Demonstration Prototype Summary
PATHWAY 2007 Place-Based Planning
Prepared for:
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
REGIONAL PLANNING PARTNERS September 2006
October 5, 2006 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 128 Market Street, PO Box 5310, Stateline, NV 89449 (775) 588-4547 Re: Demonstration Prototype Summary To: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Pathway 2007 Staff and Place-Based Planning Core Team members Please find the attached Demonstration Prototype summary prepared with input from the Planning Working Groups (PWG). The document is organized into the following sections; 1) Introduction and Background, 2) Lessons Learned, 3) Case Studies including a financial analysis, 4) Data Sheets which includes background information and land use conditions. The aim of this exercise was to enable TRPA and local partners to work together to identify criteria for development projects that reflect place-based principles and begin to think about how specific projects would relate to the existing code of ordinances. The intent is to understand impediments in the current code of ordinances to getting high-quality projects on the ground that help to accelerate the attainment of TRPA’s environmental thresholds. We hope this information can be useful going forward in helping to design real demonstration projects and to inform the land use plan and the update of the code of ordinances. By understanding opportunities and challenges for reinvestment in the basin and having clear and predictable codes we will be able to strive for high quality projects that will be models for others to follow and represent the values and aspirations of Lake Tahoe’s communities. Regards, Darin Dinsmore Regional Planning Partners darin@dinsmoresierra.com www.regionalplanningpartners.com
I
Demonstration Prototype Summary Table of Contents
List of Tables
Page III
Introduction
Page 1
Lessons Learned
Page 2
This includes a description of the demonstration program and also contains Caveats and Limitations. This includes overall lessons learned related to the Lake Tahoe Basin as a whole, and lessons learned through the individual case studies completed for each of the three areas around the lake
Case Studies: Incline Village Kings Beach South Lake Tahoe
Page 5 Page 20 Page 32
This includes: 1) The Prototype Designs which consists of: a. Prototype design b. Existing Site and Development Analysis c. Case Study Development Program Analysis d. Net Gain Analysis 2) A financial analysis consisting of tables listed on page III
Caveats and Limitations
Page 48
Demonstration Prototype Summary List of Tables Incline Village Case Study Table 1: Program Description Table 2: Estimated Development Cost (Private Development) Table 2A: Estimated Development Cost (Community Building) Table 2B: Estimated Development Cost (Private/Public Development) Table 3: Projected Commercial Income Table 4: Projected Office Condominium Sale Proceeds Table 5: Projected Live-Work Sale Proceeds Table 6: Estimated Project Value (Private Development) Table 7: Operating Pro-Forma (Retail)
10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Kings Beach Case Study Table 1: Program Description Table 2: Estimated Development Cost Table 3: Commercial Income Table 4: Condominium Sale Proceeds Table 5: Estimated Project Value Table 6: Projected Operating Pro-forma
25 26 28 29 30 31
South Lake Tahoe Case Study Table 1: Program Description Table 2: Estimated Development Cost (Block One) Table 2A: Estimated Development Cost (Block Two) Table 2B: Estimated Development Cost (Block One/Block Two) Table 3: Commercial Income (Block One) Table 4: Est. Fractional Ownership Unit Sale Proceeds – Block One Table 5: Estimated Project Value – Block One Table 6: Estimated Townhouse Sale Proceeds – Block Two Table 7: Est. Fractional Ownership Units Sale Proceeds – Block Two Table 8: Estimated Project Value – Block Two Table 9: Estimated Project Value – Blocks One and Two Table 10: Projected Operating Pro-forma (Commercial) – Block One
36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 44 45 46 47
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Introduction and Background Regional Planning Partners has been contracted to test policies and regulations with three demonstration prototypes selected from around the Lake Tahoe Basin as part of Phase I of Pathway 2007, the Regional Plan Update. These prototypes are meant to help inform and create the criteria and set expectations for demonstration projects in the Basin and illustrate how the triple bottom line can be used to evaluate projects based on their environmental, economic and social benefits. These illustrative and educational models do not preclude real viable projects that could demonstrate the implementation of the triple bottom line on the ground. We used context based projects with locally specific site data that are area specific for this phase of Pathway 2007. The Demonstration Prototype Objectives are: 1. To illustrate projects that demonstrate place-based principles 2. To indicate how projects can support triple bottom line objectives 3. To identify incentives necessary to implement projects Three prototype projects were created and discussed with the Planning Working Groups. Their input was used to understand the feasibility and reality of these projects. The three projects include 1) a typical redevelopment area in Kings Beach that also includes SR 28 frontage, 2) an Incline Village Center reinvestment project, 3) a typical highway 50 corridor mixed-use project for the South Shore. We want to ensure that these prototypes are not seen as projects or proposals by members of the community and the press, but as a testing ground for ideas and concepts. It is important to keep in mind that although “fractional ownership� has been identified as one option for improving financial availability, there are other options including increasing the density/intensity as appropriate for certain areas and reducing entitlement timing and pre-development costs.
Regional Planning Partners
1
Introduction
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
____________________________________________________________________________________________
OVERALL LESSONS LEARNED The following is intended to be a summary of the “lessons learned” from the economic/financial review of the three subject demonstration projects in Kings Beach, Incline Village and South Lake Tahoe.
x
Development Cost - high land acquisition cost in part due to redevelopment circumstances and size of properties (e.g. Incline Village and South Lake Tahoe case studies) - high site preparation costs (building demolition, removal of existing improvements, site readiness, off-site improvements, BMPs, etc.) - high predevelopment (entitlement) costs due to complex/layered project approval process
x
Mixed-Use Development - can provide added/increased economic value to an overall project - certain uses with higher economic value (e.g. ownership residential) can help underwrite other components of project - opportunity to meet multiple objectives (land use, economic (investment), environmental, etc.)
x
Site Utilization – consideration for improving (increasing) utilization of sites through combination of mechanisms such as: - increased allowable density - increased allowable building height - reduced parking requirements (in situations of joint use/shared parking) - inclusion of the BMP area in calculation of allowable density - increased site coverage (with corresponding environmental enhancements)
x
Parking Solutions – consideration for provision of parking through: - reduced requirements for certain uses/product types e.g. owner occupied office condominium units - reduced requirements for joint use/shared parking - use of district based parking - use of on-street parking to satisfy certain on-site parking requirements
x
Predevelopment (Entitlements) – consideration for improvement to existing project approval/entitlement process through: - expedited process for proposed projects consistent with established vision/goals/objectives - establishment of stipulated period to review (approve/disapprove) proposed projects consistent with established vision/goals/objectives - reduction or deferral of building and development fees (regional/local government)
Regional Planning Partners
2
Lessons Learned
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
x
Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) - establishment of criteria for allocation of EIP as a capital improvements program - use of EIP funding to pay for certain off-site/public infrastructure/environmental enhancement costs for proposed projects consistent with established vision/goals/objectives
x
Environmental Conditions - projects can result in reduced overall site coverage in comparison to existing coverage and/or allowable coverage - inclusion of on-site environmental improvements e.g. BMPs - increased number of on-site trees - use of certain product types to provide sufficient utilization of site but help to limit overall site coverage e.g. townhomes with on-site parking within the footprint of the building; use of second floor uses
x
Excess Site Coverage - sale of unused site coverage to a “site coverage bank” or for another development can provide project revenue (economic value)
DEMONSTRATION PROTOTYPES In addition to the general “lessons learned” outlined above, there were certain factors that relate to the demonstration prototypes presented in the Kings Beach, Incline Village and South Lake Tahoe case studies
II. Kings Beach x
Factors that help limit total development cost: - smaller project site area (less acquisition and site preparation costs) - retention of existing buildings (cost for rehabilitation versus new construction) - joint use/shared parking (reduced overall on-site parking); use of on-street parking; in-lieu parking fee - redevelopment agency assistance related to acquisition/assembly of site, relocation of existing uses, off-site public improvements (including infrastructure and utility upgrades), etc.
