130th avenue ne transit-oriented development · 130th avenue ne transit-oriented development phase...

In association with:BAE Urban Economics and

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting AssociatesPuttman Infrastructure

Otak, Inc.

East C rrid rImplementati n Support

D E C E M B E R 2 0 13

Opportunity Study and Financial Assessment

130th Avenue NE Transit-Oriented Development

PHASE 2 REPORT

GROWING TRANSIT COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP | East Corridor Implementation Support | DECEMBER 2013

130TH AVENUE NE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT Opportunity Study and Financial Assessment

The Growing Transit Communities Partnership is funded by the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under an award with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government.



AAAccckkknnnooowwwllleeedddgggeeemmmeeennntttsss Project Management Team of the East Corridor Task Force The following members of the East Corridor Task Force are serving on the Project Management Team for the East Corridor Implementation Support Project: Wes Edwards – King County Tom Hinman – Redmond Community Representative Emil King – City of Bellevue Doug Mathews – Bellevue Community Representative Lori Peckol – City of Redmond Tracy Reich – Impact Capital Kelly Rider – Housing Development Consortium Seattle-King County Arthur Sullivan – A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) Alternates: Paul Inghram – City of Bellevue Sarah Stiteler – City of Redmond Puget Sound Regional Council, Growing Transit Communities Partnership Ben Bakkenta, Program Manager Mary Pat Lawlor, Program Manager Cameron Duncan, Planning Technician Consultants Otak, Inc.—Prime

Mandi Roberts, Project Manager Kurt Creager Tom Litster Jenny Ngo

BAE Urban Economics, Inc. Janet Smith-Heimer and Paul Peninger Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Kevin Shively and Tim Payne Puttman Infrastructure, Inc. Thomas J. Puttman



TTTaaabbbllleee ooofff CCCooonnnttteeennntttsss Preface

The Regional Vision ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Summary of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership ............................................................................................................ 1

Three Corridors/Three Task Forces .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

East Corridor Context ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Four Focus Areas for East Corridor Implementation Activities ................................................................................................ 3

East Corridor Project Purpose and Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Implementation Support Project Guidance and Timeline ........................................................................................................................ 3

Overview of Phases 1 and 2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Phase 2 Products .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

The Focus of this Phase 2 Report: 130th Avenue NE Transit-Oriented Development Opportunity Study and Financial Assessment

Background and Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Study Site Context ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Study Process & Partners ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Study Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Summary of the TOD Opportunity Study Findings ............................................................................................................................................................... 10

Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11



Description of Conceptual TOD Scenarios Studied ......................................................................................................................................................... 11

Key Assumptions of Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Financial Feasibility Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Ridership Calculations ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix Pro Forma Sheets

Conceptual Plans and Sketch-Up Models

Comment Letter from Sound Transit

Comment Letter from the City of Bellevue (Please note that the comments in these letters have been addressed in this final report.)

GROWING TRANSIT COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP | East Corridor Implementation Support Project | DECEMBER 2013


1

111333000ttthhh AAAvvveeennnuuueee NNNEEE TTTrrraaannnsssiiittt---OOOrrriiieeennnttteeeddd DDDeeevvveeelllooopppmmmeeennnttt OOOppppppooorrrtttuuunnniiitttyyy SSStttuuudddyyy aaannnddd FFFiiinnnaaannnccciiiaaalll AAAsssssseeessssssmmmeeennnttt Preface THE REGIONAL VISION VISION 2040 is the central Puget Sound region’s long-range vision for maintaining a healthy region and is a guiding premise for all regional planning and implementation. VISION 2040’s cornerstone is its emphasis on development of vibrant, mixed-use centers where people can live, work, and play. Integrating affordable housing in mixed-use centers throughout the region contributes to achieving a jobs-housing balance that increases access to opportunity, lowers households’ combined cost of housing and transportation, and helps ensure that infrastructure investments enhance equity across the region.

SUMMARY OF THE GROWING TRANSIT COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP In keeping with the regional vision described above, the central Puget Sound region is investing more than $25 billion dollars in high-capacity transit over the next twenty years, providing a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to capitalize on these investments by growing and strengthening communities around stations. The Growing Transit Communities Partnership (Partnership), funded by a grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program and administered by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), has been designed

to help make the most of this investment by locating housing, jobs, and services close enough to transit so that it is a viable option for many people. If done right, more people will have a faster and more convenient way to travel. The Partnership was formed through a coalition of city and county governments, housing authorities and affordable housing interests, transit agencies, public health agencies and departments, real estate and development interests, social justice and community development groups, economic development and business interests, community based organizations, educational interests, environmental advocacy groups, and the public. This coalition of the Partnership has been supporting neighborhood planning for more connected, livable, and sustainable communities around more than 74 high-capacity transit centers in the region—covering three counties in sixteen cities—including existing, new, and future station areas. Through these efforts, the Partnership has been working to shape the region and station areas in ways that benefit current and future residents, local businesses, and the wider region. Working within the framework of existing plans, policies, and goals of local governments and guided by VISION 2040, the Partnership has been helping local communities bring their visions to reality and to make the most of new light rail service, bus rapid transit, and other transit investments, including identifying unique roles and opportunities for community development associated with high-capacity transit investments. For more information about the



2

Growing Transit Communities Partnership and PSRC, visit www.psrc.org.

THREE CORRIDORS/THREE TASK FORCES Planning activities of the Partnership have focused along the three light rail corridors from Seattle north to the city of Everett, south to Tacoma, and east to the city of Redmond. Based on the premise that change can happen at the local level through tools and solutions that address similar challenges shared by communities in the region, the Partnership has provided a big-picture perspective so that people can see both local and regional benefits, and local entities can apply lessons learned in other places in the region. Corridor task forces for the North, East, and South corridors were charged with analyzing and reviewing existing conditions and identifying unique opportunities and challenges for development of existing and future transit station areas. In development of its work plan and specific assignments for each task force, the Partnership felt that it was important to focus implementation activities in specific station areas of the region’s transit corridors to serve as models for other parts of the region. In the case of the East Corridor, the intention was to work with the East Corridor Task Force to identify what catalyst project, or projects, were most appropriate. This evolved into the defined scope of work for the East Corridor Implementation Support Project.

EAST CORRIDOR CONTEXT In 2011, the Sound Transit Board of Directors made its final decision about the East Link light rail transit (LRT) corridor alignment and station locations. Also in 2011, King County Metro began operation of its Bus Rapid Transit service (BRT) RapidRide line B. In order to help areas around LRT and BRT stations transform into more transit-oriented communities, the four cities participating in the East Corridor Task Force (Seattle, Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond) and other Task Force members were interested in developing focused implementation strategies and tools for specific East Corridor station areas. Seattle and Mercer Island had already

completed extensive planning for the station areas in their jurisdictions, so the Task Force decided to focus on stations in Bellevue and Redmond Staff from the cities of Bellevue and Redmond indicated that the station areas in the Bel-Red Corridor and Overlake were in most need of implementation support. Given these considerations, the Task Force determined that the East Corridor Implementation Support Project should focus on the following subset of East Corridor station areas in the cities of Bellevue and Redmond, along East Link and King County Metro’s RapidRide Route B stations: East Link Light Rail Station Areas (Future) Selected for the East Corridor Implementation Support Project:

• Hospital Station Area in Bellevue • 120th Avenue NE/Spring District Station

Area in Bellevue • 130th Avenue NE Station Area in Bellevue • Overlake Village Station Area in Redmond • Overlake Transit Center Station Area in

Redmond King County METRO RapidRide B Line Station areas (Existing) Selected for the East Corridor Implementation Support Project: Located in Bellevue’s Crossroads Neighborhood:

• NE 10th Street Station Area • NE 15th Street Station Area

The Partnership funded and guided the East Corridor Implementation Support Project to examine opportunities for TOD along Sound Transit’s East Link Light Rail and King County Metro RapidRide Line B alignments through the Eastside cities of Bellevue and Redmond in these station areas initially as part of Phase 1 of the project, and then to provide more focused analysis and strategies for selected station areas as part of Phase 2. Portions of the project area are located within the areas known as the Bel-Red Corridor and Overlake.

http://www.psrc.org/



3

FOUR FOCUS AREAS FOR EAST CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES Through a series of meetings, the East Corridor Task Force examined key issues and identified barriers to transit-oriented development in the East Corridor, along with particular challenges to implementing equitable TOD in station areas. In its discussion of how to incent and accommodate equitable transit-oriented development in station areas, the Task Force determined four areas of focus for the East Corridor Implementation Support project. The Task Force identified the need for detailed strategies and action steps to implement existing local plans, particularly in the areas of:

• Affordable Housing • Business Retention and Attraction • Public and Private Partnerships • Transportation Access and Connectivity

EAST CORRIDOR PROJECT PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW The East Corridor Implementation Support project has identified pivotal opportunities to transform Eastside station areas into more vibrant, economically healthy neighborhoods that offer equitable housing choices, more convenient access to jobs and jobs-to-housing balance within the high-capacity transit corridors and region, and better connectivity to goods and services. The project is supporting immediate advancement of the implementation of visions and plans that have already been developed by participating jurisdictions on the Eastside, and the project team has leveraged other products developed by PSRC and the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, including affordable housing and opportunity mapping, existing conditions reports, market analyses, station area typologies, Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD) market strength index, and other information as a base of reference for the project.

IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT PROJECT GUIDANCE AND TIMELINE All phases of the East Corridor Implementation Support Project have been informed by representatives of the East Corridor Task Force. The Task Force identified a subset of members, called the Project Management Team (PMT), to advance the project and bring back matters to the Task Force for direction and decisions. PMT members were selected from the general membership of the Task Force (including representatives from the cities of Bellevue and Redmond) and confirmed by the Task Force co-chairs. See the Acknowledgements page for PMT members. Growing Transit Communities staff and the PMT members of the Task Force retained a consultant team with expertise in affordable housing, urban design, transportation planning and policy, real estate and economic development, and other areas to assist in identifying actions and strategies to address these issues and help to catalyze TOD. OVERVIEW OF PHASES 1 AND 2 The scope of work for the East Corridor Implementation Support Project was completed in two phases. Phase 1 included best practices research, a high level assessment of seven East Corridor station areas, screening and selection of station areas for further analysis in Phase 2, and development of the scope of work for Phase 2. See the Phase 1 Best Practices Research Report for a detailed description of initial tasks. Go to: http://www.psrc.org/about/pubs to download the report. Phase 2 involved more intensive analysis and development of specific recommendations for TOD implementation for two station areas: 130th Avenue NE in Bellevue and Overlake Village in Redmond. Phase 2 explored innovative approaches to leverage opportunities and incent TOD implementation in the short- and long-term in these station areas. Phase 2 developed recommended actions, strategies, and products to address specific issues in each station area per the scope of work that was developed by the Task Force and overseen by the PMT.

http://www.psrc.org/about/pubs



4

PHASE 2 PRODUCTS Products developed in Phase 2 supporting these four focus areas are listed in the chart below.

These products have been completed as stand-alone, complementary documents and reports. All reports are available for download at http://www.psrc.org/about/pubs (look for Growing Transit Communities Partnership, East Corridor information).

http://www.psrc.org/about/pubs



5



6

The Focus of this Phase 2 Report: 130th Avenue NE Transit-Oriented Development Opportunity Study and Financial Assessment The focus of this Phase 2 report of the East Corridor Implementation Support Project is the 130th Avenue NE Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunity Study. This report provides a summary of the background, purpose, and results of the study. The information developed as part of this study supported by the Growing Transit Communities Partnership can serve as a model and reference to other transit-oriented development studies for station areas throughout the region. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION One of the key objectives of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership is to make the most of the regional investment in high-capacity transit by locating housing, jobs, and services close enough to stations that using transit is a viable option for many people. Once completed, the City of Bellevue will have six light rail station areas, each with unique characteristics. The City has been focused on the potential for new TOD in the Bel-Red Corridor (120th Avenue NE and 130th Avenue NE stations), while other stations such as the South Bellevue station are expected to experience little or no change. The City has adopted a plan for the Bel-Red Corridor that calls for a mix of land uses, including high density housing, retail, employment, and public services surrounding the 120th Avenue NE and 130th Avenue NE light rail stations. The City also has completed the 130th

Avenue NE Station Area Plan, which further characterizes the desired vision for urban, mixed-use redevelopment around that station. Integrating affordable housing options and attracting new businesses to support residents’ needs are encouraged by the Growing Transit Communities Partnership and the City’s adopted plan. Transportation is the second largest household budget cost for families in the US, and locating affordable housing near light rail stations gives people the opportunity to use transit and lower their household costs. And when housing, retail, services, and employment are located in close proximity, people can choose to walk, bicycle, and use transit more frequently, further reducing their transportation costs. Building partnerships to implement the best solutions for TOD around light rail stations is another key objective of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership. As demonstrated by this opportunity study, the Partnership has been successful in pulling together multiple partners to look at how to best leverage the regional investment in transit and foster TOD opportunities. The 130th Avenue NE TOD Opportunity Study builds on the Partnership’s objectives and the previous station area planning work completed by the City of Bellevue. STUDY SITE CONTEXT The study site is located between 130th Avenue NE and 132nd Avenue NE, immediately north of the future alignment of NE 16th Street, where the light rail line will operate. The northside platform of the 130th Avenue NE light rail station will be constructed within the proposed NE 16th Street right-of-way, which borders the south edge of the study site. Refer to the maps of the 130th Avenue NE station area on the next page. These maps were created by the City of Bellevue’s team for the 130th Avenue NE Station Area Plan.



