23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Task Force members commented that although the alternatives included many of the elements they wished to see in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan, none of the alternatives at this point represented a "preferred plan" that they could agree upon. FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES Also attached to this agenda report is a Draft Memorandum prepared by Economic and Planning Systems: EPSP Alternatives Infrastructure Cost Burden Review (Attachment 3). This memorandum assesses the potential for the six draft alternatives to support the infrastructure costs required for development. This review builds on analysis of earlier alternatives which was presented to the East Pleasanton Task Force over the last several months. It provides an initial screen on the financial feasibility of the six alternatives, summarized in Figure 1 of the memo. This shows that while Alternative 4 (with the most industrial development) is the least feasible alternative, and Alternative (3 (with the most residential units) is the most feasible, Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 5 are marginally feasible. According to the consultant, these marginally feasible alternatives could be made more feasible by: • Phasing the major infrastructure items, so that the costs of major investments can be balanced against revenues from land development; • Product type optimization; future, more detailed analysis will look at the costs and revenues from different residential product types (large lot residential, small lot residential, townhomes, etc) and the mix can be optimized to increase financial feasibility; • Sharing the responsibility for transportation infrastructure funding; staff has assumed that this is to be entirely the responsibility of the private developers with no contribution from the City; • Developing affordable housing differently than assumed in the financial feasibility model. The consultants have assumed that the private developers will provide 15 percent affordable (restricted) units which are conservatively assumed at zero value for the purposes of calculating development value and contributing to the construction of infrastructure. If these units were provided by a non-profit developer with a contribution of land or cash from the City, the financial feasibility of these alternatives would improve. A representative from Economic and Planning Systems will be available at the meeting to discuss the financial feasibility findings. DISCUSSION Draft Plan Assumptions: The Plan Alternatives have been developed based on several assumptions. Staff seeks the City Council's concurrence or direction on the following: 1. The cost burden of needed on-site and off-site infrastructure will be paid for by development and that costs will not be shared by the larger community. The preliminary feasibility analysis lists a number of infrastructure items, including the construction of El Charro Road and the associated railroad undercrossing, which Page 3 of 9