x
Factors that provide added/increased economic value - second level (story) building use (in this case proposed fractional ownership units)
x
Feasibility of development prototypes - commercial/retail space initially is close to working economically - if total development costs can be limited per first bullet above - fractional ownership units provide sufficient economic value to offset directly related development costs and provide added/increased value to help underwrite other components of a project
Regional Planning Partners
3
Lessons Learned
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
III. Incline Village x
Factors that help reduce total development cost: - reduced on-site parking due to potential reduction in parking requirement for office condominiums - joint use/shared parking (reduced overall on-site parking) for retail, office condominiums and potential community building use
x
Factors that provide added/increased economic value: - second level (story) building use (in this case office condominiums) - provision of mixed-use development (retail, office and townhomes (condominiums)
x
Feasibility of development prototypes - commercial/retail space and for-sale townhomes (condominiums) initially do not initially work economically because of the portion of the high land acquisition and site preparation costs allocated to such uses (see notes on page 1 regarding site utilization) - office condominiums are close to working economically because of the size, projected price per square foot and reduced on-site parking requirement
IV. South Lake Tahoe x
Factors that help reduce total development cost: - potential redevelopment agency assistance related to acquisition/assembly of project site, relocation of existing uses, payment of off-site public improvements (e.g. infrastructure and utility upgrades), etc. - use of existing street right-of-way for new street/road with on-street parking (reduces need for overall on-site parking
x
Factors that provide added/increased economic value: - inclusion of fractional ownership uses
x
Feasibility of development prototypes - commercial/retail space and for-sale townhomes (condominiums) do not initially work economically due to the amount of high land acquisition and site preparation cost allocated to such uses (see notes on page 1 regarding site utilization) - fractional ownership units provide sufficient economic value to offset directly related development costs and provide some added/increased value to help underwrite other components of a project
Regional Planning Partners
4
Lessons Learned
Incline Village, Washoe County Lake Tahoe Demonstration Prototype Case Study
Place-Based Planning
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Community Facility Commercial Uses
Outdoor gathering/plaza Green construction
Community Connections
Walking edge along streets Shared parking behind buildings Green construction
Walking Bikes Carts
Transit Bus shelters Bike lanes and parking Sidewalks Bio-swales
Existing Site and Development Existing Site Area (0.18 FAR) 241,400 SF (5.54 A) Existing Site Coverage Building Area Paving Area Existing Trees
42.6% 43,800 SF 59,000 SF 102,800 SF 51
NOTE:
Residential Live-Work Townhouses Small alleys with tuck-under parking Green construction
Community Connections Walking Bikes Carts
Incline Demonstration Project Case Study Regional Planning Partners
The selected site is a prototype educational case study and is meant to represent typical conditions or opportunities in Incline Village. It is not specific site. The concepts do not commit TRPA, Washoe County or property owners to development illustrated in the case study.
Site Area Bus Stops/Shelters Community Use Retail/Condo Office Live-work Townhouses BMPs Building Areas Community Use Retail Office Townhouses
BMPs BMPs Bio-swales
Case Study Development Program
Net Gain FAR Coverage Trees BMP Acres 6
Existing 0.18 42.6% 51 0
New Net 0.30 66% 39.5% (3.1%) 68 17 0.5 0.5
in ROW 1.0 acres 2.74 acres 1.3 acres 0.5 acres
10,000 SF 15,000 SF 15,000 SF 20 DUs @ 1,600 SF
Parking shared parking/ROW 45 spaces @ 3/1000 30 spaces @ 2/1000 2/DU (under units)
Site Coverage (0.30 FAR) 35.9 % (86,550 SF/1.987 acres) Building Area41,000 SF Paving Area 45,550 SF Parking 75 @ 350 SF/space = 26,250 SF Drives 460’ x 25’ = 11,500 SF Walks 1,300’ x 6’ = 7,800 SF Trees 68 new - 51 existing = 17 net new trees
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Existing Conditions
Regional Planning Partners
7
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Above: The site can contribute to water quality projects by including a swale along Hwy 28 and a detention area on the lower portion of the site for on-site needs and from adjacent streets.
Regional Planning Partners
8
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Site Concept
Regional Planning Partners
9
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 1: Program Description
I. Site/Land Area Square Feet Acres
241,000 5.54
II. Site Coverage Existing Building Paving Total
43,800 59,000
Proposed Buildings Paving Total
41,000 45,550
102,800 42.60%
86,550 35.90%
III. Uses Retail No. of Buildings Gross Area (SF) Net Leasable (SF)
One (1) 15,000 14,250
Office (Condominiums) No. of Buildings Units Unit Size (SF) Gross Area (SF)
One (1) 15 1,000 15,000
Live-work Townhouses No. of Buildings Units Unit Size Gross Area (SF)
Five (5) 20 1,600 32,000
Other No. of Buildings Community Use
One (1) 10,000 SF
On-site Parking Retail
45 spaces 3/1,000 SF 30 spaces 2/1,000 SF
Office
Regional Planning Partners
10
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 2: Estimated Development Cost (Private Development)
Retail
Office Condominiums
Live-work Townhouses
Total
I. Land Acquisition Demolition Site Preparation Total: Land
$ $ $ $
2,491,200 105,100 106,100 2,702,400
$ $ $ $
2,491,200 105,100 106,100 2,702,400
$ $ $ $
5,397,800 227,800 229,800 5,855,400
$ $ $ $
10,380,200 438,000 442,000 11,260,200
II. Direct Construction General Conditions Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements BMPs Building Construction Tenant Improvements Bonds Insurance Contractor Fee Contingency (10%) Total: Direct Construction
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
89,300 76,500 112,800 52,300 2,100,000 570,000 29,600 59,200 118,400 309,000 3,517,100