7

Maps of the 130th Avenue Station Area from the City of Bellevue 130th Avenue NE Station Area Plan.



8

The study site focused primarily on three parcels, which are the same parcels being proposed for development of a surface park-and-ride lot and bicycle parking facility, to be constructed by Sound Transit and open with the light rail station in 2023 (see additional discussion later in this report). These three parcels total approximately 4.04 acres:

• Parcel 1—NW Parcel: 53,809 SF • Parcel 2—SW Parcel: 51,265 SF • Parcel 3—SE Parcel: 70,819 SF

A conceptual TOD plan for a fourth parcel (NE Parcel where Goff Creek flows at the far eastern edge), also was developed, but this 2.35 acre parcel was not included in the financial analysis. The team included conceptual analysis for the fourth parcel to test connectivity and open space relationships with the other three parcels of the rectangular-shaped study area. Refer to the maps and plans at the end of this report, illustrating the site context and conceptual TOD scenarios. STUDY PROCESS & PARTNERS The study process engaged representatives from the City of Bellevue, Sound Transit, A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH), Puget Sound Regional Council, and other stakeholders through a two-part workshop series. The workshop process brought partners and stakeholders together to explore ideas and concepts. These ideas were then developed into specific TOD scenarios, and a financial model was developed to test feasibility of the scenarios as well as sub-alternatives that layered in housing affordability formulas and various other options. The first workshop session, held in spring 2013, focused on a discussion of project goals and vision and centered discussion on the questions:

What would success at the 130th Avenue NE TOD site look like to both Sound Transit and the City of Bellevue? Could a public/private partnership create an integrated TOD/park-and-ride that advances a transit-supportive land use vision in lieu of a stand-alone surface parking? (And be implemented without requiring additional Sound Transit funding?) Can the TOD solution be designed to meet Sound Transit’s needs and to be consistent with City plans and how can this solution activate the area, catalyze additional development around the station, increase ridership, and create a safer, more welcoming environment? For part of the first workshop session, participants worked in study groups to evaluate potential configurations of TOD for the study site. Group representatives then summarized the organizational concepts to the full group at the end of the session. After the first workshop session, representatives from the consultant team (Otak, Inc., BAE Urban Economics, and Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associations) further developed the TOD configurations discussed in the workshop into three distinct scenarios (see scenarios descriptions starting on page 11) and then conducted an initial financial feasibility analysis, as well as an analysis of potential ridership (see pages 24 and 25). A second workshop session was held in early fall 2013, reconvening the original participants. The conceptual scenarios and results of the financial and ridership analyses were shared and discussed at the session. Several elements of the analysis were identified as needing further refinement and checking to ensure accurate calculations of development fees and right-of-way/land value assumptions. The City of Bellevue and Sound Transit provided comments via letters (included in



9

the Appendix) outlining areas that needed further development and discussion in the report. The consultant team addressed these comments through revisions and refinements, which are reflected in this final report.

STUDY OBJECTIVES Prior to the study process, representatives from Sound Transit and the City of Bellevue met to identify key objectives. They then shared the following lists with the consultant team. Sound Transit Objectives: Light rail station constructed and operating by

2023 300 transit customer parking spaces available

at opening Transit customer and station facilities are

accommodated (bicycle parking, ADA access, utility access areas, etc.);

Site provides construction staging/lay down area

Open to partnerships that provide for true sharing of risks and benefits and financially

sound solutions (that would keep Sound Transit financially “whole” without requiring more funding than already budgeted for the 130th Avenue NE station).

Evidence of public and private investment potential/market for TOD

City of Bellevue Objectives: Site development that furthers City’s

adopted Bel-Red plan with housing and redevelopment in the station area

High quality, market-ready, and functioning TOD project is developed

300 stall park-and-ride is integrated into TOD without adding to cost of East Link and without delay to Sound Transit timetable

TOD construction is closely coordinated with Sound Transit staging and construction

Possibility of shared parking considered as part of site development/transit park-and-ride

Vision for 130th Avenue NE station area, from City of Bellevue Station Area Plan



10

What Would a Successful TOD Look Like? Park-and-ride would be served by a transit

garage or another type of integrated parking solution as part of the TOD rather than a surface parking lot.

Development would be phased to allow for Sound Transit’s use of the site during construction.

The TOD would provide a mix of housing choices, including affordable housing.

The TOD would result in ridership that supports and sustains the light rail system.

The TOD would create vibrant, urban neighborhood character with excellent pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the station.

The TOD would help to catalyze other future redevelopment in the station area.

SUMMARY OF THE TOD OPPORTUNITY STUDY FINDINGS The 130th Avenue NE TOD Opportunity Study explored redevelopment scenarios that would create a mixed-use TOD on the study site with an integrated park-and-ride facility (garage for transit riders). Scenarios were developed in accordance with the City of Bellevue’s adopted plan, which calls for a built TOD solution at the site, and also were designed to integrate Sound Transit’s requirements to provide park-and-ride capacity for 300 cars and bicycle parking to be available to serve riders when light rail opens in 2023.

The study assessed financial feasibility of three potential redevelopment scenarios, as well as sub-alternatives (including affordable housing as a component of the TOD). The study also assessed potential light rail transit ridership that would occur through a built TOD solution compared to that generated by the surface parking lot.

The financial assessment confirmed that there are financially feasible opportunities to develop TOD at the site and that these would result in more sustainable transit ridership over the long term

compared to the surface parking solution. Key findings of the study include the following:

At this initial stage, it appears that there are forms of an integrated TOD/park-and-ride that could work and meet Sound Transit and City of Bellevue objectives.

Park-and-ride capacity of a minimum of 300 cars, as well as space for bicycle parking can be accommodated in the integrated TOD solution in accordance with Sound Transit’s objectives.

A successful TOD solution can be implemented without increasing Sound Transit’s costs.

Implementation of a built-form TOD solution at the site would support Sound Transit’s adopted TOD policies, as well as adopted policies, plans, and zoning of the City of Bellevue.

Implementation of a built-form TOD solution will increase transit ridership over the long-term (see pages 24 and 25 for ridership projections).

The 5 over 1 form of mixed-use construction holds the most promise in the redevelopment scenarios studied (5/1 mixed-use buildings typically have up up to 6 levels , including a ground floor level that may be retail or other active uses and residential and employment uses in up to 5 levels above that); the reason this construction type makes the most sense financially is that construction costs are high for tower forms and townhome and similar development types are not as efficient in land use as 5/1 construction.

Scenarios that incorporate housing affordability with relatively available forms of assistance (e.g. tax credits, short term property tax exemption) appear to be feasible or to even increase viability.

In response to discussions at the second workshop series the consultant team confirmed that the conceptual scenarios generally meet the City’s adopted Bel-Red code requirements including provisions for pervious coverage and active ground floor



11

uses. Additional refinement of a preferred plan/scenario would fine tune these details and maximize the application of incentives and bonuses allowed by code.

A TOD solution will activate the neighborhood and create an attractive, urban transit-oriented place to live, work, shop, and play that also would help to catalyze adjacent development.

Locating the parking in an adjacent structure provides Sound Transit and the TOD with increased flexibility during construction, giving Sound Transit greater use of the site for a longer period.

There are challenges to site development related to timing and phasing during construction that will require additional work and coordination between partners.

While specific development interests/partners are still to be determined for the TOD project, there is definitely potential for a public/private partnership TOD with the City of Bellevue and Sound Transit as key partners, along with affordable housing interests and private-sector partners. A partnership mechanism for Sound Transit’s involvement needs to be identified.

There is favorable market potential for redevelopment in the station area. The Puget Sound Region TOD Market Study completed for the Growing Transit Communities Partnership in June 2012 found strong overall market indicators for the East Corridor and strong residential/TOD demand for the 130th Avenue NE station area. This market demand is based on the growing high tech industry in Redmond and Bellevue, which the Bel-Red Corridor is well positioned for, among other factors. The TOD Market Study highlighted in particular the potential to serve employees seeking a more walkable, transit-rich lifestyle as the economy continues to recover from the recession and the high tech industry adds more jobs.

Other investors are realizing this potential and moving ahead with projects, including Wright Runstad, which is implementing the Spring

District master plan at the 120thAvenue NE station, and Capstone Partners, which has started construction at the former Group Health hospital site in Overlake Village.

NEXT STEPS The 130th Avenue NE TOD Opportunity Study sets a good foundation, but it is preliminary and more work needs to be done to further clarify the challenges related to the site and to explore development options in more detail. The preliminary results summarized in this report will help to support ongoing work and coordination between the City of Bellevue and Sound Transit. This ongoing work should focus on defining specific phasing and construction needs associated with the site, identifying a specific partnership mechanism for Sound Transit’s participation in the project, and pursuing additional partners and funding opportunities to move forward with a solution that provides the desired park-and-ride capacity while also building out the site in phases as a mixed-use TOD project with affordable and market rate housing. The study process supported by the Growing Transit Communities Partnership could be used as a model of collaboration in exploring TOD opportunities and applying similar lessons learned in other station areas throughout the central Puget Sound region. DESCRIPTION OF CONCEPTUAL TOD SCENARIOS STUDIED Potential TOD scenarios were formulated to test interrelated physical and financial feasibility of various types of construction and urban form configurations. Three potential development scenarios—‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’—were tested around the same street and parcel framework (Parcel 1/NW, Parcel 2/SW, and Parcel 3/SE). A “transit garage” with a minimum of 300 spaces in a structured parking facility to accommodate park-and-ride for the light rail station was



12

included in all three scenarios (to replace the capacity of the proposed surface parking lot). Sub-alternatives analyzed in the financial pro formas show the transit garage as either being funded separately, or as being funded as part of the site development. The TOD scenarios vary in building construction types, height, active ground floor space, number of residential units, and location of the transit garage facility. All scenarios were developed in accordance with the adopted Bel-Red zoning code provisions in the conceptual development of these scenarios, including requirements for active ground-floor space. Assuming there would be a focus on retail on the proposed shopping street context of 130th, other street frontages could emphasize a variety of other active uses, such as studio space for artists, art galleries, dance lessons, and other uses consistent with the potential of this neighborhood further evolving into an arts and culture district. More in-depth analysis of the Code is needed to analyze and confirm the range of active ground floor uses that could be implemented at the site. A fourth, add-on development parcel, labeled ‘D’ also was conceptualized. While adding on this parcel to any of the three development scenarios would require the additional purchase of land (beyond what Sound Transit already intends to purchase for the parking area), developing this site could bring a variety of benefits to the transit-oriented project and neighborhood, as discussed later in this report. These scenarios are further described and analyzed in the following portion of this report. Also refer to the layout and urban form illustrations of the scenarios at the end of this report. These illustrations show the assumed mix of at-grade active uses (retail, etc.) and housing for each scenario.

Scenario A Overall Description This 5 over 1, mixed-use scenario envisions residential units built in a five-story configuration over a concrete ground floor with a podium. This configuration is typically called a “5+1.” Due to the need to provide parking for the residents, along with ground floor commercial space, some of the parking in this scenario would be located underground. A separate free-standing transit garage is also included in this scenario. Proposed Land uses are configured as follows: Parcel 1: Park-and-ride with ground floor

active uses. Parcel 2: Mixed-use residential in 5+1 wood

over concrete with structured parking above and below grade.

Parcel 3: Mixed-use residential in 5+1 wood


Constructability and Design Considerations The proposed uses work well with the parcel

geometry. In particular: o The NW parcel has a good plot geometry

for the transit garage. o The SW/SE parcels have good plot

geometry for residential use. SE and SW parcels show construction type

that maximizes wood frame construction over concrete podium.

Building the transit garage facility on the NW

parcel may help activate ground floor retail/commercial/active use establishments located en route between park-and-ride and light rail station.



13

Scenario B Overall Description This mid-rise, mixed-use scenario envisions a more densely-developed site, with a 13-story mid-rise structure housing both market rate and affordable rental, along with a 5+1 structure, and a free standing parking garage. Proposed land uses are organized as follows: Parcel 1: Mixed-use residential in 5+1 wood


Parcel 2: Mixed-use residential tower

maximum height 150’, steel and concrete with structured parking above and below grade.

