Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />Bridget Metz <br />From:Steve Reilly <SReilly@landadvisors.com> <br />Sent:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 9:41 PM <br />To:Gerry Beaudin; Ellen Clark; Mike Tassano <br />Cc:Steve Dunn; Bridget Metz; Nadia Costa <br />Subject:Arroyo Lago PADA/El Charro <br />Attachments:TTL-1 Final 10.14.25 Legal Memo re Nexus (GVR, 10.14.25).pdf <br />[EXTERNAL EMAIL] <br />Gerry, Ellen & Mike, <br /> <br /> <br />First, thanks for all the hard work in preparation of the City Council meeting on the 21 st, we are greatly <br />appreciative of the eƯorts from staƯ since we restarted the process. <br /> <br />While we do not believe there is a nexus between Arroyo Lago and the El Charro Road extension, in the <br />spirit of good faith we are agreeing to a $3,000,000 community benefit payment to the city as part of the <br />PADA. To be clear, this is in addition to the reimbursement to the Villages at the Quarry project assuming <br />the Busch Road improvements are completed and in addition to the 2024 TIF fees we estimate will be <br />approximately $2,200,000. In total we estimate that Arroyo Lago will contribute approximately <br />$6,000,000 for traƯic improvements. <br /> <br />As Mike Tassano pointed out recently, we never provided Mike with a response to his proposed <br />methodology and allocation for the El Charro extension, so I thought we would take a minute and lay out <br />our position. Our team has spent a lot of time reviewing the El Charro Road Extension Assessment <br />prepared by Fehr & Peers dated February 12, 2025. As well as the cost allocation spreadsheet that Mike <br />Tassano provided. With regards to the City Arroyo Lago project 330 Land has the following issues with the <br />report and the proposed cost allocations. <br /> <br />1. We do not believe there is a legal NEXUS for additional El Charro exactions for Arroyo Lago on top <br />of TIF fees- See GVR Memo <br />2. We believe there are serios issues in the allocation methodology & conclusions of City/Fehr & <br />Peers Memo referenced above: <br />a. The allocation assumes a through put of only 2,400 vehicles total. The capacity of an <br />arterial roadway with periodic traƯic signals through a suburban environment is generally <br />accepted to be between 1,100 to 1,500 vehicles per hour per lane. The El Charro Road <br />extension between Stoneridge Drive and Stanley Boulevard is programmed to include two <br />travel lanes in each direction which equates to a capacity of between 2,200 to 3,000 <br />vehicles per hour per direction, meaning that this implies that the future four-lane wide El <br />Charro Road extension has unused capacity of at least 900 vehicles in each direction <br />during the p.m. peak hour to serve a greater number of vehicles, since a typical capacity for <br />a similar four-lane roadway is approximately 2,200 to 3,000 vehicles per hour in each <br />direction. This excess capacity should be included, because it means that the pro rata <br />share for all the projects in East Pleasanton would be reduced since their tra Ưic would be a <br />smaller percentage of the overall use. <br />䅔呁䍈䵅乔‱