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
89,300 76,500 112,800 52,300 2,100,000 29,600 59,200 118,400 252,000 2,890,100
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
193,500 165,600 244,400 113,200 6,400,000 64,100 128,200 256,400 730,900 8,296,300
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
372,100 318,600 470,000 217,800 10,600,000 570,000 123,300 246,600 493,200 1,291,900 14,703,500
III. Indirect Predevelopment Architecture & Engineering Fees & Permits Taxes, Legal & Insurance Marketing Leasing Commissions Contingency (5%) Developer Fee Total: Indirect
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
211,700 247,000 300,000 105,800 30,000 35,600 46,200 176,400 1,152,700
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
211,700 247,000 300,000 105,800 30,000 44,400 176,400 1,115,300
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
458,800 535,200 640,000 229,400 64,000 95,800 382,300 2,405,500
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
882,200 1,029,200 1,240,000 441,100 124,000 35,600 186,400 735,100 4,673,600
$ $ $
154,400 193,000 -
$ $ $
77,200 193,000 97,000
$ $ $
167,300 418,200 222,400
$ $ $
398,900 804,200 296,900
$
347,400
$
367,200
$
807,900
$
1,500,000
$ $ $ $
7,719,600 515 5,017,200 334
$ $ $ $
7,075,000 472 4,372,600 292
$ 17,365,100 $ 543 $ 11,509,700 $ 360
$ $ $ $
32,159,700 519 20,877,100 337
IV. Financing Loan Fees/Costs Interest during Construction Interest during Sales (Residential) Total: Financng TOTAL With Land Per SF Without Land Per SF
Note: Estimated development cost does not include: 1) public infrastrtcure and utility upgrades; 2) site remediation; 3) asbestos removal; and 4) BMPs
Regional Planning Partners
11
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demontration Prototype Summary
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Development Cost Assumptions
I. Land Acquisition Demolition Site Preparation
$50.00 per square foot of land area $10.00 per square foot of building area $5.00 per square foot of site area
II. Direct Construction General Conditions Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements BMP Building Construction Tenant Improvements Bonds Insurance Contractor Fee Contingency
$5.00 per square foot of site area $250.00 per lineal feet of public street frontage $12.00 per square foot of area to be improved $10.00 per square foot; cost does not include any ongoing operation or maintenance cost $140.00 per square foot for retail and office; $200 per square foot for residential $40.00 per square foot of leasable area 1.0% of building construction cost 2.0% of building construction cost 5.0% of building construction cost 10.0% of direct construction costs
III. Indirect Predevelopment Architecture & Engineering Fees & Permits Taxes, Legal & Insurance Marketing Leasing Commissions Contingency Developer Fee
6%% of direct construction costs 7% of direct construction costs $20.00 per square foot of building area 3.0% of direct construction cost $2.00 per square foot of leasable or saleable area $2.50 per square foot of leasable area 5% of indirect costs 5% of direct construction costs
IV. Financing Construction Loan Fees Interest during Construction Interest during Sales (Office/ Live-work Townhomes)
1.5% of construction loan amount; 1.5% of permanent loan amount (commercial/retail only) 7.5% interest rate, 25-year term, 70% loan-to-cost ratio, 12 month construction period 50% pre-sales, 6 month sales period
Notes: 1. Estimated total development costs do not include: a) public infrastructure and utility upgrades; 2) site remediation; nor 3) asbestos removal (existing buildings)
Regional Planning Partners
12
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 2A: Estimated Development Cost (Community Building)
Total I. Land Acquisition Demolition Site Preparation Total: Land
$ $ $ $
1,689,800 71,300 72,000 1,833,100
II. Direct Construction General Conditions Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements BMPs Building Construction Tenant Improvements Bonds Insurance Contractor Fee Contingency (10%) Total: Direct Construction
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
60,600 51,900 76,500 2,000,000 21,900 43,500 87,600 225,500 2,567,500
III. Indirect Predevelopment Architecture & Engineering Fees & Permits Taxes, Legal & Insurance Marketing Leasing Commissions Contingency (5%) Developer Fee Total: Indirect
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
154,000 179,700 200,000 77,000 30,500 641,200
IV. Financing Loan Fees/Costs Interest during Construction Total: Financng
$ $ $
100,800 151,300 252,100
$ $ $ $
5,293,900 529 3,460,800 346
TOTAL With Land Per SF Without Land Per SF
Regional Planning Partners
13
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 2B: Estimated Development Cost (Private/Public Development)
Private Development
Community Building
Total
I. Land Acquisition Demolition Site Preparation Total: Land
$ 10,380,200 $ 438,000 $ 442,000 $ 11,260,200
$ $ $ $
1,689,800 71,300 72,000 1,833,100
$ 12,070,000 $ 509,300 $ 514,000 $ 13,093,300
II. Direct Construction General Conditions Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements BMPs Building Construction Tenant Improvements Bonds Insurance Contractor Fee Contingency (10%) Total: Direct Construction
$ 372,100 $ 318,600 $ 470,000 $ 217,800 $ 10,600,000 $ 570,000 $ 123,300 $ 246,600 $ 493,200 $ 1,291,900 $ 14,703,500
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
60,600 51,900 76,500 2,000,000 21,900 43,800 87,600 225,500 2,567,800
$ 432,700 $ 370,500 $ 546,500 $ 217,800 $ 12,600,000 $ 570,000 $ 145,200 $ 290,400 $ 580,800 $ 1,517,400 $ 17,271,300
III. Indirect Predevelopment Architecture & Engineering Fees & Permits Taxes, Legal & Insurance Marketing Leasing Commissions Contingency (5%) Developer Fee Total: Indirect
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
882,200 1,029,200 1,240,000 441,100 124,000 35,600 186,400 735,100 4,673,600
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
154,000 179,700 200,000 77,000 30,500 641,200
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1,036,200 1,208,900 1,440,000 518,100 124,000 35,600 216,900 735,100 5,314,800
$ $ $
398,900 804,200 296,900
$ $ $
100,800 151,300 -
$ $ $
499,700 955,500 296,900
$
1,500,000
$
252,100
$
1,752,100
