 856 Ave Mans Entrance Cam K -is Read &Lane Oivided Adsliaf 200 Feet 1.0 37 Ora a Blossom Drive Ai t Pulfi Roatl Llvi stun Reae 4Lane'Divitletl Ma or C011eclar 102 feel 0.7 36 Randall boulevard Immokalee Roed CR848 Eva lades Boulevard &Lana Umtletl Aden al ruv feet 3.4 39 Randall Bouleva verd Elaculav&d des B Oil Well Road C 65 R B ne &LaDivided Arterial 180 feet 3.9 40 Ri dlasnake Hammock Road Tamiami Trail East US 41 Santa Barba. Boulevad Et, - 6i,, Divided Arterial 132 feet 3.9 41 Raresnake.Hammock Road Extension Collier 3-11 (OR 951 RenBeld Road EM 2 -Lane Collecmr 80 feel 1.3 42 San Marin Road CR 92 Collier Boulevard Tamiami Trail East US 41 4Lane Divided Arterial 102 feet 11.5 43 Santa Barbara Baulevead Pafnied Leaf Lane Green Boulevad &Lane Divided Arterial 132 feat 17 44 SR 29 Interstate 75 I-75 Imrroed a Road E tension 4 -1 -ane Divltled Adedel 200 loot '14.8 45 SR 29 Immokelee Road ErWpeion ImmoNalee Road CR 846 4Lane Divided Atedal 200 Feet 5.0 45a SR 20 9th Slreel Im-ksl- Ddve 4Lane Divided Arterial 130 feet 09 46 SR 29 lmmokalee Ddve New Markel Road 14011n 4La-Divided Arterial t30 feet 1.1 47 SR 29 New Market Road Ni HendryCounty Line 4Lane Divided Arteda! 200 feel 5.5 48 SR 20 Loo Road Immokalee Road CR 846 Florida Trade d Boulevard 2lane undivided arlonal 200 feet 24 49 SR 29 Loop Road! SR 29 So W1 Immokelee Road CR 846 2 -Lam Arterial 20D feel 3.3 49. SR 29 Loop Road Elands T.de t Boulevard SR 29 North 4-1-e- Divided Aderial 2011 5.6 59 SR 62 SR 29Lee Ce-tLine &Lane Divided Arterial 192feel 70 51 BR 64 Davis 13oulevaic Airport Pdli Road S.nta Bad.. B-1-rd&La- Divided Arterial 132 feet 5.8 52 SR 951 Collier Boulevard N.&Marcolsland Rdd a Tower Read &Lane Divided Arterial 132 feed 7.0 53 Tamlam! Trail East US 47 Collier Boulevard CR 951 Greeewa Road &Lane Divided Arterial 200 feel 3.0 54 Tamiam! Trail Eaet US 41 Greenwe Road 6 L's Faint Road 4 -Lane Divided Arterial 200 feel 1 25 55 Trade Canter Wa Fx[enslon AirportPu11I Road Livi rion Road 2 -Lane Collector 50 feet 1.0 56 Tree Farm Road Collier Boulevard CR951 Masse SI 2 -Lane Cd do, 56 feet 1A 57 Two Eagles R -1 -rd Fxlenslon Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Road CR 846 4 -Lane Divided Collector 150 feet 2.0 58 Vanderbilt Beach Read Tauri T.d Noth US 41 A,MqItPutti Road 6 Lane Divided Arterial 132 fent 2,1 59 Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Boulevard LCR 051 Wilson Boulevard 4Lane Divided Amental 200 feet 5,0 59. vandemilt Beach Road Wilson Boulevard Desoto Boulevard North 4 -Lane. Divided Arterial 200feet 5,7 60 Vandarbdt 4rive Wiggins Pass Road Honda Beach Road Eirde-d 2 -Lane Ma or Collector 100 feel 27 61 Virus- Mamonal Boulevard Tani Trail North US 41 L!N Ston Road 4Laee Divided Atonal 450 feel 26 63 Weetclox Road Little Lea ue Road West of Carson Roatl 2 -1 -ane -Collector 56 feet 09 64 Whip nwill Laee Green9o1-rd Whi twill Wa Pine Rid Read 2 -Lane Collector 56 feet 0.4 65 White Boulevard Collier Boulevard CR 951 31 st Skeet SW 2 -Lane Divided Collector 102 feel 1,2 55. 1 While Bisuo-rdBnd west of 3131 Street SW n ge(22 ,iarse a isgrid"' Medan) with 4' Bike Lanes and 6' Sidewalks 02 66 W i. Pass Road Vandwhid Drive Tamiami Trail East US 41 Enhaaced 2 -Lane Ma'or Co€led- 12 feet 1.0 67 Wilson Boulevard S Wilson Boulevard lkdension Golden Gate Reulevard 4 -Lane Minor Adedel 1501ee1 54 68 Wilson Boulevad Golden Gate Boulevard Immokalae Road CR 846 4Lane Divided Arterial 150 feet 3.2 60 Wilson Boulevard Ext, f White Lake Blvd Collier Eoulevad CR 851 Beni Read 4nelaDivided Arterial 136 feet 2,2 70 Wilson Boulevard Ed. f Back Bum Rd Henfield Road Wilson Bodeverd 4-La.Biwow A"d-1 130 feel 3.7 71 Wolfe Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Cellar Beuievard(CR 95€) 2Lane Collector 56 feet 07 72 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road CR 316 rid Tamil- Trail East US 4I single piM urban i-erchanipl, 73 Critical Needs Intersection Immokalee Road CR 646 and Livin sloe Road sin le point .,let-infivchourp 74 Critical Needs lntersecllon Immekalee Road CR 3461 and Collier Boulevard frR 951 in le rsril urban inlerchan e 75 Critical Needs Intim. lion Immokalee Road CR 846 and Randall Boulevard i le Int urban iMFIra 76 Crdal Needs Inlerseclion Pine Ridge Road CR 896).M Ai rt -Pulls Road le int urban In ha e 77 Cneral Needs Imereadflon Pine Ride Road ICIR 696 and Livinrislon Road si le mint urban interchange 78 rni Needs Intereeclion Interstate 75 I-75 and Collier Boulevard GR 951 pallial cloveireat interchange with I -P ra 79 Critical Needs Intersection Irlersate 75 I-75 and Eve lades Boulevad Diamond Inteml-a e 80 Critical Needs lnterseelion Tamiami TrollE"sI US 41 aM SR 29 Si ralimflon-Mastarmaasembl at Critical Needs Intersection Tari T.11 East(Ui and Collier Boulevard CR Ml QR --- P Critical Needs Inlemeetion Davis Boulevard iSR al) and Almort Pullim Road !n le Wirt urban lnnerdhunqe 83 Cridral Needs Intersection Goldo, Gate Parkway and Ll. -stn Rcad inoo peut urban intercna e 64 Critical Needs Intersection Tamiami Tml1 North US4 iand Golden Gate Parkway isparol urban interct. e 98 Critical Needs lnterseckon TamiamiTmil Easl(US41)ard San Marco Road CR92) I single point urban 111harye BS Budd I 22M 51feet SW, one LI -1, Nath of White Boulevard 2lane Rrid a Conslfuuion 102 feel 66 Bridge 2 76th Street NE. south of 10th Avenue NE 81 Cd-laurnrin 59 feet ATTACHMENT N Legend Capacity Enhancement Project =Exlsring Defidency Projected Deficiency , 5 Years 7�Prolected De4Gency 510 10 nears ,7 TCMAFTCEA Boundary PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT ROADS I J Miles «--�—� FY 2017 - FY 2027 _ _ _ Veterans Memanal Blvd Year Expected Defiraent 2023 Northwest TCMP. Cay Gale BWd. N IMMOKALEE RPE INSET NIAA - t a4 3 RM% FY201 ➢ V s BLIP Rewve111R eaR.N Rekave3mmakaledRd. _ Bndgea1471h Ave. NE _ _ Congestion Ai Road Year ExPuutad ti r..dv --y4_ : 5� ROW: FY2018 o •A / �� c -Mvaan: FY 2022 Wid 1. B-Lan66 Deli— 2026 IBV O � SludylPE: FY201 a Inlerse tion ImpreyemenlS IFOOrj Oestgn & Mitigenan: FY2020, d� _ 1 .. f, 0NI 9TA 0e tjr FYRC21 eEPcr•. as Year Expected Gonsrtuclil— FY2022 - RAtTLESNA%E w • CeSciem 2027 Inlerse17.ron lmprovemem% - COnsir[tciian: FY2021 Design: FY2019 FY2020 V Expected Oeatlenr 2027. ImmokalerJ951 J Intersepggn ($01$176) o Year Expected 0ah-1 ROW. canswcdan: FY2022 Witlen m 4in; MPO Pdority m State 515 Funtling: P Tree F. -M."...1--- 00 -WELL RD Pursue BNto FUMlrtg Year Expected Ceac[enI 2027 oLy*j (BYOthera) — - —°Btu Cantinas to Monitor IMMOKALEEROAD 1 '.. .. .. ` RANOALL. ire—kaco Rd & 4\'/�1, II 2 Bridga at Sth SL NE Frimo SM. Funding . Ran El lmereedl t=ar Expected Deficient 2024 rY'yq w PD & 8 E Ilndert•.-ay South LS 41 TCEA rrl'o 3!n ' 'JMIOEROILT p � Condor Sbrdy underway P fondnue to Mannar 02'ge 31—r, z JAN ., BEAGR RO � 6EACH RO Ext � = m ' Bddgea at 1601 SL NE 'Niaen'0—Lanes E - Q ❑aslgn& NFitfg.Wn: FY201S 3udY -0 E z GOLDEN GATE BLVCI � - H conewmon: Frzdzl T" � ROWI ,urs. t 1,1—w uMerCensbucl+rn e --INE klo Rc J Vas ExecGed D.11-12023 ala -unaereonwctig IO UessftffiufEd.-FY2018 0 C lreeto LSdniW E. c•ea ,,j. 9L'(0 Eaat CenyaI TCMA Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Ext. m X 025 J -h f0. 'p n - -- _— - --- , n WKrypoorwlll LMM fLalfa _ I� es Biva. Inlprrgnrte4tiPn �. New 3-Lane(offuture 6Lanei R—r—ytg Relieve Congestion on n Q r p ed DE C .02a "as1 �rtr ca nswckan:EY2d21a2ozz ,AFElPKVJV _ Immekalae Rd ar Galas, Gate Hind.. _ De on6ta RDW & Mrdgab : FY2019 an gal TCMA 75 Constmdicn' FY2021-75 Legend Capacity Enhancement Project =Exlsring Defidency Projected Deficiency , 5 Years 7�Prolected De4Gency 510 10 nears ,7 TCMAFTCEA Boundary PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT ROADS I J Miles «--�—� FY 2017 - FY 2027 _ _ - p / Cay Gale BWd. N t a4 3 RM% FY201 ➢ V s BLIP (By Olhers) YVd(By ti r..dv --y4_ : 5� O .) IBV O t rriiegn sentare o •A / �� o SludylPE: FY201 a Inlerse tion ImpreyemenlS IFOOrj _ 1 � _ Ad,, ROW: D -s : F12021 ce^.::C2' t_'�' I RAtTLESNA%E w FY2021 &2022 - ROW: FY20t&2020 q HAMMOCK RD 1 COnsir[tciian: FY2021 Year ExPecled Oafiraen[2028 Mitigation: FY2018, FY2020-2021 ;p Year Expected 0ah-1 P 20231 East Cools] TCMA 1 -p ---l- ROW &Contraction FY2018 Year Expected Ceac[enI 2027 Cantinas to Monitor " Veer Exlle <etl Defioent �1 _ '.. 29?5l Eas: l.eneal'CIAA WdetO&&E Furd d(15116). n ln I 4\'/�1, II 2 Frimo SM. Funding . S t=ar Expected Deficient 2024 rY'yq South LS 41 TCEA MlR� Year ExpeGed Oefldeni 2027 P fondnue to Mannar Legend Capacity Enhancement Project =Exlsring Defidency Projected Deficiency , 5 Years 7�Prolected De4Gency 510 10 nears ,7 TCMAFTCEA Boundary PROJECTED COLLIER COUNTY DEFICIENT ROADS I J Miles «--�—� FY 2017 - FY 2027 _ _ COLLIER COUNTY NORTHWEST TCMA REPORT TCMA Report ADIR ID Street Name From To VIC Ratio Length (Lanes Lane Miles Lane Miles VC Northwest TCMA 98.0 Tamiami Trail North Lee County Line Wiggins Pass Road 0.71 1.67 6 10.0 10.02 99.0 Tamiami Trail Nodh Wiggins Pass Road lmmokalee Road 0.94 1.52 6 9.1 9.11 loco Tamiami Trail North lmmokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.75 1.51 6 9.1 9.06 101.0 Tamiami Trail Nodh Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Park Drive 0.75 1.26 6 7.6 1.58 1020 Tamiami Trail North Gulf Park Drive Pine Ridge Road 0.61 1.44 6 8.6 8.64 1090 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gultshore Drive Tamiami Trail 0.71 1.34 2 2.7 2.58. 110.1 Vand-bill Beach Road Tamiami Trail Goodleife-Frank Road 0.81 1.87 4 7.5 7.50 111.1 Vanderbilt 8each Road Airport Road Livingston Rd, 0.66 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 1150 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 Airpod Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0-57 1.97 4 7,9 7-ag 2.1 Airport Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Or. 0.68 1.53 6 9.2 9-18 23.0 Goodlelte-Frank Road lmmokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.95 1.80 2 3.6 3.60 24.1 Goodlette-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr 0.59 0,88 4 3.5 3.52 24.2 Goodlette-Frank Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Road 0.65 1.53 6 9.2 9.16 39.0 111th Avenue N. Gultshore 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 2.0 201 41.1 Immakalae Road Tamiami Trail Goodletle-Frank Rd_. 0.66 147 6 8.8 8.84 42.1 lmmokalee Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.90 1.96 6 11.8 11.79 51 0 Livingston Road Imperial Street lmmokalee Road 0.43 3.31 6 198 1985, 52.0 Livingston Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 053 1,99 6 12.0 11.96 53.0 Livingston Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Read 0.46 2.21 6 13.3 13.26 63.0 Seagate Drive Craylon Road Tamiami Trail 0.57 0A8 4 19 1.93 64.0 PIPE Ridge Road Tamiami Trail Goodlelte-Frank Road 0.67 0.50 6 30 3.02 65.0 Pine Ridge Road G-rilelte-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 5 4,9 4.88 57.1 Pine Ridge Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.86 2.09 6 12.56 12.56 2.2 Airport Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Rd. 0.65 2.92 6 17.5 17-51 41.2 Immpkalee Road Goodlette-Frank Rd. Airport Road 0.84 2.47 6 14.8 14.81 422 Immokalee Road Livingston Rd. 1-75 0.71 1 78 7 12.5 12.48 620 Cid US 41 US 41 (Tamiami Trall) Lee County line t.69 1.57 2 3.1 0.00 110.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Goadletle-Frank Rd. Airport Road 0 70 2.40 4 9.6 958 111.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Livingston Rd. Logan Blvd. 0.74 3.11 6 18.7 18.68 ar.ao Total Lane Miles: 288.7 Lane Miles -I1 O V!C- 285A ^ v1C Razor nosed pan rain Traffic, Including T,ffk wants- Tnp Bank + ir71h vested Tnps Percent Lane Miles Meeting Standard: 98.9 MASTER Attachment F-2017 (090617).xlsm TR -5 NORTHWEST TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREA (TCMA) 60N ITA S EACH 0 4 0.5 1 2 0d4 YAPR NR BETH YAH7, AI CP J 4 LEJ .r cgs_ — M30INSPA55 RD 41 111THAVEN-. IMMOKAL 7' r O L z L 3 3 Mfles �7 I; PINIE RIDGE RD PL413D01M7 CPSP-2ht3 LEE COUNTY LINE 1 IMM616ALEERQ - a ua - 7EREILT BENCH R67] -- — - — -- - zzq _��_..._.. J — —GOLDEN GATE m _ BLVD z -� TR - 5 �.p.s. Northwest Transportation Concurrency �`�"""`""""� Management Area {TCMA) 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 TCF.A 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 Analis: 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 andior 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 Transportation F.le►new 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)(XLJV) 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. (Xll)(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. (XIII)(XXX)(XLM 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 FDOT FLORIDA TRAFFIC ONLINE (2017) PEAK SEASON FACTOR 2017 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE MOLE; 0.88 WEEK DATES SF PSCF ----- 1 ======------- =======---------------T- 01/01/2017 - 01/07/2017 1,05 -------- ---------- 1.19 2 01/08/2017 - 01/14/2017 0.99 1.13 3 01/15/201.7 - 01/21/2017 0.93 1.06 * 4 01/22/2017 - 01/28/2017 0.91 1.03 * 5 01/29/2017 - 02/04/2017 0,89 1.01 * 6 02/05/2017 - 02/11/2017 0.87 0.99 * 7 02/12/2017 - 02/18/2017 0,86 0.98 * 8 02/19/2017 - 02/25/2017 0.86 0.98 * 9 02/26/2017 - 03/04/2017 0.85 0.97 *10 03/05/2017 - 03/11/2017 0.85 0.97 *11 03/1.2/2017 - 03/18/2017 0.85 0.97 *12 03/19/2017 - 03/25/2017 0.86 0.98 *13 03/26/2017 - 04/01/2017 0.88 1.00 *14 04/02/2017 - 04/08/2017 0.89 1.01 *15 04/09/2017 - 04/1S/2017 0.91 1.03 *16 04/16/2017 - 04/22/2017 0..92 1.05 17 04/23/2017 - 04/29/2017 0.94 1.07 18 04/30/2017 - 05/06/2017 0.96 1.09 19 05/07/2017 - 05/13/2017 0.97 1.10 20 05/14/2017 - 05/20/2017 0.99 1.13 21 05/21/2017 - 05/27/2017 1.02 1.16 22 05/28/2017 - 06/03/20.17 1.06 1.20 23 06/04/2017 - 06/10/2017 1,09 1.24 24 06/11/2017 - 06/17/2017 1.13 1.28 25 06/18/2017 - 06/24/2017 1.11 1.26 26 06/25/2017 - 07/01/2017 1.09 1.24 27 07/02/2017 - 07/08/2017 1.07 1.22 28 07/09/2017 - 07/15/2017 1.06 1.20 29 07/16/2017 - 07/22/2017 1.06 1.20 30 07/23/2017 - 07/29/2017 1.06 1.20 31 07/30/2017 - 08/05/2017 1.07 1.22 32 08/06/2017 - 08/12/2017 1.07 1.22 33 08/13/2017 - 08/19/2017 1.08 1.23 34 08/20/2017 - 08/26/2017 1.16 1.32 35 08/27/2017 - 09/02/2017 1.24 1.41 36 09/03/2017 - 09/09/2017 1.32 1.50 37 09/10/2017 ,- 09/16/2017 1.40 1.59 38 09/17/2017 - 09/23/2017 1.35 1.53 39 09/24/2017 - 09/30/2017 1.31 1,49 40 10/01/2017 - 10/07/2017 1.26 1.43 41 10/08/2017 - 10/14/2017 1.22 1..39 42 10/15/2017 - 10/21/2017 1.17 1.33 43 10/22/2017 - 10/28/2017 1.15 1.31 44 10/29/2017 - 11/04/,2017 1.12 1.27 45 11/05/2017 - 11/11/.2017 1.09 1.24 46 11/12/2017 - 11/18/2017 1.06 1.20 47 11/19/2017 - 11/25/2017 1.06 1.20 48 11/26/2017 - 12/02/2017 1.05 1.19 49 12/03/2017 - 12/09/2017 1.05 1.19 50 12/10/2017 - 12/16/2017 1.05 1.19 51 12/17/2017 - 12/23/2017 1.01 1.15 52 12/24/2017 - 12/30/2017 0.97 1.10 53 12/31/2017 - 12/31/2017 0.93 1,06 * PEAK SEASON 02 -MAR -2018 15:35:04 830UPD 1_0300 PKSEASON.TXT TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT LIVINGSTON ROAD (k VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD Livingston Rd @ Veterans Memorial Blvd 1-11.2018 (AM) Fite Name: Livingston 3d C Veterans Memorial Blvd 1-11- Site Cade: Location: 611nila Springs All Vehlc les Study 02 le: 0111V201B Time 07:00 07:15 07;30 07:46 Total 08:00 08:15 08:30 D8:45 Total Total Appr h Total !6 56 AM Pk Hr AM Pk Vol AM PHF Livingston Rd Southbound Right Thru Left ur Appr Turn Total 3 163 12 0 178 6 256 7 0 269 7 err 7 0 291 13 28T 16 0 316 29 983 42 0 1054 6 262 11 0 301 12 249 7 0 266 0 228 12 0 240 0 245 6 D 253 20 1084 38 0 1462 0 0 0 0 0 49 1987 90 0 2116 02.3 93,9 33.8 00.0 75 01.1 43.9 31.8 000 12 00.0 00.0 WO - 00.0 07:46 07:45 07:45 07A5 07:45 33 1646 46 0 1125 0.635 0.511 0.719 NaN 0.890 Veterans Memorial Blvd Westbound Right Thru l-& U. Appr Turn Total 3 1 6 0 10 3 5 14 D 22 2 4 16 0 22 9 2 13 0 24 17 12 49 0 76 10 8 20 0 38 7 6 17 0 30 12 1 23 0 36 4 0 is 0 27 38 15 76 0 131 0 0 0 0 D 55 27 127 0 209 26.3 12.9 60.8 03.0 75 01.2 00.5 02.0 03.0 12 00.D 00.0 000 - 00.0 07-.45 07:45 07:45 OF:45 07:4$ 38 17 73 0 128 0.792 0.531 0.7E3 NaN 0.842 D 0 3 0 0 76 1393 356 0 1635 04.1 75.9 19,9 00.0 01.7 30.8 08.1 90.0 00.o 00.0 00.0 - 00.0 07:45 97:45 07:45 97:45 07:45 37 797 234 0 1118 (1.841 0.893 0.597 NaN 9.7)9 Veterans Memorial 131vd Living slur Rd 07:45 97:45 Eastbound Northbound 255 13 Right Thru Left LL Turn Appr Total 13 126 13 0 152 5 124 27 0 155 12 156 35 0 203 11 167 78 0 255 41 573 153 0 761 3 223 119 6 351 7 20S 75 0 267 11 202 12 0 225 9 190 7 4 2" 35 820 213 0 7 R D 0 3 0 0 76 1393 356 0 1635 04.1 75.9 19,9 00.0 01.7 30.8 08.1 90.0 00.o 00.0 00.0 - 00.0 07:45 97:45 07:45 97:45 07:45 37 797 234 0 1118 (1.841 0.893 0.597 NaN 9.7)9 Veterans Memorial 131vd D7:45 07:45 97:45 Eastbound 07:45 255 13 Right Thru Leff LI -Turn Antal Int Total 8 0 0.582 0 10 350 6 0 1 0 7 454 8 1 6 0 15 531 42 3 8 0 53 649 64 4 17 0 85 1984 73 4 15 0 92 781 113 5 19 0 137 722 27 1 9 0 37 538 7 2 3 0 12 498 220 12 46 0 278 2539 0 D a 0 0 0 284 16 E3 0 362 4523 78.2 04.4 17.4 00.0 06.3 00.4 01.4 00.0 00,0 00.0 00.0 - 00.0 430.0 07:45 D7:45 07:45 97:45 07=45 07:45 255 13 51 0 319 2690 0-564 0.650 0.671 NaN 0.582 0.861 COl1NTpr-3 Turirrlg IMovement Report. Page 2 of 3 :�oun.ingC3rs.com Livingston Rd @ Veterans Memorial Blvd 1-11-2015 (ARA) File Name: Livingston Rd Ig Veterans Memorial Blvd 1-11- Site Code: Locatiun= Boni[ Springs All Vehicles Study PaSe' 0111V2013 Livingston Rd 33 1046 dS 0 Right T— Lan U -Tum AM Peak Hour Statistics AM Peak Hour Begins: 07. S AM Peak Hour Volume: 2690 AM Peak Hour Factor: 0.881 I> � 4 -Turn Left 7hru Right 0 284 797 37 Livingston Rd COVNTprG Turning hdovemenl 4eport: Page 3 of 3 CounrmgCars.wm Livingston Rd @ Veterans Memorial Blvd 1-11-2418 JPM) File Name Livingston Rd @ Velerans Memorial Blvd 1-11- Site Code: Location: Bvnila Springs All Vehicles Stucy Date: 0111172013 Time 15:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 Total 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 Total Grand Total Appr k Total Y I PM Pk Hr PM Pk Vol PM Pill' 17:00 17:00 17:0 0 17-00 17-00 30 932 38 0 1000 0.750 0.943 0.864 NaN 0.951 Veterans Memorial Blvd Livingslon Rd Westbound 1 119 Southbound Left U- Right Thru Lett U Total IQ 0 18 D Turn Total Total 3 181 5 0 189 3 186 13 0 202 3 188 9 0 2DO 3 207 9 0 219 12 762 36 0 810 4 23D 10 0 244 6 23D 9 0 247 10 225 11 0 246 8 247 8 0 263 30 932 38 0 1000 ❑ 0 D 0 0 42 1594 14 D 1810 02.3 93.5 04.1 00.0 0 00.8 34.2 01-5 00.0 13 00.0 00.0 00.0 - 00.0 17:00 17:00 17:0 0 17-00 17-00 30 932 38 0 1000 0.750 0.943 0.864 NaN 0.951 Veterans Memorial Blvd 7 Westbound 1 119 Right Thru Left U- Appr 25 11 Turn Total IQ 0 18 D 26 10 2 15 -0 21 23 1 43 -3 37 12 4 11 D 27 55 7 57 1 119 9 3 16 3 25 11 3 15 3 26 7 1 11 D 19 6 2 19 3 27 33 3 fit 0 97 0 D a 3 0 88 10 118 a 216 40.7 04.6 54.6 00.D 57 01.5 00.2 02.4 OC.D 2199 DD.D 00.0 00.0 - 00.0 17:00 1770D 17:90 17:00 17:00 33 3 61 D 97 0-750 0.375 0.803 NaN 0.898 Livingston Rd 62 0 Northbound 7 381 16 Right Thru Left U- Turn Appr Total 22 270 14 0 306 14 231 12 0 253 9 280 15 0 304 6 303 21 D 339 47 1064 62 0 1193 7 381 16 0 404 11 346 16 0 375 4 378 32 ❑ 414 14 330 27 0 371 36 1437 91 0 1564 0 0 0 0 0 63 2521 153 0 2757 03.0 91.4 05.5 00.0 01.7 50.9 03.1 00.0 22 00.0 00.0 MO - 00.0 17[00 17:09 17AO -7:0D 17:00 36 1437 91 11 1564 D.643 0.943 0.711 Nah OA44 Veterans Memorial Blvd 17:00 1700 17:00 Ea Stbvund 17:00 76 8 Right Thru Left U -Turn Appr tnt Total D75D NaN 0.857 9.975 Total 19 ❑ 3 0 22 545 7 1 2 D 10 492 16 2 6 0 24 565 15 2 4 0 21 597 57 5 15 0 77 2199 22 1 3 ❑ 26 699 19 1 2 0 22 670 20 4 4 0 28 707 15 2 3 0 20 681 75 8 12 0 96 2757 D D 0 D 0 0 133 13 27 0 173 4956 76.9 07.5 115.6 00.0 02.T 00.3 OC.5 00.0 00.0 00.0 C0.0 - COX 00.0 17:00 17:00 1700 17:00 17:93 17:00 76 8 12 0 96 2757 9.864 O.SDD D75D NaN 0.857 9.975 CCUNTpro Turning hgovenent Report Page 2 013 CountingCars. cam Livingston Rd (R Veterans Memorial Blvd 1-11-2018 (PM) File Name Livingston Rd @ Veterans Memufiat Blvd 1 -11 - Location: Ban ila Sprngs All V-�hic;es Livingston Rd 30 932 U 0 Right Toru Lefl U -T- 4 <> Q PM Peak Hour Statistics PM Peak Hour Begins: 17:00 PM Peak Hour Volume: 2757 Port Peak Hour Fa ctor; 0.975 f Of., u -Turn Lan Taro Rlgnt 0 91 1437 36 Livingston Rd Site Cade: slucy Date: 01:11`2013 iAUNTpro Turning Move mant Reporl: Page 3 of 3 Count ngGars.com DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE YEAR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES Development of Future Year Background Turning Volumes Intersection Livingston Road @ Veterans Memorial Boulevard Count Date January 11, 2018 Build -Out Year 2023 RAW Turning Movement Counts Peak Season Correction Factor Current Peak Season Volumes Growth Rate Years to Build -out 2023 Background Turning Volune Projac! Turning Vol Imes 2023 Background + Project RAW Turning Movement Counts Peale Season Correction Factor Currert Peak Season Volumes Growth Rate Years to Build -out 2023 Background Turning Volume Project Turning Volumes 2023 Background � Project AM Peak Haar NBL NBT NBR SBt. SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 284 797 37 46 1,046 33 51 13 255 73 17 38 1.13 1.13 1.13 1,13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 113 321 901 42 52 1,182 37 58 15 288 82 19 43 2.00% 2.31% 2.00% 2.00% 2.31 No 2.00% 2.00% 2,00% 2,00% 2.00% 2.000/0 2.00% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 354 1,010 46 57 1,325 41 64 17 318 91 21 47 17 9 49 27 354 1,010 63 66 1,325 41 64 17 318 140 21 74 PM Peak Hour NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SSR EEL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 91 1 437 38 38 932 30 12 8 76 61 3 33 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 103 1,624 41 43 1.053 34 14 9 86 69 3 37 2.00% 2.31% 2,00% 2.00% 2.31% 200% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2,00% 2.00% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 114 1,820 45 47 1,180 38 15 10 95 76 3 41 52 27 32 18 114 1,820 97 74 1,180 38 15 10 95 188 3 59 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEETS LIVINGSTON ROAD (k VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD 2023 PEAK SEASON BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/05/2019 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) 1 ttt r I ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 64 17 318 91 21 47 354 1010 46 57 1325 41 Future Volume (vph) 64 17 318 91 21 47 354 1010 46 57 1325 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 310 310 315 315 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.892 0.960 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.992 0.972 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1648 0 0 1738 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.912 0.381 0.115 0.254 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1515 0 0 681 0 214 5085 1583 473 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 D.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 18 338 97 22 50 377 1074 49 61 1410 44 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 424 0 0 169 0 377 1074 49 61 1410 44 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 (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 18.0 18.0 47.1 40.8 40.8 31.2 26.1 26.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.61 0.53 0.53 0.40 0.34 0.34 vlc Ratio 0.80 0.95 0.87 0.40 0.05 0.22 0.82 0.07 Control Delay 24.7 84.6 41.0 12.8 0.1 10,8 29.0 0,2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.7 84.6 41.0 12.8 0.1 10.8 29.0 0.2 0810312017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04/05/2019 --,, ---t 'r, t Lana Groq,p ..,, . E.BL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS C F D B A B C A Approach Delay 24.7 84.6 19.5 27.4 Approach LOS C F B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 84 71 133 128 0 11 238 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #228 #189 #285 163 0 26 296 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity (vph) 569 196 454 2685 894 275 1722 671 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 vlc Ratio 0.75 0.86 0.83 0.40 0.05 0.22 0.82 0.07 Intersection Summar Area Type. Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 77.2 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type, Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v!c Ratio: 0.95 Intersection Signal Delay: 26.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ,plits and Phases: 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd \901 t02 X04 05 06 08 0810312017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 04105/2019 k - Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 5. Lane Configurations 4� 44 1 ttf r ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 15 10 95 76 3 41 114 1820 45 47 1180 38 Future Volume (vph) 15 10 95 76 3 41 114 1820 45 47 1180 38 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 Flt Permitted 0.947 0.764 0.167 0,105 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1575 0 0 1358 0 311 5085 1583 196 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 101 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) 16 11 101 81 3 44 121 1936 48 50 1255 40 Shared Lane Traffic (%] Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 128 0 0 128 0 121 1936 48 50 1255 40 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 Dant 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) 10.3 10.3 45.8 42.7 42.7 40.6 38.1 38.1 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.68 0.64 0.64 0.60 0.57 0.57 vlc Ratio 0.39 0.55 0.33 0.60 0.05 0.21 0.44 0.04 Control Delay 12.8 30.0 7.2 12.1 0.1 7.9 12.6 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 Total Delay 12.8 30.0 7.2 12.1 0.1 7.9 12.6 0.1 08103/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak Background 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd ---► 'tet � # I 104/05/2019 i Lane Grow EBL :B:BT E'BR ?NBL WBT WBR NBL NOT' . ;;NIBEt... ;��'L SBl SBR LOS B C A B A A B A Approach Delay 12.8 300 11.6 12.1 Approach LOS B C B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 39 15 217 0 6 125 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 53 88 39 326 0 19 202 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 545 431 571 3232 1051 237 2884 986 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 We Ratio 0.23 0.30 021 0.60 0.05 0.21 0.44 0.04 Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 67.2 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum We Ratio: 0.60 Intersection Signa! Delay. 12.4 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd \901 t02 —1"04 �H 05 06 08 08103/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 2023 PEAK SEASON WITH PROJECT TRIPS Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 05101/2019 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL .._$ SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 1 ttt r I ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 64 17 318 140 21 74 354 1010 63 66 1325 41 Future Volume (vph) 64 17 318 140 21 74 354 1010 63 66 1325 41 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 0.957 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.992 0.971 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1648 0 0 1731 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.899 0.405 0.120 0.254 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1494 0 0 722 0 224 5085 1583 473 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 236 28 123 205 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) 68 18 338 149 22 79 377 1074 67 70 1410 44 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 424 0 0 250 0 377 1074 67 70 1410 44 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 (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 20.0 20.0 47.2 38.5 38.5 31.0 26.0 26,0 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.60 0.49 0.49 0,39 0.33 0.33 vlc Ratio 0.77 1.23 0.88 0.43 0.08 0.26 0.84 0.07 Control Delay 22.9 167.7 41.4 14.5 0.7 11.5 30.8 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.9 167.7 41.4 14.5 0.7 11.5 30.8 0.2 08103/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 AM Peak WITH Project 3. Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 05101/2019 "r .- -N t 1* 1 4/ Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 79.2 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 1.23 Intersection Signal Delay: 34.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 01 1 t02 --'0'04 I � fly T 06 08 08103/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR ._,_..SB.L SBT SSS LOS C F D B A B C A Approach Delay 22.9 167.7 20.6 29.0 Approach LOS C t= C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 85 -147 130 128 0 13 238 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #231 #290 #280 163 5 29 296 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity (vph) 553 203 445 2471 832 267 1671 657 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 C Reduced vlc Ratio 0.77 1.23 0.85 0.43 0.08 0.26 0.84 0.07 Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 79.2 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 1.23 Intersection Signal Delay: 34.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 01 1 t02 --'0'04 I � fly T 06 08 08103/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 0510112019 ,(- *-- 4" t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SB{ Lane Configurations ear 4 1 ttt r ttt ff Traffic Volume (vph) 15 10 95 108 3 59 114 1820 97 74 1180 38 Future Volume (vph) 15 10 95 108 3 59 114 1820 97 74 1180 38 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 0.953 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.994 0.969 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1653 0 0 1720 0 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.763 0.161 0.110 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1580 0 0 1354 0 300 5085 1583 205 5085 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 101 32 123 205 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) 16 11 101 115 3 63 121 1936 103 79 1255 40 Shared Lane Traffic Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 128 0 0 181 0 121 1936 103 79 1255 40 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 OA 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 (#Jhr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effot Green (s) 13.2 13.2 45,0 38.8 38.8 40.4 36.5 36.5 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.62 0.53 0.53 0.56 0.50 0.50 vlc Ratio 0.35 0.67 0.36 0.71 0.11 0.36 0,49 0.04 Control De#ay 11.2 35.0 8.8 16.3 2.2 12.1 14.8 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.2 35.0 8.8 16.3 2.2 12.1 14.8 0.1 08103/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 PM Peak WITH Project 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd 0510112019 -o" � 'r � 4- � T I. I ;e=Grow EBL EBT 143 05 ■ 08 LOS B C A B A B B A Approach Delay 11.2 35.0 15.2 14.2 Approach LOS B C B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 63 18 242 0 11 138 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 52 125 45 359 19 33 223 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 732 1030 596 456 Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 310 315 315 Base Capacity(vph) 511 398 521 2717 903 222 2554 897 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 v1c Ratio 0.25 0.45 023 0.71 0.11 0.36 0.49 004 Intersection Sum Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 72.6 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.71 Intersection Signal Delay: 15.6 Intersection LOS. B Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 3: Livingston Rd & Veterans Memorial Blvd \001 i 2 --1"04 143 05 ■ 08 08/0312017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS LIVINGSTON RD/VETERANS MEMORIAL GMPA/PUDA ALLURA RPUD T-ru rrDiv !'"T'N'FD A TITIN 1l?_FPORT i nth 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 22 1) 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 Trin Ct nprntinn Land Use Weekda A.M. Peak Hour Week -day P.M. Peak Hour Daily (2 -way) In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing 31 122 153 120 65 185 1,966 Mid -Rise 26 76 102 79 50 129 1,655 (304 Dwelling Units) TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS LIVINGSTON RDNETERANS MEMORIAL GMPA/PUDA ALLURA RPUD ITF. TRIP C.FNFR ATION REPORT. 91h EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Apartment (LUC 220) T = 0.49 (X) + 3.73 1 T - 0.55 (X) + 17.65 T - 6.06 (X) + 123.56 20% In 80% Out 1 65% entering 1 35% exiting T = Trips, X = Number of Dwelling Units Table 1 Livingston RdNeterans Memorial Blvd East Residential Subdistrict (GMPA) & Allura RPUD Trin i:pnpratinn Land Use Weekda A.M. Peak Hour I Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily (2 -way) In Out Total In Out Total Apartment 31 122 153 120 65 185 1,966 (304 Dwelling Units) 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 us Bile n 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, mid 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 20 t 2 through 2016. Based on research conducted by Hoyt Advisory Services and commissioned by NAA and NM11C, 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 n+vn.l�'eAreAp3rtrnent5.org. The increased demand for apartments is due in large part to: ■ Delayed house purchases. Life events such as marriage and children are the biggest drivers of home ownership. In 1960, 44 percent of ali 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 papulation. 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 dentand, particularly in the northeast, wbere renters ages 55 - plus will account for more than 30percentofrentai households. • Immigration. Intemational immigration is assumed to account for approximately bal€ (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 taditig single-family houses for the convenience of rental apartments. In fact, more than half of the net increase in renter households over die 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 oil 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 trillion traits 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. "Fol' 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 nrnv 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 (266,290 new units), and Houston, Texas (214,176 new units). ■ Propensity to rent is higher in high-growth and high-cost states. ■ Hundreds of thousands of new rental units will be needed by 2030 in states such as California, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, ]Nevada, New York. Texas, Virginia and Washington, In conjunction with the study's release, the website Nr %v .LG'cAre 1pa�tneruly.vrg breaks dozen the data byeach state and 50 key metro areas. Visitors can also use the Apartment Community Estimator— or ACE — a too] that allows users losee the trends in their state or metro area to determine the porential economic impact locally. For more information, visit a L� �ti,11'eArcApavnwills ,Qrg. Study urges Collier County to act soon to create more affordable housing .,grrg.sranlcyra3p]rmens.rom; 234.263-i138i'�ib]rhulE.Sli•�r E1 Feb-9._'dl7i l�[�dxE�d l:f3 a.m. EF 1'eIz4, 2U}7 7hro--tact Tnursday; "Golf Capital of tha World' Naples in 1958 . `..•, -'.... r' Z :iC?YL4^AEMEN0.�Lb.CPE The beaches and weather here might make Collier County unique. but the degree of dif iicully in finding a place to live does not. Around the country, Communities like the Naples area, lesvrt and fetiiemert towns, all struggle with finding afforddLle places 10 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. "II'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.- Panelisls 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 he 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 jab professionals," Payne said. 'These are service workers. These people make up over 50 percent of the workforce. They are the people responsible forthe high quality lifestyle here' Compounding the problem is that homeowner's insurance in Collier is among the highest in the slate. Many neighborhoods require homeowner association lees. 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 v+heel, 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 Irust fund and this time use it, the ULI panel said. In 2006. the county created a trust fund Ilial 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 lund 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 farted' said Hilary Chapman, a panelist and housing programs manager for the Melropotitan Wasbinglon 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 in 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 essenlialty kill a development at any point. Commissioners should either get rid of their supermajority requirements or increase line number of people on the board from five to seven, the study said Commissioners should also tet more zoning issues be decided by their staff, rather than bringing as many decisions before the commission- 'We ommission.'Wa recommend that you slreamline 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 uncertainly 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 all 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. 2. ,. r. . .E -E•-, ..... 0 %.v • 5' I" • '1 17 Collier County Florida Expanding Housing Affordability January 29—February 3, 2017 ®Urban Land Institute About the Urban Land Institute THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE is a global, member - driven organization comprising more than 40,000 real estate and urban development professionals dedicated to advancing the Institute's mission of providing leadership in the responsible use of land and creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. ULI's interdisciplinary membership represents all aspects of the industry, including developers, property owners, investors, architects, urban planners, public officials, real estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, finan- ciers, and academics. Established in 1936, the Institute has a presence in the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific regions, with members in 76 countries. The extraordinary impact that ULI makes on land use deci- sion making is based on its members sharing expertise on a variety of factors affecting the built environment, includ- ing urbanization, demographic and population changes, new economic drivers, technology advancements, and environmental concerns. Peer-to-peer learning is achieved through the knowledge shared by members at thousands of convenings each year that reinforce ULI's position as a global authority on land use and real estate. In 2016 alone, more than 3,200 events were held in 340 cities around the world. Drawing on the work of its members, the Institute recog- nizes and shares best practices in urban design and devel- opment for the benefit of communities around the globe. More information is available at uli.org. Follow ULI on Twit- ter, Facebook, Linkedln, and Instagram. Cover photos: Wilhelm Rosenkranz (top); Beth Silverman (bottom). © 2017 by the Urban Land Institute 2001 L Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036-4948 All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission of the copy- right holder is prohibited. 2 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report About ULI Advisory Services THE GOAL OF THE ULI ADVISORY SERVICES pro- gram is to bring the finest expertise in the real estate field to bear on complex land use planning and development projects, programs, and policies. Since 1947, this program has assembled well over 600 ULI-member teams to help sponsors find creative, practical solutions for issues such as downtown redevelopment, land management strate- gies, evaluation of development potential, growth manage- ment, community revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, military base reuse, provision of low-cost and affordable housing, and asset management strategies, among other matters. A wide variety of public, private, and nonprofit or- ganizations have contracted for ULI's advisory services. Each panel team is composed of highly qualified profes- sionals who volunteer their time to ULI. They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and are screened to ensure their objectivity. ULI's interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at development problems. A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience chairs each panel. The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is intensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day composed of a tour of the site and meetings with sponsor representatives, a day of hour-long interviews of typically 50 to 100 key community representatives, and two days of formulating recommendations. Long nights of discussion precede the panel's conclusions. On the final day on site, the panel makes an oral presentation of its findings and conclusions to the sponsor. A written report is prepared and published. Because the sponsoring entities are responsible for significant preparation before the panel's visit, including sending extensive briefing materials to each member and arranging for the panel to meet with key local community members and stakeholders in the project under consider- ation, participants in ULI's five-day panel assignments are able to make accurate assessments of a sponsor's issues and to provide recommendations in a compressed amount of time. A major strength of the program is ULI's unique ability to draw on the knowledge and expertise of its members, including land developers and owners, public officials, academics, representatives of financial institutions, and others. In fulfillment of the mission of the Urban Land Institute, this Advisory Services panel report is intended to provide objective advice that will promote the responsible use of land to enhance the environment. ULI Program Staff Thomas W. Eitler Senior Vice President, Advisory Services Beth Silverman Senior Director, Advisory Services Paul Angelone Director, Advisory Services Steven Gu Associate, Advisory Services James A. Mulligan Senior Editor David James Rose EditodManager Sara Proehl, Publications Professionals LLC Manuscript Editor Betsy Van Buskirk Creative Director Deanna Pineda, Muse Advertising Design Graphic Designer Craig Chapman Senior Director, Publishing Operations Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 3 Acknowledgments ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE, the panel would like to thank our sponsors, the Board of Coun ty Commissioners of Collier County—Penny Taylor, Donna Fiala, Andy Solis, Burt L. Saunders, and William L. McDan In addition, the panel expresses its appreciation to Steve Hruby, Nick Kouloheras, and the other members of the affordable housing committee for their assistance and support throughout the engagement. The panel also 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- and it thanks the community at large for being so from the Greater Collier County community who sentativescounty, 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. A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Contents ULIPanel and Project Staff...............................................................................................................................6 Background and the Panel's Assignment..........................................................................................................7 StudyArea and Surrounding Context.................................................................................................................9 CurrentConditions........................................................................................................................................11 Vision: What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up?.....................................................................................17 Implementation..............................................................................................................................................20 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................37 AppendixA: 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 Aboutthe Panel.............................................................................................................................................43 Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 5 ULl Panel and Project Staff Panel Chair Philip Payne Principal and Chief Executive Officer Ginkgo Residential Charlotte, North Carolina Panel Members Hilary Chapman Housing Program Manager Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Washington, D.C. Ian Colgan Assistant Executive Director Oklahoma City Housing Authority Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Joanne Fiebe Florida Center for Community Design and Research School of Architecture and Community Design, University of South Florida Tampa, Florida Lacy McManus Director of Program Development Greater New Orleans Inc. New Orleans, Louisiana John Orfield Principal BOKA Powell Dallas, Texas Cassie Wright Project Manager Urban Ventures LLC Denver, Colorado ULI Project Staff Beth Silverman Senior Director, Advisory Services Steven Gu Associate, Advisory Services 6 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Background and the Panel's Assignment COLLIER COUNTY HAS BEEN DESCRIBED as "unique" and "one of the most beautiful places in the world." Although the community is unique, the issue of housing affordability is not. In fact, virtually every commu- nity in the nation is, to some degree, struggling with this issue. It is especially true in retirement and resort commu- nities, which have significant numbers of service workers and high real estate values. The issue of housing affordability is not new. The panel is impressed with the time, the effort, and the quality of work that has been invested in this subject by the commission- ers and Collier County staff. Many of the panel's recom- mendations mirror and ratify the work that has already been done. From the panel's perspective, the real need in Collier County is for action and implementation. This implementa- tion will require political will and leadership. In addition, the community at large will need to prepare for and adapt to the growth that is certain to occur in the county. Not all of the panel's recommendations will be popular within the community at large, but the panel believes such recom- mendations are essential to the long-term viability and sustainability of Collier County. An integral part of this strategic vision will be developing a plan that ensures that affordable housing will be available to all of the county's citizens. The Panel's Assignment There is no question that Collier County has a housing affordability problem. The highly desirable area is home to millionaires and billionaires from around the world. The county also has a sizable second -home retirement com- munity. Like many affluent resort communities across the United States, those influences have created a develop- ment pattern that caters to select segments of the com- munity. The local economy is focused on retail, hospitality, services, and agriculture; however, high housing costs have priced out much of the workforce needed for the county to function. As a result, large numbers of employ- ees are commuting long distances to and from work, and employers are having an increasingly difficult time recruit- ing and retaining workers. Community leaders are seeking strategic recommendations on how to address the issues surrounding housing affordability in Collier County. In March 2015 and again in March 2016, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) held an affordable housing workshop. The BCC has also received several recommen- dations for programs and incentives to address housing affordability in Collier County, including establishing an affordable housing trust fund, providing even greater density incentives to support affordable housing develop- ment, and providing inclusionary zoning with pay -in -lieu -of options. The larger Collier County community has come Although Collier County is the site of multimillion -dollar homes, it faces a significant housing affordability problem. Part of the challenge stems from a significant lack of supply in terms of housing type and level of affordability throughout the county. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 Collier County circa 1930-1945. together around this issue. In October 2015, the United Way sponsored a community -wide forum about affordable housing. The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors has also established a work group to address this issue. Collier County has invited the ULI Advisory Services panel to help the county develop a community -wide approach to address housing affordability issues. Collier County has asked the panel to focus on the follow- ing key questions: ■ Why is it important for the county to have a balanced supply of housing, in terms of type, tenure, attainability, access, and distribution? ■ According to key stakeholders, including residents, what are the major obstacles to producing and sustaining affordable housing and workforce housing in Collier County? What can be done to mitigate those obstacles? ■ What are the stakeholders' perceptions of affordable and workforce housing and of the existing tools and programs in place to support it? What are stakeholders' recommendations for change? ■ How can public policy encourage the redevelopment of underused areas of the developed coastal area that includes affordable and workforce housing while ensur- ing that such housing will also be a component of new development in the urban and rural fringe areas. ■ What policies, strategies, and best practices have worked in places similar to Collier County that the panel would recommend that the county implement as it produces affordable housing units in the county's urban and rural areas? Summary of the Panel's Recommendations It was evident to the panel during its interviews with com- munity stakeholders; its review of comments compiled from a countywide, online, public survey; and its multiple study tours throughout Collier County that much work has already been done to address housing affordability chal- lenges. The panel hopes this report not only will serve as a blueprint for implementation, but also will help solidify an ongoing strategy to meet the county's spectrum of housing affordability needs. With such goals in mind, the panel's primary recommendations include the following: ■ Create a vision for the future of the community. ■ Recognize that housing affordability affects all segments of the community. ■ Increase the county's supply of affordable housing (in- cluding rental housing) by adding to the current supply and by maintaining existing affordable units. ■ Adopt a smart code that distinguishes between the urban and rural parts of the county. ■ Reactivate the Affordable Housing Trust Fund—and use it. ■ Recognize that transportation is part of the housing affordability solution. Develop solutions that link housing with access to transportation options. ■ Establish transportation corridors to target mixed - income, multifamily housing development. ■ Consider establishing an enhanced minimum -wage ordinance. ■ Raise public awareness, educate, and communicate with the community about housing affordability. 8 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Study Area and Surrounding Context LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST END of the Florida peninsula, Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. The county contains a variety of differ- ent communities including the city of Naples, inland Im- mokalee, and Marco Island, as well as four large nationally protected environmental areas. According to the 2010 census, the population breaks down to 65.7 percent non - Hispanic whites, 25.9 percent Latino, 6.6 percent African American, and 1.1 percent Asian. This diverse community, both geographically and ethnically, makes Collier County unique when compared with similar tourist destinations. However, this diversity has also led to housing issues throughout the county. Key Focus Areas Although the county was examined at large, the panel was asked to focus on the following key areas: ■ The city of Naples is an incorporated municipality bordering the Gulf of Mexico on the west and the unincorporated Collier County urban area on the east. Naples measures just 14 square miles and has some of the highest housing costs in the country. The limited number of commercial areas consists primarily of retail centers and financial institutions. ■ The urban area is located between the city of Naples and the rural lands (which run from the coast to about ten miles inland). Most of the housing, commercial, re- tail, and other services are located and permitted in this area. The urban area is characterized by large, planned, gated communities and by strip -mall developments. ■ The rural lands and the Estates area are located between the urban area and the more environmentally sensitive areas to the east. The Estates area is largely composed of platted, subdivided lots that range from Charlotte Harbor Fo%t BENBB lle, 1 la "west Palm Beach ' PALM BF,A B �I. Cape EE ynton e' alee - - 441 - rgat Naples ort Lauderdale C 0 L I E R BBoN'ABB , ollywood 41 Ba�Ps GULF N PRES -i \ Tamia laml O F \. \,\\ OE Blec ne NP MEXICO Whitewater Ho HaL _ BABE' este4d-- l ATLANTIC OCEAN Key West, Located in southwest Florida, Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. Collier County Florida <-- Immokalee area Urban area City of Naples -^' - -- Rural lands/Estates area f l The panel's study area encompasses the entire county. However, key focus areas within the study include the city of Naples, the urban area, the rural lands, the Estates area, and the Immokalee area. Collier County, Florida, January 29 -February 3, 2017 9 about one acre to more than 20 acres. During the Florida Land Grab of the 1950s, land parcels were divided and sold, creating the largest subdivision in the world with tens of thousands of home sites. Designated as privately owned, single-family lots, the Estates area's commercial and retail opportunities are limited. West of the Estates are the rural lands, which are primarily farmland and environmentally sensitive areas that are designated for future cities and towns. The first town to be built in this area is Ave Maria. Once the project is built out, it will have up to 11,000 residences and 1.7 million square feet of retail, office, and business park uses spread across its 4,000 acres. Ave Maria is located at the intersection of Oil Well Road and Camp Keals Road in eastern Collier County. The main entrance—on Oil Well just west of Camp Keals—leads to the town center. ■ The Immokalee area is an agricultural center of the county. It is located in the northeast section of the county and is characterized by residential, commercial, and industrial development. A significant percentage of the affordable housing units available in Collier County are located in the Immokalee area. Habitat for Humanity development projects, such as Carson Lakes and Faith Landing, are built here, as are other affordable housing developments, including Hatcher's Preserve. 10 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Current Conditions AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS MANY definitions and perceptions. Oftentimes, the multitude of definitions and opinions creates confusion when people are attempting to both study and solve issues of housing affordability in any given community or geography. Many definitions of afford- able housing refer to a percentage of area median income (AMI) as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Other definitions are careful to delineate between "affordable" and "workforce" housing— often defined as above or below 80 percent of AMI. Regard- less of the definition used in the affordable housing industry, for most people what represents "affordable" is more of a gut feeling that is influenced by their daily context. Throughout the study process, the panel consistently heard about Collier County's housing affordability problem. However, the panel also perceived that there is a lack of clarity and agreement about the definition of affordable CWr$iONING MW9 OGKCNI � . no r What Is Affordable Housina? The Center for Urban Pedagogy, a New York City nonprofit organization dedicated to using the power of design and art to increase meaningful civic engagement, created the guidebook What Is Affordable Housing? with pictures and diagrams to help explain affordable housing issues in New York City. housing, which is causing poor communication, misunder- standings, and misaligned goals relative to the topic. Ac- cordingly, the panel recommends reframing the terminology of housing affordability around the concept of cost burden. Reframing the Idea of Housing Affordability HUD defines "cost burdened" as the following: Families who pay more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, which includes mortgage principal and interest, property tax, and homeowners insurance payments. Other definitions add other housing costs, such as utilities, condominium or homeowners association fees, and ongo- ing maintenance or repairs, but the overall concept is that if a household is paying more than 30 percent of its gross income toward housing, then that is a concern, and from a policy standpoint, such cost may need to be addressed. The advantage of using the cost -burden terminology is that it does not put the focus on income alone; instead, it examines income as compared to housing cost. Therefore, it has a localized outcome that recognizes the different housing markets that exist nationally, regionally, and even within a single city or county. The 30 percent cost -burden threshold has been around for several decades. The idea was originally established by the 1937 National Housing Act, which also created the public housing program. At that time, eligibility to live in public housing was based on income limits, rather than maximum rents; a tenant's income could not exceed five to six times the rent. Since the late 1930s, the 30 percent income limit for rental housing has been reevaluated and Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 11 Glossary of Housing Affordability Terms Affordable housing: Generally, a home or apartment occupied by a household that pays 30 percent or less of its gross income toward its mortgage or rent. The term is also widely used to refer to housing that is subsidized or rent -regulated and that is occupied by a household that is "low-income" (see later). The term used in this manner can be limiting—there are growing numbers of households that are within a range of incomes, that live in unsubsidized or unregulated market -rate housing, and that have a problem with "housing affordability" (see later). Area median income (AMI): The median household income of each metropolitan statistical area (MSA) adjusted for family size. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes AMIs annually. AMI is used to determine the eligibility of applicants for most housing assistance programs. Extremely low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed the higher of the federal poverty level or 30 percent of AMI (see earlier). Housing affordability: Refers to the ability or the lack thereof of a household to meet its housing expenses with a reasonable and sustainable share of its income, generally spending no more than 30 percent of gross income on housing costs, without regard to the household's income or whether the household lives in subsidized, rent -regulated, or market -rate housing. Housing cost burden: Per the federal government, refers to a household having to pay more than 30 percent of its income for housing and possibly having difficulty affording other necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. A housing cost burden is "severe" if housing costs consume more than 50 percent of a household's income. Low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed 80 percent of AMI (see earlier), adjusted for family size. Mixed -income housing: "Mixed -income" has a twofold meaning. In accordance with federal housing policy, HUD defines a mixed -income building as "comprised of housing units with differing levels of affordability, typically with some market -rate housing and some housing that is available to low-income occupants below market -rate." In accordance with widely held housing industry practice, a mixed -income neighborhood consists of a variety of household incomes and opportunities for meaningful interaction, including parks, schools, and shopping. Moderate -income housing: Per federal regulations, households whose incomes are between 81 percent and 95 percent of AMI. The government may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 95 percent of AMI on the basis of an analysis of prevailing levels of construction costs, fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. Naturally occurring affordable housing: Generally, housing that is "affordable" to "low-income" and "moderate -income" (see earlier) households that is not currently federally subsidized or rent -regulated. Preservation: Generally, providing the necessary physical improvements and financial capital to enable a currently occupied rental property to remain "affordable" (see earlier) and in decent condition for a sustained period of time. Preservation programs can also target owner -occupied housing, thereby providing assistance to homeowners that allows them to make improvements to their homes and to remain in them. Public housing: Rental housing owned and operated by local housing authorities that primarily serves "extremely low-income" (see earlier) households. Roughly 2.6 million people live in the nation's 1.1 million public housing units. Very few public housing units have been built in recent years. Supportive housing: Generally, "affordable housing" (see earlier) combined with social services to assist vulnerable populations, such as the homeless, the disabled, the addicted, and the elderly. Very low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed 50 percent of AMI (see earlier), adjusted for family size. Workforce housing: Generally, housing that is "affordable" (see earlier) to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of AMI (see earlier). In high-cost areas, incomes may be as high as 150 percent of AMI. Some definitions exclude owner -occupied housing. Source: ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing. 12 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report During the study tour, the panel observed that in several communities multiple cars were parked in front of each home, thus supporting the theory that people are living together in order to afford the high cost of housing in the county. adjusted several times, ranging from 20 to 30 percent at any given time. In 1981, the housing burden rate for rentals was rees- tablished at 30 percent of gross annual income. Gradu- ally, this limit was extended to homeownership. In the mid -1 990s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would purchase mortgages only if their principal, interest, tax, and insur- ance (PITI) payments were 28 percent or less of the borrower's gross income for a conventional loan and 29 percent for a loan insured by the Federal Housing Admin- istration. Since that time, almost all cost -burden limits for housing have been around 30 percent of a household's gross income (https://www.census.gov/housing/census/ publications/who-can-afford. pdf). Used in conjunction with the 30 percent cost -burden threshold is severe cost burden, which includes house- holds that pay more than 50 percent of gross income toward housing costs. Those households are the most at risk—regardless of locality. Defining the Cost -Burden Problem In 2015, Collier County had a population of 343,802 and 140,131 households. The Shimberg Center at the Univer- sity of Florida estimates that of the 140,131 households, 58,685 (40 percent) were cost burdened in 2015—mean- ing they spent more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing. Of those 58,685 households, 29,342 were considered severely cost burdened—meaning they spent more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing. This finding means that two out of every five households in Collier County are cost burdened, with one in five severely cost burdened. Table 1: Cost Burden in Collier County Burden for Three -Person Household Earning 30 to 150 Percent of Area Median Income Percentage of income I Percentage of income I 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 _ 43 $59,125 100 21 51 35 $65,038 11031 $70,950 120 17 42 29 $88,688 Nihn150 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 numbers indicate. Not all of the households counted in the census are year-round residents, and most of those part- time households have incomes that support their residence in the county, which is a second residence. Therefore, it is likely that the actual percentages of cost burden are substantially higher among residents who live in the county year-round. To better understand the meaning of "cost burdened" in Collier County, the panel analyzed the correlation between household income and housing prices or rental rates. In 2016, the estimated AMI for Collier County was $65,700, and the average household size was 2.47. For a snapshot of the cost -burden issue, see table 1. Who Is Cost Burdened in Collier County? The people who are cost burdened in Collier County are crucial to the local economy. They provide key public safety, education, and health care services to the com- munity's residents. In addition, they are responsible for the high-quality lifestyle that makes Collier County such a special place. Examples of workers in the cost -burdened category include the following: ■ Health care: Nurses, medical assistants, senior service providers ■ Education: Teachers and other school employees ■ Public safety: Police officers, firefighters ■ Service industry workers: Wait staff, hotel staff, retail and trade salespeople, golf course employees, land- scape maintenance workers ■ Entry-level or nonprofit professionals: Bank tellers, social workers, office managers, government employees Not every person in those fields will have difficulty finding housing that is affordable. For example, dual -income households have increased purchasing power. However, people receiving entry-level and median income rates in health care, public safety, and professional sectors are more likely to experience a cost burden than are the people holding executive, management, and supervisory positions. Also, single -income households, which can include one- to four -person households, are more likely to experience a cost burden or even a severe cost burden when living in Collier County. Table 2 provides a representative sample of employment positions in Collier County and what people in such posi- tions can afford in the local market. Across the board, the ability to afford houses priced at the median sales price from 2015 was low. The ability to afford rental units at the median gross rent (plus utilities) was more reasonable, with affordability attainable for some of the people holding professional positions. During the panel process, the panel heard many stories regarding how difficult it is to recruit service industry work- ers, particularly those who work at the resorts and hotels, including housekeepers, front -desk staff members, and golf course attendants. The panel's analysis of cost burden for those jobs indicates that there is substantial cost burden for such workers unless they share living space or commute long distances. One critical challenge for Collier County businesses is the ability to recruit entry-level professionals. Mid- and upper-level professionals in public safety, education, government, and health care can afford a wider range of housing. However, such is not the case for entry-level professionals, who often end up living far away from their source of employment (particularly in Lee County). Having employees who reside outside of Collier County and who commute long distances for work often means a high level of attrition for businesses. Furthermore, when people who work in the county are commuting to adjoining municipali- ties to live, the county bears the costs of the roads without the benefit of receiving the tax revenue. Collectively, the employment sectors that are the most at risk to incur a significant cost burden represent more than 50 percent of the local labor force. But beyond that, the sectors represent the core of county, public safety, 14 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Table 2: Estimated Cost Burden for Households Headed by Selected Wage Earners Health care Registered nurse $47,000—$65,000 24% 38% Medical assistant $30,000—$35,000 41% 68% Emergency technician $28,000436,000 42% 68% Education Teacher $44,000—$59,000 280) 50% Teaching assistant $22,000—$24,000 45%° Public safety Firefighter $39,000—$57,000 29% 43% Patrol officer $47,000—$59,000 26% 41% Service workers Maid and housekeeping $18,000—$22,000 Massage therapist $26,000—$55,000 37% 44% Concierge $25,000431,000 48% Entry-level/midtier professional Human resources specialist $35,000—$55,000 31% 45% Dental assistant $33,000—$43,000 36% 57% Administrative assistant $22,00033,000 73% - Housing cost accounts for less than 30 percent of gross income (not cost burdened) - Housing cost accounts for 30 to 50 percent of gross income (cost burdened) - Housing cost accounts for 50 percent or more of gross income (severely cost burdened) Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; The 2016 Collier County Economic, Demographic & Community Profile; the American Community Survey. 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. Other important groups of residents with substantial needs include low- to moderate -income seniors, both those who live independently and those who require services; residents who require mental health treatment and various other services; and very low-wage earners. Those resi- dents face virtually no supply of housing or no continuity in being provided social and health services. Most experience long wait lists at the few available housing sites, and many have to be relocated outside of the county to areas with a greater concentration of housing and services. If one is to understand the full spectrum of housing afford- ability, it is critical to examine the aspects of the challenge that go beyond housing costs. Those additional crucial factors include added housing costs, housing supply and availability, transportation costs, and future growth implications for the county, and such factors are examined in further detail in the following sections. Added Housing Costs In Collier County, housing affordability for homeowners (and especially first-time homeowners) means more than Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 15 just taking into consideration PITT. 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 households is even higherthan outlined in the earlier section. One reason the percentage is higher is that many households cannot afford a 20 percent downpayment, which means they must pay private mortgage insurance, thus reducing the amount of home they can afford. In addition, almost all areas of Collier County require flood insurance, which adds a substantial monthly cost on top of all the costs just described. Moreover, Collier County has one of the highest homeowner insurance rates in Florida. Availability When one considers cost burden and affordability, one must also consider availability and quality. Housing units at the bottom of the cost spectrum often are made up of a high percentage of units with quality and maintenance concerns. If one considers the total number of units existing at differ- ent rental and sale prices, availability of those units at any given time can significantly constrain access to housing that is affordable. The panel took a "snapshot" of units available on the market using readily accessible, publicly available portals to find housing (Zillow.com, Trulia.com, Apartments.com). Using the income bands of 25 different employment Table 3: Collier County Housing Market Snapshot Units Affordable for Households Earning Less Than 100 Percent of Area Median Income Housing type Number of units Single-family, for -sale homes ' 125" ' Condominiums 65-250"* [Single-family rentals Multifamily rentals 23 Sources: Zillowcom; Apartments.com. '3.8 percent of inventory on multiple listing services "'Priced at $120,000 to $175,000 The analysis provided several interesting results. Although a reasonable number of condominiums were available (but no additional homeowners association fees were considered in the analysis, which may have resulted in fewer options), very few single-family homes were for sale, and there were very limited rental options, which indicated a particularly constrained rental market. For any worker or single -income household with income between 80 and 100 percent of AMI, options were extremely limited, to say nothing of those households making less than 80 percent, which represent a substantial percentage of workers who are cost burdened. Transportation Crucial to the cost -burden conversation is the combination of housing cost and transportation cost. According to data from the Center for Neighborhood Technology, households at 90 to 100 percent of area median income can incur housing and transportation costs of 75 percent of their gross income. That figure is 61 percent for households between 100 and 120 percent of AMI. Furthermore, de- pending on the distance from employment and other activity centers, transportation costs for Collier County households can fluctuate wildly. In some cases, households may incur 5 to 10 percent more in transportation costs if they are located farther away from employment and other services. Growth Implications In a county expected to grow significantly in population by 2040, what does that finding mean for the future? The county is expected to add 58,000 households over the next 23 years. If the local issue of cost burden is not addressed, then—at a minimum -11,000 more households will experience severe cost burden (above 50 percent) than do households today. Given ever -rising real estate values and a seemingly bottomless demand for higher -end homes and rentals, the likelihood of both the number and percentage of cost -burdened households increasing is high. 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 comprehensive look at the county. The panel also inter- viewed more than 90 stakeholders during this process, reaching out to residents, elected and appointed officials, business leaders, real estate developers, and nonprofit leaders. From the study tours and interviews, the panel did not hear a strong consensus regarding the path forward for Collier County. However, several common themes and community values were frequently raised. Those traits are both existing and aspirational: some have already been im- plemented across the county (such as the Blue Zone and the commitment to beautification), while others are indica- tive of recent concerns and current shortcomings (such as economic development and traffic). The common themes and community values include the following: ■ Maintaining Collier County's reputation as a premiere tourist destination ■ Growing and maintaining a strong real estate base and retaining steady values ■ Retaining a safe and healthy community ■ Enhancing and sustaining a visually attractive and aes- thetically pleasing community with character ■ Ensuring an efficient transportation system ■ Diversifying the local economy What the Future of Collier County Looks Like Collier County's current debate on housing affordability is not a new one. The panel heard repeatedly about the community's reservations regarding another discussion on housing affordability—the topic has been widely discussed for many years—with the Great Recession and housing downturn halting past efforts. These on -again, off -again discussions reflect the cyclical nature of this issue and the related concern it raises. Today, with new interests and partners realigning around the housing issue, a variety of pathways and solutions can be explored. Considering the overall values raised by community members, the panel believes two key scenarios 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.) 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 - The Future of Collier County without Action on Housing If county leaders choose not to respond to the current housing needs, it is likely that the current market condi- tions and trends will continue to advance and evolve. Local employers will continue to have difficulty hiring and retaining key employees in the county, which will create a "brain drain" out of the community and into neighboring jurisdictions, such as Lee County. Not only does this market condition place a strain on employers' ability to hire and retain high-quality talent, but also it means more workers and middle-class laborers will be commuting greater distances, thereby increasing transportation con- gestion and mitigating quality of life and civic engagement. In addition, Collier County's local economy will lose tax revenue as incomes earned in the county leave to neigh- boring jurisdictions because out -of -county employees tend to spend a greater portion of their income by going to gro- cery stores, restaurants, and dry cleaners in their residen- tial communities. Therefore, Collier County will continue to sustain the burden of influx infrastructure strain, while receiving no tax revenue from it. Those conditions create an intensified landscape of competition between counties, instead of mutual collaboration for the betterment of the region. With no action on housing, Collier County will be forced to create reactionary policy and will have more dif- ficulty when guiding future growth of the county. The Future of Collier County with Action on Housing Conversely, if the county takes appropriate action and intervenes, the aforementioned trends could be redirected in a more financially and economically sustainable direc- tion for the county. Although the panel report will identify sustaining employment base in which people can work in Collier County's Sheriff's Department, public schools, hotels, and restaurants and can live in the county. The benefits include an increase in tax revenue generated by the in -county residents, a lesser strain on existing transportation infrastructure, and an increase in the qual- ity of life for this vital segment of the community. Also, employers will have a better chance of attracting and retaining talented and skilled workers in the county, which will improve the overall quality of life in the county and will build a stronger middle class. With the growing aging demographic, a proactive policy will make the county a more hospitable place for longtime residents to age in place and to receive health care. Also, keeping this older demographic in the county will generate county tax revenue from the group's use of local pharma- cies, grocery stores, and specialized medical services. By taking a proactive approach toward addressing housing, Collier County can develop a vision that expands on and enhances the existing unique qualities of the county. Why a Vision Is Important The panel believes that the overall priorities of the county lack a collective vision; without such a vision, aligning and prioritizing government processes and policies will be challenging. Collier County is still facing near -certain changes—with or without a unifying vision—particularly regarding the incoming population and real estate growth. If one considers the expectations around building growth and residential influx, the problems facing the county today will be amplified in the coming years, thus exacerbating the current pain points (traffic, workforce, costs). In short, the status quo in Collier County will work only for a limited number of people and for a limited amount of time. The 18 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report As part of the study, the panel met with community stakeholders, including residents, business and community leaders, and other representatives from the larger Collier County community. panel feels strongly that without proactive management, the anticipated growth will erode the very qualities that attracted people to the county in the first place. The panel recommends that the creation of a vision for Collier County should come from the county itself, as a self-directed exercise, and should be inclusive of all stake- holders. However, to ensure the exercise and the results have the desired effect, the panel provides the following elements that the county should include in its vision: ■ Provide key considerations around quality of life for all residents, as well as how to improve and maintain it. ■ Provide a range of housing options that are accessible to the full spectrum of consumers. Housing options should be economically and geographically diverse throughout the county, as well as having a range in sizes and types such as single-family homes and rental apartments. Additional key factors to consider when providing hous- ing options include the reasonable proximity to jobs, schools, amenities, and transportation choices. There should also be an inclusive mix of income levels in dif- ferent neighborhoods. ■ Grow and sustain a thriving economy that includes qualities such as livable wages, job opportunities that provide pathways to wealth creation and upward mobil- ity, diversified industries, and a diversified workforce. ■ Provide accessible, multimodal transportation options that safely and efficiently connect all residents to jobs, amenities, and services. In addition, provide clear directives to governing entities to help align policies and processes with the envisioned future for the county. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 19 mplementation THE PANEL IS IMPRESSED WITH the planning and study that has already been completed regarding housing affordability in Collier County. The panel's recommenda- tions reflect and endorse much of the work that has al- ready been completed. However, what is abundantly clear to the panel is that action and implementation are crucial to creating sustainable solutions. Implementation of the panel's recommendations will require sincere action, tremendous political will, and strong leadership. For addi- tional reference, the panel has created a proposed imple- mentation schedule to provide a blueprint for how to move forward on the recommendations described throughout this section in the short, medium, and long term. (See ap- pendix A.) The panel's major recommendations are organized around the following six core strategies to address housing afford- ability: ■ Increase supply; ■ Maintain supply; ■ Regulate and govern; ■ Enhance transportation options; ■ Enhance wages; and ■ Engage, market, and educate. Increase Supply How can Collier County meet its current and future hous- ing needs? One approach to achieving the goals is by adding housing that is affordable to households with a wide range of income levels. There is good news to share.- several hare.several strategies include simply making improvements to existing procedures and vehicles rather than creating new programs entirely. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when existing structures already support the development of more affordable housing. The Housing Trust Fund The housing trust fund (HTF) is an example of a national best practice that Collier County currently has at its disposal but does not use. More than 700 HTFs exist nationwide, and they are often a critical element of a jurisdiction's overall housing policy. Collier County's HTF should be sustainable and predict- able, given the long planning process involved in housing development. The county should keep in mind that what can make an HTF challenging is finding viable revenue sources. Other jurisdictions have funded their trust funds through sales taxes, real estate transfer taxes, linkage fees as part of the zoning ordinance, inclusionary zoning in -lieu fees, condominium conversion fees or demolition fees, and hotel and motel taxes. The best and most common revenue source for a county HTF is a document record- ing fee, which is a fee paid upon filing various types of official documents with a state or local government. This fee is one of the few revenue sources that most counties can commit to, and the panel recommends Collier County consider this approach. Development Incentives The county's existing developer incentives have clearly failed to transform existing development patterns and allow for greater production of housing that is affordable to a broad range of low- to moderate -income households. Any developer incentives need to be reasonable, be flex- ible, and allow for creative partnerships to produce new, affordable homes. The panel strongly recommends that the county put increased emphasis on multifamily rental 20 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report County Housing Trust Fund Dedicated Revenue Sources Revenue Source Document recording fee Property tax Inclusionary zoning in -lieu fees Tax increment funds Delinquent property tax penalties and interest (land bank) Real estate transfer tax Hotel/motel tax Developer impact fees/proffers Food and beverage tax �� Sale of foreclosed properties Sales/use tax General funds County Trust Funds Arlington County, Virginia; 9 New Jersey counties; 54 Pennsylvania counties; 39 Washington counties Kalamazoo County, Michigan; King County, Washington Sonoma County, California Alameda County, California Toledo/Lucas County, Ohio Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Fairfax County, Virginia Dade County, Florida Traverse City, Michigan (now expired) Summit County, Colorado 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 situation. Multifamily rental housing is the most cost- effective way to provide housing that is affordable to the average working person. The panel recommends that existing density bonuses be reassessed to allow for and provide incentives for more mixed-use development and greater efficiency of land use throughout the county. This recommendation will be dis- cussed in greater detail later in this report, but the current density bonus program needs revision to allow for higher densities to ensure that additional mixed -income, mixed - tenure (rental as well as homeownership) developments are financially feasible. Examples of this type of increased den- sity include Bayfront and Naples Square, at more than 20 to 30 units per acre rather than the average 2.5 units per acre in other residential communities. The density can also be flexible to allow for complementary adjacent uses and to reflect different preferences in the urban and rural areas. Impact fees are an often -cited source of frustration to those creating both market rate and affordable housing products. Not only are high impact fees an impediment to new construction of affordable housing, but also they can be erratic and can be an ineffective way to raise revenue. During periods of high growth, they can produce lots of cash, but during slow periods of growth, the revenue provided by such fees falls, sometimes precipitously. An example of existing density that allows for a mix of uses in downtown Naples along Fifth Avenue. 