HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2008-08-18 Item 7C - Discussion - Tukwila Village Developer Proposals by Tarragon and Legacy Partners COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
•pItLA,
y Initial ITEM NO.
-4 1 S I
.r il4eeti4g Date Prepared by I Mayors review Councjpreview I
4 i �Al p
t 08/18/98 DCS 1 1
rsoa
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 08-100 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: AUGUST 18, 2008
AGI;ND.\ ITIa[ Tukwila Village: Developer presentations of proposals for Tukwila Village
Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance 1 1 BidAward (i Public Heating Other
Mfg Date 08/18/08 litg Date lltg Date Mtg Date Mlltg Date Illtg Date lltg Date
1SP()NSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Li Finance Fire 1 1 Legal 1 1 P&R Police 1 1 PIV
SPONsoR's Two developers have submitted proposals to develop Tukwila Village. At this meeting
SLIMML\RY both developers will present their proposals and answer questions. Over the next few
weeks, the Council will decide whether to begin negotiations with one of the developers.
BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
1 Utilities Cmte n Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Discussion
COMINIIT 'EL
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
ELPI .,NDITURI RI ;QUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0 $0 $0
Fund Source:
Con
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
1 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
08/18/08 Informational memo providing a basic statistical comparison of the proposals dated 8/12/08
Informational memo comparing statistics for proposed housing dated 8/14/08
Informational memo comparing developer experience dated 8/14/08
....(Please bring the 2 proposals from the developers distributed in July,)
lt a City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
�r� 0
orte- 0 1 Office of the Mayor
(P r•, 2
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
/900, www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
Date: August 12, 2008
To: City Council
Copy: Mayor
City Administrator
Council Analyst
From: Economic Development Ad .r= .r
Re: Tukwila Village Proposals Statistical Comparison
Attached is a chart comparing the basic statistics for the two developers' proposals for Tukwila
Village. The purpose of this chart is to provide an overview and help you recognize the
differences related to:
The estimated price the developers would pay the City for the property
The amount and type of development (e.g. retail, plaza, commons, housing)
The phasing of the development
Type and amount of parking
Please note: "structured parking" is generally at or above grade level, "underground" is generally
below grade level. Also, the parking is shown in terms of numbers of spaces and amount of
square feet. These are just two different ways of looking at the same amount of parking.
Tarragon's proposal refers to "residential living units My understanding is that these are
apartments and so I have shown them in that category. I am not sure about Tarragon's
townhouses.
Legacy's proposal states the townhouses would be for sale. The townhouses and senior
apartments in the Legacy proposal would be developed by the Low Income Housing Institute
(UHT) with Legacy as the master developer.
There are many other item to consider when comparing proposals. This week I will provide you
a more detailed comparison of the housing units and developer experience and capability. Next
week I will provide you my perspective on how the proposals compare to the evaluation criteria.
Please contact me at 206 -433 -1832 or dspeck @ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have any questions.
Tukwila Village Development Proposals
Statistical Comparison
Legacy Tarragon
Use Units Phase 1 Phase 2 Total Phase 1 Phase 2 Total
Library SF 12,400 12,400 10,000 10,000
Police SF 2,000 2,000 2,230 2,230
Retail SF 10,000 6,500 16,500 41,755 12,715 54,470
Housing
Apartments
SF 175,000 66,340 241,340 122,026 134,805 256,831
Units 200 68 268 144 154 298
Avg SF 750 750 750 847 875 862
Senior Apartments
SF 39,200 39,200
Units 50 50
Avg SF 550 550
Townhouses
SF 30,000 30,000 8,000 8,000
Units 25 25 4 4
Parking
Underground Spaces 270 68 338
Structured Spaces 172 256 428
Surface Spaces 110 12 122 113 113
380 80 460 285 256 541
Parking
Underground SF 47,600 23,800 71,400
Structured SF 69,920 101,590 171,510
Surface SF N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Outdoor plaza SF 8,000 8,000 20,000 20,000
Indoor commons SF 3,400 3,400
Total Gross Building SF 268,600 72,840 341,440 176,011 155,520 331,531
Construction Starts 9/2009 4/2010
Construction Completion 8/2011 4/2012 Total Development Cost $73,546,438 $95,000,000
Estimated Land Value $5,385,608
$2,352,240
Notes
(1) Total gross building square footage does not include parking.