$ 32,159,700 $ 519 $ 20,877,100 $ 337
$ $ $ $
5,293,900 529 3,461,100 346
IV. Financing Loan Fees/Costs Interest during Construction Interest during Sales (Residential) Total: Financng TOTAL With Land Per SF Without Land Per SF
Regional Planning Partners
14
$ 37,453,600 $ 520 $ 24,338,200 $ 338
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 3: Projected Commercial Income
I. Rental Income Monthly Rent
Area (SF)
New Commercial Total:
14,250 14,250
$
3.00
Annual Rent $
36.00
Less: Vacancy (5%) Tenant Reimbursements
$
0.40
$
4.80
Annual Income $ $
513,000 513,000
$
(25,650)
$
68,400
$
555,750
$
(75,000)
$
480,750
Effective Gross Income II. Operating Expenses Management Maintenance Taxes Insurance Re-leasing Reserves Total: III. Net Operating Income
Regional Planning Partners
15
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 4: Projected Office Condominium Sale Proceeds
Units
Unit Size (SF)
Price Per SF
Sale Price
Sale Proceeds
$ 400,000
$ 6,000,000
I. Sale Proceeds Office Condominiums Total:
15
1,000 $
Less: Cost of Sales/Closing (3%)
$
II. Net Sale Proceeds
Regional Planning Partners
400
(180,000)
$ 5,820,000
16
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 5: Projected Live-Work Townhome Sale Proceeds
Unit Size (SF)
Units
Price Per SF
Sale Price
Sale Proceeds
I. Sale Proceeds Live-work Townhouses Total:
20
1,600 $
Less: Cost of Sales/Closing (3%)
$
720,000
$ 14,400,000
$
II. Net Sale Proceeds
Regional Planning Partners
450
(432,000)
$ 13,968,000
17
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 6: Estimated Project Value (Private Development)
I. Commercial Net Operating Income (see Table 3) Project Value Less: Development Cost (see Table 2)
$ $ $
Net Project Value II. Office Condominiums Net Sale Proceeds (see Table 4) Less: Developer Profit (10% of gross sale proceeds) Project Value Less: Development Cost (see Table 2) Net Project Value III. Live-work Townhouses Net Sale Proceeds (see Table 5) Less: Developer Profit (10% of gross sale proceeds) Project Value Less: Development Cost (see Table 2)
480,750 6,867,900 7,719,600
$
(851,700)
$ $ $ $
5,820,000 (600,000) 5,220,000 7,075,000
$
(1,855,000)
$ 13,968,000 $ (1,440,000) $ 12,528,000 $ 17,365,100
Net Project Value IV. Summary Retail Office Condominiums Live-work Townhouses Total V. Value of Unused Site Coverage Unused Site Coverage (1) Estimated Value (2) Potential Net Project Value
$
(4,837,100)
$ $ $
(851,700) (1,855,000) (4,837,100)
$
(7,543,800)
$
7,483 SF 224,500
$
(7,319,300)
Footnotes: (1) Based on the difference between the existing site coverage (42.6%) and proposed project site coverage (39.5%) (2) Based on $30.00 per square foot (Market Value of Land Coverage in Lake Tahoe Basin, Johnson-Perkins and Associates, Inc., January 26, 2006)
Regional Planning Partners
18
Incline Village Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 7: Operating Pro-forma (Retail)
Years 1 I. Revenue Retail (1) Total:
2
$ $
$ $
$
55,578
$
83,660
$
86,170
$
88,755
$
91,418
$
94,160
$
96,985
$
99,894
Effective Gross Income
$
376,248
$
585,630
$
603,199
$
621,295
$
639,934
$
659,132
$
678,906
$
699,273
II. Operating Expenses
$
(75,000) $
(78,000) $
(81,120) $
(84,365) $
(87,739) $
(91,249) $
(94,899) $
(98,695) $
III. Net Operating Income
$
301,248
507,630
522,079
536,930
552,194
567,883
584,007
600,578
IV. Debt Service
$
(479,200) $
V. Net Income
$
(177,952) $
(479,200) $ 28,430
$
(479,200) $ 42,879
$
$
(479,200) $ 57,730
$
$ $
(28,870) $
$
(479,200) $ 72,994
$
594,708 594,708
$ $
(29,736) $
$
(479,200) $ 88,683
$
612,549 612,549
$ $
9
Tenant Reimbursements
(28,029) $
577,386 577,386
8
(96,165) $
$
$ $
7
$
(27,213) $
560,569 560,569
6
Less: Vacancy
$
$ $
5
416,835 416,835
(26,420) $
544,242 544,242
4
$ $
$
528,390 528,390
3
(30,628) $
$
(479,200) $ 104,807
$
630,925 630,925
$ $
(31,547) $
$ $
669,349 669,349
(32,493) $
(33,468)
$
102,891
$
105,978
$
720,251
$
741,859
$
(479,200) $ 121,378
649,853 649,853
10
$
(102,643) $ 617,608
$
(479,200) $ 138,408
$
(106,748) 635,110 (479,200) 155,910
Footbnotes: (1) Year 1 income based on 7,125 SF of pre-leased space operating for 12 month, 3,565 SF operating for 9 months and 3,560 SF operating for 6 months
Regional Planning Partners
19
Incline Village Case Study
Kings Beach, Placer County Lake Tahoe Demonstration Prototype Case Study
Place-Based Planning
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary NOTE:
Transit
The selected site is a prototype educational case study and is meant to represent typical conditions or opportunities in Placer communities. It is not specific site. The concepts do not commit TRPA, Placer County or property owners to development illustrated in the case study.
Bus shelters
Restored Historic Buildings Two historic buildings restored Commercial tenants
Commercial Uses/ Accomodations Walking edge along street Shared parking Green construction
Existing Site and Development Existing Site Area (0.17 FAR)
40,470 SF (0.93 A)
Existing Site Coverage Building Paving
64% 6,906 SF 19,064 SF 25,970 SF 8
Existing Trees
BMPs BMPs Bio-swales
Case Study Development Program Site Area Bus Stops/Shelters Retail/Condo Commercial Renovated BMPs
Multi-use ROW Shared parking with permeable surface Bio-swales Water quality transmission to BMPs Trees and traffic calming Sidewalks
Mixed-mode Street Sidewalks with lighting Bike lanes
Kings Beach Demonstration Project Case Study Regional Planning Partners
Building Areas Parking Retail 10,000 SF 30 spaces @ 3/1000 Condos 10 DUs @ 1,000 SF 15 @1.5/DU
Net Gain FAR Coverage Trees BMP Acres 21
in ROW 0.71 acres 0.12 acres 0.10 acres
Existing 0.17 64% 8 0
New Net 0.56 320% 48.7% (15.3%) 16 8 0.1 0.1
Site Coverage (0.56 FAR) 48.5 % (19,640 SF/0.38 acres) Building Area 12,500 SF Paving Area 7,140 SF Parking 18 x 10’ x 20’ (perpendicular on-street) = 3,600 SF Drives NA Walks 295’ x 12’ = 3,540 SF Trees
16 new - 8 existing =
8 net new trees
Kings Beach Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Existing Conditions
Regional Planning Partners
22
Kings Beach Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Above: The development of the site would contribute to a collection, transmission and detention water quality system for Downtown Kings Beach. The rear street would be redesigned to include on-street parking and become park of the BMP solution.