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 walkable, sustainable place, with transit -accessible, mixed - income housing at its core. Fairfax County, Virginia, home to 1.1 million residents, is the most populous county in the Washington, D.C., region and is one of the most prosperous in the nation, with a median household income of nearly $113,000. The county's development since the 1960s and its image today have been shaped by the growth of Tysons Corner, a roughly 1,700 -acre area originally marked by the intersection of state Routes 7 and 123. For a half century, "Tysons" has epitomized the commercially successful suburban employment center and retail destination, which is dominated by large office buildings occupied by white-collar companies and high-end shopping malls. Tyson's enormous economic success—it was the nation's 12th - largest central business district as recently as 2014—came over time with substantial costs in the form of traffic congestion and sprawling development. The number of homes and apartments fell far behind the number of jobs; investment fell short of needs in cultural amenities, green space, and schools; and transit options were limited. Tysons's very economic model came into question. For local business leaders and elected officials, the future of Tysons depends on whether it can reinvent itself as a more complete community. Under the rubric of a "Transforming Tysons" plan, Fairfax County has established goals to be met by 2050: increase the number of Tysons residents to 100,000 (from 19,000 today), double the number of jobs to 200,000, and ensure that at least three-quarters of the new growth is within a half -mile of Metro stations (four stations opened in the Tysons area in 2014), Fairfax County also intends Tysons to be a mixed -income residential community—a place where construction and service workers, teachers, and others in need of more affordable housing can afford to live. To achieve that goal, the county has ambitiously expanded a longstanding county policy that has been a national model for promoting inclusionary housing development, Equity Strategies, Results, and Challenges Since 1990, the county has generally required residential development projects (excluding high rises) to set aside a share of units (generally 5 to 12.5 percent) for households earning 50 to 70 percent of the Washington metro area median income. Developments receive a density bonus— permission to increase the size of the project—to help mitigate the economic cost of delivering the below-market units. This affordable dwelling unit (ADU) program has generated more than 2,500 affordable units to date, with about an equal mix of rental and for -sale housing. Research indicates that Fairfax County ADU homes and apartments are overwhelmingly located in low -poverty neighborhoods and in areas with schools comparable to those in places without ADUs. Research also indicates that the program has not deterred developers from delivering profitable projects in the county. By state law, the ADU program does not apply to high-rise buildings— precisely the type of development the county wants to see near transit in the Tysons transformation plan. Recognizing that this exemption would undermine the opportunity to provide a wider range of housing choice in Tysons, the county expanded its inclusionary policy so it could be applied more effectively in the area. As a result, 20 percent of all high-rise units in Tysons must meet affordability requirements, albeit at higher income levels than the ADU program. Though low- and mid -rise buildings are still covered by the ADU program, their developers are encouraged to meet the higher standard as well. As of June 2016, 356 affordable units had been delivered in Tysons. Future development up to allowed densities could result in the creation of as many as 4,200 units in the area. Tysons will also generate funding to support affordable housing through payments that office, retail, and hotel development projects must make in return for receiving county approval to build at greater densities—generally either a one-time contribution of $3 per square foot or annual payment of $0.25 per square foot for 16 years, As of 2014, this policy was projected to generate more than $64 million for investment in affordable housing in Tysons through a trust fund. The capacity of Tysons to become a more equitable community is interlinked with its evolution into a denser, more walkable area and with its careful use of inclusionary development practices and incentives as that evolution occurs. Researcher Christopher Leinberger, whose work has suggested that more -walkable urban places can advance an array of social -equity outcomes as well as deliver superior economic returns, has noted of Tysons: "Many of the neighborhood associations surrounding [Tysons] became supporters of increased density because of the promised walkable urban future. NIMBYs (not in my backyard) became YIMBYs (yes in my backyard)." The Tysons inclusionary housing policy is not perfect. In exchange for requiring a higher percentage of inclusionary units than under the existing ADU program, the county raised the income levels of eligible families, reflecting the realities of development feasibility. To serve families with very low incomes, the county will need to offer development subsidies through the trust fund and other sources. And while the Tysons policy appears to be working well for rental apartment buildings, it has proven more problematic for for -sale projects. In November 2016, the Washington Postreported: "County leaders are considering relaxing the 20 percent expectation for high-rise condominium projects, after developers complained that it will make it harder to secure financing for their typically smaller buildings." The county worked with the development community to revise the policy to reflect market conditions that had changed since it was put in place, and the first condominium project was recently approved. 22 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report The high fee structure, however, reflects the limited sources available to Collier County to support develop- ment of all types. The panel recommends a review of the impact fee structure to consider how to better incentivize developers to build a spectrum of housing types and sizes. Further, the panel recommends that the current impact fee deferral program cover all types of income -restricted hous- ing, regardless of whether it is single-family, multifamily, senior, or special needs housing. National Best Practices In addition to enhancing existing tools to create affordable housing, the panel recommends tailoring several national best practices to Collier County's unique characteristics to supplement the county's ability to meet current and future housing needs. Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is an approach to add to the supply of affordable housing options by linking the zones to the creation of market -rate housing. IZ programs have been used across the country since 1972 and vary greatly in terms of their structure and requirements. Given the under - use of the existing density bonus program, the county needs to consider a more proactive approach to increase the supply of housing options for all of its residents. Although IZ programs may not produce a high volume of units, such programs have the unique ability to provide the choice to residents to live in communities with better access to transit, jobs, and schools. IZ programs can be flexible in implementation to fit the needs of the county and to fit different project types. For example, the county may want to allow for the provision of inclusionary units to be produced off site; the payment for units through a fee -in -lieu arrangement to the HTF; or the creation of partnerships between for-profit and nonprofit developers so the units best fit the respective business models and expertise. Mitigating the cost of land—something that is fixed, limited, and a significant challenge to all developers in Collier County—can be addressed through vehicles such as a community land trust (CLT) and through a program to Case Study: Palm Beach County Workforce Housing Program Palm Beach County's Workforce Housing Program requires all new developments of more than ten units to provide units for households earning 60 to 120 percent of AMI in exchange for additional density allowances on a sliding scale. Developers have the flexibility to meet the affordable housing requirements by paying an in -lieu fee, building units off site, or purchasing and deed restricting market -rate units. To date, more than 1,400 affordable or workforce units have been approved as part of 36 developments. In addition, nearly $900,000 of in -lieu fees have been collected from three developments. The program was established in 2004 but gained traction in the market only after 2009, when the county made substantial revisions as a result of recommendations by the real estate industry, including homebuilders and realtors. An evaluation of the program found that the county's incentives fully offset the cost or lost profit incurred by developers in providing the affordable and workforce units. designate public land for public goods, such as affordable housing. CLTs are nonprofit, community-based organiza- tions whose mission is to provide affordable housing in perpetuity by owning land and leasing it to those who live in houses built on that land. Although CLTs may have a broad mission, their primary role is providing successful homeownership opportunities for generations of lower- income families. A related approach to the CLT is to consider a ground lease structure. This approach both dramatically reduces the cost of the land to the developer and helps ensure long-term affordability for the housing built on that site. The city of Naples has used this approach in at least two instances at the Jasmine Cay and Carver Apartments. The panel also recommends that the county immediately undertake a review of the current land inventory to identify parcels that may be available for housing development Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 23 opportunities. This review can be accomplished using a cross -agency strategy, and the county should find ways to engage with community stakeholders to identify possible sites and building intensities. A related part of using public land for public good is to colocate affordable housing with the renovation or creation of new public facilities. One suc- cessful example includes building affordable housing for seniors adjacent to a new public library at a development called the Bonifant in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is not the sole responsibility of either the government or the private sector to provide for the housing needs of all residents in Collier County. The best way to produce housing effectively that meets a broad, rather than narrow, range of housing needs is through effective public/private partnerships. Elements of effective public/private partner- ships include creating a shared vision, clear roles and responsibilities, consistent and coordinated leadership, and frequent communication. Repurposing Vacant and Underused Retail Space Another unique opportunity for Collier County to add to its supply of affordable housing is to take advantage of existing vacant and underused retail sites along major transportation corridors through a conversion to multi- family residential buildings. This effort would accomplish several goals simultaneously, including these: ■ Returning underperforming buildings to the tax rolls and generating revenue for the county, and ■ Providing an option for rental apartments along existing transportation corridors without the need to create new infrastructure. The county's regular rental housing surveys have found va- cancy rates in multifamily rental buildings to be extremely low, at 1 to 2 percent, thus indicating a significant unmet demand for rental housing options. Maintain Supply One of the most cost-effective and efficient means of providing affordable housing is to maintain the existing The Bonifant in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, is a transit - oriented development for lower-income seniors that is adjacent to the new Silver Spring library and within walking distance of transit and bus lines. supply. The National Housing Trust finds that renovating an existing property can be one-third to one-half as expensive as new construction. Renovating older properties does not require new land for development, takes advantage of existing infrastructure, and reduces construction waste. Collier County has an existing renovation code available to developers looking to refurbish existing properties, and the county should encourage its use through incentives mentioned previously, such as through expedited permit- ting and inspections and by reducing or deferring the associated fees. The county can identify opportunities proactively by track- ing properties with expiring affordability covenants (using resources such as the National Housing Preservation database) to ensure that existing rental properties remain affordable for the long term. The county should also explore implementing a right of first refusal to purchase The panel strongly recommends that the county take an inventory of vacant and underused commercial parcels that might be available for housing development. 24 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Inclusive Housing Strategies: Pasadena, California Pasadena (population 140,000), a southern California city renowned for its high quality of life, faces formidable challenges in providing affordable housing in an expensive market with high land costs and a limited amount of developable property. Sustained price appreciation has made housing unaffordable—even for households earning more than $100,000 annually. Through an array of incentive -based programs, including an inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) and a density bonus, the city has supported development of more than 5,000 transit - oriented housing units since 2001, including 1,370 units of affordable and workforce housing. The Housing Incentives Fee Program, adopted by the city council in 2004, incentivizes production of affordable housing by providing developers with significant reductions in impact fees, building permit fees, construction taxes, and transportation fees. The city adopted its density bonus ordinance in 2006, which provides developers of housing projects that include affordable units with a bonus in the number of units that may be constructed on a site. (either by the county or by a nonprofit partner) expiring use properties so the county can prevent the loss of any housing that is affordable to low- and moderate -income residents and that might result in displacement. Regulate and Govern After a review of existing regulations, interviews with stakeholders, and an understanding of current market conditions, the panel determined that the county faces inherent difficulties, unnecessary costs, and a lack of predictability to developing affordable housing projects. Al- though internal and external market forces play a large role in the success of the projects, the county could reduce approval times and costs while increasing predictability in the review process in three steps: ■ Update regulations to encourage affordable housing development in desired areas. Pasadena has emphasized links to transit by clustering mixed-use projects near light-rail stations, major corridors, and employment areas. Because of efforts to encourage transit -oriented development, the majority of residential and mixed-use projects built during the 2000s were located within a half mile of a transit stop or employment center. More than 50 percent of the affordable units produced under the IHO were developed along such major corridors. Two large IHO projects have been developed close to Gold Line light-rail stations, and a third project (totaling 212 units) is forthcoming. In addition, Pasadena's efforts to promote affordable housing have extended beyond simple subsidies to encompass community outreach. According to William Huang, the city's housing director, "The success of affordable housing is rarely only financial. Even if funding is secured, gaining public acceptance is a prerequisite." ■ Permit higher densities in urban areas for projects with affordable housing by -right, ■ Revise the governance structure, and streamline the process. Review and Revise the Land Development Code Good codes are the foundation on which great communi- ties are built. When done well, codes make it easier for a community to implement its vision. However, the current Land Development Code (LDC) does not consistently sup- port and encourage growth in already existing urbanized areas of the county (those areas generally west of Collier Parkway). Many of the LDC's ordinances are geared toward large-scale, planned -unit developments (PUDs) on greenfield sites. Conversely, smaller -scale redevelopment and infill sites in already developed areas of the county are challeng- ing to consolidate, may need to address adjacent uses and neighborhood concerns, and often require additional Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 25 The Bayfront Naples development is an example of successful and appropriate density and mixed-use development in Collier County. density to make them financially feasible. Because of the way that current codes are written, PUDs generally have been more predictable to entitle and have fewer barriers to obtaining funding. Although difficult to develop, projects in the urban areas of the county can yield great benefits by placing residents near existing transit, employment, shopping, and other daily needs and by reducing strain on existing infrastructure. Even though Collier County routinely amends portions of its LDC, consideration should be given to initiating an effort to overhaul the code by implementing a Smart Code, also known as a Unified Development Code (https:// transect.org/codes.html) to encourage the development of affordable and mixed -income housing. Smart Codes are designed to differentiate between more urban and rural conditions that reflect the different characteristics and priorities found across the county. Unique standards for the different tiers of density encourage a more diverse development pattern while encouraging affordable housing in a mixed-use, pedestrian -scaled environment. In a Smart Code framework, all regulatory standards are combined into one streamlined document to prioritize environmental protection, high-quality design, and compatibility with existing patterns of development. The focus of the urban tier should be to stimulate and accommodate infill growth while encouraging affordable housing. This focus can be accomplished through residential density bonuses, mixed-use height bonuses, reductions from parking requirements, modifications to buffer and landscape requirements, and other incentive - based measures. In addition to the county's creating a Smart Code, several LDC revisions could make it easier to develop affordable dwelling units in urban portions of the county: ■ Reduce parking standards: Consider establishing standard percentage reductions in minimum parking requirements for urban portions of the county where there are more transit services, where opportunities exist to walk to shopping and employment, and where shared parking opportunities exist to promote efficient site design and reduce development costs. Typical parking standards for multifamily housing in more urban areas range from 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit. ■ Create well-defined compatibility, building mass- ing, and buffer standards: The panel heard about several recent development applications in which com- patibility with adjacent existing communities has fueled distrust between existing neighborhoods and developers. The conflicts are in part due to a lack of clear expecta- tions as to what is required by the LDC. For infill develop- ment projects that include affordable housing, this lack of certainty causes an unnecessary burden on developers while at the same time residents have concerns about property values and existing views. As an example, Okla- homa City created a development guide (http://planokc. org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/planokc_Chap2_ DevelopmentGuide.pdf; page 71) that focuses on urban design solutions for compatibility related to building scale and site design. It provides clear expectations to both the existing neighborhoods and developers as to what should be expected when designing the site and massing of buildings. Those types of standards can also help set community expectations if it is determined that redevel- opment of nonfunctioning golf courses is appropriate. ■ Permit guest houses as accessory dwelling rental units: There are a number of existing guest homes, pre- dominantly in the eastern portions of the county and the Estates, that—if permitted to be used as rentals—could have an immediate effect on the supply of affordable 26 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report rental housing. Additional rental income could also have a positive effect for families who own the units. Although effects on transportation, schools, and other facilities should be considered, these units have already been constructed, are occupied, or have been occupied in the past. Making them legal to lease allows code enforce- ment to better regulate the units while limiting exploita- tion of renters. ■ Encourage smart -site infrastructure: According to a number of interviewees, the panel heard that several onerous land development requirements add unneces- sary expense to overall project costs. The requirements further exacerbate challenges to providing affordable units in projects. Examples include requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street, right-of-way commitments, utility spacing, and other requirements that are more burdensome to on-site development than are the neigh- boring Lee County standards. Target Certain Activity Centers for Significantly Higher Density with the Provision of Mixed - Income Housing Collier County currently has high concentrations of housing in particularly low-density areas of the county. A healthy mixed -income community has higher densities to promote a walkable environment but not high concentrations of low-income housing in one place. Mixed -income com- munities are a market-based approach and include diverse housing for people with a range of income levels. Mixed - income communities are healthier than homogenous, low-income neighborhoods because they prevent blight, support upward mobility, and help retain property values. The panel recommends the following two approaches to achieve these goals: ■ Strengthen the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Program: The current maximum residential densities permitted in Collier County are generally 16 units per acre within specified activity centers of the county when affordable housing is provided (excluding transfer of development rights opportunities). Although maximum buildout of density is frequently not achieved in large PUDs, smaller infill sites in the western urban portions of the county need additional density to be financially viable. This need was confirmed during the panel's interviews where developers consistently stated that to provide affordable housing on site, the number of residential units allowed per acre should be significantly increased. For example, 30 units per acre maybe a more realistic maximum density to properly incentivize market -rate developers to provide affordable housing. In addition, to properly capitalize on infrastructure, mini- mum densities should be provided for residential units per acre. Bonus density is even more important given the approximately 9 percent of unentitled land. Finally, the AHDB program is logistically challenging for market -rate builders to administer. ■ Identify strategic opportunity sites: As illustrated in the map above, the panel also recommends that the county consider further density increases in limited urban areas of the county such as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA where high-quality transit facilities along transportation corridors are provided. Streamline the Project Approval Process when Affordable Housing Is Provided Land use decisions are largely decided by the five -member Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) by a super - majority rule. According to developers, land use attorneys, planners, and other land development professionals, a great deal of uncertainty exists in knowing whether or not a zoning application will be approved because it takes only two board members to veto a project. For projects that in- clude affordable housing, this lack of certainly is a key im- pediment to project viability. In addition, although all board members are charged at looking at the county, no at -large board members are specifically charged with overseeing regional and countywide issues. The panel recommends considering adding two at -large board members, making the new BoCC a seven -member board, and reducing the super -majority to a five -out -of -seven approval process. If adding new BoCC members is not feasible, the panel recommends reducing the super -majority requirement to a Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 27 The panel created a conceptual framework to help identify activity centers and transportation corridors with a higher density of mixed -income housing development. Activity centers are denoted by red _ squares and transportation corridors by purple lines. Pin Rid a Road dr —� city r Naples}' simple -majority, which will provide greater certainty. For ex- ample, Hillsborough County, Florida, has a seven -member board with three at -large board members. Although there is an expedited construction permit review process, the panel recommends this process be expanded to include comprehensive plan amendments and zon- ing approvals. Comprehensive plan amendments could also be reviewed concurrently with a zoning change for projects that include affordable housing. This change to the project approval process could also be extended to include a concurrent processing of a zoning application and site plan. Consideration should be given to increasing the number of administrative approvals that do not require BoCC approval that will streamline the process and provide greater certainty. Although not strictly related to incentivizing affordable housing, Fairfax County, Virginia, provides concurrent processing (see www.fcrevit.org/publications/download/ Develop mentlnCRD_CRA. pdf) for comprehensive plan amendments and zoning applications as an incentive for redevelopment of older areas of the county. Enhance Transportation Options Collier County, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tion (MPO), and the city of Naples have done extensive public outreach and planning for alternative mobility op- tions in the county. From the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (2012) and MPO's Comprehensive Pathways Plan (2012), there are clear strategies and recommendations for enhancing transportation access across the county. In ad- dition, there are policy frameworks—such as the complete streets, the existing community movements including the Naples Pathways Coalition, the community Blue Zone, and the various committees and task forces that are informing a range of government entities. Those efforts have created an exemplary foundation of outreach and data to inform and to guide the implementation of a thorough alternative transportation system. Such assets and engagements are critical in the context of housing affordability, because transportation costs and convenient, efficient access to jobs seriously affect the attainability of housing and the overall viability of a community. For instance, even if housing is affordable, the costs of transportation can outweigh the financial benefits of those price points. In addition, the very workforce that most directly benefits from accessible and efficient transportation systems serves as the backbone of the Collier County economy: thus, it relegates this workforce to commutes of several hours or to life-threatening conditions (via bike and pedes- trian commutes), and it inhibits this group's productivity and employment access. Whether it is a bank teller driving to work in Naples, a landscaper riding his bike to a gated community, a waiter taking a bus to a local restaurant, or a teacher walking to a neighborhood school, the workforce of Collier County needs a range of transportation options that align with and support a range of housing choices in a variety of areas. By enacting and implementing many of the recommenda- tions that the plans call for, not only will Collier County be a more accessible community, but also it will be a healthier and more fiscally conservative area. As the aspirations and 28 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report ii r ii.r . 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). 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 network of mobility not only provides workforce access but also provides access to healthier lifestyles. In addition, to get to work or to other services and the MPO's ameni- ties, the infrequency of the service can make transporta- tion and access an increased difficulty. For riders who 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 congestion and stress on roadways will save the county significant funds in the future. For all of those reasons, creating greater synergies can change what would be a short car ride into an all - morning or all -evening commute. If directed effectively, however, the transit service can be an extraordinary asset for the Collier County work - between housing and transportation decision making and force, potentially reducing the group's commute and investments is vital for Collier County. Although the panel applauds the efforts of past plans and initiatives, it strongly recommends leveraging the engagement and resources already in place to create a robust multimodal transporta- tion system that better connects labor, jobs, services, and amenities to housing. It is time to act on the work of the past several years and to implement. In keeping with the plans and efforts mentioned previously, the panel recommends that Collier County specifically pursue and prioritize the following recommendations in an implementation phase. Integrate Bus Routes with Affordable Housing Locations Currently, the average headway (the average interval of time between buses pausing at a given stop on a route) in Collier County is 1.5 hours, with the shortest headway at car ownership costs. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the average American family spends 19 percent of its household budget on transporta- tion. For families that are in transit -efficient locations, this cost decreases to 9 percent; for those in auto -dependent communities, it increases to 25 percent. Thus, transporta- tion costs can directly add or subtract substantial funds from families' household budgets, thereby increasing cost burdens or providing more flexibility in household budgets. In light of the budget realities, the panel recommends implementing the recommendations of past planning efforts and aligning affordable housing investments and bus routes to the greatest extent possible, specifically considering and including the following: ■ Identify transportation corridors for multifamily development: In keeping with best practices from com- 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 job centers and that incentivize specific zones for further multifamily development. By linking residential growth to the transit system, the county will relieve stress on the transportation system by encouraging transit ridership and by creating more effective commutes for the work- force in affordable locations. ■ Implement park-and-ride systems: Park-and-ride is a term that describes a traffic management practice where drivers leave their cars in parking lots of identified commercial centers (typically on the outskirts of urban areas) and travel to the job or employment centers on public transportation. Given the significant footprint of development across the county, as well as the potential for additional neighborhoods such as Ave Maria develop- ing in the rural lands area, working with commercial centers to create a park-and-ride system would take congestion pressure off the internal traffic corridors and would provide workers living in outlying areas with simpler commutes to job centers. Already, circulator routes provided by the Collier Area Transit System (CATS) provide circulator services to and from major commercial centers, like the Super Walmart, The panel recommends consideration be given to enhancing, modifying, and marketing those routes as park-and-ride opportunities. In addition, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) already operates many park-and-ride facilities across the state, thus facilitating vanpool and carpool options. ■ Explore bus rapid transit and express service lines: Recognizing that there are specific areas of greater tran- sit ridership, CATS should explore the creation of either bus rapid transit or express routes to link specific areas to job centers via an express, limited -stop route. This approach is in keeping with the effective best practices that CATS has already established around many of its bus lines. The opportunity now is to enhance what is in place and to create demand -driven transportation lines serving workers. Las Vegas, another tourism dependent economy with a wide geographic footprint, has imple- mented bus rapid transit and express service lines across Case Study: Arlington County, Virginia In Virginia, Arlington County's Special Affordable Housing Protection District (SAHPD) identifies neighborhoods with existing affordable housing within the county's metro corridors. The goal of the SAHPD is to retain affordable housing opportunities (through preservation or replacement) in the county's high-cost transit corridors. In instances where redevelopment is proposed within those districts, developers can achieve higher densities if they include one-for-one replacement of existing affordable housing as part of their project, (One-for-one replacement has been interpreted as replacing the number of bedrooms or the gross floor area on a one-for-one basis.) Replacement can occur either on site or at a similar location off site. the region to directly connect tourism workers to key areas of the city, including downtown and the Strip. Not only is the service successful, but also it is widely used by the workforce to access jobs and housing. Enhance Bike Lane and Pedestrian Systems According to the Collier County MPO's 2014 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Study—a complementary report to the 2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan—a survey of 478 respondents resulted in 62 percent reporting that they had felt "threatened for personal safety during bicycling or walking trips." For Collier County to reduce transporta- tion road costs, effectively move the workforce across the community, and create healthy avenues for residents to engage in civic activities, this number must be mitigated and the recommendations of both studies should be advanced. Steps toward this goal include the following: ■ Implement the Comprehensive Pathways Plan for the county: Advancing the thorough recommendations of past studies is a meaningful next step in this process, but specific prioritization should be given to the "crash corridors" and "crash clusters" identified in the safety analysis. 30 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report An example of the successful and well -used bike lane infrastructure along 151h Street, a major downtown corridor in Washington, D.C. ■ Enhance safety for transit mobility: The recommen- dations of the 2014 "Safety Study" should be prioritized and funding should be allocated for the full implementa- tion of key safety issues, including continuing educa- tion for traffic engineers and law enforcement officers, application of the FHWA's bike and pedestrian best practices, and continued integration of best practices in engineering design. In addition, the panel recommends addressing lighting, street signage, and public awareness for bicyclists and pedestrians. ■ Hire a bike and pedestrian coordinator for the county and leverage expertise at FDOT: To take full advantage of the recommendations and work already completed, a specialized coordinator should be hired at the county level to advance bicycle and pedestrian priork ties, including reviewing future roadway projects for bike and pedestrian enhancements and safety considerations. In New Orleans, a bike and pedestrian coordinator was able to advance the implementation of more than 100 miles of on- and off-road bike lanes after the project was embedded in the local Department of Public Works through a grant from the local utility company and sup- port from the Louisiana Public Health Institute. Establish Sustainable, Secure Revenue for Transit and Alternative Mobility CATS is serving an increasingly vital need in the county as workforce demands intensify and traffic concerns grow. However, if the service is going to be able to keep up with the demands already placed on it, a critical element is that the service has a sustainable source of revenue it can leverage and depend on. Given the expenses of highways ($4.6 million per lane mile), prioritizing proactive invest- ments in transit today could save the county significant funds in the future. In addition, given the growing bike and pedestrian needs of the county and the multitude of com- munity benefits that those amenities provide, a revenue source should also be identified and provided for such additional capacity. Create Ride -Sharing Option With smartphone apps and online connectivity, fantastic and successful tools for ride sharing are available that can be conveniently and affordably accessed. The county should explore promoting such resources and working with nonprofits to promote convenient ride -sharing options for populations living in more suburban or remote areas, like the Estates, Ave Maria, or Immokalee. The New Orleans Regional Planning Commission sponsors one such ride - share platform, the New Orleans GreenRide, which uses a social media platform to connect riders and carpoolers. Enhance Wages For several decades, middle- and lower -middle-class wages across the United States essentially have been stagnant while housing costs have risen significantly. This trend has resulted in increased pressure on affordability of housing. One effective option to address this issue is to increase wages. The panel has identified two possible options for Collier County. 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 seven -county region and is now capitalized at $24 million. Borrowers may use funds to purchase, hold (for up to five years), and develop sites within a half mile of fixed -rail transit stations or a quarter mile of high -frequency bus stops. The fund has closed 11 transactions totaling nearly $16 million, with a pipeline of more than 900 permanently affordable units and more than 150,000 square feet of commercial and community space. Returns to capital providers (public agencies, foundations, financial institutions, and community development financial institutions) are generally 2 to 6 percent. Denver's new Regional Transportation District rail system has eight rail lines servicing 53 stations along the north, east, southeast, southwest, and west rail corridors. . can have a profound impact on its ability to afford housing o within the community. ORLEANS — NRIDE Second, the panel recommends instituting enhanced Home GreenRlderutm1al minimum wage ordinances. Several U.S, cities including Mptra Rew alleam.tireeA.° ;. Albuquerque, New Mexico; Flagstaff, Arizona; Malibu, NB ihend"�"""gam Ma California; Miami Beach, Florida; Portland, Maine; and mmmHexoenensrrreenrmascompie¢ay,' f nalpssonnacscommwms wAn caroodm�mhee - -� � ine r+ew orice�s nauWce,e"a,;.,., xb erect rr Washington, D.C., have attempted to address the issue nosyroh J. your C9rrireuA: eotl ranvwr Cwm + mWcaelsev+np.E.d., OVi. red sdon.: of housing affordability this way and are seeing positive II io Hne onm«eeew regis7mnng rrah creenR aeckck o",narr�enabRrn �ranne r results. In virtually all cases, the ordinances call for a mod- ceging "Md n 4ukk AM easy. i. R99nPer.a'0 411"' p:dJe. r�"a ane 1.d-1" -h. m h� S 3 Stag rep-hnpa Jswir,gr Slgn In or RegSter Metro New Orleans GreenRide links commuters with carpool matches in the New Orleans metropolitan region. 32 First, government employees are one of the largest groups affected by housing affordability issues in Collier County. On the basis of cost burden for this group, the panel rec- ommends the county consider enhancing wages for county employees. Even modest increases in salary for this group est immediate increase in the minimum wage followed by a series of incremental steps spread over a period of three to five years that ultimately lead to a mandated minimum wage of $13 to $15 per hour. Engage, Market, and Educate Beyond moving ideas into action, education and com- munication also are critical pieces of a comprehensive and successful strategy for implementing housing affordability. If one is to combat the often false and confusing myths regarding what affordable housing is, what it might look like, and what unintended consequences it might create, it is crucial to educate the entire community about the full range of benefits that a balanced supply of housing brings, A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report to raise awareness, and to make affordable housing a vis- ible problem to everyone. Bolster Existing Programs and Processes The county government has already developed an afford- able housing database that tracks for -sale and rental units throughout the county. However, the panel recommends enhancing this database to include and track new units coming online and to include their sunset dates so that the county has a clear understanding of the supply of afford- able units in real time. This information should include comprehensive details, including addresses, bedroom sizes, square footage, rental rates, for -sale rates, and neighborhood location. An en- hanced database will also help ensure that the community has a credible source of real-time information that shows that affordability is spread throughout the county and not concentrated in any one district. By improving existing housing information online, the county will create a robust information portal for exist- ing and prospective residents to learn about the county's housing programs and any workshops or events related to housing in the county, ensuring that residents have the right information to make housing decisions. The panel also recommends that existing housing applica- tions are streamlined for residents and handled directly by the county instead of by individual developers. During the panel's review, it heard from the development community that developers are responsible for accepting income veri- fication applications, which they are simply not qualified to manage. This process should be administered either by the county or an administrator managed by the county, such as a private or nonprofit lender. Raise Awareness and Communicate with the Entire Community Although the links between housing affordability and communications may not be immediately obvious, public awareness, communication, and an overall education cam- paign can help ensure that ongoing efforts around housing affordability succeed. The panel has seen a tremendous F ENYISl�NIIVG - tVLLurMtMi QOLIUT ,.� , [��^ y /} Hew Yerk _ � • � "° number of plans and technical recommendations, but un- less they are being communicated to the public at large in a clear and concise manner that is understandable by all, such efforts will go nowhere. To start, the panel recommends that the county develop a comprehensive marketing and communications plan that appeals to a wide variety of audiences: the current and potential residents, the business community, the local community organizations, and the proven donors within the community. The plan needs to appeal to people who are seeking housing, to people who support housing afford- ability, and to those who are skeptics. The message should be tailored around those three key audiences and the lan- guage used should be culturally sensitive, age appropriate, and multilingual. Ideally, the strategies will include written, verbal, and visual approaches. The key to the program's success is the hiring of a cre- ative, community outreach specialist. This person should be a full-time county employee and engaged in public air• The Center for Urban Pedagogy created an online map to help educate users on the many facets of affordable housing and to allow them to explore the income demographics of any New York City neighborhood. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 33 One of the many community workshops conducted in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods in Washington, D. C, as part of the community engagement video project SEE/ CHANGE DC. meetings, neighborhood events, and other aspects of countywide community engagement. The key to com- munity outreach is for it to occur where people already are. People will not go out of their way to go to those types of meetings; the meetings must be brought to them. For example, the outreach specialist should hold the same workshop on three different dates and times to ensure those with atypical work schedules can still participate and be engaged. Create a Residential Toolkit The county should create a residential toolkit to address three constituencies: seekers of affordable housing, supporters of affordable housing, and skeptics of affordable housing. Seekers of affordable housing. Building on an enhanced online inventory discussed earlier, the panel also recom- mends the county create an affordable housing directory for those residents seeking housing. The directory will list both rental and for -sale opportunities and will draw from the county's live online database. However, because not everyone is comfortable with (or has access to) the internet, the panel recommends two options for this database: ■ A web -based platform, and ■ A printed document that is updated periodically (e.g., quarterly). The panel understands that a housing resources guide is already in place, but it recommends including a resource guide that is for first-time homebuyers and that includes information about housing assistance for downpayment programs, information about renters' assistance, and information about other community resources available to the public. The purpose is not only to provide information about how someone can afford housing, but also to provide information in a way that allows people to become engaged in the community and connected with their community. In addition, the panel strongly recommends the county employ a housing counselor or expand existing housing counselors' current responsibilities. The housing coun- The panel recommends that Collier County think creatively about community engagement, marketing, and education strategies. Volunteer programs such as planting projects related to new housing developments and VIMBV (yes in my backyard) campaigns are great ways to raise awareness of and to engage the larger community in housing affordability issues. 34 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report selor should collaborate with the community engagement specialist and other relevant county employees to create a robust educational program around what cost burden means. Also, it is essential for the housing counselor to develop programs and resources around household bud- geting and wealth creation that will help residents improve their financial management, Case Study: SEE/CHANGE DC Supporters of affordable housing. Collier County is privileged to have an engaged and effective philanthropic community. But the county needs to figure out how to get the group involved in affordable housing issues. The panel recommends partnering with the philanthropic community around specific fundraising campaigns, such as spe- cific housing development projects or facade or exterior improvement programs. In addition, the county should Though not specifically about housing, SEE/CHANGE DC is an example of a successful, creative, community engagement project to encourage community building and foster dialogue about rapid neighborhood change. Something similar in Collier County could help create discussion about housing and community and could give greater visibility to housing affordability challenges. What it is: The video art project puts a human face on how population change and revitalization are affecting two Washington, D.C., neighborhoods: Park View and Pleasant Plains. When: During fall 2016, video portraits of community members were projected in storefronts and on street corners along a main corridor— Georgia Avenue, N.W., in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods. Who: SEE/CHANGE DC was imagined and produced by the Pink Line Project + Citizen Innovation Lab, created by Composite Co. and BellVisuals, and funded by the D.C. Office of Planning (OP) and the Kresge Foundation. t How: SEE/CHANGE DC is part of OP's comprehensive creative placemaking initiative: "Crossing the Street: Building DC's Inclusive Future through Creative Placemaking" grant from the Kresge Foundation. The grant is intended to "promote community -building in neighborhoods that are experiencing rapid demographic and social change, to engage residents in conversations about the future of the District as OP embarks on an update of D.C.'s Comprehensive Plan, and to demonstrate or test select placemaking recommendations articulated in OP's neighborhood plans and District Department of Transportation transit corridor studies and livability studies." In December 2015, OP released a request for applications seeking qualified curators and project managers to work with OP and other District and community stakeholders to define and implement temporary creative placemaking projects. Curators were selected in early 2016 and projects, such as SEE/CHANGE DC, were implemented during 2016. For further information, see www.seechangedc.com. SEEICHANGE DC is a creative video project that uses community engagement as it inspires community building and fosters conversation about neighborhood change. atIMAIM&LU .2 U4 M ONM � r Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 35 partner with the philanthropic community to develop fun and creative community volunteer projects and programs to raise awareness and bring the community together. Examples include planting projects related to new housing developments, public art initiatives, "welcome wagon" programs, and "yes in my backyard" (YIMBY) campaigns. Those types of programs can go a long way toward bring - Ing the community together. Skeptics of affordable housing. Do not leave out the skeptics of affordable housing. The panel recommends creating a "myths and facts" brochure (available in a printed format and on the county's housing website) to help debunk myths and perceptions related to negative implications that are often falsely associated with afford- able housing (e.g., increased traffic, crime and density, de- pressed property values). In addition, creating a workhouse media campaign could be another valuable approach to community -wide education about housing affordability and whom it affects. 36 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report 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 the city and the county provide housing that is affordable for the full range of incomes found within the community. First and foremost, the panel believes the county needs to immediately come to a consensus and establish a clear vision for the county about how to move forward. Does the county want to remain a community that primarily relies on tourism and retirement, or does it want to diversify its Although the county may well have some time to imple- ment the panel's recommendations, time is of the essence. Failure to act now will put at dsk the very things that make Collier County so special. Maintaining paradise is both a privilege and an obligation. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 37 38 Appendix A: Implementation Schedule Implementation Schedule A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report 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 reinstate Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Permit guest houses as rental units. Expand and enhance educational p 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 com- 5 to 10+ years nity sites, and updated comprehensive munications plan, and educational tools and Adjust the inclusionary zoning program to zoning plan approval process to ensure programming, as well as resources and tools balance the needs of residents with those that the desired goal of increasing the available to the housing counselor, to ensure of developers and the current market. availability of affordable housing is that the goal of increasing the availability of Continuously review and monitor inclusion- being met. affordable housing is being met. ary zoning program, expanded fee waiver/ deferral program, and commercial -to - residential conversions process to ensure that the goal of increasing the availibility of affordable housing is being met. A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Appendix 13: Examples of County Housing Initiatives Private funding for housing development and services: Helping low-income families access opportunity neighbor - Santa Clara County, California (www.housingtrustsv.org/) hoods: King County, Washington (https://www.kcha.org/ about/education/) Mobilizing owners and resources to preserve existing affordable units: Cook County, Illinois (www. preservation- Inclusionary zoning: Palm Beach County, Florida (https:// compact.org/) Utilizing publicly controlled real estate to support mixed - income development: Arlington County, Virginia (https:// projects.arlingtonva.us/plans-studies/land-use/public- land/) uli.org/larson-policy-awards/robert-c-larson-award- fi nalists-palm -beach -county-florida/) Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 39 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson Policy Leadership Award Winner — FA — ROBERT C. LARSON HOUSING POLICY LEADERSHIP AWARDS 2014 WINNER ORGANIZATION City of Austin, Texas YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION 2000 AFFORDABILITY 100 percent of units affordable to households at or below 80 percent of median family income (MFI), with 12 percent serving house- holds at 30-50 percent of MFI NUMBER OF UNITS PRODUCED 18,406 WEBSITE htt p://hou singworksau stin.org/ www.austintexas.gov/department/ imagineaustin Austin, Texas, has adopted a multifaceted approach to address the challenges of providing affordable housing in the vibrant and steadily growing city. Outstanding programs include a voter -approved bond program and a city ordinance to incentivize the development of affordable housing. These efforts have yielded 18,406 units since 2000. Austin (pop. 885,000), the capital of Texas, is a national leader in job creation, education, and research, and offers residents a high quality of life with an array of recreational and cultural amenities. Over the past two decades, in the face of rapid and steady population growth attracted to the city, Austin has also encountered corresponding increases in residential rents and home prices. To overcome the resulting squeeze on affordable housing for low-income households, Austin has pursued a multifaceted package of housing programs. These tools include the Housing Trust Fund, the Housing Bond Program, developer incentives, public/private partnerships, and impact statements. • Housing Trust Fund (2000). Since 2000, the Austin City Council has ® directed $8.8 million in local funds to the Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Urban land The city dedicates to the fund 40 percent of incremental tax revenues Insfifule derived from private sector developments built on designated city- Terwiliiger CentLr for housing owned property. 40 A ULI 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 • S.M.A.R.T. HousingTM (2000). S.M.A.R.T. Housing is an incentive program designed to encourage accessible, mixed -income development by providing development fee waivers and an expedited review process for developers who set aside 10 percent of housing units as affordable (S.M.A.R.T. stands for Safe, Mixed -income, Accessible, Reasonably priced, and Transit oriented.) Units must also meet the Austin Energy Green Building Program minimum energy efficiency rating. The program has produced 15,351 units affordable to households earning 80 percent of MFI or less. Vertical Mixed Use (2007). Commercial design standards provide a density bonus and parking standards exemptions in exchange for 10 percent of housing units in mixed-use developments being designated as affordable. These units must be maintained as affordable for 40 years for rental, and 99 years for ownership. The program has produced 41 units to date. University Neighborhood Overlay (2004). A density bonus and entitlements are provided to developers who set aside housing as affordable in the University of Texas at Austin campus area. Two tiers of affordability are required -10 percent of units for households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI, and 10 percent of units for households at or below 65 percent of MFI. To date, 117 units have been constructed at 50 percent of MFI, ten at 65 percent of MFI, and 357 units at 80 percent of MFI. • The Downtown Density Bonus Program (2013) and the East Riverside Corridor Program (2013). Height -density bonus programs encourage production of affordable "Because of GO Bond funding, the City of Austin has reaped direct and indirect benefits including increased income (through wages), increased local taxes (both property and sales), and increased local jobs." Betsy Spencer Director, City of Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 41 "Austin's commitment to providing affordable housing is strong, and our citizens expect the City of Austin to take action on this critical issue. I believe Austin's affordable housing bond votes were successful in 2006 and 2013 because Austinites wanted to see affordable housing in all parts of our city and believe we all benefit from providing affordable housing for low income families." housing in downtown Austin and in a neighborhood recommended for a future high-capacity transit route. Transit -Oriented Development (2009). Affordable housing goals have been established through individual station -area plans for areas within a half mile of the Capital Metro commuter rail stations. The overall goal is for 25 percent of all new housing units in the transit -oriented development areas to be occupied by households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI for homeownership or at or below 60 percent of MFI for rental. PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS • Robert Mueller Municipal Airport Redevelopment (1996 -present). In a key public/private partnership for the city, the Mueller development when complete will have about 1,200 housing units affordable for households earning at or below 80 percent of Austin's MFI for ownership and 60 percent of MFI for rental. • Private Developer Agreements—Case by Case. The city continues to negotiate the inclusion of affordable housing in development agreements with market -rate developers to bring affordability into developments that otherwise would be unaffordable to low- and moderate - income households. These units must remain affordable through 2020. IMPACT STATEMENTS • Affordability Impact Statements (2000). Required by Austin's S.M.A.R.T. HousingTM ordinance, an affordability impact statement (AIS) is prepared by a city staff member for all proposed city code amendments, ordinances, and other proposed changes to identify any potential impacts on housing affordability. To date, Austin has issued more than 150 affordability impact statements. Austin's multifaceted approach to meeting the city's need for 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.ull.org/terwilligeraward. 42 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report About the Panel Philip Payne Panel Chair Charlotte, North Carolina For more than 25 years, Payne's primary focus has been the development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and manage- ment of middle market (workforce) multifamily housing. During his career, Payne has been involved in more than $4 billion in multifamily related transactions. Payne is currently the chief executive officer of Ginkgo Residential, which was formed in July 2010. Ginkgo provides property management services for multifamily properties in the southeastern United States and is actively involved in the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of middle market multifamily properties. He is a principal in Ginkgo Investment Company, which was formed in July 2013 and which invests in multifamily properties in the southeastern United States. From 2007 to 2010, Payne served as the CEO of Babcock & Brown Residential. Before joining Babcock & Brown Residential, he was the chair of BNP Residential Properties Trust, a publicly traded real estate investment trust that was acquired by Babcock & Brown Ltd.—a publicly traded Australian investment bank—in February 2007. In addition to his duties at Ginkgo, Payne is a member of the board of directors of Ashford Hospitality Trust, a New York Stock Exchange—listed real estate investment trust that is focused on the hospitality industry. Payne is a trustee and governor of the LILL He is a mem- ber of ULI's Responsible Property Investing Council (found- ing chair); is a former cochair of the Institute's Climate, Land Use, and Energy Committee; and currently serves as a member of the advisory board for ULI's Center for Sustainability. He is a member of the National Multifamily Housing Council. Payne received a BS and a JD degree from the College of William & Mary in Virginia. He has written for various pub- lications and spoken at numerous conferences on a variety of topics including real estate investment trusts, securi- ties regulations, finance, workforce housing, responsible property investing, sustainability, and resilience. Hilary Chapman Washington, D.C. Chapman is the housing program manager for the Met- ropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). At COG, Chapman collaborates with regional leaders to solve the challenges of homelessness and affordable housing and provides research and analysis to support local hous- ing policy and practice using a regional solutions -based framework. As the lead staff person for two technical committees on housing and homelessness, Chapman collaborates with COG's other departments to integrate housing consider- ations into related fields of health, transportation, and the environment. In her role as lead staff person for the Home- less Services Committee, she helps coordinate the annual regional homeless enumeration that takes place during the last week of January each year, and she is the principal author of the committee's findings, "Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington." Chapman collaborates with COG's housing and planning partners, serving as an advisory board member for the Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance, a participant and convener of the Greater Washington Housing Leaders Group, and a planning member for the Housing Association 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 redevelop its most distressed housing units. She had direct responsibility for the construction of more than 250 afford- able housing units and the planning and financing of more than 1,000 more. She also served the government of the District of Columbia as a Capital City Fellow. Chapman holds a master's degree in city planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an under- graduate degree in sociology from the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Ian Colgan Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Colgan is the assistant executive director of the Oklahoma City Housing Authority, one of the largest public housing authorities in the country with 3,100 public housing units and more than 4,000 housing choice vouchers. Colgan leads all real estate development, planning, and policy initiatives for the authority. He was previously the assistant planning director for Oklahoma City, where he spearheaded the production of the city's Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Planning Framework, and several commercial district plans, as well as the creation of two new tax increment finance districts. Colgan was also formerly principal with Development Concepts Inc., a redevelopment consulting firm that is based in Indianapolis, Indiana, where he prepared market- based studies and redevelopment plans for communities throughout the Midwest and Southeast. Colgan holds a master's degree in urban planning from the University of Washington, a master's degree in business Fiebe is a research faculty member and adjunct instruc- tor at the Florida Center for Community Design and Research—a statewide research center at the University of South Florida's School of Architecture and Community Design. Through her work at the Florida Center, Fiebe provides design expertise, performs applied research, and manages community engagement programs to address urban challenges related to the built environment. Fiebe has 13 years of experience in both the public and private sectors while managing a range of urban design and planning projects. Before coming to the Florida Center, she worked for the Fairfax County Office of Community Revitalization on long-range planning, economic develop- ment, and policy for transit -oriented development districts in the Washington, D.C., metro area. Her previous experi- ence included managing entitlements for large residential and mixed-use projects at several development firms. For the past seven years, she has served on the board of a nonprofit urban design collaborative, the Urban Char- rette, which cultivates knowledge of leading urban design practices to build vibrant cities. She also teaches graduate courses at the University of South Florida about city plan- ning and sustainable urban development. Fiebe earned her degrees in architecture from the Uni- versity of Miami and a master's of urban and community design from the University of South Florida, where she also worked at the Center for Urban Transportation Research and coauthored a study on transit and bicycle lanes. She has been published in the Transportation Research Board and in the National Civic Review, and her research was cited in the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide. In her career, Fiebe has led more than 20 public planning projects including over a dozen community engagement 44 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report charrettes. She participated in ULI's Regional Land Use and Leadership Institute and was a resource team member for two Mayor's Institute for City Design programs. She is a member of the American Planning Association and the Urban Land Institute, is LEED accredited, and is a certified charrette planner. Lacy McManus New Orleans, Louisiana As the director of program development for Greater New Orleans (GNO) Inc.—the economic development alli- ance for the ten -parish New Orleans region—McManus is responsible for relationships and for the coordination between product and business development. McManus has positioned the organization's workforce and environ- mental and resilience initiatives as catalysts for wealth generation in southeast Louisiana. In this role, she acts as a liaison between GNO Inc, and private philanthropies, business community stakeholders, government agencies, and nonprofit partners to ensure that GNO Inc.'s programs create a thriving regional economy. Specifically, McManus oversees GNO Inc.'s Coalition for Coastal Resilience and Economy, a business -led advocacy campaign for holistic coastal restoration in south Louisi- ana. She also coordinates GNO's workforce development programs, including an award-winning outreach series to local educators, as well as ongoing engagements with regional higher -education institutions. In 2015, she worked with the state of Louisiana and New Orleans to bring in more than $233 million in resilience funds to the region through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment's National Disaster Resilience Competition. On the federal front, McManus serves on GNO's policy team advancing reauthorization of the National Flood Insur- ance Program through the Coalition for Sustainable Flood Insurance, She also represents GNO on the Housing NOLA Leadership Team and CONNECT Coalition. Before joining the GNO staff, McManus was the special initiatives manager with the nonprofit organization the Center for Planning Excellence, where she oversaw an innovative transportation, land use, and housing policy and advocacy campaign. She has branding and communica- tions experience from several years living and working abroad in both Auroville, India, and in Paris, France. She is an active member of the Junior League of New Orleans, a board member of the public transit advocacy organiza- tion RIDE New Orleans, an alumna of the 2016 Emerging Philanthropist of New Orleans class, and a lead mentor to entrepreneurs in the Propeller small business incubator. McManus holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Georgia's Grady School of Journalism, a master's degree in global communications from the American University of Paris, and a master's degree in business administration from Tulane University. John Orfield Dallas, Texas Orfield is both the product and a proponent of the collaborative style that BOKA Powell exemplifies. The 40 -year-old planning and design firm, which is based in Dallas, specializes in corporate and commercial office, higher education, hospitality, urban living, and senior living. A LEED-accredited professional, Orfield is an expert in urban planning and sustainability. His 35 years of design experience includes landmark workplace, academic, luxury hotel, and residential projects across the United States and Mexico. Growing up in an artistically inclined family, Orfield devel- oped an interest in exploring the kinship between archi- tecture, film, and dance—art forms he sees as related in their portrayal of human experience moving through space and time. He has sought out collaborative environments or created them on the spot in design firms and universi- ties from New York to Indianapolis to Mexico City. Orfield considers every project a partnership, not only between the architect and the client, but also with the site itself. He sees this contextual approach as one reason there is no recognizable BOKA Powell "style"—only spaces that Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 45 benefit their surroundings as the result of a very intentional from 1984 to 1986, where he earned the Excellence in design process. Teaching award. He also held an appointment as a visiting professor at the Universidad de las Americas in Puebla, Orfield's recent projects include major projects for South- Mexico, from 1994 to 1995. west Airlines, including the carrier's corporate headquar ters master plan, the 1.1 million -square -foot "Wings" Office Building, the Flight Training Center and Garage, and Cassie Wright the 500,000 -square -foot Training and Operations Support Denver, Colorado Center at Dallas's Love Field. Other projects include the Texas A&M West Campus student housing complex, which is designed to accommodate 4,000 students in College Station, Texas; the Venue at the Ballpark, which is a 241 - unit apartment complex overlooking the Birmingham Bar- ons ballpark; the Hotel Ajax, which is a boutique hotel and condominium project in Telluride, Colorado; and multiple corporate and commercial office projects for Hillwood and Cawley Partners in North Texas. Orfield's higher education portfolio includes more than 5,5 million square feet of university architecture, including student housing and academic buildings. He has designed corporate headquarters campuses for Accor, Daimler Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, and Computer Associates. While a vice-president at Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc., he completed the iconic 400,000 -square -foot Eli Lilly Corporate Center in downtown Indianapolis. In 1996, Orfield joined Dallas -based architecture and plan- ning firm Haid emanPowell +Partners. Now known as BOKA Powell, he became a partner and owner in the practice in 1999. Earlier, Orfield was a vice president at Indianapolis - based Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc. from 1988 to 1994. He worked in numerous architectural intern positions in Houston, Texas; New Haven, Connecticut; and New York City, including an undergraduate internship with Mitchell Giurgola. He earned a master's degree in archi- tecture and building design from Columbia University in 1987. He earned his first bachelor's degree in architecture in 1980 and a second bachelor's of architecture in 1982 from Rice University in Houston. A lifelong educator, Orfield was a member of the fac- ulty of the University of Houston College of Architecture Wright is the project manager for Urban Ventures LLC, a real estate company that is dedicated to creating healthy, sustainable communities. In her position, Wright works on all aspects of real estate development: from land acquisi- tion to project construction. She tests the financial feasibil- ity of projects, actively participates in the site planning and design processes, develops marketing and sales related materials, and closely interacts with project partners. In addition, Wright consults on real estate projects that focus on the relationship between the built environment and healthy living. In this role, she researches and implements best practices and health -based programming to foster community development that promotes social cohesion and positive wellbeing. Currently, Wright is involved with the land development of Aria Denver, a 17.5 -acre, mixed-use, mixed -income project that will include more than 450 units and a commercial component. Upon completion, Aria Denver will promote healthy living with community gardens, production farms, a food -producing greenhouse, pocket parks, outdoor fitness equipment, and pathways integrated into the site. Aria Denver is part of Cultivate Health, a partnership among neighboring Regis University, the surrounding neighbor- hoods, and more than a dozen nonprofit organizations. Funded in large part by the Colorado Health Foundation, Cultivate Health is providing infrastructure enhancements and programming that promote an active lifestyle, increase access to healthy food, and offer integrated health services. Wright is co -manager of the Colorado Health Foundation grant and is managing the implementation of three major infrastructure projects (i.e., production farms, improved bicycle facilities, and neighborhood wellness loop) that are included in the Cultivate Health initiative. 46 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Wright is also actively working on the Aria Cohousing proj- ect. Cohousing communities are intentional, collaborative neighborhoods that combine private homes and shared spaces. In cohousing, residents actively participate in the design and operation of their neighborhoods while sharing common facilities and good connections with neighbors. Aria Cohousing is the redevelopment of a 35,000 -square - foot convent into 28 condominium units and shared community spaces including a community dining room, kitchen, multipurpose room, guest room, and sunroom. Finally, Wright is project manager for STEAM on the Platte, a 3,2 -acre, mixed-use project in Denver's abandoned, industrial corridor along the Platte River. In its first phase, STEAM will feature the conversion of an existing 65,000 -square -foot industrial warehouse into office space and the creation of a courtyard and promenade that con- nects to the river's edge. Wright holds a master's degree in city planning from the University of Pennsylvania and a bachelor's degree in soci- ology and anthropology from St, Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota. She serves on the nonprofit board for Soul Spring, as well as on the Mile High Connects Advisory Council. Collier County, Florida, January 29—February 3, 2017 47 Urban Land Institute 2001 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.uli.org ® Printed on recycled paper. U.S. Apartment Demand — A Forward Look Prepared by: Hoyt Advisory Services, Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC May 2017 N*KNATIONAL MULTIFAMILY NAA HOUSING C0UNCIL NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOVATI0N 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 S 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 S: Methodology 162 7 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 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. z 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. 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.4 By 2030, net immigration is expected to run 1.33 million compared to an internal net population increase of 840 thousand. 3 Official estimates from the U.S. Census. 4 This is from the U.S. Census as well as Pew Research and others. See for example: "Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working -age population through at least 2035" PewResearchCenter. org By Jeffrey S. Passel and D'Vera Cohn, published on: April 17, 2017 http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/chapter-2-immigrations- impact-on-past-and-future-u-s-population-change and http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2017/04/lawler- updated-population-proiections.html and http://ucanr.edu/bIogs/blogcore/postdetai1.cfm?postnum=23839. 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 .6 Since 2010 the net immigration from Mexico has declined to a very small number, and was negative from 2009-2014. Factors for this slow down include a stricter immigration policy on the U.S. side with increased deportation of undocumented immigrants, less demand for unskilled labor, except for agriculture', 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.9 The impact of more restricting policies is explored in the Scenario Analyses at the end of this section. 5 Department of Homeland Security, 2015 Yearbook; Mexico accounted for 157,227 of 1,051,031 total persons who obtained lawful permanent residence in 2015, followed by China (70,977), India (61,380), Philippines (54,307) and Cuba (54,178). 6 See MPI reports at http://www.migrationPolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states. ' California is especially dependent on Mexican labor for agriculture and would be devastated if temporary work permits were not facilitated. 8 PEW Research Center report on "Future Immigration will change the face of America" 2015. 9 There are some countries that might be more severely impacted by a Trump administration including Syrian refugees, and those from other Islamic countries but it remains to be seen how new policies will play out. Figure 1: Population Projections Plot U.S. Natural Internal Population Increase vs Immigration (000's) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 o m tD n n n N CY) CY) -4 -4 -4 forecast Ol (N Lr) I, W 00 M Ol Ol c -4 -4 ■ Net International Migration ■ Natural Increase 7 V N O N 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 (000's) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 o m tD n n n N CY) CY) -4 -4 -4 forecast Ol (N Lr) I, W 00 M Ol Ol c -4 -4 ■ Net International Migration ■ Natural Increase 7 V N O N 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. 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% Figure 2: Household Size Over Time Changes in Household Size Source: U.S. Census 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 All Households Families Figure 3: The Rise of the Single Person Household U.S. Single Households and Forecast Source: U.S. Census and Forecast 2020 2030 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 ■ One ■ Two ■ Three Four ■ Five ■ Six ■ Seven or more Household size by age of householder increases on average until age 40 as young people form families and then begins to decline after age 4013. See Figure 5 below. Average household size is three people or larger for households where the head of household is aged 30 to 49. Conversely, household size drops precipitously to slightly over 1.6 people when the head of household is 75+ years. As the U.S. population ages, older (and smaller) households are becoming a larger share of the market. See Figure 6 below. Notably, we estimate that the 45-54 aged household segment will decline from 21% of households in 2010 to 16% in 2030 while the Baby Boomers, born circa 1946 to 1964, are entering traditional retirement age. The 65-74 aged segment is projected to increase from 11% of households in 2010 to 17% in 2030 while the 75+ aged segment increases from 10% to 15% of households during the same time period. 12 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Families and Living Arrangements. 13 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2015. 10 Households by Size 100% 90% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 80% a 70% O L 9 60% 0 = 50% 0 40% 0 30% 20% 10% 0% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 Number of People in Household ■ One ■ Two ■ Three Four ■ Five ■ Six ■ Seven or more Household size by age of householder increases on average until age 40 as young people form families and then begins to decline after age 4013. See Figure 5 below. Average household size is three people or larger for households where the head of household is aged 30 to 49. Conversely, household size drops precipitously to slightly over 1.6 people when the head of household is 75+ years. As the U.S. population ages, older (and smaller) households are becoming a larger share of the market. See Figure 6 below. Notably, we estimate that the 45-54 aged household segment will decline from 21% of households in 2010 to 16% in 2030 while the Baby Boomers, born circa 1946 to 1964, are entering traditional retirement age. The 65-74 aged segment is projected to increase from 11% of households in 2010 to 17% in 2030 while the 75+ aged segment increases from 10% to 15% of households during the same time period. 12 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Families and Living Arrangements. 13 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2015. 10 Figure 5: Household Sizes Are Smaller for Older Households Household Size by Age of Householder 4.00 3.50 3.00 a) N 2.50 0 L 2.00 0 x- 1.50 ai 2 1.00 0.50 — 0.00 — 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75+ years years years years years years years years years years years Age of Householder Figure 6: Older Households on Increasing Share of Total Households 25% 0 10% C Cu v v CL 5% 0% 1960 1970 Households by Age of Householder 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 ■ Under 25 ■ 25 to 29 years ■ 30 to 34 years ■ 35 to 44 years ■ 45 to 54 years ■ 55 to 64 years ■ 65 to 74 years ■ 75 years and older 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 origin 14 accounted for an estimated 20% of U.S. population growth in 2015 and 43% of net in -migration. By 2030, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that people of Hispanic origin will account for 24% of U.S. population growth and 41% of net in -migration. This is significant to household size estimates because households of Hispanic origin are significantly larger, averaging 3.25 people per household as compared to 2.42 people per household for non -Hispanics .15 However, similar to overall U.S. household size data, Hispanic households are also declining in size, down from 3.56 people per household in 2001. The implications of the household size and population trends are projected below in Figure 7. The U.S. is expected to have approximately 141 million households by 2030. From the end of 2016 through the end of 2030 the population should grow in total by 9.8% but the household growth rate over than same period is 12.8%, as the household size declines. This is an annual compounded growth rate, in our base case, of 0.7% in population increase and 0.9% in household increases. Note that this is a slower pace than recent historical trends when population increased by 1.2% annually on average from 1990 to 2000 and by 0.9% from 2000 to 2010. Without any net in -migration from other countries, the U.S. population is expected to grow by only 0.4% annually through 2030. Household growth stayed a little more stable over time as household size shrank, averaging 1.2% per year in both 1990-2000 and 2000-2010 and dropping slightly to 1.1% since 2010. While the timing and severity of economic recessions are difficult to predict, the U.S. has experienced a recession every four to ten years during the past fifty years. Thus, we broadly estimate two recessions slowing down household formation rates in the forecast horizon, the first estimated around 2019 lingering until 2020 and the second and larger recession in 2030, possibly starting in 2029 and lingering through 2031. The first recession is forecast to be mild and is based upon the normal economic cycle. 16 A second mild recession could occur in 2026 but will depend more on a global economy and is not factored into any of our models. The third recession is estimated to be quite severe and is based upon entitlements (Social Security and Medicare) running out of funding resulting in the need for massive tax increases and some budget cuts.17 The population growth rate in the graph below is shown in lighter gray with the darker column showing households. Normally the household growth rate exceeds that of the overall population, but here we note the effects of the slower household growth rates during projected recession years which is further impeded by lower than historic population growth. The number of households actually shrinks slightly in 2030 as more people double or triple up during a significant recession. 14 Note that origin is separate from race, and thus Hispanic households may be of any race in U.S. Census data 15 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2016. 16 A variety of sources were used to suggest a recession in late 2019 and during part of 2020. The most convincing of these came from Intensity, an economic forecasting firm headed by Dr. Alan Timmermann. See http://intensity.com/forecasts. Another economist consulted for longer term economic crisis is Dr. Alan Beaulieu. https://www.itreconomics.com/content/alan-beaulieu. 17 See the very convincing analysis of Alan Beaulieu, http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/dr-alan- beaulieu/us-recession-2019-depression-2030 where he makes the case that the U.S. politicians kick the can down the road until it reaches a crisis point, that being the inability to fund Social Security, Medicaid and other entitlements, along with a maxed out Federal debt creating unsustainable borrowing capacity. The timing estimate here is very much driven by the aging Baby Boomers who will no longer be working and demanding vast increases of medical care in the last years of life. 12 Figure 7: Base Case of the U.S. Household Growth Rate Base Case Projected U.S. Population (left) and Household Growth Rates (right) in 100,000's 31600 1,500 31500 � M M M 1,450 3,400 1,400 3,300 1,350 3,200 Population Household Size 18 1,300 3,100 323,000 2.53 123,778 2016 1,250 31000 125,094 2017 327,336 2.51 1,200 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 q Population ■ Households U.S. Projected Base Case Households by Year as Used in Figure 4 in 000's Year Population Household Size 18 Households 2015 323,000 2.53 123,778 2016 325,107 2.52 125,094 2017 327,336 2.51 126,501 2018 329,534 2.50 127,915 2019 331,700 2.51 128,043 2020 333,849 2.51 128,979 2021 336,045 2.47 131,848 2022 338,442 2.46 133,295 2023 340,867 2.45 134,746 2024 343,278 2.45 135,688 2025 345,665 2.45 137,131 2026 348,009 2.45 138,048 2027 350,305 2.44 139,474 2028 352,560 2.44 140,363 2029 354,777 2.43 141,768 2030 356,949 2.45 141,092 18 Assumes 3.0% of population is in group quarters. 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 .211 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 .2' 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 leve 1.23 Residential rentals have the lowest average natural vacancy "See http://www.endhomelessness,org/library/entry/SOH2O16 "End Homelessness in America" 2016. 20 See htti)://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 �o O1 145,000 ^ `� 01 � ^ rn m a 140,000 v N � R ~ 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 .18 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 "See "Characteristics of Depreciation in Commercial and Multi -Family Property: An Investment Perspective" https://mitcre.m it.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Characteristics-of-Depreciation-in-Com mercial-and-Multi- Family-Property 0317.odf. 28 See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cinch.html. See also htti3s://www. huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cinch/cinch 13/Rental-Dynamics-Rei3ort.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. 