(2) Legacy
The 200 apartments shown in phase 1 include 5 units of live /work artist housing.
Phase 2 could be a 40 to 60,000 square foot office building instead of the 68 apartments.
Of the 12,400 square feet for the library, 2,000 square feet are for future expansion.
(3) Tarragon
The total development cost of $95 'million is an average of a range from $90 to $100 million.
The estimated land value is an average of a range from $2,090,880 to $2,613,000.
(4) "N /A" means information is not available at this time.
(5) Estimated land value is the estimate of the price the developer would pay to buy the land from the City.
Printed: 8/12/2008 5:05 PM
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Of
un ali Office of the Mayor
N\ %4R 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
0 Tukwila, WA 98188
6.
www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
Date: August 14, 2008
To: City Council
Copy: Mayor
City Administrator
Council Analyst
From: Economic Developmen Ad r4 •i s r
Re: Tukwila Village Proposals Housing Comparison
Attached is a chart comparing the housing data for the two developers' proposals for Tukwila
Village. The purpose of this chart is to provide an overview identify the differences related to:
The number and type of housing units
The intended renters and owners (ages and incomes)
Affordability (maximum income limits)
In terms of setting aside units at below market rates to ensure affordability, the basic approaches
are:
Legacy: All 200 apai hnents are market rate. The 50 senior apartments would be set aside for
seniors earning 50% or less of the area median income (AMI). The 25 townhouses would be
sold to families earning 80% or less of AMI.
Note: The townhouses and senior apartments in the Legacy proposal would be developed by the
Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) with Legacy as the master developer.
Tarragon: Of the 297 apartments, 20% (or 59) would be set aside for families earning 80% or
less of AMI.
Note: Tarragon's proposal refers to "residential living units My understanding is that these are
apartments and so I have shown them in that category. I was unable to determine if Tarragon's
townhouses were for rent or for sale.
Please contact me at 206 433 -1832 or dspeck @ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have any questions.
Tukwila Village Development Proposals
Housing Comparison
Legacy Tarragon
Apartments
Studio Units 80 N/A
Average Square Feet 625 N/A
Rent 1,125 N/A
Minimum Income Required 45,000 N/A
1 Bedroom Units 80 N/A
Average Square Feet 750 N/A
Rent 1,237 N/A
Minimum Income Required 49,480 N/A
2 Bedroom Units 40 N/A
Average Square Feet 1,000 N/A
Rent 1,450 N/A
Minimum Income Required 58,000 N/A
Total Units 200 297
Average Square Feet 750 865
Rent 1,235 1,167
Minimum Income Required 49,392 46,697
Units with Maximum Income Limit 0% 20%
Townhouses
2 -3 bedrooms Units 25 4
Average Square Feet 1,200 2,000
Sale Prices or Rent N/A N/A
Minimum income Required N/A N/A
Maximum Income Allowed of AMI) 80% N/A
Senior Apartments
1 Bedroom Units 50
Rent $0 to $813
Minimum Income Required
Maximum Income Allowed 32,550
Maximum Income Allowed of AMI) 50%
Notes
(1) N/A Not available at this time.
(2) Minimum income required is the income needed to for rent to be "affordable" (renter pays no more
than 30% of annual income for rent).
(3) AMI the area median income for families in King County.
(4) Legacy's senior housing would be developed by the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI).
40 units would be available to seniors aged 62 and higher earning 50% or less of the AMI.
10 units would be available to seniors aged 62 and higher who are currently homeless.
Rent subsidies would be provided to property owner by the HUD 202 program.
(5) Legacy's 2- bedroom units include 5 that would be live -work lofts for artists.
(6) Legacy's townhomes would be developed by the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI).
All 25 units would be available to first time homebuyers earning 80% and below of KC median income.
(7) Tarragon's apartments would dedicate 20% of the units for families earning 80% or less of the AMI.
Printed: 8/14/2008 9:18 AM
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
t !iri Office of the Mayor
.t 1 /Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
`t• 1908 www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
Date: August 14, 2008
To: City Council
Copy: Mayor
City Administrator
Council Analyst
From: Economic Development Administrator
Re: Tukwila Village Developers Experience Comparison
Attached is a chart comparing the experience and capacity of the two potential developers for
Tukwila Village.