Regional Planning Partners
23
Kings Beach Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Site Concept
Regional Planning Partners
24
Kings Beach Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 1: Program Description
I. Site/Land Area Square Feet Acres
40,470 0.93
II. Site Coverage Existing Building Paving Total
6,906 19,064
Proposed Building Paving Total
12,500 7,140
25,970 64.2%
19,640 48.5%
II. Uses Existing Commercial No. of Buildings Gross Area (SF) Net Leasable Area (SF)
Two (2) 2,500 2,375
New Commercial No. of Buildings Gross Area (SF) Net Leasable Area
One (1) 10,000 9,500
Fractional Ownership No. of Buildings Units Unit Size (SF) Gross Area (SF)
One (1) 10 1,000 10,000
On-site Parking (Commercial) Spaces Ratio
30 3/1,000 SF
Footnotes: (1) One building with ground floor commercial/retail and second level fractional ownership units
Regional Planning Partners
25
Kings Beach Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 2: Estimated Development Costs Existing Commercial I. Land Acquisition Demolition Site Preparation Total: Land II. Direct Construction General Conditions Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements BMP Building Construction Commercial Residential Total Rehabilitation Tenant Improvements Bonds Insurance Contractor Fee Contingency (10%) Total: Direct Construction III. Indirect Predevelopment Architecture & Engineering Fees & Permits Taxes, Legal & Insurance Marketing Leasing Commissions Contingency (5%) Developer Fee Total: Indirect IV. Financing Construction Loan Fees Interest during Construction Interest during Sales (Residential) Total: Financng
New Mixed-Use
Total
$ $ $ $
178,000 12,900 190,900
$ $ $ $
1,440,800 44,200 104,600 1,589,600
$ $ $ $
1,618,800 44,200 117,500 1,780,500
$ $ $ $
10,900 22,200 9,400 5,000
$ $ $ $
87,300 179,800 76,300 40,000
$ $ $ $
98,200 202,000 85,700 45,000
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
187,500 100,000 4,900 9,800 19,700 35,000 404,400
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1,400,000 2,000,000 3,400,000 400,000 39,800 79,700 159,200 430,300 4,892,400
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
3,400,000 187,500 500,000 44,700 89,500 178,900 465,300 5,296,800
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
35,000 40,800 49,500 17,500 5,000 7,500 7,800 29,100 192,200
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
282,800 330,000 400,000 141,400 50,000 30,000 61,700 235,700 1,531,600
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
317,800 370,800 450,000 158,900 55,000 37,500 69,500 264,800 1,724,300
$ $ $
20,300 25,400 -
$ $ $
122,500 205,200 57,700
$ $ $
142,800 231,000 57,700
$
45,700
$
385,400
$
431,500
$ $ $ $
833,200 330 642,300 254
$ $ $ $
8,399,000 419 6,809,400 339
$ $ $ $
9,233,100 409 7,452,600 330
TOTAL With Land Per SF Without Land Per SF
Note: Estimated development cost does not include: 1) public infrastructure or utility upgrades; 2) site remediation; nor 3) asbestos removal (existing buildings)
Regional Planning Partners
26
Kings Beach Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demontration Prototype Summary
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Development Cost Assumptions I. Land Acquisition Demolition Site Preparation
$40.00 per square foot of existing land area $10.00 per square foot of building area $5.00 per square foot of site area
II. Direct Construction General Conditions Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements BMP Building Construction Rehabilitation Tenant Improvements Bonds Insurance Contractor Fee Contingency
$5.00 per square foot of site area $250.00 per lineal feet of public street frontage $12.00 per square foot of site area $10.00 per square foot; no cost included for ongoing operation and maintenance $140.00 per square foot for retail and $200 per square foot for residential $75.00 per square foot $40.00 per square foot of leasable area 1.0% of building construction cost 2.0% of building construction cost 5.0% of building construction cost 10.0% of direct construction costs
III. Indirect Predevelopment Architecture & Engineering Fees & Permits Taxes, Legal & Insurance Marketing Leasing Commissions Contingency Developer Fee
6% of direct construction costs 7% of direct construction costs $20.00 per square foot of building area 3.0% of direct construction cost $2.00 per square foot of leasable commercial area; $3.00 per square foot for fractional ownership space $2.50 per square foot of leasable area 5% of indirect costs 5% of direct construction costs
IV. Financing Loan Fees Interest during Construction Interest during Sales (Residential)
1.5% of estimated construction loan amount; including an additional 1.5% for permanent loan financing 7.5% interest rate, 25-year term, 70% loan-to-cost ratio, 12 month construction period 50% pre-sales; 3 month absorption for completion of sales
Notes: 1. Estimated total development costs do not include: a) public infrastructure and utility upgrades; 2) site remediation; nor 3) asbestos removal (existing buildings)
Regional Planning Partners
27
Kings Beach Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 3: Commercial Income
I. Rental Income Monthly Rent
Area (SF)
Commercial - Rehabilitation Commercial - New Total:
2,375 9,500 11,875
$ $
2.25 2.50
Annual Rent $ $
27.00 30.00
Less: Vacancy (5%) Tenant Reimbursements
$
Effective Gross Income
0.25
$
3.00
Annual Income $ $ $
64,125 285,000 349,125
$
(17,456)
$
35,625
$
367,294
$
(62,500)
$
304,794
II. Operating Expenses Management Maintenance Taxes Insurance Re-leasing Reserves Total: III. Net Operating Income
Regional Planning Partners
28
Kings Beach Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 4: Condominium Sale Proceeds
Units
Fractional Units (1)
Unit Size (SF)
Price Per SF
Sale Price
Sale Proceeds
10
40
1,000
$ 145,000
$ 145,000
$ 5,800,000
I. Sale Proceeds Fractional Ownership Units (1) Total: Less: Cost of Sales/Closing (6%)
$
II. Net Sale Proceeds
(348,000)
$ 5,452,000
Footnotes: (1) Based on each unit (10) being sold for 13-week intervals
Regional Planning Partners
29
Kings Beach Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 5: Estimated Project Value
I. Commercial Net Operating Income (see Table 3) Project Value (7.0% Capitalization Rate)
$ $
304,794 4,354,200
$ $ $
5,452,000 (580,000) 4,872,000
Commercial/Retail Fractional Ownership Total
$ $ $
4,354,200 4,872,000 9,226,200
Less: Development Cost
$
9,233,100
Net Project Value
$
II. Condominiums (Fractional Ownership) Net Sale Proceeds (see Table 4) Less: Developer Profit (10% of Gross Sales) Project Value III. Summary
(6,900)
IV. Value of Unused Site Coverage Unused Site Coverage (1) Estimated Value (2)
$
6,192 SF 61,920
Potential Revised Net Project Value
$
55,020
Footnotes: (1) Based on difference of existing site coverage (64.0%) and proposed project site coverage (48.7%) (2) Based on $10.00 per square foot (Market Value of Land Coverage in Lake Tahoe Basin, John-Perkins and Associates, Inc., January 26, 2006)
Regional Planning Partners
30
Kings Beach Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 6: Projected Operating Pro-forma
Years
I. Revenue Commercial (1) Total:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
$ 289,105 $ 289,105
$ 359,600 $ 359,600
$ 370,388 $ 370,388
$ 381,500 $ 381,500
$ 392,945 $ 392,945
$ 404,733 $ 404,733
$ 416,875 $ 416,875
$ 429,381 $ 429,381
$ 442,263 $ 442,263
Less: Vacancy
$
(60,020) $
Tenant Reimbursements
$
Effective Gross Income
$ 258,635
29,550
$
(17,980) $ 36,695
$ 378,315
(62,500) $
$
(18,519) $ 37,796
$ 389,664
(65,000) $
$
(19,075) $ 38,930
$ 401,354
40,098
$ 413,395
41,301
$ 425,797
42,540
$ 438,571
43,816
$ 451,728
(22,777)
45,130
$
46,484
$ 465,280
$
479,238
IV. Debt Service
$ (311,350) $ (311,350) $ (311,350) $ (311,350) $ (311,350) $ (311,350) $ (311,350) $ (311,350) $ (311,350) $ (311,350)
V. Net Income
$ (115,215) $
1,965
$
10,714
$
19,700
$
28,929
$ 349,756
$
38,406
(79,082) $
$
(22,113) $
$ 196,135
$ 340,279
(76,041) $
$
(21,469) $
III. Net Operating Income
$ 331,050
(73,116) $
$
(20,844) $
455,531 455,531
$
$ 322,064
(70,304) $
$
(20,237) $
$ $
II. Operating Expenses
$ 313,315
(67,600) $
$
(19,647) $
10
$ 359,488
$
48,138
(82,246) $
$ 369,482
$
58,132
(85,536) $
$ 379,744
$
68,394
$
$
(88,957) 390,281
78,931
Footnotes: (1) Year 1 income based on 6,150 SF of pre-leased space operating for 12 months, 4,350 SF operating for 9 months and 2,375 SF operating for 6 months
Regional Planning Partners
31
Kings Beach Case Study
South Lake Tahoe Demonstration Prototype Case Study
Place-Based Planning
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning 9-5-06
Demonstration Prototype Summary NOTE:
Transit BMPs
The selected site is a prototype educational case study and is meant to represent typical conditions or opportunities in South Shore communities. It is not specific site. The concepts do not commit TRPA, El Dorado County, the City of South Lake tahoe, or property owners to development illustrated in the case study.