10 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%. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 9: Age of U.S. Housing Stock Housing Stock Composition by Age and Type of Property 0:1 0:2-4 I 11 0:5+ O: M / OTH R: 1 ■ 1 t R: 2-4 R: 5+ R: M / OTH 0 B1939 0 1940-59 0 1960-79 0 1980-99 0 2000s 0 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 165,000 160,000 155,000 o v 00 � ui 150,000 ti n rri ti N � N c -I' rl V � 145,000 N 140,000 V 135,000 1 130,000 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 LA N 0 - 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 -500 - m -1000 -7 4. Home Ownership Rates and Renter Portion of Housing Demand The characteristics of homeowners vary from those of renters. For example, 35% of renters are less than 35 years old with another 20% less than 44 years old. Only 36% of homeowners are less than 44 years old. Renters are more ethnically diverse with significantly more people of Hispanic origin and Black by race, and have a lower proportion of college-educated persons. Interestingly, tenants in rental properties are somewhat sticky with 59% of renters moving into their units in 2010 to 2014 with only 15% moving in 2015. See Appendix 2 for further details. Globally, home ownership rates vary widely from less than 50% of households to more than 95%32. According to data compiled by the European Mortgage Federation from Eurostat, supplemented by more recent data from Eurostat, the majority of European countries, the 28 countries in the European Union, have home ownership rates that exceed the U.S.33 While international comparisons are difficult to measure, countries with extremely high home ownership rates seem to have several factors in common. Many are former socialist countries which gave existing tenants the housing they occupied.34 Ever since the dissolution of the USSR and the transition to privatization, the high home ownership rates have been receding. Culture, the momentum of tax laws and other policies that 32 See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/06/around-the-world-governments-promote-home- ownership. 33 See http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/06/a-cross-country-comparison-of-homeownership-rates. 34 For example, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and many others. 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 overtime 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% 15% 10% 5% n / % / 1%P V 0% 1 V 69 68 67 66 v Y 65 Q L 64 v c 63 0 v 61 i/ 60 -5% — - 59 O N V W 00 O N V W 00 O N V W 00 O N V W 00 00 00 00 00 0) Ol Ol 0) al O O O O O H H ci c1 M O1 Ol a) a) 0) O1 Ol 01 Ol O O O O O O O O O H H H H ci H ci ci ci ci 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 ss Capital gains tax laws and exclusions for single and married households help to maintain the momentum of sticking with home ownership after an initial purchase, if significant appreciation has occurred. se See http://www.mchs.harvard.edu/sites/ichs.harvard.edu/files/international rental housing carliner marva.0f. 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 by since the 2004 peak, rates for the under 35 and 35 to 44 segments fell by 840 by and 1100 by 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.'o 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 rn rn rn m rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Under 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Unemployment after the 2008 recession hit the younger population harder. Unemployment for 20-24 year-olds peaked at 17.2% in April of 2010, 10% higher than the average for people aged 35 or over, and double the typical difference between the two age groups. The span between the 20-24 year- old unemployment and the 35+ year-old unemployment did not come back in line until early 2016. Similarly, the 24-35 year-old unemployment peaked at 10.6% in May 2010, significantly higher than the average for the 35+ group. Young adults living at home in both the 18 to 24 year and 25 to 34 year groups increased by about 5.0% in the past decade to unprecedented levels since the data began in 1960 and remain at elevated levels through 2016 with more than half of 18-24 year-olds living with parents and about 15% of 25-34 year-olds living with parents. Additionally, household size increased from 2000 to 2010, particularly in very young households (less than 20 years old) and in the 50-59 aged group, reflecting adult children living at home. The good news for housing demand is that household size trends began to 41 See http://Ochs.harvard.edu/sites/wchs.harvard.edu/files/hbtl-06.pdf a Harvard study on housing as a means to build wealth, 2013. 41 See http://rismedia.com/2016/07/25/home-ownership-still-desirable-for-millennials suggesting Millennials would like to own homes but are hampered by student debt and mobility concerns. 22 reverse slightly in 2016, particularly for younger households that were again beginning to reduce in size, possibly indicating a reversal of the housing doubling up after the recession. In addition to getting married at an older age, young people are having their first child at an older age. In 2000, the mean age of a woman when she first gave birth was 24.9 years old. In 2014, that age had risen to 26.342. These trends are significant because the median age of first-time homebuyers is 3243 — indicating pressure on young people to stay as renters longer. In fact, first-time homebuyers typically account for approximately 40% of home sales, although this figure dropped to a low of 32% as of 2015 (but rose to 35% of survey respondents in 2016). College admissions continued to grow through 2010, and with rising unemployment in the younger population, student debt became an increasing burden. Aside from the tighter credit standards and lower investment appeal of housing, we consider student debt a considerable factor in the home ownership rate over the next several years. As of late 2016 student debt in the U.S., incurred by 44 million borrowers, exceeded 1.3 trillion dollars. Student debt has grown by 500% since 2004. The delinquency rate stood at 11.1% and the average monthly payment was $351.44 Some 70% of the student debt borrowers owe more than $10,000 dollars. The average is now just over $30,000.45 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. 'See https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics. 41 See http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data for state by state data. 46 See http://financeography.com/millennial-home-ownership-shrinks-as-student-debt-grows. 47 See "Student Debt's Drag on Home ownership", John Burns, April, 2017. 23 Household wealth also plays an important part in home ownership rates. Wealth is impacted by a number of factors including job growth, income levels, savings behavior and capital market trends. Home prices are a large contributor to wealth, and in turn support spending behavior and purchases of other goods in rising price environments .48 Home ownership rates also tend to rise in high inflationary environments in our model. The last major factor that will lower home ownership rates from 2016 through the next decade are demographics. One parent households, headed by fathers, are nine times as common today as in 1960 and four times as common for single mothers 41. 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. S. 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/m.mmoneco.2005.10.016. 49 U.S. Census Bureau so Wachter and Megbolugbe (1992) estimated that about 80 percent of the gap between White households and Black and Hispanic households can be explained by differences in endowment (including differences in income, education, age, gender, and family type). See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/voll8numl/ch9.pdf. si 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% 0 0 N O o 11'. lD tD tD tOD• � t0 • 11 11'. 11' 2016 20171 1 2020 2021 20221 124 2025 20261 1 129 20- Figure 1 Figure 15: Total Rental Stock Required by Year Total Rental Stock Needed in 000's 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 25 Figure 16: Rental Stock Required Per Year Based on Demand Net Rental Units Needed by Year (000s) 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2Q0 -100 Ln OP 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% 20-49 Rental Units 8% 10-19 Units 11% 5-9 Rental Units 12% Single-family Detached 28% Single-family Attached 6% 2 Rental Units 8% 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 21L N -100 27 7. Other Rental Property Types Single-family Housing and Detached Units as a Source of Rental Supply After the housing crisis of 2008, many formerly owner occupied units became part of the rental stock. In fact, several investment funds were created to own and operate single-family housing units as part of the rental stock. The term for this trend is the "Institutionalization of Single -Family Rentals (SFR)". Nearly 200,000 single-family homes are now owned as rental units by institutions. A list of the largest is included in Appendix 1, with the largest as of 2016 listed below: Institution SFR Units Blackstone (Invitation Homes) 47,342 American Homes 4 Rent 46,131 Colony Starwood Homes 32,272 Progress Residential 16,345 This SFR asset class would not have existed were it not for the low investment basis possible via a wave of distressed real estate sales with potential rents high enough to carry the units using modest leverage. Another key factor in the establishment of SFR as an asset class has been the ability to reach minimum concentration scale thresholds for the efficient management of units. Because of the need for scale, much of this asset class is clustered in markets hit hard by the housing crisis, where rents relative to acquisition cost were attractive.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 6-10 units 4% 35 units 8% Distribution of Rental Units Owned 11-100 units over 100 units 6% 3% 1-2 units 79% While market share of small scale ownership has increased significantly, we have every reason to expect it to decline as market forces prompt a conversion back to the single-family owner occupant in select markets. 54 We expect that SFR will continue to be a viable rental stock alternative, especially for families choosing to rent and requiring a larger number of bedrooms, something lacking in the typical larger property multifamily stock. Over time, more 3 and 4 bedroom choices could be added to meet this demand, and new units will be added to the inventory. At the same time, some of the existing SFR units will be converted back to owner occupied housing as prices for the owner market rise relative to the rental market and landlords decide to cash out. Additionally, more rental demand is coming from smaller households. For this reason, we do not expect the SFR units to increase as a percentage of the rental stock and in fact, are more likely to decrease over the long run, until the next wave of distressed sales. 54 See Attom Realty's report called LANDLORD LAND: A real estate dance party is being led by a new breed of rental property investors, March, 2017. 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 by by 2030, but remain about 400 by 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 J — 15,000,000 — 10,000,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 (200,000) I, W N O -4 N M V Ln LD I, W M O -1 N M �* Ln LD I' W M O O O O r -I -4 r -I r -I -4 r -I -4 r -I r -I -4 N N N N N N N N N N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 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 Base Case Lower Rentership Higher Rentership Figure 21: Annual New Rental Stock Required by Year in Scenarios New Rental Stock Required by Year O O ci c -I c -I c -I c -I ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N N N N N N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 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 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 modeling" 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. 16 " For example, Tapestry Segmentation by ESRI°. 56 Daryl Carter, founder and CEO of Avanath Capital Management suggested that family sized rental units were not a well -served market, yet they typically had half the turnover rates and lower vacancy rates than any other sized units. See http://www.avanath.com/about management -team daryl.php and Institutional Real Estate Investor interview where he suggested these units do not need amenities as much as space. 32 Figure 22: Proportion of Rental Housing with 3+ Bedrooms by Type57 Percent 3+ Bedroom Rental by Type As of 2011 Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 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 bathroom S.60 Some cities have minimum size requirements. For example, the District of Columbia requires units of at least 220 square feet. Seattle and Portland have no minimum sizes and are more likely to see a variety of 57 See: http://www.ichs.harvard.edu/americas-rental-housing. 68 See the ULI report at http://uIi.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/MicroUnit full rev 2015.pdf. 59 See http://www.curbed.com/maps/microhousing-micro-dwelling-small-space-living-apartment. 60 See https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Understanding-SRO.pdf. Many micro -units under 350 square feet feature built-in storage units and flexible furniture systems (e.g., Murphy beds, hideaway kitchen modules, convertible tables, and so on) to make these smaller spaces work. To put the size of a micro unit into perspective, a 300 -square -foot micro -unit studio apartment is slightly larger than a one -car garage but considerably smaller than a two -car garage. 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." 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 htti)://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.l)df. "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/tc70l.htmi. For those over 55 years in age, there is also a once in a lifetime exclusion of $125,000 single or $250,000 jointly on home gains. 65 See U.S. Census reports on housing at http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf. 34 Figure 23: Age Versus Home Ownership Home Ownership Rate Versus Age Source: U.S. Census 100 — 90 — 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 <3S 35-44 4S-54 55-64 4. Demographic Trends 65-74 75+ 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 household S.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. S. 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.0f. 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 .61 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 .7' 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/Ql-2016-Student-Housing-Market-Update-for- website.odf. 70 See http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/research/emma/pdf/MF Market Commentary 062315.pdf. 71 Rent control encourages wasteful use of space. It discriminates in favor of those who already occupy houses or apartments in a particular city or region at the expense of those who find themselves on the outside. Permitting rents to rise to the market level allows all tenants or would-be tenants equal opportunity to bid for space. See Miller and Geltner, Real Estate Principles for the New Economy, 2005. 72 See https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/what happens lihtc v2.pdf and httos://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% overa11.74 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 1-732's proposal at https://www.wired.com/2016/11/washington-state-pass- nations-first-carbon-tax. "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 S+ 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. w HAS Avg Pamen[ S+ Rental lints Needed 2016• 2030 . a - 2.0% > 1.2%4.6% n a.ea,.�.z4e under 0-BWo MF%ICC �� Wn �k•lys� � [�agl.�prc oem ¢a� Some of the more interesting trends appear when looking at the underlying details. One of the policy risks identified in the model is the amount of international immigration that will occur during the next decade. As discussed earlier in this report, due to the aging U.S. population base, immigration is expected to exceed natural population growth within the next ten years. These trends will be more amplified within some states and metro areas. While border states have proximity to other countries, many of those states also have low business and housing costs, as well as young and growing population bases. Thus, states most at risk to U.S. immigration policies are those states that have slow growth, older population bases, and exposure to international trade and immigration (see below map). These states are predominately located in the Northeast as well as parts of the Midwest, with less exposure in border states such as California and Florida. Our expectation is that there are wider margins of error in the forecasts for these states because of the potential volatility in U.S. immigration policies going forward. See the Metro Market Overview section of this report for further information about demographics, in -migration and growth in the major markets in these states. Interestingly, the major markets do not always exemplify the state trends. For example, while international immigration accounts for a large part of population growth in Michigan, Detroit benefits mostly from natural growth (births minus deaths) and experiences net out -migration including international and domestic migration to other locations. 40 Percent of Population Growth Created by International Immigration slow growth states. IDI r— . HAS Percent PupGruwth by Intl Immigration hk > over 200% ® >3o^/o-a00Wo cw«� a: > ao%ao% rneMo , > 5%-1-% Cih^.- 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. J rr p HAS percent 0zntal Households under Poverty Level hk > over 35% ' > 30%-35% > 25%-30% > 20°k-25% > under20% 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. HAS Percent Rental Households over 35% Gross Income to Rent kh > over 44 Wo ® > 40%-44% > 15%-00% > 32%-36% > under32°;o MEXICO 6<.nvK w 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 1N HAS Percent of Rental Stock 5+ Units Built before i9sa ' > -65% > 55%-65% 4;q >45%-55% > under 35% hIEMICU 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 101h of the 50 markets in terms of the highest new supply growth. Housing permits in highly restrictive markets may take 10 or 12 years to secure, but such efforts are underway continuously and with such long lags, one cannot use current supply volume as an indication of the restrictiveness of a local market. • High costs of housing are correlated with out migration to nearby areas or even cross -state locations for some areas. For example, Los Angeles which ranks at the bottom for both owned and rental affordability has experienced flat to negative migration patterns since 2000, with slightly better in -migration rates in the neighboring and more affordable Riverside -San Bernardino area as well as increasing out-of-state exits to Las Vegas. Thus, it is clear that housing costs do inhibit the economic growth of a region by inhibiting the ability to hire and retain employees. 44 Similar to the state trends, southern metro areas rank highly for attracting residents from other areas. Austin, Orlando, Raleigh, Charleston and Houston had the highest in -migration rates since 2010. These markets have more reasonable housing costs and are relatively business friendly. Regardless of future international in -migration, current ethnic composition is an important factor affecting rental demand. For example, more than half of the San Antonio rental population is Hispanic, as are at least a third of rental residents in Miami, Riverside, Albuquerque, Los Angeles and Houston. Ethnicity is correlated with variations in home ownership rates, household size and other factors that affect the propensity to rent, amenities desired, and unit sizes. • Renter income levels vary widely, with a large portion of the U.S. population falling below the high-end cohort of the market favored by multifamily developers. A third or more of the rental households in Cleveland, Birmingham, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Albuquerque, Detroit, Memphis and Cincinnati earn less than $20,000 per year as of 2016. • Renter populations are also aging. The 35-54 age cohort is expected to account for more than half of new apartment demand in Baltimore, Cleveland and San Jose through 2030, while the 65+ age cohort is expected to be the primary growth generator through 2030 (outpacing all other age categories combined) in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Albuquerque and Kansas City. 45 Metro Market Trends: Demand for multifamily properties with five or more units was further estimated for 50 metropolitan markets. See Appendix 3 for a list of markets. The forecasting methodology is similar to that used at the state level adjusting household growth for two modeled recessions through 2030 and adjusting for home ownership rates, age, immigration, homelessness, long-term vacancy levels, the age of stock and the 5+ rental unit percentage of the rental housing market. Methodology is further described in Appendix 5. Historical figures for the years 2007 to 2016 are based on estimates of existing multifamily 5+ total inventory as developed by the HAS team from several sources including the U.S. Census, Costar® and CBRE® Econometrics. Forecasts represent the number of units needed in properties with five or more units to keep vacancy rates at long-term stable rates that are typical for that market. The model does not forecast supply, so if supply exceeds this pace, then vacancy could rise. The forecast also does not remove units that could fall outside of typical institutional investor portfolios. We call these units Second Tier Affordable Rentals or STAR units as they represent lower quality properties (see Appendix 5 for a further discussion description.) The metro market analyses included a review of supply restrictions occurring at the local level by reviewing two indices, the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix Developable Land Index. The Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index is based on data and a nationwide survey of local land use regulations including process and approvals, rules, and outcomes. The index includes eleven sub -indices measuring the stringency of the local regulatory environment, including local political pressure, local project approval, local assembly, supply restrictions, density restrictions, open space, exactions, and approval delay. The Lacroix index was developed by Sumner La Croix, Ph.D. at the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawaii and measures the developable area within a 50 -kilometer radii from a central city. Factors such as oceans, wetlands, lakes, rivers and other bodies of water as well as areas with a slope above 15% are defined as undevelopable. The Multifamily Supply Restrictions Index is the sum of each sub index for the metro market divided by the average for that sub index for all the metro markets in this study. A table ranking the 50 metro markets by the supply index is shown in Appendix 3. The index is also shown on each of the Metro Market Overview pages. Higher indices represent markets with more stringent regulatory environments in regards to new housing supply. Of the markets in this study, this index ranges from 19.5 for Honolulu which is the most supply restricted to -6.0 for New Orleans which is the least supply restricted of the 50 markets in the study. (The average index is 2.0 for all 50 markets.) While there are significant variations by market, we find that the supply restriction index loosely correlates to rental markets that are less affordable as measured by the percent of households that spend 35% or more of their gross income on rent, as seen in Figure 24 below. That is, markets that have more supply restrictions tend to be less affordable. Note that affordability is a measure of both income and housing costs. Thus, given the same rents, markets with higher incomes will spend less of their income on rent as compared to rental costs and move further to the left on the below graph. 46 25.0 20.0 axi 15.0 c c a 10.0 U Qj Qj 5.0 a CL cn 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 30% Figure 24: Supply Restrictions and Affordability Percent Households Spending 35%+ of Gross Income on Rent 35% • • • ••• • • • 00 % • 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 25.0 20.0 ax) 15.0 c ZO c 10.0 Y N a 5.0 s CL CL ,� 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 0.0% Figure 25: Supply Restrictions and Inventory Growth Avg Annual Percent Growth in Total Stock 1995-2016 • 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 25.0 20.0 X 15.0 X c c 10.0 V .Y N 5.0 a CL CL 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 0.5% Figure 26: Supply Restrictions and Volatility Vacancy Volatility 1995-2016 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 7 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 Rental Households by Income 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - fi under 515- $15k $25k $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Cleveland Rental Households by Income 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 w 20,000 m N 10,000 11111 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k S150k $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 Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2000-2010 Natural Increase i Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Dallas Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 [115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 E145-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 s 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 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 1115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 F145-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 6.0 5.0 4.0 a 3.0 ti 2.0 1.0 0.0 Ll o a o 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 C15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 8.0 6.0 .0 2 2.0 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry n ry ry ry ry ry ry 51 Appendix 1: Institutional Ownership of Single Family Rentals Estimated institutional holdings - single-family rental (SFR) properties Source: Amherst Insight Labs estimates based on Core Logic County Record and Transaction Data as of Q12016 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 40 35% — 30% — 25 20% — 15% — 10% — 5% — 0% — Housing Tenure by Age <35 35-44 45-54 55-64 ■ Owned ■ Rented 11 65-74 IN 75-84 Housing Tenure by Educational Attainment 40 35 30 25 20 15% 10% 5% 0% Less than high school High school graduate Some college or graduate (includes equivalency) associate's degree ■ Owned ■ Rented 53 so 85+ Bachelor's degree or higher Appendix 2: Renter vs. Owner Demographics, continued. Housing Tenure by Move Date 70% — 60% 50% 40% 30% — 20% 10 0/% u+i ti o rn oO10 0000 0 0 0 a) m N O O O O v O o) W O O n O N N N N Year Householder Moved Into Unit 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ■ Owned ■ Rented Housing Tenure by Race Owned ■ White ■ Black ■ Asian ■ Other 54 Rented Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables Total Population Growth 2016-30 (000) State 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Age Cohort 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+ Alaska -3 -16 -10 6 19 11 -4 -11 -6 73 Alabama -17 -18 26 49 48 11 -32 -52 -34 281 Arkansas -5 -12 5 18 25 11 -14 -23 -12 164 Arizona 72 97 167 185 173 116 80 58 103 812 California -244 -457 -116 352 555 237 -24 -77 213 2,993 Colorado 8 14 46 105 120 64 9 -36 -15 398 Connecticut -80 -43 -16 88 59 -11 -75 -88 -27 200 --- --__-� DC -19 -42 -50 -1 31 36 16 4 1 36 •■■ "'--' Delaware -1 -4 3 15 20 4 -10 -12 -2 70 Florida 142 11 163 350 468 296 104 171 401 2,946 Georgia 80 106 163 193 147 55 6 31 92 871 Hawaii 4 -16 -10 10 32 19 1 -9 -5 93 Iowa -39 -17 -4 31 14 5 -25 -55 -33 187 Idaho 18 13 12 10 21 20 10 -3 -1 131 Illinois 142 54 -147 -363 -183 -92 -163 -158 -21 979 ---.-----� Indiana -40 -9 21 68 37 -9 -57 -81 -36 449 Kansas -10 -5 1 38 36 32 -1 -31 -15 223 Kentucky 0 1 31 29 23 -7 -29 -43 -17 295 -----____1 Louisiana -20 -73 -51 7 65 36 -27 -66 -32 316 Massachusetts -123 -69 -22 122 102 11 -89 -93 -2 481 Maryland -33 -30 -3 56 78 15 -57 -71 5 460 Maine -17 -5 4 10 2 -16 -31 -34 -18 99 --- --.--� Michigan -158 -98 35 110 35 -97 -170 -192 -88 671 Minnesota -20 -24 -31 38 66 48 -24 -72 -13 443 Missouri -35 -38 -12 44 63 29 -44 -85 -38 419 Mississippi -5 -7 6 15 5 -9 -24 -31 -11 177 Montana 0 -5 0 16 20 13 0 -17 -16 73 -------__� North Carolina 138 186 233 242 171 74 32 44 80 804 North Dakota -23 -13 6 29 21 11 -1 -12 -9 45 -'•----� Nebraska -11 1 -2 26 21 23 -1 -22 -15 130 ------__� New Hampshire -27 -2 7 29 14 -9 -33 -36 -10 120 New Jersey 4 127 75 -97 -122 -157 -182 -147 6 674 New Mexico -6 -8 1 24 27 17 -8 -24 -17 132 Nevada 66 59 69 46 38 33 42 48 54 274 New York -259 -21 227 374 198 -154 -382 -419 -198 436 �-'--■�-� Ohio -89 -96 -6 34 67 -57 -157 -202 -91 783 ------__-� Oklahoma 4 -14 0 42 57 41 -7 -38 -23 232 -- ---___I Oregon -8 -6 25 41 51 29 17 -18 -23 282 Pennsylvania -202 -166 -69 103 99 -71 -209 -256 -110 813 Rhode Island -27 -16 -4 20 11 -8 -20 -22 -6 73 South Carolina 34 31 66 89 80 22 -17 -23 4 392 South Dakota 9 4 10 15 16 11 6 -5 -5 26 --.■■--__� Tennessee -16 -24 34 73 69 7 -31 -24 16 512 Texas 187 169 283 517 569 464 275 179 259 2,263 Utah 57 44 43 26 51 70 70 27 16 200 Virginia -42 -56 -28 83 105 39 -45 -54 24 666 Vermont -21 -5 2 18 3 -4 -12 -16 -8 55 _------__� Washington 21 -30 13 77 141 89 28 -24 3 618 Wisconsin -55 -18 0 64 39 2 -66 -106 -37 423 West Virginia 2 -4 -3 -6 -6 -14 -16 -31 -31 85 -------..� Wyoming 5 -2 -6 0 9 11 1 -11 -12 29 ---- -..� Source: Moody's Analytics 55 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Apartment Demand by Metro Market 56 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) Metro Market Albuquerque, NM Atlanta, GA Austin, TX Baltimore, MD Birmingham, AL Boston, MA Charleston, SC Charlotte, NC Chicago, IL Cincinnati, OH Cleveland, OH Columbus, OH Dallas -Ft. Worth, TX Denver, CO Detroit, MI Honolulu, HI Houston, TX Indianapolis, IN Kansas City, KS Las Vegas, NV Little Rock, AR Los Angeles, CA Louisville, KY Memphis, TN Miami -Ft. Lauderdale, FL Milwaukee, WI Minneapolis, MN Nashville, TN New Orleans, LA New York, NY Oklahoma City, OK Orlando, FL Philadelphia, PA Phoenix, AZ Pittsburgh, PA Portland. OR Raleigh, NC Richmond, VA Riverside, CA Sacramento, CA Salt Lake City, UT San Antonio, TX San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA San Jose, CA Seattle, WA Sioux Falls, SD St. Louis, MO Tampa, FL Washington DC 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net M 3.5 38.7 16.9 10.1 3.0 16.3 4.1 12.3 50.8 8.4 2.1 12.2 57.8 18.3 9.8 5.9 59.4 11.1 11.0 11.9 3.5 88.5 4.0 7.5 19.2 6.7 23.6 9.8 4.9 107.0 7.8 11.6 18.3 29.2 -3.2 11.4 8.8 4.8 33.1 11.3 12.6 16.5 23.6 22.6 14.4 22.2 2.1 8.3 1.6 47.8 ation 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net M -1.0 2.0 42.1 34.0 36.8 19.7 4.4 7.0 0.0 0.8 22.7 14.3 10.3 3.1 27.7 9.9 -39.3 42.5 0.0 5.5 -5.6 0.2 10.4 10.9 71.6 60.7 32.0 15.6 -7.2 5.1 0.9 4.6 77.9 63.8 7.7 9.3 2.4 8.1 21.9 11.3 2.2 2.4 0.6 84.4 4.0 1.9 -3.2 5.0 65.8 12.0 -3.0 4.4 11.1 20.8 21.7 8.3 6.9 3.4 -3.2 98.9 9.7 6.5 39.5 11.4 -0.9 12.2 44.0 28.0 2.6 -4.8 22.6 9.1 18.4 8.9 6.2 3.7 10.5 32.7 10.6 10.9 3.7 11.6 27.3 17.2 11.2 23.7 35.0 22.4 10.4 14.3 36.6 20.5 2.3 1.9 -4.8 3.8 35.6 -3.3 30.8 44.6 57 4.1 90.9 45.6 1.4 3.9 11.9 8.2 56.6 -30.2 4.2 -6.9 11.0 91.0 20.2 -5.1 -0.3 72.8 10.5 -0.7 49.1 2.7 -3.2 5.0 3.2 102.0 -1.5 18.5 16.8 2.6 -31.7 4.0 71.8 -1.6 91.1 4.7 21.3 46.7 5.3 2.6 12.5 3.6 25.0 7.1 20.8 4.5 33.5 1.4 0.7 56.1 12.2 Appendix 3: State and Metro Market Tables, continued. Supply Restriction Metrics 58 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 60 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, INC 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 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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- MF SUPPLY RANKINGF BILITY RESTRICTIONS IL 3982 3.036 Rental Households by Income 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 � .• under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 v v 30,000 0 25,000 x Y 20,000 c d 15,000 10,000 5,000 Rent as a Percent of Household Income under 15% 15%-20% 2011-25% 25%-30% 3011-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort E115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 a 0.5 ~ 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 not adjusted far type of rental to r W O O O N N N A O rl N O O O O O N N N N N V O N Ln n CO o, O O O O O O O N N N N N N XTIONA4 XULTIPAN ILT .311140 N*E'COU NCIL NAA �'r+q��Hnan aSsnPurlp' Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units I 1,430 Owner 5+units I 1,519 Renter Singlerl Renter 2-4 units51 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 since ■ 2010 1,646 2000- 201010 r 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 19x0- _ 1960 2,581 before 1940 ,686 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 74 72 00 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 ^O � at O ri N M 7 al VJ n W Ol O .-I N M 7 ut VJ n W O1 O o g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 62 HAS UzAI,. WRU Version 1 ALBUQUERQUE page 2 Households by Age Cohort 60,000 .tel ■ Renter �� i ■ 50,000 Owner • 40,000 30,000 _..� • _ 20,000 0 o n 1 � 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 100,000 200,000 90,000 ■ Renter 18Q000 IN Renter ■ Owner IN Owner 80,000 160,000 70,000 14Q000 60,000 - 120,000 50,000 - 100,000 40,000 80,000 30,000 N N 60,000 m rn 20,000 ti 40,000 10,000 = - 'o 20,000 = — QM IL lll■ 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) -5 0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15 Mining ` 2000-2010 �— ■ Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■ Manufacturing 2017-2030 Net Migration Trade & Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs � Natural Increase Financial Svcs . Net Migration Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase - Government C— 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 63 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA U ly'C w�[�e COUNCIL unpru uurian rqr �� ■ ■. .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW Strong in migrations exceed natural population increases. Solid economic growth expected across all sectors but mining, manufacturing and infor- mation. Positive new rental household growth across all age cohorts and consistent demand growth through 2030. Today's rental householders are younger and 40% pay over 35% of household income on rent. _ Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS L 7 1127 0.4 22% Rental Households by Income 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 — 80,000 60,000 ID 40,000 m` ' N 20,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 300,000 250,000 49 200,000 6 L U! 0 150,000 75x c � 100,000 50,000 under 15% 15%-20% 209/-25% 25%-30% 30•--35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort E115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 1145-S4 ■ S5-64 ■ 65+ 25.0 not adjusted for type of rental 20.0 a 15.0 00 10.0 5.0 - 0.0 to r W A O rl N V O n tr) al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N XTIONAl. XULTIPANILT HOU NCIL N*E'COO HC NAA ATLANTA Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 I I Owner Single 1,176,646 Owner 2-4 units I 7,798 Owner 5+units 33,530 Renter Single r Renter 2-4 units ` 67,379 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 since 2010 16,623 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 r 1960- 1980 1940- 13,057 1960 before 1940 , 5,398 700 600 0 H 500 400 300 200 100 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast n W a1 O N N M a� LO r` 00 al O N N M a M la n W al O 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 64 HAS U=bI*. WREA Version 1 ATLANTA page 2 Households by Occupants 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 a a 150,000 ti 100,000 50,000 0 1 2 3 ■ Renter ■ Owner - m rn � � o N n � W � 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government ■ 2010-2016 ■ 2017-2030 RANKING and DEFINITIONS: Households by Age Cohort 350,000 Households by Ethnicity and Origin 900,000 ■ Renter 300,000 800,000 ❑ Owner 250,000 ■ Owner 700,000 200,000 60Q000 150,000 v m ry '-i 100,000 ^� 300,000 � � o 50,000 10Q000 m oo o ' _ , ' = ■ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 65 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 Households by Ethnicity and Origin 900,000 IN Renter 800,000 ■ Owner 700,000 60Q000 500,000 m ry '-i 400,000 ^� 300,000 200,000 ,� m m 10Q000 m oo o White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 65 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS 6 157 -1.817% Rental Households by Income 70,000 60,000 50,000 - 40,000 30,000 - - 0 20,000 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 120,000 100,000 v 80,000 6 L U! 0 60,000 x c � 40,000 20,000 under 15% 15%-20% 209/-25% 25%-30% 30•/.-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort E115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 1145-S4 ■ S5-64 ■ 65+ 14.0 not adjusted for type of rental 12.0 - 10.0 a 8.0 z 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 to r W A O n CO al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N XTIONAl. MOLTIPANILT HOU NCIL N*E'COO HC NAA AUSTIN Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 I I Owner Single 380,009 Owner 2-4 units I 5,524 Owner 5+units 6.730 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 20,000 40,000 60,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� 1940- . 3,004 1960 before I 876 1940 400 350 0 H 300 250 200 150 100 50 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 80,000 n W a1 O N N M a ul to r` W al O N N M a M la n W al O 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 66 HAS U=bI*WR-EA Version 1 AUSTIN page 2 Households by Occupants 160,000 ■ Renter 140,000 ■ Owner 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 a � o 40,000 m N 20,000 ' ■' IIIIIIIIIIN � x� � 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Mining ■ 2010-2016 Construction � ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing , Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 125,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Households by Age Cohort 0 m 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 ■ Renter ■ Owner oilm M ti N m 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin ■ Renter ■ Owner m n N oo Noo N o0 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 67 ' MULTIPANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. _ Definitions on back DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS 36 199 11.931% Rental Households by Income 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $15k $25k $35k $50k N W ti $50- $75- $100- over $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 140,000 120,000 100,000 v 0 v 80,000 0 x 0 60,000 c � 40,000 N 20,000 - under 15% 15%-20% 209/-25% 25%-30% 30•/.-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort E115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 1145-S4 ■ SS -64 ■ 65+ 7.0 - 6.0 _ not adjustedfor type ofrental 5.0 I 4.0 3.0 o 2.0 1.0 ~ 0.0 -1.0 I -2.0 -3.0 - -4.0 to r W A O rl N V a r` CO al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N tm NATIONAL 6$ MULTIPAt!!LT HOOSliVu COUNCILNAA �'r+q�� aoHnanaRnP�rlp' BALTIMORE 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 since 2010 ! 2000- 2010 ! 1980- 2000 1960 1980 1940- 1960 15 046 before 16,234 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 260 250 r H 240 230 220 210 200 190 n W a1 O N N M a� to r` W al O N N M a M la n W al O 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 HAS US$1 A,, WRU Version 1 Irk-•. Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 I Owner Single 632,954 Owner 2-4 units I 4,931 Owner 5- units . 34,146 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units ■ 43,134 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 since 2010 ! 2000- 2010 ! 1980- 2000 1960 1980 1940- 1960 15 046 before 16,234 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 260 250 r H 240 230 220 210 200 190 n W a1 O N N M a� to r` W al O N N M a M la n W al O 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 HAS US$1 A,, WRU Version 1 BALTIMORE page 2 Households by Occupants 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 0 _ m 50,000 1 0 1 2 3 ■ Renter ■ Owner 0 � m N W 40 IIIIIIIIII� 11111 � - 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining 100,000 ■ 2010-2016 Construction r Manufacturing ■ 2017-2030 Trade &Transport �iiiiiim Information Svcs Black Alone Financial Svcs Hispanic Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government �— RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 30Q000 Households by Age Cohort ■ Renter ❑ Owner cO � _ M N � ca N _ O p 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin ■ Renter Owner 200000 100,000 N N � �iiiiiim White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration _ 2010-2016 Natural Increase IL Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration - 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 69 � MULTIFANILY .■� HATIOKANA U ly'C w�[�e COUNCIL unpru uurian rqr AS ■ ■. .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back DEMAND- MF SUPPLY RANKINGT203 TY RESTRICTIONS 48L -1.1 32% Rental Households by Income 40,000 - 35,000 - 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 - 10,000 O a 5,000 , under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 60,000 50,000 v 40,000 6 L U! 0 30,000 x C 01 41 20,000 01 N 10,000 � 1 under 15% 15%-20% 20°1-25% 25%-30% 30"k-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 L135-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 1.4 1.2 not adjusted for type of rental 1.0 0.8 0.6 04 t` 0.2 ' 0.0 -0.4 -0.6 LLLJJJ n ro m o m a in o n aD m o 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 INU N*ENATIONAL MOLTIPAMiLT HONcIL COOU HC IL BIRMINGHAM �� i s Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 50,000 100,000 150000 200,000 25Q000 300,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter S+ units since 2010 2000- _ 2010 0- 20 _ 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 90 80 00 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 n W at O ri N M 7 al tp n W at O ti N M 7 ut V] n W Ol O g g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 70 HAS US$11�I ' WRU Version 1 BIRMINGHAM page 2 Households by Age Cohort 80,000 Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 120,000 250,000 ■ Renter 70,000 ■ Renter■ ■ Owner 60,000 ■ Owner ■ Owner 50,000 200,000 40,000 — 30,000 M N 20,000QD M c H 100,000 M c -I 10,000 0 20,000 " _ 50,000 =, 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 71 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 120,000 250,000 ■ Renter■ Renter 100,000 ■ Owner ■ Owner 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 40,000 0 20,000 ro o N � N m 0, � _ 50,000 Q 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 Construction ■ 2010-2016 Natural Increase ` Manufacturing ■ 2017-2030 - Net Migration Trade & Transport - 2010-2016 Information Svcs NaturalIncrease Financial Svcs Net Migration I 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 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 71 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKINGr141" RESTRICTIONS IL 23 13.1 40% Rental Households by Income 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 300,000 250,000 v 200,000 6 L U! 0 150,000 x z 100,000 50,000 under 15% 15%-20% 209/-25% 25%-30% 30•/.-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 20 - 15 10 5 L F Sdddddd�� not adjusted for type of rental -10 to r W A O rl N M V ul �a n a) al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .30101 72 tmMULTIPAt1iLT HXTIONu COUNCILNAA �'r+q��HnanaRnPanp' BOSTON Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 200000 400,000 600,000 800,000 I I Owner Single Owner 2-4 units 117 772 Owner 5+units 78,002 Renter Single 95,266 Renter 2-4 units Re Mer 5+1 its :e r 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 20,1000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 since 2010 13,513 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 r 1940- 1960 � before 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 00 O\ O .