11 ATTACHMENTS 05-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Draft Memorandum July 25, 2013 EPSP Infrastructure Feasibility Analysis Page 11 worth noting that developers' estimates of residential land values at EPSP range between $1.0 and $1.5 million per acre, below the EPS estimates. Development Cost EPS relies on planning-level development cost estimates provided by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers Surveyors. These data are provided as part of the Appendix A 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 options. 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 options 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. Off-site costs are assumed to be incurred by a master developer, while development impact fees are assumed to be paid by vertical builders in the residual land value analysis and their impact is reflected in the value estimates. Given the substantial size of the fees, the cost is also considered as a horizontal cost for the purpose of the cost/value ratio test and tax burden threshold tests. 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 met onsite. EPS also assumes that 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 (OSC) and Transfer Station are relocated except for development option 4, opening up additional capacity for new development'. While the relocation cost is unknown, this analysis assumes a cost of$10 million as a "place holder" and does not reflect any land value that may be internal to the deal. If these uses are not relocated, either total development would be reduced or density would need to increase. 7 Option 4 assumes that the Operations Service Center and Transfer Station remain on their existing sites. P:1121 0 0 011210 9 0Eas tPIeasanton\Reportpnfrastructure Burden MemorandumU21090Infra mm3_072413.docx