Bike lanes Sidewalks
BMPs Bio-swales
Commercial Uses Walking edge along street Shared parking Green construction
Existing Site and Development Existing Site Area Block 1 Block 2 Existing Site Coverage Block 1 Building Paving Block 2 Building Paving Existing Trees
306,000 SF (7.02 A) 162,000 SF (3.72 A) 144,000 SF (3.30 A) 71.0% 77.1% 39,300 SF (0.24 FAR) 85,600 SF 124,900 SF 64.0% 41,640 SF (0.29 FAR) 50,580 SF 92,220 SF 50
Residential/Accommodations Townhouses Cabins Small alleys with tuck-under parking Green construction
Case Study Development Program
Multi-use ROW Shared parking with permeable surface Bio-swales Water quality transmission to BMPs Trees and traffic calming Sidewalks
South Shore Demonstration Project Case Study Regional Planning Partners
Site Area Bus Stops/Shelters Retail/Condo Office Live-work Townhouses BMPs
Net Gain FAR Coverage Trees BMP Acres 33
Existing 0.26 71% 50 0
New Net 0.41 59% 43.2% (27.8%) 71 21 0.78 0.78
in ROW 1.71 acres 4.53 acres 0.78 acres
Development Program 0.41 FAR Community Use 500 SF Retail 15,000 SF Office 15,000 SF Resids/Accoms. 68 DUs/AUs Site Coverage
Trees
Parking shared parking/ROW 50 spaces @ 1/300 50 spaces @ 1/300
43.2% (132,060 SF/3.03 acres) Building Area 46,220 SF Paving Area 85,840 SF 71 total - 50 existing = 21 net new trees
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Existing Conditions
Regional Planning Partners
34
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Above: Shared street in the development program would be used as a shared parking resource and a collection/transmission facility for a six-block water quality project.
Regional Planning Partners
35
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 1: Program Description
I. Site/Land Area Square Feet Acres
306,000 7.02
II. Site Coverage Existing Buildings Paving Total
80,940 136,180
Proposed Buildings Paving Total
46,220 85,840
217,120 70.90%
132,060 43.20%
III. Uses - Block One Commercial No. of Buildings Gross Area (SF) Net Leasable Area (SF)
Three (3) 30,000 29,650
Townhouses (Fractional Ownership) Units Unit Size (SF)
24 14 @ 1,200 SF 10 @ 1,600 SF 32,800
Gross Area (SF) On-site Parking Spaces Ratio
100 3/1,000 SF
IV. Uses - Block Two Townhouses (Condominiums) Units Unit Size (SF)
20 16 @ 1,600 SF 4 @ 1,200 SF 30,400
Gross Area (SF) Townhouses (Fractional Ownership) Units Unit Size (SF)
24 14 @1,200 SF 10 @1,600 SF 32,800
Gross Area (SF)
Regional Planning Partners
36
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 2: Estimated Development Cost (Block One) Block One Fractional Ownership
Commercial
Total
I. Land Acquisition Demolition Site Preparation Total: Land
$ $ $ $
3,982,000 187,900 298,700 4,468,600
$ $ $ $
4,353,600 205,100 326,200 4,884,900
$ $ $ $
II. Direct Construction General Conditions Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements BMPs Building Construction Tenant Improvements Bonds Insurance Contractor Fee Contingency (10%) Total: Direct Construction
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
189,000 239,000 321,000 86,000 4,200,000 1,186,000 64,600 129,200 258,400 641,500 7,314,700
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
206,400 261,000 350,600 94,000 6,560,000 70,500 141,100 282,100 768,400 8,734,100
$ 395,400 $ 500,000 $ 671,600 $ 180,000 $ 10,760,000 $ 1,186,000 $ 135,100 $ 270,300 $ 540,500 $ 1,409,900 $ 16,048,800
III. Indirect Predevelopment Architecture & Engineering Fees & Permits Taxes, Legal & Insurance Marketing Leasing Comissions Contingency (5%) Developer Fee Total: Indirect
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
238,600 556,700 600,000 238,600 57,000 71,300 88,100 383,400 2,233,700
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
260,600 608,000 656,000 260,600 98,400 94,200 419,100 2,396,900
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
962,900 1,123,400 1,256,000 481,500 155,400 71,300 182,300 802,500 5,035,300
$ $ $
152,700 381,700 -
$ $ $
166,900 417,300 399,500
$ $ $
319,600 799,000 399,500
$
534,400
$
983,700
$
1,518,100
IV. Financing Construction Loan Fees Interest during Construction Interest during Sales (Residential) Total: Financng
8,335,600 393,000 624,900 9,353,500
TOTAL With Land Per SF Without Land Per SF
$ 14,551,400 $ 485 $ 10,082,800 $ 336
$ 16,999,600 $ 518 $ 12,114,700 $ 369
$ 31,955,700 $ 509 $ 22,602,200 $ 360
Note: Estimated development cost does not include: 1) public infrastructure and utility upgrades; 2) site remediation; nor 3) asbestos removal (existing buildings)
Regional Planning Partners
37
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demontration Prototype Summary
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Development Cost Assumptions - South Lake Tahoe
I. Land Acquisition Demolition Site Preparation
Mid-point between $50.00 per square foot of land area and $200 per square foot of existing building area $10.00 per square foot of building area $5.00 per square foot of site area
II. Direct Construction General Conditions Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements BMP Building Construction Tenant Improvements Bonds Insurance Contractor Fee Contingency
$5.00 per square foot of site area $250.00 per lineal feet of public street frontage $12.00 per square foot of area to be improved $10.00 per square foot; dose not include any cost for ongoing operation or maintenance $140.00 per square foot for retail and $200 per square foot for residential $40.00 per square foot of leasable area 1.0% of building construction cost 2.0% of building construction cost 5.0% of building construction cost 10.0% of direct construction costs
III. Indirect Predevelopment Architecture & Engineering Fees & Permits Taxes, Legal & Insurance Marketing Leasing Commissions Contingency Developer Fee
3% of direct construction costs 7% of direct construction costs $20.00 per square foot of building area 3.0% of direct construction cost $2.00 per square foot of leasable area; $3.00 per square foot for saleable area $2.50 per square foot of leasable area 5% of indirect costs 5% of direct construction costs
IV. Financing Construction Loan Fees Interest during Construction Interest during Sales (Residential)
1.5% of amount to be financed 7.5% interest rate, 25-year term, 70% loan-to-cost ratio, 12 month construction period 50% pre-sales for townhomes and fractional ownership units; 6-month sales period
Notes: 1. Estimated total development costs do not include: a) public infrastructure and utility upgrades; 2) site remediation; 3) asbestos removal; and 4) BMPs.
