Laserfiche WebLink
Draft Memorandum July 25, 2013 <br /> EPSP Infrastructure Feasibility Analysis Page 4 <br /> Table 1 — Residual Land Value Summary <br /> Resulting Land Value <br /> Assumed Price per unit or <br /> Item per unit sq.ft. Per Acre Notes <br /> Residential (market rate) <br /> 4 du/acre $1,400,000 $320,000 $1,281,000 <br /> 8 du/acre $975,000 $300,000 $2,397,000 <br /> 11 du/acre $800,000 $203,000 $2,233,000 <br /> 23 du/acre $450,000 $93,000 $2,137,000 <br /> 30 du/acre $372,000 $18,167 $545,000 surface <br /> 30 du/acre $372,000 ($57,000) ($1,699,000) podium <br /> Commercial <br /> Retail $73 $958,000 0.3 FAR <br /> Office ($109) ($1,658,000) class B/surface <br /> Office ($183) ($2,786,000) class A/podium <br /> Industrial ($23) ($354,641) 0.36 FAR <br /> Residual Land Value Analysis <br /> For a large-scale development project, the infrastructure cost burden must bear a reasonable <br /> relationship to the value of the development being created and must not onerously impact the <br /> developer and/or the eventual property owners. To conduct this financial feasibility analysis, EPS <br /> developed a set of vertical pro forma models for each land use and estimated a residual land <br /> value based on previously determined finished market values. The pro forma models are <br /> structured to solve for the difference between finished product revenues and vertical <br /> development costs (including impact fees), which reflect residual land value for each option. The <br /> summary of residual land values by land use is provided in Table 1 with detailed calculations <br /> included in Appendix C. <br /> Table 2 compares the difference between improved land values for each EPSP option to <br /> development cost along with the required developer return to estimate raw unimproved land <br /> value. This raw land value is what a developer would be willing to pay prior to any infrastructure <br /> improvement work. Feasibility of each development option is tested by determining whether the <br /> raw land value falls above the minimum threshold that would justify private investment. The <br /> calculation represents a snapshot in time, assuming full build-out. While this test may either <br /> overstate or understate the true financial performance of each option, it provides a relative <br /> performance comparison between development options. <br /> P;112100011Lo90EastPleasanton IRPPortllnhastructure Burden Memorandum1121090 Inha_mm3_072413 doer <br />