Loading...
Resolution 2022-32163 • RESOLUTION NO. 2022-32163 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE AND ECONOMIC RESILIENCY COMMITTEE AT ITS APRIL 29, 2022 MEETING, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) 2021-173-KB FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS INCORPORATING CLASS A OFFICE SPACE WITH RESPECT TO CITY-OWNED PARKING LOT P27 (THE "PROJECT"), AND APPROVING THE TERM SHEET FOR THE PROJECT ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE COMMISSION MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING THIS RESOLUTION; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND GROUND LEASE WITH LINCOLN ROAD HOLDINGS LLC, CONSISTENT WITH THE TERM SHEET, WITH THE FINAL AGREEMENTS SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION; AND FURTHER, REFERRING THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CHARTER AND CITY CODE WHEREAS, the City Commission has expressed an interest in diversifying the City's economy and its revenue sources by capitalizing on the economic growth opportunities presented by the current and projected business growth in the region, particularly by making a concerted effort to attract the financial services and technology industries; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this objective, the City Commission has discussed the need to increase Class A office space inventory throughout the City; and WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2019 meeting, the City Commission discussed the possibility of making available certain surface parking lots north of Lincoln Road to promote the development of Class A office space in the city center area; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2020, the Administration issued Request for Letters of Interest (RFLI) 2021-029-KB seeking expressions of interest from developers interested in constructing Class A office developments on surface parking lots P25, P26, and P27 on Lincoln Lane North; and WHEREAS, the RFLI yielded significant interest, including expressions of interest from eighteen (18) respondents, four(4) of which were companies located outside of Florida; and WHEREAS, based on the results of the RFLI, on February 19, 2021, the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee (FERC) recommended that the Administration seek City Commission authorization to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) for ground leases and development agreements for the development of Class A office space on the three surface parking lots (P25, P26, and P27); and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2021, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021- 31617, authorizing the preparation of an RFP for mixed-use development incorporating Class A office space at City-owned sites along Lincoln Lane North including the 17th Street parking garage (G5)(the "RFP"); and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2021, the Mayor and City Commission further discussed the goals, objectives, and format of the RFP and approved its issuance; and WHEREAS, the City received proposals from the following three firms: (1) Infinity Collective LLC; (2) Lincoln Road Holdings LLC, a joint venture among The Peebles Corporation, Baron Corporation, and Scott Robins Companies, Inc. (for clarity, Lincoln Road Holdings LLC is referred to as "TPC"); and (3) Lincoln Road Property Owners, L.P., a joint venture among Integra Investments, Starwood Capital Group, and The Comras Company (for clarity, Lincoln Road Property Owners, L.P. is referred to as "Integra"); and WHEREAS, after reviewing the various proposals submitted, the process and rankings of an Evaluation Committee appointed by the City Manager, and the assessments of staff and the City's real estate consultant, the City Manager determined that the best options for the City to pursue were Option 3 with TPC (Parking Lot P27) and Option 5 with Integra (Parking Lots P25 and P26), and the City Manager recommended that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the commencement of negotiations with both these bidders; and WHEREAS, in order to mitigate against the risk if negotiations with one of the two firms reaches an impasse, the City Manager recommended that it served the best interests of the City for the Mayor and the City Commission to further authorize the Administration to pursue negotiations for both Options 3 and 5 with the other firm; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, the City Commission adopted Resolution 2020-31435, authorizing the Administration to: (a) enter into negotiations for a possible ground lease and development agreement with TPC in respect to Parking Lot P27 (Option 3)to include terms consistent with the requirements of the RFP and such other terms of TPC's bid for Option 3 as are acceptable to the City (and, if the Administration is unable to agree on principal terms with TPC within a reasonable timeframe, as determined by the Administration in its discretion, to cease negotiations with TPC and commence negotiations in respect to Parking Lot P27 with Integra); and (b) to enter into negotiations for a possible ground lease and development agreement with Integra in respect to Parking Lots P25 and P26 (Option 5) (the "Option 5 Project") to include terms consistent with the requirements of the RFP and such terms of Integra's bid for Option 5 as are acceptable to the City(and, if the Administration is unable to agree on principal terms with Integra within a reasonable timeframe, as determined by the Administration in its discretion, to cease negotiations with Integra and commence negotiations with TPC in respect to Parking Lots P25 and P26; and (c) refer the proposed projects and/or any accompanying amendments to the City's Land Development Regulations to the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee, the Land Use and Sustainability Committee, and the Planning Board for review, in accordance with the requirements of the City Code; and (d) direct the Administration to maintain the RFP open and subject to the Cone of Silence with regard to Option 4(Garage G5)for a period of one (1)year from the date of adoption; and 2 WHEREAS, TPC and the Administration negotiated a term sheet dated April 26, 2022, which is attached as an Exhibit to the Commission Memorandum accompanying this Resolution (the "Term Sheet"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Term Sheet,TPC proposes a six-story building with two levels of market rate residential housing, three levels of Class A office space, ground floor retail, and seven levels of parking spread across the office and retail levels; and WHEREAS, as proposed, the City and TPC will enter into a long-term ground lease (the "Ground Lease") and a development agreement (the "Development Agreement") to govern the development of the site, with TPC responsible for financing the design and construction of the Project without funding or financing participation from the City, the proposed rent structure and other key terms of which are more fully described in the Term Sheet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1.03(b)(2) of the City Charter governing leases of ten years or longer of the City-owned property referred to as the Lincoln Road Parking Lots, the Ground Leases require approval by a majority vote of the voters in a City-wide referendum; and WHEREAS, on March 30, 2022, the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee received an update on the negotiations and requested that the proposed terms for the Project and the Option 5 Project be presented in tandem side-by-side to facilitate the Committee's comparison of both projects; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2022, the Land Use and Sustainability Committee considered three legislative amendments requested in support of the wo projects, and transmitted the proposed ordinances to the City Commission for consideration; and WHEREAS, on April 19,2022,the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee reviewed the draft Term Sheet and provided feedback on the Project as proposed; and WHEREAS, on April 29,2022, the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee reviewed the Project's proposed terms and recommended that the Project be transmitted back to the City Commission with a recommendation that the Commission direct the Administration to negotiate a Development Agreement and Ground Lease with TPC for the City Commission's consideration; and WHEREAS, in light of the favorable recommendation of the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee, the Administration has also recommended that the City Commission adopt this Resolution and direct the Administration to negotiate a Development Agreement and Ground Lease with TPC, to include terms consistent with the Term Sheet and such other terms and conditions as are customary or otherwise necessary or desirable (as determined by the Administration), for further consideration and possible approval of the City Commission; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission accept the recommendation of the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee at its April 29, 2022 meeting regarding Request for Proposals (RFP) 2021-173-KB for mixed-use developments incorporating Class A office space with respect to City-owned parking lots P27(the "Project") and approve the Term Sheet for the Project attached as an Exhibit to the Commission Memorandum accompanying this Resolution; further, the Mayor and City Commission direct the Administration to negotiate a Development Agreement and Ground Lease (collectively, the 3 "Agreements")with Lincoln Road Holdings LLC for a mixed-use development incorporating Class A office space, retail and market rate residential housing, as well as all necessary parking, with such Development and Ground Lease to include terms consistent with the Term Sheet as well as such other terms and conditions as are customary or are otherwise determined by the Administration to be necessary or desirable, with the final Agreements subject to the prior approval of the Mayor and City Commission; and further, referring the proposed Project and the associated Development Agreement to the Planning Board for review, in accordance with the requirements of the City Charter and City Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED this q day of May, 2022. ATTEST: y, ,.......d 12-zil----_____ MAY 1 0 2022 RAFAEL E. GRANADO, CITY CLERK DAN GELBER, MAYOR 'r•.Q.•• .• •.•c.,,"?, 'ti IirconP onfED APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE : • ' .• • & FOR EXECUTION .. . . . _ ... . . (- _i2'2Z. City Attorney ,.J Date 4 Agenda Item 1)%7 T Date S y-;4- MIAMI BEACH City of Miami Beach,1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach,Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Dan Gelber and Members of the City Commission FROM: Alina T. Hudak, City Man, ,. . cc: Rafael Paz, City Attorney DATE: May 4, 2022 SUBJECT:A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE AND ECONOMIC RESILIENCY COMMITTEE AT ITS APRIL 29, 2022 MEETING, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) 2021- 173-KB FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS INCORPORATING CLASS A OFFICE SPACE WITH RESPECT TO CITY-OWNED PARKING LOT P27(THE "PROJECT"), AND APPROVING THE TERM SHEET FOR THE PROJECT ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE COMMISSION MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING THIS RESOLUTION; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND GROUND LEASE WITH LINCOLN ROAD HOLDINGS LLC, CONSISTENT WITH THE TERM SHEET, WITH THE FINAL AGREEMENTS SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION; AND FURTHER, REFERRING THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CHARTER AND CITY CODE. Recommendation: • The Administration recommends the City Commission approve the Term Sheet and direct the Administration to negotiate a Development Agreement and Ground Lease with Lincoln Road Holdings LLC, consistent with the Term Sheet, with the final Agreements subject to the prior approval of the Mayor and City Commission, and further, referring the proposed project and the Development Agreement to the Planning Board for review, in accordance with the requirements of the City Charter and City Code. History: The City Commission has expressed an interest in diversifying the City's economy and its revenue sources by capitalizing on economic growth opportunities presented by the current and projected business growth in the region, particularly by making a concerted effort to increase Class A office space inventory throughout the City to attract targeted industries. At its December 11, 2019 meeting, the City Commission discussed the possibility of making available surface parking lots along Lincoln Lane North to promote the development of Class A office space in the city center/Lincoln Road area. To gauge Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 2 of 22 interest from the development community, the City Commission directed staff to issue a request for letters of interest(RFLI)for the development of Class A office space on surface parking lots immediately north of Lincoln Lane. On October 9, 2020, the Administration issued RFLI 2021-029-KB seeking expression of interest from developers interested in building Class A office developments on surface parking lots P25, P26, and P27. The RFLI yielded expression of interest from eighteen (18) respondents. Based on the results of the RFLI, on February 19, 2021, the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee (FERC or the Committee) recommended the Administration seek City Commission authorization to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) for ground leases and development agreements for the development of Class A office space on three Lincoln Lane surface parking lots (P25, P26, and P27). On February 24, 2021, the City Commission discussed the results of the RFLI, accepted the FERC's recommendation, and directed the Administration to include all three surface parking lots as well as the 17th Street parking garage (parking garage G5) in a forthcoming RFP. On March 17, 2021, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-31617, authorizing the preparation of a RFP for mixed-use development incorporating Class A office space at three City-owned sites along Lincoln Lane North as well as the 17th Street parking garage (G5). On June 23, 2021, the City Commission approved the issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) 2021-173-KB for mixed-use developments incorporating Class A office space and retail on City-owned parking lots P25, P26, P27, and parking garage G5. The RFP included multiple site options for proposed development. The goals of the RFP included: (1) encouraging development of Class A office space to meet growing demand; (2) maintaining parking capacity while providing alternative and sustainable transportation and mobility options; (3) transforming and activating North Lincoln Lane from a service alley to a vibrant and pedestrian-friendly street with amenities that will enhance the urban experience; and (4) connecting the Convention Center District with Lincoln Road. Key RFP Terms • 50% of floor area ratio (FAR) available at each site must be Class A office space. Required Class A Office • Ground floor portions of the project facing a street, sidewalk, or and Retail Space Lincoln Lane North must include an activated liner of retail, restaurant, personal service, or similar active uses. • Projects must provide in-kind replacement of existing public parking spaces displaced by the development, in addition to satisfying City Code off-street parking requirements applicable Replacement Parking to proposed uses. • Project must be staged to minimize the number of parking spaces temporarily displaced during development. Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 3 of 22 • 99-year maximum lease term with a 51-year initial term and two (2)24-year renewal options. Lease Term • Each ground lease structured as a"triple net" lease,with lessee solely responsible for all real estate taxes, utilities, assessments or other public charges, insurance, maintenance, and all other costs and expenses associated with the operation of the Project. • Lease of all three lots would require approval by a majority of voters (i.e., greater than 50%) in a citywide referendum (Referendum). • Development agreement and ground lease between City and one or both Developers must be in final form and approved by City Commission prior to placement of Referendum question on the ballot. To qualify for November 8, 2022 General Election, Voter Referendum for ballot items due to Supervisor of Elections by July 29, 2022. Lease Approval • At City Commission's sole discretion, the Referendum could be scheduled for a special election on a different date if: (1) the development agreement and lease for the applicable Option(s) are finalized and approved by City Commission and (2) the Developer pays its pro-rated share (based on total number of ballot questions) of the cost of a special election (approximately $400,000). Current Office Market Conditions The Class A office sector, in Miami Beach and Miami-Dade County at large, has been particularly resilient throughout the pandemic and thereafter. LTC 165-2021 provided comprehensive data and analysis demonstrating favorable market trends and the influx of targeted business industry, all of which provided support for the City's initiatives to attract office users and new development including the RFP. Today, current market conditions continue to suggest a favorable market outlook.Although vacancy for Class A office space in Miami Beach has increased from 10.1% in Q4 2021 to 16.8% in Q1 2022 according to Jones Lang LaSalle', this is representative of new offerings coming online, for example, Starwood's relocation to its new headquarters at 2340 Collins Avenue meant vacating its previous location at Lincoln Place, 1601 Washington. A more noteworthy market indicator is Miami Beach's sustained growth in asking rents month after month. In 2022, JLL reports that average asking rent for Class A office space in the city has increased more than 28% over the previous quarter, from $63.12 in Q4 2021 to $81.08 in Q1 2022. This growth is demonstrated by Deco Capital's Eighteen Sunset project at 1845 Purdy Avenue, where asking leasing rates have surpassed $100 per square foot according to the South Florida Business Journal 2 , a record rental rate on par with New York City and witnessed for the first time only recently in Miami-Dade County. The real estate development community continues to wager on Miami Beach's life-work- play lifestyle, with planned Class A development projects seeking land use board development approvals in April and May 2022: One Soundscape Park, 1885 Washington Avenue (SHVO), One Island Park, 120 MacArthur Boulevard (Related), and 411 Michigan • Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 4 of 22 Avenue (Cube 3/Alberto Campo Baeza). Similar to Sunset Harbour's Eighteen Sunset, which is under construction, all three of these proposed projects take advantage of added height allowances recently enacted by the City Commission, which demonstrates the direct impact of the City Commission's targeted legislation to encourage and incentivize Class A Office development in specific commercial areas. Sustained strong demand and continued migration of people and businesses to the region appear to reinforce Miami Beach's growth trajectory. Robust demand and the scarcity of prime real estate available for development explains why the City received proposals from established real estate development teams with experience in the Miami Beach office development market. 1 "Q1 2022 Office Market Report'. Jones Lang LaSalle. https://www.us.ill.com/en/trends-and- insiqhts/research/office-market-statistics-trends/miami.(April 7,2022) 2 Eighteen Sunset developers snag $60M in construction funding." South Florida Business Journal https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/n ews/2022/02/01/60-mill ion-mortgage-for-eighteen- sunset.html.(February 1,2022) Award &Authorization to Negotiate RFP responses were due and received on January 12, 2022. The City received proposals from three (3)firms: Infinity Collective LLC, Lincoln Road Holdings LLC, and Lincoln Road Property Owners, L.P. On February 1, 2022, the Evaluation Committee reviewed and evaluated all proposals. Upon review of the results of the Evaluation Committee and an assessment of the proposals, the City Manager recommended that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the City Administration to: • Negotiate with Lincoln Road Property Owner, L.P., (a joint venture among Integra Investments, Starwood Capital Group, and The Comras Company("Integra")with regards to P25 and P26 (Option 5), and, if the Administration is not successful in negotiating an agreement with Integra in respect to these lots, authorizing the Administration to negotiate with TPC; and • Negotiate with Lincoln Road Holdings LLC (a joint venture among The Peebles Corporation, Scott Robins Companies, Inc., and the Baron Corporation) ("TPC") with regards to P27 (Option 3). Additionally, if the Administration is not successful in negotiating an agreement with TPC with regard to lot P27, authorizing the Administration to negotiate with Integra in regard to this option. On February 23, 2022, via Resolution No. 2022-32054,the City Commission accepted the recommendation of the City Manager and authorized the Administration to negotiate with the proposers. In addition to referring any potential amendments to the City Code (or otherwise) to appropriate land use boards, the Resolution also referred an item to this Committee to discuss the negotiations as a means of providing the Administration with direction during the negotiation phase. Although the RFP invited proposals to develop four sites (P25, P26, P27, and G5, or a combination thereof), at present, negotiations concern only three sites: P25 and P26 combined, and P27. Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 5 of 22 U a L--a U v 11 ij ly Liu u j l, _—t ✓ Q ..-] o L I _ 1r 1 < ,�_ 1 i i{li w L1 f1 as ( r--_.-,I r — U i lO ! i 0,0 t- CITY HALL ;T___I , } ;aQlt✓-�� _ _ -<_ _171h Sty-. • _=- - -b mil'--- _ n �ll. �-� � 1 � 1UI \ �. ( I i I11 . li . CJ r'j!, P I', I_ - 11 I Galls f `-� 91 I' ' III; _ JS; rlr+cc i --= LINCOLN ROAD "fCoTn'E _ i : rom3saL�L--gobn = —Ro_ad.M1Ull1 -__ --' Y-- oath.--.�'_',+-n,a,�,:."'_'""'f i r-"-_` \f 1 i It� I t'— 1 I� P25 Address 1680 Lenox Avenue Size 37,454 sq. ft. (0.86 acres) • Parking Spaces 86 spaces Adjacent Zoning CD-2 /CD-3 Height allowed by Code 70 feet FAR allowed by Code 1.87 RFP Proposer Integra P26 Address 1080 Lincoln Lane North Size 48,000 sq. ft. (1.10 acres) Parking Spaces 106 spaces Adjacent Zoning CD-3 Height allowed by Code 80 feet FAR allowed by Code 2.75 RFP Proposer Integra P27 Address 1664 Meridian Avenue Size 59,273 sq. ft. (1.36 acres) Parking Spaces 151 spaces Adjacent Zoning CD-3 Height allowed by Code 80 feet FAR allowed by Code 2.75 RFP Proposer TPC Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 6 of 22 Annual Revenue by Parking Lot FY 22 Year to FY 18 FY19 FY20 FY 21 Date (as of 3/31/22) P25 $ 420,478.12 $ 383,700.87 $ 228,078.08 $ 323,489.85 $ 192,584.11 P26 $ 541,637.19 $ 477,463.64 $ 276,164.83 $ 385,291.19 $ 238,479.45 SUM $ 962,115.31 $ 861,164.51 $ 504,242.91 $ 708,781.04 $ 431,063.56 P25+P26 P27 $ 674,658.86 $ 654,961.62 $ 378,562.31 $ 488,165.11 $ 327,349.40 Source: City of Miami Beach Parking Department On March 30, 2022, the FERC received an update on the negotiations, during which the Committee posed questions to the Administration regarding the preparation of the ballot referendum questions and requested that subsequent agenda items present the proposed projects' terms in tandem side-by-side to facilitate the Committee's comparison of both projects. Proposed Land Use Amendments In accordance with the City Code's provision allowing for zoning criteria to be determined by a development agreement, the RFP stated that"Proposals shall be guided by the Land Development Regulations, however, proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations will be considered." On April 8, 2022, the Land Use and Sustainability Committee ("LUSC") provided feedback on three legislative amendments requested and proposed in support of the two projects, which would serve to enhance the project design and provide for more optimal use of the City-owned land: 1. An amendment to Policy RLU 1.1.17 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, to allow for all types of residential uses (currently, only workforce and affordable housing are permitted), as well as mixed-use developments, as an allowable use in the Public Facility Government Uses (PF)future land use category. 2. An amendment to Chapter 130 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) of the City Code to create a minimum off-street public parking requirement for certain developments on City-owned land in parking district No. 2. Additionally, the proposal creates the ability for developments in parking districts No. 2 and No. 3 to provide additional parking spaces in accordance with the minimum requirements set forth in parking district No. 1. 3. An amendment to Chapter 142 of the LDRs to allow for a maximum building height of 100 feet for GU properties developed by the private sector that incorporate public parking spaces owned by and/or operated for the City within the structure. The applicable area for the proposed height increase is bounded by 17th Street on the north, North Lincoln Lane on the south, Alton Road on the west, and Washington Avenue on the east. By acclamation, the LUSC transmitted the proposed parking ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan amendment with a favorable recommendation, with the caveat that the LUSC recommended limiting the applicability of the Comprehensive Plan amendment Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 7 of 22 to only those developments within the City Center area. The LUSC also voted 2-1 to transmit the height ordinance to the City without any recommendation. The Administration is supportive of the subject ordinances as they would enhance the leasable spaces within each project, thereby attracting higher quality tenants and, ultimately, offering a better financial return to the City. On April 19, 2022, the FERC reviewed the draft Term Sheets and provided feedback on the Projects as proposed. Among the issues discussed by the Committee were the appraised land value of each of the three sites,the Proposers'estimated construction cost per space of the Replacement Parking component to be developed for and delivered to the City, and the Committee's desire to see unique and/or independent commercial businesses as the Projects' retail tenants. The Committee noted that Lincoln Road's character was fundamentally altered as international retail brands overtook smaller, local retailers and the Committee expressed a desire for the developments on P25, P26 and P27 to seek retail tenants that would bring back some of Lincoln Road's prior charm. On April 26, 2022, the Planning Board reviewed the three ordinances and transmitted them to the City Commission with a favorable recommendation. Additionally, the Planning Board recommended that the Projects that include market rate housing also include a portion of workforce and/or affordable housing. On April 29, 2022, the FERC again discussed the negotiations and transmitted the proposed Term Sheets to the City Commission for consideration. Analysis Conducting development and lease negotiations with separate proposers on two complex development projects has been challenging in light of the July 29, 2022 deadline for placing these items on the November 2022 ballot. With a view toward finalizing Development Agreements and Ground Leases with both Proposer teams by such date, the Administration and City Attorney's Office have dedicated considerable staff resources and participate in regularly scheduled meetings with both Proposer teams at least twice per week to establish and refine the deal terms. The proposed Term Sheets for both Projects are attached as Exhibit A. Key Project Terms P25 + P26 (Integra) P27 (TPC) Lincoln Road Property Owner, L.P., Lincoln Road Holdings LLC, a joint a joint venture among Integra venture among The Peebles Developer Team Investments, Starwood Capital Corporation, Scott Robins Group, and The Comras Company, Companies, Inc., and the Baron referred to herein as"Integra" Corporation, referred to herein as "TPC" • 99 years: 51 years + two (2) 24- • 99 years: 51 years + two (2) 24- year extensions year extensions • This Project concerns two Lease Term independent but interrelated • "Effective Date" for purposes of developments on separate sites. commencement of each project One development agreement and, accordingly, for purposes of the milestones set forth below will govern and provide for the Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 8 of 22 Key Project Terms P25 + P26 (Integra) P27 (TPC) development of both P25 and shall mean the date established in P26. However, it is the notice to proceed issued by contemplated that upon the City, which in any event shall completion of construction, P25 be no earlier than the later to and P26 will each be governed occur of: execution of the by a separate Ground Lease. definitive project documents and • "Effective Date" for purposes of certification of the referendum commencement of each project results. and,accordingly,for purposes of the milestones set forth below shall mean the date established in the notice to proceed issued by the City, which in any event shall be no earlier than the later to occur of: execution of the • definitive project documents and certification of the referendum results. Total (P25 + P26): P27: • Total FAR: 188,299 sf • Total Office: 129,280 sf • Total FAR: Not provided (68%) • Total SF: 159,000 sf • Total Retail: 24,884 sf • Office: 80,000 sf • Retail: 9,500 sf P25: • Residential: 69,500 sf 6 stories(3 levels of office,2.5 levels (Approximately 46 market of parking, ground-floor retail) rate units, contingent upon amendment of the P26: Comprehensive Plan) Proposed/ Preliminary 8 stories (4 levels of office, 4 levels 6 stories (2 levels of residential, 3 Site Plan of parking, ground-floor retail; levels of office,ground floor retail,with however, one convertible level of parking spread across office and retail office is contingent upon approval of levels) the height amendment) *Percentages refer to the *TPC has not provided FAR approximate percentage of floor calculations but has acknowledged area attributable to total FAR. and agreed that its project must encompass Class A Office space for at least 50% of the available FAR. Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 9 of 22 Key Project Terms P25+ P26 (Integra) P27 (TPC) ** Assumes Land Use Amendments ** Assumes Land Use amendments move forward. If Land Use move forward. If Land Use amendments do not move forward, amendments do not move forward, the available square footage would the available square footage would be be reduced by approximately 21,000 reduced by approximately 60,000 sf. sf. • Comprehensive Plan • Comprehensive Plan amendment: Proposed program Amendment: At present, is not impacted by this proposed workforce and affordable housing ordinance. are the only 'residential uses permitted in land uses designated • Off-street parking amendment: as Public Facilities. Therefore, Initial proposal would not be this amendment is necessary to impacted by this proposed permit TPC to include market-rate ordinance. residential units in its Project. • Height amendment: On P25,the height amendment would allow • Off-street parking amendment: for an additional 11', resulting in The City Code does not count a height of 86-2" instead of 75'- required off-street parking 0" at the southern end of P25 towards FAR limitations. At closest to Lincoln Road, and present, City parking facilities are providing for greater floor-to- not considered Required Parking ceiling heights of the office and for .GU properties. Therefore, retail levels. On P26, the TPC could not provide the Proposed Land Use additional height would allow for Replacement Parking and Amendments (i)greater floor-to-ceiling heights sufficient off-street parking for its of the office and retail levels; (ii) proposed office, commercial, and the top level of parking would residential uses without include mechanical parking lifts exceeding maximum allowed and be convertible into habitable FAR. With the amendment, the space in the event that parking Replacement Parking that will be demand decreased at a future owned by the City and is a date in time; and (iii) if the Off- required component of the RFP, Street Parking amendment is will not count towards limiting approved, an additional floor of development of other project Class A office space. components. • Height amendment: Initial proposal would not be impacted • by this proposed ordinance. However, current conceptual plans include subterranean parking which may necessitate additional height. Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 10 of 22 Key Project Terms P25+ P26 (Integra) P27 (TPC) • Temporary Certificate of • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) is required to Occupancy (TCO) is required to be achieved at 63 months from be achieved at 61 months from Effective Date for P25 and 82 the Effective Date. months for P26. • Integra proposes phased • TPC proposes three nearby construction of the two lots in a municipal parking garages to manner that will not require the accommodate displaced parking use of other parking facilities in demand,.of which two proposed Construction the City to handle displaced garages are City-owned. The Timeline parking. All spaces Integra is Parking Department recommends required to provide during a mitigation strategy that does not construction will be kept within rely on public facilities during P25 and P26 throughout the construction. TCO for public duration of construction.TCO for parking facilities is required no public parking facilities is later than 61 months after the required no later than 54 months Effective Date and will be after the Effective Date. available for public use no later than 3 months after TCO. • Below are Key Financial Terms, Below are Key Financial Terms,for for full financial terms and annual ' full financial terms and annual rent rent payments, please refer to payments, please refer to Financial Financial Proposals Table in Proposals Table in Exhibit B. Exhibit B. Financial terms remain Financial terms remain subject to subject to negotiation. negotiation. • Initial Lump Sum Payment, • Initial Lump Sum Payment, at immediately upon Effective Target Date for Construction Date: $2.5M Commencement(no later than 23 • Guaranteed Annual Rent, months after Effective Date): $2M beginning one (1) year after • Construction Rent, beginning at Effective Date: Construction Commencement(no Rent o Year 2: $650,000 later than 23 months after o Years 3-4: $725,000 Effective Date): $150,000 o Years 5-6: $750,000 • Guaranteed Annual Rent, • Additional Lump Sum Payment, beginning at Construction at TCO: $500,000 per building Completion (no later than 43 ($1M total) months after Effective Date): • Rent Escalations (Guaranteed $680,000 Rent), commencing at 73 • Rent Escalations (Guaranteed months after Effective Date: the Annual Rent), commencing on greater of 2% or CPI, but no the one-year anniversary of the more than 3% Target Date for Construction • Percentage Rent Participation: Completion (i.e. 55 months after 5% of Effective Gross Income Effective Date): Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 11 of 22 Key Project Terms P25 + P26 (Integra) P27 (TPC) (or Guaranteed Annual Rent, o Year 1-5: 1.5% (Year 1 whichever is greater) commences in month 55 • Base Rent Reset for each of the from Effective Date for P25 Project and the P26 Project: these purposes, i.e., At time of rent reset, the new approximately 4.5 years minimum rent would be into the Initial Term) calculated based on year 6 of o Year 6-10 (commencing $750,000 (allocated between in month 115 from P25 and P26 as ultimately Effective Date, i.e., agreed) and escalated through approximately 9.5 years the rent reset date by the higher into the Initial Term): CPI of 2% or CPI (uncapped). This with floor of 1.5% and would occur at years 51 (for ceiling of 2% years 52-75) and year 75 (for o Year 11-15 (commencing years 76-99). in month 175 from Effective Date, i.e., approximately 14.5 years into the Initial Term): CPI with floor of 1.5% and ceiling of 2.5% o Year 16 through end of Initial Term (commencing in month 235 from Effective Date, i.e., approximately 19.5 years into the Initial Term): CPI with floor of 1.5% and ceiling of 3% • Percentage Rent Participation: 4% of Effective Gross Income (or Guaranteed Annual Rent, whichever is greater) • Base Rent Reset: At time of rent reset, hypothetical rent would be calculated based on year when full rent (i.e., $680,000) commences, escalated through the rent reset date by the higher of 2% or CPI (uncapped). This would occur at years 51 (for years 52-75) and year 75 (for years 76- 99). • 100% of net revenues collected • 100% of net revenues collected City Parking Revenue from the 192 replacement from the 151 replacement parking parking spaces provided back to spaces provided back to the City. Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 12 of 22 Key Project Terms P25 + P26 (Integra) P27 (TPC) the City. (Definition of"net"to be (Definition of "net" to be negotiated.) negotiated.) • Both leases are "triple net" • Same however, if the City elects to operate the Replacement Insurance, Taxes, Parking Component, the City Utilities would be responsible for costs and expenses attributable to the Replacement Parking Component • Developer permitted to use • Same multiple lenders including a mezzanine loan, provided that, in each case, an Institutional Lender shall be used and loan- to-cost ratio for construction financing or loan-to-value ratio for permanent financing) shall not exceed 90%. • In no event shall the City's fee interest in the Property be subordinate to any mortgage or Project Financing liens and the City shall have first priority right of payment of rent at all times. • Developer shall at all times maintain not less than 10% equity in the Project, including Developer's initial equity contribution to the Project. • The City is not and shall not be required to provide any funding or financing for the Project, including without limitation, any tax credits and/or subsidies. • Developer may terminate the • Same Development Agreement at any time prior to issuance of the Termination for building permit in the event: Convenience (1) any of the Required Approvals render the Project economically unfeasible in Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 13 of 22 • Key Project Terms P25 + P26 (Integra) P27 (TPC) the reasonable business judgment of Developer; (2) the Project cannot meet concurrency requirements under Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes,or the costs of concurrency mitigation are, in the reasonable business judgment of Developer, economically unfeasible; (3) Developer, after diligent, good faith efforts, has been unable to obtain a full building permit for the Project pursuant to the Approved Plans; (4) Developer, after diligent, good faith efforts, is unable to secure adequate financing on financial terms that are commercially reasonable; or (5) there shall exist any material adverse change in national or global economic conditions that in the Developer's reasonable and good faith judgment would materially, adversely affect the financial viability of the Project. • The City has no termination for convenience right once the agreements are signed. • City may terminate the • Same Development Agreement for Termination for cause, as a result of any default Cause by Developer, which continues beyond the expiration of any (Development applicable notice and cure Agreement) period, in the Development Agreement and the Ground Lease. Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 14 of 22 Key Project Terms P25 + P26 (Integra) P27 (TPC) • In any event of termination by Developer or by the City as a result of a default by Developer, (i)the Developer shall assign to the City all right, title, and interest the Developer has in and to the Plans and any other materials pertaining to the Project and (ii) the City shall have no further obligation to the Developer following such termination, financial or otherwise other than those obligations, if any, which expressly survive such termination. • Developer has executed an • Same agreement pledging to reimburse the City for the City's out of pocket transactional and professional costs and expenses associated with the due diligence, negotiation, and drafting of the Development Agreement and Ground Lease and development of the Project, Reimbursement up to $150,000.00, including without limitation fees for the City's parking bond covenant analysis, real estate and transaction appraisals and other required reports; the City's outside counsel and paralegal fees; and any surveys, environmental assessments (if any), title searches, and other reviews engaged by the City. Proposed/ Integra's RFP response proposed: TPC's RFP response proposed a Preliminary Public • creation of new employment Project that will: Benefits opportunities for residents of the • Activate, revitalize, enhance and City and neighboring bring new life and energy to this • communities; part of the City; • diversification of the City's • Serve as a benefit to the City by economy by attracting new improving and replacing the City Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 15 of 22 Key Project Terms P25 + P26 (Integra) P27 (TPC) employers from various Spaces with covered, secure and industries to the City; structured parking. • enhancing public parking around • Create new rental housing for City Lincoln Road; residents • an approximately 0.11-acre • Create new Class-A office space; pocket park on the ground floor • Further the City's sustainability of Lot P26 (the "Public Park and resiliency efforts for new Component"); development; • additional public meeting space • Improve lighting, providing as well as new health, increased safety for area; recreational, entertainment, and • Create temporary and cultural opportunities; construction jobs and long-term • achieving LEED Gold permanent jobs; designation; and • Increase the tax base and • addressing the issue of sea level increase the tax revenue to the rise by providing onsite City; stormwater retention. • Provide landscaping and overall • Retail programming (RFP beautification of the area proposal): surrounding the Project; o P25's entire retail • Create a live, work, and play frontage on 17th St environment within the Project; proposed as "fit row"— • Provide economic stimulus to the health and wellness City; establishments • Encourage future development of o P25's Lenox Ave retail areas surrounding the Project; frontage is set back in and concert with existing • Create a pedestrian walkway street cafes (e.g. connecting the Lincoln Lane Rosetta Bakery) to neighborhood with landscaping, encourage more lighting,benches,and storefronts. outdoor café seating on • Retail programming (RFP P25. proposal): o P26 will provide o Activate the alleyway with "boutique, café, home community-oriented retail decor, and service- and • building-oriented oriented spaces, which retail, which supports the will allow businesses live-work-play lifestyle that cannot afford that underpins the key Lincoln Road rental leasing strategy rates to thrive." o Retail designed to complement rather than, compete with Lincoln Road, e.g., smaller retail bays and targeting service, entertainment, and restaurants tenants • Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 16 of 22 Key Project Terms P25 + P26 (Integra) P27 (TPC) rather than traditional retailers. Non-Disparagement None of the Developer, any person • Same Clause authorized to speak on behalf of Developer, or any director or officer or member of senior management of Developer, shall engage in a deliberate campaign intended to cause voters in the Referendum to vote against the other project, including by publicly disparaging, impugning, or making derogatory statements regarding the other Project or the other developer. Referendum The effectiveness of the Ground • Same Requirement Leases and the Development Agreement shall be contingent upon voter approval of the Ground Lease at the November 8, 2022 general election in accordance with the City of Miami Beach Charter. In the event the Referendum is not successful or if the ballot question(s) are not approved, for whatever reason, the Ground Lease and Development Agreement shall be null and void. Outstanding items requiring further negotiation and/or action by City bodies or third parties are set forth more fully below. i. Amendments to Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan As previously detailed, both Projects would benefit from one or more of three proposed amendments: two LDR amendments and one text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.The LDR amendments were discussed and approved by the Planning Board on April 26, 2022. All three items must be approved by the City Commission, with anticipated First Reading at the May 4, 2022 City Commission meeting, and the Comprehensive Plan amendment is to be reviewed and approved by the State of Florida. The Integra Project does not require any amendment for financial terms to remain as currently reflected. If the required parking and/or Comprehensive Plan amendments do not succeed, the TPC Project will need to be adjusted by decreasing office and/or residential square footage (or by eliminating the residential component altogether)with corresponding decreases to the rental payments (to be negotiated)to remain viable. ii. Land Appraisal As required by Section 82-37(b) of the City Code governing leases of ten years or more, an independent consultant, CBRE, Inc., was selected for the appraisal following a request Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 17 of 22 for quotes submitted to the City's prequalified pool of real estate appraisers, as designated by the City Commission via Resolution No. 2018-30585. The attached draft real estate appraisal report ("Appraisal Report") has been prepared for consideration by the City Commission in its review of the proposed Leases. Following receipt of a preliminary draft of the Appraisal Report, portions of which were first discussed by the FERC on April 19, 2022, the consultant continues to revise the Appraisal Report. Once the Appraisal Report is finalized, it will be provided to the City Commission not later than First Reading of the Ground Lease. The appraiser employs a sales comparison approach to determine as-is fee simple value of each of the three sites, whereby recent comparable sales of nearby properties are directly compared to each subject site, as if vacant and available, to be put to its highest and best use, with adjustments applied to account for differences in several factors, including location, property shape, view corridors, zoning, market conditions at time of sale, etc. The sales used in this analysis are considered comparable to the subject sites, and the required adjustments were based on industry best practices. CBRE has indicated to the Administration that the required referendum assumption should not factor into the fee-simple land valuation. The sales comparison approach is considered to provide a reliable value indication for each subject property. iii. Financial Terms: Rent and other Revenues a. Lump Sum Payment and Annual Rent Although the financial and other terms in the RFP responses served as a starting point for negotiations between the City and Developers, such initial terms were not accepted by the City. As noted in the Appraisal Report, Lincoln Road is one of the City's most desirable non-oceanfront locations, and high density, walkable live/work lifestyle environments are currently the highest driver for office and residential real estate assets. Both Developers has adjusted the financial terms from the offers in their RFP responses, each indicating that construction costs have increased since the time of RFP submissions, attributable to factors such as supply chain challenges, rising inflation and interest rates, and geopolitical instability. A detailed comparison of anticipated financial payments to the City from each Developer is contained in Exhibit B. Both Developers have agreed to similar rent structures: a Lump Sum Payment early in the Lease Term (described below),with Guaranteed Annual Rent commencing, in the case of Integra, 12 months from the Effective Date and in the case of TPC, at the agreed upon target date for commencement of construction, i.e., no later than 23 months from the Effective Date. Integra's Guaranteed Minimum Rent increases progressively from $650,000 to $750,000 between years 2 and 5, followed by escalations (greater of 2% or CPI, capped at 3%) commencing in year 7. TPC's Guaranteed Minimum Rent remains constant during its twenty-month construction period at $150,000, and then increases to $680,000 upon construction completion, with varying annual escalations throughout the initial term. In both proposals, the Developer is to pay the higher of the Guaranteed Annual Rent or Percentage Rent. Integra has agreed to Percentage Rent Participation of 5% of Effective Gross Income (EGI) and TPC has agreed to 4% of EGI. Both Developers have agreed to an Initial Lump Sum Payment: $2.5M for Integra on the Effective Date and $2M for TPC at the agreed upon target date for commencement of construction, which will occur not later than 23 months after the Effective Date. Integra has agreed to two (2) additional Lump-Sum Payments totaling $1,000,000 payable in two Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 18 of 22 installments: $500,000 upon issuance of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) for P25 and $500,000 upon the issuance of a TCP for P26: (based on Outside Dates, these payments will occur not later than 63 months and 82 months, respectively). TPC does not propose any additional Lump Sum Payments. b. Parking Component The Off-Street Parking Regulations in the City Code, Article V of Chapter 130, allow developers of properties within historic districts to pay a fee in lieu of providing parking, currently priced at$40,000 per required parking space. This fee per space is intended to represent total average cost for land acquisition and construction of one(1)parking space. Although Resolution No. 2014-28757 directs that the cost per space should be evaluated on an annual basis by the City Commission based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and amended if appropriate,the current fee structure of$40,000 was last adjusted in 2014. Both Projects will contain Replacement Parking equal to the number of spaces currently existing on all three lots, and the City will be entitled to the net revenues from these spaces that are anticipated to be consistent with current collections. The table in the Background section depicting the Parking Department's historical revenue collection for the three lots indicates that the current revenue year-to-date for 2022 could yield annual revenues on par with FY 2019 collections (pre-COVID-19). iv. Residential Housing Component During the early phase of the negotiation sessions, TPC offered to devote approximately 20% of its 46 residential units as workforce housing for income-eligible households earning 140% of area median income (AMI). In light of the fact that 140% AMI is the AMI ceiling before workforce housing transitions to market rate, as defined by the City Code and the Miami-Dade County Code,the Administration sought further confirmation of TPC's design and operational plans in order to ensure that the proposed unit mix and rental rates for these units met the City's expectations for workforce housing. During the April 19, 2022 FERC meeting, TPC explained to the Committee that its decision to diversify its proposed programming to include residential housing was driven by economics because strong rental demand would provide project revenue that was more lucrative than solely office programming.-Conversely, Integra affirms that an all office/retail approach would be more economically desirable. Nevertheless, the exact programming and floor area that either Developer intends to deliver will not be defined until each Developer submits its permit application. As in most development projects, and in light of the recent market volatility in construction, value engineering is expected to occur, and this could impact overall project costs and quality. TPC's financial proposal presented to the FERC on April 19, 2022 juxtaposed potential Rent to the City for two leasing programs: (1) mixed market rate and workforce housing units (TPC's preferred option at the time) and (2) all market rate units without any workforce units. The comparison of the two programs demonstrated an insignificant difference between the two scenarios, as the mixed-income scenario proposed only a modest number of workforce units (i.e., 9 workforce units out of 46 total). Because of uncertainty regarding the true impact of the 9 units designated as workforce, including the anticipated rental rates reaching the uppermost income ceiling limit for workforce, in its most recent conversations with staff, TPC has decided to forego designating any residential units as workforce housing.Although CD-2(commercial, medium intensity)and CD-3(commercial, high-intensity)zoning allow apartment hotels, hotels, hostels,and suite Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 19 of 22 hotels as a main permitted use, neither Developer proposes any residential use besides TPC's 43 market rate residential units. TPC has agreed that residential units will not be available for short-term rentals and the term of each residential lease must be for not less than one year. To ensure that the Project's residential units serve their intended purpose and increase the City's rental housing stock for Miami Beach residents, Term Sheets and Leases for both Integra and TPC will prohibit short-term rentals on any Project site. v. Project Construction Phasing and Implications for Project Development The Administration notes that if both Projects are approved by the City Commission and by a majority of the City's voters in the Referendum, construction of the two Projects will likely be phased. Project sequencing will take into account all appropriate factors, including impacts on parking availability in the area and other area impacts such as the construction of the Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel, provided that the City may also make a determination, in its sole, reasonable discretion,that both Projects can reasonably be constructed in tandem or otherwise simultaneously without having an adverse impact on the City's residents, businesses, and visitors. The uncertainty at the present time as to the sequencing of the two Projects may adversely affect development and construction costs for the Projects, and both TPC and Integra have expressed concern with the possibility that their respective Projects will not be first noticed to proceed. The City's determination as to phasing and order of commencement (i) shall be made in the City's sole, reasonable discretion no later than sixty(60)days following official certification of the Referendum results and (ii) shall be final and binding on the Developers with no right of appeal. vi. Preliminary Analysis of Development Impacts Not only will these development projects have lasting impact on the City Center district, but the construction process must be properly planned for and managed because existing City parking facilities will be taken offline during the construction process and development of the Convention Center Hotel is accelerating. Upon authorizing negotiations, the City Commission requested both proposers prepare preliminary, independent analyses for each Project, to address the potential impacts upon (1)traffic, (2) parking, and (3)existing infrastructure, both during construction and upon development, including proposed mitigation strategies. The City Administration continues to review the initial consultant findings that were provided to the City by the Developers on April 13, 2022. Excerpts of these reports are included as Exhibit C and summarized as follows: a. Parking Mitigation — P25 and P26 (Integra) Integra's proposal: Phase 1: convert P26 to valet-only parking to accommodate both P25 and P26's combined parking capacity solely on P26, with Integra to cover the cost of the valet service so the public will continue to pay municipal rates; Phase 2: construct P25's parking pedestal and make all P25 and P26 Replacement Parking spaces available for public self-parking on P25 upon issuance of TCO for the P25 parking component; Phase 3: construction begins on P26 with a priority for obtaining TCO on P26 parking pedestal, while simultaneously completing construction on P25's remaining non-parking components; Phase 4: completion of the parking pedestal on P26 and TCO for the non parking components of P25; in this phase, Replacement Parking is reintroduced at P26 such that Replacement Parking at P25 and P26 will return to pre-development levels; Phase 5: complete construction and TCO for entire P26 building. Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 20 of 22 Administration comments: Integra's proposal maximizes the use of both its Project sites in a phased manner to ensure the continued availability of existing City parking capacity throughout construction on both sites, without the need to displace existing parking capacity to offsite parking facilities. With further discussion and adjustments proposed by the City, this could represent an acceptable strategy. For example, the City would require the proposed valet operation on P26 to utilize the City's contracted valet company and financial commitment from Integra would be necessary to offer the municipal public parking rate at the P26 valet (currently $2 per hour). b. Parking Mitigation — P27 only (TPC) TPC's mitigation strategy proposes three (3) nearby garages including two (2) City facilities: The Lincoln Garage, 1691 Michigan (privately operated), 17th Street Garage/G5, 640 17 Street (City-owned), and Penn Garage/G9, 1661 Pennsylvania Avenue (City- owned). Administration comments: The Parking Department has indicated.that the mitigation • strategy should not rely on the City's other lots or garages and recommended that parking temporarily lost during construction be accommodated via third-party agreements between the developers and private facilities. In addition, as parking revenues must be maintained throughout construction to ensure adequate coverage for the payment of the City's parking bond obligations, the City will need to fund any deficit in the Parking Fund out of the General Fund. Alternatively, TPC could make additional payments to the City during construction to offset the lost parking revenues, but this has not been discussed at this stage of the negotiations. c. Traffic Management—P25, P26, P27 (Integra and TPC) Integra and TPC's proposal: Peak-hour roadway-impact analysis for the surrounding roadway network anticipates a significant impact to Alton Road (significant impact is defined as 5% or more of the roadway's adopted level of service capacity). Administration comments: The submitted analysis does not examine all affected intersections in the vicinity, with no mention of infrastructure needs to support anticipated demand or any multi-modal analysis. Therefore, an improved methodology must be formulated with the Transportation Department during the permitting process to sufficiently address mitigation. d. Civil Engineering Due Diligence— P25, P26, P27 (Integra and TPC) Integra and TPC's proposal: Existing water mains are sufficient for potable water, irrigation, and fire water, with no significant increase in operational demands for the applicable Pump Station PS#01. No determination was possible at this time whether the existing gravity sanitary sewer collection system has sufficient available capacity to handle the developments' anticipated load, but as with all existing infrastructure, the developers commit to repair and replace any obsolete and undersized water, sewer, and stormwater lines, as needed and requested by the City. Administration comments: Once utility connections and anticipated demand are more accurately established via construction documents, the City, in its regulatory capacity, will require water and sewer capacity modeling as part of the building permit process. As is customary for all construction projects in Miami Beach, the City's concurrency regulations will require the Developer to pay for and construct any necessary upgrades and Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 21 of 22 improvements as a condition of the building permit approval, e.g., replacement of all sewer laterals and water services. vii. Operation of the City's Public Parking Replacement Component As negotiated,the City shall operate all Public Parking Replacement Components for each Project, provided that, the City shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to decide that the Developer shall operate the Public Parking Replacement Components if notice is provided to, the Developer by or before sixty (60) days following official certification of the Referendum results. If the City elects to operate the Public Parking Replacement Component, applicable terms will be incorporated into a separate operating agreement. If the City requires Developer to operate the Public Parking Replacement Component, the Developer and the City will negotiate terms such as standards of operation, responsibility for costs and expenses, etc. In all circumstances, the City and Developer stipulate that parking rates for Public Parking Components shall not be higher than the City's then- applicable rates for similar parking facilities. SUPPORTING SURVEY DATA In the 2019 Business Satisfaction Survey, the availability of parking was listed by respondents as the number one barrier to business prosperity in Miami Beach, with 47% of respondents selecting parking among their top choices.The 2019 Resident Satisfaction Survey found that Lincoln Road was the highest-ranking place in the city that residents enjoy visiting, with 60% of residents selecting it among their top choices. FINANCIAL INFORMATION The proposed rental payments and financial terms are detailed in the Analysis section with the proposed annual payments outlined in Exhibit B. The Development Agreement and Ground Lease stipulate that the City will not provide any funding or financing for the Project and the Administration has incorporated additional measures to limit the City's exposure: the City's fee simple interest in the property will not be subordinate to any mortgage, City has first priority right of payment of rent, the loan-to-cost ratio for construction financing and loan-to-value financing for permanent financing shall not exceed 90%, and the Developer must maintain 10% equity in the Project. As concerns the City's necessary costs during negotiations, each developer has executed an agreement pledging to reimburse the City for up to $150,000 for the City's expenses and the City is preparing to begin invoicing each team for these expenses including those for studies and outside counsel. CONCLUSION Subject to direction as to the policy and business issues outlined in this Memorandum,the Administration recommends that the City Commission approve, in concept, the Term Sheet for the Project, and authorize the Administration to continue negotiations and draft the Development Agreement and Ground Lease for the City Commission's consideration. Further, the Administration recommends that the City Commission refer the proposed Project and the foregoing Agreements to the Planning Board for review, in accordance with the requirements of the City Charter and City Code. Lincoln Lane RFP Negotiation Term Sheet-TPC May 4, 2022 Page 22 of 22 Attachments A. Proposed Term Sheets B. Financial Proposals for both Projects C. Preliminary Impacts Analyses i. Public Parking Mitigation Strategy (P25 and P26) ii. Parking Mitigation by Desman Design Management(P27) iii. Traffic Management by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (P25, P26, P27) iv. Civil Engineering Due Diligence by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (P25, P26, P27) D. Project Renderings E. Draft Appraisal Report dated April 26, 2022 EXHIBIT B 1 Financial Proposal P25&P26-INTEGRA(LINCOLN ROAD PROPERTY OWNER,L.P.) SUMMARY(99 years) ASSUMPTIONS Rent/Compensation Present Value Present Value PSF Both LDR and Comprehensive Plan rnendmcnts arc Approved Lot square footage 85,979 Minimum Rent Only $ 23,813,361 $ 276.97 Mnimum Rent increase:2%;no rent resets for pmposes of this model. Puking Spaces 192 Percentage Rent(EGI) $ 35,502,469.03 $ 412.92 Effective Gross Income(EGI)revenue increases 3%per year Parking Revenue/space 54,422.23 Minimumw/Parking $ 42,695,841.81 $ 496.58 Parking revenue increases 1%per year Parking Expense 10% Percentage w/Parking S 54,384,949.97 $ 632.54 Present Value Discount Ratc 5% Parking Growth 1% Percentage rent based on estimates/projections. Parking Revenue Not Included • Parking Revenue included Growth Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% ' Revised ' Guaranteed Percentage Rent Retained City Total City Total City Minimum Rent Present Value (Higher of Minimum Present Value Parking Revenue Compensation Present Value Compensation Present Value Lease Year •(with 2%Growth) Rent or 5%of EGI) (with 1%Growth) (w/Minimum Rent) (w/Percentage Rent) 1 5 2,500,000 $ 23,813,361 $ 2,500,000 $ 35,502,469.03 $ 771,803 S 3,271,803 $ 42,695,841.81 $ 3,271,803 $ 54,384,949.97 2 $ 650,000 S 650,000 S 779,521 S 1,429,521 $ 1,429,521 3 $ 725,000 S 725,000 S 787,316 $ 1,512,316 S 1,512,316 4 $ 725,000 S 725,000 S 795,189 S 1,520,189 S 1,520,189 5 5 750,000 $ 750,000 S 803,141 S 1,553,141 S 1,553,141 6 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 S 811,173 $ 2,061,173 S 2,061,173 7 $ 1,265,000 $ 1,265,000 $ 819,284 S 2,084,284 S 2,084,284 8 $ 780,300 S 980,075 S 827,477 5 1,607,777 $ 1,807,552 9 5 795,906 $ 1,009,477 $ 835,752 $ 1,631,658 5 1,845,229 10 $ 811,824 S 1,039,761 S 844,110 $ 1,655,934 $ 1,883,871 11 $ 828,061 $ 1,070,954 S 852,551 $ 1,680,611 $ 1,923,505 12 $ 844,622 S 1,103,083 $ 861,076 $ 1,705,698 $ 1,964,159 13 $ 861,514 $ 1,136,175 S 869,687 S 1,731,201 S 2,005,862 14 $ 878,745 S 1,170,261 S 878,384 $ 1,757,128 S 2,048,644 15 $ 896,319 5 1,205,368 S 887,168 $ 1,783,487 S 2,092,536 16 $ 914,246 S 1,241,530 $ 896,039 5 1,810,285 S 2,137,569 17 $ 932,531 $ 1,278,775 S 905,000 $ 1,837,530 S 2,183,775 18 $ 951,181 5 1,317,139 $ 914,050 S 1,865,231 $ 2,231,188 19 $ 970,205 $ 1,356,653 S 923,190 S 1,893,395 $ 2,279,843 20 $ 989,609 S 1,397,352 $ 932,422 $ 1,922,031 S 2,329,774 21 $ 1,009,401 5 1,439,273 8 941,746 S 1,951,(48 $ 2,381,019 22 $ 1,029,589 S 1,482,451 S 951,164 $ 1,980,753 S 2,433,615 23 $ 1,050,181 5 1,526,925 $ 960,675 $ 2,010,856 5 2,487,600 24 $ 1,071,185 $ 1,572,732 S 970,282 S 2,041,467 $ 2,543,015 25 $ 1,092,608 S 1,619,914 5 979,985 $ 2,072,593 S 2599,899 26 $ 1,114,461 $ 1,668,512 S 989,785 S 2,104,245 5 2,658,297 27 $ 1,136,750 $ 1,718,367 $ 999,683 $ 2,136,432 S 2,718,250 • 28 $ 1,159,485 S 1,770,124 $ 1,009,679 $ 2,169,164 S 2,779,804 29 $ 1,182,674 S 1,823,228 $ 1,019,776 $ 2,202,451 $ 2,843,004 30 $ 1,206,328 S 1,877,925 $ 1,029,974 S 2,236,302 S 2,907,899 31 $ 1,230,454 $ 1,934,263 S 1,040,274 $ 2,270,728 '$ 2,974,536 32 $ 1,255,064 $ 1,992,290 S 1,050,677 $ 2,305,740 $ 3,042,967 33 $ 1,280,165 S 2,052,059 S 1,061,183 $ 2,341,348 $ 3,113,242 34 $ 1,305,768 $ 2,113,621 $ 1,071,795 $ 2,377,563 $ 3,185,416 35 $ 1,331,884 $ 2,177,030 $ 1,082,513 S 2,414,397 S 3,259,543 36 $ 1,358,521 S 2,242,340 S 1,093,338 S 2,451,859 S 3,335,679 37 $ 1,385,692 $ 2,309,611 $ .1,104272 S 2,489,963 S 3,413,882 38 $ 1,413,405 $ 2,378,899 $ 1,115,314 $ 2,528,720 $ 3,494,213 39 $ 1,441,674 S 2,450,266 $ 1,126,467 5 2,568,141 S 3,576,733 40 S 1,470,507 S 2523,774 $ 1,137,732 $ 2,608,239 $ 3,661,506 41 $ 1,499,917 5 2,599,487 $ 1,149,109 $ 2,649,027 S 3,748,597 42 S 1,529,916 S 2,677,472 $ 1,160,601 S 2,690,516 S 3,838,072 43 S 1560514 $ 2,757,796 $ 1,172,207 $ 2,732,720 5 3,930,002 44 $ 1,591,724 S 2,840,530 $ 1,183,929 $ 2,775,653 $ 4,024,458 45 $ 1,623,559 $ 2,925,746 5 1,195,768. 5 2,819,326 S 4,121,514 46 $ 1,656,030 $ 3,013,518 $ 1,207,726 S 2,863,755 S 4,221,244 47 S 1,689,150 S 3,103,924 S 1,219,803 $ 2,908,953 S 4,323,726 48 $ 1,722,933 S 3,197,041 $ 1,232,001 $ 2,954,934 S 4,429,042 49 $ 1,757,392 S 3,292,953 $ 1,244,321 S 3,001,713 5 4,537,273 50 $ 1,792,540 $ 3,391,741 S 1,256,764 $ 3,049,304 $ 4,648,505 51 $ 1,828,391 S 3,493,493 S 1,269,332 $ 3,097,722 $ 4,762,825 52 $ 1,864,958 S 3,598,298 S 1,282,025 S 3,146,983 $ 4,880,323 53 S 1,902,258 S 3,706,247 S 1,294,845 $ 3,197,103 S 5,001,092 54 $ 1,940,303 S 3,817,434 S 1307,794 $ 3,248,097 $ 5,125,228 55 $ 1,979,109 S 3,931,958 $ 1,320,872 $ 3,299,981 S 5,252,829 56 $ 2,018,691 $ 4,049,916 S 1,334,080 $ 3,352,771 S 5,383,997 57 $ 2,059,065 $ 4,171,414 $ 1,347,421 $ 3,406,486 S 5518,835 58 5 2,100,246 S 4,296,556 S 1,360,895 $ 3,461,142 S 5,657,452 59 $ 2,142,251 S 4,425,453 $ 1,374,504 S 3,516,755 $ 5,799,957 60 $ 2,185,096 $ 4,558216 S 1,388,249 $ 3,573,345 $ 5,946,466 61 $ 2,228,798 S 4,694,963 $ 1,402,132 $ 3,630,930 S 6,097,095 62 $ 2,273,374 S 4,835,812 $ 1,416,153 $ 3,689527 S 6,251,965 63 $ 2,318,841 S 4,980,886 S 1,430,315 S 3,749,156 S 6,411,201 64 $ 2,365,218 S 5,130,313 $ 1,444,618 5 3,809,836 $ 6,574,931 65 $ 2,412,523 S 5,284,222 $ 1,459,064 5 3,871,587 S 6,743,286 66 5 2,460,773 S 5,442,749 $ 1,473,655 $ 3,934,428 S 6,916,403 67 $ 2,509,989 S 5,606,031 $ 1,488,391 S 3,998,380 $ 7,094,422 68 $ 2560,188 S 5,774,212 $ 1,503,275 5 4,063,463 S 7,277,487 69 S 2,611,392 $ 5,947,439 S 1,518,308 S 4,129,700 S 7,465,746 70 5 2,663,620 5 6,125,862 $ 1533,491 S 4,197,111 $ 7,659,353 71 $ 2,716,892 $ 6,309,638 $ 1,548,826 $ 4,265,718 $ 7,858,463 72 $ 2,771,230 S 6,498,927 S 1,564,314 $ 4,335,544 $ 8,063,241 73 $ 2,826,655 $ 6,693,894 $ 1,579,957 $ 4,406,612 $ 8,273,852 74 $ 2,883,188 $ 6,894,711 S 1,595,757 $ 4,478,945 $ 8,490,468 75 $ 2,940,852 5 7,101,553 $ 1,611,714 $ 4,552,566 $ 8,713,267 76 $ 2,999,669 $ 7,314,599 S 1,627,832 $ 4,627,500 $ 8,942,431 77 $ 3,059,662 5 7,534,037 $ 1,644,110 $ 4,703,772 $ 9,178,147 78 $ 3,120,855. $ 7,760,058 $ 1,660,551 $ 4,781,406 S 9,420,609 79 5 3,183`,172 $ 7,992,860 $ 1,677,157 $ 4,860,429 $ 9,670,017 80 $ 3,246,938 S 8,232,646 $ 1,693,928 S 4,940,866 $ 9,926,574 81 $ 3,311,877 S 8,479,625 $ 1,710,867 S 5,022,744 $ 10,190,493 82 $ 3,378,114 S 8,734,014 $ 1,727,976 $ 5,106,090 $ 10,461,990 83 $ 3,445,676 $ 8,996,034 $ 1,745,256 $ 5,190,932 S 10,741,290 84 $ 3,514,590 $ 9,265,915 $ 1,762,708 $ 5,277,298 $ 11,028,624 85 $ 3,584,882 S 9,543,893 $ 1,780,335 $ 5,365,217 $ 11,324,228 86 $ 3,656,579 S 9,830,210 $ 1,798,139 $ 5,454,718 $ 11,628,349 87 $ 3,729,711 S 10,125,116 S 1,816,120 $ 5,545,831 $ 11,941,236 88 $ 3,804,305 $ 10,428,869 $ 1,834,281 $ 5,638,587 $ 12,263,151 89 $ 3,880,391 5 10,741,736 $ 1,852,624 $ 5,733,015 5 12,594,360 90 $ 3,957,999 S 11,063,988 $ 1,871,150 $ 5,829,150 S 12,935,138 91 $ 4,037,159 S 11,395,907 $ 1,889,862 $ 5,927,021 $ 13,285,769 92 $ 4,117,902 $ 11,737,784 S 1,908,761 $ 6,026,663 $ 13,646,545 93 $ 4,200,260 S 12,089,918 5 1,927,848 $ 6,128,108 S 14,017,766 94 $ 4,284,266 $ 12,452,616 S 1,947,127 5 6,231,392 $ 14,399,742 95 $ 4,369,951 $ 12,826,194 $ 1,966,598 $ 6,336,549 $ 14,792,792 96 $ 4,457,350 $ 13,210,980 S 1,986,264 $ 6,443,614 $ 15,197,244 97 $ 4,346,497 $ 13,607,309 $ 2,006,127 S 6,552,623 $ 15,613,436 98 $ 4,637,427 $ 14,015,529 $ 2,026,188 S 6,663,615 $ 16,041,716 99 $ 4,730,175 .