The purpose of this chart is to provide an overview of each firm's size and types of development
experience. Some basic conclusions:
Legacy is a larger company than Tarragon
Tarragon is headquartered in Seattle and Legacy is headquartered in California.
Tarragon has more retail experience in the Seattle market than Legacy
Legacy has constructed more apartments than Tarragon
Note: This chart includes only a small selection of the infouuation contained in the proposals
and earlier submissions for the qualifications process. Most of the infoimation came from the
proposals in which the developers were only asked to provide infoimation on their developments
within the past three years. Thus, the developers may have additional extensive experience prior
to the past few years or in other regions.
Please contact me at 206 433 -1832 or dspeck @ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have any questions.
2
a&±
c 7
ne/ c
1- c 0
-o
20— 0 a
e
(1).
y
0 030 m k
0 E c$ 2 o
7 a ƒ
o J t
ƒ -o\ .2 o
o 9 co t/
0 5 Ti). ƒ
u m a
o c 2
0 0) 2 k
0 0 t o)
E 3 7 0 0
g
L 2 a co
7 ƒ m m
7 0
7 o f
k a)J 0
0 c g y
c c c E
6 k a ca. 0 0
c 6 0
<1..) 0 0 3 2
k a 2 0
o m c
as
T.-.) R CO 2 E
-o 4 c a f 6 0
J o r 0 0
a e 2 0 a
o e o s e
ƒ 0 o o c k 0 f\ 5
m o 5 S 6 2
o e E .0 E a
o$ u o CO o e O e® J J e e
o CO f ƒ CO g 6
0 a.) m
c 0 E Q) 2 0 0
co E
cu 0
k j
6 e 0
a e# o_
g o in
CI e f 7 cq
0
m a e t n t o n I E
a 0
k E G ƒ 5
2 E 7 a e g o 3 0 0
0 ƒ 0 f ƒ k o ---1 I
CU ƒ k k k o ƒ z c2
g E a 0 e
a
0) N
0 O
I LO
\c° r
r (0 r r 0 co' O
<1" N N 0
0 0 O
M p 0 O 0 rte..
O? O O o «3 r
r 0 ooN o
o
00 o N. N
O -cT
Tam (0 r S 1
of
O (31 1- r o d
o Y
1 0
y 0 r u o
0 o
w o d o n
d o 0 o
O o
d o
m O o
o a o
N o N o0
U) c o O 0
0 O
0 r 0 0 0 0 i
N l O 0 0 0 0 0 a' c) c
y U N O O O O 0 CO r O
r 0 0 0 0 10 r'
E Q r y o o «3 o
d r
0 0 N M
0 0
is N (0 0 0 4
CL r 0 o 0 00 4 o Z
o� CD o
n C3 0 r Q C- z N
0 O a 4 4 N J CO) r- ci3
0 0 0 m Z Z o ‹43 f."'
0 C V
O O 4-
6o
N J d O O O N
o O O Q 0 0 N
O O cV
Q O
E
CD 0
C CD o rn m m N 0
47 O N 1- C
C O
o
n N O O v
O O N 2
O
0 0) O O O N a 0)
O 'i N N 0 G O Q.
I O O O d v 0 0( 0
N O- E O N O O 7 G v y U O O
o O
o a0 mc Q E 0 0
o N N 0 d O O O O 0 0
o O rn C N O Q- '0 O Q
m 0 0 (1) 10 0 0 U V
O N v 1
L Q
r N M d
.F8 Q 0 N U7 t..
d 0 aa d
1 a
0 0 4
0
O v 0 0, 4 3 4
S 0 O
7 0. 5 N t6 4 r N "O 'O
d 3'
0)
7C 1
--Zr y 0 M m
1 d o 4 c 4 c v N a C m 0 s.
4 is Obi N om 0 T m W J J
CO y 4 O-� 0 4 v R m c 7 N (I) e ..3 �i rn°; d L o mY N
co tC d 8. 0 0 0.y m a) o 0 a> f- 0-1 T 0 d to
N m 0� m m u
N III