On July 19, the Pleasanton City Council approved a taxpayer subsidy plan for Costco and the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone.

The council disregarded that the traffic mitigation infrastructure costs had ballooned from a 2018 estimate of $21 million to the actual 2022 contractor bid of almost $34 million. The city has agreed to pay $24 million in taxpayer subsidies to Costco, a $100 billion corporation, with this deal. While many will cheer, the public needs to understand the sordid details behind this.

This project came out of nowhere in 2014 when the city staff introduced the JDEDZ concept including a Costco on Johnson Drive.

They established a "streamlined" and unprecedented approval process designed to limit public participation and information about the project and undermine the ability of residents to challenge its approval. They secretly negotiated millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies with Costco to fund infrastructure costs, which Costco routinely demands from cities where they build, while the city publicly denied it.

After a Public Records Act Request confirmed the subsidy negotiations, the city still denied it, and the local press ignored it. This was crucial as the Measure MM anti-big box initiative election campaign was underway when these facts came out. Measure MM failed, but if the city had publicly acknowledged the subsidies and had the press done their job, would the result have been different?

After the election, the city finally admitted to the subsidies. It produced an economic analysis justifying the "investment" with a seven-year payback. However, an independent analysis indicated it would take 20 years for the subsidies to break even -- based on the $21 million infrastructure cost -- and would result in significant harm to local, small, family-owned businesses. This study was presented to the council and they disregarded it.

Then the city and Costco prepared an environmental impact report that badly understated or ignored the project's environmental and public health impacts. They voluntarily redid it when faced with a citizens group lawsuit.

The second EIR wasn't much better, and the city was sued again. This time it made its way to the court of appeals. The court dismissed it because, in the interim, the legislature had gutted the California Environmental Quality Act eliminating key provisions and the lawsuit's basis.

And now the project will move forward. But what about the truth?

What about a city that hides the existence of subsidies and the negative environmental and public health impacts of the project for years, even during an election when the public has the right to know? What about approving a carbon bomb the same year the city adopts a Climate Action Plan that will do nothing to help the climate unless the subject of unlimited growth is addressed?

And what about a City Council that ignores these difficult issues and takes the easy way out by approving what they consider a popular project while dismissing the irregularities and unethical behavior by the city?

In an election year, these questions are worth pondering.

Editor's note: Matt Sullivan served on the Pleasanton City Council from 2004 to 2012 and is a former Pleasanton Planning Commission member. He has been active in civic issues locally for more than 20 years, including as a member of the resident group Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth, which challenged the city's Costco approvals in court.