Regional Planning Partners
38
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 2A: Estimated Development Cost - Block Two Block two Fractional Ownership
Townhomes
Total
I. Land Acquisition Demolition Site Preparation Total: Land
$ $ $ $
3,556,500 199,800 221,300 3,977,600
$ $ $ $
3,852,900 216,600 239,800 4,309,300
$ $ $ $
II. Direct Construction General Conditions Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements BMPs Building Construction Tenant Improvements Bonds Insurance Contractor Fee Contingency (10%) Total: Direct Construction
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
127,100 228,000 172,000 76,800 6,080,000 65,900 131,900 263,800 688,200 7,833,700
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
137,800 247,000 186,400 83,200 6,560,000 71,500 142,900 285,700 742,900 8,457,400
$ 264,900 $ 475,000 $ 358,400 $ 160,000 $ 12,640,000 $ $ 137,400 $ 274,800 $ 549,500 $ 1,431,100 $ 16,291,100
III. Indirect Predevelopment Architecture & Engineering Fees & Permits Taxes, Legal & Insurance Marketing Leasing Comissions Contingency (5%) Developer Fee Total: Indirect
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
469,200 547,400 608,000 234,600 91,200 85,200 386,800 2,422,400
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
508,300 593,000 656,000 254,100 98,400 92,200 419,000 2,621,000
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
977,500 1,140,400 1,264,000 488,700 189,600 177,400 805,800 5,043,400
$ $ $
149,300 373,200 186,600
$ $ $
161,700 404,400 202,200
$ $ $
311,000 777,600 388,800
$
709,100
$
768,300
$
1,477,400
IV. Financing Construction Loan Fees Interest during Construction Interest during Sales (Residential) Total: Financng
7,409,400 416,400 461,100 8,286,900
TOTAL With Land Per SF Without Land Per SF
$ 14,942,800 $ 492 $ 10,965,200 $ 361
$ 16,156,000 $ 493 $ 11,846,700 $ 361
$ 31,098,800 $ 492 $ 22,811,900 $ 361
Note: Estimated development cost does not include: 1) public infrastructure and utility upgrades; 2) site remediation; nor 3) asbestos removal (existing buildings)
Regional Planning Partners
39
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 2B: Estimated Development Cost (Block One/Block Two)
Block One I. Land Acquisition Demolition Site Preparation Total: Land
$ $ $ $
II. Direct Construction General Conditions Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements BMPs Building Construction Tenant Improvements Bonds Insurance Contractor Fee Contingency (10%) Total: Direct Construction III. Indirect Predevelopment Architecture & Engineering Fees & Permits Taxes, Legal & Insurance Marketing Leasing Comissions Contingency (5%) Developer Fee Total: Indirect IV. Financing Construction Loan Fees Interest during Construction Interest during Sales (Residential) Total: Financng
Block Two
8,335,600 393,000 624,900 9,353,500
$ $ $ $
Total
7,409,400 416,400 461,100 8,286,900
$ 15,745,000 $ 809,400 $ 1,086,000 $ 17,640,400
$ 395,400 $ 500,000 $ 671,600 $ 180,000 $ 10,760,000 $ 1,186,000 $ 135,100 $ 270,300 $ 540,500 $ 1,409,900 $ 16,048,800
$ 264,900 $ 475,000 $ 358,400 $ 160,000 $ 12,640,000 $ $ 137,400 $ 274,800 $ 549,500 $ 1,431,100 $ 16,291,100
$ 660,300 $ 975,000 $ 1,030,000 $ 340,000 $ 23,400,000 $ 1,186,000 $ 272,500 $ 545,100 $ 1,090,000 $ 2,841,000 $ 32,339,900
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
962,900 1,123,400 1,256,000 481,500 155,400 71,300 182,300 802,500 5,035,300
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
977,500 1,140,400 1,264,000 488,700 189,600 177,400 805,800 5,043,400
$ 1,940,400 $ 2,263,800 $ 2,520,000 $ 970,200 $ 345,000 $ 71,300 $ 359,700 $ 1,608,300 $ 10,078,700
$ $ $
319,600 799,000 399,500
$ $ $
311,000 777,600 388,800
$ $ $
630,600 1,576,600 788,300
$
1,518,100
$
1,477,400
$
2,995,500
TOTAL With Land Per Sf Without Land Per Sf
Regional Planning Partners
$ 31,955,700 $ 509 $ 22,602,200 $ 360
$ 31,098,800 $ 492 $ 22,811,900 $ 361
40
$ 63,054,500 $ 501 $ 45,414,100 $ 360
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 3: Projected Commercial Income - Block One
I. Rental Income Monthly Rent
Area (SF)
Commercial Total:
28,500 28,500
$
3.25
Annual Rent $
39.00
Less: Vacancy (5%) Tenant Reimbursements
$
0.40
$
4.80
Effective Gross Income
Annual Income $ $
1,111,500 1,111,500
$
(55,575)
$
129,960
$
1,185,885
II. Operating Expenses Management Maintenance Taxes Insurance Re-leasing Reserves Total:
$
III. Net Operating Income
Regional Planning Partners
6.00
$ $
41
(180,000) 1,005,885
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 4: Estimated Fractional Ownership Units Sale Proceeds - Block One
Units
Fractional Units (1)
14 10 24
56 40 96
Unit Size (SF)
Price Per SF
Sale Price
Sale Proceeds
$ 192,000 $ 240,000
$ 10,752,000 $ 9,600,000 $ 20,352,000
I. Sale Proceeds Fractional Ownership Units Total:
1,200 $ 1,600 $
Less: Cost of Sales/Closing (6%)
160 150
$ (1,221,120)
II. Net Sale Proceeds
$ 19,130,880
Footnotes: (1) Based on each unit being sold for 13-week intervals
Regional Planning Partners
42
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 5: Estimated Project Value - Block One
I. Commercial Net Operating Income (see Table 3) Project Value Less: Development Cost (see Table 2)
$ 1,005,885 $ 14,369,800 $ 14,551,400
Net Project Value
$
(181,600)
Net Sale Proceeds (see Table 4) Less: Developer Profit (10% of gross sale proceeds) Project Value Less: Development Cost (see Table 2)
$ $ $ $
19,130,880 (2,035,200) 17,095,680 16,999,600
Net Project Value
$
96,080
$ $ $
(181,600) 96,080 (85,520)
$ $
45,036 292,700
$
207,180
II. Townhouses (Fractional Ownership)
III. Summary Commercial Townhouses (Fractional Ownership) Total IV. Value of Unused Site Coverage Unused Site Coverage (1) Value of Unused Site Coverage (2) Potential Net Project Value
Footnotes: (1) Based on difference between existing site coverage (71.0%) and proposed project site coverage (43.2%) adjusted for size (square footage) of Block One (2) Based on $6.50 per square foot (Market Value of Land Coverage in Lake Tahoe Basin, Johnson-Perkins and Associates, Inc., January 26, 2006)
Regional Planning Partners
43
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 6: Estimated Townhouse Sale Proceeds - Block Two
Unit Size (SF)
Units
Price Per SF
Sale Price
Sale Proceeds
