Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. — PaggRIA-91f36 <br />Financial Review of Proposed Sequoia Station Development <br />September 28, 2020 <br />Page 3 <br />land use type (e.g. housing versus office), parking, and allowable height or density. They also <br />take into account site constraints related to size, circulation, and other factors. <br />For analytical purposes, all of the alternatives assume the same site acquisition and <br />improvements costs and a level of retail development that is equivalent to what exists today (i.e. <br />maintaining Safeway and CVS, and other neighborhood serving retail albeit in a different <br />configuration and with below grade parking). In addition, all alternatives assume a portion of <br />the site is dedicated to an affordable housing developer for the construction of a 240 -unit low <br />income project. The primary differences in the alternatives relate to the amount and type of <br />office and market rate residential, as describe below and summarized in Table 1. <br />1. High Density Office Project: This project includes several high-density office buildings <br />developed on top of retail and underground parking. <br />2. High Density Office with Housing: This project includes both high density office and <br />multi -family residential, again developed on top of retail and with underground parking. <br />3. Lower Density Office Project: This project is similar to #1 above but with significantly less <br />office density (e.g. lower building heights). <br />4. High Density Housing Project: This project included several high-density residential <br />towers developed on top of retail and underground parking. <br />5. Lower Density Housing Project: This project is similar to #4 above but with significantly <br />less density (e.g. lower building heights). <br />Table 1: Summary of Development Alternatives Evaluated for Sequoia Station <br />......................................................................................................................................................... <br />Developer Proposals <br />Alternative Land Use Concepts <br />..................................................................................................................................................................................................... <br />Type of Development <br />High Density <br />High Density <br />Lower Density <br />High -Density <br />Lower <br />Office <br />Office with <br />Office <br />Housing <br />Density <br />Housing <br />Housing <br />Commercial <br />Office Sq. Ft. <br />1,392,545 <br />1,200,000 <br />696,273 <br />0 <br />0 <br />Retail Sq. Ft. <br />175,000 <br />175,000 <br />175,000 <br />175,000 <br />175,000 <br />Total <br />1,567,545 <br />1,375,000 <br />871,273 <br />175,000 <br />175,000 <br />Residential <br />Market Rate' 0 300 0 950 490 <br />100% Affordable 240 240 240 240 240 <br />Total 240 540 240 1,190 730 <br />[1] For analytical purposes, the analysis assumes that the market rate projects do not include affordable <br />units (e.g. the City's inclusionary requirements are satisifed with the stand alone affordable project). Note <br />that this is an analytical assumption only, not a policy recommendation. <br />[2] All of the alternatives assume that an independent affordable housing developer will construct a stand <br />alone, 100 percent affordable project on dedicated land using the federal low income housing tax credit <br />program and other available resources. <br />EPS has conducted this analysis based on readily available information and rather generic <br />financial assumptions that are informed by our professional expertise in real estate development <br />1:,Iha,.d�,.a1v1ak 211111,v211112 111-\1-- 1110 .y14 ­ 111-I.mo1_21_2—z 194 <br />