My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
10
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
081616
>
10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:46:13 PM
Creation date
8/10/2016 3:04:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
8/16/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
10
Document Relationships
10 ATTACHEMENT 1
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\081616
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br /> The supplemental report focuses specifically on the differences between the proposed <br /> Zone as described in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the <br /> Zone, and a theoretical but possible project (the Initiative Project) that would be <br /> implemented consistent with the initiative. <br /> The Zone proposed by the City and evaluated in the SEIR would involve a build out of <br /> the Johnson Drive area with up to 535,490 total square feet of building space, with <br /> 148,000 square feet of this area anticipated to comprise club retail uses, such as a <br /> Costco. The possible Initiative Project described in the supplemental report and <br /> compared to the Zone proposed by the City would have the same size and scope of <br /> development as the proposed Zone, but retail footprints would be limited to less than <br /> 50,000 square feet within the Johnson Drive area. Effectively, this would prohibit the <br /> establishment of large-format retail stores, such as a club retail use (e.g., Costco) or big <br /> box retail stores (e.g., Target or Best Buy) within the Johnson Drive area. <br /> While the two potential economic development zone projects would involve the same <br /> total square footage of building space, by replacing club retail with general retail uses <br /> and restricting individual retail use footprints to less than 50,000 square feet, the <br /> impacts of the Initiative Project would be different from those of the Zone in a number of <br /> ways. Among these differences: <br /> o Traffic Impacts. Although the Initiative Project would generate fewer vehicle trips to <br /> the Johnson Drive area, it would result in the same significant and unavoidable <br /> near-term and long-term transportation impacts that would result from the <br /> proposed Zone. In addition, funding of traffic improvements would likely be more <br /> difficult due to the smaller-footprint retail composition of the Initiative Project, in turn <br /> diminishing the feasibility of the Initiative Project. <br /> o Air Quality Impacts. Air emissions from operation of the Initiative Project would be <br /> lower than for the Zone. However, it is likely that operational emissions from the <br /> Initiative Project would, like the Zone, exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management <br /> District thresholds of significance. <br /> • Noise Impacts. Noise impacts resulting from construction and operation of the <br /> Initiative Project would be similar to that of the Zone. <br /> • Economic Impact. The Initiative Project would capture more market demand <br /> locally compared to the Zone (which would draw more market demand from the <br /> overall region). Thus the Initiative Project would result in substantially more <br /> impacts on existing retailers in Pleasanton and nearby, with the potential to cause <br /> more retailers to experience sales declines, possibly to the extent of resulting in <br /> store closures. The Initiative Project would divert $5.7 million of sales from local <br /> businesses per year at buildout in 2028, compared to $1.3 million of sales impacts <br /> per year at buildout under the Zone. <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.