SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone From: Matt Sullivan SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Date: Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:12 AM Provided to the City Council Subject:Johnson Drive EDZ Workshop After Distribution of Packet To: Mayor and City Council, Eric Luchini 0/‘ Cc: Nelson Fialho PtItl4 (Please forward to the Planning Commission) Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and Commissioners, There are so many problems with the Johnson Drive EDZ project that I almost don't know where to start. The shocking inconsistency of this proposal to our General Plan polices for sustainable development • Massive traffic and air quality impacts and the resulting quality of life degradation in surrounding neighborhoods • Lack of funding for and disregard of key traffic mitigations on the freeways • A severely flawed economic and fiscal study—the subject of a separate email I sent to you last week—that minimizes the likely negative impacts to our existing and small businesses • The fact that the developer refuses to pay a third of the infrastructure costs and expects a taxpayer subsidy of$5 million to build the project—unprecedented in the city • An approval process that undermines public participation and precludes our constitutional rights to overturn project approvals by voter referendum—another precedent With all these problems, why is the city still moving full speed ahead with this project? What I have heard is that the new tax revenue from the project will help pay for desired capital improvement projects such as a new library and City Hall or additional park features on the Bernal Property. But even if you believe the best-case projections of the fiscal study—which I don't-the new revenue will be less than one percent of the combined annual operating and capital improvement budgets. The revenue from the Costco alone will be less than one-half of one percent. This is hardly the cash-cow it's portrayed to be and will not come close to paying the hundreds of millions of dollars required for these projects. And this doesn't account for the taxpayer subsidies which will reduce this revenue further and which we still don't know the details. My recommendation is that you direct staff to implement Option 1: Stop work on the EDZ now. If you decide to go with Option 3, you should NOT certify the EIR nor complete the zoning changes now, but place the existing citizens' initiative on the ballot for the November election. Moving forward with the zoning now is the key strategy the city is using to limit public oversight of this project and should wait until after a public vote. Also, you should not place a Council sponsored competing initiative on the ballot as a cynical attempt to confuse the voters—as a previous Council did with Measure QQ. December 2015—April 2016(3) 1