SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Provided to the City Council Pleasanton City Clerk After Distribution of Packet •ubject: JDEDZ Comparative Analysis Date From: Matt Sullivan [mailto: ] Sent:Tuesday,August 16, 2016 10:09 AM To: Mayor and City Council<citycouncilpcitvofpleasantonca.gov>; Nelson Fialho<NFialho @cityofpleasantonca.gov> Subject:JDEDZ Comparative Analysis Dear Mayor, Council, and Nelson, I was surprised when reading the JDEDZ Supplemental Comparative Analysis for tonight's City Council meeting. I was expecting an impartial analysis of the effects of the initiative on the EDZ project, but what I found was a one-sided political argument against the initiative and in support of the big-box component of the plan. But then it struck me that the Mayor, three Councilmembers (with the fourth"neutral"), the city staff, the Planning Commission, and the Chamber of Commerce (who calls the shots anyway) all oppose the initiative and strongly supports Costco. Then it made sense: This is nothing but the first salvo in a city versus the public political campaign over a big-box store! The irony is that for those of us who oppose to the plan the city is using our own taxpayer money to fund a campaign against us. The Executive Summary lists some conclusions which seem to stray from previously presented "facts" into the realm of"political speech". For example: How can the report conclude that the transportation impacts of the initiative project would likely be the "Cow it would including one (or two?) big-box stores on the property? What about all the truck traffic that will be needed to support a Costco? What about all the cars going to and from the "biggest gas station in the state"? If Costco will be the regional draw its purported to be, what about all the cars coming on and off of I- 680 and I-580 to get there? This is a ludicrous conclusion. And since Costco/Nearon will not be paying for the critical transportation improvements on Johnson Drive, Stoneridge Drive, 580, 680, and 84 necessitated by the project as mitigations, the "diminishing feasibility" argument for funding is false. After all, with Costco, the people of Pleasanton will be providing most of this funding. 2. Similarly, the air quality argument is ridicules. Any reduction in traffic intensity that results in lower air quality impacts will be welcome. This position is like saying eating a piece of pizza for lunch is only marginally worse than a salad for your cholesterol, so why not have the pizza! 3. Regarding economic impacts, we SHOULD NOT be approving new retail projects that will be a parasite on our existing businesses whether they include a big-box store or not. This is a recipe for urban decay. The concept that the big-box would draw only from the region and that the other retail would draw only from the Pleasanton market is hard to believe. Funny that this conclusion wasn't presented in the EIR or original Economic Study. As I recall, the findings from the Economic Study was that the customers from the EDZ would come from population growth, not existing markets. This new conclusion seems to be inconsistent with these earlier statements. The authors of these studies are still ignoring the negative impacts big box stores have had on local economies all across the country as if Pleasanton exists in some kind of bubble where these facts do not apply. As I have argued previously, perhaps we should keep the zoning as it is and provide space for Atil'ght industrial, R&D, and service commercial. This is true economic diversity, not ever more retail projects in ace to the bottom with our neighboring cities. 1