$ 14,435,994 $ 2,046,450 $ 6,776,625 $ 16,482,444 Total $ 210,088,9411 $ 470,831,644 S 129,511,121.37 $ 339,600,062.39 $ 600,342,765.68 EXHIBIT B 2 Financial Proposal P27-TPC(Lincoln Road Holdings LLC) SUMMARY(99 years) _ ASSUMPTIONS Rent/Compensation Present Value Present Value PSF Both LOB and Comprehensive Plan Amendments are Approved Minimum Rent Growth Lot square footage 60,972 Minimum Rent Only $ 17,865,109.46 5 293.01 All residential units arc Marko Rare Years 1-5(month 55) 1.50% Parking Spaces 151 Percentage Rent(EGI) $ 25,136.69227 $ 412.27 Minimum Rent increase no rent resets for purposes of this model. Yeses 6-10(month 115) CPI(1.5%up to 2%) Parking Revenue/space 54,42223 Minimum w/Parking $ 32,111289.63 S 526.66 Effective Gross Income(EGI)revenue increases 3%per year Years 11-15(month 175) CPI(1.5%up to 2.5%) Parking Expense 10% Percentage te/Parking 5 39,382,872.44 $ 645.92 Present Value Discount Rate 5%Years 16+(month 235) CPI(1.5%up to 3%) Parking Growth 1% Percentage rent based on estimates/projections. Parking Revenue Not Included Parking Revenue Included • Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate 5% 5% SR 5% Revised Guaranteed Percentage Rent Total City Total City Minimum Rent (Higher of Base or 5% Retained City Compensation Compensation(w/ Lease Year (Market Rate) Present Value _. of EGI) Present Value Parking Revenue. (w/Minimum Rent) Present Value Percentage Rent) Present Value 1 $ - 5 17,865,109.46 $ - S 25,136,692.27 S 619,191.38 $ 619,191.38 $ 32,111,289.63 $ 619,191.38 $ 39}82,872.44 2 $ 2,025,000 $ 2,025,000 $ 521,153 $ 2,546,153 $ 2546,153 3 S 150,000 S 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 4 $ 415,000 S 415,000 $ 318,977 S 733,977 $ 733.977 5 $ 690,200 $ 690200 5 644,333 $ 1,334,533 $ 1,334,533 6 $ 699,690 5 699,690 $ 650,776 $ 1,350,467 $ 1,350,467 7 S 710,186 $ 710,186 $ 657,284 $ 1,367,470 $ 1,367,470 8 5 720,838 S 721,283 $ 663,857 S 1,384,695 $ 1385,140 9 $ 731.651 $ 742,921' $ 670,496 $ 1,402,147 S 1,413,417 10 $ 742,626 $ 765,209 $ 677,200 5 1,419,826 $ 1,442,409 11 $ 753,765 $ 788,165 $ 683,973 $ 1,437,738 S 1,472,138 12 $ 765,072 $ 811,810 $ 690,812 5 1,455,884 $ 1,502,622 13 $ 776548 $ 836,164 $ 697,720 $ 1,474,268 $ 1,533,885 14 S 788,196 $ 861,249 $ 704,698 S 1,492,893 S 1565,947 15 $ 800,019 $ 887,087 $ 711,745 $ 1,511,763 $ 1,598531 16 S 812,019 $ 913,699 $ 718,862 $ 1,530,881 S 1,632,561 17 $ 824,199 S 941,110 $ 726,051 S 1,550,250 $ 1,667.161 18 $ 836,562 S 969,344 S 733,311 $ 1,569,873 $ 1,702,655 19 S 849,111 $ 998,424 $ 740,644 0 1,589,755 5 1,739,068 20 S 861,847 $ 1,028,377 5 748,051 S 1,609,898 $ 1,776,427 21 S 874,775 $ 1,059,228 5 755,531 $ 1,630,306 S 1,814,759 22 $ 887,897 $ 1,091,005 5 763,086 S 1,650,983 S 1,854,091 23 S 901,215 $ 1,123,735 $ 770,717 $ 1,671,933 $ 1,894,452 24 S 914,733 $ 1,157,447 $ 778,425 $ 1,693,158 S 1,935,872 25 S 928,454 $ 1,192,171 5 786,209 5 1,714,663 $ 1,978,379 26 S 942,381 $ 1,227,936 S 794,071 S 1,736,452 S 2,022,006 27 $ 956,517 $ 1,264,774 $ 802,012 S 1,758,529 $ 2,066.785 28 $ 970,865 5 1,302,717 S 810,032 $ 1,780,896 5 2,112,749 29 5 985,428 $ 1,341,798 $ 818,132 $ 1,803560 S 2,159,930 30 $ 1,000,209 $ 1,382,052 S 826,313 $ 1,826,522 5 2208}66 31 $ 1,015,212 $ 1,423,514 S 834,576 S 1,849,789 S 2258,090 32 S 1,030,441 5 1,466,219 $ 842,922 $ 1,873,363 $ 2,309,142 33 $ 1,045,897 S 1,510,206 $ 851,351 $ 1,897,249 S 2,361,557 34 $ 1,061586 $ 1,555,512 $ 859,865 $ 1,921,451 $ 2,415,377 35 $ 1,077,509 $ 1,602,177 $ 868,464 $ 1,945,973 S 2,470,641 36 S 1,093,672 $ 1,650,243 $ 877,148 5 1,970,820 S 2527,391 37 $ 1,110,077 $ 1,699,750 5 885,920 $ 1,995,997 $ 2585,670 38 $ 1,126,728 $ 1,750,743 S 894,779 5 2,021,507 5 2,645521 39 $ 1,143,629 $ 1,803,265 5 903,727 5 2,047}56 $ 2,706,992 40 $ 1,160,784 5 1,857,363 $ 912,764 $ 2,073,548 S 2,770,127 41 S 1,178,195 S 1,913,084 $ 921,892 $ 2,100,087 $ 2,834,975 42 $ 1,195,868 $ 1,970,476 $ 931,111 $ 2,126,979 $ 2,901587 43 $ 1,213,806 $ 2,029,590 S 940,422 $ 2,154,228 $ 2,970,012 44 $ 1,232,013 $ 2,090,478 $ 949,826 $ 2,181,839 S 3,040,304 45 $ 1,250,494 S 2,153,193 $ 959,324 S 2,209,818 S 3,112517 46 S 1,269,251 $ 2,217,788 $ 968,917 $ 2,238,168 $ 3,186,706 47 $ 1,288,290 5 2,284,322 $ 978,607 $ 2,266,896 5 3,262,928 48 S 1,307,614 $ 2,352,852 $ 988,393 5 2,296,007 S 3,341,244 49 $ 1,327,228 $ 2,423,437 $ 998,276 S 2,325,505 5 3,421,714 50 $ 1,347,137 $ 2,496,140 $ 1,008,259 $ 2,355,396 $ 3504,400 51 $ 1,367344 $ 2571,025 $ 1,018}42 $ 2,385,686 5 3589,366 52 $ 1,387,854 $ 2,648,155 S 1,028,525 $ 2,416,379 5 3,676,681 53 $ 1,408,672 $ 2,727,600 $ 1,038,811 $ 2,447,482 $ 3,766,410 54 $ 1,429,802 $ 2,809,428 $ 1,049,199 $ 2,479,000 5 3,858,627 55 $ 1,451,249 $ 2,893,711 $ 1,059,691 $ 2,510,939 S 3,953,401 56 $ 1,473,018 S 2,980,522 $ 1,070,288 5 2,543,305 5 4,050,810 57 S 1,495,113 $ 3,069,938 S 1,080,990 $ 2,576,103 S 4,150,928 58 $ 1,517,540 $ 3,162,036 S 1,091,800 $ 2,609,340 S 4253536 59 $ 1,540,303 $ 3256,897 $ 1,102,718 $ 2,643,021 $ 4}59,615 60 S 1563,407 $ 3,354,604 $ 1,113,745 S 2,677,153 5 4,468,349 61 $ 1586,858 $ 3,455,242 $ 1,124,883 S 2,711,741 S 4580.125 62 5 1,610,661 $ 3,558,899 $ 1,136,132 $ 2,746,793 $ 4,695531 63 $ 1,634,821 $ 3,665,666 $ 1,147,493 $ 2,782,314 $ 4,813.159 64 5 1,659,343 $ 3,775,636 $ 1,158,968 $ 2,818,311 $ 4,934,604 65 $ 1,684,234 S 3,888,905 $ 1,170558 $ 2,854,791 $ 5,059,463 66 $ 1,709,497 $ 4,005572 S 1,182263 $ 2,891,760 $ 5,187,836 67 $ 1,735,140 $ 4,125,740 $ 1,194,086 5 2,929,225 $ 5}19,826 68 $ 1,761,167 $ 4249512 5 1,206,027 5 2,967,193 $ 5,455539 69 $ 1,787584 $ 4,376,997 5 1,218,087 $ 3,005,671 $ 5,595,084 70 $ 1,814,398 5 4,508,307 $ 1,230,268 $ 3,044,666 $ 5,738575 71 5 1,841,614 $ 4,643556 $ 1,242571 $ 3.084,184 $ 5,886,127 72 S 1,869278 5 4,782,863 $ 1,254,996 S 3,124,234 S 6,037,859 73 $ 1,897,277 $ 4,926,349 $ 1,267,546 $ 3,164,823 $ 6,193,895 74 S 1,925,736 $ 5,074,139 $ 1,280,222 $ 3,205,957 5 6,354,361 75 $ 1,954,622 $ 5,226,363 $ 1,293,024 $ 3247,646 5 6519,387 76 S 1,983,941 S 5,383,154 $ 1,305,954 5 3,289,895 S 6,689.109 77 $ 2,013,700 $ 5544,649 $ 1,319,014 $ 3,332,714 S 6,863,663 78 5 2,043,906 $ 5,710,989 $ 1,332,204 $ 3,376,110 $ 7,043,192 79 5 2,074,564 $ 5,882,318 $ 1,345,526 S 3,420,090 $ 7,227,844 80 S 2,105,683 S 6,058,788 $ 1,358,981 $ 3,464,664 $ 7,417,769 81 $ 2,137,268 S 6,240551 $ 1,372,571 5 3,509,839 5 7,613,122 82 $ 2,169,327 $ 6,427,768 $ 1,386,297 5 3,555,624 S 7,814,065 83 $ 2,201,867 5 6,620,601 5 1,400,160 S 3,602,027 S 8,020,761 84 5 2,234,895 5 6,819,219 S 1,414,161 $ 3,649,056 S 8,233,380 85 $ 2,268,418 $ 7,023,796 S 1,428,303 S 3,696,721 $ 8,452,098 86 S 2,302,445 $ 7,234,509 $ 1,442,586 $ 3,745,031 $ 8,677,095 87 $ 2,336,981 $ 7,451,545 S 1,457,012 $ 3,793,993 $ 8,908,556 88 $ 2,372,036 $ 7,675,091 $ 1,471,582 $ 3,843,618 $ 9,146,673 89 5 2,407,617 $ 7,905,144 $ 1,486,298 5 3,893,914 $ 9,391,641 90 S 2,443,731 $ 8,142,504 $ 1,501,161 $ 3,944,891 $ 9,643,665 91 $ 2,480,387 $ 8,386,779 $ 1,516,172 $ 3,996,559 $ 9,902,951 92 $ 2,517,593 $ 8,638,383 $ 1,531,334 $ 4,048,927 S 10,169,717 93 $ 2,555,357 5 8,897,534 $ 1,546,647 $ 4,102,004 S 10,444,181 94 $ 2,593,687 $ 9,164,460 $ 1,562,114 $ 4,155,801 $ 10,726,574 95 $ 2,632592 $ 9,439,394 5 1,577,735 $ 4,210,327 S 11,017,129 96 $ 2,672,081 $ 9,722,576 $ 1,593,512 $ 4,265,593 $ 11,316,088 97 $ 2,712,162 S 10,014,253 $ 1,609,447 $ 4521,610 $ 11,623,700 98 5 2,752,845 S 10,314,680 S 1,625,542 S 4,378,387 $ 11,940,222 99 $ 2,794,137 S 10,624,121 $ 1,641,797 5 4,435,935 $ 12,265,918 Tod $ 145.704,144 S 345,408,801 5 102,847,544 $ 248,551,688 $ 448,256,345 CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES APPRAISAL' REPORT MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS P25 , P26 & P27 1688 LENOX AVENUE MIAMI BEACH , FLORIDA 33139 CBRE FILE NO . CB22US033142 - 1 CLIENT : CITY OF MIAMI BEACH , FLORIDA CBRE VALUATION &ADVISORY SERVICES CBRE 777 Brickell Avenue,Suite 1 100 Miami,FL 33131 T (305)381-6472 www.cbre.com Date of Report: April 26, 2022 Ms. Alina T. Hudak, City Manager CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach,.. Florida 33139 RE: Appraisal of: Municipal Parking Lots P25, P26 & P2- 1688 Lenox Avenue Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida CBRE, Inc. File No. CB22US033142-1 Dear Ms. Hudak: At your request and authorization, CBRE, Inc. ha s¢p7paed an appraisal of the market value of the referenced property. Our analysis is-pr sen eddrn the following Appraisal Report. The subject comprises three (34,43on-contiguous municipal parking lots located one-block north of the Lincoln Road pedestrian<m III infthe South each submarket in Miami Beach, Florida, and identified as follows: ��./��'� 1) Municipal Parki, ,Lo P25\[ocateat 1688 Lenox Avenue is 0.86-acre. 2 Municipal ParkingLot P26 located at 1080 Lincoln Lane North is 1.10-acre. 3) Municipal Parking Lot P27o'cated at 1664 Meridian Avenue is 1.36-acre. As of the effective date of hi's\app aisal, all of the subject properties are zoned GU, Government Use but has all of the location elements & market potential to be redeveloped to a higher & better use, subject to a citywide voter referendum, a comprehensive land use modification and rezoning. In order to achieve the highest & best use, the City of Miami Beach is considering the rezoning of the sites to CD-2, Commercial, Medium Intensity and CD-3, Commercial, High Intensity. Therefore, at the client's specific request, we have estimated the market value As If rezoned to CD-2, Commercial, Medium Intensity and CD-3, Commercial, high Intensity for each of the subject properties. Based on the analysis contained in the following report, the market value of the subject property As If rezoned to CD-2, Commercial, Medium Intensity and CD-3, Commercial, High Intensity, which is a hypothetical condition as of the effective date of this report, is concluded as follows: ©2022 CBRE,Inc. April 26, 2022 Page 2 MARKET VALUE CONCLUSION Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Date of Value Value Conclusion Municipal Parking Lot P25 As If Rezoned CD-2&CD-3 Fee Simple Estate April 12,2022 $26,000,000 Municipal Parking Lot P26 As If Rezoned CD-3 Fee Simple Estate April 12,2022 $33,600,000 Municipal Parking Lot P27 As If Rezoned CD-3 Fee Simple Estate April 12,2022 $39,000,000 Compiled by CBRE The report, in its entirety, including all assumptions and limiting conditions, is an integral part of, and inseparable from, this letter. The following appraisal sets forth the most pertinent data gathered, the techniques employed, and the reasoning leading to the opinion of value. The analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed based on, and this report has been prepared in conformance with, the guidelines and recommendations set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Stan ards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. /\ The intended use and user of our report are specifically identified in ur report as agreed upon in our contract for services and/or reliance language found'in the r port, As a condition to being granted the status of an intended user, any intended�ser who has not entered into a written agreement with CBRE in connection with its use of\uce 'Ai agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement between CBRE and the ollent who ordered the report. No other use or user of the report is permitted by any 'they part?fo aany other purpose. Dissemination of this report by any party to any non-intendeds ers does not>extend reliance to any such party, and CBRE will not be responsible for any una\tho,i ed.,Vuse of or reliance upon the report, its conclusions or contents (or any porti/ ereof). It has been a pleasure to assist y/' in the assignment: If you have any questions concerning the analysis, or if CBRE can be of fu;h`ecs ice,_plee- se contact us. Respectfully submitted,/Th </"------\\I CBRE -VALUATION &ADVISORY SERVICES 0. 4„0,,h-ii 6, ieticlioi Stuart J. Lieberman, MAI Kristin B. Repp, MAI Vice President Managing Director—South Florida Cert Gen RZ1074 Cert Gen RZ2454 www.cbre.com/stuart.lieberman www.cbre.com/kristin.repp Phone: (305) 381-6472 Phone: (813) 868-8001 Email: stuart.lieberman@cbre.com Email: jkristin.repp@cbre.com ©2022 CBRE, Inc. CBRE Certification Certification We certify to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are our personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. We have no present or prospective interest in or bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest in or bias with respect to the parties involved with this assignment. 4. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 5. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value thafavors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use ofvis"p-aisal. 6. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and th s report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Prof ssion I Appraiscq jPractice, as well as the requirements of the State of Florida. 7. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions`we�-e developed, and this report has been P Y p � p p prepared, in conformity with the requiklents of\iste, Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice oft e-Appraisal Institute. 8. The use of this report is subject to the requiremen s f`the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized represen>t"ves. 9. As of the date of this report/St art Lieberman; MAI and Kristin Repp, MAI have completed the continuing education progrart\forDDD esigriat`e'd7Members of the Appraisal Institute. 10.Stuart Lieberman, MAI-h rs-and\Kr'istin Repp, MAI has not made a personal inspection of the property that is the ruble oof this re rt. 11.No one providedsignificant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report. ) 12.Valuation & Advisory Servicefoperates as an independent economic entity within CBRE, Inc. Although employees of other CBRE, Inc. divisions may be contacted as a part of our routine market research investigations, absolute client confidentiality and privacy were maintained at all times with regard to this assignment without conflict of interest. 13.Stuart Lieberman, MAI and Kristin Repp, MAI have not provided any services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding agreement to perForm this assignment. (7::) ,.(4.41L/ LRi-ppi Stuart J. Lieberman, MAI Kristin B. Repp, MAI Cert Gen RZ1074 Ceti Gen RZ2454 ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Subject Photographs Subject Photographs . Municipal Parking,L'ott.P25, P26+&P27 ' i 1 , E - , '' ''`• , t i C 1)1688 Lenox•Avenue '. - '`tPF Fy ,I 2)1080 Lincoln Lane No/th ` �} jc_}yx- '9 I 3)1664 MendlanAvenue. -�- t y ? r 4ti)ta_� ('" ,. iMiaml Beach FL33139 ' > ® 124,® - } + .i y to ,'" .14 .IV +e t 1 tr,.;-41 ' `' �� A'• I t �M )` o i F^r I, Insi. &&Et! tg, ! n` 1 ._ r'C t� ~L— C` = 1 I ";> '+1 SS4aF =1 �.IS1 ,9r ' _ ram. q '.'? S Y' - "�c)�., It i t I, 4 ,, it " I' :libt •L'f.."-'•,---- - -7,1.„,,1,,,..--•••-744'..--'-'•'•}; T. , . _ f 96: • 47"--'.1--t-i-t'..:''''''''-'''''''-'1,,:',.., :I:„,,, sal r7. E Z - [ dial i i ( t f`a r •+y ..„put 7 4!.---, ""f `TH i. »� s .�_ c ' t�F %.,, ..f a u......y 11 [" 1 ' 1, �'' I -..er a Ila_.f - ". ,� S�..a:. - 7.44 .;t„ 14, 7•14Y±� • f�7..Set7,° t, �.T'. .7 Q 4 env S t, 1 1 D. IT,4f....l.,1 r i� <t yt i � R j'af>--C` i�. � '' s� 't� jt ai• •1r,*s� yul _ .ri` r, s t St „,,� 41 '�7 +• _Gc.-Gv�yr_"' tom ' ezr.•r��, . ,a,+'I • !T4" 1� }.• "r - ° ( N, ti �p�ec ty nr, nru �'RPIP.,s } L IIII['! �. F-.—T`:.'Rf: f �.t ..L� xSQ._�W twr (\ry • IAerial View ' • t`©2022 CBRE,Inc, CBRE Subject Photographs - , ,,-4 - . „I:to •.-04,, ,,,,. • tr",,... ( .....-.. - • ;-. , , 'L,,,, - ' ,‘.,,K'-',;,,-. ..„ --,„)•_;‘,-, . . ; •‘..,, „, _ -' - 1.°-, •t A ' 11;r17:4 !,iS.:17: Iii... k:'1,,, ''.', ..:..„--.., '•.::. !*':ii.a7f;:;';' ::: 7 , , ,,,,.............,p,s_i___..... . .A.,„•,74e,..Li , •• ••:11 ""•,, ; ,,,;I-CL.s, •tt..,•,*•• • I.74.. : R . . ..r \.7. I ,I,-:,,,,...„4 , ,--..-,,--;\,:.9.:..-i.;',,',.-1,,,,,..;; .„....„: ' . • ' .„ • •••-1.. teJSIC:4_ , • ••• •'61“ '''' T'. '' .P.'r .•%': 1 ;--;44'...?. ..;•'''.''''''''l , ' 1 '! ... '.. : . : Sali114. -• 7-i`.-....d.-...1 ..,----4 ..)r • 1-, 'Er i - .• .,--_ .,.., -....,- -:--,:,, •. • , •q-..... ,,„.. lite:z .„ i __... ......--- -,,,...„../. ..-. - - ,„ i = -,....... ...,_ 4, 7_•-ri,- - ,a ,.; li* . • . 2 -1; .-:..•- ,'' .---alm----,---.' -,,,(-•• ---- _, 1 ---s.,.: •- .1,- -_ i — ---- --_ ----- - . AMINS1111"-----;----- ----- --'--?-4:--- z-,•=z ---. .-------- ------ __. -___ •_=____--7—.... --—,------,.... ....- —_----- , ..,..-..r. ,---_-_------ 1411k4Vlt„,, . . . r_ - .... i . ., . . - / Photo 1 - Municipal Lot P25 Photo 2 - Municipal Lot P25 'NI ' . " .'.•,.:A: ' "" :i t11) •,'. ;• • 111- . "...„'=tr.- '-; •- '',/ ' ZL'"- '4441:'44.41-'0.624.1, .`1..° :..''';' • , ' • , •,4)°:‘, t,-_,. ;Lc'. -''.4,'`. .,'..._,.. ,•:',.1.-,,.. ,\',......., /b. * i•-• *„, 1.-f-',, ; ' -:,- . .- ,,- tr,.1.2,-Ve,„(.:441e4,•, 's' `',..'' ','''' ;. ",,.d:'" ''' -'T.,' ' -i . - '''.--'74.!::' '` ',...-V --" -•• N A ' ' ''' ''' 4 ''• 1 '''t•-'•.-, ..7.1 kip*'''• .• . ' '.A...„ . ° 4.1 •. '' ' ''.W.1,'''t'0•O'' '•' • .; ..."•-•W'''t•. . ' • '-:•4,471.. .'14 i t':5' • .„.•.• ...,4),..,.. feit Vi- ''9.''',1`..' ' 1:it',''.'''.1,•' ,*',*,••"• k . ..,- I,-d''., '‘. ..a.:7:a.it)::-..q.4 .. • ••3,iM& • i•nt4i,tigji .,• ., ..,....''"•_,'''.. r: OW , 'Le,44 .... ''....._,_ -',52. , ,... :::. 4, , ''.^ ' ' i• ;7•404V., 1 s'.'!"7:45Cr -4'--- LI" .1 - ,•,'.41-',,,,.14--..."••,--,- 4 h P 04.1Pr. ' • -,..i_a it."' LAV -- .2, 5..ve .4-Lc:41 „. - 'Ai hh' t• e A ' . • , Os:- ••....m„,".' ' '..•.... 'It. 0 -2- ' t* =•-••\: '' ' .4,--'4''M., I V li• ...,''''' • . 1;. l' 4''' '' 9 -'17..Cif:...,..,,,e.a :, L --=• •-•• •'•,::.,.-.. t.:. .7.;,.._, . .\,; -..e....0", -, ,..1,--,c-r..L''.„,•".1 , :1,,L v _ '`...1:..:',icsr.i. 'Illek,,,,iiii_s" ,L,'. i...- -..t... .,....`r-, _ .4.,,L. ,, -,-,..._ ,t,—.. •4.tri._,.. . t ,1111 •E 1...e.e.,:t.L1,..... ..1. , Q . ,:,.., '- "k''' •.--'4 . i "---"•'- ---;A:Pd.; ''. ' ' ',-- V'''''' , ---.4s0. ---- .-.---- --- " /- -''''''' -..? = --___-...-= --_ - e• , ,,._ .;,-- ;----140., Imi .., .---7-- . _ _ _... __,_„,. ,_ - - --;,.../ _ - , __;.... ......., ___ ..T-'" -7;.:, .'1 % - -.-- --AV' •;::''' - - 7.',- -- • -,,--------!-- /f'/,f -."-- --,---4---,.-----,'-'•.,-;- / • -' '-',--,',_-7,7'2--.:'..,. .".§C •%.,, .-;--- K\\*. Photo 3 - P25 Interior View Photo 4 - Lenox Avenue Looking South \\/1 • . • I 1101.• ---. , • iI•F-----= .,,--z-,---•.,., -7--,,-_---.......1,_..,..,. ./.•.-,,.,,--,,..-1---.,...,-,,.,.. i 1 6•Ii•,„i•i1••I1IAs'.I1,1 41 ,1 i.1v..-A-•b.'t. - 1 .. ' ..,.,„, .., _ _ •-' ..., - _ `.. , ,,,-.1?,:f5 T ,..._...„,-,-.."f.,,-' - „ .. ,••-•.....1,,,,,-Le.... .,.,,,,,......r.T.,r— --,---.... ..,. , °'( lt. -•-?",_&,,',s-,7...... -- - - • , , ,,. „ ,, .• -•:.,r, -.,„:,.•, 1,x 1, '-,.. I. ,-- — ' il '---4, . ` 'd ;:- ' '''' '••'1 7,--,eff•-••••.." •••-•,••!r•t'' ..L,,,-t•-•;,L •••.... . t:• •• • -;I. ''-' ''. ---.;:r. -t". 47.' -f• .'1., ,c., ,,e.--.7 ‘,1-4-7--:,-- --_. . -----: - ::.____ --___:-- --5._-_ opopF,bc, i_v..,_•_;--r--:,.,- ,11,-.._ -- ...: - ,.. _- ---__ .. --, _.....,_ --- - --__ - • = ,..___ -- -_- -._ .. ._. _- , • ______________ __::____,___ ... _ _ - _„.. . , - _- - • Photo 5 - Munici•al Lot P26 Photo 6 - Munici.al Lot P26 ... ©2022 CBRE, Inc. CBRE . , , _......... --, -..---; Subject Photographs _ . . . . , . , .... /...- . ,;4,: .0_11[... r-1.--••••-•'"- • ,. •- : • c •••I' '- . IF:'. .--,,,,,,“,••••••• -. ,, • . r.i I t I '• ^ 'i .: i ': ! : ,t..#--,/,-,, I I.'• ••1,4::: :'-''' '.- .; . %.; , -' 111014 1 , 1.1 , .: 1 [is 1,. „,,,,,,d44-4,:::„-Ik..:-.-(•, .,,,..4... 4 '' ,I.:,,,,•—•)",.,.....,:v,,',‘..‘•,... .),I.,,t,t„_ ZS-::-.7^,•-•-• ... ilibj ,• i ' I ', I ;I.I, I1T ' ,, WI:eri•••./•;r"?...' ' - ,A• ',....,„-.1 , , : ...\-k , ,. g 7,„, ,,,...-0,I!I. i 1'e,/I.lei•-.41-A '''Li}/fis,li '.•I.iII;WILY i7oi"44'6.'''''''.-"e"...!-`,'--:.fe, - . 11.--,,-- ;....4. ...14,LI;tyL..r... .I.,..•i i,I'I'•.•,•0.I. 4.. i,....."Ct..9 4,,,. ,,-.I.X .-• . _. ' ' : ,•-•.:'I':' ' . ' ' ' I 4:. .1),f-tiltiw .- •14; •,'1,;---- *4,..,`,1. ' •1 . . ',f-'1*::',". .*.„': -.1. --'''-.:1 n " . ‘111:.,:ik11,;• T" 'II F.L.: 4,...-er,.. ".et•';`---...1.,-,-. . t . -. -,. %,.t.- . ,,.. •-- {.. , ....'k ' '. . ,..—'441 ‘t:r,...il 7 • II':1 f;r-et 44-ir---.7- ,11% 1.1” Vi 1 •. oaf:. ...... ..... .. . _- . _. I ,., ,,,„„,....... i . . . ,,--- ...... _ -tt :''';;•.--..' . :-.J.71111',-"Wr*",_).4.-ttl.V k. _.0ZAWK, . ' .-7x.,„'s - - 2.------. E'1,..-- .....1-' t' -- ,.._•,,, ...,0"'• --'_ - _ ---;7 7 ,,'-‘ ----•I, .....,1 r.., '' • - ........"-.. - —.- - ..---•.----7,-,-,.:::>,.:, .. ..., ,,,,,,,..... .. . , , __, - , -- • --,-7'. 7 .--,,,,,,-- . , .7'..., 'L.7..7..-i •".:.'' .'- ,..•''/.174,Y '''''' 7 r . ••.7 'n,', 1:' -.....,77 .. // Photo 7 - Michigan Avenue Looking North Photo 8 -Michigan Avenue Looking South ,., 2 I . -. ,. . .--• ------., - -. 7..z---i..-• -----.,":',-.,.;.::;-.17;;;-7 — lw .4....101. ,,_...,..,•,,,,, ..( _. i ....--74-_...... ..----: -......... '-.-- -r7117/' 'I.- ''' --- 1- r•I''4 %.nt 1M321:1 ' 10..'.1, ==.-M •"ii - ••,, 4,, ?. „ —*. :, 1 I.0 C. ' ....7TITY:r7r....• • • '."Ni . '' •ft. '":..,=,, t.i,,, ,•. '1,i,• """ _. - .,-,A-r •,),...,- ---: 34:f.`• ' air! 27 . ii,p, r...,.1. ,.- --, 1/1,. • --- 1 ' .....--- .-------- — (.. -• ---,--. ,,_____ .7„,__.: ,s, • _. • : ...,, s_qv-7-- , ---- - _:-.-- - : -- _ '•,_'',.7"...i.......-77------. . ,, -1 - .. , — - : . .... • - --- , , i - .......... . .. . . _.._ — . . _ IT' Photo 9 -Municipal Lot P27 Photo 10 -Municipal Lot P27 \\//1 . -.4,.....',"`;-C14.4..' •'. '• ,,,,,".%:,,, -^..54.14„,...413.:11 , '•,,I..,,•••- •,-..4i•.•I,J.k%0.7it IiVni,:::!••• -•:, , . .: •. 414:,,,,Z•I,'T•171Xy '4,4,:t---.:-.1. -r.'t':;\' .4:-.. ,- . , . ',10' ''*'r t' i ....;1,.-..e.'.. , •,. -,, ..t,-;',y,,',.-. - ..„ I''•• ..1,, „ •4"*.“-s.-til,Yd. ..,V„'-,s,,,,,--,,,,, .„,,.i.,...71,7,...,.., .,-:, -,:,-... ,.,',,,-.4:,,,;,',.,•'.._:'.-„R;;;;44,,,,,,. ,.,,,f,)'..-, .0.1.,- : ; ' 7_,,,,,;,;.,,n4','r• .. 1 ' ''',..''. %,1‘..,4 ier.t....:f."...4t :'',4' *a: . ..: .. :... '..S., .' ''.''',',,i''''.4.'. '.4'' . ,.)0'....:' '4.t1 t;f2Y.Ir: r 3i.: ' ''J : ;"'..'' ..'. . ''''' '' ,1:13-f.-*"...-41'..•Iri,'CF..:.7,4, '• - • ' .;•',,,v,t6 ,.., .-'-' 44.4', '•.••''..1•;',,, ,.,-...,4,1,..II W,- .41" t,•..• I.;-, I '...•-•-•-•.-1......k. . . .........^-,„III,11241t:I-.41-. 14,I'',1•:.'";4, • •-'-.4...; ., •• ' 4• •L' • --"3 •••Wpr•••')...-••?•-i.44,, " .4, '-, -4,...•11,1(4• t --I.'.- •ip,,IrA• "''-,.,,i7,4.,•4a.:-..- '. e-,... . •.., .....- i.,... I::t• •. ;‘•w' .11 'T A - ,'`-.-- • •,4„,„..„!...t.: • !t.,;,,.....,:... , ,..,- - ['"- , , .. i. , 7 ..:....i-ef..1.,..7.. c4..,.., , * .>"e,„, , ..,. er,:. i:-..• ,r ...t4 .tc'--- . ,.--..rit..V. ...,:-..:- ...„...- .c a . 4: .._:__ I A, -- , .. 1- 4- ..:01-. • .i.,i ri .0. 6; 1 .- •,-E-1;:',1.1-..,„;;#,.-.ti-ii(A1V.‘w7I-Ft --- ' gi -... , - '.1 , ii 1.06.4, t Ali ',...•'17`0,t,It./- - ' ;— ...i.jr A %.,i't• '- ••-.- r ..-; :,_ ;,., ,ts_., - r t.-•, ..:.1' 111,..—ir,o,,,,, -. tlit i. ,i,,\'\ • ro, --;i - -. • ' ---------- ,.... -_'---ii... !, 1,tt: lv,1....--- -, .- :• 1 4 ..) 4......., i .- .. . - nammir, ; .,-Ltt;••• - -v 1 • - •....---„.--=.,--..L.,,..-,....--,-7-•. ,,' , „_________ --- -- ' , --,-- ' ,_--, , ..., ..-•-- ,, . '--:'Yrtik4.7"----,- ...,.. :;1"4'. '''^:.'.. :4',:t-1;.,.':''. '''-•''-7.1.6.-1'"Ts*"...,-..41IN ,I V'' \....•- 1,4 .r.„ cr ,.,-, , . .tc . , :' , -',..,;,', - ,':•41-''.*... 7:/_.• tVi,','" ' ' ,. . _ ; -it-L.- . Photo 1 1 Meridian Avenue Lookin• South Photo 12 -Jefferson Avenue Looking South Iv CBRE ©2022 CBRE, Inc. Executive Summary Executive Summary Property Name Municipal Parking Lots P25,P26&P27 Location 1688 Lenox Avenue 1080 Lincoln Lane North 1664 Meridian Avenue Miami Beach,Miami-Dade County,FL 33139 Client City of Miami Beach,Florida Highest and Best Use As If Vacant Mixed-use retail,hotel,office&multi-family apartments As Improved Interim use off-street parking with mixed-use redevelopment opportunities Property Rights Appraised Fee Simple Estate Date of Inspection April 12,2022 Estimated Exposure Time 3- Months Estimated Marketing Time 3,/9 Months Land Area-P25 0.86 AC 37,454 SF Land Area-P26 1.10 AC 48,000 SF Land Area-P27 31 6 AC 59,273 SF Existing Zoning-P25,P26&P27 ,GU,Government Use District Proposed Zoning-P25 CD-2,Commercial,Medium Intensity District Proposed Zoning-P25,P26&P27 CD 3,Commercial,High Intensity District Buyer Profile Developer VALUATION Total Per SF Market Value As If P25 Is Rezoned On pril 12,2022 Cost Approach Not Applicable Sales Comparison Approach $26,000,000 $694.18 Income Capitalization Approach Not Applicable Market Value As If P26 Is Rezoned On April 12,2022 Cost Approach Not Applicable Sales Comparison Approach $33,600,000 $700.00 Income Capitalization Approach Not Applicable Market Value As If P27 Is Rezoned On April 12,2022 Cost Approach Not Applicable Sales Comparison Approach $39,000,000 $657.97 Income Capitalization Approach Not Applicable --- CONCLUDED MARKET VALUE Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Date of Value Value Municipal Parking Lot P25 As If Rezoned CD-2&CD-3 Fee Simple Estate April 12,2022 $26,000,000 Municipal Parking Lot P26 As If Rezoned CD-3 Fee Simple Estate April 12,2022 $33,600,000 Municipal Parking Lot P27 As If Rezoned CD-3 Fee Simple Estate April 12,2022 $39,000,000 Compiled by CBRE V ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Executive Summary STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS (SWOT) Strengths/ Opportunities • The subject properties are located within one-block of the Lincoln Road pedestrian mall. • The subject submarket is a built-out, barrier island & resort community. • Potential to rezone all of the subject sites to high density, mixed-uses with in-demand live- work lifestyle environments. • The South Florida and Miami Beach real estate market is very active as high net worth individuals, celebrities, domestic & foreign investors, hedge fund advisors, local, regional & national developers and "star" architects seek out mixed-use development opportunities for boutique hotels, retail, restaurant, entertainment & office projects. • Historically low interest rates and unprecedented government stimulus in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. • The State of Florida and Miami-Dade County are considered to be one of the most open & active business communities in the wake of the pandemic. Weaknesses/Threats ,,�� • Highly-paid remote work is spreading faster than some ee/xpe s anticipated, with about 24% of all professional job postings advertising remote work, thereby ducing work-from-work office demand at a macro level. • The Covid-19 pandemic and re-occurring coronaus variants continue to impact international travel and buyer/investor opportunities • The Russia invasion of Ukraine is likely t'c eate mutiple economic obstacles for American businesses and consumers including un ertainty in,the stock market, increased fuel costs and broader supply chain issues. All of which �iJ ipact normal business operations and impact economic growth. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIO S An extraordinary assumption-is defined as "an assignment-specific assumption as of the effective �-- \ \ . date regarding uncertaininformation u d in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser's opinio or conclusions." • Our value conclusions assu/me stable geotechnical subsurface conditions and no environmental hazards or concerns. If there are any unstable subsurface conditions and-or environmental deficiencies or concerns, our value conclusions could be impacted and we reserve the right to amend or revise this report accordingly. • The use of these extraordinary assumptions may have affected the assignment results. HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS A hypothetical condition is defined as "a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results but is used for the purposes of analysis." 2 1 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP,2020-2021 (Effective January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022) vi ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Executive Summary • As of the effective date of this appraisal, the subject is zoned GU, Government Use but has all of the location elements & market potential to be redeveloped to a higher & better use, subject to a citywide voter referendum, a comprehensive land use modification and rezoning. In order to achieve the highest & best use, the City of Miami Beach is considering the rezoning of the sites to CD-2, Commercial, Medium Intensity and CD-3, Commercial, High Intensity. Therefore, at the client's specific request, we have estimated the subject's market value As If rezoned to CD-2, Commercial, Medium Intensity and CD-3, Commercial, High Intensity, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of this appraisal. • The use of these hypothetical conditions may have affected the assignment results. OWNERSHIP AND PROPERTY HISTORY Title to the subject property is vested to the City of Miami Beach, a municipal government. CBRE is unaware of any arm's length ownership transfers of the pro ►p within three-to-five years of the date of appraisal. Further, the properties are not report//I.y being offered for sale as of the current date. However, the City Commission has authorized nego i ions with proposers for the development of mixed-use development on the subjec(properties. Thole negotiations consist of v two (2) projects including a ground lease and dev�p nf"greement with one proposer for a project on Lots P25 & P26 together; and a second proposer for a ground lease and mixed-use development agreement for a project on Lo P2.7, subject to a citywide voter referendum, a comprehensive land use modification and re?o ing. -N)) \ EXPOSURE/MARKETING TIME . Current appraisal guidelines require an�esttm`te-o a reasonable time period in which the subject could be brought to market ndd sold. This reasonable time frame can either be examined historically or prospectively. Ina\isto ical analysis, this is referred to as exposure time. Exposure time always precede ` e date oft lue, with the underlying premise being the time a property would have been on the\�m\a rket prJi r to the date of value, such that it would sell at its appraised value as of the date of val'uOn a prospective basis, the term marketing time is most often used. The exposure/marketing t ime is a function of price, time, and use. It is not an isolated estimate of time alone. In consideration of these factors, we have analyzed the following: • exposure periods for comparable sales used in this appraisal; • exposure/marketing time information from the PwC Real Estate Investor Survey; and • the opinions of market participants. The following table presents the information derived from these sources. 2 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2020-2021 (Effective January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022) vii ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Executive Summary EXPOSURE/MARKETING TIME DATA Exposure/Mktg. (Months) Investment Type Range Average Comparable Land Sales Data 5.0 - 18.0 5.1 PwC Suburban Office National Data 1.0 - 15.0 7.0 Local Market Professionals 3.0 - 9.0 6.0 CBRE Exposure Time Estimate 3 - 9 Months CBRE Marketing Period Estimate 3 - 9 Months Various Sources Compiled by CBRE <(:) . "` ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Table of Contents Table of Contents Certification Subject Photographs ii Executive Summary v Table of Contents • ix Scope of Work 1 Area Analysis 6 Neighborhood Analysis 12 Site Analysis 27 Zoning 31 Tax and Assessment Data 37 Market Analysis .` 39 Highest and Best Use v48 4.7/ Land Value —Municipal Parking Lot P25 49 Land Value —Municipal Parking Lot P26 \\ r' 56 Land Value—Municipal Parking Lot P27 59 Reconciliation of Value 62 Assumptions and Limiting Condition 63 ADDENDA A Land Sale Data Sheets B Legal Descriptions C Client Contract Info mation D Qualifications `X©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Scope of Work Scope of Work This Appraisal Report is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2 of USPAP. The scope of the assignment relates to the extent and manner in which research is conducted, data is gathered, and analysis is applied. INTENDED USE OF REPORT This appraisal is to be used by the client for internal decision making and to negotiate a long term ground lease and development agreement for the subject site and no other use is permitted. CLIENT The client is City of Miami Beach, Florida, municipal government. INTENDED USER OF REPORT This appraisal is to be used by City of Miami Beach, Florida, mu•icicipal government. No other user(s) may rely on our report unless as specifically indicate d in this report. Intended users are those who an appraiserK inte_nas will use the appraisal or review report. In other words, appraisers acknowledge\t the outset of the assignment that they are developing their expert opinions for the`use of the intended users they identify. Although the client provids'infor ation ciI out the parties who may be intended users, ultimately it is-,tbe appraiser who decides who they are. This is an important point to be cle yabou#: The client does not tell the appraiser who the intended users will be. Rather, the client\tlls the appraiser who the client needs the report to be speaking`to, an,digiven that information, the appraiser identifies the • intended user or users.\ s important to identify intended users because an appraiser's prirf ry re ponsibjlity� regarding the use of the report's opinions and conclusions isrto those users. Intended users are those parties to whom an appraiser is responsible for\communicating the findings in a clear and understandable manner. They are the audience. a RELIANCE LANGUAGE Reliance on any reports produced by CBRE under this Agreement is extended solely to parties and entities expressly acknowledged in a signed writing by CBRE as Intended Users of the respective reports, provided that any conditions to such acknowledgement required by CBRE or hereunder have been satisfied. Parties or entities other than Intended Users who obtain a copy of the report or any portion thereof (including Client if it is not named as an Intended User), whether as a result of its direct dissemination or by any other means, may not rely upon any opinions or conclusions contained in the report or such portions thereof, and CBRE will not be responsible for 3 Appraisal Institute,The Appraisal of Real Estate, 15th ed. (Chicago:Appraisal Institute, 2020),40. ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Scope of Work any unpermitted use of the report, its conclusions or contents or have any liability in connection therewith. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject properties As If rezoned to CD-2, Commercial, Medium Intensity and CD-3, Commercial, High Intensity uses. DEFINITION OF VALUE The current economic definition of market value agreed upon by agencies that regulate federal financial institutions in the U.S. (and used herein) is as follows: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by/ due stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified da nd`t e passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised, an acting in what they consider their own best interests; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposu in,the open market; 4. payment is made in terms of cash in U,�d Ihars�-or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. the price represents the ��la c}ohsidera n for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing ors leq s concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. INTEREST APPRAISED \c----- The value estimated „represents Fee Simple-Estate as defined below: Fee Simple Estate=Absolute,ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to t ;limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police,,power and escheat.5 Leased Fee Interest - The ownership interest held by the lessor, which includes the right to receive the contract rent specified in the lease plus the reversionary right when the lease expires. 