Parcel 3: Park-and-ride (transit garage) with

ground floor active uses. Constructability and Design Considerations Transit garage on SE parcel adjacent to light

rail station as a stand-alone with ground floor retail.

SW parcel takes full advantage of 150’ height

limit (13 story). There is the potential for increased corner presence, visibility, and views potential due to the tall tower. There may be some view premiums related to views of Cascades/Mount Rainier and towards downtown Bellevue skyline, and this building type would make a bolder transit-oriented development statement.

Scenario C Overall Description This scenario proposes a wrap style building of a transit garage wrapped with ground floor retail and housing, as well as 5+1 and townhouse (for sale) product types on the site. To provide parking for both residents of the wrap building and transit riders, the wrap product type includes a central garage which would serve both kinds of parking needs in a single structure. Thus, for this scenario, testing feasibility with and without the transit garage as part of the private development project

was not applicable because it is a shared garage concept, blended together into a functioning mixed-use, multipurpose project. Proposed land uses are organized as follows: Parcel 1: Transit garage with ground floor

retail, combined with residential “wrap” and additional parking, 5+1 wood over concrete with structured parking above and below grade.

Parcel 2: Townhomes, 3 stories, wood with

at-grade parking. Parcel 3: Mixed-use residential in 5+1 wood


Constructability and Design Considerations Best screening of multi-level parking on NW

parcel by wrapping three block sides with ground floor retail and residential at all upper levels. This building typology (aka “Texas Wrap”) is less common in the Pacific Northwest; however, more projects of this kind are recently being built (including some in Portland, Oregon).

Lowest-intensity development of all

alternatives on SW parcel with 12 townhome units. Having smaller structures helps create variety and smoother transition with adjacent properties.

Building the transit garage facility on the NW

Parcel may help activate ground floor retail/commercial establishments located en route between park-and-ride and light rail station.

SE parcel shows construction type that

maximizes wood frame construction over concrete podium, (5+1) (SE parcel is same as Alternative A).



14

Scenario D (As Potential Add-On to Scenario A, B, or C) Overall Description This parcel (Parcel 4) is conceptualized as residential in 5+1 wood over concrete with at-grade parking podium.

Approximately ½ acre is dedicated to park use

along the east side of Parcel 4, along Goff Creek.

Constructability and Design Considerations The green corridor and open space along Goff

Creek can be an important feature of the neighborhood once it is restored and public gathering spaces and uses are developed. The combined park and creek corridor would serve as a focal point of the neighborhood with recreational and social opportunities that enhance livability.

This is a good family housing location, due to

the proximity to the park/creek and buffered location from transit station activity/noise, and the restored creek corridor and park could serve as a catalyst to other development in the neighborhood.

There may be the potential to look at other

public uses on this site, such as a small neighborhood center or senior center at the site as a “third place” opportunity.

There may also be the potential to look at

stormwater vault and/or filter systems for subregional stormwater management to serve the surrounding development. If grant funding or public funding were obtained to construct these facilities, this could reduce the cost burden to private sector development and serve as another catalyst to development activity in the neighborhood.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS OF ANALYSIS It is important to note that the development scenarios were formulated to meet public policy goals as well as the needs of Sound Transit and its

ridership goals. Along with these guiding premises, several key assumptions influenced the financial analysis, as follows. • Private Developer—The financial feasibility

analysis assumes that a private developer would own and develop the site. The analysis shows the cost of the transit garage included some sub-alternatives but not included in others (assuming it would be funded separately). Another possibility would be to explore creating a joint development agreement or mechanism with Sound Transit. Sound Transit would then likely be involved a ground lease situation for the land, if land ownership were retained by the transit agency.

• Provision of Garage for Transit Riders—In all

of the alternative development programs, it was assumed that the “project” would include construction of a multi-story parking garage serving transit customers. Similarly to the surface lot now planned, it was assumed that there would be no charge to transit customers using this parking garage (e.g., free parking). Several alternatives, however, were tested to implement this concept including alternatives where the private developer would purchase the entire site (either from Sound Transit or from original owners) and fund and provide the transit garage, and other alternatives where the private development land purchase would exclude the parcel needed for the transit garage, shrinking the private development site size. In those alternatives, it is assumed that Sound Transit would retain ownership of its garage parcel, and fund its own transit garage1.

1 BAE made these assumptions at the direction of project

stakeholders. BAE has advised that a Sound Transit land purchase and then ground lease to private developers would be a likely development option; however, for the sake of simplifying the analysis, project stakeholders requested the model to be built to test a direct purchase of land by private developers.



15

• Compact Development Programs— In each alternative, the development envisioned on-site would result in relatively dense, compact development, with 6 to 13-story buildings (including parking in a podium/underground combination for the 6 story buildings, and at grade in garage structures for the wrap and transit garage structures). While the alternatives vary in the development prototypes envisioned, all of the alternatives would result in a transformative catalyst project, with greater development density than the 130th Street station area has today. These alternatives create “tomorrow’s” value capture opportunities from adding transit service to this portion of the Bel-Red Corridor.

• Mixed-Income Housing—In addition, each

physical development program was tested assuming a mix of market-rate and affordable housing to demonstrate how this transformative project could also meet housing goals. The scenarios assume that the State of Washington’s 4 percent Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program would be utilized, which allows for both third-party equity contributions in exchange for tax credits (to support the feasibility and financing of the affordable units), as well as utilization of the companion bond program to finance construction at tax-exempt interest rates, lowering the overall costs of financing (applicable to all housing if certain percentages are made affordable per the LIHTC).

In order to maximize overall feasibility, for Scenarios A and B, the combination of 80 percent of each housing alternative is assumed as market-rate, and 20 percent is assumed affordable to households earning no more than 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) per LIHTC regulations. For Scenario C, which has three different housing

product types, the affordable housing and this companion favorable LIHTC program with bond financing, is assumed for just the 5+1 building (wood frame over podium), in order to maximize feasibility as costs rise to produce the wrap building envisioned in this scenario.

• Retail for Street Activation— In keeping with

the City of Bellevue’s policies to activate major commercial corridors, the scenarios incorporate ground floor retail space at the ground level of most of the residential structures, as well as varying amounts of retail space within the transit garage, to also make this space more active at the street level. It should be noted, however, that a specific market analysis of the potential for market demand for this retail space has not been conducted. Additional analysis would be needed to ensure that the level of retail/commercial/active uses would be supportable as the project builds out. This caution is given due to the challenges that some mixed-use housing and retail projects face, in terms of their retail space allocations. In some cases with TODs, retail occupancy can lag behind housing occupancy, due to reliance on the market created by new residents moving into the housing.

• Transit-Oriented Parking Ratios—Proposed

parking ratios of roughly 0.7 parking space per housing unit were included in the Scenarios A and B, and a lower .67 parking space per residential unit for Scenario C. While relatively low in terms of current parking ratios, this approach is in keeping with the overall policy goal of reducing automobile ownership per household in the region at transit-oriented locations. The assumed ratios would be allowable by City code provisions that give flexibility for TOD projects with affordable housing and public amenities.



16

TODs offer on-site residents the use of transit to commute and travel, and emerging car sharing and other options would provide the same residents to access automobiles for longer-distance trips as needed, without owning and parking its household’s cars. The transit-oriented aspect of this type of development project is key to its feasibility, providing a more sustainable lifestyle to residents, freeing up household income for other purchases and/or housing, and in general, minimizing the overall costs incurred by the developer for otherwise expensive land and construction to “house” cars/vehicles.

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS A financial feasibility analysis of the TOD scenarios (and sub-alternatives) envisioned for the 130th Avenue NE station area site was conducted by BAE Urban Economics. A representative from A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH), a Growing Transit Communities Partner and member of the East Corridor Task Force, assisted the process by adapting the financial model for use in evaluating various formulas of affordable housing.

Financial Assumptions Related to the Surface Parking Lot Proposal Sound Transit has preliminarily proposed to develop a suburban-style surface parking lot with 300 spaces to serve park-and-ride transit customers on the study site, immediately north of the light rail station at 130th Avenue NE. This strategy would cost the agency approximately $8 M in land acquisition costs for the roughly four-acre parcel at the station that would be dedicated to parking for transit riders (park-and-ride). In addition, if Sound Transit improves this property

for parking in surface style, it is likely to incur improvement costs of at least $9,000,000 (assumes 300-surface lot spaces @ $3,000 per space; note that $3,000 per space is a low end estimate and costs could be higher). In total, this expenditure as well as holding costs, could reach $9 million or more, resulting in a surface parking lot that does not generate any income for the transit agency, assuming there is no charge for the parking to transit customers. This strategy also does not provide built-form TOD and as such, would not transform the area as envisioned by the City of Bellevue and the Growing Transit Communities Partnership regional initiatives. The scenarios envision a series of phased development projects with Sound Transit utilizing its station land in partnership with the City of Bellevue, as well as affordable housing and private development interests, to maximize on-site development instead of the proposed surface parking lot for transit riders. Building an actual development project on the station site would advance the regional vision to “grow transit communities,” by offering a more compact, transit-oriented land use pattern for residents and workers to live and/or work near transit. Given that Sound Transit is currently considering land acquisition and has started the design process for the surface parking area, this study helps to paint a picture of other options that could be considered for the site, and considers the potential of using the funds for land acquisition and construction of the surface parking lot as partnership funds in the project. However, as was stated in the second workshop series, the Sound Transit Board has already certified property to be acquired at the site and the agency is starting appraisals. As such, methods for Sound Transit’s involvement in this project need to be further explored. A mechanism would need to be identified for reimbursing Sound Transit for the cost of the land purchase; and as discussed earlier,



17

there is the potential to consider a joint development agreement/mechanism with Sound Transit.

Summary of the Initial Financial Feasibility Analysis An initial financial feasibility analysis was conducted to explore four sub-alternatives for each TOD Scenario (Scenarios A through C). These sub-alternatives were: • Alternative 1: All market-rate housing with a

transit garage • Alternative 2: All market-rate housing with no

transit garage funded by the private development project (e.g., assumes a smaller private development site and transit garage would be built by others)

• Alternative 3: Mixed-income housing

(including 20 percent affordable as described above) with a transit garage

• Alternative 4: Mixed-income housing with no

transit garage funded by the private development (e.g. assumes a smaller private development site and transit garage would be built by others)

It should be noted that for Scenario C, with a blended private and transit garage design, separating the “with” and “without” transit garage alternatives was not possible for this analysis. Thus, Scenario C was tested only for a “with transit garage” alternative, under both market rate and mixed-income assumptions.

Concept of Land Residual Value The financial feasibility analysis shown on the following pages tests for land residual value. This approach tests whether the total development revenues (including developer profit) exceed the total development costs sufficiently to generate

“residual” land value matching current market rate values for land: in other words: Does the project support the likely cost of acquitting the land to build this project type? For the TOD scenarios, this test was done by comparing the residual land value of the project, to a $2M per acre assumed land value, based on information provided to the consultant team. In practice, this land value assumption would fluctuate, depending on a host of factors including ownership, method of acquisition, real estate cycles, and how zoning and regulatory constraints impact eventual development “yield.”