$ 600,000 $ 720,000
$ 2,400,000 $ 11,520,000 $ 13,920,000
I. Sale Proceeds Townhouses
4 16 20
Total:
1,200 $ 1,600 $
500 450
Less: Cost of Sales/Closing (3%)
$
II. Net Sale Proceeds
(417,600)
$ 13,502,400
Table 7 Estimated Fractional Ownership Units Sale Proceeds - Block Two
Fractional Units (1)
Units
Unit Size (SF)
Price Per SF
Sale Price
Sale Proceeds
$ 192,000 $ 240,000
$ 10,752,000 $ 9,600,000 $ 20,352,000
I. Sale Proceeds Townhouses (Fractional Ownership) Total:
14 10 24
56 40 96
Less: Cost of Sales/Closing (6%)
1,200 $ 1,600 $
160 150
$ (1,221,120)
II. Net Sale Proceeds
$ 19,130,880
Footnotes: (1) Based on each unit being sold for 13-week periods
Regional Planning Partners
44
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 8 Estimated Project Value - Block Two
I. Townhouses (Condominium) Net Sale Proceeds (see Table 6) Less: Developer Profit (10% of gross sale proceeds) Project Value Less: Development Cost (see Table 2A)
$ $ $ $
13,502,400 (1,392,000) 12,110,400 14,942,800
Net Project Value
$ (2,832,400)
II. Townhouses (Fractional Ownership) Net Sale Proceeds (see Table 7) Less: Developer Profit (10% of gross sale proceeds) Project Value Less: Development Cost (see Table 2A)
$ $ $ $
Net Project Value
$
19,130,880 (2,035,200) 17,095,680 16,156,000 939,680
III. Summary Townhouses (Condominiums) Townhouses (Fractional Ownership) Total
$ (2,832,400) $ 939,680 $ (1,892,720)
IV. Value of Unused Site Coverage Unused Site Coverage (1) Value of Unused Site Coverage (2)
40,032 SF 260,200
$
Potential Net Project Value
$ (1,632,520)
Footnotes: (1) Based on the difference between existing site coverage (71.0%) and proposed project site coverage (43.2%) adjusted for size (square footage) of Block Two (2) Based on $6.50 per square foot (Market Value of Land Coverage in Lake Tahoe Basin, Johnson-Perkins and Associates, Inc., January 26, 2006)
Regional Planning Partners
45
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 9: Estimated Project Value - Blocks One and Two
I. Commercial Net Operating Income Project Value Less: Development Cost
$ $ $
Net Project Value
1,005,885 14,369,800 14,551,400
$
(181,600)
$ $ $ $
13,502,400 (1,392,000) 12,110,400 14,942,800
$
(2,832,400)
$ $ $ $
38,668,800 (4,070,400) 34,598,400 33,155,600
$
1,442,800
IV. Summary Commercial Townhouses (Condominiums) Townhouses (Fractional Ownership) Total
$ $ $ $
(181,600) (2,832,400) 1,442,800 (1,389,600)
V. Value of Unused Site Coverage Unused Site Coverage Value of Unused Site Coverage
$
85,068 SF 552,900
II. Townhomes (Condominiums) Net Sale Proceeds Less: Developer Profit Project Value Less: Estimated Development Cost Net Project Value III. Townhomes (Fractional Ownership) Net Sale Proceeds Less: Developer Profit Project Value Less: Estimated Development Cost Net Project Value
Potential Net Project Value
Regional Planning Partners
$
46
(836,700)
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
Table 10: Projected Operating Pro-forma (Commercial) - Block One
Years 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$ 1,056,780 $ 1,056,780
$ 1,088,483 $ 1,088,483
$ 1,121,138 $ 1,121,138
$ 1,154,772 $ 1,154,772
$ 1,189,415 $ 1,189,415
$ 1,225,098 $ 1,225,098
$ 1,261,851 $ 1,261,851
$ 1,299,706 $ 1,299,706
$ 1,338,697 $ 1,338,697
I. Revenue Commercial (1) Total:
$ $
Less: Vacancy
$
Tenant Reimbursements
$
111,150
$
Effective Gross Income
$
805,838
$ 1,171,265
903,094 903,094
(208,406) $
II. Operating Expenses
$
(180,000) $
III. Net Operating Income
$
IV. Debt Service
$
(903,280) $
V. Net Income
$
(277,442) $
625,838
$
(52,839) $
(54,424) $
(56,057) $
(57,739) $
(59,471) $
(61,255) $
(63,093) $
(64,985) $
(66,935)
167,324
172,344
177,514
182,839
188,325
193,974
199,794
205,787
211,961
$
$ 1,206,403
(187,200) $ 984,065
80,785
$
$ 1,242,595
(194,688) $
$ 1,011,715
(903,280) $
$
108,435
$
$ 1,279,873
(202,476) $
$ 1,040,120
(903,280) $
$
136,840
$
$ 1,318,269
(210,575) $
$ 1,069,298
(903,280) $
$
166,018
$
$ 1,357,817
(218,998) $
$ 1,099,272
(903,280) $
$
195,992
$
$ 1,398,552
(227,757) $
$ 1,130,060
(903,280) $
$
226,780
$
$ 1,440,508
(236,868) $
$ 1,161,684
(903,280) $
$
258,404
$
$ 1,483,723
(246,342) $
$ 1,194,166
(903,280) $
$
$ 1,227,527
(903,280) $ 290,886
(256,196)
$
(903,280) 324,247
Footnotes: (1) Year 1 income based on 14,250 SF of pre-leased space operating for 12 months, 7,125 SF operating for 9 months and 7,125 SF operating for 6 months
Regional Planning Partners
47
South Lake Tahoe Case Study
Lake Tahoe Place-Based Planning
Demonstration Prototype Summary
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Caveats and Limitations 1. The analysis contained in this report is based, in part, on data and information from secondary sources. A. Plescia & Co. believes that these sources are reliable, however, A. Plescia & Co. cannot guarantee the accuracy of such data and information. 2. The analysis contained in this report is based on the assumption that neither the local, regional or national economy will experience a major recession. If an unforeseen change occurs in either the local, regional or national economy the information contained in this report might not be valid. 3. The preliminary information contained in this report is based on economic considerations, not political considerations. Therefore the preliminary information contained in this report should not be construed as a representation or opinion that any required governmental approvals could be secured for any proposed development projects. 4. The preliminary information, analysis and opinions contained in this report are based on the informed judgment of A. Plescia & Co. based on market, business and economic conditions as of the date of this report. The preliminary information, analysis and opinions contained in this report should not be relied upon as sole input, basis or determination for any final business decisions regarding any proposed development projects. 5. Any preliminary assessment of lease rates, land values, revenue or income projections, etc. is based on the best available data and information at the time of preparation of this report. There is no warranty or representation made by A. Plescia & Co. that these estimates would actually materialize.
Regional Planning Partners
48
Caveats and Limitations