6 Leasehold Interest - The tenant's possessory interest created by a lease. ' 4 Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines; December 10, 2010, Federal Register, Volume 75 Number 237, Page 77472. 5 Appraisal Institute,The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 7'h ed. (Chicago:Appraisal Institute, 2022), 90. 6 Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 128. 7 Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 128. 2 CBRE ©2022 CBRE, Inc. Scope of Work Extent to Which the Property is Identified The property is identified through the following sources: • postal address • assessor's records • legal description Extent to Which the Property is Inspected Stuart Lieberman, MAI inspected the interior and exterior of the subject, as well as its surrounding environs on the effective date of appraisal. This inspection was considered adequate and is the basis for our findings. Type and Extent of the Data Researched CBRE reviewed the following: • applicable tax data • zoning requirements • flood zone status • demographics • comparable sale & listing data Type and Extent of Analysis Applied CBRE, Inc. analyzed the data gathered throuug the use ofappropriate and accepted appraisal methodology to arrive at a probable value indicationvia each applicable approach to value. For vacant land, the sales comparison ch has been employed for this assignment. STATEMENT OF COMPETENC Stuart Lieberman, MAI and—K is in Repp, MAI both have has the appropriate knowledge, education and experience to complete this assignment competently. \V///) 3 CBRE ©2022 CBRE, Inc. Scope of Work Data Resources Utilized'in the Analysis DATA SOURCES Item: Source(s): Site Data Size Legal descriptions and surveys Improved Data • Building Area "As of right"zoning No. Bldgs. Not applicable Parking Spaces Not applicable Year Built/Developed TBD Economic Data Deferred Maintenance: Not applicable Building Costs: Not applicable Income Data: Not applicable Expense Data: Not applicable Compiled by CBRE /7/ APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY In appraisal practice, an approach to value is included or omitted based,,- n its applicability to the property type being valued and the quality and quantityof ormation available. Depending on a specific appraisal assignment, any of the following fouriethods may be used to determine the market value of the fee simple interest of land. • Sales Comp„c ison Approach, • Income Capitalization Procedures; Allocation; and •\ . tLon. The following summaries of each methodac are paraphrased from the text. The first is the sales comparison parison approach. This is a process of analyzing sales of similar, recently sold parcels i der to de/lye an indication of the most probable sales price (or value) of the property being appraissed./ The reliability of this approach is dependent upon (a) the availability of comparable sales data, (b) the verification of the sales data regarding size, price, terms of sale, etc., (c) the degree of comparability or extent of adjustment necessary for differences between the subject and the comparables, and (d) the absence of nontypical conditions affecting the sales price. This is the primary and most reliable method used to value land (if adequate data exists). The income capitalization procedures include three methods: land residual technique, ground rent capitalization, and Subdivision Development Analysis. A discussion of each of these three techniques is presented in the following paragraphs. The land residual method may be used to estimate land value when sales data on similar parcels of vacant land are lacking. This technique is based on the principle of balance and the related concept of contribution, which are concerned with equilibrium among the agents of production--i.e. labor, capital, coordination, and land. The land 4 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Scope of Work residual technique can be used to estimate land value when: 1) building value is known or can be accurately estimated, 2) stabilized, annual net operating income to the property is known or estimable, and 3) both building and land capitalization rates can be extracted from the market. Building value can be estimated for new or proposed buildings that represent the highest and best use of the property and have not yet incurred physical deterioration or functional obsolescence. The subdivision development method is used to value land when subdivision and development represent the highest and best use of the appraised parcel. In this method, an appraiser determines the number and size of lots that can be created from the appraised land physically, legally, and economically. The value of the underlying land is then estimated through a discounted cash flow analysis with revenues based on the achievable sale price of the finished product and expenses based on all costs required to complete and sell the finished product. The ground rent capitalization procedure is predicated u on the assumption that ground rents can be capitalized at an appropriate rate)o ndicate the market value of a site. Ground rent is paid for the right to use and oc/cOosy the land according to the terms of the ground lease; it corresponds to the value'of the landowner's interest in the land. Market-derived capitalization rates are us4to conver#'roound rent into market value. This procedure is useful when an analysis of comparable\sales of leased land indicates a range of rents and reasonable`suppppor`�or capitalization rates can be obtained. The allocation method is typically used whe sales afire so rare that the value cannot be estimated by direct comparison. This method is based r�t e\p ip of balance and the related concept of contribution, which affirm that there-is--a normcil obi-typical ratio of land value to property value ./ \c for specific categories of real estate in specific locations. This ratio is generally more reliable when the subject property inclu e\relativel new rrnprovements. The allocation method does not produce conclusive value indication bu it can used to establish land value when the number of vacant land sales is inadeq a ee.. The extraction method i,a variant of the allocation method in which land value is extracted from the sale price of an.improved property by deducting the contribution of the improvements, which is estimated from their dep ecratd costs. The remaining value represents the value of the land. Value indications derived in this way are generally unpersuasive because the assessment ratios • may be unreliable and the extraction method does not reflect market considerations. For the purposes of this analysis, we have utilized the sales comparison approach as this methodology is typically used for mixed-use zoned sites that are feasible for development. The other methodologies are used primarily when comparable land sales data is non-existent. The exclusion of said approach(s) is not considered to compromise the credibility of the results rendered herein. 5©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Area Analysis Area Analysis -1A 8 0 W A R D _ V 9 @lIG. :3ffiL' rl .X 1 ' a Ay., De '4' /.'—z. a;. Sq `f J &„ apt 0, s, : a te, li. 1 , �'. ga /' / ?'6 _ SI.: __►�-°r. '19 xvam•y lc 1, r 8 + 1'd 4' t 4 � �t�<,� i �l. , y i r,: itiatil:1,-,67.71:1',-7-1 0i4�yi� � ,�; �I�,'+s°a`,7 syr�ia k has kt^„� \. • E--,.. ^. c . i' r,'*', �c: r �r a`:-,- ai.., �.�*+ 1;;;'; / - IT qr.,1,..--- --koi,'- ti... 5.--ii-Itil ... ,-,4-,..7241v 70-,, -,4, t.:.: ',,-,3/4„,;4,,,kt-, t: .,ip�y st iai ,d mm!R s e i 80tPmxN '-ti — r ti;,l0 ;t .. .PCPCPCY `�,.t.'���7y {���®11Lte-?i71-:�"�vxr, _..mrmueepa,,H.3t3s .es "� 7 'j I.•0 R 1 D II" ^Y]-`r�,s{7 •".,Ua a.n N T�'�-s�- -url:_�..�����rrt1{�{���n �p l nit 7 c A .1 t Q ins+'a er." �- '( ..Ty7., *6 Bead., t 0 a a7"a .„-: k.,..:: i a _R r I7�''RIlld 1 ���°'yyff ' t t ,M•I,A l C A.0 E. e WM r :R^sn► a�-r wi�: L11 "9. •x ,, „g„:R aa+R'; � J. � �" �r �p3 a�2„1 Ls A.Ryi+wen�taoxaJ' tililf , }� rIS7qe r ;wSala'liv mg- gsn +A', . p'i4Y,t" 2� • t I � � Tiz' ���®. ' .#;.Ml�unll eke�� �t t " ;k ry�' I 't gyAPA..... � t r x 1 ri I �s b e ,�&ttryxD p4� 'J s `Mi r '"v 1,�,'� I y :„r._s —� vi . ewe '.a py�,$'1 xef eticain �'� k r ,_"y+, s r t`"'t+c�.� Co Dlatlechail net Perk' I 1S& ',' 'o .r. -at 1 ° . ,,,.{ x. .., t.} 1 ]sv* wr l nu, .7 Hmmmoek.L4 Crossl s 1J irom a r}-�'i �" .*$�,rd t C + �tl ?Lies t� "'`� '§rim r slr a 1 jl .41 lL\ PrC a 4. i . , y1 4 ° „4, ,. f�y a 1 � m� aDn x4kY� Mx� .t,�� „4 s c r 3 ti " 3 � J i i L ��,- N a wen "`4*a t a�trtt,-- 't i ',,,v t, i x, is 9 s .' y Nma 'akDtttO: � .i QBlreyn NW OrP k y z air"IOiXeA'198a201i LiasotaCorpera.,andbi h aupP&ra'Al flats ms,e9'l%' •.Jr. 1. +y��m�if N _�_ _._- ..- V The subject is located in Miami-Dade County. Key information about the area is provided in the following tables. POPULATION The area has a population of 2,745,677 and a AREA POPULATION BY AGE 500,00D median age of 40, with the largest population 400000 group in the 30-39 age range and the smallest 300:000 i— — — — —population in 80+ age range. 200,0001Do,0D0 ' ,o - Source:Esri 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+ Population has increased by 249,242 since POPULATION BY YEAR 2010, reflecting an annual increase of 0.9%. 3.000000 Population is projected to increase by an 2,500,000 - 2,745,677 2,877,849 — 2,000,000 — 2,496,435 _. — additional 132,172 by 2026, reflecting 0.9% 1,500,000 — — annual population growth. 1000 0 0 0 — — 500,000 — — 0 — Source:Eon 2010 2021 2026 Source:ESRI,downloaded on Apr,16 2022 6 CBRE ©2022 CBRE, Inc. Area Analysis INCOME The area features an average household MEDIAN INCOME BY YEAR income of $81,309 and a median household mom $60,000 income of $54,681. Over the next five years, $50,000 $54,681 median household income is expected to $40,000 $30,000 - -increase by 12.5%, or $1,363 per annum. $20,000 $10,000 $0 • Source:Esri 2021 2026 EDUCATION • A total of 31.2% of individuals over the age of POPULATION BY DEGREE 24 have a college degree, with 19.5% holding a bachelor's degree and 11.7% holdinga • 19.5% g ■Bachelor's Degree graduate degree. •Graduate Degree 11.7% ■Other 68.8% Source:Esri EMPLOYMENT Health Care/Social Assistance I I I I I Retail Trade I I I I I Construction I I I Transportation/Warehousing I I I Prof/Scientific/Tech Services I I I I Educational Services I I I I Accommodation/Food Services I I I Other Services(excl Publ Adm) { I I Finance/Insurance I I Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt Srvcs I I I I Source:Esrl 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% The area includes a total of 1,273,252 employees and has N/A unemployment rate. The top three industries within the area are Health Care/Social Assistance, Retail Trade and Construction, which represent a combined total of 33% of the workforce. Source:ESRI,downloaded on Apr,16 2022;BLS.gov dated Jon,0 1900 ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Area Analysis MIAMI-DADE COUNTY LABOR MARKET ,.FREDP -..,Unemptctirrent Fate in Mlaa,de-goim011 FL' • . 17,8 „.. -— - ,- - - . •.— . • . i ,!s 15.0 1_ } 1 l' . . . I - • A. 1) 1 1 f v.o r i ' - ----- V I } cm -,_-.,.., ! .•• .-- — - - - - • 1 5:0 i ( i I, 1 , is i . . _ . 1 . , 1 2012 2013-. 2014 2015 2016 ' 2017 2018. 2019 2020 2021' - Shaded aivas Indicate:1th Avesslons,... . Source:U.S.-Bureau of Labor Statistics fred.stleulifed.org ...,— • — FREDO- -Craillian Labor Force In Mlanalillade touoty.FL . , 1,440,000 . • .• 1 . L4p0,0011 - 2 1 1 . 1 ,1,240,000 - - 1,200,000 ' '.; • 1.i6O,Goo '. A., 1 io 20,003• , . 2012 2013• 2014 2DI5' 2016 20,17 2018 -2019 2020 2021 Sharled.4reas kidicarq us i:ocessi9ns. , , __..Source:U.S.Bureau of Laticir Statistics I:eel:1.00u Isted,cs_ .., 8 ©2022 CBRE, Inc. CBRE Area Analysis MIAM1 AREA ECONOMIC SUMMARY Updated February 02 2022 ii 'this summary presents a sampling of economic information,for the area;supplemental data are,provided for regions kand the nation.Subjects include unemployment,employment,wages,prices,spending,and benefits.All data are not seasonally adjusted and some may be subject to revision.Area definitions may differ by subject.For more area summaries and geographic definitions,see www.bis gov/reglonsieconomic-summaries htm. Unemployment rates for the nation and selected ;lAverage weekly wages for all industries by county areas I Miami area,second quarter 2021 Urtein to yment rates (us:is$1,242;Area a$1,205) p United States '-° � 6 r� ' ' .5 3.7 Palm,&acli;x S11224 Miaeniarea 2.6 it - 4.2 ; Bf9tY8n9 Broward Co. $1109 3.6 'f I' le4" 't 'co,st'vkt 7.9 1 : ,� Miami-Dade Co. 14 " Miami.Uede> ,� �, � 33 I i slipsI i, Palm Beach Co. Y 3.3 t $ ao 5.0 10.0 k 0'Dec-20 .Dec-21 { Source:U.S.BLS,Local Area tinemetrymentStatistics. ,Sourre;EIS,ttlrs,quarterly Ce4aus of Employment and Wages. Over-the-year changes in emolovment on nonfarm payrolls and employment by major industry sector 12-month ercentchan es In employment Change from Dec. I,, P BMiamii area employment De c.2021 2020 to Dec,2021 t 15.0 -~ - - (number to thousands) Number Percent v 10.0 - -- - — _ _._ .- _ T Total nonfarm 2,7033 1374 Si u 5.0 Iiiiiht[ningagd@ogging; 08' dil. 0.0 construction 1434 5.9 4.3 0.0 Mapuracturang _ -9141! 1-7 25 L _.SD Trade,transporta don,and utllIam 6207 27.6 42 intimation 4X$ 15 32: i-10_0 1 Financial activities 193.8 25 13 -15.6 Pro1essionai and t nslness services . 47B 4 325 73_ ', Education and health services 4062 95 2.4 -20.0 • Leisure andttospitality, • _- 3022 40.6 15_5. Dec�B Miatn area Dec United States20 Other services 1142 _ _ SA 79 • .,,-. ,ent, • 3064;j 22 0.7 Source:u.s.BLS,Current Employment Statistics. Source:U5.BMS Current Employment Statistics. 9 ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Area Analysis r.G.spa.to.....-YCOINCar,a-,..m.,-----,/cAS, .......,.....C....40.',..e,...t i( ,IssatiNta, ..-,..... .cooweaear,ts,-__Ieet,-.1ar....e........A.- -.M.......V.,inflte pier-the-year change in the prices paid by urban i lOver-the-year changes in the selling prices received by t.consumers for selected categories 'producers for selected industries nationwide 1*-month percent change id CPI4.i,December 2021 12-month percent changes in PPI 35.0 25.0 .29.3 .29.3 20.0 ' ,,.. _••••• ,••.1 5.0 10.0 ........ ...."•" 1.00.'".... . .........Milo,. ls-cli . i ,,o I me , _. _ ...,,,„ ..-0-;.,-• 1-- -. - - 5.0 4o.o -1-5-0 100 7.1 /.e) 6.3 1 ,, SA *--',.•,'; 11- < - 0, Oec-18 Cec-7.9 bec-20 Dec-7i . '"'''' 1111 , , ---.6erberal freight truddrig , ' 1 i All dears Food Energy/ l I - , -,Hospltals 'II IvIlanif area Di u.S_city average i i ,,,,.......,<HoteiS and neatiteis,except casino hotels Sou rcezill.S.31.$,cc:mita:Mu-Pew Index. Stamm US.' LS.Pducer-Picebui 1 ' 1 Average annual seending.and percent distribution Average houriy waees for selected occupations . For selected categories United A. and• 1 Average expenditures,United States Mianni area,20/S-20 .occupations ipccuP a tion 1 !Warn i area States e a $25A7' $27.07 2X:00,U I 4:At 4,37;., ' ,.,,tteCnuptantsOnitailditCas 38-52' • 9 26 go% ______- ..-1__ _ , , ,,, , .. _....., ,....._,..___ 6 % !,.: $6i711.....'1 ' 571744V'7 . Registered nursam 34.76 30.47 ., . 1 . 1 Aircraft-cargo harnilIngstip cs etykso . . 83.07' , 28.66 20% i 1 0% Construction Laborers 16.41 20.67 it ,Viare4 area °All other nem IN Heahnsate United States , ReCeptionlits arid/ninernation trarics - 14.98 ni Paula-LA rasuradeen pedsions ponation Br ti cl,Food hitti acis and housekeeping Cleaners 11.96 13.47 inais m1,1ausias Sguarm US.9LS:Lansnrtrier Experalitame aiivey. SoUraell.S.UIS,13calpatlana1 Ereple'ompet and Wage Slattiles,Matir.20203_ - - _-_,--___,_ _____ ________ _______ _____ • tEmplover costs per hour worked for wages and Over-the-year changes in wages and salaries iselected employee benefits hy geographic division 12-month percent changes in Ea i Private irld ustry, South Atlantic united , September 2021 11 States /A I.Total compensation, $34.59 $37.24 5.0 _ - . . i Wages and salaries 25.12 j 26.3 .1 -,. po . 1 Total benefits 9.47 110.88 H I , _ 1 . Paid knave- _ _ . 2.--$4i,i 12-74,, I 1 Vamtion 1.30 Lag 3.0 ......MY/N.M-Mt-;....-r!".-..... ve _____ -1411Plerritegktal.lin. 1.051 i .L2p 2.0 Insarance 2%23' . 1.0 2-3° - - -- - /1 ReqrgIlleP..t.t3.1741_?,wIrgs• - 1.07.1 1_ II .Legally recOred benefits 256 2.80 Dec-13 li Dec-19 Dec-20 Dec-21 arguestates Mak compost:tithe 5eutil Arianccertsias dirtgan are:MIX. ....i...,..i......Reiland area t Et_or,.atio.hic,.SC,VA and WW. 1,1 SetlfOltia.ails,Smarmy Li Gays for Empicrete Oimpartsati on. Source:WS.KS,Brolornent Goa Index_ 1 0 CD 2022 CBRE, Inc. CBRE Area Analysis OPENING DAY Growth in nonresidential construction jobs will also be robust because groundbreakings on major projects have become routine in MIA. Phase one of the MiamiCentral train station, which will eventually connect a new intercity train line with local transit options, debuted in May 2019. Not far from the station is the $2 billion Miami Worldcenter that is transforming 27 acres of parking lots into a vast collection of residential, retail, office and hotel buildings. Over the next few years, the "tallest building in Florida" distinction will pass among multiple skyscrapers in downtown Miami. And county commissioners recently gave final approval to a $4 billion mega-mall in northwest Miami-Dade County that will be America's largest shopping complex if it is completed as planned. CONCLUSION The economy in Miami-Dade County will continue to experien an increase in population, an increase in household income, and an increase in/hfushol'dx lues. In addition, MIA's international character and its high-skilled, bilingual orkforce will\vp it exceed the U.S. in income growth over the long term. ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Neighborhood Analysis Neighborhood Analysis -4 ...1. 14 ;. 3 Sic], • t r -da ,- C+ ,y y ,„ 5 , ,,,., ',!=G - E'6+ :gs —itil-. - ima }PlBS . is a. �i: �00 n ", t .c$ r t �' T �•+ d ��i a P�rk ,' IR a � yr ' s, k�v`k" '"� v 'Y; I'r Mn Pen:.y:� ' y t .z�+ tt -+�'fv'�'1i'°r o j� @ ltimi ' `* �.. n ,.. ,,, r ? t` t ' 5 w W t�.se.�Y t •{ a s w R; �{ .yr t 5 ,,,.liar ix � ." a 'R • . `' ` 64 �� ,.- ® � --g ?tits. Y'a T'z.trt i -rL --" ; ` ''' N I tt, +-�r ',Ly:. / r; =_. 1 r at, e arty,4,t /! z n- ttta' ' xAr 4 $ a k'' � Y ti w 'a" ��1�3���� � e� p :. a�`w�TMj"4 ti?,;tilk � � lwa °T, �.��� �j� 5 � F I t f � � YI�pIM10B� 1 � =C^F ;yv,�. l I�■ �/ Pi +,S M"3 .w°5f t4 K I' Iw.. o - 1. ( ,a 3 a 1. '' ' ,t�' " " is Ian it `1.1I : 'tveij . � �sL�Z� rlltlii! �� Glvd.tl' OXFOlitaLr' '',"-;" '',P.,'.1.- ," � n. �xct�wntr _ -,• y,"yr3r+, � +fi � #�o : J '`i 1t�. [♦ �T b, {....;..B% ~• '.. "Vji�� M.""d',ft33139 3k r _ 'reram uy1sle.irg. 4 i �.„-# wy '7 mi u Pr e r' ;�,..r BI , a k^,.._t ,G+It . 4 ,,y� Lga .Y u lifirept IrYr Er 4' s. i ^'1 l• sj �,1f {�, 6:' I�}/'haR '�` `, "SZ',,4q! si .':-mot tin _.r Gt..da a �' C i _hin if v yiw ' }' t .i Ar �!✓'- it0,s{ t �ea� r IGbG i,. ,.', ..4 3 .,71 ,�' ryv. �,u. ..%'�e .,��v�w lil�'il�'�w �. '5� boa � ,� IIO s +�, sbg���JC's'�"§q 'r><4r� ��f he A,r �f Izz i .,,�` I, •a:9 t'r,'`3 * 1 i>r:t,1'x B c r4. ' "�`aµ .or'¢ 2 ,w �� ,_ W,... �f- '"' .d r��id'•}`kai„. FJ4.,1 es. 04'>, '0 1 r 7(- 'i 4,,3 �=11`I S -t:,', r 7,y,.- e-� 44- i,,, 4101 11fi ,e' > ' ''ci4i0v "'.,+` "+oay;: 1, r ■ e et„u 't ,1 'per ,, f� �`°o.4 +,.eG1 >I� +''„�y " is _T�i RL cii '" '..r gaL o.� a. 4 -- -4 f *$ t'. Bwvra�:, 4 ~Y •.. .4 $P .. 4� f-'4., aee °� � Mt.e t ;' .+i ar...rr �fi !-'�-.`lam 4 �ttp1AA+- :dd�..4`;S7 i ,3 .,,a 4t� �i a Ja .F). ,/ t Opt f PtlF. y +d'',_ r� 20 `� 4,,, d t' I"'1.1,97 r, tr _ s. *B°'ms�" ru 4' x a .1 r g t p. 't'}C �. � a `9/ � e�,a�w m '�� ��s.s„ ��11 -m$ rf 1 ;ue;� '� At:K" +r a �qo-, y�,.4� �'� s f5_- �p J�✓'A .t'+�y, �'$� E rispa o t,l 6 [4 x tr .ii s i • z 7 S0.iIa'Mle.e+" i �'"v�,��% 1 RYA, A by u a a. k... ril~ rode r�'/ ,a,,a 3 1^" a r �.. �' wwm { �r' .y,+'r„(t✓h f 9i � sx3 G` f''.t G rt-£ ;p K C :f • • :-var 14C Y.-Jiz.wrmsoreo`to�cwia y' ;emu" 'y�2 VL- � .Gu.Key L,..ry fi � r '� ,,. '4 LOCATION The subject properties are located oneblock north of the world renowned Lincoln Road pedestrian mall, between Alton`Road and _ edr h Avenue in the South Beach submarket in the City of Miami Beach, Miami-Dade C County, Florida 33139. The City of Miami Beach is a barrier island approximately one wide, to iles long and extends in a north-south direction along the eastern seaboar gyp rallel to�"ainland Miami-Dade County between Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The si bject is• located approximately 4-miles southeast of the Miami Central Business District (CBD). BOUNDARIES The subject property is located in the "South Beach" area of Miami Beach, which is bounded by Arthur Godfrey Road to the north, Biscayne Bay to the west, the Atlantic Ocean to the east and Government Cut to the south. The neighborhood boundaries may be generally described as follows: North: Arthur Godfrey Road South: Atlantic Ocean/Government Cut East: Atlantic Ocean/beach West: Biscayne Bay 12 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. • Neighborhood Analysis LAND USE Land uses within the subject neighborhood consist of a wide variety of commercial, residential & hotel developments. Lower density multi-family rental & condominium apartment uses are largely concentrated along Pennsylvania Avenue, Euclid Avenue and Meridian Avenue to the • west. The neighborhood & community retail and office uses are typically clustered along the Alton Road, Washington Avenue, Collins Avenue and Dade BoulevardNenetian Causeway corridors, as well as the pedestrian-only areas of Lincoln Road Mall. Hotels, condominiums, restaurants and retail are primarily concentrated along the Collins Avenue and Ocean Drive with additional retail uses, nightclubs, restaurants and smaller boutique hotels on Washington Avenue. The subject location is one block south of the Lincoln Road pedestrian mall. The Lincoln Road pedestrian mall runs east-west from Collins Avenue to Alton Roadpetween 16th and 17th Streets with storefronts on Lincoln Road and to a lesser extent along the id streets. MHd91 Developrnenta Botanlral 4 �OtfiCeDevelsprirrrf ,,,.13e i. �a�+� , nn r New Retell ; i III �` )♦CWwal Venues J7aniba I, 1 ®office iaiadinga j�.rCo co MctuGsusO Miami Beach ''"""""} trcariter MuMcrie Convention =Resets "' I t Canter club to OPnrking GaracJo �Y 12 o D Ei j .,--- Mdifgan city Theater of P ))li 4 y7fh 5U}eat Mere(�an Hall PedortniriEl '� 1-7I S it .odeodeod __ .. 7lae3 !r ,V"oal" tri, _-- a _--i [_� yV liotpla �p w Surdinea Fp b SloMaodiary William sonyr r A07 Mnt�mrklLI I-4 ._... "_ P. j 4:..n a I aganw unooin SP l�gggle` _ Vlolwia's a corn -. {t _ !r Rand iruslI_■ NE'. gP-�-lll ,secret �.a._. .u, ,-- y I r Li! i I1 ,Hmd Cinomas `+ d?Ixi olt Era ., A:;. ',. -'9, Raz. orison 1 i 1- I 1 t P` f ArtCenter � " ,�m'Mtnunnium L_.___: -72� .- 1 t Oanane t Colonyy m m south ) Center -0. m qq f Republic/Theater c` Me rs i° t m, 420�Lincoln c l�� ,_`_ImL___ T Y° FloridaFiid�c ant i f>r .J F __ ,1i tpl 1-- '...___. S Lam..... o •.1, g t `mac, IT) 1t I /t chwShops - --r ¢ �! �g !® gi W et Crewno Plaza I _�< 11. F 3{nit1jo i` r'Ir_;id t#rt C..r h iingf _ IOW:wardLN: _,__--1 ---,1 r-�,_ ' - _•{§lti SU jet ._- 1 1500.9Caan Dore^ L,___ I ._. I N_�. ___ la' a 6 llv4aglo 29df 1 ---- .�1 �7 ' Flamingo Elementary- �I I1Illan® 1.,:: L_.._....... ' ! Park - - �. ` School (( j L.._.s. i ri 1 c • i 1 17 i r _ IF 1 4..ii d ,. ; 'as'Off-co I 1 FPI Since the capital improvement project in 1996, Lincoln Road has experienced substantial changes in tenant mix, including more restaurants and sidewalk cafes, and a shift to traditional retail shopping. At the west end of the mall, Regal Cinema opened an 18-screen stadium style movie theater in 1999. This development was strongly supported by the local municipality and has proved vital in attracting national retailers, such as Banana Republic, Pottery Barn, Williams— Sonoma, Bebe, Swatch, Victoria's Secret's, Ann Taylor Loft, Sunglass Hut, Anthropologie, Books & 13 ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Neighborhood Analysis Books, Chicos, Foot Locker, I. Strada, Morgan Miller, Payless ShoeSource, Quicksilver, White House/Black Market and Express to the pedestrian promenade. The addition of the Regal Cinemas solidified the Lincoln Road redevelopment and began to make it very attractive to the national retailers and high-end restaurateurs. While Lincoln Road is in and of itself a destination location, the cinemas also serve to attract year-round Miami-Dade residents to Lincoln Road. The Regal Cinemas is one of the most heavily patronized cinemas in South Florida. Anchoring the east end of Lincoln Road Mall was the former New World Symphony which was housed within the subject property, also known as the Lincoln Theatre building. Established in 1987 under the artistic direction of Michael Tilson Thomas, the New World Symphony provides an instructional program to prepare graduates of distinguished music programs for leadership positions in orchestras and ensembles around the world. The New World Symphony recently relocated to 500 17th Street, just north of the subject's LincolnriTheatre location into a Frank Gehry designed concert hall and a 7,000 square foot projection`` all on which concerts, video art and films are shown free-of-charge to audiences in Sound'scdpe, a 2.5-acre public park, designed by Dutch architectural firm West 8. Washington Avenue is four blocks to the east \n' a�rya long master planning process, development incentives and the establishment of a business Improvement District (BID), the Washington Avenue corridor is starting to re-evel.op. Under a BID, the property owners agree to a\se �order to provide funding for marketing, promotion and other initiatives tom mprove the area. The BID followed approval of the Washington Avenue Overlay in�016 w which increased allowable height to 75 feet for properties with more than 200 feet of frontage on Was ingto Avenue, reduced minimum hotel room sizes u for new hotels and conversions, allo ed for co-living or micro residential units, and eliminated re` -------,%\ parking requirements Jo i otels. Since then, the Kim to ,A\nglers H/otel opened a new addition, a new Moxy Hotel has opened and the Good Time Hotel`'is soon to open. Approved and-or under construction projects include a new hotel at 1685 Washing ton/Avenue and the Urbin Retreat. On the following page is a concept presentation of development new projects along Washington Avenue. ©2022 CBRE,Inc. 14 CBRE Neighborhood Analysis Washington Avenue Is experiencing a wave of large scale hotel development since the City WASHINGTON AVENUE / of Miami Beach approved up-zoning Iron,Sixth to 16th Streets in 2016.This upzoning allows DEVELOPMENT HIGHLIGHTS for more Intense development and micro-hotel units.As depicted below,two hotels totaling +500 rooms are nearing completion In immediate proximity to 755 Washington Avenue as well as the recently renovated Anglers Hotel.Another exciting development along Washington Avenue Is the planned renovation of the Paris Theater into a major restaurant/entertainment 0 M• venue,755 Washington Avenue Is located 1n the epicenter of this activity which will spur AY HOTEL" leasing activity and underscores the property's long term development potential. BY,MARRIOTT . t ` y,t.: t 4.m-%r..� = ' i!t r,f s •t . . 0 WASHINGTON l,. 915 .. - r. - _ SQUARED HOTEL -A- Try R' eb2•aao. ..-,ALL'�a• '-`ai"�C °ry.:; � cii[EGL P7 J'de to", ,Nr•r, -•yO 44,:, ^�' S -s "-a .r. N -v , Near rg Cornr.t._v Jl �,RryF. 't' ' a. , - .`. "," 5 .;i `"'"?L�is 'Y--.r -'''- •'t t.. e.'—,.v d- -- 1� �.- s;s � .'"--";'" . t..: a.` .may FORMER ►'•{i1 r ' CO�[• rNs% ♦ • :ask ,.,... �1 wA:,r60?Sscry PARTS THEATER e-' tS y..YENtr ,✓�j F"`�.iI" ,,.+P.'f~' "7 Ca. p nz-a ,/Atary - ..•:r-L ` i.*•TM r ti 755 Mims 745 727 t %e' cep ,, 1soetes �yt •p[ - -yb H, 1� • NASWNetON MT. COIIIHL AVLNU[ COWNSfVp1UE COL(IIK AYLNVE C U.a n•octlrp e ` "s412 a ;} '°�:.. ..'tit " t�Y+ro A �v�y�. r,. tort a!Ftmn ''�:- _ • `. r }•; ,^..<a,, Y`` ` ,.,.:`: ..--v •.'Y, .e;t• ,,��.pVr ARgING G -1 :- ,, 5 5 0 i 1�� if a WA.NOTON AVUNL „I' cy ;, + r! .. • . `9 -n .J'L✓ 1 .y 9 . coo SF 4.Sto,v �. t- - ; 'k',.►-` J. '' � 4•:.+++w4wdrw3nort • 1 f;,+o - ., Gl - � r o,r uR noa eon n dry ' ' ."44 �! r..I'" ..�s.. r ,.�` svis ! Ehtatei 41.nt trri T )i.: 1j�� �• :I"i �F' cr - �} /y "6L 71G 3 w. ..,, ^ ' • I ,'''r_"Tt .1 / ukr i" M.�-� c� . Jz .0 +h �-^ �! s 0u A i o t t .st+ ;;:g•t " .r`r ^!`,' �:ps,v./Ave 1 ,�'� t i _�F ` C { ;ti t?. �� .. 4 R ' ..� rp 11CIMP,TON iNUEy .twc . W .��t7 s• •1" *- ?)"Y �, 1 _ ANGLER'S HOTEL ., ,fe s nr ' ;r'+r 3''i t A;•a ( - ray. :l^1?.ro I -`•r: 4,. 4[ a .YY, ( t '_ .Jai I' d 1 ..i m `j �� x• .� Iiz iir,I r M1 rr- ► f•'4. r r .—II. 74;' IYs ' Y ,f • i •- i .7'" ► 660 '�I--'Hti /1I 7,.14 ar_,'.'.••• i-`�'t'r+,s! •• 'sa''y�....�i. �:0 P It wAw,nTox AvuvL '1jli. F yt _.H. t t":-.• ,�J ��.,+r, ly , A v��, , T Racrm r r.,,. , rr j! `�'fL=c ,I•,,rf. .., ' ,�. pu �: n ReCSNw Uneawxt _ - 71. (' N.f N va b r .o� �,1 c rtt// ina,R•naruw j�i� • ' tQ onolos Onta)ort ovotdonrontl/onoont`ilt Washington Avenue Project &T`ransa�o High ights: • In September 021'`sal tr•n�saaction of the 42-room Hotel Astor located at 956 Washington Avenue to the Victory Investments Group for $12,750,000. The buyer is identified as Anil`Moonga, ttl CEO of Victory International USA, which manufactures and distributes name brand/pagrances and cosmetics. The building features a swimming pool and 4,000 square feet +/- of restaurant space. It was built in 1936 on a 14,900- square-foot lot. • Washington Park located at 1050 Washington Avenue is a 181-room hotel that sold in February 2021 for $43,750,000. The buyer is Jean Simonian of WPH Properties and this was a lender REO from Ladder Capital. • 601 Washington Avenue was recently completed and operating as The Goodtime Hotel with 266-rooms and a 30,000-SF restaurant called Strawberry Moon operated by Groot Hospitality. The eatery opens up to a rooftop pool and club area that hosts live music. The hotel also has around 46,000 rentable square feet of ground-floor retail space and 242 parking spaces, as presented in the following aerial photograph. 15©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Neighborhood Analysis > ill1 •' �e+.1 c 1 .m t.t'"".0, 4 'I _q -� 1. �. �:11 1 f `. },� �y�ea�7l,l� f� , "y'.rk y.M ` �. IIII�I t•I���iw l. �AY rl/rr rr�I[�I — C : f o. ' � -fir / s- y } . � -^-Grp. .,- , y ,t fit,' .•. �+. _ . .;r r.A"_.._.. \ 1 1 '/ _ oil ________44-, - • Urbin, a co-living, co-work concept was approved^by the City's Historic Preservation Board for a proposed six-story co-living and\otel project at 1234 Washington Avenue. The new building will contain 49 co-living units, hotel rooms, retail and restaurant space. An adjacent 1960s officeeil inglbe renovated and restored as co- workspace. It will also contain a wellness center for residents and hotel guests on the first floor, rounding out the bran"'s-live work wellness theme. r _:,4 , • i ,41,,i,-,fr'f • 1 :�( t ii r .ti.r " A",k 4 :i „4;',' Tic 1,. - 1. r --- / ,1 , ',1. . i fin, ,,,,,,,,,- 1 ...i‘t_......„,, ,1.1 ,11 IT ! . .. I'71,� i' /.., q 4 '.i i . r �-' �+ _'t. u `• il I II Residential uses in the Flamingo Park neighborhood are primarily single family and low-rise multifamily in design and date back to the 1920's and 1930's with higher density resort hotels and residential condominium towers found along the Atlantic Ocean/beach and Biscayne Bay shorelines. The waterfront is where the large-scale, high-rise multifamily residential projects are located, including rental apartments, condominiums, and hotels. 16©2022 CBRE,Inc_ CBRE Neighborhood Analysis The 1 & 2-story single family residential dwellings range in value from $800,000 to $2,000,000 +/- and are clustered around the 36.5-acre Flamingo Park. This community park has 17 tennis courts, a baseball stadium, handball and racquetball courts, a softball field, basketball court, football field, soccer field, running track, playground, walking trails and a bark park that are all surrounded by lush tropical landscaping. Flamingo Park also features a state-of-the-art aquatic center with two (2) pool areas, lockers, lounge chairs, shower facilities and water playground. The submarket area also includes the South Pointe Elementary School, several blocks of low-to- mid-rise residential apartment, condominium, and hotel properties than Ocean Drive and the Atlantic Ocean front with beach front resort hotels to the east. Other primary influences in close proximity to the subject also include the Miami Beach Convention Center which provides about one million square feet of exhibition space and meeting hall facilities and is rated as one of the top convention centersfithe United States; the Jackie Gleason Theater of the Perfuming Arts at the intersection of Washington Avenue and 17'h Street; Alton Road, a commercially oriented, north-south primary arter al'street; and the aforementioned Lincoln Road Pedestrian Mall which provides retail shops, restaurants) afes and a movie theater complex located at Lincoln Road and Alton Road, j s os athwsest of the subject property. To the east is Ocean Drive, which runs parallel to the Atla t c Ocean and South Beach and is one of the area's premier attractions. The pristi e�eaches ac warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean are to the east side of Ocean Drive, while a�dst ofija14e,s/co establishments and some of Florida's most luxurious, high-end ho eels such sythe Ritz-Carlton, The Delano, The Setai, The Shore Club and The Tides. ACCESS Overall, access to and't ugh t e su ject neighborhood is considered good. The major east- west thoroughfares p o iding direct access to the subject area from the Miami mainland include the Venetian Causeway that nia)es 17'h Street, located immediately north of the subject; 5th Street/MacArthur Causeway�(US/Highway No. 41/State Road Al A), located to the south of the Nv subject property; and Arthur Godfrey/Julia Tuttle Causeway (I-195) located north of the subject property. The Miami Tunnel opened in 2014 to alleviate congestion from PortMiami along the MacArthur Causeway. These arteries connect South Beach to mainland Miami to the west, as well as intersect with the primary north-south arteries of Alton Road, Collins Avenue, Washington Avenue and Ocean Drive. Interstate 95 is the major north-south expressway providing direct access to Miami-Dade County, as well as points north along the eastern seaboard. Biscayne Boulevard (U.S. Highway No. 1) is a well-traveled artery providing north-south access from S.E. 3rd street in downtown Miami to the Broward County line to the north. Direct access to the subject property is provided via Washington Avenue which acts as the subject's eastern boundary line and is a two-way, two-lane, north-south city street with divided median and parallel (metered) street parking. The immediate subject area 17 ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Neighborhood Analysis has good access via the local artery/highway network, and to the area business and commercial community. In addition to the existing access points, there is a proposal to connect Miami Beach with downtown Miami via a monorail line. The elevated monorail would include three (3) stations and run along the south side of the MacArthur Causeway. One station would be built on the Miami side of the line and close to where the causeway begins, while the other two stations would be on Miami Beach near the end of the causeway, and the other at the intersection of Washington Avenue and 5th Street. DEMOGRAPHICS Selected neighborhood demographics in 1-, 3- and 5-mile radius from the subject are shown in the following table: SELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOGRAPHICS 1688 Lenox Avenue 1 Mile 3 Mile Mile \ \33139- Florida Miami-Dade Miami Beach,FL 33139 Radius Radius /\Radius Miami9each County Population \\ 2026 Total Population 29,936 68,7147327,6�81 40,166 23,197,833 2,877,849 2021 Total Population 29,175 6��111 29�7;946 38,928 21,733,419 2,745,677 2010Total Population 28,753 61,927\246,903 38,179 18,801,310 2,496,435 2000 Total Population 29,728 57,613 2,18,912 37,950 15,982,378 30,982 Annual Growth 2021-2026 0.52% 0 78% 1 92% 0.63% 1.31% 0.94% Annual Growth 2010-2021 0.13% 0:60% 1.72% 0.18% 1.33% 0.87% Annual Growth 2000-2010 -0.33% 0.