“Before” and “After” Potential Transit Agency Contribution The concept underlying the financial feasibility analysis includes a potential transit agency financial contribution to the project, based on the cost savings from not acquiring land and constructing a surface parking lot, but instead supporting this private project as needed to achieve feasibility. This contribution was tested only for those concepts where the private development consumed the entire site, and incorporated the transit garage parcel and costs to build it, into the private project. The next page shows a summary of the initial feasibility testing for the three design scenarios. Detailed pro formas are included as an Appendix to this report



18

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2- NA Alternative 3Alternative 4- NA

Market Rate with Transit

Garage Parcel

Market Rate without Transit Garage Parcel

Mixed Income with Transit

Garage Parcel

Mixed Income without Transit Garage Parcel


Garage Parcel



Garage Parcel



Garage Parcel



Garage Parcel


Total Number of Residential Units 220 220 220 220 308 308 308 308 218 NA 218 NAPercent of Total Units - Market Rate 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 80.0% 100.0% 100.0% 79.9% 79.9% 100.0% NA 88.1% NAPercent of Total Units - Affordable 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.1% 20.1% 0.0% NA 11.9% NA

Gross Built Square FeetResidential 227,700 227,700 222,640 222,640 318,780 318,780 313,433 313,433 234,060 NA 231,818 NARetail 35,600 35,600 35,600 35,600 62,400 62,400 62,400 62,400 38,490 NA 38,490 NAParking for Mixed-Use Project 54,600 54,600 54,600 54,600 75,600 75,600 75,600 75,600 50,750 NA 50,750 NA

Subtotal MXD Project 317,900 317,900 312,840 312,840 456,780 456,780 451,433 451,433 323,300 NA 321,058 NA

Parking for Transit Garage (sq. ft.) 105,000 - 105,000 - 114,100 - 114,100 - 105,000 NA 105,000 NA

Parking Ratios:Residential 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.67 0.67

Residual Land Values Before Transit Agency Contribution:

Total Land Value 3,928,171$ 10,452,451$ 4,520,256$ 11,044,536$ 17,346$ 5,925,444$ (7,931,058)$ (2,022,960)$ 2,806,151 NA (11,114,338) NA

Land Value/Acre 972,320$ 3,726,742$ 1,118,875$ 3,937,846$ 4,294$ 2,112,672$ (1,963,133)$ (721,271)$ 694,592 NA (2,751,074) NA

Land Value/Per Sq. Foot of Land 22.32$ 85.55$ 25.69$ 90.40$ 0$ 49$ (45)$ (17)$ 16 NA (63) NA

Land Value / Per Residential Unit 4,420$ 16,940$ 5,086$ 17,899$ 14$ 6,859$ (6,374)$ (2,342)$ 3,186 NA (12,620) NA

NA NA

Minimum Land Value/Acre for Feasibility 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ NA 2,000,000$ NA

Feasible without Contribution or Subsidy No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No NA No NA

Transit Agency Contribution:

Potential Transit Agency Contribution (b) 8,980,000$ NA 8,980,000$ NA 8,980,000$ NA 8,980,000$ NA 8,980,000$ NA 8,980,000$ NA

Total Available to Support Project 12,908,171$ NA 13,500,256$ NA 8,997,346$ NA 1,048,942$ NA 11,786,151$ NA (2,134,338)$ NA

Per Acre Available to Support Project 3,195,092$ NA 3,341,647$ NA 2,227,066$ NA 259,639$ NA 2,917,364$ NA (528,302)$ NA

Feasible with Contribution Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes NA No NA

a) Affordable housing included only in 5+1 building in Scenario C, due to need for higher rents in wrap to cover higher constrution costs (which would mean a greater loss to the project).

The 5+1 building in the mixed-income alternatives is bond-financed as part of the 4% LIHTC program, similar to the other Scenarios.

b) Transit Agency Contribution (from savings of not developing surface parking lot for transit riders)

Land Acquisition for Surface Lot/Acre 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$

Acres 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.04

Total Land Acquisition Cost 8,080,000$ 8,080,000$ 8,080,000$ 8,080,000$ 8,080,000$ 8,080,000$

Surface Lot Improvement Cost/Space 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$

Number of Spaces in Lot 300 300 300 300 300 300

Total Improvement Costs 900,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$

Total Costs Saved 8,980,000$ 8,980,000$ 8,980,000$ 8,980,000$ 8,980,000$ 8,980,000$

Charette Scenario A - Multiple 5+1 Buildings Charette Scenario B - Mid-Rise Buildings Charette Scenario C - 5+1, Wrap, and Townhouses

Summary of Financial Feasibility Analysis for 130th Street Station Development Scenarios – Initial Feasibility Test



19

The “cost savings” from not developing the proposed Sound Transit parking lot totals just under $9 M before carrying costs, as shown in the analysis2. This funding is considered as “potentially available to support the project” and shown in the analysis to test whether those infeasible alternatives could be rendered feasible with some of this financial support. This concept is similar to and could be arranged as Sound Transit supporting the costs of the transit garage within the project.

Summary of Findings from Initial Feasibility Testing Scenario A: 5+1 This scenario most closely matches the “pioneering” nature of multi-family TOD housing at this study site. Typically, construction costs for wood-frame residential buildings built over a concrete ground floor with a podium supporting the wood-frame structure, have lower construction costs than mid-rise structures, allowing for the new multi-family rents (or sale prices) to best create financial feasibility. In this scenario, the baseline “without transit garage” supports a feasible project in both the market rate and mixed-income alternatives, with residual land values in excess of the $2M threshold needed to acquire the land. In the scenario where a transit garage is constructed as part of the project, transit agency participation in the amount equal to that committed to the surface parking lot would be sufficient to ff-set the transit garage costs, making the project feasible.

2 A Sound Transit comment received on this analysis indicated that the agency would include additional land carrying costs for the period of ownership prior to sale to private developer; however, this period and those costs are not known and thus not estimated here.

Scenario B: Mid-Rise Buildings The mid-rise scenario is a more challenging project, assuming market rate rents for residential and commercial spaces remain at the level assumed. It should be noted that the models assume relatively conservative market rate rents; some TOD locations are able to achieve higher rents, due to market recognition that living near transit brings many other benefits such as lower costs for fewer automobiles. View premiums in mid-rise towers can also increase rents in some locations. If Sound Transit were able to contribute the cost savings as described, however, it is important to note that the alternative of all market-rate housing with the transit garage would likely become feasible. Additional other subsidy, or a different source of funds, would be required above transit agency contributions, to support development of a mixed-income mid-rise project.

Scenario C: Wrap, 5+1, and Townhouses For both alternatives for this scenario, which includes a transit parking garage, transit agency participation in an amount equal to that committed to the surface parking lot would be necessary to off-set the transit garage costs, making the project feasible. It should be noted that some “wrap” housing projects can be flexibly designed so that costs are lower than the assumptions used in this analysis. In addition, changing the mix to potentially more for-sale townhouses may enhance feasibility. Thus, further design and analysis would be needed to identify the ideal project mix that could achieve financial feasibility with this combination of market-rate and affordable housing, lower and mid-rise buildings, and the incorporation of a marketable “wrap” concept that also includes transit rider garage spaces.



20

Refined Financial Feasibility Testing for Scenario A When stakeholders reviewed and discussed the findings of the initial feasibility testing, two requests emerged. The group felt that Scenario A reflected the best options in today’s marketplace, especially for the 130th Avenue NE station area, for which Sound Transit was acquiring land and moving forward with a surface parking lot plan. Secondly, stakeholders/reviewers requested that the model be further refined to better reflect the voluntary inclusionary regulations, which require payment to an in-lieu fee if market rate density bonuses are included in the project. The initial feasibility testing did not assume these fee payments because the conceptual TOD scenarios did not explicitly test with/without density bonuses, but instead took the approach of maximizing the site by product type. Upon further analysis, it was determined that in-lieu fee payments would be required by market rate developers to achieve the development projects as drawn. Thus, a representatives from A Regional Coalition for Housing assisted by refining the BAE model to include the fee payments on the market rate alternatives of with transit garage, and without transit garage, to reflect this payment trade-off between market rate and mixed-income options. The results of this refined model run are provided in the Appendix. As shown, the market rate development of Alternative 1 remains feasible when the transit agency contributes to the construction of the parking garage a comparable amount as it would invest in a surface lot. Alternative 2 (which does not include the transit garage and assumes it would be developed separately) also maintains feasibility, even with the incentive payments. The mixed-income findings demonstrate less impact from the fee payments and greater financial feasibility. The affordable housing units

included in the mixed-income scenarios count toward the incentive system, reducing the in-lieu fees required.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This type of transit-oriented, compact development adjacent to a transit station fits the concepts for implementation as advanced by the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, by providing housing in proximity to commuters along the Bel-Red Corridor. The TOD scenarios also align with the City of Bellevue’s adopted policies and plans and Sound Transit’s adopted TOD policy. Implementing TOD at the 130th Avenue NE station would increase transit ridership, catalyze neighborhood redevelopment, and enhance livability in the station area.

Confirming Partnership Mechanisms This early analysis has demonstrated that there are TOD scenarios that can be feasibly implemented at the study site, particularly if an approach can be found that would facilitate Sound Transit’s partnership in the project. Such as a mechanism would need to allow Sound Transit to use the funds they are intending to use to purchase the property and develop the surface parking lot as partnership funds, or to reimburse Sound Transit for land purchase as part of a different development pro forma. Focusing on this critical aspect of implementation will be important, and an obvious next step might be to explore a joint development agreement/mechanism.

Coordinating Site Development and Sound Transit Construction Phasing Another important next step will need to involve working with Sound Transit to understand specific construction phasing and lay-down requirements for this site and how these would affect phased site development. While a built TOD project on



21

the site, with the transit garage on 1/3 of the site would free up 2/3 of the land for Sound Transit’s use during construction, the actual phasing of development would need to be closely planned with all development partners. As discussed in the second workshop session, a potential phasing strategy might involve: 1. Sound Transit’s use of 2/3 of the site for

construction and-lay-down activities while 1/3 is prepped for construction of transit garage and/or other mixed-use development.

2. After light rail line construction is complete or

near completion, perhaps another 1/3 of the site could open for TOD construction.

3. While the system is undergoing testing during

the last 1-2 years before the station is open, it may be that the last 1/3 (or 2/3) of the site could move into full development.

4. Coordination of site construction and phasing

would need to ensure that the transit garage/park-and-ride facility is operational at the time the station opens by 2023. Construction phasing also will need to ensure that Sound Transit customers can access the station easily without being impeded by construction activity. This will involve making sure there was an open path between the transit garage and the station, and likely that the street right-of-way improvements (sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.) are completed on 130th and 132nd since pedestrians and bicyclists will have access at the west and east ends of the platform. Installing the sidewalk corridors along these streets prior to the opening of the station will ensure that transit customers can walk from the NW and NE quadrants of the site (and destinations beyond) directly to the entry plazas of the platform located near the intersections. Ensuring that bicycle parking facilities are conveniently located and aligned with

predominant bike commute patterns also will be important.

Refinements and Enhancements to Improve Financial Feasibility To enhance financial feasibility to a greater level, the following actions are recommended for further evaluation and exploration. Design Refinements It is important to note that development of the TOD scenarios was preliminary and conceptual, prepared within a limited scope of work. As is typical in any development project, ongoing refinement of project components and iterative financial testing and adjusting of assumptions can improve financial viability. If the project were to move forward into actual development, there would be additional conceptual design and financial analysis, along with adjustments to the program to meet the project partners’ objectives. Future design should examine how application of the City’s adopted system of incentives and bonuses could be optimized to a greater level of detail, which in turn could improve the financial return of the project. With design refinements, project partners also can further explore the most desirable site development and construction phasing configurations. The location of the transit parking facility could be further evaluated as well, as the design scenarios showed various options. While concerns were raised about locating the transit garage on the NW parcel, further from the light rail platform, it is important to note that with a fully developed TOD site, transit patrons would come from throughout the site, and not just from the transit garage. Transit commuters from a garage located on the NW parcel would be accessing the light rail platform from the entry plaza at the end of the block, and as such a well-lit sidewalk corridor would carry them directly to the platform. This



22

pedestrian traffic would help to further activate the proposed retail frontage along 130th Avenue NE. Further design work should also consider the advantages of locating active uses along the north side of the station platform (rather than a blank wall or surface parking lot), creating more “eyes” on the station. A lot of work was completed in the earlier 130th Avenue NE Station Area Plan highlighting optimal locations for development and parking areas and the best ways to active the station by locating housing, jobs, retail/shopping, lively public spaces, and other active uses adjacent to it and nearby, based a review of other stations. This earlier work will be a good reference for future site design efforts. Consider the Implications of Time The scenarios are very sensitive to the rent and for-sale prices assumed. In many joint development projects around the US, phasing of the real estate development has become key, especially as the transit and the development work to transform the area. In other words, higher rents and sale prices, which in turn would enhance feasibility, may not be achievable in the first phase of a project, but once a “new neighborhood” of quality mixed-use housing and retail with the convenience of transit is market-tested, the subsequent phases of a project could then achieve higher rents. This often occurs when renters and buyers realize the overall value of locating at the transit station, both in terms of time saved, and the ability to lower their car ownership, thus saving dollars on car maintenance and fuel, leading to more dollars available for other expenditures.

Consider Financial Subsidy for Affordable Housing To increase policy goals regarding provision of affordable and workforce housing, the City could consider utilizing various forms of financial subsidy, to increase the amount of affordable housing beyond the 20 percent of total housing units assumed here, or further reduce the rent required to target lower AMI levels.

Analyze a Ground Lease Series of Alternatives A ground lease series of alternatives should also be analyzed, because Sound Transit is acquiring the land currently, and would likely be more able to contribute to the feasibility of compact development at this site through ground lease payments adjusted as needed, rather than direct financial (cash) contributions. This would reduce the residual land value test to a structure where projects would just need to make ground lease payments. This arrangement is common across the US for joint development projects designed to retrofit already-developed surface lots owned by transit agencies to accommodate TOD.

