11 ATTACHMENT 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

and peak hour trips was higher in the Housing Element SEIR analysis. A summary of the intersection level of service at 33 intersections is provided with the assumption that the traffic impacts (and therefore the impact on intersection Level of Service) of any of the alternatives would be less than that of the Housing Element analysis. The memo also includes a qualitative roadway evaluation (p. 8) and concludes that providing access from Busch Road at Valley as well as Boulder Street is beneficial in that it disperses traffic loads and allows more compact intersection designs. It also notes that curvilinear roadway designs (as compared to a grid system) have disadvantages for pedestrian and bicycle travel by increasing the trip distance and possibly discouraging non-auto trips. Infrastructure Costs: Exhibit D includes an infrastructure cost estimate for each option. The infrastructure costs for each option are generally very similar and range from $61.1 million to $63.3 million. The slightly differences in infrastructure needs between the options (e.g. additional traffic signals required for options 5 and 6) are detailed in the summary. Water Supply Assessment: Exhibit E provides a Water Supply Assessment for the land use options and concludes that the water supply is adequate to support this level of development assuming the implementation of a recycled water system. An agreement is currently in place for a supply of recycled water through the El Charro Transmission Pipeline. Infrastructure Feasibility Analysis: Exhibit F provides an analysis of the potential development feasibility of five options (this is the only analysis of "Option 7" which is similar to Option 5A, 5B, and 5C in the Exhibit A). The feasibility analysis is based on a cost to value ratio (i.e. infrastructure cost as a percentage of development value) and a tax burden threshold test which calculates the special tax necessary to finance infrastructure costs as a percentage of development value. The consultant's conclusions were that Option 1 is the least feasible, Options 4 and 5 were marginally feasible, and Options 6 and 7 (corresponding substantially to current Option 6, and current Options 5A, 5B and 5C) were most feasible. Fiscal Impact Analysis: Exhibit G looks at the fiscal impact of development of each of the alternatives on the City's general fund. Assumptions are made about development value and property turnover, as well as population, employment and service populations. The costs of various City services are deducted from anticipated revenues from property and sales tax, and other revenues. All four plans analyzed are estimated to have a positive fiscal impact on the City's finances. IV. DISCUSSION POINTS As noted above, the East Pleasanton Specific Plan Task Force focused on several questions as it has refined the draft Preferred Plan. Staff is seeking the Planning Commission's feedback on these topics for the Preferred Plan: • What is the appropriate level of development given a desire to create a financially feasible plan? • How many residential units should be accommodated and what should be the balance between single family homes and multifamily units? P13-1858, East Pleasanton Specific Plan September 25, 2013 Page 5 of 6