`7 %�,/1.21% 0.06% 1.64% N/A Households (/� 2026 Total Households 17;:46 38,339 156,803 23,914 9,071,090 992,819 2021 Total Households 1,7,515 3932 141,727 23,311 8,514,543 948,312 2010 Total Households .7,496 5,417 116,482 23,221 7,420,802 867,352 2000 Total Households 18,113 32,561 97,308 23,125 6,337,929 776,774 Annual Growth 2021-2026 0.38% 0.64% 2.04% 0.51% 1.27% 0.92% Annual Growth 2010-2021 0:01% 0.43% 1.80% 0.04% 1.26% 0.81% I. • Annual Growth 2000-2010 -0.35% 0.84% 1.81% 0.04% 1.59% 1.11% Income 2021 Median Household Income $61,178 $68,664 $55,950 $60,423 S58,462 $54,681 2021 Average Household Income $98,191 $112,486 $90,196 $104,426 $83,820 $81,309 2021 Per Capita Income $58,636 $63,244 $43,313 $62,604 $32,917 $28,156 2021 Pop 25+College Graduates 13,350 30,903 101,581 17,424 4,922,526 612,307 Age 25+Percent College Graduates-2021 53.9% 56.9% 44.7% 52.5% 31.2% 31.2% Source: ESRI CONCLUSION The subject neighborhood location is mature and built-out with growth in population and households through higher density, redevelopment opportunities along the major thoroughfares and waterfront. The local demographic profile is middle-to-upper-middle-income and the overall outlook is for favorable performance over the foreseeable future. Many neighborhood improvements are renovated, historically rehabilitated and-or in good-to-excellent condition. 18©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Neighborhood Analysis Access to the neighborhood is good and utility services are adequate. Supporting commercial uses are good and surrounding land uses are compatible. Overall, it is our opinion that the subject neighborhood will continue to remain a very desirable area, with continued potential for appreciation. In addition, the Miami Beach submarket is a destination resort community and international "hot spot" that continues to flourish over the long term despite adverse macro- economic cycles. 19©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE .N W C7CCC Q COCD 6▪/'f •..1-r-sr-r.•• r m •... ..orw ..�•. Z •9v...a _......._ sawvtl7O•oAv 0.010910 <..........o.......•>.<..ro9TnY..+r:, - -- - - - - K..'•,,„, 9.N 17AYMIWw.PW-41VMCIo4xIon010.1Off DMen,00r9WY31. _ ,I-..o.1c..•.o.. —,—��.�.. ...'.v....0. .3Cn110NQf1 ommooco. ..m •O P M..ei li W 4.1.Ki. ♦..r'- 1,1r•. •'+�.•--. N fip(...1.011Pe bi'<.i.!uu 1.,.. t a.... .�..���� .i.mw. w.ry rw4+a-vgP+on n.<.o w er.M..•wq.w P P«..._.as t>re.t.�nwi P m (m'awW,wNaw.b.Mw./w.e..Piw•..a .VRV 0 N M•PT!PA.;.+e vv..:•tt roar) 0,.)dr• y� MW)�.Y q•�PY+i•+.�•M o.Fei/wl N LO w w,1e.6 paw.,q rum...w.o..��JJ.P�oal PP PS• <Y?91'�a ONO••m•i.n9wr•.Wo 4/.+u,w•.dw'opto•••••o.•iw+ro IOIY1= .19.AM=Nw•�.0t .0001- S...0. VII =VI- :•+W01...x ra+o '.PO "xi.'••'••9R...01 ......V'Ja.AY03—.YAW 1PJ 1 P••1..t� gj MOM w= 1oJ SO 1.OtOt91.1M • ye�y y wA tam 6raH i r.V MOM a...9uawa w1 n ne"1 vy.o+± }in LIWOS n O Y MI17517-7-W M le PNM MAMAc,k 10-....= •,,rAt..4144 •••.w0.1 4/.1(9�Y a wM•cfna.:i eRe51 il•..d.11o.Aor�wO 1.1.•..9•....[ 0?VAYW Aro,..-fq'dA` AYY"J+V.0 m+t•,/..o•a MFQ CZ. 1y1 _[I<l[of f[•.GlW1•'./..7 Y 1.�n4.= OW Plo) •....•9„.=4 41.421 Ia l9LLd.91 1.0- 1W51'n 0.9 Ep.N PP.q Y>Y.W...t• M •..WHIP...W Fa,vs q".a OM VLi10.•t••W.1:.1LWr.6.11 w.. K-•4wo.... awc.O.M9.i....M wmt...m.•..•w9•as. ....J•W A.Row.C.V MMmrrtw m M w+•/.wT..w VA.`m•..wq..PA.l..e.q.R+M.P*w..amma..;Tea••Wr...•9Ri p.m a.W.Cinl-1. .•'.••G1Y1-„C.b n..••....AU P.p4•P 1•Jey Kbrm.1.......•'.10 s.Vb r O.I.•S W1 ry q...mr 1..ggR M N w.t.'e.vw•v.+A P,.•.1..•.w••...M'109.•1Q PP P P.m NOP a'0.•.•.•.w...M••.Pw r..1.a..P ••1 t•P..y•.PPIN,x.w•POPP).•q M P•• Nt1 P..+iu.oh K•41..1.i . wK P•11 %> 1oa-•wO 0 PO.• 490.04..4 m•.i.m•..J •,�.Yl.aus�i�'a W=;11W,<Wd im.X004 i C9 WO Mt 0,1•••w11.S141 P 1CYYM..'PO 1•1 PtMtr•<. A S••�W w. • crn•+nae e.*i.M iM.b<sm.l w.W..'I.e4V Pez.si mume�..,P4.>+, ••o,.u1S•...we..Pion m 0..4•••• 4+441.+.PM<J -a.yu•a.1.140.w9 -•.•1.P9 Pp 9RV.W fax?.AO. `...1t.0!0)l rz'. ....0"Pita •www a).V allVl_wa wy.'p p wu•P NiWaO•.•.P•N.w.L.+S P A.PAC ?i Pip"pa 0•.•Itl.'.'.O Wollsollul em.Awe,xebbsay P6 7.• R I•V• -...A9Ady.li......1 N Ow....w1N..Fl.9N PIP'.fo v.I P•v..'im R'll!.•I5•G A.PP0.L9 P•./'Y.q 'IN .von.L.sAYwMNowed gt` .....to Ti.maPYlw ............oposra. dN.1•.Pmi Wf:P ..gN�....,..Coln ........3 Js*1 u '4 TO...aw....1 wnt1-t9..W • Pm� Do 0•n ^ �w+u� ppTagw�u.O.•,P.A..,••vo�Worn Pip Wvb moo u 44 Pr P�....... •ovu P•••HN 0t.4I.t0y.b•N."n r M?..wpwm.wu..0a...'M..yam/ .M 7.04t.0 -_:.-.::-1:- oI.II.II.wM.I. .4424P=1.k ,.ha4N1� -44:47...•'§L w - ) w. .MPP.+A+.m1o.s..,•mi+.i.........AA wrt+M prq py,• .wa. r4Polr'N. '1 1 _ dv,G Na1SV6oi wP.a PrvPe..��'P.w ww...To',mauraw,.,.Pet:wi°r. a .'4:M. ' ro.o.r1N.w•p rtwt>n 0a, No. .< • Att....0.0 0_L -. P...5. ....N..M..,f.PmkiWO.'•'..PWW. 1��--1L� 1 1 '7�17�����"—��•��j {� 4 I J` i'•'OW M•"PP 9 tw WIWN PMwi.m°°P••^F.'7:0 w m . '--- 4 .— "t=• ,m<2+V+-.I a w 1•.R MI P.m wM P n. ot. . �<rC•J J = r1 Imo' inu•.n s.uuunyCCDV fi_ C ITS] Du I 1 Li a•n:r.rll NOLM°, .� N < . `�' C. o `,i--). ' 4 ,-----ri r - m -ma DU 7gttot b11101 lO1W011W M WAS OMI Mr( 1tr1 n lDHY0.IWIO6.CS dlHot01•►t 11O71010' C X .. W ui ix W co V Ce N 0 p • N Vf © • O CA N C o 70 IV n m w .< .IT, m 7 X D I LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS: 00 p 41gpR./. L117117-7 iU a0m.mu0r.i �i=rr 1,Is.ET O 771 arx'+�.a J• .. t /.� • �.. M . .• r- VI C. D• OW 00 WE 7: I� Wee-wee. •.� ,a,.., ,:tt '!`___ 7701 r, �,wawan,:ice.. - ...a,a. .. . . ,u. . ax N??i {•• m6 ca.prswu1e,0® �=, as 1s' ;o, - `i.'I� ,. ii rc�Di4.nc..�=r..w e }•{ y. �. .. 1'-�.'.. ,, 7��; 1 wn ( � 'f- I me °mon cs cam.&Mims I iffy . 1 � � 1 I } .TAR Iu,.V KQwG tlr— wr ;1 2 I t 1�yy:� .w Mroa rt till-. \ l' .a d r\V.�_^:I; . .Jc: n .an,o K.mez yNK '.7 ♦ej�` ..w. mil'. .w'A-' a�v aCl .._ Mt 17.7 \�11f v D 7. 701we 1 Viv Kw 177 I 45%sq• .,,lV Y\\\r I 31 ' III— Vt;\,.. ,„77iftlp • ... 0 I 9 <11 0 —gi 31: 7 0:. 9. X i 4 • msamora e.0 •a 4 �I L t. OZ. / / \ S� 'r. , if ; e .: o •r . `1 'msucr.r. 1 Il_ • •�.1 /s/'t / %i• .4 1 e L l came knoecia°�"'ta.rl emcee 1I�.mie IlV'dy^� �0 ^{i' S ' .. ,mom g 1;. '}]• cm.:ace we want I '"' wy .i WY , , '., `'. ter . "_,•...Sr.' ,) .~ oanw..�.rc6 9 r =1~~ w ji+:�..��1^' .._rs': M - I _ G 1 s1 ..,..� J1I omn.a um I`h i . =_ �.. —� I' Perm.w.m.rex - . A. Et p6a0.4,ne,r+V Id :' POaP 17•:1 S tmakwYLLK 1 R I R�17 ; ' P. 1 :I „ Oa.MUM I �.•2 au,<.IY,I MAMIBBAC1$ ...P.9@ L{QNG,TUDE .n.�.a w.u> wF i oao•..+o"' : . ..us�0a.�rvaa o...r,•ww..7/7 -6MM...... MAOlP�li7Nm1<RQt,VII�NLMO1RiLlI.IY JI ..re....,,� N�ara.t> vrt�a iYntc•W� r �IllL�1CY/O rO_ARTMENI' v0ji - - '""w.L.71.. met., ao..n.n..�"�• rs� ,o ...m wom w.Lf6. F `r,�� \iM OP HtltR10MyA TO➢Q7MMICEURYEY a. wti 7.nn./)Ml' yy MI Cel w CD = O_ m =• N Site Analysis SURVEY EXHIBIT FOR P26 €iig C lil lit E/ .$ g r. j ji #.t ti •Ii'.1 eQ E ' Pill . .• l a1 1 li �€ : i. .�E• : ski Da. .i i/a a o M[ t pi, I $ /Ike g 4 4'8 4I b01 h ip al 1 1.31-• .f•8 4 .it.II E Nil „of.. Ill isil —I`T I ,-1 13'AVNVIOI W t 1', .I , • g - a f? 3�A_b_NOS2lBdd3f.- —.7.7. - .1.. 'v - I ' I1I I _1 r!_,.i' I _. ..,,: _ • II. qg- iVNVf1IN4'INIy1 -- li E'� , 1 1'. I.. .;I , 1,yt_ < , 0 < < _�_, _,.' I _ ,' • ; I Q `1 I •LO( ;• II , II 1 J 1atl 6 mr 0. 1 rggol , y<I _I IIZJt yT I'-I' '�==.,3NO11V II 19 €@ l!s m ` -r iay ' I F. ... AV1S3M, 1;.. --T.i��s Ti 11 r g.n.ylt 1 ' tl s •. ih @i I setI aBE a _ i 1 / _ ' r1r ARR i aai r. i �11 4 a a 16 -. p y JA s 1 sr i t. 1, 1 ! a1 F i 1- 11 10 E t4 e R I t: I al p�g �g_ i .1 41. a b 4€ I . L - i g 9 ,!, tiv i ,ii! li i i viil I!.betagt3gpi i liri h%.,APIAi i ill,, . I �a a III .H E6 sk 1 5l9 a. I 1 B:.be , °I a a° At !g/5 i 9 gQi 2 :a r i isa .1Ak i = li ill g9't n ° Ba A. RI 5 Oki i f, 41 9ii 6 ' '�"i Y"'� l'i t" : �'-to 4 g lii 6` l€ li 0�Y@ i Ill l IAlai/ h! fie; ii 4; s ta s I bi; I €is � e i��� qR ¢ � u���� ykiik.. pg4!2 tRi {�` $ S d 'ilia A 3 $-8 iia Se Yi ii Ali i g .4 1 t 1 ki d!i . -:D • 22 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. • O Vf Na C N < n m co R4 -n m X r, _ LEGEND 8e ABBREVIATIONS: I W a," .aw 10 1 ow to..a o et Iwo 1� . 1 Cal C..row sbMw, e..a C.5 A.dltu C1111'111L'NULL T 01 m,<<ooan �� 10 CI ...RC.sot. C..i mom max WM • 02.C....yt �a03.1 { OJT oat o bo I • ▪ Cans.LW RUM. uyac 0...1.311 1.3.01 0.00 �ianw . '1 I cat.PR.w'Wwart 1 Va.'-w is) 't LL'.t. yap -'.-�I.. may w woe rU.am Is._n v orn „A ;#. E, 'di •-4.t a e ,r�..... 1+ -, Lebo P.... 1 , a' mmn• .` - dart.• I + ., 03110 1 � � 1 'm.3.1.two,Groot°°" �:. 4,- n:;+•-• s_�-_-_•,.:f�`.� . a ly�• +Tic- .C-+ -. ' l '-- - 1'l Y;, ,il II{ ~ 0.3 dlt LC.woW Pool w:l 'r '.�.` ^��� ` Y � t+Y1Y Y Ni.,--,\, �� I 1 t lira.w0.MM u { I '1 ate. �w • IL. I,. rm IPo.nC a.0 m d' • .ail ��//, ` / IV. .p+r•4 «� 1,' 11 1 rr°°v ..Or�ao,ma,�., li' S. `.1/ f. y ''5 • ' 42 ' a/d> �-.-. ,, {.rp � •. w. Z. w Roo OW w( - 1.1 '� p �a: 1 C _."e,•.1.�� `.`..�; 3, w _ h e p wi VI 000 N 0• MIT1.I Or 0.1.1.eiMu c 1 a� i '1 +1 �,,t_� ��*. � .51 \�s ui - �NY ._ ...,,, I C i l7 yl ¢�6 W a.r P41.1 nr'.n�Prsl vo 1 5[i�yg r_1 ¢�f so ow N 98000 54.{t.1 .. lm��� 1, 1 i„ I ,I, 71. Mena ,p,wm li c' 1 II 1'I,5.-`�-' tr., � 4:''' i 11"3'. ,///je z-_-} ,4.ot -is i.1" 4.,-11.+.- 4 .0104 112 .1 ... '` '� J�Ipt, Sr r > - _••:0 ;:s= h I LI 1 y - • I 4 Ow I.uat I ,.a./}t+fJ �L/A /a/s //[} .//j �. ,�ti.{l, 1 ` I IGUiP[001 I.IGL 1 11 ,1na .y! t/ Tl—�/ f /Mv1.nf obno JJ,y'_/�_ _J F,Y_ �.�d� '1 1 OCON _ f !y'1 f / yam Il oaV •1 ym-1• fas OC ..0...m.aW.. I—y° y s -• yr _': UNCOLN I.N NORTH 1- �a" ,w.. ,� .' I� low .Iyr o COO.0.'aa ''i+ `! 4- --„a+-� .. A';" b --+. -:Z'�i.'`}�'--�R1�4''.v"A�.•F/'w.u•'.:deb i. � ...,. a-▪ MOM lea 0.1. _ - ea" l� II -• ' _1 n'sue— J --� _ _"� ` 'fl 1 o.L', , .I ty,taa m.wem/w.n... .. ,�A '1" ,' IR.r-�1.. - w:ui 1 -<a+. .w,e, ccr. e uws gym+ .ar, C. ,wn.�. m,nc.ao rot pa•-w.} ontra wR 1ta11..a,1R. I 1 ! ms,.s w IC. C MI.COO o..IRu.a.vr+c • C.T.mA TON W.ROTC ma Ora Iu -.fro VOT ItiLL; b6mG1q.S�C[IUAt J MIAMI BEACH awl. Loom Aye 4.1000a.NAK.AM L NOTUDE- MC�'y"' nw .,..c,wn ...a.taR."� .v.1ar.tti..tr.m,un tRCalq..9.a1,v R." nn� r.Cnn 9_ - NM w n _.,.....,.....,,... IMP o1 aoUOARy a Two-.Moi,Q ZURVgY _,�.___. on waa^.s F .'wn Cam. ..rCn .ale. �-1.-. 1.-.— .rruw,Rwm4u 1•-tr" w~itnr/wrt 1.C.2 0 • Vf CD m C m 1.01 I Site Analysis SURVEY EXHIBIT FOR P27 i Of i it- .;a 3; r. RIfei. ! E �f as d II 3 �C d11 I 1 t' 1l 1.! 1 1`1 1 7 21 z 1 /11114 lb ap .f.[ 1 itu.h! yj a 5a .I d.; .sI I, {,; Etc d i i r.,i. it g-i i I j1.4 a-pp� @ {a'##[ 4 ��h!-. '11 EE it t i Iti os Af. 3 20.ij i18ll d ir.I I�.�e. _iira9999 I_8 >: 8 •0 . 1 .,../H 1.—__JL.i_un 1,:,• . lE- - - TN E. - ,ii 1 .. r .1- __,r .IA.:A:183W , I— i 77.___..i 01 �f 4�5 `. ai .,, VI lig 1 . it , ,.). „. . I _ ,,, 1 i.„..,,A,c, Iffi I �4 — '�-, OJ1 ��t!I _4_ �L r2'[—Liu 11 i) a � :, s= :z, La..„ , i 4 = 1I� f I al.EI! _. g.hit tii iii E t o ate% t q, 's py a + L ; . „figth- -g i g ii s. i Ig.i j : i I L 43 ii 3 9 1F. : 1 4s `yg k�is. 1 A si i 5 ,' . :1 ;? je. a tks l ,e e 4 3 la i i 1 4 _ - lir'Q 41 tt i z n1 i wisp ft, i 1 q,..s cz3b 7,0 [ '.. 3 j t 311'I I .I taa? i bi ` t 1°„ id17 d Q ; edij !c jj _ ill D`i' i _ - a r � 3^aa'� '� � e� a It ��hlin ii t 3A� ,NE a gill i ¢l 6 i is 19 Szi as t?1 a fat d6 lJS53a23d ai a a aF!i 2 ha.t • 24 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. 3 8 D sz *DUI'321UJ zZOZ o • y1 + ��� L,- I•. f :.s, 1b•"F F 4$`,,.,_,r w•:9'�ga'` gi-laAl"g:s•..,�_a, i+ 1:,K,s=Pp�IIea^fgassr� v iii 0 Vl .ifFFER50N AVENUE --`__ i +�Igy, i 1. i 1 • �I P I - IC1•S/9•a Wtna4w:.a.n �� •1 '_�--- _. I: Y , i fdf'. C 1—e _ B ii - 'Y j 1�1 n G; iii:Q 1 I. y 11+111 {{I t Ii1111� + i {,`.;(II 1e'{llLe•'1 4lull a h , { 9 - i i1li ` t '�{1 o a is I VAy f 1 a F9t € �j a S ➢t="m i +Ia : B Rf. {{{,4- 4dy P1r�` P/ ta} ,af s j°14 §l I9 1 tE'\'i1{k'S. i '- l . ` 11l!14{ci t.\ i ' '14�'if�•`:t. $ /j1hrii §8 'i7 C , ,yq i.11 ;( i Al A @N ') Ii{ , .1...)1i0 w v tl:lc 61 t m, 91'. 9 2 e 1{ 1 a '{' •1 �{ g6tT �'' i w ' ci t 'r i 11 II .- {'{tom'. d 1 113r• is '_ ?,:.”- i ti.._,S .i •{1 ��gg 1 yas jj YZ• tt 1 ���\ i ��gu:de.:�- .�1-�• IY §sapp C� ~s 1}{ii•3 //�j�Z i. Jn1 ,''i` •gym ..�: { ` 11{ _ it B_ t '•1,. li7 '� l 1 h_0 ' 1i 6��zd § I 'G ±•.•,. �••) i@ it§ t{i` � F �(11'(Slka'51l§ R1al. ^ v Aft j 11 liq 1 . >. � ._a Wit' S 1 4 C1i `i S 4,9 e ' t�1 �— 1 14 .1t+ 1 .8 cvr'su,o 1 ,1i 1jlF W f/IlIt {UV I t) mor.It . 4 1c ERlDIAN AVENUE` ;1, g I lira ---- --------_ - I LZd 11O3 1I8IHX3 A3A21f1S s!sA1Dud afis 31:I8D 9Z .3w'3aaD zzoa o • .•easoaal..'K"n. :000�5. U09'f 000.1 U09 'Oa 0 nu Oaf+6q WYt.10 C66Sy DRYV 0006oi(10d0. M. .- M.La� ODO'9=l' aaj s$sd10.4' eo ro NYI DM xW YP , YaONhlf V ie0iey'YWro..... ..c...Oil Ilat br9.1 yi.. y 7 p ''... . 1 .•'••- 1pq I 0 U 9,13.�0fpai.q .0N r.6 rxal it *. f ", i, ' Oaa Er 91l Ml w alto s Eaw!Oewsely _ ,", µ,� # `' .• L Orb .r kl b4 .s./ 'a !O ' ak EY14,,,tlJ Ka0lJ ro y aetNfli Nl flY_ °!. -yam.f ' VINO iMN/. s - i �i _ r_' ow a',OOSMm,Wlo.ssftsSVir6....y. 6001Pbi1Pl _ I < +ws..0 ow Ne 0atraLGtElow Dw,ch.,.. - .`I'* 11 i" . Mini eq. Ooirma 7N3f Nq0 Wd4, !..•1..lNfaunnu64... Y' ' ,,,rs.� d ' : ; :i ; 411 1.411 SNl dd p it riptiv..r...o...v?S M.6aoap.v!.P' N ye »sa W..,.„.„tlq r eueVl!6 tO.41 a� ( {}a .�yw - D�COew.t1 r'i 513r�dblh '*s - j, i"• ,, .4'T'. �' s-4• 04. . .- �nNc'arerale!!aa6h �' ,`: '" Low ti 6,W7.1ET/6- 3 enrfaN7NmWN— 3 - le• ,n,.!'hN' s3anro3�" y� p, f t/�Ylvtmat ;w NI 36 ?r!P'a8 aalw l leseaa — d +, '���,1 % 1.000.4.Y. .K l®. - A ,e ,a.:� ,; bE^3i�LN 1 EES 3ZCbS551 "� tv SV71'rp...N.43 oat alto a1^ , L� is T' I .{ 4.Dafr)lleeef0 -�i I, ,yr r•pe•h ro Y^Sl„ax of .�,. . �- ` p� aik.1 a`'I.,..`m r.. t j IS90c-11;l Dareigle^014'NT M sr.o.iw.a eo. ° y0 ,,�t� us!ia a da d;l 111111i s3alinnais a. ��w`- " �' .e.!oo.-1'O lad..A ibY4t3a ... '1 lit - Y+k -Ti t F 0,,,,:,,,,,-..,ro6h mJwi aMll^wM : - L.�, .D• 1 y•J lM F* ,r r v� 9i3NVaiHlO / 6 _.4_ fy ., 54101 n..9= iyy `yam,' E V.•1 ae•4 t^Dh.1.4ilf).4i 11RfS01 ?i ark 1 N ti'h' ry4 V..S 11we"oTto hN wY ,aaviim OOo11 f" • Y 1 f.n9 h n,wF,l 10S4i3NHIM A 1�w� `M �.,j`ii +1 jr . in o pflf Omlf ofo aah.N W.F.'''.�;f'1 f i - """( 1:V"6l' ..,.�Y r.esor.*o 4.4awei)ziosi xe II .Y� Iw ..,.1 Je.p IPse e - x . ~,, 'zaJsoM ear wMW 10,1.0 @( 9 � sp M 6 U wd ow.gTi• Y 1 .4 set.bar.N 6•9f'a'e43la.rr( D ww, -k r P41 -`7 '1y. �,..•7. tilkir y±l I w J 1, d •t 'Xj .umi��4"Ah I� inayaav1 H ` ' a , :1a - ,41 ", ',*br7Y rMOfa if8'.Ypfl4 .1----1ao,611Tb17ad5 e i NM' '. [l lR .ncaSVik muted aropOo0awnxnoalufiam.wQcaaf a ues.Q6,11:1.a • _ uasa it l al}aWId aa/ el PJezgH poold Euo!ieN .p dYW NIVid QOOld S!SAIDUV a1!S Site Analysis Site Analysis • The following chart summarizes the salient characteristics of the subject site. SITE SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Physical Description Net Site Area-P25 0.86 Acres 37,454 Sq. Ft. Net Site Area-P26 1.10 Acres 48,000 Sq. Ft. Net Site Area - P27 1.36 Acres 59,273 Sq. Ft. Road Frontage-P25 17th Street 150 Feet Road Frontage-P25 Lenox Avenue 250 Feet Road Frontage-P26 Lenox Avenue 130 Feet Road Frontage-P26 Lincoln Lane North 320 Feet Road Frontage-P26 Michigan Avenue 130 Feet Road Frontage-P27 Jefferson Avenue 250 Feet Road Frontage-P27 Lincoln Lane North 300 Feet Road Frontage-P27 Meridian Avenue 145 Feet Shape-P25&P26 Rectangular Shape-P27 L-shape Topography Improved to road grade Primary Traffic Counts(24 hrs.) 17th Street 17,300 Secondary Traffic Counts(24 hrs.) Alton Road 27,500 Zoning District-Existing GNU Government Use District Zoning District-Proposed for P25 CD 2 Commercial,Medium Intensity District Zoning District-Proposed for P25,P26&P27 arza,Commercial,High Intensity District Flood Map Panel No.&Date 12086C0317L 11-Sep-09 Flood Zone Zone AE Comparative Analysis Rating Visibility ;) Good local street&pedestrian visibility Functional Utility Good potential for mixed-uses Traffic Volume Neighborhood,Commercial&seasonal Adequacy of Utiliti s Municipal utility services Landscaping Urban streetscape Drainage Municipal storm drainage Utilities Provider Availability Water City of Miami Beach Yes Sewer City of Miami Beach Yes Natural Gas Contract service Yes Electricity FPL Yes Telephone AT&T land lines Yes Mass Transit Miami-Dade County(MDT) bus Yes service and Miami Beach Trolley Other Yes Ne Unknown Detrimental Easements X Encroachments X Deed Restrictions X Reciprocal Parking Rights TBD Various sources compiled by CBRE 27 ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Site Analysis SITE DESCRIPTION The subject sites are all improved with municipal metered, surface parking lot site improvements. We have relied on the legal descriptions, surveys, recorded plats and Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's data referenced throughout this report. INGRESS/EGRESS Vehicular ingress/egress is available to each of the subject sites via public rights-of-way, while pedestrian access is provided on all fronts via improved sidewalks. Street improvements include asphalt paved traffic lanes, signalized crosswalks, metered street parking, concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and street lighting. TOPOGRAPHY AND INFRASTRUCTURE The subject sites are all improved to road grade in a bit(out submarketwith all off-site infrastructure in-place including urban streetscape, pedestrian' slde alks, underground utilities, and concrete curbs, gutters & storm drainage system. The topography of the site is not seen as an imp emep ,tt/ the development of the property. During our inspection of the site, we observed no drainage problems. However, it is important to note that the City of Miami Beach is a barrie s s imd and ported to be ground zero for sea level rise issues and engineering. SOILS • A soils analysis for the site has not�bbeen-prov ded for the preparation of this appraisal. In the absence of a soils report, it-is-a,sp cificc assumption that the site has adequate soils to support the highest and best use. c\\,) \``. EASEMENTS AND ENCROACHM NTS There are no known easemmet�s er ,00r encroachments impacting the site that are considered to affect the marketability or highest and best use. It is recommended that the client/reader obtain a current title policy outlining all easements and encroachments on the property, if any, prior to making a business decision. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS There are no known covenants, conditions or restrictions impacting the site that are considered to affect the marketability or highest and best use. It is recommended that the client/reader obtain • a copy of the current covenants, conditions and restrictions, if any, prior to making a business decision. 28©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Site Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICES The site includes all municipal services, including police, fire and refuse garbage collection. All utilities are available to the site in adequate quality and quantity to service the highest and best use. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Although CBRE was not provided an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), a tour of the site did not reveal any obvious issues regarding environmental contamination or adverse conditions. The appraiser is not qualified to detect the existence of potentially hazardous material or underground storage tanks which may be present on or near the site. The existence of hazardous materials or underground storage tanks may affect the value of the property. For this appraisal, CBRE, Inc. has specifically assumed that the property is",ot affected by any hazardous materials that may be present on or near the property. CONCLUSION i// The subject sites are all well located along north-south thoroughfares wifh excellent walkability to the Lincoln Road pedestrian mall, as well as, resorth'otels residential neighborhoods and the Atlantic Ocean beach front. ((-) 29 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Zoning ZONING MAP .. 4,1 , t.ty \�k } FAG1Al ZONING M -=-.-- Errjd-, ,, l' (( O OF THE q/P �t " � '�. / �I `t t r CITY OF _ I' MIAMI BEACH l •,„,°�'Sg,.lrx.;4 ._ •FLORIDA. t woonrOPAnoi®u r!Ammons,0/OOMMIK6(0.al s :��i A. `{ o.xa w..r.+opttan naan 7 A„ , #r ,. 170— " 1�--, 4' 1 Wes # l tX �t ; 1'1- - t � ; 1111 4;, w t .Ir I y , gt ',' i a7.4 3'�gsf';+4'sf.'ti ti ,`_��. b y�yfi.�,r! �mm,.1ri, �w :,, .3. - Otiss .iI 't -:: 1..±2ac - sE„-pall r� V _ �` fidl fiir.4 r k, r f�r�rrrrr Ia hi6 G� R'J -,ti T �r 1. '^--� _ '"a- ���C r d i f p4 03 1 1� ti ^*_ ~ „':.:P1 .. .... ill== :::r mow ...d. • 30 ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Zoning Zoning The following chart summarizes the subject's existing zoning requirements. ZONING SUMMARY Current Zoning GU,Government Use District Intent&Purpose Any land or air rights owned by or leased to the city or other governmental agency for no less than an initial term of 20 years shall automatically convert to a GU government use district. Uses Permitted The main permitted uses in the GU government use district are government buildings and uses,including but not limited to parking lots and garages;parks and associated parking;schools;performing arts and cultural facilities;monuments and memorials.Any use not listed above shall only be approved after the city commission holds a public hearing.See subsection 142-425(e)for public notice requirements. Private Uses Private or joint government/private uses in the GU government use district,including air rights,shall be reviewed by the planning board prior to approval by the city commission.See subsection 142-425(e)for public notice requirements. Accessory Uses Accessory uses in the GU government use district are as required i section 142-903. Development Regulations (a) The development regulations(setbacks,floor area sig ratio ns,parking,etc.)in the GU government use district shall be the average of the requirements contained,in tI surrounding zoning districts as determined by the planning and zoning director,which shall be roved byti4ty commission. Upon the sale of GU properly,the zoning distnct classification shall be determined,after public hearing with notice pursuant to Florida Statutes,by theciiy co f i3sion in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan.Upon the(b) expiration f�lease to the city or other government agency,the district shall revert to the zoning district and its regularo�neffect at the initiation of the lease. (c)Setback regulations for parking of and,garages W\e they are the main permitted use are listed in subsection 142-1132(n). (d) Following a public hearing,thde eent reg ations required by these land development regulations,except foe he historic preservation and design review processes,may be waived by a five- sevenths vote of th�,city comrmission fo��dd velopments pertaining to governmental owned or leased buildings,us`and sites ich are wholly�sed by,open and accessible to the general public,or used by not- for-profit,educational,or cultural organizations,or for convention center hotels,or convention center hotel / accessory garages,o'c y utilized parking lots,provided they are continually used for such purposes. Notwithstanding the ab e,no GU property may be used in a manner inconsistent with the comprehensive f �. ' ♦. pla,In all cases i voles the use of GU property by the private sector,or joint government/private use, development shot conformjto\all development regulations in addition to all applicable sections contained in development land development regulations and shall be reviewed by the planning board prior to approval by the city commission.All sLch private or joint government/private uses are allowed to apply for any permittee vane ce ands allnot be eligible to waive any regulations as described in this paragraph.However,not-for- profit,�educatioaf,or cultural organizations as forth herein,shall be eligible for a city commission waiver of developmen fegulations as described in this paragraph,except for the historic preservation and design review processes.Additionally,private uses on the GU lots fronting Collins Avenue between 79th and 87th Streets approved by the city commission for a period of less than ten years shall be eligible for a city commission waiver of the development regulations as described in this paragraph,for temporary structures only.Such waivers applicable to GU lots fronting Collins Avenue between 79th and 87th Streets may include,but not be limited to,the design review process,provided the city commission,as part of the waiver process,evaluates and considers all applicable design review requirements and criteria in chapter 118 of (e)When a public hearing is required to waive development regulations before the city commission,the public notice shall be advertised in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the city at least 15 days prior to the hearing.Fifteen days prior to the public hearing date,both a description of the request and the time and place of such hearing shall be posted on the property,and notice shall also be given by mail to the owners of land lying within 375 feet of the properly.A five-sevenths vote of the city commission is required to approve a waiver or use that is considered under this regulation. Source: City of Miami Beach Planning&Zoning Department 31©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Zoning The following chart summarizes the subject's proposed rezoning regulation. ZONING SUMMARY Current Zoning CD-2,Commercial,Medium Intensity District Purpose The CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district provides for commercial activities, services, offices and related activities which,serve the entire city. • Main Permitted Uses The main permitted uses in the CD-2 commercial,medium intensity district are commercial uses(including. for example.personal service establishments);apartments;apartment hotels,hotels,hostels,and suite hotels (pursuant to section 142-1105 of this chapter);religious institutions with an occupancy of 199 persons or less and alcoholic beverages establishments pursuant to the regulations sat forth in chapter 6;Alcoholic beverage establishments located in the following geographic areas within the CD-2 commercial,medium intensity district shall be subject to the additional requirements set forth in section 142-310: a) Alton Road corridor. Properties on the west side of Alton Road and east of Alton Court,between 5th Street and 11th Street,and between 14th Street and Collins Canal;and properties on the east side of West Avenue,between Lincoln Road and 17th Street,except alcoholic beverage establishments fronting Lincoln Road between West Avenue and Alton Road. b) Sunset Harbour neighborhood. The geographic area generally bounded by Purdy Avenue to the west, 20th Street and the waterway to the north,Alton Road to the east,and Dade Boulevard to the south. Conditional Uses The conditional uses in the CD-2 commercial, medium intensity district are funeral home; religious institutions; pawnshops; video game arcades; publicai d private institutions; schools; any use selling gasoline; new construction of structures 50,000 square feet and over (even when divided by a district boundary line),which review shall be the first step.in)he process before the review by any of the other land development boards;outdoor entertainment establishment;neighborhood impact establishment;open oir entertainment establishment;and storage and/or p rking of commercial vehicles-on a site other than the site at which the associated commerce,tr\ade or busin se i�slocated.See section 142-1103. Accessory Uses The accessory uses in the CD-2 commercial,medium intensitdistrict are as required in article IV,division 2 • of this chapter;and accessory outdo,,bar counters,provided'thal*the accessory outdoor bar counter is not operated or utilized between midnight and 8. 0 a.m.;however, a fo n accessory outdoor bar counter which is adjacent to a property with'an opartment u i(the accessory outdoor bar counter may not be operated or utilized between 8:00 p.m.and B;00 a� Prohibited Uses The prohibited uses in the CD-2 commercial,medium intensity district are accessory outdoor bar counters, except as provided imarticle IV,division this chapter and in chapter 6. < Source: City o Miami Beach Planning&Zoning Department f• \ \\\\\.� �1 \) • 32 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Zoning ZONING SUMMARY-Continued Maximum Floor Area Ratio 1.50 FAR,plus Code Section 142-307(d)allows 2.0 FAR where more than 25%of the building is used for Minimum Lot Area None Minimum Lot Width None Minimum Apt.Unit Size New Construction: 550-SF;Rehabilitated Buildings: 400-SF Non-elderly and elderly low and moderate income housing: 400-SF Workforce Housing: 400-SF Average Apt.Unit Size New Construction: 800-SF;Rehabilitated Buildings: 550-SF Non-elderly and elderly low and moderate income housing: 400-SF Workforce housing:400-SF Minimum Hotel Unit Size 15%: 300-SF to 335-SF and 85%:335-SF&up;Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings:200-SF For contributing hotel structures,located within an individual historic site,a local historic district or a national register district,which are being renovated in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Historic Structures as amended,retaining the existing room configuration shall be permitted,provided all rooms are a minimum of 200 square feet. Additionally,existing mom configurations for the above described hotel structures may be modified to address applicable life-safety and accessibility regulations,provided the 200 square feet minimum unit size is maintained,and provided the maximum occupancy per hotel room does not exceed 4 persons.In addition, the minimum hotel unit size for a property formerly zoned HD is 250 square feet,provided that the property does not exceed 25,000 square feet as of March 23,2019.Hotel units within rooftop additions to contributing structures in a historic district and individually designated historic buildings-200. Average Hotel.Unit Size The number of units may not exceed the maximum density s set forth in the comprehensive plan. Maximum Height 50 Feet(except as provided in Section 142-1161) Notwithstanding the above,the design review boar orjistoric preservation board,in accordance with the applicable review criteria,may allow up to ar,.addihonal fire feet of height,not to exceed a maximum height of 55 feet.In order to utilize the additional heigi t,the first flq\r shall provide at least 12 feet in height,as measured from the base flood elevatio p`IUs maximum free to the top of the second floor slab. 40 Feet for self-storage warehouse,except that the building heiOt shall be limited to 25 feet within 50 feet from the rear property line for lots abutting an alley;and within 60"feet from a residential district for blocks with no alley. // 60 Feet for mixed-use and comme`ial4uildings that include structured parking for properties on the west side of Alton Road from 6th Street to Collins Canal. \__\ Maximum Stories 5 Stories(except for permitted height exceptions as provided in Code Section 142-1161) Minimum Setbacks; Qom` Front,At Grade Parking Lot 5 Feet Front,Pedestal&Tower Non-Oceanfront -0-Feet and residential uses follow the RM-1,2&3 setbacks Front,Pedestal&Tower Oceanfront Pedestal: 15 Feet;Tower: 20 Feet+1 foot for every 50 feet in height,to a maximum of 50 feet,then Side,Interior,At Grade Parking Lot 5 Feet Side,Interior,Pedestal&Tower Non-Oceanfront j0 feet when abutting a rem ential district,otherwise none.Notwithstanding the foregoing,rooftop additions rta contributing{structu ers=a)iistoric district and individually designated historic buildings may follow exist , oonforminng r'pedestal setbacks. Side,Interior,Pedestal&Tower Oceanfront Notwithstanding the foregoing,rooftop additions to contributing structures in a historic district and zrzindividuailydesignated historic buildings may follow existing nonconforming rear pedestal setbacks. Side,Facing a Street,At Grade 5 Feet Side,Facing a Street,Pedestal&Towe`Non-Oceanfront 10 eet when abutting a residential district,unless separated by a street or waterway otherwise none Side,Facing a Street,Pedestal&Tower Oceonf ant 10 Feet Rear,At Grade Parking Lot 5 Feet and if abutting an alley-0-Feet Rear,Pedestal&Tower Non-Oceanfront 5 Feet;and,10 Feet when abutting residential district,unless separated by a street or waterway,then-0-. Rear,Pedestal&Tower Oceanfront 25%of lot depth,75 feet minimum from the bulkhead line whichever is greater (b) The tower setback shall not be less than the pedestal setback. (c) Parking lots and garages:If located on the same lot as the main structure the above setbacks shall apply. If primary use the setbacks are listed in subsection 142-1132(n). (d) Mixed use buildings:Calculation of setbacks and floor area ratio: (1) Setbacks.When more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for residential or hotel units, any floor containing such units shall follow the RM-1,2,3 setback regulations. (2) Floor area ratio.When more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for residential or hotel units,the floor area ratio range shall be as set forth in the RM-2 district. (3) The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for self-storage warehouses shall be 1.5.The floor area ratio provision for mixed use buildings in section 142-307(d)(2)above shall not apply to self-storage warehouse development. Buildings Containing Parking Spaces Residential or commercial uses,as applicable,at the first level along every facade facing a street,sidewalk or waterway;for properties not having access to an alley,the required residential space shall accommodate entrance and exit drives. Residential or commercial uses above the first level along every facade facing a waterway. For properties less than 60 feet in width,the total amount of commercial space at the first level along a street side shall be determined by the design review or historic preservation board,as applicable.All facades above the first level, facing a street or sidewalk, shall include a substantial portion of residential or commercial uses;the total amount of residential or commercial space shall be determined by the design review or historic preservation board,as applicable,based upon their respective criteria. Parking Requirements-District No.6 Refer to Section 130-31 of municipal zoning code. Source: City of Miami Beach Planning&Zoning Department 33 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Zoning ZONING SUMMARY Current Zoning CD-3,Commercial,High Intensity District Purpose The CD-3 district is designed to accommodate a highly concentrated business care in which activities serving the entire city are located. Permitted Uses The main permitted uses are commercial uses; apartments; apartment/hotels; hotels, alcoholic beverage establishments pursuant to the regulations set forth in Chapter 6, and religious institutions with an occupancy of 199 persons or less.Offices are prohibited on the ground floor on that portion of Lincoln Road • which is closed to traffic,unless the office area is located in a mezzanine,or at least 75 feet back from the storefront; also apartments, apartment/hotels and hotels located on that portion of Lincoln Road shall comply with section 142-335.Dance halls(as defined in section 114-1 of this Code) not also operating as restaurants with full kitchens and serving full meals and licensed as alcoholic beverage establishments are prohibited on properties having a lot line adjoining Lincoln Road,from the Atlantic Ocean to Biscayne Bay, unless the dance hall is located within a hotel with a minimum of 100 hotel units. Conditional Uses The conditional uses are adult living congregate facilities;new construction of structures 50,000 square feet and over(even when divided by a district boundary line),which review shall be the first step in the process before the review by any of the other land development boards; outdoor entertainment establishment, neighborhood impact establishment, open air entertainment establishment, nursing homes; religious institutions with an occupancy greater than 199 persons;video game arcades;public and private institutions; schools and major cultural dormitory facilities as specified in section 142-1332;and storage and/or parking of commercial vehicles on a site other than the site at which the associated commerce,trade or business is located, except such storage and/or parking of commercial vehicles shall not be permitted on lots with frontage on Lincoln Road,Collins Avenue,41st Street ard,7lst Street.See subsection 142-1103(c).When located on that portion of Lincoln Road that is closeddtto•traff�ic,these uses shall comply with section 142-335. Accessory Uses The accessory uses in the CD-3 commercial,high tin"fens district are as follows: (1) Those uses permitted in article IV,division.2.of this chapter (2) Accessory outdoor bar counters,pursuant to the regulations set odh in Chapter 6,provided that the accessory outdoor bar counter is not operated or utilized between midnjght and 8:00 a.m.;however,for an accessory outdoor bar counter which is adjacent to property with an apartment unit,the accessory outdoor bar counter may not be operated or ut'I�zed_bety✓�n'8:00 p.m.and 8:00 a.m. / Prohibited Uses The prohibited uses are pawnshops;secondhand dealers of precious metals/precious metals dealers;and accessory outdoor bar counter,except as p or v'�de in Article IV,Division 2 of this Chapter and in Chapter 6. Lincoln Road Apartments, apartment/hotels, hotels-and the con)tional uses, as described in this division, which are located on that portion of`Lincoln Road f ahah closed to traffic,may have first floor entrances and lobbies occupying up to 20 percent\oflihey'}otal treet frontage(s).The remainder of their first floor frontage shall consist solelof-commercial uses\\ve ending back at least 75 feet from the street frontage(s). Source: Miami Beach Planning&Zoning Dept. , \ ci _ '`\,) 34 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Zoning ZONING SUMMARY-Continued F.A.R. 1) Lot area equal to or less than 45,000 sq.ft.