Participants in the first workshop series for the 130th Avenue NE TOD Opportunity Study



23

Summary of Refined Feasibility Test – Scenario A

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Market Rate with Transit Garage Parcel


Mixed Income with Transit Garage Parcel


Total Number of Residential Units 220 220 220 220Percent of Total Units - Market Rate 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 80.0%

Percent of Total Units - Affordable 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0%

Gross Built Square FeetResidential 227,700 227,700 222,640 222,640

Retail 35,600 35,600 35,600 35,600

Parking for Mixed-Use Project 54,600 54,600 54,600 54,600

Subtotal MXD Project 317,900 317,900 312,840 312,840

Parking for Transit Garage (sq. ft.) 105,000 - 105,000 -

Parking Ratios:Residential 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71

Residual Land Values Before Transit Agency Contribution:

Total Land Value 1,787,119$ 8,311,399$ 3,637,403$ 10,161,683$

Land Value/Acre 442,356$ 2,963,366$ 900,347$ 3,623,071$

Land Value/Per Sq. Foot of Land 10.16$ 68.03$ 20.67$ 83.17$

Land Value / Per Residential Unit 2,011$ 13,470$ 4,092$ 16,469$

Minimum Land Value/Acre for Feasibility 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$

Feasible without Contribution or Subsidy No Yes No Yes

Transit Agency Contribution:

Potential Transit Agency Contribution (b) 8,980,000$ NA 8,980,000$ NA

Total Available to Support Project 10,767,119$ NA 12,617,403$ NA

Per Acre Available to Support Project 2,665,128$ NA 3,123,120$ NA

Feasible with Contribution Yes Yes Yes Yes

a) Affordable housing included only in 5+2 building in Scenario C, due to need for higher rents in wrap to cover higher constrution costs (which would mean a greater loss to the project).

The 5+2 building in the mixed-income alternatives is bond-financed as part of the 4% LIHTC program, similar to the other Scenarios.

b) Transit Agency Contribution (from savings of not developing surface parking lot for transit riders)

Land Acquisition for Surface Lot/Acre 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$

Acres 4.04 4.04

Total Land Acquisition Cost 8,080,000$ 8,080,000$

Surface Lot Improvement Cost/Space 3,000$ 3,000$

Number of Spaces in Lot 300 300

Total Improvement Costs 900,000$ 900,000$

Total Costs Saved 8,980,000$ 8,980,000$

Charette Scenario A - Multiple 5+1 Buildings - Refined Analysis



24

PPPRRROOOJJJEEECCCTTTEEEDDD TTTRRRAAANNNSSSIIITTT RRRIIIDDDEEERRRSSSHHHIIIPPP AAANNNAAALLLYYYSSSIIISSS (((CCCooonnntttiiinnnuuueeeddd ooonnn NNNeeexxxttt PPPaaagggeee)))



25

East C rrid rImplementati n Support

PHASE 2 REPORT

APPENDIX



Charrette Scenario A - Multiple 5+1 Buildings No inflaton factors

Does not account for density FAR purchaseAlternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 DEVELOPMENT COSTS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Key Development Assuptions (Input)Market Rate with

Transit Garage ParcelMarket Rate without

Transit Garage ParcelMixed Income with

Transit Garage ParcelMixed Income without Transit Garage Parcel Residential Units - Hard & Soft Costs

Market Rate 40,986,000$ 40,986,000$ 32,788,800$ 32,788,800$ Site Size (acres) with Transit Garage Parcel 4.04 2.80 4.04 2.80 Affordable -$ -$ 7,286,400$ 7,286,400$ Transit Garage Parcel (acres) 1.24 1.24 Subtotal 40,986,000$ 40,986,000$ 40,075,200$ 40,075,200$ Market-Rate Residential Units:

Number of 1-BDR 110 110 88 88 Retail Space - MXD - Hard & Soft Costs 3,458,000$ 3,458,000$ 3,458,000$ 3,458,000$ Size of 1-BDR 700 700 700 700 Rent for 1-BDR 2.20$ 1,540$ 1,540$ 1,540$ 1,540$ Parking for MXD - Hard & Soft Costs

Market Rate Res Parking 3,335,000$ 3,335,000$ 2,668,000$ 2,668,000$ Number of 2-BDR 110 110 88 88 Affordable Res Parking -$ -$ 667,000$ 667,000$ Size of 2-BDR 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 Retail MXD Parking -$ -$ -$ -$ Rent for 2-BDR 2.00$ 2,200$ 2,200$ 2,200$ 2,200$ Subtotal 3,335,000$ 3,335,000$ 3,335,000$ 3,335,000$

Total Residential Units 220 220 176 176 Transit Garage - Hard & Soft CostsTotal Rentable Sq. Ft. 198,000 198,000 158,400 158,400 Parking Spaces 5,400,000$ -$ 5,400,000$ -$ Common Area 15% 29,700 29,700 23,760 23,760 Retail Space 1,170,000$ 1,170,000$ 1,170,000$ 1,170,000$

Total Residential Gross Sq. Ft. 227,700 227,700 182,160 182,160 Subtotal 6,570,000$ 1,170,000$ 6,570,000$ 1,170,000$

Vacancy Rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Impact FeesMarket Rate Res Units 550,000$ 550,000$ 440,000$ 440,000$

Affordable Residential Units Affordable Res Units -$ -$ 110,000$ 110,000$ AMI Limit 50% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% Subtotal 550,000$ 550,000$ 550,000$ 550,000$ Median Income 86,700$ 86,700$ 86,700$ 86,700$ Number of 1-BDR 0 0 22 22Size of 1-BDR 650 650 650 650 Total Dev Costs Before Financing 54,899,000$ 49,499,000$ 53,988,200$ 48,588,200$ Rent for 1-BDR (King County Less Utility Allowance) 756$ 756$ 756$ 756$

Financing Costs (a)Number of 2-BDR 0 0 22 22 Interest for Conventional Portion 3,853,910$ 3,474,830$ 379,080$ -$ Size of 2-BDR 950 950 950 950 Fees/Points for Conventional Portion 988,182$ 890,982$ 97,200$ -$ Rent for 2-BDR (King County - Utility Allowance) 902$ 902$ 902$ 902$ Interest for Bond-Financed Portion -$ -$ 2,026,246$ 2,026,246$

Fees/Loan Costs for Bond-Financed Portion -$ -$ 211,067$ 211,067$ Total Residential Units 0 0 44 44 Subtotal 4,842,092$ 4,365,812$ 2,713,593$ 2,237,313$ Total Rentable Sq. Ft. - - 35,200 35,200 Common Area 15% - - 5,280 5,280 Total Dev Costs exc. Land & Profit 59,741,092$ 53,864,812$ 56,701,793$ 50,825,513$

Total Residential Gross Sq. Ft. - - 40,480 40,480 VALUE ANALYSIS (at Yr 2 stablization) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Vacancy Rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%Market-Rate Residential Units

Retail Space Gross Rental Revenue 4,936,800$ 4,936,800$ 3,949,440$ 3,949,440$ Sq. Ft. in MXD Buildings 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 Less: Vacancy (246,840)$ (246,840)$ (197,472)$ (197,472)$ Sq. Ft. in Transit Garage 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Less: Property Taxes (440,000)$ (440,000)$ -$ -$

Total Sq. Ft. 35,600 35,600 35,600 35,600 Less: Operating Costs (990,000)$ (990,000)$ (792,000)$ (792,000)$ Rent/sq.ft. (NNN) 2.00$ 2.00$ 2.00$ 2.00$ NOI 3,259,960$ 3,259,960$ 2,959,968$ 2,959,968$ Vacancy Rate 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%

Affordable Residential UnitsParking: Gross Rental Revenue -$ -$ 437,762$ 437,762$

For Residential Units Less: Vacancy -$ -$ (21,888)$ (21,888)$ At-Grade Podium Garage - Number of Spaces 113 113 113 113 Less: Property Taxes -$ -$ -$ -$ At-Grade Podium Garage - Cost per Space 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ Less: Operating Costs -$ -$ (242,000)$ (242,000)$ Below-Grade Number of Spaces 43 43 43 43 NOI -$ -$ 173,873$ 173,873$ Below-Grade Cost per Space 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$

Total Parking Spaces for Residential Units 156 156 156 156 Retail - MXDGross Rental Revenue 638,400$ 638,400$ 638,400$ 638,400$

For Retail Space: Less: Vacancy (63,840)$ (63,840)$ (63,840)$ (63,840)$ At-Grade Podium Number of Spaces 0 - - - NOI 574,560$ 574,560$ 574,560$ 574,560$ At-Grade Cost per Space 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$

Retail - Transit GarageFor Transit At-Grade Garage Gross Rental Revenue 216,000$ 216,000$ 216,000$ 216,000$

Number of Spaces (inc. pkg for retail in garage) 300 0 300 0 Less: Vacancy (21,600)$ (21,600)$ (21,600)$ (21,600)$ Cost per Space 18,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$ NOI 194,400$ 194,400$ 194,400$ 194,400$

Market Rate Financing Costs Caplitalized Value of ProjectLoan-to-Cost Ratio 90.0% 90% 90% 90% Market-Rate Residential Units 59,272,000$ 59,272,000$ 53,817,600$ 53,817,600$ Interest Rate 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Affordable Residential Units -$ -$ 2,897,890$ 2,897,890$ Fees/Points/Loan Costs 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Retail - MXD 8,208,000$ 8,208,000$ 8,208,000$ 8,208,000$ Loan Period (months) 24 24 24 24 Retail - Transit Garage 2,777,143$ 2,777,143$ 2,777,143$ 2,777,143$ Avg. Outstanding Balance 60% 60% 60% 60%

Afordable Financing Costs (Bond) Total Capitalized Value 70,257,143$ 70,257,143$ 67,700,633$ 67,700,633$ Loan-to-Cost Ratio 90.0% 90% 90% 90%Interest Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Residual Land ValueFees/Points/Loan Costs 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Total Capitalized Value 70,257,143$ 70,257,143$ 67,700,633$ 67,700,633$ Loan Period (months) 24 24 24 24 Less: Development Costs (59,741,092)$ (53,864,812)$ (56,701,793)$ (50,825,513)$ Avg. Outstanding Balance 60% 60% 60% 60% Less: Developer Profit (6,587,880)$ (5,939,880)$ (6,478,584)$ (5,830,584)$

Total Residual Land Value 3,928,171$ 10,452,451$ 4,520,256$ 11,044,536$ Hard Costs - Residential/sq.ft. 150$ 150$ 150$ 150$ Residual Land Value/Acre 972,320$ 3,726,742$ 1,118,875$ 3,937,846$ Hard Costs - Retail / sq. ft. inc. tenant allowance 130$ 130$ 130$ 130$ Soft Costs (as % of hard) 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%Impact Fees/Res Unit 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ Developer Profit (as % of Hard + Soft Costs) 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%

Operating Costs - Market Rate Unit/Yr 4,500$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 4,500$ Property Taxes - Market Rate (approx) 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ Operating Costs - Aff Unit/Yr 5,500$ 5,500$ 5,500$ 5,500$ Property Taxes - Affordable NA NA NA NA

Cap Rate - Market Rate Residential 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5%Cap Rate - Affordable Residential 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0%Cap Rate - Retail MXD 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%Cap Rate - Retail in Transit Garage 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%Outputs - Do Not EditTotal Number of Residential Units 220 220 220 220 Financing Cost Calculations

Percent of Total Units - Market Rate 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 80.0% Conventional LoanPercent of Total Units - Affordable 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% Amount of Loan 49,409,100$ 44,549,100$ 4,860,000$ -$

Interest 3,853,910$ 3,474,830$ 379,080$ -$ Gross Built Square Feet Points/Fees 988,182$ 890,982$ 97,200$ -$

Residential 227,700 227,700 222,640 222,640 Retail 35,600 35,600 35,600 35,600 Bond Loan For Market Rate PortionParking for Mixed-Use Project 350 54,600 54,600 54,600 54,600 Amount of Loan for Mkt Res + Retail NA NA 36,472,320$ 36,472,320$

Subtotal MXD Project 317,900 317,900 312,840 312,840 Interest NA NA 1,750,671$ 1,750,671$ Points/Fees NA NA 182,362$ 182,362$

Parking for Transit Garage (sq. ft.) 350 105,000 - 105,000 - Bond Loan For Aff Res + Aff Parking Portion

Parking Ratios: Total Dev Cost Before Land for Aff Res + Aff Pkg NA NA 8,063,400$ 8,063,400$ Residential 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Equity Calc:

LIHTC Basis NA NA 8,063,400$ 8,063,400$ Residual Land Values: Tax Credit Term NA NA 10 10

Total Land Value 3,928,171$ 10,452,451$ 4,520,256$ 11,044,536$ Tax Credit Rate NA NA 3.2% 3.2%Land Value/Acre 972,320$ 3,726,742$ 1,118,875$ 3,937,846$ Tax Credit Price NA NA 0.90$ 0.90$ Land Value/Per Sq. Foot of Land 22.32$ 85.55$ 25.69$ 90.40$ Total Equity Raised NA NA 2,322,259$ 2,322,259$ Land Value / Per Residential Unit 4,420$ 16,940$ 5,086$ 17,899$