-i N M 7 at VJ n W a1 O N N M a al tp r` W al O O S S 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 HAS US b5, WRU Version 1 Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mining 2010-2016 Construction Households by Age Cohort - ■ 2017-2030 BOSTON page 2 Information Svcs Financial Svcs - 2iiP7 Education & Health 300,000 Leisure & Hospitality ■ Renter i ❑ Owner I r" - 250,000 r� i .. 200,000 150,000 100,000 uc o v 50,000 '— - ' M a N 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 ■ Owner 800,000 300,000 700,000 250,000 600,000 200,000 — oo 500,000 150,000 un 'a 0 400,000 0 300,000 100,000 v � co 1O 200,000 v o 50,000 'N N to O 100,000 to u', ■ llllllll� M - 0 = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mining 2010-2016 Construction - ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs 2iiP7 Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration — 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to -6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 7J � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKANA U ly'C w�[�e COUNCIL unpru uurian rqr AS ■ ■. .: "'�" Version 2 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW CHARLESTON Net in migration significantly exceeds local natural population increases _ and is important to the economy. New rental households will span all the R age cohorts. Reasonable economic growth seen in all major job sectors. . ..... _ Rental housing stock is relatively new compared with other metros, yet T over a third is seen in more affordable STAR units. Definitions on back DEMAND- MF SUPPLY - -- RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS - - - L 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 1 1 1 1 16,000 Owner Single 152,873 - 14,000 Owner 2-4 units I 1,439 12,000 10,000 Owner 5+ units 4,30 n 9,000 6,000 Renter Single 4,000 2,000 Renter 2-4 units 14,575 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+ units $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 - 2010 30,000 2000- v 2010 0 25,000 L a 1980- 20,000 2000 ' x 15,000 1960- N 1980 10,000 N 1980 - 1960 1,109 5,000 - before ■ 837 - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 2011-25% 25%-30% 3011-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 1115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 0 45-54 0 55-64 0 65+ 90 2.0 80 not adjusted for type of rental p 70 1.5 - 60 a 1.0 50 40 00 0.5 30 20 0.0 u U LJ - _ - - 10 -0.5 - ta r W A O N V V1 �a n CO a, O n W at O ri N M 7 Ln tp n Ca a, O .-I N M 'r irl tp n W Ol O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 g g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N NI 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 �i W "o�°� L��LY N 74 HAS USat 051*. WREA WMIW 1011[Illl1[Spjllllp' ..... - version 1 CHARLESTON page 2 50,000 -__q Households by Age Cohort ■ Renter ■ Owner 40,000 30,000 20,000 o Households by Occupants o 10,000 Households by Ethnicity and Origin v � 70,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ �L I— Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 70,000 140,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 60,000 ■ Owner 120,000 IN Owner 50,000 10Q000 40,000 80,000 30,000 N 60,000 20,000 1O 40,000 10,000^ro 0 m on 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 2000-2010 Construction ■ 2010-2016 Natural Increase Manufacturing _ ■ 2017-2030 Net Migration Trade & Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase Government �� Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to -6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 75 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW Already significant net in migrations become a larger source of new renter households ahead. Good economic prospects are led by professional ser- vices and trade. Rental stock is young and scaled. Like Raleigh, Orlando and Austin, more affordable STAR units account for less than a fifth of metro rentals. Well located metro with an excellent airport. _ Definitions on back DEMANDrABI MF SUPPLY RANKINGRESTRICTIONS10 -3.5 18% Rental Households by Income 70,000 60,000 50,000 — 40,000 — 30,000 20,000 ^ oo of 10,000 , under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 120,000 100,000 -"0 80,000 6 L U! 0 60,000 x c � z 40,000 0 N 20,000 1 under 15% 15%-20% 209/-25% 25%-30% 30-/.-35% over 35% 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 s 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 New Rental Households by Age Cohort ■ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ not adjusted for type of rental 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 .31140 76 MULTIPANiLT HOVSfiVu COUNCIL NAA �'r+q��HnanaRnP�np' CHARLOTTE Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 30Q000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units 1 3,209 Owner S+ units 1 10,835 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units 30,450 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 since 2010 � 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- r3,27� 1960 7 before 1940 2,73 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 220,000 Households by Age Cohort CHARLOTTE page 2 — 200,000 — .�- -�. 140,000 120,000 IN Renter IN Owner 180,000 ■ Owner 400,000 - - f 100,000 160,000 350,000 140,000 80,000 �.•`, �F. ! w•�I 60,000 .. •' y' .. +Jr� i -- r''-. - J `• _ 40,000 n N O 120,000 I 20,000 250,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 100,000 Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 220,000 SOQ000 — 200,000 ■ Renter 450,000 IN Renter 180,000 ■ Owner 400,000 ■ Owner 160,000 350,000 140,000 300,000 120,000 250,000 100,000 200,000 80,000 60,000 N 150,000 40,000 20,000' m ui O � 100,000 50,000 • ' nOCI N vi ■, _ - — _ 111117■ = 0 - — 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining II Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000-2010 Natural Increase _ Net Migration ■ 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration — RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to –6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 77 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 back DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKINGr,91 RESTRICTIONS IL 34 1.6 39% Rental Households by Income 300,000 250,000 200,000 15Q000 '-i 0 ti oo 100,000 — v m 50,000 ' under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 v v 300,000 0 250,000 x af5 200,000 `^ c m d 150,000 100,000 50,000 under 15% 15%-20% 209/-25% 25%-30% 30•/.-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 20.0 - not adjusted for type of rental 15.0 10.0 a 5.0 0 z 0.0 50 -10.0 to r W A O rl N V �a n CO al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N tm NATIONAL 78 MULTIPAt!!LT HOVSliVu COUNCILNAA �'r+q�� aoHnanaRnP�np' CHICAGO Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units ■ 135,068 Owner 5+units = 207,6'. Renter Single 29 Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 since 2010 ill 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 84,429 before 1940 136,502 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 750 725 0 H 700 675 650 625 600 575 n W a1 O N N M 7 X11 to n 00 al O N N M a M la n W al O 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 HAS WRU Version 1 CHICAGO page 2 Households by Occupants Households by Age Cohort 550,000 1,800,000 n � � � N ■ Renter ■Renter 500,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone 1,600,000 ■ Owner ■ Owner 450,000 1,400,000 400,000 1,200,000 350,000 300,000 - 1,000,000 250,000 200,000 oo oo 800,000 150,000 °1 v n 100,000 50,000 0100 A 200,000 UJ 400,000 100,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 800,000 1,800,000 n � � � N ■ Renter 1111111/ ■ 700,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone 1,600,000 ■ Owner 600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 500,000 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 300,000 1O U] 600,000 200,000 UJ 400,000 100,000 � 1 1 � � + rn 200,000 . ■ 0 IIIIIIIIIIN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: Households by Ethnicity and Origin IN Renter ■ Owner Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration — METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact Ni NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 79 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOl // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 V] m n � � � N 1. 1111111/ ■ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration — METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact Ni NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 79 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOl // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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- MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 38 272 -3.7 48 Rental Households by Income 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $15k $25k $35k $50k 120,000 100,000 -6 80,000 6 L U! 0 60,000 x vmi m N � � $50- $75- $100- over $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income c � z 40,000 O N V N 20,000 1 under 15% 15%-20% 209/-25% 25%-30% 30•/.-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 1115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 4.0 not adjusted for type of rental 3.0 2.0 a 1.0 00.0 ' °addddd�� -2.0 to r m al O rl N V �a r` m al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N tm Nprinla�t 80 MULTIPAt!!LT HOOSliVu COUNCILNAA �'r+q�� aoHnanaRnP�np' CINCINNATI Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 30Q000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Owner Single ! Owner 2-4 units I 8,668 Owner 5+ units ' 15,752 Renter Single 96,160 Renter 2-4 units 56.730 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 since 2010 in 3,558 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- - 11,930 1960 before 1940 - 14,205 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 180 6 170 160 150 140 130 120 8 8 8 0 o q g o o q o 0 0 o n 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 AL HAS WWA Version 1 CINCINNATI page 2 Households by Occupants Households by Age Cohort 140,000 500,000 ■ Renter 120,000 ■ Renter ❑ Owner 100,000 ■ Renter 80,000 450000 60,000 40,000 N ry n 0 20,000 400000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 250,000 500,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 450000 ■ Owner ■ Owner 200,000 400000 350,000 150,000 300000 250000 100,000 200,000 00 15Q000 0i 50,000 N v `^°� ti 100,000 a o 50,000 m , ■ai Ln 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -5 0 5 10 Mining 2000-2010 Construction ■ 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■ 2017-2030 et Migration N — Manufacturing —�� Trade & Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Financial Svcs Natural Increase Net Migration Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase Government C— Net Migration — RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 15 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 81 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Iii 1 w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back DEMAND- MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 50 291 0.3 46% I Rental Households by Income 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 under $15- $25- $15k $25k $35k 120,000 100,000 -6 80,000 6 L U! 0 60,000 x 40,000 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 a 0.0 z° -1.0 ~ -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 -5.0 20,000 Rent as a Percent of Household Income uS N .. 1 under 15% 15%-20% 209/-25% 25%-30% 30•/.-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ not type of rental yll� tD r W A O rl N V �O r` W Ol O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N XTIONA4 XULTIPANILT HOU NC N*E'coulvIL NAA u+a�wuHnanu�nn.rwY CLEVELAND Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 30Q000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units , 13,845 Owner S+ units 11,552 Renter Single _ 106,905 Renter2-4units - 55,384 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 since 2010 � 2,460 2000- zolo 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 21,701 before 1940 21,341 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 160 - -o 00 155 r 150 145 140 135 130 n CpoO Qpo� O .-I N M V vt tp r` QD O1 O N N M� tp r` W O1 O 8 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O OO 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 82 J.WREAASUnNr 15at117ieNOW Version 1 a 00 N $35- $50- $75- $100- over $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income uS N .. 1 under 15% 15%-20% 209/-25% 25%-30% 30•/.-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ not type of rental yll� tD r W A O rl N V �O r` W Ol O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N XTIONA4 XULTIPANILT HOU NC N*E'coulvIL NAA u+a�wuHnanu�nn.rwY CLEVELAND Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 30Q000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units , 13,845 Owner S+ units 11,552 Renter Single _ 106,905 Renter2-4units - 55,384 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 since 2010 � 2,460 2000- zolo 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 21,701 before 1940 21,341 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 160 - -o 00 155 r 150 145 140 135 130 n CpoO Qpo� O .-I N M V vt tp r` QD O1 O N N M� tp r` W O1 O 8 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O OO 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 82 J.WREAASUnNr 15at117ieNOW Version 1 RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. pp NATIONAL 83 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 Households by Age Cohort CLEVELAND page 2 140,000 - -� ■Renter „ 120,000 ❑ Owner - 100,000 . - ! 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 1� 1 . �1 .� 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 ■ Owner IN Owner 200,000 — 40Q000 350,000 150,000 300,000 250000 100,000 200,000 N � 150,000 '+ 50,000 1� 100000oo ^I , I. m = 50,000 '. 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) -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 Mining 2000-2010 Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase Manufacturing -- ■ 2017-2030 Net Migration Trade & Transport C 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 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. pp NATIONAL 83 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW Net in migrations account for half of the new household formations. Good renter depth in younger, single households with incomes up to $75,000. Older rental stock, with most units over 20 years old. Government and education sectors result in extremely stable economy. Rental vacancies are in balance with steady multifamily demand ahead. _ Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY RANKING VRESTRICTIONS 28 11231 1.9 39 Rental Households by Income 70,000 60,000 50,000 — 40,000 30,000 N aJ r 20,000 00 m m 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 120,000 — 100,000 -"0 80,000 6 L U! 0 60,000 x c � z 40,000 O N N 20,000 1 under 15% 15%-20% 2045-25% 25%-30% 30•/.-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 6.0 — not adjusted for type of rental 5.0 4.0 I a 3.0 I 0 2. I F 0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 to r W A O rl N V a r` CO al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N XTIONA4 MOLTIPANILT HOU RIK COO HC NCIL lL NAA COLUMBUS Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 I I Owner Single Owner 2-4 units ' 7,802 Owner 5+ units ' 7,866 Renter SingleE64 03,439 Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 since 2010 12,372 2000 - nolo 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940 1960 9,052 before 1940 = 4,434 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 250 'o 200 150 100 50 500,000 50,000 n W a1 O N N M a� to r` 00 al O N N M a M la n W al O 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 84 b5,*- WREA HAS U Version 1 COLUMBUS page 2 Households by Occupants Households by Age Cohort 120,000 ■ Renter 100,000 ■ Owner 80,000 60,000 N 40,000 •� 00 M � N N T M 20,000 ~ o0 V] 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 200,000 2000-2010 Construction — 2010-2016 Natural Increase ` ■ 2017-2030 Net Migration 450000 Trade & Transport — 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase ■ Renter — Net Migration Professional Svcs ■ Renter Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration 400,000 ■ Owner ■ Owner 150,000 _ 35Q000 300,000 250,000 100,000 r 20Q000 _ m 150000 _ N 50,000 N 100,000 O m m � 50,000 m n � m , ■ 0 _. - — — — — 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining 2000-2010 Construction — 2010-2016 Natural Increase ` ■ 2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing - 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 dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 85 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Iii 1 w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. _ Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS J L.1174 -1.3 19% Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 I Owner Single 1,383,073 Owner 2-4 units I 8,312 Owner 5+units I 18,308 Renter Single — 311,245 Renter 2-4 units ■ 105,690 DALLAS Rental Households by Income 250,000 200,000 150,000 — m 100,000 ti r m ti 0 50,000 � 1 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 400,000 350,000 300,000 - -i 0 250,000 L UJ 0 200,000 x F. � 150,000 �� v m 100,000 CO 50,000 under 15% 15%-20% 2000-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 since 2010 _ 45,626 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940-716,26 1960 before 1940 P 7,441 New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast E:115-24 ■ 25-34 L135-44 45-54 ■ 55-64 W65+ 1,200 a 30.0 nat adjusted for pe z 1,000 25.0 ~ 800 20.0 15.0 s 600 10.0 400 5.0 200 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N $$$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 MOLTIPAtIlLY H003lNO NAA $s ■ HASU 11��1WRU COO NC IL ■r+q��Hrlan asspf�rlp■ De. """'� Version 1 DALLAS page 2 Households by Occupants 500,000 450,000 ■ Renter 400,000 ■ Owner 350,000 300,000 250,000 D a 200,000 C5 vi 150,000 ti QD Ci 100,000 W o N 50,000 to , ■. � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Mining 2010-2016 Construction ■ ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: Households by Age Cohort 400,000 ■ Renter 350,000 ■ Owner 300,000 250,000 ' 200,000 _ 150,000 m � N 100,000 01 . • '� 501000 'IIID 1 1 � _ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 1,200,000 ■ Renter 1,000,000 ■ Owner 800,000 600,000 400,000 tiCyl -oma m y N r` N 200,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL H% ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Iii l w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW DENVER . aim Net in migrations exceed natural population growth and fuel new rentalw• households from most age cohorts. Good renter incomes with diverse ages and household sizes. Strong economic growth prospects in all but a few sectors. Long term supply restrictions may impact multifamily growth as annual demand steadily increases ahead. t.. Definitions on back -- DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS y 20 122 40,000 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 70,000 60,000 Owner 2-4 units I 10,128 N m 50,000 "' Owner 5, units ■ 40,125 30,000 Renter Single - 123,111 20,000 _ 10,000 Renter2-4units . 31,421 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+ units $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $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 since 17, 38 2010 120,000 43 2000- 2010 0 100,000 t v 1980- 0' 80,000 2000 x 60,000 - 1960- 1980 oc 40,000 19ao- 1960 14,5 8 20,000 an I before 1940 10,396 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort S+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ■ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 350 c 9.0 m not adjustedfor type of rental0 300 8.0 - - 7.0 250 .0 I 200 5 -a 5.0 40 150 0 3.0 2.0 100 1.0 0.0 50 -1.0 �D n � at O N N M V vl tp n W m O n W dl O N N M V vt to n W dl O N N V tD r` W 41 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 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 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N AL ISM' �o�� PAN N $$ HAS USA WREA It �u versim 1 DENVER page 2 F}" 7' la,-- Households by Occupants 280,000 175,000 150,000 Households by Age Cohort ■ Renter a Owner j' 600000 125,000 ■ Owner ■ Renter 240'000 100,000 — 300000 ■ Owner 75,000 50,000 N m M M fO W I I N 100,000 25,000 1 I , White Alone = El �. 120,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 280,000 ■ Renter 600000 ■ Owner ■ Renter 240'000 40Q000 — 300000 ■ Owner 200,000 20Q000 — 00 N 00 100,000 � M m ID ,. 160,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic 120,000 m 80,000 o N W 40,000 1 ai 1 ■ 1 I E 0 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining ■ 2010-2016 Construction ' ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing _ Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Households by Ethnicity and Origin 70Q000 ■ Renter 600000 ■ Owner 500000 40Q000 — 300000 20Q000 — 00 N 00 100,000 � M m ID ,. White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 89 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA U Iii 1 w�[�e COUNCIL r�mru ulrrlm� rqr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. _ Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS kh 41 260 1.2 52% Rental Households by Income 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 - 60,000 - n ao 40,000 N o V 20,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 225,000 200,000 175,000 -0 150,000 0 t w 125,000 0 = 100,000 m c m 75,000 — v 50,000 v 25,000 - under 15% 15%-20% 200/-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 E125-34 � 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 8.0 not adjusted for type of rental 6.0 4.0 0 2.0 v d�h IIIM -6.0 — -8.0 �o n oo m o m v in �o n ao m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry N ry N ry N N N N ry N ry ry ry ry N*E NATIONAL MULTIPAMILT HOU NC IL couNCIL u+a�wuHnanu�nn.rwY DETROIT Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 Owner Single I . Owner 2-4 units I 16,439 Owner 5+units ' 20,113 Renter Single — 230,927 Renter 2-4 units . 61,461 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 since 2010 . 4,487 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 25,714 before 19ao 17, 25 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 330 -a 320 L 310 300 290 280 270 260 n Wo dol O .-I N M V- to n W- 8 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ry N N N N N N N N N ry N N N ry N N ry N N N ry N N 90UnMWRU u w�+ 1 �jSattAl - versim 1 f DETROIT page 2 Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 8o 100 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 11 ■ 2010-2016 ■ 2017-2030 l� llllllllllllllllllllllll� Households by Age Cohort 300,000 Households by Occupants 450,000 ■ Renter 250,000 ■ Renter 400,000 150,000 ■ Owner 350,000 300,000 250,000 .. ' 200,000 ■ ■' 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 150,000 Households by Ethnicity and Origin M m — ■ Renter 900,000 � 100,000 800,000 cl r`oo 50,00 500,000 u oo UJ M 300,000 N 200,000 io O m N 100,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 8o 100 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 11 ■ 2010-2016 ■ 2017-2030 l� llllllllllllllllllllllll� Households by Age Cohort 300,000 ■ Renter 250,000 a Owner 200,000 150,000 100,000 0 50,000 -, .. ' - ■ ■' 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 1,000,000 — ■ Renter 900,000 ■ Owner 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 0 300,000 N 200,000 io O m N 100,000 N N � � IIIIIIII� White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration _ 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration - 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 91 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Iii 1 w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS IL 35 71 19.5 Rental Households by Income 35,000 30,000 - 25,000 m 20,000 N 15,000 �o O 10,000 - 5,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $look $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 70,000 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast E115-24 ■ 25-34 E135-44 ❑45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 135 v 60,000 3.0 not adjustedfor type ofrental '0 130 50,000 v 2.0 125 0 v 40,000 a 1.0 120 0 r 0.o yn L � 115 0 x m 30,000 ■ Y.I � 110 -2.0 la r W T O N M a VI t0 n W T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 105 I� W al O 1 o, O N N M r ill U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 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 m 92 HAS U 051*. WREA 20,000 N .,... — ver:ray 1 v N 10,000 rl H under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 2591-30% 30%-35% over 35% HONOLULU Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 50,000 100,000 150,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units 1 5,988 Owner 5+units — 35,894 Renter Single 58,874 Renter 2-4 units - 13,968 Renter 5+ units i 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 1,762 2010 2000- 2010 000 2010 3,165 0- 20 20 00 � 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 — 8,296 before ' 890 1940 New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast E115-24 ■ 25-34 E135-44 ❑45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 135 v — 3.0 not adjustedfor type ofrental '0 130 2.0 125 a 1.0 120 0 r 0.o yn L � 115 ■ Y.I � 110 -2.0 la r W T O N M a VI t0 n W T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 105 I� W al O 1 o, O N N M r ill U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n W m O 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 IL NAA 92 HAS U 051*. WREA '°U� kwu, .,... — ver:ray 1 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10000 0 HONOLULU page 2 Households by Occupants ■ Renter Quorip N N p N � 7 W r` 11 ■. ■1 2 3 4 S 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Households by Age Cohort ■ Renter ■ Owner m m N N � � O m `~ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin ■ Renter ■ Owner a a f\ v White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration — 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration - 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration ' 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 93 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW Strong net in migrations and a diverse population drives new multifamily demand ahead. The economy is growing, becoming more diversified and less reliant on oil and gas. New rental households coming from most age cohorts. More new rental supply relative to demand than most metros with a smaller 22% share of multifamily today in STAR units. _ Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY RANKING 1W RESTRICTIONS J�.j 181 -2.5 Rental Households by Income 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 m 100,000 80,000 ip 60,000 ri v 40,000 - 20,000 - under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100. over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k New Rental Households by Age Cohort E115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 30.0 not adjusted for type of rental 25.0 20.0 a 15.0 r 10.0 5.0 0.0 n ao m o e a m o 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 HOUMNO XULTIPANILT HOU NC IL N*E'COO HC IL NAA �'r+q��aoHrlan aSsnPnrlp' HOUSTON Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 i Owner Single ! Owner 2-4 units I 5,144 Owner S+units I 21,787 Renter Single - 277,554 Renter2-4units . 77,643 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 since 2010 46,461 2000- 2010 000. 2010 Rent as a Percent of Household Income 400,000 2000 350,000 1960- 960.1980 - 300,000 - v 0 250,000 t v 1960 0 200,000 1 5,021 1940 x m � 150,000 z 0 rn � 100,000 50,000 " under 15% 15%-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort E115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 30.0 not adjusted for type of rental 25.0 20.0 a 15.0 r 10.0 5.0 0.0 n ao m o e a m o 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 HOUMNO XULTIPANILT HOU NC IL N*E'COO HC IL NAA �'r+q��aoHrlan aSsnPnrlp' HOUSTON Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 i Owner Single ! Owner 2-4 units I 5,144 Owner S+units I 21,787 Renter Single - 277,554 Renter2-4units . 77,643 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 since 2010 46,461 2000- 2010 000. 2010 1980- 980.2000 2000 1960- 960.1980 1980 1940. 21,994 1960 before 1 5,021 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 900 800 00 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 n 00 al O .-I N M a Ln n W o, O N N M a ill t0 1 W m O g g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 94 b5,*- WREA HAS U Version 1 HOUSTON page 2 Households by Occupants 450,000 400,000 ■ Renter ■ Owner 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 m 100,000 m `o V N 50,000 .• N N D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Mining 2010-2016 Construction — ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 175 Households by Age Cohort 350,000 ■ Renter 300,000 ❑ Owner 250,000 200,000 150,000 ti n 100,000 50,000 � _ � � : = ■ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 1,200,000 ■ Renter 1,000,000 fl Owner 800,000 600,000 — n 400,000 v N � 200,000 = ■ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 95 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA U ly'C w�[�e COUNCIL unpru uurian rqr �� ■ ■. .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW a 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. Definitions on back DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS 30 254 -5.1 25 INDIANAPOLIS Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 v 20,000 N 10,000 _ 1 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 125,000 100,000 a t 75,000 v 0 x 50,000 v oo N N 25,000 _ 1 under 15% 15%-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 1115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 1145-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 5.0 not adjusted for type of rental 4.0 3.0 -o 2.0 'o ~ 1.0 0.0 U U LL M -1.0 �o n ao m c, .+ N e m n m m o 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 HOWINO MOLTIPANILT HOUNCIL RIK COO HC lL NAA - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single 463,456 Owner 2-4 units I 4,602 Owner s+units I 4,068 Renter Single 111rJeT M, Renter 2-4 units . 38,44 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 since 2010 r 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 r 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 250 c 'o F 200 150 100 50 50,000 m't in io n ao m o .+ N m n oo m 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 96 HAS US b5, WRU Version 1 INDIANAPOLIS page 2 Households by Occupants 200,000 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mining 45000D ■ 2010-2016 Construction Manufacturing ■ Renter 180,000 Information Svcs ` Financial Svcs 35Q000 Professional Svcs Education & Health ■ Owner 160,000 250,000 Government — 20Q000 140,000 150000 N 120,000 o 100,000 — 50,000 O N 80,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic 60,000 N N 40,000 `� 20,000 N o o UJ 0 � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mining 45000D ■ 2010-2016 Construction Manufacturing — � ■ 2017-2030 Trade & Transport Information Svcs ` Financial Svcs 35Q000 Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality 250,000 Government — RANKING and DEFINITIONS: Households by Age Cohort 125,000 ■ Renter ■ Owner 100,000 75,000 50,000 N � 06 r cl N cl� 00 25,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 97 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii l w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 Households by Ethnicity and Origin 45000D ■ Renter 400,000 ■ Owner 35Q000 300,000 250,000 20Q000 150000 N 100,000 o 50,000 O N ■ __ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 97 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii l w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 back DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS 42 234 -5.335 Rental Households by Income 60,000 50,000 - 40,000 30,000 M C 20,000 ti - a 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $look $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 100,000 75,000 — v 0 L d 0 50,000 x v � 25,000 - under 15% 15%-20% 20°1-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% XTIONA4 MOLTIPANILT HOUNCIL COO HC lL NAA KANSAS CITY Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 100,000 200,000 30Q000 400,000 500,000 6000OO Owner Single . Owner 2-4 units I 2,246 Owner 5+units I 4,439 Renter Single Renter2-4units ■ 44,245 Renter 5- units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 M. 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 ' 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 200 180 'o � 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 n W a1 O .-I N M V v1 .a r` W M O N N M O u1 to n W m 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 98 HAS vrI b5, ' WRU �P "'�"� Version 1 New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 3.5 3.0 not adjusted for type of rental 2.5 2.0 1.5 0 � 1.0 - 00 0.5 0.0L -0. -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 1p n W m O N M V VI to n W a� ryOry�� 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 XTIONA4 MOLTIPANILT HOUNCIL COO HC lL NAA KANSAS CITY Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 100,000 200,000 30Q000 400,000 500,000 6000OO Owner Single . Owner 2-4 units I 2,246 Owner 5+units I 4,439 Renter Single Renter2-4units ■ 44,245 Renter 5- units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 M. 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 ' 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 200 180 'o � 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 n W a1 O .-I N M V v1 .a r` W M O N N M O u1 to n W m 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 98 HAS vrI b5, ' WRU �P "'�"� Version 1 KANSAS CITY page 2 Households by Age Cohort 125,000 �1 ■ Renter ■Owner C� 100,000 - - - — 75,000 / ~�--- 50,000 r I _ m N � r, -1 25,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 200,000 500,000 180,000 ■ Renter 45Qo00 ■ Renter ■ Owner ■ Owner 160,000 40Qo00 140,000 - 350,000 — 120,000 30Qo00 100,000 — 250,000 80,000 200,000 60,000 15Q000 00 a oo 00 40,000 N N 10Q000 00 to 20,000 ' , ■ I — - — 50,000 . ■ c ry 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) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining 2000-2010 ■ Construction 2010-2016 Natural Increase ■ Manufacturing 2017-2030 Net Migration _ Trade & Transport 016 Information Svcs Natural increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase Government F- 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 dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to -6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 99 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii l w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW LAS VEGAS Net in migrations from all age cohorts dominate the sourcing of new rental - households as natural population growth eases ahead. Rental households are smaller with good incomes up to $75,000. Economy is slowly diversify- ing away from dependency on tourism. Good multifamily demand has _. been consistent since the downturn and will increase through 2030. Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY \ RANKING RESTRICTIONS \ 9 rl46 -3.7 21 Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 70,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 I 60,000 Owner Single 50,0001 Owner 2-4 units ' 7,811 40,000 – Owner 5+units , 13,127 30,000 20,000 Renter Single r 0 10,000 Renter 2-4 units _ 49,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+ units r r $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k New Rental Households by Age Cohort E115-24 ■ 25-34 E135-44 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 12.0 not dustedfor type of rental 10.0 8.0 6.0 t 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 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 ATIONAL MOLTIPAMILT HOIu N*ECONOU NCNC IL NAA 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 since 5 608 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 194' . 3,454 1960 before I 593 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 350 — v 300 t H 250 200 150 100 50 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 100 HAS v b5, ' WRU �Jdl l. "'�"� Version 1 Rent as a Percent of Household Income 150,000 125,000 v 100,000 6 v 0 75,000 x m 50,000 N N 25.000 – M 1 under 15% 15%-20% 200/-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort E115-24 ■ 25-34 E135-44 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 12.0 not dustedfor type of rental 10.0 8.0 6.0 t 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 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 ATIONAL MOLTIPAMILT HOIu N*ECONOU NCNC IL NAA 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 since 5 608 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 194' . 3,454 1960 before I 593 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 350 — v 300 t H 250 200 150 100 50 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 100 HAS v b5, ' WRU �Jdl l. "'�"� Version 1 LAS VEGAS page 2 Households by Occupants 160,000 ■ Renter 140,000 ■ Owner 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 QD 40,000 0 20,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 Mining ■ 2010-2016 Construction ` � ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing ' Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 30Q000 250,000 20Q000 150000 10Q000 50,000 Households by Age Cohort N 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 ■ Renter ❑ Owner N O m ✓1 N � 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin ■ Renter ■ Owner w v � m � m White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase MEN Net Migration — 2016-2030 Natural Increase FINE Net Migration — METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 1 O 1 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back DEMAND - MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 43 244 -5.4 33 Rental Households by Income 25,000 20,000 15,000 - - 10,000 0 5,000 ,.cli under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 40,000 30,000 m 0 t v p 20,000 x c 10,000 under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ■ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ❑ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 1.2 not adjusted for type of rental 1.0 0.8 0.6 t 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 LJ U u . LJ y ILJI ■u ■u y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ry ry N ry ry N ry N N ry N N ry N ry NATIpNAL 102 tmHOWIPAHU.Y HOTIONu COUNCIL NAA �+q�� aoHnanaRnP�np' LITTLE ROCK r tf -- 7" Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units I 535 Owner 5+units I 1,056 Renter Single Renter2-4units ■ 13,995 Renter 5+ units since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 r before . 686 1940 70 a 60 'o 50 40 30 20 10 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 5,000 10,000 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 15,000 LITTLE ROCK page 2 Households by Occupants 10,000 ■ Renter 60,000 IN Owner 50,000 40000 30,000 N 20,000 — o N .ti O O 10,000 � 1 ■, � � � � 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government ■ 2010-2016 ■ 2017-2030 RANKING and DEFINITIONS: Households by Age Cohort 50,000 ■ Renter ■ Owner 40,000 30,000 20,000 00 � N m � 10,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 160,000 ■ Renter 140,000 ■ Owner 12Q000 10Q000 80,000 60,000 r 40,000 m 20,000 N = — White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 103 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 bock DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 17 70 5.3 61 LOS ANGELES Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 450,000 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 400,000 1 1 i 1 Owner Single 350,000 — 300,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 43,689 250,000 Owner 5- units ■ 132,254 200,000 150,000 Renter Single 100,000 50,000 Renter 2-4 units " 32,932 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter S+ units $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 1,000,000 since ■ 34,060 2010 oo()v 2000- 49soo,000 — 0 zolo L U 1980- 0 600,000 x 2000 f5 m ti m so 1960- 4) 400,000 N •� i0 1980 opo N N 1940- 200,000 UT I 1960 t before 1940 under15% 15%-20% 201/-25% 25%-30% 30"/-35% over35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 1-115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ❑ 4S -S4 ■ S5-64 ■ 65+ 1,500,000 40 1,300,000 30 1,100,000 20 900,00() 10 o L F 700,000 0 1 ' I 1 ' -10 500,000 not adjusted for type of rental -20 300,000 to r W A O N V �a n CO 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 al O O O N N r W a1 O .-I N M a a1 tp n W at O ri N M a a1 tp n W al O S S S 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 NAA XULHAS 104 `' UZAie�go. ■rRG/i fl/�1�+ AL JW COOUHCIL umuu uunm aunP�rgr „_.�. . versim2 LOS ANGELES page 2 Households by Age Cohort 600,000 ■ Renter - ■ Owner 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 � v 100,000 O — N lD •--i .ti m 333 ri 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 ■ Owner 1,200,000 ■ Owner 500,000 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 300,000 a 600,000 0 m ry ti 200,000 m 400,000 C N O vt N 103,000 ;. : . 200,000 ' 0 - 16. 1 2 3 4 S 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government 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 ' RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land 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 Dino 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®, ESl 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. NKC NATIONAL 105 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOIl U ly'C w�[�e COUNCIL unpru uurian� rqr �� - ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. LDefinitions on back MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 228 DEMAND -2.8 42 Rental Households by Income 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 m 0 10,000 � m .. of 5,000 , under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $look $15ok $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 60,000 50,000 v 40,000 0 L d 0 30,000 x m c � 20,000 10,000 — under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 2591-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 1115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 2.0 not adjusted for type of rental 1.5 1.0 -o r 0.5 0.a� io n ao m o ry m a m o n m m o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N XTIO HOW INO MOLTIPANILT HOU NCIL N*E'COO HC NAA 106 Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 100,000 200,000 300,000 Owner Single I t Owner 2-4 units I 3,155 Owner 5+ units 7,406 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units ■ 28,538 Renter 5+units# M t 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 since 2010 t 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 80 60 40 20 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 400,000 25,000 Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining ■ 2010-2016 Construction _ ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing _ Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government �— Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 'I O7 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr— COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 Households by Age Cohort LOUISVILLE page 2 80,000 ■ Renter - ----, V :7 _ -- - 70,000 ■Owner - 60,000 --------- . n _ ` -- 50,000 . _ Z_- Q" ; l 40,000 . ='. 