-2.25;Lot area greater than 45,000 sq.ft.-2.75; Oceanfront lots with lot area greater than 45,000 sq.ft.-3.0. 2) Notwithstanding the above,oceanfront lots in architectural district shall have a maximum FAR of 2.0. 3) Notwithstanding the above,lots located between Drexel Avenue and Collins Avenue and between 16th Street and 17th Street shall have a maximum FAR of 2.75. 4) Notwithstanding the above,lots which,as of the effective date of this ordinance(November 14,1998), are oceanfront lots with a lot area greater than 100,000 sq.ft.with an existing building,shall have a maximum FAR of 3.0;however,additional FAR shall be available for the sale purpose of providing hotel amenities as follows:the lesser of 0.15 FAR or 20,000 sq.ft. However,the floor area ratio maximum for residential development,inclusive of hotels,in the architectural district shall be 2.50. Minimum Lot Area Commercial-None;Residential-7,000 SF Minimum Lot Width Commercial-none;residential-50 feet Maximum Height 75 feet. Lots within the architectural district:50 feet. Lots fronting on 17th Street:80 feet. City Center Area(bounded by Drexel Avenue,16th Street,Collins Avenue and the south property line of those lots fronting on the south side of Lincoln Road):100 feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing requirement for City Center Area,the following additional shall apply:The height for lots fronting on Lincoln Road and 16th Street between Drexel Avenue and Washington Avenue are limited to 50 feet for the first 50'of lot depth. The height for lots fronting on Drexel Avenue is limited to 50 feet for the first 25'of lot depth(except as provided in section 142-1161). Maximum Stories 7 stories. Lots within the agricultural district:5 stories. Lots fronting on 17th Street:7 stories. City Center Area(bounded by Drexel.Avenue,16th Street,Collins Avenue and the south property line of those lots fronting on the south side of Lincoln Road):11 stories,subject to the applicable height restrictions (except as provided in section 142-1161). Minimum Setbacks; • Fronf Yard 5 Feet Street Side Yard Subterranean design is 0 feet;pedestal&tower is 0 to 10 feet for non-Oceanfront properties and 10 feet for Oceanfront commercial properties and for residential uses,must follow RM 1,2,&3 setbacks. Interior Side Yard 5 Feet Rear Yard 5 Feet and-0-if abutting an alley Minimum Unit Size New Construction-550 SF Rehabilitated buildings-400 SF Hotels-15%of units-300 SF to 335 SF;and the remaining 85%of units- 335 SF or more For con nt buting Note`structures,located within an individual historic site,a local historic district or a notional registeN dq f rct,which are being renovated in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Historic Structures as amended,retaining the existing room configuration shall be permitted,provided all rooms are a minimum of 200 square feet.Additionally,existing room configurations for the above described hotel structures may be modified to address applicable life-safety and accessil Jit�regulations,provided the 200 square feet minimum unit size is maintained,and provided the axim m occupancy per hotel room does not exceed 4 persons. Average Unit Size New Construction-800 SF Rehabilitated buildings-550 SF Hotels-N/A Off-Street Parking Requirement; Alcoholic Beverage Establishment 1 space per 4 seats&1 space per 60-SF of non-seating area Amusement Place 1 space per 60-SF Apartment&Apt.-Hotel 1.5 spaces per unit on lots 50 feet in width or less Outdoor Cafe 1 space per 4 seats Sidewalk Cafes None required Grocery Stores&Supermarket 1 space per 250-SF Hotel 1 space per unit for structures under 250-units Office 1 space per 400-SF Retail Store 1 space per 300-SF Source: Miami Beach Planning&Zoning Dept. 35 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Zoning ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The existing municipal metered, surface parking lot improvements represent a legally-conforming use and the City of Miami Beach is considering potential redevelopment of the subject properties, subject to a citywide voter referendum, a comprehensive land use modification and rezoning from GU, Government Use to CD-2, Commercial, Medium Intensity and CD-3, Commercial, High Intensity districts. The responses to the City's RFP is summarized as follows: Municipal Lot Site Size Proposal Proposed FAR P25 0.86-Acre 65,000-SF Office 1.735-FAR P25 & P26 1.96-Acres 132,954-SF Office/Retail > 1.557-FAR 427-Space Garae/< P27 1.36-Acres 87,396-SF Off e/Retail + 1.475-FAR 43-Residential Units &/288- (Excluding Residential Units) Space Garbge/ According to the client, the P25 lot is proposed obeli mooned CD-2, Commercial, Medium Intensity & CD-3, Commercial, High Intensity4hile-13-2,6>& P27 are proposed for the CD-3, Commercial, High Intensity desig��tion. As s1h, the foregoing proposals appear to be in general conformance with the proposed r zoningdistricts. Additional information may be "obtained the City of Miami Beach Planning & Zoning Department. For purposes—ofh's a p sisal CBRE has assumed the information obtained is correct. 36 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Tax and Assessment Data Tax and Assessment Data AD VALOREM TAX INFORMATION - MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT P25 Pro Forma Parcel' Assessor's Parcel No. 2020 2021 1 02-3234-004-0870 760,656 760,545 $26,000,000 2 02-3234-004-0880 760,546 760,545 3 02-3234-004-0890 760,670 760,559 4 02-3234-004-0900 750,000 750,000 5 02-3234-004-0910 760,670 760,559 Subtotal $3,792,542 $3,792,208 $26,000,000 %of Assessed Value 100% 100% 65% Final Assessed Value 3,792,542 3,792,208 $16,900,000 General Tax Rate(per$100 A.V.) 1.935960 1.930810 1.930810 Total Taxes $73,422/ $73,220 $326,307 4% Tax Reduction for Early Pay Discount ($2,937) ($2,929) ($13,052) Total Adjusted Taxes Exempt 'Exempt $313,255 Taxes per SF e--,-, �` --- $8.36 Source: Assessor's Office \mil c\ '' ') ^-,\\\ AD VALOREM TAXJINFORMATION/- MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT P26 Pro Forma Parcel Assessor's Parcel No. /7/7M) 2020 2021 1 02-3234-004-0710 491,592 491,471 $33,600,000 2 02-3234-004-0720 811,578 811,457 3 02-3234-004-0730 811,592 811,471 4 02-323-004-0820 811,585 811,464 5 02-32341 004-0830 811,585 811,464 6 02-3234-004-0840 491,585 491,464 Subtotal $4,229,517 $4,228,791 $33,600,000 %of Assessed Value 100% 100% 65% Final Assessed Value 3,792,542 3,792,208 $21,840,000 General Tax Rate(per$100 A.V.) 1.935960 1.930810 1.930810 Total Taxes $73,422 $73,220 $421,689 4%Tax Reduction for Early Pay Discount ($2,937) ($2,929) ($16,868) Total Adjusted Taxes Exempt Exempt $404,821 Taxes per SF --- --- $8.43 Source: Assessor's Office 37 ©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Tax and Assessment Data AD VALOREM TAX INFORMATION - MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT P27 Pro Forma Parcel Assessor's Parcel No. 2020 2021 1 02-3234-007-0560 750,000 750,000 $39,000,000 2 02-3234-007-0570 1,425,000 1,425,000 3 02-3234-007-0630 750,000 750,000 4 02-3234-007-0640 750,000 750,000 5 02-3234-007-0650 755,486 755,486 6 02-3434-007-0660 750,000 750,000 7 02-3234-007-0670 750,000 750,000 Subtotal $5,930,486 $5,930,486 $39,000,000 %of Assessed Value 100% 100% 65% Final Assessed Value 3,792,542 3,792,208 $25,350,000 General Tax Rate(per$100 A.V.) 1.935960 1.930810 1.930810 Total Taxes $73,422/K $73,220 $489,460 4%Tax Reduction for Early Pay Discount ($2,937) ($2,929) ($19,578) Total Adjusted Taxes Exempt E empt $469,882 Taxes per SF - --- $7.93 Source: Assessor's Office \-/7 The local Assessor's methodology for valuatiio sales con parison approach to value. The next re-assessment of the subject was scheduled for J ry]023. If the subject sold for the value estimate in this report, a reassessme iThthat value could occur based on the "just value" statute, less cost of sale. K7 L-2 It should also be noted that the s u bjecc p por erty is exempt from real estate property taxes based w e s on city government ohi Ho4�, if the subject property were sold-off to a third party developer or user, the"exemption would be rescinded. In addition, under a ground lease scenario, the land component ould remain exempt while the third party leasehold improvements would be taxable, unless a non-profit or municipal.government entity developed and operated the leasehold mpro ements. According to the "just value" statute for all Counties within the State of Florida, the assessment for taxation purposes, is supposed to reflect 100% of market value, less cost of sale, i. e. marketing & real estate commissions, transaction & mortgage recording fees, etc., which typically equates to 65% to 85% of a recorded sale price and/or a market value estimate. According to a representative of Miami-Dade County Revenue Collector, there are no delinquent property taxes encumbering the subject. 38©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Market Analysis Market Analysis The market analysis forms a basis for assessing market area boundaries, supply and demand factors, and indications of financial feasibility. Primary data sources used for this analysis includes CoStar Group, Inc., PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Econometric Advisors (a subsidiary of CBRE, Inc.), REIS, Costar Group and Esri. METROPOLITAN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL OFFICE MARKET OVERVIEW Recent Performance The following table summarizes historical and projected performance for the overall metropolitan Miami-Dade County, FL office market, as reported by CoStar. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FL OFFICE MARKET/ / Transaction Inventory Completions Occupied Stock Asking Rent Asking Rent Net Absorption Year Ending Occupancy Price Per Area (SF) (SF) (SF) 0/SF Gro,)" Change (SF) (SF) 2016 106,096,975 553,859 97,149,576 91.6% $34 14 \549/° 963,660 $362.06 2017 106,783,221 686,246 98,602,568 92.3% $35 21 3.32% 1,423,636 $219.22 2018 107,979,683 1,196,462 98,794,912 91.5% /$36.86 4.49%'\ 92,413 $246.24 2019 108,175,314 100,631 98,963,904 91.5% .r� /$37.99 , 3.054N> 168,055 $72.40 Q1 2020 108,381,075 205,761 98,886,248 91.2% $38.49 1.32% -77,650 $105.32 Q2 2020 108,379,320 -1,755 98,518,624 90.9% �$38f56� 0.18% -367,622 $143.39 Q3 2020 108,723,329 344,009 97,804,304 90.0% $38.58 0.05% -714,325 $342.48 Q4 2020 109,377,302 653,973 98,002,408 /89 6% $399..0,4 1.21% 198,104 $176.66 2020 109,377,302 1,201,988 98,002,408 \ `89.6°N-., $3904\ 2.79% -961,493 $176.66 01 2021 109,542,901 165,599 97,805,296 \9�.3�% \$39.38>/ 0.85% -197,115 $237.50 02 2021 109,782,836 239,935 98,017,000 9.3% 39 87 1.26% 211,708 $255.42 Q32021 109,782,836 0 98,540,200 89.8% $40.27 0.99% 523,202 $293.31 Q4 2021 110,163,132 380,296 98,556;576 8915% $40.77 1.25% 16,378 $190.03 2021 110,163,132 785,830 98,556,576) 89.5%\ $40.77 4.43% 554,173 $190.03 2022• 111,642,204 1,479,072 100,376,832 89.9%/) $43.11 5.74% 1,824,607 - 2023' 111,605,976 -36,228 01;398,714-. ...90.9° $45.70 6.00% 1,026,079 - 2024' 112,704,024 1,098,048 102423,472 90.9% $47.76 4.52% 1,029,858 - 2025* 114,072,358 1,368 334 10,322,992 90.6% $49.06 2.70% 903,353 - 2026* 115,128,240 1.,055;882 04,037,50, 90.4% $49.82 1.55% 718,845 - •Future Projected Data according to CoStar( '\ \ N Source:CoStar,4th Quarter 2021 \ \ '//\ The Miami-Dade County,FL�offfice market consists of approximately 110,163,132 square feet of office space. The following obbse ovations are noted from the table above: • As of 4th Quarter 2021, there was approximately 98,556,576 square feet of occupied office space (including sublet space), resulting in an occupancy rate of 89.5% for the metro area. This reflects a decrease from the previous quarter's occupancy of 89.8%, and a small decrease from an occupancy rate of 89.6%from last year. • The area experienced positive 16,378 square feet of net absorption for the current quarter. This indicates a decline from the previous quarter's positive 523,202 square feet of net absorption, and an improvement from the negative 961,493 square feet of net absorption from last year. 39 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Market Analysis • The area had completions of positive 380,296 square feet for the current quarter, which indicates an increase from the previous quarter's zero completions, and indicates a decline from completions of positive 1,201,988 square feet from last year. • The area achieved average asking rent of $40.77 per square foot, which indicates an • increase from the previous quarter's asking rent of $40.27 per square foot, and an increase from the asking rent of $39.04 per square foot from last year. Historical Inventory—Market 'HISTORICALINVENTORY:•MIAMI-DADE'COUNTY,FL OFFICE MARKET 116,000,000 1.15,128 240 _—114,072.358-- ' - 114,000,000 112,704,024 111,642,204 111,605,976 112,000 0G0 110,163,132 _ 710,000,000 109,377,302 -- 107,979,683- .175,314 104000,000 105,783,221 106,096,975,. - 106,000,000 104,000,0GO 102,000,000 ":":- .;;;- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022• 2023• 2024' 2025' 2026' •Future Projected Data according to CoStar Source:COStar,dth Quarter 2021 Inventory is projected to be 101.163,13-2—squa re feet at the end of the current year, which represents an increase from.th pr previous year's inventory of 109,377,302 square feet. Inventory for next year is projected ot'-be 1 11,6422)204 square feet, reflecting an increase from the current year. 40 CD2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Market Analysis Historical Occupancy - Market HISTORICAL OCCUPANCY:MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FL OFFICE MARKET 92.3% 92.5% 92256 _9i 6% _ __—91_596 -915% 91_5% .90 9% 90 9% 9LO% ___ 90 6% . - • — _ --ad:474 ---- • lb:9-3F---- ROD% —11 I I I - -111 , _. I 895% _. :99 Ce% --,-— - — 88.5% 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 ?04. 2.1123" 2024. 2025" 2020" Future Projected Data according to CoStar Source:CoStar,4th Quarter 2021 N:\ At the end of the current year, the occupancy rate is projected to be 894%, which reflects a small decrease from the 89.6% occupancy rate at the en/ /of tas"year. Occupancy for next year is ., projected to be 89.9%, reflecting an increase from theseqrent year. ,.- . . Historical Net Absorption - Market ,;.- ,• ' HISTORICAL NET ABSORPTION:MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FL OFFICE MARKET ---- 2,0420,000 1,824,607 — 1,423.636 1,500,4200 ,96.3.6.60 1,026,079 1,0i9.858 — 903,353 1,C00,C00 718,845 _ 554,173 500,010 168 055 a 92,413 ' _ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2022" 2023' 2024" 2025' 2026' -500,000 ,.4.."A,.64. ..,.....0.-a.o .,.-,-..i.:.•....., ,,,,F , .4--,...o.F7 . --p;•ftaa3 :, -7.444.7 -...... i' ..,:. i.P7.4. ,.,.:: : 964495 *Future Projected Data according to CoStar Source:CoStar,4th Quarter 2021 At the end of the current year, the area is projected to experience positive 554,173 square feet of net absorption, which indicates an improvement from the negative 961,493 square feet of net absorption for the previous year. The area is projected to experience positive 1,824,607 square ©2022 CBRE, Inc. 41 CBRE Market Analysis feet of net absorption as of the end of next year, which indicates an improvement from the current year. Historical Completions - Market HISTORICAL COMPLETIONS:MIAMI,DADE COUNTY,FL OFFICE MARKET 1,600,000 1,479,072 1;568,334 1,400,000 1,196462 1-,201,988 1,20000 1,098,048 • 1,055,882 2,000,000 _ P.00,000 686,246 - - - 400,060 _ 200,000 100,651 0 , •IMP 2016—----2017. 2018- 2019 -2020—2021 -2cosus 2024" 2025, 2026,. " Future Rejected Data according to CoStar Source:CoStar,4th Quarter 2021 The area is projected to achieve completions Of positiveg85830 square feet for the current year, which indicates a decline from the preyip,us yeaOs completions of positive 1,201,988 square feet. The area is projected to experienceicombtetions'Of positive 1,479,072 square feet as of the end of next year, which indicates an I'm le:\o/rment-fromithe current year. Historical Asking Rent - Market HISTORICAL ASKING RENT:MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FL OFFICE MARKET -- eg 549 82 547.76 $50 00 545_70 543.11 545.03 5.40.77_ -- -539.074- 540.00 55$55553322110565055,00000000O000D3 - 5 3586 -• -- III50 00 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022' 2023' 2024' 2025 2026' Future Projected Data according to CoStar Source:CoStar,4th Quarter 2021 42 ©2022 CBRE, Inc. CBRE Market Analysis The area is projected to achieve average asking rent of $40.77 per square foot at the end of the current year, which indicates an increase from the previous year's asking rent of $39.04 per square foot. The area is projected to achieve asking rent of $43.11 per square foot by the end of next year, indicating an increase from the current year. SUBMARKET SNAPSHOT The following table summarizes the supply of office square footage for each submarket within the Miami-Dade County, FL market as of 4th Quarter 2021. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FL OFFICE SUBMARKET SNAPSHOT Submarket Inventory(SF) Completions*(SF) Asking Rent($/SF Gross) Occupancy Aventura 2,620,852 0 $52.42 93.1% Biscayne Corridor 3,627,163 0 $39.96 90.0% Brickell 9,683,969 -101,902 $55.51 88.6% Coconut Grove 2,631,519 180,000 $49.96 87.4% Coral Gables 11,714,591 -6,000 2.98 87.2% Coral Way 2,556,561 0 $34.93 95.1% Downtown Miami 12,358,989 0 \3.92 82.8% Hialeah 3,346,786 6,750 $3332 98.8% Kendall 12,751,379 0 $3 .0 95.0% Miami 6,182,078 0 $36.75 95.9% Miami Airport 19,598,106 203 00 $35.60 86.2% Miami Beach 4,850,144 e0, r $46.30 90.8% Miami Gardens/Opa Locka 459,743 1,000 $33.80 95.8% Miami Lakes 3,630,962 0 $31.51 91.2% Northeast Dade 7,039,810 17348 $33.48 93.7% _ Outlying Miami-Dade Cnty 345,524 74'886 $35.64 40.5% South Dade 2,566,949 51,004 $34.40 94.8% West Miami 2,061-,7.77 ,. ``�✓ $34.51 98.0% Wynwood-Design District /2,036 230\ 302,748 $52.38 70.7% 'Completions include trailing 4 quarters // ) \ \ Source:CoStar,41h Quarter < ( / ` \) V Miami Beach Submarket.--------, Important characteristics f the Miami Beach office market are summarized below: \ /1."11;MIAMI BEACH OFFICE SUBMARKET Inventory Co pletions Occupied Stack Asking Rent Asking Rent Net Absorption Year Ending (SF) �(SF)✓ (SF) Occupancy (S(SF Gross) Change (SF) 2016 4,838,838 111;161 4,611,901 95.3% $39.33 3.94% 125,097 2017 4,865,737 26,899 4,568,462 93.9% $41.35 5.13% -44,250 2018 4,865,737 0 4,514,967 92.8% $41.60 0.59% -53,431 _ 2019 4,850,144 -15,593 4,481,266 92.4% $42.84 3.00% -33,701 Q1 2020 4,850,144 0 4,479,237 " 92.4% $43.45 • 1.41% -2,029 Q2 2020 4,850,144 0 4,442,718 91.6% $43.54 0.22% -36,519 Q32020 4,850,144 0 4,411,341 91.0% $43.54 -0.02% -31,377 Q4 2020 4,850,144 0 4,456,258 91.9% $44.21 1.54% 44,917 2020 4,850,144 0 4,456,258 91.9% $44.21 3.18% -25,008 Q1 2021 4,850,144 0 4,469,047 92.1% $44.70 1.12% 12,789 02 2021 4,850,144 0 4,469,475 92.2% $45.29 1.33% 428 Q32021 4,850,144 0 4,468,880 92.1% $45.76 1.02% -595 Q4 2021 4,850,144 0 4,405,526 90.8% $46.30 1.18% -63,354 2021 4,850,144 0 4,405,526 90.8% $46.30 4.73% -50,732 2022* 5,000,865 150,721 4,489,860 89.8% $48.84 5.49% 84,481 • 2023* 4,991,657 -9,208 4,513,617 90.4% $51.72 5.89% 23,874 2024* 5,040,577 48,920 4,564,136 90.5% $53.99 4.39% 50,651 2025* 5,482,398 441,821 4,975,278 90.8% $55.44 2.68% 411,119 2026* 5,588,149 105,751 5,064,359 90.6% $56.29 1.54% 88,921 'Future Projected Data according to CoStar Source:CoStar,4th Quarter 2021 43 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Market Analysis The Miami Beach office submarket consists of approximately 4,850,144 square feet of office space. The current submarket inventory represents approximately 4.4% of the overall market inventory. The following observations were noted from the table above: • As of 4th Quarter 2021, there was approximately 4,405,526 square feet of occupied office space (including sublet space), resulting in an occupancy rate of 90.8% for the submarket. This reflects a decrease from the previous quarter's occupancy of 92.1%, and a decrease from an occupancy rate of 91.9% from last year. The submarket occupancy is above the 89.5% market occupancy. • The submarket experienced negative 63,354 square feet of net absorption for the current quarter. This indicates a decline from the previous quarter's negative 595 square feet of net absorption, and a decline from the negative 25,008 square feet of net absorption from a year ago. Overall, the submarket has experienced nega�te' 50,732 square feet of net absorption for the current year-to-date period. The sub` rket's current net absorption of negative 63,354 square feet is below the overall market ne a.sorption of positive 16,378 square feet. /7/ • The submarket had zero completions for the cur•Cenqu"a' rte,r, which indicates no change from the previous quarter's zero completions, and no change from the zero completions from last year. • The i achieved average asking ren,V$46:30 per square foot, which indicates an increase from the previous qu arre `s a�sking rent of $45.76 per square foot, and an increase from the asking rent of $44.21 er2square,;foot from last year. The submarket's current asking rent of $46.30 per~square fob mo pares favorably with the overall market asking rent of $40.77 per square foot. 44 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Market Analysis Historical Inventory - Submarket HISTORICAL INVENTORY:MIAMI BEACH OFFICE MARKET 140,000,000 -------------- — ------- 120,000,000 —1 14,072358-115,128,240= 106,096,975 165783,LI 307,979,683 108,175;314 109,377,302 110,163,132 11r642Z04—111,605,976 22704.�24---'1 ,100,000.000 - - _ - _- 80,000,000 - - _ _.. — _ _. 60,000,000 - ' -- — — — — - f— .� g �..+ `x , „.> 10. 40,000,000 ; A" ,t.,. t x.. _ ` � 20,000,000 — — - � 7 {1, 9 — (.' la" 000.:. ':99 05J C4i > _ii-era 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022' 2023' 2024' 2025' 2026' =I Market —c-5ubmaket 'Future Projected Data according to Costar Source:CoStar,4th Quarter,2021 Submarket Inventory is projected to be 4,850,144` quare!'feet at the endof the current year, which represents no change from the previous year's\submarket� inventory of 4,850,144 square feet. Inventory for next year is projected to be-5;0.00,865 sre feet, reflecting an increase from the current year. Historical Occupancy - Submarket HISTORICAL OCCUPANCY:MIAMI BEACH OFFICE MARKET 96.6% — 953%' 95.0% -- -- -- --------._ --- -----`-------'--- -- —--- ----- — -- 93.955 94A1% 92.8% 93.0'.5 _�_ __—__—____— -_ --92:4%—.___—__ — 91.9?c 920'.5 --- - - — — — - ------- -._ 90.0% 6 S0. 8 • — 900% - _ , _________._ __ ___-- 89OY, 9 " , . 91 3 91,5% ` 9I51/4, t n e, xdt A� y7 t 504 905s• __ 9aAsa ��`` E - s951% E8.036 a I 7S '� iH9.6% F55s ,, �.1 e Y tr:�'w ` � s7_6, .I. —' 1—, --I S5.0% - - I— .. _ - I_ — I— — - - 2016 2017 2013 2019 2020 2021 2022' 2023' 2024- 2025' 2026' O Market Subrpaket 'Future Projected Data according to Costar Source:CoStar,4th Quarter 2021 Submarket occupancy is projected to be 90.8% at the end of the current year, which represents a decrease from the previous year's submarket occupancy of 91.9%. Submarket occupancy for next year is projected to be 89.8%, reflecting a decrease from the current year. 45 CBRE ©2022 CBRE, Inc. Market Analysis Historical Net Absorption - Submarket HISTORICAL NET ABSORPTION:MIAMI BEACH OFFICE MARKET 2,000,000 --- -1;324,607- .1,500,000 _--1,423636 --------- -._ - ------ 963,660 1,026,079 1,029,853 .1,000,000 '------ ..-- w*': 718,345 554,173 500,000 411,119 �v 125047 168,b55 53.51 1111111 83,gu"'r 92413 ,y� 0 2016 2017 2013' 2079 2020 2021 2022' 2023' 2024' 2025' 2026' -500,000 - - — - - — -951,493 -1,506,000 -- �Market -o-Suboiaket 'Future Projected Data according to CoStar Source:CoStar,4th Quarter 2021 Net absorption in the submarket is projected to be<rgative�`^0,732 square feet at the end of the current year, reflecting a decline from the previous`y c5r<'s net absorption of negative 25,008 square feet. Net absorption for next year is projected to�'be positive 84,481 square feet, indicating an improvement from the current year. Historical Completions - Submarket` HISTORICAL COMPLETIONS:MIAMI BEACH OFFICE MARKET 1.6130,000 ----------- ----- - ----- --- --- - 1,479,072 1,400,000 --'- --- --- --- - --- -------- -- - -------- 1,368,334 ---- 1,196,462 1,201,938 1,200,000 - '- - - -- -- ---- -------- _ `--- -- -1,093,048— J 1,655,882 1,600,000 800,00 _785,830 636,246 - - - - 600,000 -353,859-- - -- -- - �' 400,030 rk'. • ttd'•u? .•al o -9208 i C] c-15,593i .._..___ " ^•_lam _- _- - _ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022' 2024' 2075' 2026' _20000 =Market -C-5ubmarI et •Future Projected Data according to CoStar Source:CoStar,4th Quarter 2021 The submarket is projected to achieve zero completions at the end of the current year, which is unchanged from the previous year's zero completions. The submarket is projecting completions 46 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Market Analysis of positive 150,721 square feet for next year, which indicates an improvement from the current year. Historical Asking Rent - Submarket HISTORICAL ASKING RENT:MIAMI BEACH OFFICE MARKET 560.00 ---- -. $53.99 555.44 556.29— 551-72 ___. - $50.00 —— _ 548.84 -_ $4630- _ 54284' $44.21 _ . - $41.35 $41.6,0 _._- - S30.00 - , - • - • .- • - - _ S47 76 54906 $49 82 S2000 - . 5Q311 ,. . .0 ; -. r, $40 77,` f i ry e -• i,r$3e14 , -S3528 .i 53686,;` &5 99 53404k e' $ ,�. ,x c iw�3 - 7 aif.i:. ,� � r el � "' 516.00 __ I I ' I I .' I__ t r I I I • 2016 2017 2018 :2019 2020 2021 2022' 2023• 2024' 2025• 2026' CI Market -o-Submaket Future Projected Data according to CoStar Source:CoStar,4th Quarter 2021 The submarket is projected to achieve average a king of 44`6. 0 per square foot at the end of the current year, which represents an increase from th pr ous year's asking rent of $44.21 per square foot. The submarket is projected\to achieve average asking rent of $48.84 per square foot, reflecting an increase from t e current year. 47 ©2022 CBRE, Inc. CBRE Highest and Best Use Highest and Best Use In appraisal practice, the concept of highest and best use represents the premise upon which value is based. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are: • legally permissible; • physically possible; • financially feasible; and • maximally productive. The highest and best use analysis of the subject is discussed below. AS VACANT Legal Permissibility The legally permissible uses were discussed in the Site Analysis cd d Zoning Sections. Physical Possibility The subject properties are all adequately served by utilities,*and has an` gdequate shape and size, sufficient access, etc., to be a developable site. There aref�o known physicalreasons why the subject site would not support any legally probable development (i. e. it appears adequate for development). Existing low-to-midrise multi-family residential, r /l, off�ce & hotel structures on similar sites provides additional evidence for the physical possibility of development. Financial Feasibility The determination of financial feasil'ty s e`pendent primarily on the relationship of supply and demand for the legally pr bab land,�es versus the cost to create the uses. With respect to the legal uses for the su j site, `the local submarket is in a growth & redevelopment cycle. Development of new retail, hotel and rid mixed-use properties has occurred in the recent past and continues to this day. Further, within the subject market, there are several under construction and proposed multi-family residential, retail, office & hotel projects along the Washington Avenue corridor. Maximum Productivity - Conclusion The final test of highest and best use of the site as if vacant is that the use be maximally productive, yielding the highest return to the land. Based on the information presented above and upon information contained in the sales comparison approach section and neighborhood analysis, we conclude that the highest and best use of the subject properties As If vacant and available to be put to the highest & best use would be the development of mixed-use multi-family residential, retail, office & hotel uses. More specifically, the subject properties could be developed to a height of 5-to-7 stories and a density of 1.50 to 2.75 FAR. 48©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Sales Comparison Approach Land Value - Municipal Parking Lot P25 The following map and table summarize the comparable data used in the valuation of the subject site. A detailed description of each transaction is included in the addenda. y w" $1 v.,, * `...��e. au.r t 7 LL�'J. , �(3a+- ,,,, . ra, n I, 9` s7"} \ tra f70 .Sase 4" �•� !! f Yk - TA� ,s z Q ,ifs_ t�', ad t �de�.• --- ; �% \w 1 l9t•S.,a�: I]v rd Dead',ae �\ chi # ti t'. _. � IAmi Bean,FL 33139 gi� ! i2206 PeikA -- � 5N" t '. . ''''''' ' t '4 - i 'Mudge' '4Y•rt � tgaMeeo Raslds r, a, g i v - '«, �j' 4 3't' f �; 1 ;i:t' svaA`''' loi * .,1, 7+Y .; kJ SE'''. p9ary91 :t_ r.k 91 �'` t •' A wry ?, t �." z a, I�.., 3 un3Aaes __ r -1 t e ( r .y Ise0ARonRd see w it.; • �,• a Maotr.h.... -'t668� rh:1 e,, Bt -� x ' t �.. y . J� x ( . `µ, '�;r E MmY Beedr 1 331 sM Y F( �., f t , , `3 ,-A',` f ' _ v pal„.�7f„, , `-11_1�5` soLtirek 4 e l,k s,' J ' - y ,_�]� J Lmd5ale2- , t :4.?„.,. JJ f , 1 } t s.. P Y°' LmdSalea cFti LJ ' c,4 �,1.9ti�� .b a°4.` a y3, ",. I Ykd'.H 4 k Maasaedr,Run , � • n b {$"tii nD1Jx ". %: "h' -t �S , za ';f` � tiW �p +�,� t Wit'_'- e! �f� �'a tt k�� , 8 'f` ,,..-*.:,4,z '' f�� - 8- c a tf�4,,(° dh fl'gf ` t 'A .. t ('' ' ,ti a, �,.r..r T� ` '' .y spa w I .Ibtwe anA3 ,',,-.'3:, 74'�+ Y .r}j .. l ',1* .5:...P xor 71. fY Y 4t - 11-1 eeaJt R33139 ? {'{g ? vjy ; f �5.', J .y ," ' ' r. ' `fiat, I A. L�L=1 1. i, ' R ( " r e r y�' r+. a ,.z ty fi '' r� b r'FS w LC - s sl-- S 5v �", i „. 1 f 'k.cr 1 3rn �, ZQ f y K � Y �A. 2 L ty ., 9aP 1 , ,t �y� 4 ( e^r ,'.� „4. �.L i ;e{p 4�'.�11 t I ` rM1,€E r0 ' 3 .gp^6" }k a L k; m / r '''A; !.--"'l Is f A:: t, amfndn 105-:."1 Do 'I( Ito - a$4"'Yr 3 t.. .ks w� �i `. l g ]aoa,a.,1. a r i t vi�. ,t r,o i C 2', -a iY�3r' s.' th � r 1.:'' �v lJl n t sot w A t �: Paw A . ... [-lop 4mi Beach,R33139 t ' 4 g}w ° p ' { ys4 :» ^`� s-� "' a a b yr� Irf dAr,,€F„ 4 k,t $ ' ( f -�� 4�aa°� ,. 2�i q':t • t � � "' " "�14-� _ ' Lur+nnem?m"serraseeassn .r �'" Y�' '�'g}st .'S ..i A. i��' A i�t[ It: T $�L\ mA.rah au,7,''i y�`,�- Y 9 1 S, '\ k, Y4 t R _ "fr C,.",O --.:,1:,!...t2. �CfMr6.�._ .$4.w a Ji.-- - ,,r4+L `\/ r 4, ,--l- ' .' ',: .vim- � Y fit.")(Ltf '(!' k� k.eoaott CarWreboneMar h''wpotarsrilrMn.resarea K 2- �^. f--11'�I� '1 r 1 6 ..-.S.Y�^"o..-...E..::..]!i :'. _. .s vC�'+S'Sf._ ,s:J,.�.'+._. .sY.l T 4.:_e _ , SUMMAR:jOF.COMPARABLE IANp SALES-MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT P25 Transaction ' ' Actual Sale Adjusted Sale Size Slze Allowable Indicated Price Price PSF No. Properly Location Type ,�D_aTa - Propose-Use Price pgco' (Ayes) (SFJ Bldg.Area(SF) FAR Per SF of FAR A 1 601-685 Washington Avenue Sole Jun-15 Mixed-use retail,residential $55,500,000 E57,500,000 1.58 68,770 111,645 1.62 E836.12 E515.03 Miami Beach,FL 33139 3 parking 2 1685 Washington Avenue Sale Aug-17 Mixed-use hotel,retail 8 619,200,000 621,200,000 0.69 30,000 67,500 2.25 S706.67 6314.07 Miami Beach,FL 33139 branch bank 3 1910 Alton Rood Sale Feb-20 Mixed-use office/residential S4,500,000 64,500,000 0.18 8,000 15,997 2.00 6562.50 6281.30 Miami Beach,FL 33139 4 1212 Lincoln Rood Sale Jun-20 Boutique hotel $9,000,000 $9,000,000 0.42 18,263 44,938 2.46 $492.80 $200.28 Miami Beach,FL 33139 5 1234-1260 Washington Avenue .Sale May-21 Retail/office redevelopment $20,000,000 E20,000,000 0.77 33,525 66,978 2.00 E596.57 5298.61 Miami Beach,FL 33139 6 1683 8.1695 Alton Rood Sale Feb-22 TBD 610,400,000 810,400,000 0.34 14,810 22,215 1.50 6702.21 $468.15 Miami Beach,FL 33139 7 2206 Park Avenue Sale Feb-22 Hotel 613,500,000 $13,500,000 0.39 17,040 49,441 2.90 6792.25 $273.05 Miami Beach,FL 33139 --- Subj. 1688 Lenox Avenue, --- --- Mixed-use retail,hotel,office --- --- 0.86 37,454 70,039 1.87 --- Mixed-use Beach,Florida &multi-family apartments r Mjustad sole prim for nosh equivalency and/ar development costs(where opp6mhle) Compiled by CBRE The sales utilized represent the best data available for comparison with the subject and were selected from the greater Miami Beach area within 1-to-2-mile radius of the subject. These sales were chosen based upon location and zoning/density. 