Balance to be Financed NA NA 5,741,141$ 5,741,141$ Interest NA NA 275,575$ 275,575$ Points/Fees NA NA 28,706$ 28,706$

Charette Scenario A - Multiple 5+1 Buildings Pro Forma Analysis

AAAppppppeeennndddiiixxx::: IIInnniiitttiiiaaalll FFFeeeaaasssiiibbbiiillliiitttyyy TTTeeesssttt ––– DDDeeetttaaaiiillleeeddd PPPrrrooo FFFooorrrmmmaaasss



Charrette Scenario B - Mid-Rise Buildings No inflaton factors

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 DEVELOPMENT COSTS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Key Development Assuptions (Input)

Market Rate with Transit Garage

ParcelMarket Rate without




Number of 1-BDR 154 154 123 123 Retail Space - MXD - Hard & Soft Costs 5,772,000$ 5,772,000$ 5,772,000$ 5,772,000$ Size of 1-BDR 700 700 700 700Rent for 1-BDR 2.20$ 1,540$ 1,540$ 1,540$ 1,540$ Parking for MXD - Hard & Soft Costs




Vacancy Rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Impact FeesMarket Rate Res Units 770,000$ 770,000$ 615,000$ 615,000$

Affordable Residential Units Affordable Res Units -$ -$ 155,000$ 155,000$ AMI Limit 50% 50% 50% 50% Subtotal 770,000$ 770,000$ 770,000$ 770,000$ Median Income 86,700$ 86,700$ 86,700$ 86,700$ Number of 1-BDR 0 0 31 31Size of 1-BDR 650 650 650 650 Total Dev Costs Before Financing 84,603,800$ 79,713,800$ 83,480,825$ 78,590,825$ Rent for 1-BDR (King County Less Utility Allowance) 756$ 756$ 756$ 756$

Financing Costs (a)Number of 2-BDR 0 0 31 31 Interest for Conventional Portion 5,939,187$ 5,595,909$ 343,278$ -$ Size of 2-BDR 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Fees/Points for Conventional Portion 1,522,868$ 1,434,848$ 88,020$ -$ Rent for 2-BDR (King County - Utility Allowance) 902$ 902$ 902$ 902$ Interest for Bond-Financed Portion -$ -$ 3,275,191$ 3,275,191$




Retail Space Gross Rental Revenue 6,911,520$ 6,911,520$ 5,520,240$ 5,520,240$ Sq. Ft. in MXD Buildings 44,400 44,400 44,400 44,400 Less: Vacancy (345,576)$ (345,576)$ (276,012)$ (276,012)$ Sq. Ft. in Transit Garage 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 Less: Property Taxes (616,000)$ (616,000)$ (492,000)$ (492,000)$

Total Sq. Ft. 62,400 62,400 62,400 62,400 Less: Operating Costs (1,386,000)$ (1,386,000)$ (1,107,000)$ (1,107,000)$ Rent/sq.ft. (NNN) 2.00$ 2.00$ 2.00$ 2.00$ NOI 4,563,944$ 4,563,944$ 3,645,228$ 3,645,228$ Vacancy Rate 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%


For Residential Units Less: Vacancy -$ -$ (30,842)$ (30,842)$ At-Grade Podium Garage - Number of Spaces 216 216 216 216 Less: Property Taxes -$ -$ -$ -$ At-Grade Garage - Cost per Space 18,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$ Less: Operating Costs -$ -$ (341,000)$ (341,000)$ Below-Grade Number of Spaces 0 0 0 0 NOI -$ -$ 245,003$ 245,003$ Below-Grade Cost per Space 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$

Total Parking Spaces for Residential Units 216 216 216 216 Retail - MXDGross Rental Revenue 1,065,600$ 1,065,600$ 1,065,600$ 1,065,600$

For Retail Space: Less: Vacancy (106,560)$ (106,560)$ (106,560)$ (106,560)$ At-Grade Podium Number of Spaces 0 0 0 0 NOI 959,040$ 959,040$ 959,040$ 959,040$ At-Grade Cost per Space 18,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$



Market Rate Financing Costs Caplitalized Value of ProjectLoan-to-Cost Ratio 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% Market-Rate Residential Units 82,980,800$ 82,980,800$ 66,276,873$ 66,276,873$ Interest Rate 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Affordable Residential Units -$ -$ 4,083,391$ 4,083,391$ Fees/Points/Loan Costs 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Retail - MXD 13,700,571$ 13,700,571$ 13,700,571$ 13,700,571$ Loan Period (months) 24 24 24 24 Retail - Transit Garage 5,554,286$ 5,554,286$ 5,554,286$ 5,554,286$ Avg. Outstanding Balance 60% 60% 60% 60%

Afordable Financing Costs (Bond) Total Capitalized Value 102,235,657$ 102,235,657$ 89,615,121$ 89,615,121$ Loan-to-Cost Ratio 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0%Interest Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Residual Land ValueFees/Points/Loan Costs 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Total Capitalized Value 102,235,657$ 102,235,657$ 89,615,121$ 89,615,121$ Loan Period (months) 24 24 24 24 Less: Development Costs (92,065,855)$ (86,744,557)$ (87,528,480)$ (82,207,182)$ Avg. Outstanding Balance 60% 60% 60% 60% Less: Developer Profit (10,152,456)$ (9,565,656)$ (10,017,699)$ (9,430,899)$

Total Residual Land Value 17,346$ 5,925,444$ (7,931,058)$ (2,022,960)$ Hard Costs - Residential/sq.ft. 175$ 175$ 175$ 175$ Residual Land Value/Acre 4,294 2,112,672 (1,963,133) (721,271) Hard Costs - Retail / sq. ft. inc. tenant allowance 130$ 130$ 130$ 130$ Soft Costs (as % of hard) 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%Impact Fees/Res Unit 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ Developer Profit (as % of Hard + Soft Costs) 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%




Interest 5,939,187$ 5,595,909$ 343,278$ -$ Gross Built Square Feet Points/Fees 1,522,868$ 1,434,848$ 88,020$ -$






Total Land Value 17,346$ 5,925,444$ (7,931,058)$ (2,022,960)$ Tax Credit Rate NA NA 3.2% 3.2%Land Value/Acre 4,294$ 2,112,672$ (1,963,133)$ (721,271)$ Tax Credit Price NA NA 0.90$ 0.90$ Land Value/Per Sq. Foot of Land 0.10$ 48.50$ (45.07)$ (16.56)$ Total Equity Raised NA NA 3,827,628$ 3,827,628$ Land Value / Per Residential Unit 14$ 6,859$ (6,374)$ (2,342)$


Charette Scenario B - Mid-Rise Buildings Pro Forma Analysis



Charrette Scenario C - Wrap, Townhouses, & 5+1 Buildings No inflaton factors

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 - NA Alternative 3 Alternative 4 - NA DEVELOPMENT COSTS - RENTAL PORTIONS OF PROJECT Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4





Transit Garage ParcelMixed Income without Transit Garage Parcel 5+1 Building

Market Rate PortionSite Size (acres) with Transit Garage Parcel 4.04 4.04 Hard & Soft Costs for Units 24,219,000$ -$ 19,375,200$ -$ Transit Garage Parcel (acres) Impact Fees 325,000$ -$ 260,000$ -$ Market-Rate Rental Residential Units in 5+1: Parking for Units 1,297,018$ -$ 1,037,615$ -$

Number of 1-BDR 65 52 Subtotal 25,841,018$ -$ 20,672,815$ -$ Size of 1-BDR 700 700Rent for 1-BDR 2.20$ 1,540$ -$ Affordable Portion

Hard & Soft Costs for Units -$ -$ 4,440,150$ -$ Number of 2-BDR 65 52 Impact Fees -$ -$ 65,000$ -$ Size of 2-BDR 1,100 1,100 Parking for Units -$ -$ -$ -$ Rent for 2-BDR 2.00$ 2,200$ -$ Subtotal -$ -$ 4,505,150$ -$

Total Residential Units 130 104 Retail PortionTotal Rentable Sq. Ft. 117,000 93,600 Hard & Soft Costs 2,447,640$ -$ 2,447,640$ -$ Common Area 15% 17,550 14,040 Parking for Retail -$ -$ -$ -$

Total Residential Gross Sq. Ft. 134,550 107,640 Subtotal 2,447,640$ -$ 2,447,640$ -$

Vacancy Rate 5.0% 5.0% Total Costs for 5+1 Building 28,288,658$ -$ 27,625,605$ -$

Affordable Rental Residential Units in 5+1:AMI Limit 50% 50% Wrap BuildingMedian Income 86,700$ -$ Market Rate Rental in Wrap - Hard & Soft 15,160,860$ -$ 15,160,860$ -$ Number of 1-BDR 0 13Size of 1-BDR 650 650 Retail in Wrap Building - Hard & Soft 3,556,800$ -$ 3,556,800$ -$ Rent for 1-BDR (King County Less Utility Allowance) 756$ -$ Parking in Wrap (inc. 300 spaces for transit riders) 5,258,257$ -$ 5,258,257$ -$

Impact Fees for Wrap Building 190,000$ -$ 190,000$ -$ Number of 2-BDR 0 13 Total Costs for Wrap Building 24,165,917$ -$ 24,165,917$ -$ Size of 2-BDR 1,000 1,000 Rent for 2-BDR (King County - Utility Allowance) 902$ -$ Total Dev Costs Before Financing 52,454,575$ -$ 51,791,522$ -$

Total Residential Units 0 26 Financing Costs (a)Total Rentable Sq. Ft. - 21,450 Interest for Conventional Loan for 5+1 and Wrap 4,091,457$ -$ 1,884,942$ -$ Common Area 15% - 3,218 Fees/Points for Conventional Loan 1,049,092$ -$ 483,318$ -$

Total Residential Gross Sq. Ft. - 24,668 Interest for Bond-Financed Portion (5+1 Mixed income buiilding) -$ -$ 1,152,772$ -$ Fees/Loan Costs for Bond-Financed Portion (5+1 mixed-income bldg -$ -$ 120,080$ -$

Vacancy Rate 5.0% 5.0% Subtotal 5,140,548$ -$ 3,641,112$ -$

Market Rate Rental Residential Units in Wrap: Total Dev Costs exc. Land & Profit - Income Portions of Project 57,595,124$ -$ 55,432,633$ -$ Number of 1-BDR 38 38 VALUE ANALYSIS (at Yr 2 stablization) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4Size of 1-BDR 750 750 Market-Rate Res Rental Units (both buildings)Rent for 1-BDR 1,650$ 1,650$ Gross Rental Revenue 4,063,200$ -$ 2,238,000$ -$

Less: Vacancy (203,160)$ -$ (111,900)$ -$ Number of 2-BDR 38 38 Less: Property Taxes (260,000)$ -$ -$ -$ Size of 2-BDR 1,200 1,200 Less: Operating Costs (585,000)$ -$ -$ -$ Rent for 2-BDR 2,300$ 2,300$ NOI 3,015,040$ -$ 2,126,100$ -$

Total Residential Units 76 76 Affordable Res Rental Units (5+1 building)Total Rentable Sq. Ft. 74,100 74,100 Gross Rental Revenue -$ -$ -$ -$ Common Area 10% 7,410 7,410 Less: Vacancy -$ -$ -$ -$

Total Residential Gross Sq. Ft. 81,510 81,510 Less: Property Taxes -$ -$ -$ -$ Less: Operating Costs -$ -$ -$ -$

Vacancy Rate NOI -$ -$ -$ -$

Townhouse Market Rate For-Sale Units: Retail - MXDNumber of Units 12 12 Gross Rental Revenue 923,760$ -$ 923,760$ -$ Size of Units 1,500 1,500 Less: Vacancy (92,376)$ -$ (92,376)$ -$ For-Sale Price 450,000$ 450,000$ NOI 831,384$ -$ 831,384$ -$

Retail Space Caplitalized Value of Income Portions of ProjectSq. Ft. in 5+1 Building 15,690 15,690 Market-Rate Residential Units 54,818,909$ #DIV/0! 38,656,364$ #DIV/0!Sq. Ft. in Wrap Building 22,800 22,800 Affordable Residential Units -$ #DIV/0! -$ #DIV/0!

Total Sq. Ft. 38,490 38,490 Retail - MXD 11,876,914$ #DIV/0! 11,876,914$ #DIV/0!Rent/sq.ft. (NNN) 2.00$ 2.00$ Total Capitalized Value 66,695,823$ #DIV/0! 50,533,278$ #DIV/0!Vacancy Rate 10.0% 10.0%

Parking: Residual Land Value for Income Portions of ProjectFor Residential Units Total Capitalized Value 66,695,823$ #DIV/0! 50,533,278$ #DIV/0!

