23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Draft Memorandum June 11, 2013 EPSP Alternatives Infrastructure Cost Burden Review Page 6 EPS also conservatively assumes that affordable housing and the destination uses do not contribute to program value. That is, these uses are not valued as part of the infrastructure feasibility tests. The analysis also assumes that the Operations Service Center and Transfer Station are relocated except for Alternative 4, opening up additional capacity for new development2. If these uses are not relocated, either total development would be reduced or density would need to increase. Development Cost EPS relies on preliminary planning-level development cost estimates provided by Kier Wright Civil Engineers Surveyors. These data are provided as part of the Appendix to this memorandum. Kier Wright has estimated costs for the on-site planning area, including major roadway improvements, sewer improvements, water line improvements, and soil mitigation (for compacted soils, as needed). Additionally, Kier Wright estimated development fees and connection charges for the development alternatives. This analysis assumes that Alternative 4 has the same backbone infrastructure costs as Alternative 2 and Alternatives 5 and 6 have the same backbone infrastructure costs as Alternative 3. Development is assumed to pay applicable school and park fees and/or dedicate land for these purposes. Any additional park improvement or school costs would need to come from other sources. A critical point regarding the infrastructure cost estimates is that all alternatives include costs associated with the future connection of El Charro Road to Stanley Boulevard, No fee credit to the traffic fees, regional or local, is assumed for traffic improvements. To the extent that any fee credit is granted by the City, the feasibility of the EPSP will improve. The analysis also considers the cost burden associated with development impact fees and other off-site fees. While these fees are typically paid by vertical builders, the cost in EPSP is substantial and is therefore considered in this analysis;. Fees include charges on development from water, wastewater, impervious surface, public facilities, traffic development, Tri-Valley Transportation Committee, school, park dedication, and GIS fees, as estimated by Kier Wright. Due to inclusion of park dedication fees, park development costs are excluded from this analysis. Affordable housing requirements are assumed to be satisfied within the program. 2 Alternative 4 assumes that the Operations Service Center and Transfer Station remain on the existing site. 3 In the subsequent more detailed analysis, the fee cost will net out residual land value that vertical builders would pay to a horizontal developer. P:11 21 0 0011210 9 0EastPleasanton\Report\In{restructure Burden Memorandum 4(6.10)1121090_Inrramm061013.docx