49 • CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Sales Comparison Approach DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS OF LAND SALES We have considered similarities and differences for each of the comparable sales in direct comparison to the subject site, as if vacant and available to be put to its highest & best use. We have considered and-or applied adjustments to the comparable sales for differences in favorable financing terms, conditions of sale, i. e. seller motivation, distress and/or buyer assemblage premiums, market conditions (time), size/value, shape/configuration, corner influence, frontage/access, topography/site conditions, location and zoning/density when compared to the subject property. Land Sale One This comparable land sale is improved with seven (7) existing 1 & 2 story retail store buildings fronting Washington Avenue between 6th Street and 7th Street in the Flamingo Park Historic District on Miami Beach that were owned or were "in contract" to1/ashington Squared, LLC, as part of an assemblage for mixed-use redevelopment for a totes p rchase price of $40,210,436, including lease buyouts, exiting debt & real estate com t sion`�ob iI�ations to the buyer. The assembled site area totals 68,770 square feet of medium intensity zoned land area that is improved with approximately 63,601 square feet of obsolete retail storebuilding area dating to 1934, 1936 & 1948. The proposed redevelopmenis conceptually site planned for 55,120 square feet of ground floor retail, plus 66-reside ,ttial condominium inium units with 56,525 square feet or an average of 856-SF of living area per nit-in a 9s ory tower and 2-levels of structured parking with 240 spaces. In addition there are several other redevelopment scenario options including a potential hotel tower instead`of\the residential condominium units. The majority of the contracts, excluding 611_9 Washington Avenue, all closed simultaneously in the third week of June 01-5: In ad ition to the assemblage purchase price, the buyer/investor, Washington Squared,,,LLC was e to negotiate & execute a membership interest purchase & sale to IC 601 Washington LLC, dated May 27, 2015. The forward purchase price is $55,500,000 for a 96.5° i tems tin a joint venture agreement between the seller & purchaser. The seller retains a 3.5% anterrre�st in the joint venture valued at $2,000,000, for a total purchase price valued at $57,500,000 for 100% interest in the joint venture partnership. Part of the assemblage strategy was the Washington Avenue Vision and Master Plan being developed with a Washington Avenue Blue Ribbon Panel (WABRP) that was recommending an increase building height restriction. The WABRP was recommending a FAR as high as 2.75, subject to municipal government approvals, versus the current zoning of CD-2, Commercial, Medium Intensity District permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.50, plus Code Section 142-307(d) 2.0 FAR where more than 25% of the building is used for residential or hotel units. We have adjusted Sale 1 downwards for conditions of sale, i. e. buyer assemblage premium upwards and upwards for improving market conditions between the date of sale and our effective date of this appraisal. We have also adjusted Sale 1 upwards for larger size/value relationship and downwards for superior road frontage when compared to the subject property As If rezoned. 50 ©2022 CBRE, Inc. CBRE Sales Comparison Approach Land Sale Two This comparable land sale is a 0.69-acre site, high density zoned site improved with a 7,389 SF Citibank branch and is located at the southeast corner of Washington Avenue and 17th Street in Miami Beach, Florida. The improvements were constructed in 1996. However, the buyer is a very active Miami Beach hotel developer and was scouting potential redevelopment sites along the Lincoln Road mall. The transaction and redevelopment plan was negotiated to include a new, replacement branch bank for Citibank in 4,000-SF of net rentable area on the ground floor of the proposed, 8-story, 150-room hotel tower. Citibank intends to continue to operate during construction and will enter a long-term leaseback of the new space upon completion. According to the broker, the value of the leaseback was considered to be $100.00-PSF, triple net but details were confidential and not provided. However, the 4,000-SF branch bank shell cost contribution to the buyer/developer is estimated to be $500.00-PSF for hard soft costs and parking space allocations. We have adjusted Sale 2 downwards for conditions of sal#, e 'bu�yer/developer branch bank construction obligation and upwards for improving rl et conditioiZs�b�etween the date of sale and our effective date of this appraisal. We have also adjusted Sale\2 downwards for smaller size/value relationship when compared to the subje \p oper yy As If rezoned. Land Sale Three This comparable land sale is located along ' e..of Alton Road in the Sunset Harbour \V submarket in Miami Beach, Florida. The property was improved with an obsolete office/educational building and b okered at 5,750,000 for approximately 13-months +/- before going into contract at $4.,500�000-mnn-all cash" transaction. The buyer is a developer who demolished the building-a.d secu ed site plan approvals for a 5-story, 15,997-SF mixed-use /,- office building with a op floor ress dential,unit including rooftop deck, 2-floors of office space, a ground floor art gallery secured to by and 15-mechincal lift parking spaces.13 We have adjusted Sale 3 u.p ardr improving market conditions between the date of sale and our effective date of this appraisal. We have also adjusted Sale 3 downwards for smaller size/value relationship and upwards for inferior submarket location when compared to the subject property As If rezoned. Land Sale Four This comparable land sale is located at the southwest corner intersection of Alton Road & Lincoln Road in the South Beach submarket of Miami Beach, Florida. The site is improved with an existing 2-story, 18,105-SF Wells Fargo branch bank built in 1940 that will be redeveloped into a 5-story, 168-room boutique hotel with roof top terrace. The seller previously acquired the property from Wells Fargo in January 2020 for $8,500,000. The site location is across the street from the west end of the Lincoln Road pedestrian mall and is part of a mixed-use master plan anchored by a 55,000-SF Whole Foods with 3-levels of structured parking support. 51©2022 CBRE, Inc. CBRE Sales Comparison Approach We have adjusted Sale 4 upwards for improving market conditions between.the date of sale and our effective date of this appraisal. We have also adjusted Sale 4 downwards for smaller size/value relationship and upwards for inferior submarket location when compared to the subject property As If rezoned. Land Sale Five This comparable land sale comprises an existing 1-story, 10,697-SF retail building (1260) and a 3-story, 19,519-SF office building (1234) located along the west side of Washington Avenue at 13th Street and spanning west to the Drexel Avenue frontage. The buyer operates a co-living & co-working business with plans to demolish the 1-story retail building and replace it with a new, ground-up 6-story office building and will gut renovate & restore the existing 3-story office building. The proposed site plan comprises a total of 44,153-SF of rentable area and 82,160-SF of gross building area that includes a 5,000-SF wellness center on the ground floor and 21,000- SF of new, flexible office space on the upper floors including co4orking area as small as 50-SF and more traditional office suites ranging from 1,000 to 5;,,000 s are feet with fully furnished, turn-key options. Project amenities include a food m�arket, cafe &`ra�v juice bar, 60-residential units and roof deck with pool, yoga lawn. and bar.<T h res ntial u in ts>will be a mix of 275-SF micro units and co-living units with 2-to-4 bedroo``eem�,fhoo ,plans including private bathrooms in each bedroom and shared living room, kitchen annd laundry achines. The sale transaction was facilitated with a $114\million :ur`chase money mortgage in favor of the sellers and the buyer raised $56 million-from investors for the redevelopment program. • We have adjusted Sale 5 upwards/or improving market conditions between the date of sale and our effective date of this appraisal\We hav lso adjusted Sale 5 downwards for superior road frontage and upwards for''Inferior subarket location when compared to the subject property As ) If rezoned. Land Sale Six This comparable land sal'es,�t e former BankUnited branch bank located on the southeast, signalized corner of Alton Road and 17th Street in the South Beach submarket in Miami Beach, Florida. The BankUnited lease commenced in May 2010 with the "like new" branch bank opening in 2012. The lease terms & conditions were for 10 years plus two (2), 5 year renewal option and 3% annual escalations throughout initial term and options periods. However, BankUnited vacated after the initial base term expired. Prior to a branch bank, it was the former Burger King fast food restaurant. The current seller previously acquired the property in December 2012 and a single tenant, triple net lease investment for $8,150,000 and relisted the property more recently once it was known that BankUnited was not renewing. The broker listing was priced at $12,000,0000 and sold at $10,400,000 in an "all cash" sale transaction to a local, high net worth investor. The underlying zoning permits a 5-story building and floor-area-ratio of 1 .50 or a maximum 2.0 in mixed-use buildings when more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for residential or hotel units, as set forth in the RM-2 district. 52 CBRE ©2022 CBRE, Inc. Sales Comparison Approach We have adjusted Sale 6 downwards for smaller size/value relationship and superior road frontage, and upwards for inferior submarket location when compared to the subject property. Land Sale Seven This comparable land sale is located along the northwest corner of Park Avenue and 22nd Street in the South Beach submarket in Miami Beach, Florida. The property was broker listed at $15,900,000 and sold for $13,500,000 with the buyer securing a $6,000,000 conventional loan from City National Bank and the seller providing a $2,500,000 short term purchase money mortgage. The property was previously acquired in October 2013 for $7,000,000 by the developers of the adjacent & former 44-room Lido Park Hotel located at 2216 Park Avenue who re-branded the 2216 Park Avenue property as the Vintro Hotel & Kitchen and is now known as the Kayak Miami Beach. The 2206 Park Avenue land sale property was previously proposed and entitled for a 5-story condo hotel comprising of 50,000-SF + ith a mechanical parking lift system. The project was finally approved for 49,441-SF of FAR with 120-hotel rooms, ground floor retail and reduced off-street parking variance. The sitvl ation is at the crossroads of Park Avenue and the renovated Collins Canal that is a /.2 restricted acs canal that connects to Biscayne Bay, Indian Creek and Lake Pancoast. < \\> We have adjusted Sale 7 downwards for smaller size/value relationshipand upwards for inferior I � p submarket Icoation when compared to the so'ject,.property,,As 'NsIf rezoned. SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS Based on our comparative analysis, the fol owing chart summarizes the adjustments warranted to each comparable. V 53 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Sales Comparison Approach LAND SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID-MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT P25 Comparable Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Subject Transaction Type Sale Sale Sale Sole Sale Sale Sale --- Transaction Dote Jun-15 Aug-17 Feb-20 Jun-20 May-21 Feb-22 Feb-22 --- Proposed Use Mixed-use retail,Mixed-use hotel, Mixed-use Boutique hotel RetaiVoffice TBD Hotel Mixed-use residential& retail&branch office/residential redevelopment retail,hotel, parking bank office&multi- family Actual Sale Price $55,500,000 $19,200,000 $4,500,000 59,000,000 $20,000,000 510,400,000 513,500,000 Adjusted Sale Pricer $57,500,000 $21,200,000 $4,500,000 59,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,400,000 $13,500,000 --- Size(Acres) 1.58 0.69 0.18 0.42 0.77 0.34 0.39 0.86 Size(SF) 68,770 30,000 8,000 18,263 33,525 14,810 17,040 37,454 Density(UPA) 41.81 du/ac 217.80 du/ac --- 400.67 du/ac 139.03 du/ac --- 306.75 du/ac --- Allowable Units 66 Units 150 Units --- 168 Units 107 Units --- 120 Units --- Allowable Bldg.Area(SF) 111,645 SF 67,500 SF 15,997 SF 44,938 SF 66,978 SF 22,215 SF 49,441 SF 70,039 SF Indicated FAR 1.62 2.25 2.00 2.46 2.00 1.50 2.90 1.87 Price Per SF $836.12 $706.67 $562.50 $492.80 $596.57 $702.21 $792.25 --- Price Per Bldg.Area $515.03 $314.07 $281.30 $200.28 $298.61 $468.15 $273.05 --- Price Per Unit $871,212 $141,333 --- $53,571 $186,916 --- $112,500 --- Price(S PSF) S836.12 5706.67 5562.50 $492.80 $596.57 $702.21 $792.25 Property Rights Conveyed 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Financing Terms 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Conditions of Sale -30% -10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Market Conditions(Time) 35% 25% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% Subtotal $790.13 $795.00 $618.75 $542.08 $62640\ $702.21 $792.25 Size 10% -5% -20% -10% 0% -10% -10% Shape 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Corner 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Frontage -10% 0% 0% 0% -10% -10% 0% Topography 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Location 0% 0% 25% 25% 10% 10% 10% Zoning/Density 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Utilities 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Highest&Best Use 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Other Adjustments 0% -5% 5%\\"-15% \ \0% -10% 0% Value Indication PSF of Site $790.13 $755.25 5649.69, \ $623.39--, 5626.40 $631.99 $792.25 Value Indication PSF of FAR $486.70 $335.67 $324.90\ \ $253:35-. 7$313.54 $421.34 $273.05 Absolute Adjustment 85% 40% �r^-..,55% \`N.,\\/45% 25% 30% 20% Adjusted sale price far cash equivalency and/or development costs(wh re o p oble)1 y C Compiled by CBRE //J/ J{ `\ \\\////:\ V Zoning/Density Adjus��\ After adjusting the co�mparable s`ales\.for economic and physical characteristics in direct comparison to the�ubject prope-ty, we have considered & applied an adjustment for zoning/density/FAR in dire m/parison to the subject potential proposed rezoning floor-area- ratio (FAR), calculated as follows 54 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Sales Comparison Approach FAR ADJUSTMENT GRID Indicated Adjusted Sale Subject Adjusted Sale Sale FAR Price Per FAR FAR Price Per FAR 6 1.50 $421.34 1.87 $337.97 1 1.62 $486.70 1.87 $421.63 Subject 1.87 --- --- --- 3 2.00 $324.90 1.87 $347.49 5 2.00 $313.54 1.87 $335.33 2 2.25 $335.67 1.87 $403.88 4 2.46 $253.35 1.87 $333.28 7 2.90 $273.05 1.87 $423.45 Compiled by: CBRE, Inc. CONCLUSION The comparables sales produced an overall unadjusted value i`'ndicator range from $492.80 to $836.12 per square foot of site area; and, $200.28/to45.15.03 per square foot of rentable/sellable building FAR. After adjustments werei onsidered\\a`nd-or applied for properly rights conveyed, conditions of sale, i. e. assembl�g�or �>ss, market conditions (time), size, corner or frontage/view corridors, topography/site conditions, location and zoning/density when compared to the subject property, the range.offvvallu n ators was narrowed considerably to $623.39 to $792.25 per square foot of site d ea; and, $333.28 to $423.45 per square foot of rentable/sellable building FAR. \///// Based on the preceding analysis, Comparable S`a�les 1, 3 & 5 were the most representative of the subject site, and warranted reat�cOnsideration because of recent transaction dates, size, location and zoning/density. In conclusion, a price per squa�of ofs'te area and a price per square foot of rentable/sellable building FAR within he overall unadjusted and adjusted ranges is most appropriate for valuing the subject site As If rezone�,o 9- , Commercial, Medium Intensity & CD-3, Commercial, High Intensity, and is calculated as\f9Jlows: CONCLUDED LAND VALUE - P25 $ PSF of Site Site SF Total $650.00 x 37,454 = $24,345,100 $750.00 x 37,454 = $28,090,500 $ PSF of FAR Proposed FAR Total $340.00 x 70,039 SF = $23,813,253 $400.00 x 70,039 SF = $28,015,592 Indicated Value As If Rezoned CD-2 & CD-3: $26,000,000 (Rounded PSF of Site) $694.18 (Rounded PSF of FAR) $371.22 Compiled by CBRE 55 CBRE ©2022 CBRE, Inc. Sales Comparison Approach Land Value - Municipal Parking Lot P26 The following map and table summarize the comparable data used in the valuation of the subject site. A detailed description of each transaction is included in the addenda. f4Jtid `l. % �\ 1md5ab3'--- - '-,• J ' 1st-F !1910/amRd _'1� - ` - Ma0Beach,R33139 Laid Sak7 S`IL �2206 Peik Ave ;-✓ ""' r 1a1� p erd t3!: s 8i/5 1 ", Lmdcab6 . . 16Hi ARenh lPdR33139 � gj' - -}.tLe,-.4„, i f- 1 1 9btYBex�,.. to ' l �1 t 4 � "AC i r d �l. Puke, - - �J x ,� y. 1 �^1.. 4k (IJ W ^ t ty aM d�4rd - 1L.Mam reed R3M39 { f p 1._, ,. 'f-. -t 1Meni Beedi,R 33139 ) lf° d'x fl 3'}+ 1 _ R tTrtitel y ro: bo 5i l� 7l1. -R ,-�r., (A•a'u"ort ., V I- 4� 01 Laa5ab5 - ` � j(�u'}'LLII ]. ����1z31 waFN�m Fve r'�•• �� d y 4 £' BayAq rkc - '� ! �•.�. t' t ( 'Mao Beah 7 N : Y prtxerW 4 -1 'f$1.. 6,"LILT 1� l F ' i' S r4 k 3 t: �t 3'k4SA _ h T4': 411 1 * / a " vs A/ t st I„! c ,,},y,x"k .� c ys a yFQ eP L �p �Y y y zbr J `t r $p� 7" " -- x4S;,,,j I i{} '' 'IS Y'' 1 W t 1}' ._. .8 WR."' � p.'^ d fY{o..:1.."F�.yvq:'f}4,' Y.icy NM,,'' • r./ Hai Y 1. n, r' �•IB ❑❑ tAik a :r;M L C .4t ( 7 1F_ 4 '�Y ll' t ,a N �'$.v t ' �i -- r F I f(("-�`� {Li ,. .I ll ' ' -.'-' r . I.: ,, 1A `' " ,{ N. r of • • t2a vMnamsria..:e,.dv:c k. > F (� r`M enislbdnh.R3A 9-13 9 2Q`�#u•;P "s - ... f N N'tea `!f t 1 ! r k V � }� I -'!::::.-1.'.: , as 1 '„° 1�yu(�� "�1' m' .,^a r P ,,re 03 , *g ' 1�^.J DC-�� f 1 � :r .rt , .,z • " #4 P, w•}�-u: , ,:y.4 - , 4 < 25 : _ 7�� 1tuI ° x ',4,;',' q r 3, a: ` `Y$ st y1-1 f , � :_ yAe d ' u A . , L ...A ' 1 r ti. w {•.tHnri k,-$ -.--- ;..i, - -'-. 4.C,21 ''� D:( Jfj 5 .; ik at : ^ �v - 4J'rrj) � 1.1 y SUMMARTLOF COMPARABLETLANDTSALES-MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT P26 Transaction -' =i r' Actual Sole Adjusted Sale Size Size Allowable Indicated Price Price PSF No. Properly Location Type ADafey Propose-,diUsa Price price' (Amen) (SF) Bldg.Area(SF) FAR Per SF of FAR 1 601-685 Washington Avenue Sale Jun-15 Mixed-use retail,residential $55,500,000 $57,500,000 1.58 68,770 111,645 1.62 $836.12 $515.03 Miami Beach,FL 33139 &parking 2 1685 Washington Avenue Sale Aug-17 Mixed-use hotel,retail S $19,200,000 S21,200,000 0.69 30,000 67,500 2.25 $706.67 $314.07 Miami Beach,FL 33139 branch bank 3 1910 Alton Road Sale Feb-20 Mixed-use office/residential $4,500,000 $4,500,000 0.18 8,000 15,997 2.00 5562.50 5281.30 Miami Beach,FL 33139 4 1212 Lincoln Road Sale Jun-20 Boutique hotel $9,000,000 $9,000,000 0.42 18,263 44,938 2.46 $492.80 $200.28 Miami Beach,FL 33139 5 1234-1260 Washington Avenue Sale May-21 Retail/office redevelopment $20,000,000 $20,000,000 0.77 33,525 66,978 2.00 $596.57 $298.61 Miami Beach,FL 33139 6 1683 8 1695 Alton Road Sale Feb-22 180 $10,400,000 $10,400,000 0.34 14,810 22,215 1.50 S702.21 $468.15 Miami Beach,FL 33139 7 2206 Park Avenue Sole Feb-22 Hotel $13,500,000 $13,500,000 0.39 17,040 49,441 2.90 $792.25 $273.05 Miami Beach,FL 33139 •-- Mixed-use retail,hotel,office --- 1.10 48,000 132,000 2.75 --- --- Su j. 1080 Lincoln Lone North,Miami --• --- Beach,FL 33139 &multi-family apartments , 'Mjuctad cola price for cash equivalency and/or development costa(where applicable) Compiled by CBRE The same sales utilized in the preceding section represent the best data available for comparison with the subject and were selected from the greater Miami Beach area within 1-to-2-mile radius of the subject. These sales were chosen based upon location and zoning/density. 56 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. . Sales Comparison Approach DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS OF LAND SALES We have considered similarities and differences for each of the comparable sales in direct comparison to the subject site, as if vacant and available to be put to its highest & best use. We have considered and-or applied adjustments to the comparable sales for differences in favorable financing terms, conditions of sale, i. e. seller motivation, distress and/or buyer assemblage premiums, market conditions (time), size/value, shape/configuration, corner influence, frontage/access, topography/site conditions, location and zoning/density when compared to the subject property. SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS Based on our comparative analysis, the following chart summarizes the adjustments warranted to each comparable. LAND SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID-MUNICIPAL PARKINGOT 26 Comparable Number 1 2 3 4 ,/5 6 7 Subject Transaction Type Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale --- Transaction Date Jun-15 Aug-17 Feb-20 Jun-20 May-21 Febb--22 Feb-22 --- Proposed Use Mixed-use retail,Mixed-use hotel, Mixed-use Boutique' o dll RetaiVoffice TBD Hotel Mixed-use residential& retail&branch office/residential redevelopment retail,hotel, parking bank office&multi- family apartments Actual Sale Price $55,500,000 $19,200,000 $4,500,000 $9,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,400,000 $13,500,000 --- Adjusted Sale Price r $57,500,000 $21,200,000 $4,500,000 $9,000,000 $29,000,000 $10,400,000 $13,500,000 --- Size(Acres) 1.58 0.69 0.1 B 0.4.2..... . 0.77 0.34 0.39 1.10 Size(SF) 68,770 30,000 8,000 18,26633 33,525 14,810 17,040 48,000 Allowable Bldg.Area(SF) 111,645 SF 67,500 SF 15,997 SF 44 938 S 66,978 SF 22,215 SF 49,441 SF 132,000 SF Indicated FAR 1.62 2.25 '`� 2.00 2.46 2.00 1.50 2.90 2.75 Price Per SF $836.12 $706.67 $562.50492.80 $596.57 $702.21 $792.25 --- Price PSF of FAR $515.03 S314 $281.30 $200.28 $298.61 $468.15 $273.05 --- Price(S PSF) $836.12 ,$706 67 ,4562.50 \5492.80 $596.57 $702.21 $792.25 Property Rights Conveyed 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Financing Terms r 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Conditions of Sale -30% -10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Market Conditions 35% 25% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% Subtotal $790,1.3 $795.00 \ $618.75 $542.08 $626.40 $702.21 $792.25 Size 10% -5% -20% -10% 0% -10% -10% 'Shape 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Corner 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Frontage -10% 0% 0% 0% -10% -10% 0% Topography 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% . 0% 0% Location 0% 0% 25% 25% 10% 10% 10% - Zoning/Density 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Utilities 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Highest&Best Use 0% 0% 0% 0% _ 0% 0% 0% Total Other Adjustments 0% -5% 5% .15% 0% -10% 0% Value Indication PSF of Site $790.13 $755.25 $649.69 $623.39 $626.40 $631.99 $792.25 Value Indication PSF of FAR $486.70 $335.67 $324.90 $253.35 $313.54 $421.34 $273.05 Absolute Adjustment 85% 40% 55% 45% 25% 30% 20% Adjusted sale price for cash equivalency and/or development costs(where applicable) Compiled by CBRE Zoning/Density Adjustments After adjusting the comparable sales for economic and physical characteristics in direct comparison to the subject property, we have considered & applied an adjustment for zoning/density/FAR in direct comparison to the subject potential proposed rezoning "as of right" floor-area-ratio (FAR), calculated as follows: 57 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Sales Comparison Approach FAR ADJUSTMENT GRID Indicated Adjusted Sale Subject Adjusted Sale Sale FAR Price Per FAR FAR Price Per FAR 6 1.50 $421.34 2.75 $229.82 1 1.62 $486.70 2.75 $286.71 3 2.00 $324.90 2.75 $236.29 5 2.00 $313.54 2.75 $228.03 2 2.25 $335.67 2.75 $274.64 4 2.46 $253.35 2.75 $226.63 Subject 2.75 --- --- --- 7 2.90 $273.05 2.75 $287.95 Compiled by: CBRE, Inc. CONCLUSION ///2. The comparables sales produced an overall unadjusted vajue indicator range from $492.80 to $836.12 per square foot of site area; and, $200. / *\15.03 per square foot of rentable/sellable building FAR. After adjustments were considered`an�• or applied for property rights conveyed, conditions of sale, i. e. assemblage'or djstiess, market conditions (time), size, corner or frontage/view corridors, topography/site conditions, location and zoning/density when compared to the subject property, the range- of value ihdicators was narrowed considerably to $623.39 to $792.25 per square foot of siteaYea;--and $226.63 to $287.95 per square foot of rentable/sellable building FAR. Based on the preceding analysis, C��'omparable S'a 'es 1, 2, 4, 5 & 7 were the most representative of the subject site, and warranted grrvtest_consideration because of recent transaction dates, size, location and zoning/dennssiity. • In conclusion, a priceip`er square`fo`ot of,site area and a price per square foot of rentable/sellable building FAR within t the overall u 1 yljusted and adjusted ranges is most appropriate for valuing the subject site As If rezoneto GD ` '3, Commercial, High Intensity, and is calculated as follows: /C//ONCLUDED LAND VALUE - P26 $ PSF of Site Site SF Total $650.00 x 48,000 = $31,200,000 $750.00 x 48,000 = $36,000,000 $ PSF of FAR Potential"As of Right" FAR Total $230.00 x 132,000 SF = $30,360,000 $280.00 x 132,000 SF = $36,960,000 Indicated Value As If Rezoned CD-3: $33,600,000 (Rounded PSF of Site) $700.00 (Rounded PSF of FAR) $254.55 Compiled by CBRE 58©2022 CBRE, Inc. CBRE Sales Comparison Approach Land Value - Municipal Parking Lot P27 The following map and table summarize the comparable data used in the valuation of the subject site. A detailed description of each transaction is included in the addenda. ;;A-..--,Y .p j, t i8t Sf IRad0each,R33139 �:f Lrad5de7 7 1 n7 ; c t .. .a.. w. ,cyan„ 55 lit,. , q�,, P Rxt139 r'. i r* r} I re- .#L e(t- s"`{� l I�-7 • .,04-. '. '., ' -' :' ' . ' ' ''',. ' .': ''l ';'''..t:' 41 .4'':'' '' ':.:. ,'. '.'. ' . . , =541!:6,,R33139 l ,5 .6�.s -.... 1'„.s. .,_ •007 ,.; ‘�1Wa .::1,,�eead{,''R�xf139pi nt S:`' y 'c':LJ'', •,-. V6w ,C97p1� ._w . i t S L . 3 it q {l @7H L _ a v: .,.q Woo -� ,d k s'.-S YF :�"-� I IceswWogmna � ' • L 1 1' '✓.- JJ'- L N6vdeea<h R33I39 bn N '. r �x� ,"rtt Lendsoe 4.v.. . _' � � / � � R(?'� St 'S der° {x9 " 4 ����i � � IZlzmmin aE �"7, 7 ��. j�1 ' 'fix 't�� 'i �a Marl Beedy R73139 "!m. 1` af .'F' ly �1. tF i Yt-irti S *, j P :.{ 6J,- ytayy�4' 1:(�. e i t i- r aY i sweb -,;1_,-;;'.'' aw f '- Y is�y` fl Q d''p F y P 5 Ai t ,3, ByAqucR i Q t r itt4 4t. � nsneJ&e6h A.33139 Jt t l t •�f^p dr Pr fe eye a it qE to St N Y < f A 1 d: .y,4. h r* 'xi K ttdt 5 § n '- v ys`" L�'/r.. ^x m .[e n '",xtt w�" y.)n yn.r. ,; ,./�%•r x „• �-�,al 1;r3 �� v s wY° 1 r� � � "1$ $xi-it4 ' - i4 -ter '3 r q % 4 • v .!.: lk.l. Nwr Tl., • S �r ' P I. pt� {4t � zd 7-' f,., r t moo""''!!`` } • L -A a t¢` _; j �.i ,�r," .4'0sk L� IR1th,,,, DO qp t 1 �. r �,i+ r e 1,'+ 1 t� ¢ c.,...� s wd.` ' w �i y`. y¢.s..F ] ;sar . . _.�._if Al 1;,,, •'� "�'apA.,''` s 3,:pw ex 'R5,11/ ,: .�' m 1 ,."L t / § I3 D -1� o xg !, rF "fir r1,: ri„i:. i;f 3i�.t a "syr..' ' Y ttr 4 4 -'i i - ® .�' 8 I.., 5'S 4 +r k£y i :'T 7l '3t ^. 3i 1 G 4 tf 3 *4 l, ['� [9Z 1!i-r/Itc t a ti 1# "t. ,,,,..4.,„...e.. '�.- - ,° s' .Fd.y51 ' F e"x'>" , Yv ,i•il, • LiUL ce ., -w F 6�t? "y�� •"z4P„1`+d•...,,,; '�1.. t .,. ``�.* I �7'.F� kg� :" s• F$°gX' ,s y4f 9i �-- Rzn39 r<,.;: t � ajrp "?zL �ttA/ "� ° .. rA, ', r # / t �aC-EU , IA!bia'&,� I t ^ 'C /F *'7` r ; ,1x re cis rf1' At :4 .' j bd 7£A. 1..hry M tom='. I Pbiae � "~� ,.•�C f• T ,!^ +�^ CoPvrgntlalenb{P,,npt&3012a Rfarpa enQW,di supp6en all no eel �� I' nrW l6 ;,lle - .::rip1 .la.Nrn..�. +.•,,., .9 -'T^�" ,.9P.'a`-My • SUMMAR 3,OF COMPARABLE IANDjSALES-MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT P27 Transaction ";;: Actual Sak 'Adjusted Sale .Sloe Sloe Allowable IndIA ted Price Pdce PSF No. Properly Location Type Date: Pea- odyne Prim Price (Acroa) (SF) Bldg.area(SF) FAR Per SF of FAR 1 601-685 Washington Avenue Sale Jun-15 Miood-use retail,residential 555,500,000 557,500,000 1.58 68,770 111,645 1.62 5836.12 5515.03 Miami Beach,FL 33139 &parking 2 1685 Washington Avenue Sole Aug-17 Miaed-use hotel,retail& $19,200,000 $21,200,000 0.69 30,000 67,500 2.25 $706.67 $314.07 Miami Beach,,FL 33139 banch bank 3 1910 Alton Road Sale Feb-20 Mixed-use office/residential $4,500,000 $4,500,000 0.18 8,000 15,997 2.00 5562.50 $281.30 Miami Beach,FL 33139 4 1212 Lincoln Road Sale Jun-20 Boutique hotel $9,000,000 $9,000,000 0.42 18,263 44,938 2.46 $492.80 $200.28 Miami Beach,FL 33139 5 1234-1260 Washington Avenue Sale May-21 Retail/office redevelopment $20,000,000 $20,000,000 0.77 33,525 66,978 2.00 $596.57 $298.61 Miami Beach,FL 33139 6 1683&1695 Alton Rood Sale Feb-22 TBD 510,400,000 510,400,000 0.34 14,810 22,215 1.50 5702.21 5468.15 Miami Beach,FL 33139 7 2206 Park Avenue Sale Feb-22 Hotel 513,500,000 $13,500,000 0.39 17,040 49,441 2.90 5792.25 5273.05 Miami Beach,FL 33139 Subj. 1664 Meridian Avenue,Miami --- --- )Aced-use retail,hotel,oifica --- --- 1.36 59,273 163,001 2.75 -- --- Beach,FL 33139 8 aulti-family opodments 'Adluaed ale prim far cash equieolenoy and/ar derelapment coats(wbera applicable) Compiled by CBRE The same sales utilized in the preceding section represent the best data available for comparison with the subject and were selected from the greater.Miami Beach area within 1-to-2-mile radius of the subject. These sales were chosen based upon location and zoning/density. 59 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Sales Comparison Approach DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS OF LAND SALES We have considered similarities and differences for each of the comparable sales in direct comparison to the subject site, as if vacant and available to be put to its highest & best use. We have considered and-or applied adjustments to the comparable sales for differences in favorable financing terms, conditions of sale, i. e. seller motivation, distress and/or buyer assemblage . premiums, market conditions (time), size/value, shape/configuration, corner influence, frontage/access, topography/site conditions, location and zoning/density when compared to the subject property. SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS Based on our comparative analysis, the following chart summarizes the adjustments warranted to each comparable. /12 LAND SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID-MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT 27 Comparable Number 1 2 3 4 5 \ 6 7 Subject Transaction Type Sale Sale Sale Sale .Sale Sole Sole --- Transaction Date Jun-15 Aug-17 Feb-20 Jun-20 May-21 Feb-22 Feb-22 --- Proposed Use Mixed-use retail, Mixed-use hotel, Mixed-use Boutique' otdl RetaiVoffice TB Hotel Mixed-use residential& retail&branch office/residential rede/elopment retail,hotel, parking bank office 8 multi- family apartments Actual Sale Price $55,500,000 S19,200,000 $4,500,000 $9,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,400,000 $13,500,000 --- Adjusted Sale Price t $57,500,000 $21,200,000 $4,500,000 $9,000,000 $2O,:000,000 $10,400,000 $13,500,000 --- Size(Acres) 1.58 0.69 -0.16 0..2 0,77 0.34 0.39 1.36 Size(SF) 68,770 30,000 8,000\ 18,263 33,525 14,810 17,040 59,273 Allowable Bldg.Area(SF) 111,645 SF 67,500 SF 15,997 SF 44, 38 S 66,978 SF 22,215 SF 49,441 SF 163,001 SF Indicated FAR 1.62 2.25 r.--^,\2.00 y/2.46 2.00 1.50 2.90 2.75 Price Per SF $836.12 $706.67 $562.50 .$492.80 $596.57 $702.21 $792.25 --- Price PSF of FAR $515.03 $314A7 $2t{1.30 $200.28 $298.61 $468.15 $273.05 --- Price($PSF) $836.12 $706:67 i$562.50 \$'492.80 $596.57 $702.21 $792.25 Property Rights Conveyed 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Financing Terms t 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Conditions of Sale -30% -10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Market Conditions 35% 25% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% Subtotal $.790/13 S795.00 \ $618.75 $542.08 $626.40 $702.21 $792.25 Size 0% -10% -25% -10% -10% -20% -20% Shape 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Corner 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Frontage -10% 0% 0% 0% -10% -10% 0% Topography 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Location 0% 0% 25% 25% 10% 10% 10% Zoning/Density 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Utilities 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Highest 8 Best Use 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Other Adjustments -10% -10% 0% 15% -10% -20% -10% Value Indication PSF of Site $711.12 $715.50 $618.75 $623.39 $563.76 $561.77 $713.03 Value Indication PSF of FAR $438.03 $318.00 $309.43 $253.35 $282.18 $374.52 $245.75 Absolute Adjustment 75% 45% 60% 45% 35% 40% 30% t Adjusted sale price for cash equivalency and/or development costs(where applicable) Compiled by CBRE Zoning/Density Adjustments After adjusting the comparable sales for economic and physical characteristics in direct comparison to the subject property, we have considered & applied an adjustment for zoning/density/FAR in direct comparison to the subject potential proposed rezoning "as of right" floor-area-ratio (FAR), calculated as follows: 60©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Sales Comparison Approach FAR ADJUSTMENT GRID Indicated Adjusted Sale Subject Adjusted Sale Sale FAR Price Per FAR FAR Price Per FAR 6 1.50 $374.52 2.75 $204.28 1 1.62 $438.03 2.75 $258.04 3 2.00 $309.43 2.75 $225.04 5 2.00 $282.18 2.75 $205.22 2 2.25 $318.00 2.75 $260.18 4 2.46 $253.35 2.75 $226.63 Subject 2.75 --- --- --- 7 2.90 $245.75 2.75 $259.15 Compiled by: CBRE, Inc. CONCLUSION /1/2 The comparables sales produced an overall unadjusted value indicator range from $492.80 to $836.12 per square foot of site area; and, $200,3•8 to 15.03 per square foot of rentable/sellable building FAR. After adjustments wre/consideredan\d or applied for property rights conveyed, conditions of sale, i. e. assemblage" r dist/Tess, market conditions (time), size, corner or frontage/view corridors, topography/site onditi fis, location and zoning/density when compared to the subject property, the range"'of v ue indicators was narrowed considerably to $561.77 to $715.50 per square foot of site\ ea,'-and-, 2() .28 to $259.15 per square foot of rentable/sellable building FAR. Based on the preceding analysis, Coable Sa es 1, 2, 4, 5 & 7 were the most representative of the subject site, and warranted greatest-consideration because of recent transaction dates, size, location and zoning/densityK\ In conclusion, a rice/'er square`fo`ot of\site area and apriceper square foot of rentable/sellable p \\ \ 1 q building FAR within the orrall u,djusted and adjusted ranges is most appropriate for valuing the subject site As If rezoned\t9)113, Commercial, High Intensity, and is calculated as follows: `CONCLUDED LAND VALUE - P27 $ PSF of Site Site SF Total $600.00 x 59,273 = $35,563,800 $700.00 x 59,273 = $41,491,100 $ PSF of FAR Potential"As of Right" FAR Total $225.00 x 163,001 SF = $36,675,169 $260.00 x 163,001 SF = $42,380,195 Indicated Value As If Rezoned CD-3: $39,000,000 (Rounded PSF of Site) $657.97 (Rounded PSF of FAR) $239.26 Compiled by CBRE 61©2022 CBRE,Inc. CBRE Reconciliation of Value Reconciliation of Value In the sales comparison approach, the subject is compared to similar properties that have been sold recently or for which listing prices or offers are known. The sales used in this analysis are considered comparable to the subject, and the required adjustments were based on reasonable and well-supported rationale. In addition, market participants are currently analyzing purchase prices on other properties as they relate to available substitutes in the market. Therefore, the sales comparison approach is considered to provide a very reliable value indication for each subject property. Based on the foregoing, the market value of the subject has been concluded as follows: MARKET VALUE CONCLUSION Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised />Date of Value Value Conclusion Municipal Parking Lot P25 As If Rezoned CD-2&CD-3 Fee Simple Estate/(April 12,2022 $26,000,000 Municipal Parking Lot P26 As If Rezoned CD-3 Fee Simple Estate April 12,2022 $33,600,000 Municipal Parking Lot P27 As If Rezoned CD-3 Fee Simple Estate/N April 12,2022 $39,000,000 Compiled by CBRE / / \\N <:;) 62 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. CBRE, Inc. through its appraiser (collectively, "CBRE") has inspected through reasonable observation the subject property. However, it is not possible or reasonably practicable to personally inspect conditions beneath the soil and the entire interior and exterior of the improvements on the subject property. Therefore, no representation is made as to such matters. 