At-Grade Garage - Number of Spaces 145 145 Less: Development Costs (57,595,124)$ -$ (55,432,633)$ -$ At-Grade Garage - Cost per Space 15,000$ 15,000$ Less: Developer Profit (6,294,549)$ -$ (6,214,983)$ -$ Below-Grade Number of Spaces 0 0 Residual Land Value 2,806,151$ #DIV/0! (11,114,338)$ #DIV/0!Below-Grade Cost per Space -$ -$

Total Parking Spaces for Residential Units 145 145

For Retail Space: Townhouse ComponentAt-Grade Number of Spaces 0 0 Revenue From Sales 5,400,000$ -$ 5,400,000$ -$ At-Grade Cost per Space -$ -$ Less:Development Costs - Hard & Soft (3,996,000)$ -$ (3,996,000)$ -$

Less: Impact Fees (30,000)$ -$ (30,000)$ -$ For Transit At-Grade Garage (in Wrap Bldg Garage) Less: Financing Costs - Interest (b) (141,313)$ -$ (141,313)$ -$

Number of Spaces 300 300 Less: Financing Costs - Points (b) (72,468)$ -$ (72,468)$ -$ Cost per Space 15,000$ -$ Less: Developer Profit (479,520)$ -$ (479,520)$ -$

Residual Land Value 680,699$ -$ 680,699$ -$ Market Rate Rental Financing Costs

Loan-to-Cost Ratio 90.0% 90.0%Interest Rate 6.5% 6.5% Total Residual Land Value 2,806,151$ #DIV/0! (11,114,338)$ #DIV/0!Fees/Points/Loan Costs 2.0% 2.0% Residual Land Value/Acre 694,592 #DIV/0! (2,751,074) #DIV/0!Loan Period (months) 24 24Avg. Outstanding Balance 60% 60%

Afordable Rental Financing Costs (Bond)Loan-to-Cost Ratio 90.0% 90.0%Interest Rate 4.0% 4.0%Fees/Points/Loan Costs 0.5% 0.5%Loan Period (months) 24 24Avg. Outstanding Balance 60% 60%

Market Rate Townhouse Construction LoanLoan-to-Cost Ratio 90.0% 90.0%Interest Rate 6.5% 6.5%Fees/Points/Loan Costs 2.0% 2.0%Loan Period (months) 12 12Avg. Outstanding Balance 60% 60%

Hard Costs - Wrap Residential/sq.ft. 155$ 155$ Hard Costs - 5+1 Residential 150$ 150$ Hard Costs - Townhouse 185$ 185$ Hard Costs - Retail / sq. ft. inc. tenant allowance 130$ 130$ Soft Costs (as % of hard) 20.0% 20.0%Impact Fees/Res Unit 2,500$ 2,500$ Developer Profit (as % of Hard + Soft Costs) 12.0% 12.0%

Operating Costs - Market Rate Unit/Yr 4,500$ -$ Property Taxes - Market Rate Rental (approx) 2,000$ -$ Operating Costs - Aff Unit/Yr 5,500$ -$ Property Taxes - Affordable Rental 1.8% NA NA

Cap Rate - Market Rate Rental Residential 5.5% 5.5%Cap Rate - Affordable Rental Residential 6.0% 6.0%Cap Rate - Retail MXD 7.0% 7.0%Cap Rate - Retail in Transit Garage 7.0% 7.0%Outputs - Do Not EditTotal Number of Residential Units 218 218 (a) Financing Cost Calculations

Total For-Sale Units 12 12 Conventional Loan (in 5+1 if all market rate, plus wrap building inc. transit spaces)Total Rental Units 206 206 5+1 Building 28,288,658$ -$ NA NA

Rental Units in Mixed-Income Building (5+1) 130 130 Wrap Building 24,165,917$ -$ 24,165,917$ -$ Percent of Rental Units - Market Rate 100.0% 80.0% Total Loan Amount 52,454,575$ -$ 24,165,917$ -$ Percent of Rental Units - Affordable 0.0% 20.0% Interest 4,091,457$ -$ 1,884,942$ -$

Points/Fees 1,049,092$ -$ 483,318$ -$ Gross Built Square Feet

Rental Residential 216,060 213,818 Bond Loan For 5+1 Building if Aff Housing Included)For-Sale Townhouses 18,000 18,000 Amount of Loan for Mkt Res + Parking + Retail NA NA 20,808,409$ -$ Retail 38,490 38,490 Interest NA NA 998,804$ -$ Parking for Mixed-Use Project 350 50,750 50,750 Points/Fees NA NA 104,042$ -$

Subtotal MXD Project 323,300 321,058 Bond Loan For Aff Res + Aff Parking Portion

Parking for Transit Garage (sq. ft.) 350 105,000 105,000 Total Dev Cost Before Land for Aff Res + Aff Pkg NA NA 4,505,150$ -$ Equity Calc:

Parking Ratios: LIHTC Basis NA NA 4,505,150$ -$ Residential 0.67 0.67 Tax Credit Term NA NA 10 10

Tax Credit Rate NA NA 3.2% 3.2%Residual Land Values: Tax Credit Price NA NA 0.90$ 0.90$

Total Land Value 2,806,151$ (11,114,338)$ Total Equity Raised NA NA 1,297,483$ -$ Land Value/Acre 694,592$ (2,751,074)$ Balance to be Financed NA NA 3,207,667$ -$ Land Value/Per Sq. Foot of Land 15.95$ (63.16)$ Interest NA NA 153,968$ -$ Land Value / Per Residential Unit 3,186$ (12,620)$ Points/Fees NA NA 16,038$ -$

(b) Conventional Loan - TownhousesTotal Loan Amount 3,623,400$ -$ 3,623,400$ -$ Interest 141,313$ -$ 141,313$ -$ Points/Fees 72,468$ -$ 72,468$ -$

Charette Scenario C - Wrap, Townhouses, & 5+1 Buildings Pro Forma Analysis



Charrette Scenario A - Multiple 5+2 Buildings -Refined Analysis to Incorporate Incentive PaymentsNo inflaton factors

Does not account for density FAR purchaseAlternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 DEVELOPMENT COSTS Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4







Number of 1-BDR 110 110 88 88 Retail Space - MXD - Hard & Soft Costs 3,885,200$ 3,885,200$ 3,885,200$ 3,885,200$ Size of 1-BDR 700 700 700 700 Rent for 1-BDR 2.20$ 1,540$ 1,540$ 1,540$ 1,540$ Parking for MXD - Hard & Soft Costs




Vacancy Rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% City Impact Fees / Incentive / InfrastructureMarket Rate Res Units 1,894,901$ 1,894,901$ 699,459$ 699,459$

Affordable Residential Units Affordable Res Units -$ -$ 180,000$ 180,000$ AMI Limit 50% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% Subtotal 1,894,901$ 1,894,901$ 879,459$ 879,459$ Median Income 86,700$ 86,700$ 86,700$ 86,700$ Number of 1-BDR 0 0 22 22Size of 1-BDR 650 650 650 650 Total Dev Costs Before Financing 56,671,101$ 51,271,101$ 54,744,859$ 49,344,859$ Rent for 1-BDR (King County Less Utility Allowance) 756$ 756$ 756$ 756$

Financing Costs (a)Number of 2-BDR 0 0 22 22 Interest for Conventional Portion 3,978,311$ 3,599,231$ 379,080$ -$ Size of 2-BDR 950 950 950 950 Fees/Points for Conventional Portion 1,020,080$ 922,880$ 97,200$ -$ Rent for 2-BDR (King County - Utility Allowance) 902$ 902$ 902$ 902$ Interest for Bond-Financed Portion -$ -$ 2,058,302$ 2,058,302$




Retail Space Gross Rental Revenue 4,936,800$ 4,936,800$ 3,949,440$ 3,949,440$ Sq. Ft. in MXD Buildings 26,600 26,600 26,600 26,600 Less: Vacancy (246,840)$ (246,840)$ (197,472)$ (197,472)$ Sq. Ft. in Transit Garage 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Less: Property Taxes (440,000)$ (440,000)$ -$ -$

Total Sq. Ft. 35,600 35,600 35,600 35,600 Less: Operating Costs (990,000)$ (990,000)$ (792,000)$ (792,000)$ Rent/sq.ft. (NNN) 2.00$ 2.00$ 2.00$ 2.00$ NOI 3,259,960$ 3,259,960$ 2,959,968$ 2,959,968$ Vacancy Rate 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%


For Residential Units Less: Vacancy -$ -$ (21,888)$ (21,888)$ At-Grade Podium Garage - Number of Spaces 113 113 113 113 Less: Property Taxes -$ -$ -$ -$ At-Grade Podium Garage - Cost per Space 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ Less: Operating Costs -$ -$ (242,000)$ (242,000)$ Below-Grade Number of Spaces 43 43 43 43 NOI -$ -$ 173,873$ 173,873$ Below-Grade Cost per Space 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$

Total Parking Spaces for Residential Units 156 156 156 156 Retail - MXDGross Rental Revenue 638,400$ 638,400$ 638,400$ 638,400$

For Retail Space: Less: Vacancy (63,840)$ (63,840)$ (63,840)$ (63,840)$ At-Grade Podium Number of Spaces 0 - - - NOI 574,560$ 574,560$ 574,560$ 574,560$ At-Grade Cost per Space 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$



Market Rate Financing Costs Caplitalized Value of ProjectLoan-to-Cost Ratio 90.0% 90% 90% 90% Market-Rate Residential Units 59,272,000$ 59,272,000$ 53,817,600$ 53,817,600$ Interest Rate 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Affordable Residential Units -$ -$ 2,897,890$ 2,897,890$ Fees/Points/Loan Costs 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Retail - MXD 8,208,000$ 8,208,000$ 8,208,000$ 8,208,000$ Loan Period (months) 24 24 24 24 Retail - Transit Garage 2,777,143$ 2,777,143$ 2,777,143$ 2,777,143$ Avg. Outstanding Balance 60% 60% 60% 60%

Afordable Financing Costs (Bond) Total Capitalized Value 70,257,143$ 70,257,143$ 67,700,633$ 67,700,633$ Loan-to-Cost Ratio 90.0% 90% 90% 90%Interest Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Residual Land ValueFees/Points/Loan Costs 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Total Capitalized Value 70,257,143$ 70,257,143$ 67,700,633$ 67,700,633$ Loan Period (months) 24 24 24 24 Less: Development Costs (61,669,492)$ (55,793,212)$ (57,493,847)$ (51,617,567)$ Avg. Outstanding Balance 60% 60% 60% 60% Less: Developer Profit (6,800,532)$ (6,152,532)$ (6,569,383)$ (5,921,383)$

Total Residual Land Value 1,787,119$ 8,311,399$ 3,637,403$ 10,161,683$ Hard Costs - Residential/sq.ft. 150$ 150$ 150$ 150$ Residual Land Value/Acre 442,356$ 2,963,366$ 900,347$ 3,623,071$ Hard Costs - Retail / sq. ft. inc. tenant allowance 130$ 130$ 130$ 130$ Soft Costs (as % of hard) 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Impact Fees 427,200$ 427,200$ 427,200$ 427,200$ Infrastructure -$ -$ -$ -$ Retail Impact Fees / Incentive / Infrastructure 427,200$ 427,200$ 427,200$ 427,200$ Impact Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure -$ -$ 180,000$ 180,000$ Aff Hsng Impact Fees / Incentive / Infrastructure -$ -$ 180,000$ 180,000$ Impact Fees (Including credit for existing) 63,059$ 63,059$ (20,541)$ (20,541)$ Incentive requirements 931,842$ 931,842$ -$ -$ Infrastructure 900,000$ 900,000$ 720,000$ 720,000$ Market Hing Impact Fees / Incentive / Infrastructure 1,894,901$ 1,894,901$ 699,459$ 699,459$ Developer Profit (as % of Hard + Soft Costs) 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%




Interest 3,978,311$ 3,599,231$ 379,080$ -$ Gross Built Square Feet Points/Fees 1,020,080$ 922,880$ 97,200$ -$






Total Land Value 1,787,119$ 8,311,399$ 3,637,403$ 10,161,683$ Tax Credit Rate NA NA 3.2% 3.2%Land Value/Acre 442,356$ 2,963,366$ 900,347$ 3,623,071$ Tax Credit Price NA NA 0.90$ 0.90$ Land Value/Per Sq. Foot of Land 10.16$ 68.03$ 20.67$ 83.17$ Total Equity Raised NA NA 2,342,419$ 2,342,419$ Land Value / Per Residential Unit 2,011$ 13,470$ 4,092$ 16,469$


Charette Scenario A - Multiple 5+1 Buildings Pro Forma Analysis

AAAppppppeeennndddiiixxx::: RRReeefffiiinnneeeddd FFFeeeaaasssiiibbbiiillliiitttyyy TTTeeessstttiiinnnggg fffooorrr SSSccceeennnaaarrriiiooo AAA (((555+++111)))

130T

H A

ve.