30,000 � m r..r. L•.k` 20,000 � , � O vmi • 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 140,000 300,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 120,000 0 Owner 250000 ■ Owner 100,000 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 n 40,000 o N 20,000 co `�°, o , 50,000 y v IR , ■ m m o 0 — - - — — 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mining ■ 2010-2016 Construction _ ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing _ Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government �— Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 'I O7 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr— COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 back DEMAND - MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 40 222 8.7 38% Rental Households by Income 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 0 N �p 10.000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 80,000 70,000 60,000 v 0 50,000 t v 0 40,000 x m � 30,000 z 20,000 10,000 4 1 1 1 under 15% 15%-20% 20%-25% 259/-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort E115-24 ■ 25-34 E135-44 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 2.5 not adjusted for type of rental 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 a 6II�u■��1 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 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NATIONAL OH OU ILLY HOV3lNO COUNCIL NC IL HC lL NAA MEMPHIS Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 100,000 200,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units 1 1,314 Owner 5+units I 2,700 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units 31,915 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 since 2010 ! 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960 1980 1940- 1960 ! before 1940 140 0 120 0 100 80 60 40 20 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 300,000 25,000 MEMPHIS page 2 Households by Occupants 120,000 ■ Renter 100,000 ■ Owner 80,000 60,000 40,000 – No oq N co 20,000 N � 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Age Cohort 80,000 T 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 JO 30,000 cl 20,000 _— 10,000 ' 15-24 25-34 Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government ■ Renter IN Owner m 00 N v 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 2000-2010 016 Natural Increase .030 Net Migration - 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 109 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 Households by Ethnicity and Origin 200,000 ■ Renter 180000 IN Owner 160000 140,000 12QOOo 10Qo00 80,000 60,000 40,000 vtDi 20,000 C rq �1111110 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 2000-2010 016 Natural Increase .030 Net Migration - 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 109 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back DEMAND- MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 3 105 9.3 37% I � Rental Households by Income 200,000 Rent as a Percent of Household Income 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 ' 100,000 80,000 60,000 n rn 40,000 0 2(,000 , under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 30.0 not adjusted for type of rental 25.0 20.0 15.0 3 t 10.0 5.0 0.0 ! LJLJ a -5.0 a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ry ry N ry ry N ry N N ry N ry ry N ry HOWINO XULTIPANILT HOU Nc IL N*E'COO HC IL NAA MIAMI Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 I I I Owner Single 904,748 Owner 2-4 units , 40,263 Owner S+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units = 114,436 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 since 2010 21,619 2000- 2010 r I 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 r 1940- 1960 before ■ lo, 98 1940 I 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 800 700 t F- 600 500 400 300 200 100 n W a1 O .-I N M V v1 �O n W O1 O N N M O a1 t0 n W m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ry N N ry N N N ry ry ry ry ry ry N ry N N N N N N N N 110 ,'1 HAS vrI,�� WRU �P �' "'�"� Version 1 Rent as a Percent of Household Income 450,000 400,000 ' 350,000 a 300,000 6 t 250,000 0 0 = 200,001) 75 C 150,000CO o oo ^ M m 100,000 cq oo oo 50,000 under 15% 15%-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 30.0 not adjusted for type of rental 25.0 20.0 15.0 3 t 10.0 5.0 0.0 ! LJLJ a -5.0 a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ry ry N ry ry N ry N N ry N ry ry N ry HOWINO XULTIPANILT HOU Nc IL N*E'COO HC IL NAA MIAMI Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 I I I Owner Single 904,748 Owner 2-4 units , 40,263 Owner S+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units = 114,436 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 since 2010 21,619 2000- 2010 r I 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 r 1940- 1960 before ■ lo, 98 1940 I 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 800 700 t F- 600 500 400 300 200 100 n W a1 O .-I N M V v1 �O n W O1 O N N M O a1 t0 n W m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ry N N ry N N N ry ry ry ry ry ry N ry N N N N N N N N 110 ,'1 HAS vrI,�� WRU �P �' "'�"� Version 1 MIAMI page 2 Households by Occupants 500,000 450,000 ■ Renter 400,000 ■ Owner 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 m 0 150,000 on N N 100,000 1O C; N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2000-2010 16 Natural Increase 30 Net Migration - 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration - 2016-2030 Natural Increase 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 111 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp i5* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 05t Version 1 Households by Age Cohort 300,000 _. _,.. ■ Renter 250,000 ❑ Owner 200,000 150,000 100,000 ^� � o 50,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 1,000,000 - ■ Renter 900,000 ■ Owner 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 co u, N 300,000 ti N _ 200,000 N W 100,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian on, Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2000-2010 16 Natural Increase 30 Net Migration - 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration - 2016-2030 Natural Increase 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 111 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp i5* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 05t Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW Growth continues to come solely from natural population growth which is slowing. New rental household growth relies upon householders over 35. Economic growth is positive but sluggish. Rental stock is older and over 40% seen in more affordable STAR units. Multifamily demand is flat for two years, then increases through 2029. DEMAND- RANKING ABILITY 49 181 Definitions on back MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS 4.7 1 M43% MILWAUKEE Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 60,000 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 50,000 Owner Single 40,000 - Owner 2-4 units . 19,689 30,000 _ - Owner 5+ units , 15,249 I 20,000 Renter Single 53,596 m 10,000 Renter 2-4 units — 85,060 a under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+ units r $15k $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 90,000 since 80,000 2010 31410 70,000 2000- 2010 0 60,000 v 1980- 0 50,000 2000 x 40,000 c 1960- v " o� 30,000 1980 20,000 1940- 1960 10,000 before - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 20°1-25% 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+ 120 — v 4.0 not adjusted for type of rental o' 115 3.0 ~ 2.0 110 — 1.0 105 ~ 0 100 0 95 2.0 0 9111111 111111111111 3.0 90 1p r` W m O N M V N U] r` W O� ryOl I� 00 O1 O 1 1 00 a, O —1 N M r ill to 1 00 O1 O 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 N N N N N N N N�� N�p N � N / N� N N N N N XTIONA N*C""ora ib�LY NAA iA 112 HAS USanAle�. ■rRU 1r<q�� u�nana Harp �/ .. version 1 MILWAUKEE page 2 Households by Age Cohort 100,000 -� ■ Renter 90,000 ■ Owner - 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 r.�: --. • 30,000 N ry ti -.------ 20,000 ti 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 160,000 350,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 140,000 000, 300 ■ Owner � w0 ner 120,000 250,000 100,000 _ 200,000 80,000 r — 150,000 60,000 a rn ry 100,000 0 40,000 0011 20,000 ` ry •+ ti o 50,000 o ry 0 _ 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 Manufacturing Net Migration Trade & Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs �- Natural Increase Financial Svcs — Net Migration Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase Government ,— Net Migration - RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to -6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 113 MULTIFIAHILY /A■ COUNCIL NA-/ ■ HAS U NA". i'C1`"!i ■■. U COUNCIL lL �'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp' U1 05.*- "'�" Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back DEMAND - MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS L 15 211 3.3 M Rental Households by Income 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 0 20,000 10,000 ' under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k MINNEAPOLIS Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 I � Owner Single Owner 2-4 units I 13,892 Owner S+ units F 36,426 Renter Single = 11 ,52i Renter 2-4 units . 44,853 Renter 5+ units 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 12,23 2010 120,000 — 2000. 2010 t 0 100,000 t v 1980- 0 980.0 80,000 2000 x m � 60,000 — 1960- 1990 960.1980 oc 40,000 1940- 20,000 1960 before1940 under 15% 15%-20% 200/-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 1115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ❑ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 400 10.0 — 350 not adjusted for type of rental p 8.0 ~ 300 6.0 250 4.0 200 F 2.0 150 0.0 r I I 100 -2.0 50 -4.0 - lD n W at O rl N M V u1 to r` W (n O n 00 al O .-I N M a V1 lD 1 W al O .-I N M r ill U) 1 W m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N 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 114 "W"L��Lr°c HAS Ve AA' ■RGAA UAIc r<+q�� au�nan aSsnPurgr .. version 1 MINNEAPOLIS page 2 Households by Occupants 400,000 ■ Renter 350,000 ■ Owner 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 I M 100,000 M � O M a0 O u 50,000 , . -' on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -20 0 20 40 60 80 Mining 11 ■ 2010-2016 Construction c N06 Oct Q ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing — — Trade & Transport Information Svcs �I Financial Svcs 75-84 85+ Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 225,000 200,000 175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 90Q000 80Q000 70Q000 60Q000 500000 400000 30Q000 200000 100,000 Households by Age Cohort ut ut m vi N � � N 1.111- 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Households by Ethnicity and Origin ■ Renter IN Owner ul t^D O O m ■ Renter ❑ Owner 00 W W c N06 Oct Q on N M N N m cy� 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin ■ Renter IN Owner ul t^D O O m Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration — 2010-2016 Natural increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 115 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 r IL up up Oct Q N m White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration — 2010-2016 Natural increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 115 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW NASHVILLE Net in migrations remain stronger than natural population growth for new r 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. Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY - RANKING RESTRICTIONS IL 24 175 -2.4 30% J`-----��°--- - %- 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 40,000 35,000 Owner 2-4 units I 7,075 30,000 25,000 Owner 5- units 8,546 20,000 15,000 m Renter Single _ 76,522 10,000 Renter 2-4 units ■ 35,329 5,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+ units $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 2010 70,000 2000- 43 60,000 2010 6 t 50,000 1980- 0 2000 = 40,000 ia 1960- 30,000 1980 t I 20,000 1940- 1960 10,000 _ before , 1,560 - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast E115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 180 7.0 160 not adjustedfor type ofrental o 6.0 140 5.0 120 4.0 100 -a 3.0 80 z ~ 2.0 60 1.0 40 0.0 LJ u u - 20 -1.0 - io n co m o N m a vi 'o n oa a o n m m o m 'r in io n ao m o .+ ry m n oo m o "W 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 c°uNClr°1rNibaY A Z 116 HAS USanAle ■rRU �- ver:roa 1 Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 2000-2010 )16 Natural Increase )30 Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 25 RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL "I 1 7 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Iii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 Households by Age Cohort NASHVILLE page 2 125,000 ■ Renter ■ Owner - _.-- 100,000 - - r- 75,000 .--. — -- Iry .1 50,000 m no 11 N N Ol �Q i 25,000 � m v 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 180,000 450,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 160,000 400,000 ■ Owner ■ Owner 140,000 35Q000 120,000 300,000 100,000 250,000 80,000 20Q000 60,000 u'\i - 150000 ut 40000 ^n ui 100,000 M rn 20,000 N p ti � ti 50,000 m T v iiiiiiim 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 2000-2010 )16 Natural Increase )30 Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 25 RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL "I 1 7 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Iii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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` a of income for rent. Future economic prospects are positive, led by trade. Multifamily demand slowly increases. Definitions on back DEMAND- MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 46 180 -6.0 41 Rental Households by Income 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 — y of 00 10,000 " — 6-1 ■ _ under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 90,000 New Rental Households by Age Cohort 80,000 0 15-24 0 25-34 1135-44 45-54 0 55-64 0 65+ 90 70,000 80 0 60,000 0 not adjusted for type of rental p 2.5 L v 50,000 0 70 2.0 0 = 40,000 m 60 1.5 30,000 m 50 -O 1.0 20,000 10,000 under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% NEW ORLEANS Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units ' 5,363 Owner 5+units ' 5,714 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5- units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980 2000 1960- 1980 M 1940- 1960 before 1940 NATIONAL 118 HIPAHiLY HOWTIONuNAA COUNCIL �'s+q�� aoHnanaRnPunp' 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 25,000 New Rental Households by Age Cohort 0 15-24 0 25-34 1135-44 45-54 0 55-64 0 65+ 90 3.0 80 not adjusted for type of rental p 2.5 70 2.0 60 1.5 50 -O 1.0 40 r 0.5 0.0 I I I I 30 20 -0.5 I—I -1.0 10 -1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N 0 0 N N NATIONAL 118 HIPAHiLY HOWTIONuNAA COUNCIL �'s+q�� aoHnanaRnPunp' 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 25,000 NEW ORLEANS page 2 Households by Occupants 120,000 Households by Ethnicity and Origin -15 220,000 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 ■ Renter 100,000 , 0-9,•,ner 80,000 Construction ■ Owner 60,000 140,000 Net et Migration 0 413,000 n N N 100,000 � U] � 20,000 N N 0 Natural Increase ■ 1 2 W 3 4 5 6 7+ Households by Age Cohort 80,000 60,000 40,000 m 20,000 0 15-24 25-34 35-44 00 ti .. 1 45-54 55-64 65-74 ■ Renter ■ Owner 75-84 85+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) Households by Ethnicity and Origin -15 220,000 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 200,000 , ■ Renter 180,000 Construction ■ Owner 160,000 140,000 Net et Migration 120,000 100,000 80,000 Information Svcs 60,000 Natural Increase N 40,000 W c -I 20,000 cr Net Migration _ Professional Svcs 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 Construction ■ 2010-2016 Natural Increase I I ■ 2017-2030 mom Net et Migration Trade & Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs � Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration _ Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase Government �— Net Migration ■ RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 119 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on bock DEMAND AFFORD- MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 16 122 6.0 48 Rental Households by Income 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 under $15- $25- $35- $15k $251k $35k $50k $50- $75- $100- over $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 v 0 1,000,000 v 0 800,000 x 7 600,000 m m v � rq 400,000 m m 200,000 � 1 under15% 150/,-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 E145-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 c 20.0 0 10.0 0.0 -20.0 I not ad�us ed fo pe ental -30.0 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 JWNATIONAL 120 MOLTIPAl61LY COUNCIL COO NC lL �'r+q��NAA au�nan aSsnPurlp' NEW YORK Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 I Owner Single 2,717,523 Owner 2-4 units 403,045 Owner 5+units 478,765 Renter Single 368,020 Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 since 2010 . 57,775 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 3,000 v c 0 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 o b" o o o ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry . ry ry ry ry ry ry ry .. HAS U=0I WRU Version 2 NEW YORK page 2 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 1,000,000 400,000 N N oo p 500,000 •• m 200,000 � � 0 M 01 11 1 ■ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 2000-2010 Natural Increase I Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration ,how== RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land 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®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 121 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "•••'� NA Version 1 Households by Age Cohort 1,000,000 ■ Renter 900,000 ■ Owner 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 N 0 N 300,000 0 N 200,000 iLl 100,000 , _ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 1,400,000 3,000,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 1,200,000 _ ■ Owner 2,500,000 ■ Owner 1,000,000 2,000,000 — 800,000 1,500,000 600,000 1,000,000 400,000 N N oo p 500,000 •• m 200,000 � � 0 M 01 11 1 ■ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 2000-2010 Natural Increase I Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration ,how== RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land 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®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 121 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "•••'� NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. _ Definitions on back DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKINGW235 RESTRICTIONS 37 -2.5 M Rental Households by Income 40,000 35,000 30,000 — 25,000 - - 20,000 15,000 10,000 m 5,000 - under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 70,000 60,000 50,000 a 0 v 40,000 0 x -ffi 30,000 c v a� 20,000 10,000 under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 25%-30% 30°0-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort E115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 2.5 not adjusted for type of rental 2.0 1.5 1.0 z 0.5 0.0 la r` W 41 O N M a ul U) n W al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NATIONAL MOLTIPAMILT HOIu N*ECOOU NCNC IL NM OKLAHOMA CITY Owner Single Owner 2-4 units Owner 5+ units Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 � 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 19ao 1960 3,035 before 1, 1940 900 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 120 - -a oo 100 8o 60 40 20 30,000 I� pW apt O .ti N M V v) �a I� a0 al O .-i N M V �n ry(aV Iry(�V 0ryfV0 at ryO(1'�1 8 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 122 HAS U=17b5, e' WRU Version 1 OKLAHOMA CITY page 2 Households by Occupants 140,000 ■ Renter 120,000 'IN Owner 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,00 W 01 O 20,000 0 ■ M N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -5 0 5 10 15 Households by Age Cohort 80,000 2000-2010 Construction ■ Renter 25Q000 ■ Owner 60,000 — —� 40,000 m N 20,000 C 2010-2016 50,000 • •• N N c -I V Financial Svcs UJ ci White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic 15-24 25-34 3544 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 3000OO 2000-2010 Construction ■ Renter 25Q000 ■ Owner 200,000 —� 15Q000 10Q000 C 2010-2016 50,000 lO M m N M � Financial Svcs UJ ci White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mining 2000-2010 Construction ■ 2010-2016 Natural Increase ` ■ 2017-2030 Net Migration Manufacturing —� Trade & Transport C 2010-2016 Information Svcs 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 123 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-�• ■■.� .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 back DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKINGr149 RESTRICTIONS IL 2 F 3.5 18% Rental Households by Income 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 n m 0 ti 10,000 , under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 160,000 140,000 120,000 v 0 100,000 L d 0 80,000 x m � 60,000 OAC N O cqO 40,000 O - 20,000 N m under 15% 15%-20% 20°1-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 E145-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 18.0 16.0 not adjusted for type of rental 14.0 12.0 I v 10.0 8.0 o' r 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 - - -2.0 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*ENATIONAL MULTIPAMILT HO COOU NC HC IL lL NAA ORLANDO Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 50C Owner Single Owner 2-4 units I 6,936 Owner 5+ units 14,000 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units ■ 35,828 Renter 5+ units ,000 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 19x0 ' 2,517 1960 before I g03 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 400 c 350 r ~ 300 250 200 150 100 50 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry 124 ,'1 HAS v ,��>5 WRU �Jdl l�•• "'�"� Version 1 ORLANDO page 2 Households by Occupants Households by Age Cohort 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 N O 40,000 cp N 20,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 ❑ Renter ■ Owner oo 0 Lq C m N W on � M 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 200,000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mining 450,000 ■ 2010-2016 Construction ■ ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing ■ Renter Trade & Transport — Information Svcs ■ Renter 180,000 Professional Svcs — 400,000 — Leisure & Hospitality Government ■ Owner ■ Owner 160,000 350,000 140,000 300,000 120,000 25Q000 100,000 —_ 20Q000 80,000 ti 60,000 o 150,000 N 0 40,000 � v ti N 100,000 20,000 N M 50,000 O m ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Mining ■ 2010-2016 Construction ■ ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing ' Trade & Transport — Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs — Education & Health — Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000-2010 NaturalIncrease Net M igration 0jo 2010-2016 Natural increase Net Migration — 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 70 80 RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 125 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. _ Definitions on back DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKINGr212 RESTRICTIONS 31 8.2 37% Rental Households by Income 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 PHILADELPHIA Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 Owner Single Rent as a Percent of Household Income 350,000 300,000 Owner 2-4 units I 21,371 250,000 Owner 5+units , 45,315 0 v 200,000 3 a Renter Single N M • ' Renter2-4units = 153,925 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renters+units $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 350,000 300,000 250,000 0 v 200,000 3 O 2 76 150,000 v °C 100,000 n Le 50,000 N under 15% 15%-20% 200/-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 since 2010 12282 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast M15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 L]65+ 410 -o 15.0 400 not odjustedfor type ofrental r 390 10.0 380 370 a 5.0 360 350 0.0 340 330 -5.0 ' I 320 310 -10.0 300 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N 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 CO��CiNiLY NAA 126 HAS `' USanAle�go. ■rRU WrgYu uurlan aupf�rlp' , u'1V version 1 PHILADELPHIA page 2 Households by Age Cohort 400,000 ■ Renter 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 55-64 65-74 150,000 100,000 m 50,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 ■ Renter u Owner 0 M N uo 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 600,000 1,400,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 500,000 �m 1,200,000 ■ Owner 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 300,000 600,000 200,000 c — ti I r` – o oo 400,000 m 100,000 ib 1 M 200,000 , �1 �� 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) -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Mining 2000-2010 Construction ■ 2010-2016 Natural Increase Manufacturing ■ 2017-2030 et Migration N ' Trade & Transport 016 Information Svcs Financial Svcs Natural increase Net Migration , Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration ■ RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 25 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL � Z7 ' MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA U ly'C w�[�e COUNCIL unpru uurian rqr �� ■ ■. .: NA Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKINGriss RESTRICTIONS IL 5 4.8 30% Rental Households by Income 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 – 60,000 40,000 – C 0 N 20,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 250,000 - 200,000 — a t 150,000 v 0 x y 100,000 — c m v � °C m 50,000 - under 15% 15%-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort IG 15-24 W25-34 35-44 1!145-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 20.0 15.0 0t adjusted jar type of renin' 16.0 14.0 0 12.0 10.0 0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 n ao m o m v in n ao m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N ry N N N N N ry N N WINO N*CNATIONAL MOLTIPAMiLT HOUNCIL COO HC lL NM PHOENIX Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 i Owner Single 879,049 Owner 2-4 units I 10,262 Owner 5+units 17,167 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units ■ 69,616 Renter 5+unitsI r 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 since 2010 4,153 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 r 1960- 1980 1940- po 10 256 1960 before 1940 I 1,047 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 600 00 500 400 300 200 100 n W 01 O .-I N M V v1 �O n QO O1 O N N M O u1 t0 n W m 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 ry ry ry ry ry ry ry N ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry N ry ry ry N ry 128 HAS U=17b5, e' WRU "'�"� Version 1 PHOENIX page 2 Households by Age Cohort 250,000 - - i ■ Renter ' ❑ Owner 200,000 150,000 100,000 I � 00 N lfl 50,000 a i° O 1 . I■ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants / Households by Ethnicity and Origin 450,000 900,000 — ■ Renter ■ Renter 400,000 800,000 ■ Owner ■ Owner 350,000 70Q000 300,000 600,000 250,000 500,000 200,000 — 40Q000 150,000 — N �' 30Q000 N 100,000 m ro m v 200.000 0 0+ V O O N 50,000 N 10Q000 p 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 1D0 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 Mining 2000-2010 — ■ 2010-2016 Construction Natural Increase _- Manufacturing ■ 2017-2030 Net Migration Trade & Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase Government �— Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 129 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA U Ii�151 w�[�e COUNCIL r�mru ulrrlm� rqr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 back L D MF SUPPLY G RESTRICTIONS 287 1.8 54% Rental Households by Income 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $15k $25k $35k $50k 120,000 0 vi hA N - $50- $75- $100- over $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 100,000 v 80,000 - 0 L d 0 60,000 x m C N 40,000 O N 2().00() 1 under 15% 15%-20% 20°1-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort IBJ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 8.0 not adjusted for type of rental 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 u -2.0 � I I � n■ I -4.0 LLLJJJ u ' ' -6.0 - lD n W at O N V to n W m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L JL1t JWNATIONA MULTIFAN HOV5sH0 COUNCILNAA �'r+q�� aoHnanaRnP�np' PITTSBURGH Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units I 9,133 Owner s+units I 8,806 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units - 63,380 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 . 2,191 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 22,247 before 1940 17,018 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 140 v 135 0 iE 130 - 125 120 115 110 105 100 r` aJ al O .-I N M a Vl n W o, O N N M a ill U] n W m O O O O N n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N� N N N ON ON 130 HAS ug W R U Version 1 PITTSBURGH page 2 Households by Occupants 300,000 Households by Ethnicity and Origin 700,000 ■ Renter 250,000 ■ Owner 200,000 160,000 E Owner 150,000 ❑ Owner 100,000 — 50,00000 m 200,000 ti Ci m. �- D 100,000 _0 1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government 20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 2010-2016 ■ 2017-2030 RANKING and DEFINITIONS: Households by Age Cohort 180,000 Households by Ethnicity and Origin 700,000 IN Renter ■ Renter 160,000 E Owner 500,000 ❑ Owner 140,000 — 300,000 120,000 200,000 ti 100,000 100,000 o � O — 80,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic 60,000 0 N a li oo 40,000 00 00 1O 20,000 ' -• ' , ■' — 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration — 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration — 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 131 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 Households by Ethnicity and Origin 700,000 IN Renter 600,000 E Owner 500,000 400,000 — 300,000 200,000 ti 100,000 n a N N o � O White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration — 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration — 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 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 (Da Ila s- Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 131 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW PORTLAND Substantial net in migrations fueled a surge in rental households and con- tinue to drive demand. Rental households bring strong incomes and a mix of ages. Economic trends are superlative. With relatively younger rental - stock and 375v. seen in STAR units, the overall supply is balanced today. Ahead is steady and consistent multifamily demand through 2030. Definitions on back�'- DEMAND - MF SUPPLY r�.} RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 21 125 3.2 37% L `• I' Yt .. c. 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 I I I I Owner Single 500,659 50,000 Owner 2-4 units I 6,297 40,000 - Owner S+ units 14,056 30,000 N Renter Single 20,000m 10,000 Renter 2-4 units = 59,101 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+ units $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 160,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 140,000 since 9 199 2010 120,000 2000- 000.2010 0 100,000 t rr 2010 v 1980- 980.oo o80,000 x 2000 m � 60,000 m 1960- 960.1980 1980 40,000 ' 20,000 1960 10,068 before - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 200/-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast Lj15-24 ❑ 25-34 111135-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 300 10.0 not adjusted for type of rental 0 250 8.0 H 200 6.0 a ' ' 150 4.0 0 ~ 2.0 100 0.0 ■ ■ ■ - - - 50 -2.0 - la 1 W T O N M 't VI to 1 oo al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 CG al O .-I N M a V1 n W al O .-I N M r ill to n W m O S S S 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 "AIM NM 132 4 ■rRG/♦ flAS UUAleg cOUNcILbaY WigY.11011[IllI km.,* - .,... - Version 1 Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mining I Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 25 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 133 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur,an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 Households by Age Cohort PORTLAND page 2 140,000 - — =-T ■ Renter ' .. 120,000 ■ Owner '-- -. - - - 100,000 - ' 80,000 60,000 40,000 - '�•' .- Jae 20,000 N �•--criy+['-�' - _,•. _. = •' 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 5000OO ■ Renter 450000 ■ Renter ■ Owner IN Owner 200,000 40Q000 350,000 150,000 300000 250,000 100,000 200,000 _ m v^i 15Q000 ti 50,000 io m a m ^ 100000 y o ut 1 1 50,000 ■, ■ 0 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mining I Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 25 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 133 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur,an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. _ Definitions on back DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS 183 4.8 19 RALEIGH Rent as a Percent of Household Income 60,000 50,000 a 40,000 6 t v p 30,000 x �w 20,000 10,000 under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 0 15-24 0 25-34 1135-44 45-54 0 55-64 0 65+ 10.0 9.0 not adjusted for type of rental 8.0 7.0 v 6.0 5.0 o' r 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 �o n W m o . N m m o 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*ENATIONAL MOLTIPAMiLT HOWINO NC HC IL lL NAA 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 since 2010 9,711 2000- 2010 000.2010 1980- 2000 980.2000 1960- 1980 960.1980 1940. ■ 2,111 1960 before 1,233 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 200 180 'o F 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 n or m o .� ry m v ut io n ao m o .+ ry m v ut � n oo m 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 134 HAS ��p� /� fl/' S U�A,,' ■rRU Version 1 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 I I I Owner Single 280,245 25,000 Owner 2-4 units I 1,024 20,000 Owner 5+units I 4,111 15,000 Renter Single r• 10,000 cl 5,000 ui ' Renter 2-4 units ■ 19,0 9 Renters+units under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 60,000 50,000 a 40,000 6 t v p 30,000 x �w 20,000 10,000 under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 0 15-24 0 25-34 1135-44 45-54 0 55-64 0 65+ 10.0 9.0 not adjusted for type of rental 8.0 7.0 v 6.0 5.0 o' r 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 �o n W m o . N m m o 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*ENATIONAL MOLTIPAMiLT HOWINO NC HC IL lL NAA 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 since 2010 9,711 2000- 2010 000.2010 1980- 2000 980.2000 1960- 1980 960.1980 1940. ■ 2,111 1960 before 1,233 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 200 180 'o F 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 n or m o .� ry m v ut io n ao m o .+ ry m v ut � n oo m 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 134 HAS ��p� /� fl/' S U�A,,' ■rRU Version 1 RALEIGH page 2 Households by Age Cohort 80,000 r ■ Renter r ■ Owner —��60,000 40,000 f Va N 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 120,000 250,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 100,000 F9•••—..T,�F ■ Owner 200,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 100000 m 40,000 N O •� 50,000 eo 20,000 m oo1 N 11 ^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government 50 60 )16 )30 Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 do 50 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration — 2016-2030 Natural Increase 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 dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 135 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Ii�tst w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 back DEMAND - MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS L 33 188 -2.3 37% Rental Households by Income 40,000 35,000 30,000 — 25,000 20,000 15,000 _ 0 10,000 5,000 , under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 70,000 60,000 50,000 v 0 v 40,000 0 x m 30,000 v o� 20,000 10,000 ' under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 2591-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 1115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ❑ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 'o ~ 0.5 0.0 o5dd��u�� -1.0 not adjusted for type of rental �D n W at O N V tD n W m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 136tmO WLTIpNL1L1XULTIPA COUNCIL NAA RICHMOND :.. Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units I 1,809 Owner 5+units I 4,419 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units ■ 22178 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 0- 20 20 00 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 140 120 s 100 80 60 40 20 n W 01 O .-I N M V v1 �O n W O1 O N N M O a1 to n W M 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 HAS U=b, WRU "•••' �"^^^' Version 1 RICHMOND page 2 Households by Age Cohort 80,000 ■ Renter ■ Owner 60,000 40,000 M o m � 20,000 1 ■ III' 1 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 140,000 250,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 120,000 ■ Owner ■ Owner 200,000 100,000 80,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 ti m 40,000— `� oo 50,000 20,000- 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) i5 TO 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mining 2000-2010 Construction 1 2010-20 16 Natural Increase ' — Manufacturing ■ 2017-2030 Net Migration Trade & Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Lelswe & Hospitality Natural Increase Government �— Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics*, Moody's Analytics®, ESRI® and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 137 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uar�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW RIVERSIDE Though natural growth is constant, significant net in migrations have re- ceded. New renters will source from most ages but will rely on those 35-54 ahead. Economy is good with gains in most sectors, but trade will retreat. Rental stock is older with nearly half in more affordable STAR units amid heavy supply restrictions. Multifamily demand ahead is positive, steady. Definitions on back _ - DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS " �6 113 5.1M480/n - Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 100,000 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 90,000 Owner Single 80,000 70,000 _ Owner 2-4 units I 6,820 60,000 50,000 Owner 5+ units I 6,946 40,000 30,000 a - Renter Single .� 20,000 ' Renter 2-4 units .64,028 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over Renter 5+ units $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 since ' 200,000 2010 2000- 2010 v 150,000 1980- 0 980.0 2000 x 2 100,000 1960- 1980 960.1980 oc a n W W uj 50,000 8,712 1960 - - b1940 I 963 under 15% 15%-20% 200/-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast E115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 350 v 10.0 not adjustedfor type of rental0 300 8.0 250 6.0 200 a 4.0 150 z 2.0 H 100 O.0 LJ ❑ p e 1 ' 1 ' , 50 -4.0 - ta O N M a M tD 1 W al O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ggg0000000000000000bbSob" N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry N ry ry ry ry ry "Wc°u°1PibaY NM 138 HAS USanAfe�. ■rRU u+a�wuunanu�nn.rwY HAS RIVERSIDE page 2 Households by Occupants 300,000 ■ Renter 250,000 ■ Owner 200,000 150,000 PF 100,000 0 ut 50,000 .. :. ' cr�., ■. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -20 0 20 40 60 80 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Households by Age Cohort 200,000 by Ethnicity and Origin 60Q000 ❑ Renter 180,00014 ■ Renter 500,000 ❑ Owner 160,000 140,000 120,000 00 100,000 — � so ry 80,000 — o a 60,000 N 20,000 Alone o 40,000 ' ' =, . 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 60Q000 ■ Renter 500,000 ■ Owner 40Q000 300000 20Q000 00 100,000 � so ry White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2000-2010 Natural Increase �L Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration _ 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration . RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 139 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back DEMAND - MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 27 137 4.1 42% ' Rental Households by Income 70,000 60,000 00 00 00 in 0 00 m 00 ' under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 Rent as a Percent of Household Income 160,000 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast L115-24 0 25-34 140,000 250 -a - 7.0 120,000 v 0 100,000 t v p 6.0 p 80,000 F 200 5.0 x 4.0 60,000 — m a y 40,000 m � N 20,000 100 1.0 under 15% 15%-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% �Yr - . ...- ,. Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units I 3,804 Owner 5+units I 4,630 I Renter Single Renter 2-4 units 49,358 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 3,314 2000- 2010 1980 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 9,174 before 1940 ■ 3,026 New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast L115-24 0 25-34 a 35-44 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 250 -a - 7.0 not adjusted for type of rental p 6.0 F 200 5.0 4.0 150 3.0 r 2.0 r 100 1.0 N ° V V e '''' ' ■ 50 .0 LJ 2.0 to t` W O O O N N N m O O NO N N ti Va1 MO NO NO NO N N Nla Or` OW 8 N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 t O "W" ri baY NAA 140 S U�Ale�go. ■rRU HAS �+ c°na .. version 1 SACRAMENTO page 2 Households by Age Cohort 120,000 - ■ Renter '- -� 100,000 El Owner Y • Y '��• ! 80,000 60,000 — _r'�r •. , ti 40,000 14 J zo,o00 QD u J 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 200,000 4000OO — 180,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 350,000 ■ Owner ■ Owner 160,000 30Q000 140,000 120,000 25Q000 100,000 — 20Q000 80,000 1so,000 60,000 ' 100,000 40,000 oo o, ooo u, 20,000 so,000 . _ ■, ', 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Mining 2010-2016 Construction � ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing _ Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality MEMO Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 2000-2010 Natural Increase _ Net Migration ■ 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 25 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 141 MULTIFIAH O�'stn�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back DEMAND- MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS L 25 153 2.4 29% SALT LAKE CITY 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 v - 30,000 v 0 25,000 x 20,000 c v o� 15,000 10,000 5,000 under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 2591-30% 30%-35% over 35% 3,0 2.5 2.0 1.5 a 1.0 o ~ 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 Rent as a Percent of Household Income New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ not adjusted for type of rental 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 XTIONA4 XULTIPANILT HOU "AM couNCILivclL NAA u+q�uunm auRurlp 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 since 2010 5,377 2000- 2010 � 0- 20 20 00 1960- 1980 1940- - 1960 2,268 before 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 100 90 'o F 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 n oo m o .. m a in so n ao m o .. m a in m n oo m o 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N ry N N N N N N N ry ry ry ry ry ry N ry ry ry N N 142 ,'1 ��pCA HAS Ulitiers ■rRGI� �5a1 rtl7e .... � version 1 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 =*W t . 