2. The report, including its conclusions and any portion of such report(the"Report"), is as of the date set forth in the letter of transmittal and based upon the information, market, economic, and property conditions and projected levels of operation existing as of such date.The dollar amount of any conclusion as to value in the Report is based upon the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar on such date. The Report is subject to change as a result of fluctuations in any of the foregoing. CBRE has no obligation to revise the Report to reflect any such fluctuations or other events or conditions which occur subsequent to such date. 3. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, CBRE has assumed that: (i) Title to the subject property is clear and marketable and that there are no recorded or unrecorded matters or exceptions to title that would adversely affect marketability or value. CBRE has not examined title records (including without limitation liens, encumbrances, easements, deed restrictions, and other conditions that may affect the title or use of the subject property) and makes no representations regarding title or its limitations on the use of the subject property. Insurance against financial loss that may rise out of defects in title should be sought from a qualified title insurance company. (ii) Existing improvements on the subject property conform to ap livable�I state, and federal building codes and ordinances,are structurally sound and seismically safe, ancPhave been built and repaired in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices; all building systems,(mechanical/electg�cgl, HVAC, elevator, plumbing, etc.) are in good working order with no major deferted%maintenance or repaiir required; and the roof and exterior are in good condition and free from intrusion by?thie,Alements. CBRE has not retained independent structural, mechanical, electrical, or civil engineers in connectiofi with this appraisal and, therefore, makes no representations relative to the condition of improvements.`CBRE appraisers are not engineers and are not qualified to judge matters of an engineering mature and furthermore structural problems or building system problems may not be visible. It is expressly assurn\ed`tliat any-purchaser would, as a precondition to closing a sale, obtain a satisfactory engineering report vela ivto t�ie`strucctural integrity of the property and the integrity of building systems. (iii) Any proposed improvements,onl.o off-sits well as any alterations or repairs considered will be completed in a workmanlike manner accordiogo standard-practices? (iv) Hazardous materials are notpressen-o` the sublect property. CBRE is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such,�as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, contaminated groundwater, mold,or other potentiallhazardous matedials may affect the value of the property. (v) No mineral deposit or subsurface eights of"value exist with respect to the subject property, whether gas, liquid, or solid, and no air o en developmt)rights of value may be transferred. CBRE has not considered any rights associated with extraction or exploration of any resources, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. (vi) There are no contemplated bl'(c initiatives, governmental development controls, rent controls, or changes in the present zoning ordinances or regulations governing use, density,or shape that would significantly affect the value of the subject property. (vii) All required licenses,certificates of occupancy,consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, nor national government or private entity or organization have been or can be readily obtained or renewed for any use on which the Report is based. (viii)The subject property is managed and operated in a prudent and competent manner, neither inefficiently or super-efficiently. (ix) The subject property and its use, management, and operation are in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, laws, and restrictions, including without limitation environmental laws, seismic hazards, flight patterns, decibel levels/noise envelopes, fire hazards, hillside ordinances, density, allowable uses, building codes, permits,and licenses. (x) The subject property is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CBRE is not qualified to assess the subject property's compliance with the ADA, notwithstanding any discussion of possible readily achievable barrier removal construction items in the Report. 63 CBRE ©2022 CBRE, Inc. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions (xi) All information regarding the areas and dimensions of the subject property furnished to CBRE are correct, and no encroachments exist. CBRE has neither undertaken any survey of the boundaries of the subject property nor reviewed or confirmed the accuracy of any legal description of the subject property. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, no issues regarding the foregoing were brought to CBRE's attention, and CBRE has no knowledge of any such facts affecting the subject property. If any information inconsistent with any of the foregoing assumptions is discovered, such information could have a substantial negative impact on the Report. Accordingly, if any such information is subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any conditions regarding the foregoing, or for any expertise or knowledge required to discover them. Any user of the Report is urged to retain an expert in the applicable field(s) for information regarding such conditions. 4. CBRE has assumed that all documents, data and information furnished by or behalf of the client, property owner, or owner's representative are accurate and correct, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. Such data and information include, without limitation, numerical street addresses, lot and block numbers, Assessor's Parcel Numbers, land dimensions, square footage area of the land, dimensions of the improvements, gross building areas, net rentable areas, usable areas, unit count, room count, rent schedules, income data, historical operating expenses, budgets,and related data. Any error in any of the above could have a substantial impact on the Report. Accordingly, if any such errors are subsequently made known to CBRE,,C8RE reserves the right to amend the Report,which may include the conclusions of the Report. The client and'iptended user should carefully review all assumptions,data, relevant calculations, and conclusions of the Report aradshould immediately notify CBRE of any questions or errors within 30 days after the date of delivery of the Report. \ 5. CBRE assumes no responsibility (including any obligation to 4ocure the sage for any documents, data or information not provided to CBRE, including without limitation any termite inspection, urvey or occupancy permit. 6. All furnishings, equipment and business operations have\beep//disregarded with only real property being considered in the Report,except as otherwise expressly stated nd'typically considered part of real property. 7. Any cash flows included in the analysis are forecasts of estimated future operating characteristics based upon the information and assumptions contained within th\Report. Any projections of income, expenses and economic conditions utilized in the Report, including such\cash flows should, be considered as only estimates of the expectations of future income and expenses as of the\date of the,Report and not predictions of the future. Actual results are affected by a number of facfori outside\'the control of CBRE, including without limitation fluctuating economic, market, and property condions. A�•tual results may ultimately differ from these projections, and CBRE does not warrant any such projections. \V\ 8. The Report contains professional op ions and`is-expressly not intended to serve as any warranty, assurance or guarantee of any particular value of the es object property. Other appraisers may reach different conclusions as to the value of the subject proert py��,,,,Fukthermnorre, market value is highly related to exposure time, promotion effort, terms, motivation, and conclusions\su round`,ng the offering of the subject property. The Report is for the sole purpose of providing h ntended user with CBRE's independent professional opinion of the value of the subject property as of the date`f\the Report. Accordingly, CBRE shall not be liable for any losses that arise from any investment or lending decis ns baas9 pon the Report that the client, intended user,or any buyer,seller, investor, or lending institution may undertake related to the subject property, and CBRE has not been compensated to assume any of these risks. Nothing contained in the Report shall be construed as any direct or indirect recommendation of CBRE to buy,sell, hold,or finance the subject property. 9. No opinion is expressed on matters which may require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers. Any user of the Report is advised to retain experts in areas that fall outside the scope of the real estate appraisal profession for such matters. 10. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need, for flood hazard insurance. An agent for the Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance. 11. Acceptance or use of the Report constitutes full acceptance of these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and any special assumptions set forth in the Report. It is the responsibility of the user of the Report to read in full, comprehend and thus become aware of all such assumptions and limiting conditions. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any situation arising out of the user's failure to become familiar with and understand the same. 12. The Report applies to the property as a whole only, and any pro ration or division of the title into fractional interests will invalidate such conclusions, unless the Report expressly assumes such pro ration or division of interests. 64 CBRE ©2022 CBRE, Inc. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 13. The allocations of the total value estimate in the Report between land and improvements apply only to the existing • use of the subject property. The allocations of values for each of the land and improvements are not intended to be used with any other property or appraisal and are not valid for any such use. 14. The maps, plats, sketches, graphs, photographs, and exhibits included in this Report are for illustration purposes only and shall be utilized only to assist in visualizing matters discussed in the Report. No such items shall be removed,reproduced,or used apart from the Report. 15. The Report_shall not be duplicated or provided to any unintended users in whole or in part without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Exempt from this restriction is duplication for the internal use of the intended user and its attorneys, accountants, or advisors for the sole benefit of the intended user. Also exempt from this restriction is transmission of the Report pursuant to any requirement of any court, governmental authority, or regulatory agency having jurisdiction over the intended user, provided that the Report and its contents shall not be published, in whole or in part, in any public document without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Finally, the Report shall not be made available to the public or otherwise used in any offering of the property or any security, as defined by applicable law. Any unintended user who may possess the Report is advised that it shall not rely upon the Report or its conclusions and that it should rely on its own appraisers, advisors and other consultants for any decision in connection with the subject property. CBRE shall have no liability or responsibility to any such unintended user. • cS > 65 CBRE ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Addenda ADDENDA 40 1110 ©2022 CBRE,Inc. Addenda Addendum A LAND SALE DATA SHEETS 10 ©2022 CBRE, Inc. Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 1 Property Name 6th&Washington VG _ 40o..�� --.---, Address 601-685 Washington Avenue ,.:. ',a sN .a j), �.„,,'t% a y Miami Beach,FL 33139 ,!� 1,j' "` ' f , United States , }�`' "'f ^°7, �;� dig Y/ ,- Government Tax Agency Miami-Dade ', ��"; ;� r? / '' Govt./Tax ID N/A J -�?ia E„ q' '1-1 5 a t�/OJ[iv,,1sn tfrb7*4 c ` :P.1 Site/Government Regulations Q" � ®":'';YJ- f1,= ' Acres Square feet i'� - ttw ,<, r `°� �'~ .rt. Land Area Net 1.579 68,770 1.' - .,.�e�'t*0.�.' ;C� -7, malt I,s.'i '-S__ -c - is ri,_..-. , Land Area Gross 1.579 68,770 Site Development Status 1[Finisheed 1 Shape (Rectangular Topography Other(See Comments) _ {Utilities R -IF-Available to site - _- 1 Maximum FAR 1.62 Min Land to Bldg Ratio 0.62:1 Maximum Density 41.81 per ac {Frontage Distance/Street 549 fF Washington Ave - _ __� ro tFntage Distance/Street 133 ft3 66th Street - Frontage Distance/Street I 130 ft,7th Street - - 1 FFrontage Distance/Street [ _ - 519 ft-Collins rt-Alley ---- General Plan Mixed-use retail/residential&parking Specific Plan Mixed-use retail/residential&parking Zoning CD-2,Commercial(See Comments) Entitlement Status Other(See Comments) �� 13b Summary Recorded Buyer IC 601 Washington,LLCf Marketing Time N/A True Buyer Eric Birnbaum f Buyer Type Developer Recorded Seller Washington Squared,LLC � Seller Type Private Investor True Seller Andrew Joblo Managing eniber Primary Verification Contract&Appraisal on-file- - Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold \ Type-- $ale - Current Use Obsolete stir {retail Date - - ~!6/23/2015 1 Proposed Use Mixed-use retail>residential parking Sale Price_ (t$55,500,000 ,_ Listing Broker N/A Financing -1,Cash to Seller � Selling Broker N/A \\V ;Cash.Equivalent i$55,500,000 — _ _� Doc# See Comments [Capital Adjustment Al$2,000,000 ;Adjusted Price )$57,500,000 Transaction Qaubi liJ Five-Year I History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and/sf • 106/2015 VSale 11IC 601 Washington,LLC 1il Washington Squared, I[ $b5,500,000; $36;422,373/$836.12 - - ! J- -. �. - -- - - -- - I�c -- --- __ - - - - CRRE Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 1 aittacfle. pa i . $836.12 /sf $871,212 /Unit $36,422,372.84 /ac $871,212 /Allowable Bldg. Units $515.03 /Building Area Financial No information recorded .,---------,-1I ` This comparable land sale is improved with seven(7)existing 1 &2 story retail store buildings fronting 1.-- —r-I 'b _ ,' --_ , Washington Avenue between 6th Street and 7th Street in the Flamingo Park Historic District on Miami �— ' Beach that were owned or were"in contract"to Washington Squared,LLC,as part of an assemblage for 7 1= Q b - - C'' 1?�~� :- mixed-use redevelopment for a total purchase price of$40,210,436,including lease buyouts,exiting �I y [' debt&real estate commission obligations to the buyer. The assembled site area totals 68,770 square 4, ❑ -- 10,C1 ,c ,�1r feet of medium intensity zoned land area that is improved with approximately 63,601 square feet of Goggle Map dZta©2022 Goggle obsolete retail store building area dating to 1934, 1936&1948. The proposed redevelopment is conceptually site planned for 55,120 square feet of ground floor retail,plus 66-residential condominium units with 56,525 square feet or an average of 856-SF of living area per unit in a 9-story tower and 2- levels of structured parking with 240 spaces. In addition,there are several other redevelopment scenario options including a potential hotel tower instead of thheereresidential condominium units. The majority of the contracts,excluding 619-627 Was ington Avenue,all closed simultaneously in the third week of June 2015. In addition to the assemblage,eurchase price,the buyer/investor,Washington Squared,LLC was able to negotiate&execute4a.'memllership interest purchase&sale to IC 601 Washington LLC,dated May 27,2015. The forward purchas"cprice is$55,500,000 for a 96.5%interest in a joint venture agreement between the seller&purchase. The seller retains a 3.5%interest in the joint venture valued at$2,000,000,for a total purchase price valued at$57,500,000 for 100%interest in the joint venture partnership. Part of the assemblage strategywas the Was ih n ton Avenue Vision and Master Plan beingdeveloped 9 � 9 P with a Washington Avenue'BTue. 'I�bbon Panel(WABRP)that was recommending to increase building height restrictions. The WABRP`was recommending a FAR as high as 2.75,subject to municipal government approvals,versus the current zoning�of CD-2,Commercial,Medium Intensity District permits a maximum floor area ratio(FAR)of]/50, lus Code Section 142-307(d)2.0 FAR where more than 25% of the building is used'for reside4a1'or hotel units. 0 CRRE Sale Land - Hotel / Motel No. 2 Property Name 1685 Washington Avenue 7 {* Address 1685 Washington Avenue �� I't , •n , - 1... Miami Beach FL 33139 - ' } ?• United States ` 4 Si lu t+ �1 ' 'tr 'Tv 4 Government Tax Agency Miami-Dade - .r� nth. p" Govt./Tax ID 02-3234-019-0730 Site/Government Regulations qr ; it'� A _'- ' Acres Square feet `e• 0,. Land Area Net 0.689 30,000 ' !y 66 1. � jrr t�1' Land Area Gross 0.689 30,000illE ' ?° x' 1.: r r� € .. s YS l jSiie Development Status Finished ~—� �i ;T ��F�s 1.��-O���il li s• ;•••i f CSha e P 'Rectan ular --`-" .i 'I:. V'411,62:j ri a�. .'-, , e� L p t g 1 ;Topography ^JILivel,At Street Grade — - Utilities —1AI1_available -- Maximum FAR 2.25 Min Land to Bldg Ratio 0.44:1 Maximum Density 217.80 per ac [Frontage_Distance/Street ir N/A11Washington Avenue 1 Frontage Distance/Street-7 N/A'1 t7 li Street General Plan Mixed-use Specific Plan Mixed-use hotel,retail&branch bank Zoning CD-3,Commercial High Intensity District Entitlement Status N/A -,` Recorded Buyer Sobe Center,LLC Mal fmg Time N/A <7 True Buyer Ronny Finvarb \\\(,_,1. uyer Type Developer Recorded Seller Citibank,N.A. eller Type End User True Seller N/A rimary Verification Paul Weimer,Listing Broker Interest Transferred Leased Fee Type _JJ i5ale-,_--- _ 1 Current Use Branch bank f_Date JI 8%16/2017 - J_� Proposed Use Mixed-use hotel,retail&branch bankLSale Price _l$19,200,000 - --__ Listing Broker CBRE,Inc-.Hot l&Resort Group financing _ All.Cash Selling Broker Paul Wei ry CBRE,Inc. sh Equivalent ir$19,200,000 v ---1 Doc# 30658/1799 tCapital Adjustment 52000,000 Adjusted Price 321,200,000 Transaction Elauiuki4jOke Five-Year EOM CT=HI to J Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and/sf ib8/2017 -?[Sale `l,Sobe Center,LLC liCitibank,N.A._— - �' -- $1-9,200,00tj_ $30_782,634/$706.671 CRRE Sale Land - Hotel / Motel No. 2 Etab CCI Comparison $706.67 /sf N/A /Unit $30,782,633.95 /ac $141,333 /Allowable Bldg.Units $314.07 /Building Area Financial No information recorded L G eo t i� ��J u7i? I 11� This comparable land sale is a 0.69-acre site,high density zoned site improved with a 7,389 SF Citibank p"- '` -'" F 1l' ; 7 branch and is located at the southeast corner of Washington Avenue and 17th Street in Miami Beach, ;I—I =;i eft ,_;, Florida.The improvements were constructed in 1996. However,the buyer is a very active Miami Beach --��ro '� lami_Beach hotel developer and was scouting potential redevelopment sites along the Lincoln Road mall. The 1r =1 c;1._1 L !I., ` ' - transaction and redevelopment plan was negotiated to include a new,replacement branch bank for f Citibank in 4,000-SF of net rentable area on the ground floor of the proposed,8-story, 150-room hotel l I�-' 1 L t ; tower. Citibank intends to continue to operate duringconstruction and will enter a long-term leaseback +iGoogle ,[;Mat"d8{8 O20'���qae. of the new space upon completion. According to the broker,the value of the leaseback was considered to be$100.00-PSF,triple net but details were confidential and not provided. However,the 4,000-SF branch bank shell cost contribution to the buyer/developer is estimated to be$500.00-PSF for hard& soft costs and parking space allocations. 0 CIRRE Sale Land - Office No. 3 Property Name 1910 Alton Road 2._. Address 1910 Alton Road . '\ f.,��• • /50 ?^ Miami Beach,FL 33139 ==r' --- = • 1. T to United States :„.1.r• '� :RR) 's-* _1Am.� ( . _ . ,, %, Government Tax Agency Miami-Dade ,'"ft-` � E Yi ,-q- , J 'o�`r Govt./Tax ID 02-3233-022-0020 ,:-1r, • —+: ' J ;rtlig ly + r 'it s r'lt Site/Government Regulations -Y - _H¢-a ,,, . ,„ '�r� Acres Square feet ,rp •_- a ! =;7 Land Area Net 0.184 8,000 t' �'' � ' Iq ' F'' L 1p "''�-' fit_ Land Area Gross N/A N/A „r Ir E' •1� ,i°iIik.. -- t, §t.,$� '+,* r L y '<, Site Development Status rFimshed — i},` 1 u �` t IIl ' _ us ibis -- _____ � 4137 �} _ ;Shape rectangular — +Topography _ _JRLevel,At Street Grade — }Utilities__-- },fAvailable to site — Maximum FAR 2.00 Min Land to Bldg Ratio 0.50:1 Maximum Density - N/A !Frontage Distance/Street I -� N/A 1Alton Road -- -- -----i--- .-..—-------• ----- ----__ — General Plan Mixed-use commercial Specific Plan Mixed-use office/residential Zoning CD-2,Commercial,Medium Intensity Entitlement Status N/A > Recorded Buyer Alton Office Holdings,LLCarketing)Time 13 Month(s) True Buyer Wayne Boich Buyer ype Developer Recorded Seller Talmudic College of Florida,Inc. Seller Type End User True Seller Rabbi Yitzchak Zweig Primary Verification Zech Winkler,Listing Broker Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type — — —7Sale —_—__ _ 1 Current Use Obsolete office&educational u e Date —-- "_J 2/19/2020 — • Proposed Use Mixed-use offic�esident-al iSale Price j$4,500,000 1 Listing Broker JLL#305-704=1333 Financing All Cash — _ 1 Selling Broker N/A [Cash Equivalent__ — $4,500,000 Doc# 31835/4257 ICdpital Adjustment — __1�a0 _ -!r_ =_ ---_-- ---- Adjusted Price- ! ,500,000 ' Transaction Q,u''"r'i Jib Five-Year( U• .7 History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and/sf - - ---- ------ +02/2020- lJ Sale 1 Alton Office Holdings, lTalmudic College of $4,500,0001' $24,496,462%$562.50 ' — _-- '— — - i'I.LC J;Florida Inc. Sale Land - Office No. 3 EL-madieo • i . $562.50 /sf N/A /Unit $24,496,461.62 /ac N/A /Allowable Bldg.Units $281.30 /Building Area Financial No information recorded az)8 eiL 11 11[a 1'ili ti.,"= -4, fir�r� This comparable land sale is located along the west side of Alton Road in the Sunset Harbour submarket ��`:"2' sil /�f a , 7 1.1- in Miami Beach Florida. The property was improved with an obsolete office/educational building and 1.•4R, -_ �,`O��J:`1/r>� l broker listed at$5,750,000 for approximately 13-months+/-before going into contract at$4,500,000 ~f i4=.;\'�ya0 ir•�' in an"all cash"transaction. The buyer is a developer who demolished the building and secured site plan 1 r i _, [f,�adg 1 I JI- approvals for a 5-story, 15,997-SF mixed-use office building with a top floor residential unit including ' l ;r ,r=, i r i rooftop deck,2-floors of office space,a ground floor art gallery,secured lobby and 15-mechincal lift Google p da17'©21� ie parking spaces. CRRE Sale Land - Hotel / Motel No. 4 Property Name citizenM Hotel Address 1212 Lincoln Road %,i°`= • i Miami Beach,FL 33139 t r,b `• -" United States 1-�-- i ;4 r - �c`; 4� Government Tax Agency N/A '"L�'rr ;-i t u • Govt.flax ID Multiple c. ' t'`t �t 7 1 — I 141. ' 1 , 1 z .� r..d d Site/Government Regulations 1* Acres Square feet 4 .c ' " ^s 'i � � -' I .- Land Area Net 0.419 18,263 t 5. tr M t Land Area Gross N/A N/A is S ' ' , �. eR ° Site Development Status-llFinished -�- _ -M- y -- a ,_ ,, ‘ o!I�p. (Shape - �liRectangular-- - - - .r` � r .t u . Topography level At Street Grade_, -' -- {Utilities 1VAll'availabletosite T�— Maximum FAR 2.46 Min Land to Bldg Ratio 0.41:1 Maximum Density 400.67 per ac Frontage Distance/Street N/A'Alton Roady - - Fron-tage Distance/Street p N/A,Lincoln Road - - General Plan Mixed-use commercial Specific Plan Hotel Zoning CD-2,Commercial,Medium Intensity Entitlement� (- Status N/A � ( it lithuigqj Recorded Buyer OSIB Miami Beach Properties LLC ���///\ Marke mt g Time N/A True Buyer Craig Kinnon,citizenM Hotels Buyer Type End User Recorded Seller 1212 Lincoln LLC Seller Type Developer True Seller Russell Galbut,Crescen Heights Primary Verification Buyer&Public Records Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold jType "S'ale - - -__ 1 Current Use Obsolete bank s ate __A/25/2020- --�___^ Proposed Use Boutique hotel ;Sale Price ____ 119,000,000 - _ Listing Broker Off-market transaction ;Financing _ All Cash - - Selling Broker N/A Cash Equivalent `__,7;$9',000,000 j C Doc# 31988/2369 , apital Adjustmnt_e -1$0 --- ------- - ---�-----1 Adjusted Price j$9,000,000 Transaction Five-Year( History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and/sf r06/2020 1,Sale OSIB ac Miami Beh 1 1212 Lincoln +LLC - $9,000,001 70 $21 464,34 %$4 5 92.801 �- -- - - - ,Properties LLC - - -- -- - -t CRRE Sale Land - Hotel / Motel No. 4 Rica a $492.80 /sf $53,571 /Unit $21,464,345.34 /ac $53,571 /Allowable Bldg. Units $200.28 /Building Area Financial No information recorded 3 Comments 1.,,iNORThI This comparable land sale is located at the southwest corner intersection of Alton Road&Lincoln Road in AMERGA' ' the South Beach submarket of Miami Beach,Florida. The site is improved with an existing 2-story, _ 11^_ x7}rrt 18,105-SF Wells Fargo branch bank built in 1940 that will be redeveloped into a 5-story, 168-room \\4 °tow boutique hotel with roof top terrace. The seller previously acquired the property from Wells Fargo in `" January 2020 for$8,500,000. The site location is across the street from the west end of the Lincoln ' 1 Road pedestrian mall and is part of a mixed-use master plan anchored by a 55,000-SF Whole Foods with Google--..._ ���%tip Wit$©2022; 3-levels of structured parking support. CRRF Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 5 Property Name 1234- 1260 Washington Avenue ,;i `- ,_,- Address 1234- 1260 Washington Avenue w. �r ri. •[ttS fi 'r1,12�j Miami Beach,FL 33139 _ airier- A 'i'�_e Y '� 11�� r United States •• t •or ;1�-� ', -t-i1 •fr� '• " ,'4r��' Government Tax Agency Miami-DadeNr ' �c,_ Govt./Tax ID Multiple r ', • d `PE1 ,� + i;i li, •.- ii,• `(q, Site/Government Regulations , l --- 3 17: r57-'7 'ice Acres Square feet :-/ Ito• r •- Y" -_.� i Land Area Net 0.770 33,525 ' -• ..' ?, I��I . , 6 ®ir'. eLand Area Gross A N A ' - j aim�`- }Site Development Status Irina-a _-- —_— 1 F, 194$1 t +'1 .'r'q ri". [Shape �LRectangular --- -- :f.. _&. .-• .--1.� F",' ; -.• . topography _ rt1jLevel,AiAi Street Grade iUtilitles — a�All available to site —'—� � Maximum FAR 2.00 Min Land to Bldg Ratio 0.50:1 Maximum Density 139.03 per ac `Frontage.Distance/Street li N/AjjWashington Avenue _j [Frontage Distance/Street-1L � � N%Al Drexxel Avenue rFrontage Distance/Street N/A7i13th Street �' `-' I General Plan High density,mixed-use retail,office,residential f hotel Specific Plan Mixed-use retail&office Zoning CD-2,Commercial Medium Intensity Entitlement Status N/A etlb S mmary 1,7 Recorded Buyer Urbin Miami Beach Owner,LLC Marketing Time N/A True Buyer Rishi Kapoor Buyer Type Private Syndicator Recorded Seller 1234 Partners,Ltd. Seller Type Private Investor True Seller Jonathan Fryd&David Resnick Primary Verification Buyer#786-701-6724 Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold `Type 11Sale -i Current Use Obsoletetail/office 'D L.ate 15/4/2021 __ iI Proposed Use Retail/office'redevelopment !Sale Price _ $20,000,000 — Listing Broker Off-market transaction 1Financing —V idther(See Comments)_ _— _ __ Selling Broker N/A Cash Equivalent 420,000,000 -- 1 Doc# 32501/292 'Capital Adjustment 1$0 I Adjusted Price - I$20,000,000 --- -=— Transaction Q1uu y Five- ear @ I History Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and/sf [65/2021.._— iSale — — Urbin Miami Beach 111234 Partners Ltd. Ir $20 000,000 r $25,987,526/$596.57 '— 1' — — JLOwner,LLC —'i — ——— ___IL__ — ---.1' — -- -----_J CRRE Sale Land - Mixed-Use No. 5 L!,'iik9 CQ C• •..rl o 5596.57 /sf $186,916 /Unit $25,987,525.99 /ac $186,916 /Allowable Bldg.Units $298.61 /Building Area Financial No information recorded EWb Comments ff_ -''�r a 2; t-7, 7 This comparable land sale comprises an existing 1-story, 10,697-SF retail building (1260)and a 3-story, 'I I'l -I + t{rr 1,1 19 519-SF office building (1234)located alongthe west side of Washington Avenue at 13th Street and f,'`l cl f 9 Illin l _'.2_11 , , 1 spanning west to the Drexel Avenue frontage. The buyer operates a co-living&co-working business with p li, ,(�, plans to demolish the 1-story retail building and replace it with a new,ground-up 6-story office building �_�i-' G� a.� ..'t j.' and will gut renovate&restore the existing 3-story office building. The proposed site plan comprises a 1 -_= [ SQU.T,H' BEA"CH+ .,-_11tt[SU: r-, ; -A•; ; i total of 44,153-SF of rentable area and 82,160-SF of gross building area that includes a 5,000-SF •Googie sj_lip dai JAIta© 022 G ; wellness center on the ground floor and 21,000-SF of new,flexible office space on the upper floors - - including co-working area as small as 50-SF and more traditional office suites ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 square feet with fully furnished,turn key options. Project amenities include a food market,cafe& raw juice bar,60-residential units and roof deck with pool,yoga lawn and bar. The residential units will be a mix of 275-SF micro units and co-living units with/240-4 bedroom floor plans including private bathrooms in each bedroom and shared living roomvkitchen and laundry machines. The sale transaction was facilitated with a$14 m II on purchase money mortgage in favor of the sellers and the buyer raised$56 million from investors.for th'redevelopment program. </9 CRRE Sale Land - Retail / Commercial No. 6 Property Name 1683&1695 Alton Road . Address 1683& 1695 Alton Road Miami Beach,FL 33139 -_ - 4 , ' United States �'��'�- Nt ,iv►. - ---- Government Tax Agency Miami-Dade it B . II, 1 f"` "r - Govt./Tax ID 02-3234-017-0090&0100 Site/Government Regulations : ,� Acres Square feet Land Area Net 0.340 14,810 Land Area Gross N/A N/A Site Development Status—(,;Finished - Shape — Rectangular — J Topography --Revel,M Street Grade 1 'Utilities IrAvailable to site � _� Maximum FAR 1.50 Min Land to Bldg Ratio 0.67:1 Maximum Density N/A ;Frontage Distance/Street-1; N/A Alton Road — _ ' 'Frontage Distance/Street r .A_N/A1117thStreet General Plan Mixed-use commercial Specific Plan TBD Zoning CD-2,Commercial,Medium Intensity Entitlement Status N/A afbeialuaLathly Recorded Buyer 1695 Alton,LLC Ma kejmg Time 18 Month(s) True Buyer Alan Potemkin Buyer Type Private Investor Recorded Seller Sanel,Inc. Seller Type Private Investor True Seller Eleanore Carina Zocco Primary Verification Rich Tallman,Listing Broker Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold (1) Type Sale--� 1 Current Use Vacant branchebank.buil —' dmg&pa king lot pate ,2/3/2022 Proposed Use TBD / 'Sale Price — 1?510,400,000 _— ____1 Listing Broker La Playa Pro erties Group,Inc.#305-672- `Financing 'Cashte Seller —1 0773 a, ___ _ _____ __i Selling Broker N/A !Cash Equivalent _ 7}Sl-0,400,000b_ _ — __ Doc# 33019/3462 ,Capital kdiustment— 3S0 —_ !Adjusted Price 1;$10,400,000 1 Transaction S, a . am Five-Year G011Z1b271Mtiv Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and/sf ,02/2022 1,Sale 1695 Alton,LLC ' anel,Inc. $10,400,0001 -$N,588,235/$702.21 CRRF Sale Land - Retail / Commercial No. 6 Et bc20Comparison $702.21 /sf N/A /Unit S30,588,235.29 /ac N/A /Allowable Bldg. Units $468.15 /Building Area Financial No information recorded 02:ED 8 auaulaulli 1' 1 i 'I -- i�- This comparable land sale is the former BankUnited branch bank located on the southeast,signalized .x_; .i -j �:.7-: • corner of Alton Road and 17th Street in the South Beach submarket in Miami Beach,Florida. The -""" 1]$f'1 St BankUnited lease commenced in May 2010 with the"like new"branch bank opening in 2012.The lease PI " -----r'"_ terms&conditions were for 10 years plus two 2 5 year renewal option and 3%annual escalations > a 11 p 1 throughout initial term and options periods. However,BankUnited vacated after the initial base term o r- ,-1"" expired. Prior to a branch bank,it was the former Burger King fast food restaurant. The current seller C70Q (e_y - $ Y--1-` previously acquired the property in December 2012 and a single tenant,triple net lease investment for f° P0�ale $8,150,000 and relisted the property more recently once it was known that BankUnited was not renewing. The broker listing was priced at$12,000,0000 and sold at$10,400,000 in an"all cash"sale transaction to a local,high net worth investor. The underlying zoning permits a 5-story building and floor-area-ratio of 1.50 or a maximum 2.0 in mixed-use^I�uildings when more than 25 percent of the total area of a building is used for residential or hotel units,as set forth in the RM-2 district. </\:;) . CRRE Sale Land - Hotel / Motel No. 7 Property Name 2206 Park Avenue4 Y 2206 Park Avenue * ¢ 4 ' v Address ,1 A } �"�'J A Miami Beach,FL 33139 l"• `' '+ _• 1 ! c United States ° — ` • � ��v 4%� '/ Government Tax Agency Miami-Dade �, ,` � f'r' � ` 1 �,, Govt./Tax ID Multiple 'm ,$'� 4�+ � l!. Site/Government Regulations .- � Acres Square feet 1% i.- , Land Area Net 0.391 17,040 :•• .i ��,` - t; Land Area Gross N/A N/A .'"` Iqrq 14 ( 'M Y _ f ' '' Site Development Status-jFFiniahed e ' Ili` ��! ..� • Lhape J Rectangular - �.: � d .a - `ITopography Kiwi!,At Street Grade A- `i Utilities (Available to site Maximum FAR 2.90 Min Land to Bldg Ratio 0.34:1 Maximum Density 306.75 per ac Frontage Distance/Street jf N/A]`IFarkAvenue _ . ontage Distance/Street-jL N/ATL22nd Street - General Plan Mixed-use residential&hotel uses Specific Plan Hotel Zoning CD-3,Commercial,High Intensity Entitlement Status N/A ` 2% Recorded Buyer 22 Landlord LLC Marke6g Time 5 Month(s) True Buyer Mathieu Massa Buyer Type Developer. Recorded Seller Encotol LLC Seller Type Developer True Seller Enrique Colmenaras 0 Primary Verification Susan Gale,Listing Agent Interest Transferred Fee Simple/Freehold Type: ^ J'Sale ��_ _J Current Use Vacant land 1Date Sa 2/11/2022 Proposed Use Hotel / le Price:r_. = r$113,500,00d------ - i Listing Broker One Sotheby's International#305-766-1988 Financing _IfMarket Rate Financing _ j es Selling Broker N/A ;Ch Equivalent- 313,500,000 - - Doc# 33027/4911 \\\/) iCapitaFAc ustment l$0 :Fit --^ -- ='IS13,500,000 - ------ � _it__ __-_ ---__--_-__ . -_-- Transaction -1 11 • OM Five-Year= / Transaction Date Transaction Type Buyer Seller Price Price/ac and/sf i02/2022 'Sale _ 22 Landlord LLC Encota LLC ---- -- - -------- ��---= ---_._:_ -- ----- '� =- - - -^_-] _ _$13,500,000l1 $34,509,202/$792.25 CRRE Sale Land - Hotel / Motel No. 7 Rata de•mp• • $792.25 /sf $112,500 /Unit $34,509,202.45 /ac $112,500 /Allowable Bldg.Units $273.05 /Building Area Financial No information recorded C8 eo e t :, ti � � icy This comparable land sale is located along the northwest corner of Park Avenue and 22nd Street in the 1 r---- -' mac/ South Beach submarket in Miami Beach,Florida. The property was broker listed at$15,900,000 and r _ r ,i!, sold for$13,500,000 with the buyer securing a$6,000,000 conventional loan from City National Bank { * ' • and the seller providing a$2,500,000 short term purchase money mortgage. The property was / previously acquired in October 2013 for$7 000,000 by the developers of the adjacent&former 44-room l ; / `�v -` Lido Park Hotel located at 2216 Park Avenue who re-branded the 2216 Park Avenue property as the �'2 G Vintro Hotel&Kitchen and is now known as the Kayak Miami Beach. The 2206 Park Avenue land sale Goggle ; ,Map data©2022 Goggle property was previously proposed and entitled for a 5-story condo hotel comprising of 50,000-SF+/- with a mechanical parking lift system. The project was finally approved for 49,441-SF of FAR with 120- hotel rooms,ground floor retail and reduced off-street parking variance. The site location is at the crossroads of Park Avenue and the renovated Collins Cabal that is a restricted access canal that connects to Biscayne Bay,Indian Creek and Lake Pancoast. )) 7? <1;) CRRE