NE

TO

D S

tudy

Belle

vue,

Was

hing

ton

D

ecem

mbe

r 2

013

A

B

C

D

mandir

Line

130T

H A

ve. N

E T

OD

Stu

dyBe

llevu

e, W

ashi

ngto

n

Dec

embe

r 2

013

mandir

Line

130T

H A

ve. N

E T

OD

Stu

dyBe

llevu

e, W

ashi

ngto

n

Dec

embe

r 2

013

Plan alternatives approach.Plan alternatives approach.

Following the fi rst charrette and after receiving direction from client, Following the fi rst charrette and after receiving direction from client, we developed a framework or “urban block structure”, on three (3) par-we developed a framework or “urban block structure”, on three (3) par-cels that Sound Transit has identifi ed for their surface park-and-ride, cels that Sound Transit has identifi ed for their surface park-and-ride, based on the Station Area Plan.based on the Station Area Plan.

We provided a north-south 131st Ave, between 130th and 132nd Ave, We provided a north-south 131st Ave, between 130th and 132nd Ave, that straddles the existing property lines. This allows for the Sound that straddles the existing property lines. This allows for the Sound Transit parcels to be developed with half-street improvements of 131st Transit parcels to be developed with half-street improvements of 131st Ave. We also provided two (2) east-west streets, according to the Sta-Ave. We also provided two (2) east-west streets, according to the Sta-tion Area Plan: 16th street extension and 17th street farther north. The tion Area Plan: 16th street extension and 17th street farther north. The location for 17th street was defi ned by the north property line of the location for 17th street was defi ned by the north property line of the NW Sound transit parcel, again straddling the existing property line. NW Sound transit parcel, again straddling the existing property line. Finally, we dedicated extra right-of-way dimension to existing 130th Finally, we dedicated extra right-of-way dimension to existing 130th and 132st Avenues, to allow for future street improvements. and 132st Avenues, to allow for future street improvements.

The resulting street grid creates three (3) new city blocks (or develop- The resulting street grid creates three (3) new city blocks (or develop-ment parcels) on the Sound Transit properties: NW parcel 1. SW parcel ment parcels) on the Sound Transit properties: NW parcel 1. SW parcel 2 and SE parcel 3. For the purpose of our study, we kept this block 2 and SE parcel 3. For the purpose of our study, we kept this block structure a constant, and we created 3 study alternatives that vary structure a constant, and we created 3 study alternatives that vary building types within this framework: A, B, and C. building types within this framework: A, B, and C.

In addition, we were asked to explore what could be done with an ad-In addition, we were asked to explore what could be done with an ad-jacent piece of land, directly north east of the Sound Transit property. jacent piece of land, directly north east of the Sound Transit property. We include this parcel in our study as a stand-alone puzzle piece. The We include this parcel in our study as a stand-alone puzzle piece. The proposed street grid makes it possible to plug the puzzle piece in at proposed street grid makes it possible to plug the puzzle piece in at any point, or leave it out, thus allowing for maximum phasing fl exibil-any point, or leave it out, thus allowing for maximum phasing fl exibil-ity. ity.

The study, set up as described above, allows us to analyze a range of The study, set up as described above, allows us to analyze a range of building types: from 3 story townhouses, via a 5-over-1 double-loaded building types: from 3 story townhouses, via a 5-over-1 double-loaded apartment building and a “Texas-wrap” style apartment building, to apartment building and a “Texas-wrap” style apartment building, to a 13 story concrete/steel tower that maximizes the 150’ height allow-a 13 story concrete/steel tower that maximizes the 150’ height allow-ance. In addition it allows us to evaluate the best location of these ance. In addition it allows us to evaluate the best location of these building types within the proposed (constant) urban framework. building types within the proposed (constant) urban framework.

Existing Sound Transit Parcels=approximately 175,931 SF (4.04 Acres) Future development parcels: NW parcel 33,618 SFSW parcel 22,412 SFSE parcel 33,967 SFTotal Parcels 1 thru 3: 89,997 SF (51%) Right of way dedication Parcels 1 thru 3: 85,934 SF (49%)

NE Parcel 33,619 SFPark Parcel 22,762 SFRight of way dedication NE Parcel: 45,996 (45%)

mandir

Line

130T

H A

ve. N

E T

OD

Stu

dy

Belle

vue,

Was

hing

ton

D

ecem

ber

201

3

mandir

Line

130T

H A

ve. N

E T

OD

Stu

dyBe

llevu

e, W

ashi

ngto

n

Dec

embe

r 2

013

AA

A Block NW level units parking stalls retail area parking ratio res SF floorplateP and R 4 38 33,600P and R 3 96 33,600P and R 2 96 33,600active uses+parking GF 70 9,000 33,600total 0 300 9,000 n/a 0 134,400

A Block SW level units parking stalls retail area parking ratio res SF floorplateresidential 6 18 18,400 18,400residential 5 18 18,400 18,400residential 4 18 18,400 18,400residential 3 18 18,400 18,400residential 2 18 18,400 18,400active uses GF 32 11,200 22,400parking 1 32 11225

total 90 64 11,200 0.71 92,000 125,625

A Block SE level units parking stalls retail area parking ratio res SF floorplateresidential 6 26 26,400 26,400residential 6 26 26,400 26,400residential 5 26 26,400 26,400residential 4 26 26,400 26,400residential 3 26 26,400 26,400residential 2 26 26,400 26,400active uses GF 36 22,800 33,000parking 1 56 22,000total 130 92 22,800 0.71 132,000 187,000

A Total 220 456 43,000 0.71 224,000 447,025

mandir

Line

130T

H A

ve. N

E T

OD

Stu

dyBe

llevu

e, W

ashi

ngto

n

Dec

embe

r 2

013

B

B Block NW level units parking stalls retail area parking ratio res SF floorplateresidential 6 26 25,600 25,600residential 5 26 25,600 25,600residential 4 26 25,600 25,600residential 3 26 25,600 25,600residential 2 26 25,600 25,600active uses GF 30 22,000 33,600parking 1 60 22,400total 130 90 22,000 0.69 128,000 184,000

B Block SW level units parking stalls retail area parking ratio res SF floorplateresidential 13 18 18,400 18,400residential 12 18 18,400 18,400residential 12 18 18,400 18,400residential 11 18 18,400 18,400residential 10 18 18,400 18,400residential 9 18 18,400 18,400residential 8 18 18,400 18,400residential 7 18 18,400 18,400residential 6 18 18,400 18,400residential 5 18 18,400 18,400residential 4 18 18,400 18,400parking 3 63 22,400parking 2 63 22,400active uses GF 0 22,400 22,400total 180 126 22,400 0.70 184,000 251,200

B Block SE level units parking stalls retail area parking ratio res SF floorplateP and R 4 94 33,000P and R 3 94 33,000P and R 2 94 33,000active uses+parking GF 43 18,000 33,000total 0 325 18,000 n/a 0 132,000

B Total 310 541 62,400 0.70 312,000 567,200

mandir

Line

130T

H A

ve. N

E T

OD

Stu

dyBe

llevu

e, W

ashi

ngto

n

Dec

embe

r 2

013

C

C Block NW level units parking stalls retail area parking ratio res SF floorplateparking 9 42 14785parking 8 50 17,600parking 7 50 17,600residential+parking 6 12 50 16,000 33,600residential+parking 5 16 50 16,000 33,600residential+parking 4 16 50 16,000 33,600residential+parking 3 16 50 16,000 33,600residential+parking 2 16 50 16,000 33,600active uses GF 51 15,690 33,600total 76 443 15,690 1.88 80,000 251,585

C Block SW level units parking stalls retail area parking ratio res SF floorplateresidential 3 12,000 12,000residential 2 12,000 12,000live/work GF 12 16 3,200 12,000 12,000total 12 16 3,200 1.33 36,000 36,000

C Block SE level units parking stalls retail area parking ratio res SF floorplateresidential 6 26 26,400 26,400residential 5 26 26,400 26,400residential 4 26 26,400 26,400residential 3 26 26,400 26,400residential 2 26 26,400 26,400active uses GF 22,800 33,000total 130 0 22,800 0.00 132,000 165,000

Total 218 459 22,800 0.73 160,000 452,585

mandir

Line

130T

H A

ve. N

E T

OD

Stu

dyBe

llevu

e, W

ashi

ngto

n

Dec

embe

r 2

013

DD Block NE level units parking stalls retail area parking ratio res SF floorplateresidential 6 22 25,600 25,600residential 5 26 25,600 25,600residential 4 26 25,600 25,600residential 3 26 25,600 25,600residential 2 26 25,600 25,600parking GF 87 33,600total 126 87 0 0.69 128,000 161,600

total 126 87 0 0.69 128,000 161,600

mandir

Line

130T

H A

ve. N

E T

OD

Stu

dyBe

llevu

e, W

ashi

ngto

n

Dec

embe

r 2

013

A

B

C

D

mandir

Line

C:\Users\mandir\Dropbox\EAST CORRIDOR FINAL REPORTS\130th TOD OPPORTUNITY\The enclosed comment letters were submitted in October 2013 after the draft 130th TOD Opportunity Study was completed.doc

The enclosed comment letters were submitted in October 2013 after the draft 130th TOD Opportunity Study was completed.

This final report addresses the comments in these letters.

CBe

Iy oflevue

I

Post Office Box 90012 . Bellevue, Washington . 98009 9012

October 30, 2013

Mary Pat Lawlor

Principal Planner

Puget Sound Regional Council

1011 Western Avenue, Ste,500

Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Ms. Lawlor,

Thankyou forgiving usthe opportunityto collaborate on this reviewof TOD potentialatthe L30th

Avenue Station, through the Eastside Corridor Task Force of Growing Tronsit Communities. We

appreciate all the work by PSRC and the OTAK team to advance this opportunity in Bellevue.

City and ARCH staffworked with you and the consultant, OTAK, to clarify elements of the Bellevue code,

especially those relating to the allowed FAR, bonus system, parking ratios, on-site infrastructure, right-of-way dedication, site development costs and impact fees. We've also worked with you regarding

specificassumptionsoftheproforma. lfwecanbeofanyadditionalassistanceinclarifyinghowthecode applies or other inputs to the proforma, please let us know.

The draft study does an excellent job exploring development opportunities for the 130th site that wouldresult in a successful TOD project and an integrated park and ride that meet Sound Transit's objectives.

While the study is preliminary and more work will be needed to pursue a TOD project, this early workdemonstrates the potentialof such a project and shows how it would not only provide park and rideparking, but would directly increase transit ridership, activate the neighborhood, and create an

attractive urban development that could catalyze adjacent development.

The study supports and builds off of the early station area planning work that the city completed last

year. That early effort looked at examples of other transit stations that show how development can

help activate an area near a station and create housing, jobs and lively public spaces. Some examples

specifically showed how parking for stations can be arranged to both help activate the area - by

designing walking paths through active pedestrian corridors - and how parking areas benefit fromincreased security by putting pedestrians in well-lit, heavily traveled locations. ln your analysis thealternatives with the park and ride garage in the Northwest portion of the site echoed the benefits ofthe earlier work. Additionally, by avoiding a blank wall (or surface lot) next to the station platform and

having more "eyes" facing the station, those same alternatives improve station safety.

lf there is still an opportunity to make changes to the final report, we would suggest that it would be

helpfulfor the report to state the intent of the assessment more clearly and to reiterate Sound Transit'sand Bellevue's shared objectives. The purpose of the analysis might be stated as exploring the followingquestion: Could a public/private partnership result in a joint TOD/park-and-ride that advances a transit-supportive land use vision, in lieu of a stand-alone surface park-and-ride that is a deterrent to a transit-supportive environment-all without requiring additional Sound Transit funding? Additional value of theanalysis is to explore what forms of development look most promising, to test key variables, and to help

identify what needs to be looked at further during subsequent steps.

The proforma analysis includes alternatives with and without Sound Transit funding. Since all of thealternatives include a park and ride, this appears to show some alternatives that site and build publicparking supply for free. While we understand that the modelers may have done this as part of theiranalytical methodology, it creates confusion. Could these scenarios be described in a way that clarifies

their interpretation? The intent was to ensure that Sound Transit would be kept whole, not to have a

private TOD development shoulder all the costs associated with the park and ride.

Lastly, it may help to make the report clearer about what issues need further investigation and whatnext steps would be appropriate given the findings of the work to date.

Thank you again for the work you've completed. We found the process of collaborating with PSRC,

Sound Transit and others on this case study to be very effective. lt helped all of us better understandfuture possibilities for creating a successful development at the 13Oth Avenue station and to further ourshared objectives.

Sincerely,

Planning Director

Mandi Roberts, OTAK

Leonard McGhee, Sound Transit

Scott Kirkpatrick, Sound Transit

130th avenue ne transit-oriented development · 130th avenue ne transit-oriented development phase...

Documents