My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 17976
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
RES 17976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2017 9:31:19 AM
Creation date
11/13/2017 4:40:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/7/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
17976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
would provide less diversity of uses,and no club retail use,as well as a lower <br /> area of total new gross building space;therefore,the mix and amount of uses <br /> that would be provided under the Reduced Retail Alternative would not serve to <br /> "maximize"the unique benefits of the location of the area of the Zone as stated <br /> in City Objective 2,especially in comparison to the proposed Zone. <br /> 6. City Objective 3:Encourage the development of a diverse mix of uses in the <br /> City that would promote long-term economic growth by generating substantial <br /> new revenues for the City. The City has conducted multiple economic and fiscal <br /> analyses which indicate that,with adoption of the Zone,the mix of uses <br /> anticipated to be developed within the area of the Zone would yield a <br /> substantial level of fiscal and economic benefits,including up to$2.3 million in <br /> new City General Fund revenues annually(on full buildout)and up to <br /> approximately$383,975 annually in property taxes,as well as approximately <br /> $277,440 in annual revenue to the Pleasanton Unified School District(see also <br /> the fiscal and economic analysis prepared for the Final SEIR[Appendix A] as <br /> well as the Supplemental Comparative Analysis). Because it does not include a <br /> large retail anchor, includes a lower total area of new uses, and lacks the <br /> stability that a large retail anchor could provide(as discussed above under City <br /> Objective 1),the Reduced Retail Alternative would be much less likely to <br /> promote long-term economic growth to the same extent as the Zone,and would <br /> not generate the same, substantial level of new revenues as the Zone,making <br /> the full achievement of City Objective 3 less likely. <br /> Alternative 3, Partial Buildout(Phase I Only) <br /> Alternative 3, Partial Buildout(Phase I Only), would include some of the same uses <br /> as the proposed Zone, including general retail, club retail, and a hotel use, but would not include <br /> general retail uses to the same extent. <br /> Under this alternative, the Zone would be adopted, and only the uses anticipated for <br /> Phase I of the Zone would be developed, with no other development taking place within the Zone. <br /> Parcels 6, 9, and 10 would be developed in an initial phase that would take place within the same • <br /> buildout period for these parcels as described for the proposed Zone. Under this alternative, <br /> existing uses on other parcels within the area of the proposed Zone would continue to operate. <br /> This alternative includes approximately 259,500 square feet of new building area, <br /> including 148,000 square feet of club retail uses, 23,500 square feet of general retail uses, and <br /> 88,000 square feet of hotel uses. Under this alternative, it is assumed that development of the hotel <br /> uses would take place first and development of general retail uses would take place over a longer <br /> timeframe. <br /> The Partial Buildout Alternative would avoid significant air quality impacts of the <br /> proposed Zone: under this alternative, annual operational air emissions of PM10 would be less <br /> than 15 tons per year, and annual operational air emissions of NOx would be less than 10 tons per <br /> year and therefore these emission levels would be less than significant, per the thresholds <br /> established by the BAAQMD. This alternative would also generate fewer total traffic trips than the <br /> proposed Zone, which could result in fewer or lower impacts to LOS at adjacent intersections; <br /> however, the volume of traffic trips to the area of the proposed Zone that would be generated by <br /> 57 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.