SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

;',k::-..c.rf?d MATERIAL ;. :,:e cdity Council p ECE 0 d ,t.r,.. ,.union of Packet ® April 7, 2016 1--20/ APR 07 2016 J Date CITY CLERK OFFICE Dear Mayor,Council, and Nelson, Since it will be difficult for me to squeeze my comments regarding the Economic and Fiscal Analysis performed for the Johnson Drive EDZ in the three minutes I will be allowed during the April 12th workshop, I am providing them in advance. 1. I believe that the local economic impacts from this project described in the study prepared by ALH are understated and flies in the face of dozens of other studies completed nationwide on the impacts of big box stores on local economies, as well as the"on the ground"experience across the country of the devastating impacts from these retailers, whose business model is nothing less than dominating markets and eliminating the competition - mostly small, locally owned businesses. The findings of the study are largely based on the assumption that continued growth in the Tri-Valley will create enough new market demand to satisfy both existing retail and the new Costco. What better incentive for pro-growth Council's in the Tri- Valley to put the pedal to the metal for new residential development! However,you can hardly characterize this project as sustainable development,which is a key goal of our General Plan and so important that the Vision Statement reads: "Pleasanton is committed to sustainable community principles and will meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.... as our city approaches buildout in the next few years, we will strive to maintain these desirable qualities by continuing to develop a ® safe, convenient, and uncongested circulation system .... by preserving our natural resources, including water and air quality, and our community's environmental sensitivity". This project is a huge step backward in achieving this vision. 2. The conclusion in the ALH study that there is sufficient retail demand for the Costco is odd in that ALH completed another economic study in 2013 on behalf of James Tong of Charter Properties that asserted that there was not enough demand in the Tri-Valley for the modest retail component of the Promenade mixed-use project proposed for Dublin at that time. This just happened to be the study result that Charter Properties wanted,and that the City of Dublin ultimately rejected. Either there is, or there is not, enough retail demand in the Tri Valley. You can't have it both ways depending on the goals of the developer. 3. A review of a half dozen random economic studies for big-box stores, major regional shopping centers, and hotel/conference centers performed by ALH since 2011 concluded that NONE of the projects examined would negatively impact local economies nor cause urban decay from existing abandoned businesses. These studies, completed for projects in Alameda, Roseville, Eldorado County, Kelseyville, Ukiah,as well as for the Villages at Dublin, look strikingly similar in tone, assumptions, and conclusions to the Johnson Drive Study. This all may be a coincidence, but it clearly calls for an independent peer review of the Johnson Drive economic and fiscal study from an independent consultant without a history of consistently supporting development projects. 4. The study also states that 60%of its sales will come from the market area of Dublin and Pleasanton, and the cumulative impacts from other planned retail projects will be negligible. However,the cumulative analysis considered only currently planned projects. How long do you