RES 201131 - Laserfiche WebLink

would therefore not provide a specific framework for the City's review and approval of new uses and projects within the area. Without this framework, development within the area of the Project would likely proceed in an incremental fashion, and result in a low likelihood that multiple tenant commitments to the area would be made. As a result, transportation improvement costs required by the City for improvements to serve new uses within the Project area would likely fall on several developers,possibly acting independently,making it less likely for projects and associated transportation improvements to be financially feasible within the area. Therefore,the No Project Alternative would not encourage investment in the area of the Project nor serve to add value to these properties, and would not accomplish City Objective 1. 2. City Objective 2: Maximize the benefits of the location of the area of the Project as an infill site located along transportation corridors and near transit by encouraging the development of both locally and regionally accessible uses in the area of the Project. The No Project Alternative does not include adoption of the Project; as discussed above, without adoption of the Project, development within the area would likely proceed in an incremental fashion, and result in a low likelihood that multiple tenant commitments to the area would be made. Without the adoption of the Project,therefore,the mix and amount of uses that would likely be developed under the No Project Alternative would not serve to maximize the unique benefits of the location of the area as stated in City Objective 2, and this objective would not be met. 3. City Objective 3: Encourage the development of a diverse mix of uses in the City that would promote long-term economic growth by generating substantial new revenues for the City. The City has conducted multiple economic and fiscal analyses which indicate that, with adoption of the Project,the mix of uses anticipated to be developed within the area of the Project would yield a substantial level of fiscal and economic benefits, including up to $2.3 million in new City General Fund revenues annually (on full buildout)and up to approximately $383,975 annually in property taxes, as well as approximately $277,440 in annual revenue to the Pleasanton Unified School District(see also the fiscal and economic analysis prepared for the Final SEIR [Appendix A] as well as the Supplemental Comparative Analysis). The No Project Alternative does not include the adoption of the Project and development within the area under this alternative would, as discussed above, occur in an incremental fashion; as a result,the No Project Alternative would not encourage the development of a diverse mix of uses that would promote long-term economic growth in the area of the Project, and would not generate a substantial level of new revenues. Therefore,this alternative would not meet City Objective 3.