SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; 2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; 3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project,but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; or 4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. By comparison,recirculation is not required when new information merely amplifies, clarifies,or makes insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR(CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(6)). The Economic Impact Analysis presented in the Final SEIR indicates that impacts generated by Zone on the area's existing retail would be limited;that sales would not be diverted from any existing retail stores in the city but would instead comprise sales new to Pleasanton;that Downtown Pleasanton is anticipated to experience very limited, if any,sales impacts associated with the Zone; and,ultimately,that the Zone would not result in urban decay(i.e.,that physical deterioration in existing retail centers and area hotels would not likely result from the combined effect of full buildout of the EDZ and other cumulative retail or hotel developments). Because the analysis concluded the Zone would not result in physical impacts related to urban decay, no new impacts were identified;therefore, Economic Impact Analysis does not meet CEQA's definition of"significant new information"that would trigger recirculation prior to the City's consideration of it for certification. The critique of the Economic Impact Analysis presented by Civic Economics was reviewed by the City Council at a September 18,2017 Council meeting. In response to the critique that sales tax projections were overly optimistic, and questions from Council members,City Finance Director Tina Olson provided various comparisons for the sales tax projections, and discussed the following: • Transportation costs by land uses, • The Zone Transportation Fee,through which the City would recover some of its investment,reducing the amount owed to Costco for tax sharing, • Various methods other cities utilize to encourage economic development including special districts (Mello Roos),Tax Increment Financing Districts, Special Improvement Districts,Lease Revenue Bonds or Certificates of Participation,and tax sharing programs, • Funding options considered by City staff for physical improvements required for the Zone, including sales tax sharing, City inter-fund loan, issuance of bonds/secure bank loan, and the option of not financing the project.The impacts of each option were presented, • Costco' s audited financial reports,which,when adjusted to account for items such as foreign sales and gas prices, showed projected increases in sales growth, • A discussion that the sales tax sharing agreement will not exceed 25 years regardless of any outstanding monetary obligations owed to Costco by the City and that the City has no liability to pay outstanding monetary obligations to Costco if their operations cease within the City, and • A discussion that cost overruns would be paid with the City's TIF, and the other remaining projects would be funded equally by the City and Costco.