20,000 Owner 2-4 units ' 4,198 15,000 Owner 5+ units 7,701 10,0000 a Renter Single 5,000 _ v , Renter 2-4 units - 21,39 Renter s+units - 66,196 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 v - 30,000 v 0 25,000 x 20,000 c v o� 15,000 10,000 5,000 under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 2591-30% 30%-35% over 35% 3,0 2.5 2.0 1.5 a 1.0 o ~ 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 Rent as a Percent of Household Income New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ not adjusted for type of rental 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 XTIONA4 XULTIPANILT HOU "AM couNCILivclL NAA u+q�uunm auRurlp 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 since 2010 5,377 2000- 2010 � 0- 20 20 00 1960- 1980 1940- - 1960 2,268 before 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 100 90 'o F 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 n oo m o .. m a in so n ao m o .. m a in m n oo m o 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N ry N N N N N N N ry ry ry ry ry ry N ry ry ry N N 142 ,'1 ��pCA HAS Ulitiers ■rRGI� �5a1 rtl7e .... � version 1 Households by Age Cohort 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 1W h 15-2 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 ■ Renter N Owner mom's 75-84 85+ 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 143 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 80,000 250,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 70,000 ■ Owner s Owner 200,000 — 60,000 50,000 150,000 40,000 30,000 — 100,000 20,000 10,000 oNo, , m 1 �. 50,000 . ■ 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) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Mining I 1 2000-2010 Construction ■ 2010-2016 Natural Increase Manufacturing -� ■ 2017-2030 Net Migration . Trade & Transport 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase Government Net Migration — RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily demand 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 143 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS 14 166 -1.3 24% Rental Households by Income 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 a m m 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 120,000 100,000 v 80,000 — 6 v 0 60,000 x m c N � 40,000 � 20,000 under 15% 15%-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ■ 15-24 ■ 25-34 35-44 7145-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 v 3.0 'o ~ 2.0 1.0 0.0 — not adjusted for type of rental -1.0 �o n oo m o m a vi �o n ao m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry N*ENATIONAL MULTIPAMILT HO COOU NC HC IL lL NM SAN ANTONIO 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 r 2000- 2010 000.2010 1980- 2000 196G- 1980 960. 1980 1940. 1960 = 6,206 before 1940 .2,568 500,000 60,000 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 300 -o oo 250 200 150 100 50 g g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry 144 HAS U=l7b5, e' WRU "'�"� Version 1 I Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Owner Single 441,999 Owner 2-4 units I 2,671 Owner 5+units I 3,462 Renter Single Renter2-4units ■ 36,808 Renters+units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 since 2010 r 2000- 2010 000.2010 1980- 2000 196G- 1980 960. 1980 1940. 1960 = 6,206 before 1940 .2,568 500,000 60,000 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 300 -o oo 250 200 150 100 50 g g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry 144 HAS U=l7b5, e' WRU "'�"� Version 1 SAN ANTONIO page 2 Households by Age Cohort 110,000 ■ Renter 100,000 ❑ Owner 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 m } — _ 30,00000 m r(r20,000 � 10,000 _ ' ■ -' r - 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 45Q000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 160,000 40Qo00 ■ Owner IN Owner 140,000 350,000 120,000 30Q000 100,000 250000 80,00o — — 20Qo00 60000 — 15Q000 m 40,000— 100000 20,000 = ■ = - 50,000 : - — 0 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining ■ 2010-2016 Construction ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 145 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Iii 1 w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 DEMANDr76 MF SUPPLY RANKINGRESTRICTIONS 18 5.5 58 Rental Households by Income 120,000 100,000 — 80,000 - 60,000 40,000 20,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 250,000 200,000 — a t 150,000 v 0 0 x no 100,000 — N O Un 50,000 1 under 15% 15%-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 0 15-24 ■ 25-34 0 35-44 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 12.0 X. not adjusted for type of rental 10.0 8.0 Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units ' 11,671 Owner S+units - 41,115 - 6.0 - 4.0 o' ~ 2.0 0.0 °.oddddd°"oe�l�ll' -4.0 �O n D7 O O O N N N at O O O O N N N N V O O O O N N N N to O N n O N W m O M O O O N N N NATIONAL 1LMOLTIFAl COUNCIL �'s+q��NAA au�nan aSsnPurlp' SAN DIEGO Renter Single Renter2-4units _ 68,536 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 since 2010 8,794 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 19x0- 16,107 1960 before 1940 ■ 6,144 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 500 `m 450 'o 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 n W a1 O .-I N M V v1 �a n a0 dl O N N M O ,r1 t0 n W m 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 N N 146 HAS U=17b5, e' WRU "'�"� Version 1 X. Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units ' 11,671 Owner S+units - 41,115 Renter Single Renter2-4units _ 68,536 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 since 2010 8,794 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 19x0- 16,107 1960 before 1940 ■ 6,144 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 500 `m 450 'o 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 n W a1 O .-I N M V v1 �a n a0 dl O N N M O ,r1 t0 n W m 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 N N 146 HAS U=17b5, e' WRU "'�"� Version 1 SAN DIEGO page 2 Households by Age Cohort 180,000 ■ Renter 160,000 ■ Owner 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 m 40,000 20,000 rri CD 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 5000OO — ■ Renter 450,000 ■ Renter ■ Owner ■ Owner 200,000 40Q000 35Q000 150,000 300,000 25Q000 100,000 200000 150,000 rn N 50,000 a — ^ ~0 100,000 .. ■ . Cn 50,000 : ■ 1 D _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2000-2010 !016 Natural Increase 1030 Net Migration ' 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase hill 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 147 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp ' NA". COUNCIL HAS U . ■ U 0"5! "'�" Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 back DEMAND- MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS 19 72 7.6 M I Rental Households by Income 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 350,000 300,000 250,000 v 0 v 200,000 3 O 2 -ja 150,000 c m v m o� 100,000 1O 50,000 — under 15% 15%-20% 20°1-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ❑ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 20.0 not adjusted for type of rental 15.0 10.0 I o � 5,0 oa�d��d❑u❑De'''b■ -5.0 lD n W at O N V tD n W m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 148tmO WLTIpNL1L1XULTIPA COUNCIL �'s+q��NAA au�nan aSsnPurlp' SAN FRANCISCO Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units ■ 41,568 Owner 5+units . 60,044 I Renter Single Renter 2-4 units Renter 5+ units 1 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 50,000 100,000 150,000 since 2010 11,999 2000- I� 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 r before 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 500 v 450 'o F 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 n 00 al O .-I N M a V1 n W al O .-1 N M r ill to 1 W m 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 N N HAS uz,, WRU Version 1 SAN FRANCISCO page 2 Households by Age Cohort 240,000 220,000 ■ Renter 200,000 ■Owner 180,000 160,000 — 140,000 _ • • 120,000 _ ... -. 100,000 80,000 m r m 60,000 40,000 m m 20,000 ■ ■ ■ ■ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants �Y7 Households by Ethnicity and Origin 350,000 600,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 300,000 ■ Owner 500,000 ■ Owner 250,000 — 400,000 200,000 300,000 — 150,000 200,000 un 100,000 — N n m — 50,0001 00,000 100,000 ■1:. =. ■■ o _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Mining Construction Manufacturing _ Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 0 10 20 30 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration _ 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 40 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 149 MULTIFIAHILY /A■ COUNCIL NA-/ ■ HAS U NA". i'C1`"!i ■■. U COUNCIL lL �'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp' U1 05.*- "'�" Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS IL 22 1169 3.843 Rental Households by Income 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k SAN JOSE L:•�4� Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 I I Owner Single 325,953 Owner 2-4 units ' 5,877 Owner S+ units . 17,767 I Renter Single • r Renter 2-4 units 41,049 Renter 5+ units 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 t 2000- 80,000 — 2010 0 v 1980- o 980.o 60,000 2000 t x m C M 1960- =w 960.z 40,000 1980 N N 0 1940- 20.00 1960 ' before1940 . 4,339 under 15% 15%-20% 200/-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast M15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 250 7.0 not adjustedjor type ojrental o 6.0 H 200 5.0 4.0 150 3.0 r 2.0 100 r 1.0 0.p0u H u u[]❑ -2.0 4 y u'. 50 ul lul la n W at O N V to n W al O n W al O 1 O N N M a ill to n W m O N N N N N N N N N N M 010N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N 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 "W" c°u ibaY NAA 150 HAS U 051*. ■rRG/♦ �u+n�uynur�a,r�.ssnn.` rqr HAS SAN JOSE page 2 Households by Occupants 120,000 ■ Renter 100,000 ■ Owner 80,000 60,000 40,000 - cl W o 20,000 N `^ 0 11 ■. �. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20.000 250,000 200000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Households by Age Cohort :loll I-111111 ■ Renter ■ Owner 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Households by Ethnicity and Origin ■ Renter ■ Owner White None Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration _ RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 151 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKANA U ly'C w�[�e COUNCIL unpru uurian rqr AS ■ ■. .: Version 1 ■ Renter ■ Owner 0 ti 00 m m 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin ■ Renter ■ Owner White None Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration _ RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 151 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKANA U ly'C w�[�e COUNCIL unpru uurian rqr AS ■ ■. .: Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW SEATTLE Net in migrations continue to outpace natural population growth as source of new renters from younger, affluent and smaller households. Strong economy will see gains in professional services, education and trade. The rental stock is older, but less than a third in more affordable STAR units. 61 Multifamily demand ahead is strong and increasing each year to 2030. t, Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS IL 11 124 Rental Households by Income Housing Stock by Tenure & Type 120,000 100,000 - 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 250,000 200,000 a t 150,000 v 0 0 x y 100,000 c �n v in 50,000 under 15% 15%-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort T115-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 18.0 16.0 not adjusted for type of rental 14.0 12.0 10.0 a 8.0 o' 6.0 ~ 4.0 2.0 0.0 -4.0 — n n w m o N a in a n oa m o 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 L JL1t JWNATIONA MULTIFAN HOV5sH0 COUNCILNAA �+q�� aoHnanaRnP�np' - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units ' 12,141 Owner 5+units ■ 53,856 Renter Single Renter 2-4 units 71,922 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 before 1940 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 600 c '0 500 400 300 200 100 n or m o .� ry m v in io n ao m o .+ ry m v in n oo m 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 152 >51*. WREA HAS U= Version 1 SEATTLE page 2 Households by Age Cohort 220,000 . ; ■ Renter 200,000 180,000 El 160,000 ':'.--fit. 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 0 ti 60,000 40,000 or 20,000 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Ir Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 350,000 700,000 — ■ Renter ■ Renter 300,000 IN Owner 60Qo00 IN Owner 250,000 500000 200,000 40Qo00 150,000 30Q000 100,000 m 200000 N rn 50,000 u�i_ 100,000 0 D ■■ 20 =— Ell ■■ ■� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government RANKING and DEFINITIONS: 6 0 Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 153 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr ��-'"'� ■■.� .: "•�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 ouse 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 'MWFFORDW MF SUPPLY RANKING ABILITY RESTRICTIONS L 32 213 -3.1 M Rental Households by Income 7,000 1,000 2,000 6,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 N .-i 1,000 ' under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 z 6,000 v 0 5,000 x 4,000 c v °C 3,000 2,000 - - 1,000 - under 15% 15%-20% 201/.-25% 2591-30% 301/.-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort F 15-24 ❑ 25-34 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 1,0 not adjusted for type of rental 0.8 0.6 v 0.4 0 0.2 a �. 0.0 u U ❑ Li - E ■ ■ 0 . E : = -0.2 io n ro m o N m a 'n W n oo a, o 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 NATIONAL MOLTIPAMiLT HOIu N*ECOOU NCNC IL NM 154 SIOUX FALLS Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 1 1 1 1 1 Owner Single Owner 2-4 units I 653 Owner 5+units I 823 Renter Single = 8,163 Renter 2-4 units ■ J14 Renter 5- units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 since 2010 2000- 2010 ' 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 " before - 529 1940 25 'o � 20 15 10 5 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 6,000 7,000 SIOUX FALLS page 2 Households by Age Cohort 16,000 ■ Renter 14,000 ■ Owner 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 1 4,000 ti p N � N 2,000 � ■ � , . ,. 4 j} 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 3QOo0 70,000 ■ Renter ■ Renter 25,000 ■ Owner 60,000 IN Owner 50,000 2Q000 40,000 15,000 30,000 10000 20,000 7 M N 5,000 rci C� N 10,000 m � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mining ■ 2010-2016 Construction — ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing — Trade & Transport Information Svcs C' Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 1 2 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase Net Migration 3 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 mul family market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NATIONAL 155 MULTIFIAH O�'s+n�a uur�an aSsO(urlp iC* COUNCIL ILYNA-AHAS U . ■ U 0"5! Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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 DEMANDMF SUPPLY RANKINGr252" RESTRICTIONS �5 -4.7 M Rental Households by Income 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 - 50,000 40,000 m 30,000 rn CO ti 20,000 m 10,000 ' under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k ST. LOUIS Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 Owner Single r Owner 2-4 units ' 12,733 Owner 5+units ' 13,685 Renter Single _ 133,276 Renter 2-4 units = 80,668 Renter 5+units _ 125,785 New Rental Households by Age Cohort ■ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 6.0 5.0 not adjusted for type of rental 4.0 3.0 a 2.0 1.0 0 r 0.0 I -3.0 - -4.0 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 NATIONAL 156 tm14000XULTPAt1iL'1 HOLIONU COUNCILNAA �+q�� aoHnanaRnP�np' 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 170 - v c 165 t ~ 160 155 150 145 140 135 130 n aJ a1 O .-I N M V v1 �a r` W M O N N O to n W m O N N N ry ry N N N ry N N N N ry ry ry ry ry N ry ry ry N N HAS U=b, WRU Version 1 Rent as a Percent of Household Income 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 140,000 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 120,000 since 3,914 2010 100,000 2000- :2010 v 80,000 1980- 0 2000 x � 60,000 1960- °C n 1980 40,000 �s N 1940 - 20,000 ' 1960 before 15,583 - 1940 under 15% 15%-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort ■ 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 6.0 5.0 not adjusted for type of rental 4.0 3.0 a 2.0 1.0 0 r 0.0 I -3.0 - -4.0 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 NATIONAL 156 tm14000XULTPAt1iL'1 HOLIONU COUNCILNAA �+q�� aoHnanaRnP�np' 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 170 - v c 165 t ~ 160 155 150 145 140 135 130 n aJ a1 O .-I N M V v1 �a r` W M O N N O to n W m O N N N ry ry N N N ry N N N N ry ry ry ry ry N ry ry ry N N HAS U=b, WRU Version 1 ST. LOUIS page 2 Households by Age Cohort 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 0�0 v 40,000 N e 20,000 ■ _ ■ ■ ■ ■ � 1 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 IN Renter ❑ Owner 0 � '000 m N � � 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 300,000 r 70Q000 ST. LOUIS page 2 Households by Age Cohort 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 0�0 v 40,000 N e 20,000 ■ _ ■ ■ ■ ■ � 1 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 IN Renter ❑ Owner 0 � '000 m N � � 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Occupants Households by Ethnicity and Origin 300,000 70Q000 ■ Renter■ Renter 250,000 ■ Owner 600,000 ■ Owner 50Q000 200,000 40Q000 150,000 300000 100,000 N 00 •-' rn m 20Q000 _ N N + 50,0000 100,000 ur� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 0 10 20 30 Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government �— Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 40 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2000-2010 )16 Natural Increase )30 Net Migration — 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural Increase 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 dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land 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®, ESRIO 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. NKC NATIONAL 157 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Ii�151 w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW Slight natural population growth will go negative, relying on the surge in net in migrations to fuel new rental households. Renters today enjoy strong incomes, a range of ages and household sizes. Economic prospects are great, with growth in most sectors. Rental stock is old, yet less than a third in STAR units. Demand ahead is strong and steadily increasing. _ Definitions on back DEMAND MF SUPPLY RANKING RESTRICTIONS TAMPA % 174 0.0 32 Rental Households by Income 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 m 20,000 10,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $25k $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k Rent as a Percent of Household Income 180,000 160,000 140,000 a 120,000 6 t 100,000 0 0 = 80,000 0 u 60,000 v m 40,000 20,000 � 1 under 15% 15%-20% 200/6-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 15-24 ■ 25-34 ■ 35-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 12.0 not adjusted for type of rental 10.0 8.0 v 6.0 t 4.0 F 2.0 0.0 a LJ -2.0 tD n W 41 O N V to n W m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N JWt4AT10K4LJLt MULTIFA HOa51ma COUNCILNAA �'r+q�� aoHnanaRnP�np' Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 I Owner Single S94,001 Owner 2-4 units ' 12,561 Owner5+units = 52,801 Renter Single Renter2-4units = 57,401 Renter 5+ units 5+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 since 2010 11,472 2000- 2010 1980- 2000 1960- 1980 1940- 1960 8.574 before 1940 , 2,586 S+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast 400 a 350 0 300 250 200 150 100 50 I� pW apt O .ti N to V v) �a I� a0 al O .-i N m V �n rya Iry� 0ry0 at ryO� 8 0 0 0 O O O O O O 8 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 158 �Saril7,'1 HAS U b5, e' WRU "'�"� Version 1 RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 159 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA U ly'C w�[�e COUNCIL unpru uurian� rqr �� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 Households by Age Cohort TAMPA page 2 180,000 - 160,000 ■ Renter IN Owner -- 140,000 • i 120,000 w I 100,000 \ it 80,000 _ 0 '- -- - 60,000 m o o v ...._ . 40,000 N m v O 20,000 1 _ 1 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 7000OO — ■ Renter ■ Renter 300,000 wrier 60Q000 ■ Owner 250,000 5000OO 200,000 40Q000 150,000 30Q000 m N °J N o 100,000 50,000 r M � M N ' ; 00 � m 200000 100,000 O � =— . ■ 1 3 4 5 6 7+ White None 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 2000-2010 Construction ■ 2010-2016 Natural Increase . Manufacturing ■ 2017-2030 Net Migration Trade & Transport r — 2010-2016 Information Svcs Natural Increase , Financial Svcs Net Migration Professional Svcs Education & Health 2016-2030 Leisure & Hospitality Natural Increase . Government F 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 dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 159 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA U ly'C w�[�e COUNCIL unpru uurian� rqr �� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 METRO MULTIFAMILY DEMAND OVERVIEW 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. Definitions on back L D MF SUPPLY G RESTRICTIONS 159 2.7 19% Rental Households by Income 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 under $15- $25- $35- $50- $75- $100- over $15k $251, $35k $50k $75k $100k $150k $150k WASHINGTON, DC Housing Stock by Tenure & Type - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 Owner Single r Owner 2-4 units I 14,078 Owner 5+units 117,768 I Renter Single r t Renter 2-4 units . 57,111 Renter 5+ units t t 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 2010 250,000 - 2000- a — 2010 0 v 200,000 1980- 0 2000 t x m 150,000 W 1960- tt °C 100,000 1980 1940- 50,000 — 1960 before - 1940 t under 15% 15%-20% 20°1-25% 25%-30% 30%-35% over 35% New Rental Households by Age Cohort 5+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast ❑ 15-24 0 25-34 111135-44 ■ 45-54 ■ 55-64 ■ 65+ 900 20.0 m „ 800 not adjustedfor type ofrental o 700 15.0 600 0 10.0 500 400 o 5.o 300 200 0.0 � � � LJ V � � , I 1 1 ' • -5.0 lulu 100 - io n ro m o ry m a in n oa o' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry ry "FEW 'C'M°u°1PibaY A 160 17/��7 USa1lile ■rRG/♦ JW u+a�wuunanu�nn.rwY HAS „_.-. versim1 WASHINGTON, DC page 2 i Households by Occupants 500,000 Households by Age Cohort 400,000 IN Renter 800,000 ■ Renter 450,000 ■ Renter ` 350,000 — ■ Owner 400,000 500,000 350,000 40Q000 300,000 a, ^ m 200,000 250,000 N 100,000 200,000 Ln a ^ ti m 50,000 : = 150,000 111 N o ■ 100,000 15-24 ^ m v 50,000 LM■ = - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Employment Growth by Sector ('000s) -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 Mining ■ 2010-2016 Construction ■ 2017-2030 Manufacturing Trade & Transport Information Svcs Financial Svcs Professional Svcs Education & Health Leisure & Hospitality Government Households by Ethnicity and Origin 900,000 Households by Age Cohort 400,000 IN Renter 800,000 — ■ Renter ` 350,000 — ■ Owner 300,000 500,000 250,000 40Q000 200,000 a, ^ m 200,000 150,000 N 100,000 100,000 Ln Black Alone Asian Alone m 50,000 : = ■ 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Households by Ethnicity and Origin 900,000 IN Renter 800,000 — IIIII Owner 700,000 — 600,000 500,000 40Q000 300,000 a, ^ m 200,000 Q 0 100,000 White Alone Black Alone Asian Alone Hispanic Avg Annual Population Change (000's) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000-2010 Natural Increase Net Migration 2010-2016 Natural Increase Net Migration 2016-2030 Natural increase Net Migration — RANKING and DEFINITIONS: METRO RANKING is the relative rank among 50 multifamily Metro markets based upon the average of HAS forecasted total Metro multifamily dema nd 2017-2030 and its percent of current Metro rental households, ranging from 1(Dallas-Fort Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). AFFORDABILITY INDEX is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting today, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). This index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with a Metro average of 178.0 MF SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS is an HAS composite of the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix percent of available Metro land not yet developed. This index ranges from 19.5 (Honolulu) to —6.0 (New Orleans) with a Metro average of 2.0. STAR SHARE is that share of Metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as *Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non -institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using CoStar® ratings of 1-5 for sites of five units or more, STAR is the lower ratings of 1-2. This share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a Metro average of 36%. Multifamily Overview provided for NMHC/NAA by Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) in collaboration with Dinn Focused Marketing and W hitegate Real Estate Advisors. All metrics are year-end 2016 data from the US Bureau of Census, CoStare, CBRE Econometrics®, Moody's Analytics®, ESRIe and other sources. Forecasts are modeled by the HAS team based upon the most current data available and are estimates subject to unforeseen changes in economic environment, capital markets, property markets and national or local policies and laws. All licenses, data, logos and publishing may only be used with permission. For more detailed analyses and multifamily market consulting, contact NMHC, NAA or the HAS team listed in the publication appendix. NKC NATIONAL 161 � MULTIFIANILY .■� HATIOKA // U Nr- COUNCIL ii t w�[�e COUNCIL rnnru lnlrrlxll lSNTlrgr �� ""-� ■■.� .: "'�"� Version 1 Appendix 5: Methodology Metro Market Demand Methodology The metro market demand models begin with the forecast number of households from Moody's Economy.com base -case forecast. Because the national model was based on an HAS derived household forecast, the metro market household forecasts are adjusted by the difference in the HAS and Moody's Economy.com forecast each year. The HAS national forecast is similar to the Moody's forecast through 2018 then grows slightly slower, representing the impact of expected slower household formations during recessions which are modeled to occur towards the end of each decade through 2030. The resulting HAS national household forecast is 2.8% lower than the Moody's national forecast by 2030. Thus, metro markets are adjusted for the difference between the two national forecasts each year (e.g. -2.8% for 2030). Like the national model, the metro area model defines the renter households by adjusting the number of households by one minus the home ownership rate for each year and subtracts out the homeless rate. The metro market home ownership rate is specified by the equivalent metropolitan area home ownership rate as provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. The model uses the statewide homeless rate as similar data was not available at the metropolitan area level. While homeless rates surely vary by metropolitan area, this homeless adjustment is quite small, with a median rate of 0.12% of population. Actual data were collected for 2009 and 2011 to 2015. The forecast did not assume a change in the homeless rate from the 2015 figure. The U.S. Census Bureau provides a quarterly estimate of home ownership rates for select metropolitan areas. The survey's methodology can result in wide swings in estimates of home ownership rates from quarter to quarter. Thus, an annual average of quarterly home ownership rates was used to observe the historic trend in home ownership for each metro area. Forecast metro market home ownership rates were estimated based on demographic trends. To estimate historical renter households, the rentership rate for each age cohort for each metro market was multiplied by the households for that 162 age cohort. Renter households were derived by dividing the population growth by age cohort by the headship rate by age cohort. For forecast renter households, for each age cohort, the incremental annual population growth was divided by an estimate of population per household (headship rate) for that age cohort to get incremental households for that year. Households were then split into international in -migration households and domestic growth households by multiplying the incremental household by the average percent of growth from 2010 to 2015 created by international in -migration. International rental households were then estimated by multiplying the rentership rate for international in -migrants for that age cohort. Similarly, new domestic rental households were estimated by multiplying the rentership rate for each age cohort by the new domestic households for that age cohort. Total renter households for each year equal the previous year total renter households plus the incremental total international in -migrating renter households by age cohort plus the incremental total domestic households by age cohort for that year. The forecast home ownership rate for each year is estimated by dividing the rental households by the total households for that year. Home ownership rates from the metro model were slightly higher when aggregated than trends suggested by the national model. Thus, annual home ownership rates were adjusted downwards by 0.09% per year so that the metro area home ownership rate trends in aggregate were more like the national trend. Actual home ownership rates were used from 2005 to 2016. The 2017 home ownership rate was estimated by multiplying the 2016 actual rate by the modeled change from 2016 to 2017, and so on. Forecast rental households were then adjusted for three factors to forecast demand for the institutional rental market, or those properties with 5 or more units. First, an estimate of the amount of total rental stock attributed to properties with 5 or more units (5+) was estimated by reviewing several sources of data, including the U.S. Census, Costar® and CBRE® Econometrics. This factor ranged from 33% to 65% with a median of 46%. Second, some markets have significantly older multifamily stock than other markets, indicating that those markets will need more new stock to offset obsolete aging stock. However, it is difficult to tell how much of the stock has already been updated in each market. Thus, we made only a slight adjustment upward for markets with older stock. The amount of stock built after 1980 was calculated for each market and ranged from 21% to 81% with a median of 56%. An aging factor was developed by dividing the U.S. average percent of the market built after 1980 (49%) by the metro area average built after 1980. The national model assumed 0.5% of stock would need to be replaced each year due to obsolescence. For each metro market, this 0.5% was multiplied by the aging factor; i.e. markets with stock that is older than the U.S. are assumed to need slightly more stock per year to replace obsolete buildings. The model also assumes that enough demand will be needed in each market to keep vacancy at a similar rate as the long-term average for that market. As the total market inventory increases in size, the current vacant units will become a smaller amount of the total and thus vacancy would decline, excluding the impact of actual new supply. Thus, demand was also adjusted for a long-term vacancy factor. Because of unusual fluctuations occurring in the housing market from 2000-2016 due to the Great Financial Crisis, the average vacancy from 1990-1999 was used as the long-term vacancy factor. This figure was more representative of long- term trends for most markets. The model assumes that enough units will need to be produced each year to maintain vacancy rates at a similar level and thus the demand for each year is increased by this vacancy factor. Actual occupied units were used for 2007 to 2016 based on HAS estimates derived from multiple sources. The forecast applied the 2016-2017 growth rate from the modeled figures from 2017 to 2016 to the 2016 actual estimate to get the 2017 estimate and so on. State Demand Methodology The methodology to forecast multifamily demand for the states followed a similar methodology as the metropolitan areas. Demand for the states was further adjusted so that the state forecasts add up to the national forecast both historically and on a forecast basis. This was done by prorating the proportion of demand for each state as compared to the total forecast for all the states to the U.S. forecast demand. 163 Metro Market Overviews Methodology S+ Unit Apartment Demand Forecast is developed by the Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) team and represents the number of rental apartment units in buildings with five or more units (defined as multifamily units throughout) and those multifamily units that will be needed to meet demand going forward. Historical figures for the years 2007 to 2016 are based on estimates of existing multifamily 5+ total inventory as developed by the HAS team from several sources including the U.S. Census, CoStar° and CBRE° Econometrics°. Forecasts are based on demographic, economic and capital market trends and consider aging and domestic and international immigration trends specific to that metropolitan area as well as housing affordability and ownership trends, among other factors. Actual units could be lower than this level in areas with geographic and political restrictions. In this case, upward pressure could develop on rental rates. Actual units could also be larger than forecast demand in markets where construction exceeds demand. S+ Unit Rental Stock by Year Built tracks the number of units in buildings with five or more units by year built. Note that this graph is specific to only the 5+ unit sector of the rental market and thus will have lower numbers than other graphs such as the adjacent "Rent as a Percent of Household Income" graph which includes all sizes of rental units. The 5+ Unit share of the total rental stock can be seen in the graph above it titled "Housing Stock by Tenure and Type". Affordability is the Housing Affordability Index as reported by Moody's Economy.com for the fourth quarter of 2016. It provides a general indication of affordability of single-family owned housing in a metropolitan area. Higher ratios indicate that housing is more affordable and vice -versa. The index is the ratio of median family income to the minimum income to qualify for purchase of a single-family home at the median existing home resale price under standard mortgage underwriting as of the time of the index, then multiplied by 100 to convert to a 100 -point index (e.g., an index of 100 indicates that the median family income equals the qualifying income). Of the metropolitan areas in this report, this index ranges from 69.4 (San Jose) to 290.7 (Cleveland) with an average of 178.0. Demand Ranking is the relative rank among the 50 multifamily metro markets in this study of the HAS forecasted multifamily housing demand for rental stock with 5 or more units based two growth factors: 1) the average percentage growth in demand from 2017 to 2030 and 2) the absolute growth in demand from 2017 to 2030. The rankings range from 1 (Dallas -Ft. Worth) to 50 (Cleveland). Note that percentage growth rankings tend to favor smaller metropolitan markets while absolute growth rankings tend to favor larger metropolitan markets. Thus, the index ranks based on a blend of both percentage growth and absolute number of new renters. See the tables in Appendix 5 for separate rankings by percentage growth and total growth. Employment Growth by Sector graphs are based on employment projections for metropolitan statistical areas as provided by Moody's Analytics° for major North American Industry Classification codes (NAICS). For example, the category "Information" includes a broad array of services including newspapers, software publishers, motion pictures, radio, TV, data processing, internet publishing and similar services. A description of NAICS codes can be found here: https://www.census.gov/cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart=2012. The term "Education" as mentioned in the text boxes of the metropolitan overviews in this report refers to the Education & Health Services NAICS category and could be more health oriented than education oriented depending on the metro area. MF Supply Restrictions (Multifamily Supply Restrictions Index) is an HAS composite of methodology using the Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index and the Lacroix developable land index. This index represents the difficulty of creating new supply which may vary from the amount of new supply delivered as high growth metro markets may also experience higher supply growth despite the difficulty of approving new projects. The result of higher supply restrictions may be longer approval and development time -lines adding to the development risks and higher construction costs which lead to less affordable rental markets. Of the markets in this study, this index ranges from 19.5 Honolulu to -6.0 (New 164 Orleans) with an average of 2.0. Higher indices represent markets with more stringent regulatory environments in regards to new housing supply. The Wharton Residential Land Use Restrictions Index is based on data and a nationwide survey of local land use regulations including process and approvals, rules, and outcomes. The index includes eleven sub -indices measuring the stringency of the local regulatory environment, including local political pressure, local project approval, local assembly, supply restrictions, density restrictions, open space, exactions, and approval delay. The Lacroix index was developed by Sumner La Croix, Ph.D. at the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawaii and measures the developable area within a 50 -kilometer radii from a central city. Factors such as oceans, wetlands, lakes, rivers and other bodies of water as well as areas with a slope above 15% are defined as undevelopable. The Multifamily Supply Restrictions Index is the sum of each sub index for the metro market divided by the average for that sub index for all the metro markets in this study. STAR Share is that share of metro rental housing stock with five or more units HAS qualified as Second -Tier Affordable Rentals or those non - institutional sites of typically lower unit count, lower quality and greater age, a critical and ongoing multifamily supply component. Using Costar® ratings of 1 to 5 for sites of five units or more, STAR units are those with lower Costar® ratings of 1 to 2. Costar® ratings are based on several criteria including building structure and systems, amenities, site and landscaping, and certifications such as LEED and Green Globes. Properties rated 2 have functional architectural design and systems, below average finishes and one to no additional amenities. They have minimal to no landscaping and exterior spaces, and are unlikely to hold green or energy efficient certifications. Properties rated 1 may require significant renovation and are possibly functionally obsolete. STAR facilities are likely to serve lower income populations which are a significant part of the population base in some metro areas, and may represent, in some areas, potential investment targets for upgrading to higher quality properties. The STAR share ranges from 61% (Los Angeles) to 17% (Austin) with a metro market average of 36% for markets included in this study. Sources Demographic data was drawn from several U.S. Census Bureau surveys, including the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) which was the most recent ACS survey at the time of this report. Economic and demographic trend and forecast data was drawn from Moody's Analytics® supplemented by other sources including U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Reserve and other forecast surveys such as the Wall Street Journal Economic Forecasting Survey and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Survey of Professional Forecasters. Property market data was derived from several sources including the U.S. Census Bureau, CoStar® Realty Information, CBRE° Econometrics and ESRI®. 165 This report was prepared for the National Multifamily Housing Council and the National Apartment Association by Hoyt Advisory Services, Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC. Hoyt Advisory Services (HAS) is subsidiary of the Homer Hoyt Institute (HHI), an independent, non-profit research and educational foundation established in 1967 to improve the quality of public and private real estate decisions by expanding and disseminating the real estate body of knowledge, stimulating innovation in the discipline of real estate and land economics, building bridges among academia, industry, and government, and developing innovative approaches to the solution of real estate problems. Research supported by HHI must meet the highest standards of scholarship, and it must further the improvement of decision making in the real estate industry. That is, it must combine rigor with relevance. HAS is able to engage PhDs from leading universities along with practitioners with proven, appropriate real estate expertise for the project, in this case partnering with Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. and Whitegate Real Estate Advisors. Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. provides clients a detailed and directional picture of the underlying market place trends now and going forward for any national housing or mix -use real estate development challenge. Clientele are a select cadre of land developers, homebuilders, lending institutions, portfolio managers, municipal leadership and national housing organizations. Whitegate Real Estate Advisors, LLC provides real estate consulting services in the areas of investment analysis, portfolio structuring, capital formation strategies, market analysis, econometric modeling and forecasting, reporting and asset management. Authors for this paper each have more than 25 years of experience in the real estate industry, and are frequent speakers and publishers in both academic and practitioner journals and meetings: Dr. Norm Miller Dr. Miller is the Ernest Hahn Chair and Professor of Real Estate Finance at the University of San Diego. He was V.P. of Analytics for Costar° 2009-2010 and consulted for many years on forecasting. He has worked on forecasting single-family housing for many years with Collateral Analytics, see www.collateralanalytics.com and he co -wrote a study for Fannie Mae on rating multifamily housing quality with Xudong An in 2013. He has worked extensively with various trade associations including NAIOP, CCIM, the Urban Land Institute, and has been a frequent speaker to groups such as the USGBC, ICSC, BOMA, Al, CORENET, CREW, MBA, SIOR, and NAHB and is a member of the national research committees for ICSC, PREA, and the ULL 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. Jeffrey D. Fisher Dr. Fisher is a Professor Emeritus at Indiana University, Visiting Professor at John Hopkins University, Partner at Pavonis Group LLC, Director at RealNex, LLC, President and Chair of the Board, Homer Hoyt Institute and Consultant to the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries. He is a frequent speaker and publisher. He has served as a consultant to many real estate companies, including Real Capital Analytics and ARGUS, and served in leadership positions in many industry organizations including PREA, NCREIF, RERI and others. He is a frequent industry speaker and has published numerous textbooks and articles. Michael Dinn leads Dinn Focused Marketing, Inc. (DFM) Throughout his career, Michael has taken a market -centric stance in land acquisition, land brokerage, residential development, residential design and marketing campaigns. For over 16 years leading DFM, he has combined these experiences into a skill set that provides clients a detailed and directional picture of the underlying market place trends now and going forward for any national housing or mix -use real estate development challenge. His Clientele are a select cadre of land developers, homebuilders, lending institutions, portfolio managers, municipal leadership and national housing organizations, each with a unique market position, access or capacity to affect their 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 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