The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-16-2012 ac cooper 2 b2Goodwin, Heathe r From : Codron, Michae l Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9 :08 AM To: Grimes, Maeve ; Goodwin, Heathe r Subject : FW : Even more comments on Final Economic Devt strateg y From :Allan Cooper [mailto :allancoope@gmail .com] Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12 :13 A M To :Ashbaugh, John ; Marx, Jan ; Carpenter, Dan ; Smith, Kathy ; Carter, Andrew Cc : Clark, Claire ; Lichtig, Katie ; Codron, Michae l Subject :Re : Even more comments on Final Economic Devt strateg y Dear Council Members - Sorry for the post script but it needs to be mentioned that the draft EDSP is clearly addressing land use issue s here . If so, it seems inappropriate considering that the Land Use & Circulation Element Task Force is in the midst o f deliberations . Action by the Council now would supercede any consideration by the LUCE Task Force, Again, thank you ! - Allan On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12 :03 AM, Allan Cooper <allancoope@n gmail .com>wrote : Dear John, et . al .- Thanks for copying me on this . My question is as follows : What is the rush to approve this documen t considering its importance and long-lasting implications? This document in our (Save Our Downtown's ) opinion is fundamentally flawed in that it lacks specific direction regarding incentivizing office and retai l development in the Downtown Core ...something Save Our Downtown has repeatedly emphasized . We firml y believe that the City Council should take the lead on this and that this responsibility should not be exclusivel y delegated to the Downtown Association . Furthermore, office expansion into the hinterlands is not a sustainabl e strategy . Thank you for your time and consideration . On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3 :22 PM, Ashbaugh, John <jashbaug@slocity .org>wrote : OK – 1 have several more items to be "pooled" with the other Council comments : p . 11 :Within the shaded insert headed "Industry Clusters of Opportunity", the last sentence notes that th e County's Economic Strategy concentrates on "five clusters (which)... were responsible for 89% of the jo b growth opportunities ." Over which period of time is this 89% figure computed? p . 14 :Under the discussion of "barriers to job creation," it is stated that the Airport Area and Margarita Are a Specific Plans "include sufficient land for nonresidential development and provide a strong foundation fo r community planning ." Exceptions are noted with respect to actions that may be needed within those specifi c plan areas . Among those actions, however, ANNEXATION of additional lands within or adjacent to the Airpor t Area Specific Plan should also be listed . An example would be the CaITRANS property west of Vachell Lane , although it is currently outside the city limits and outside the Urban Reserve Line . Accordingly, the EDS P RECEIVE D GCT1 C 2012 SLO CITICLER K AGENDA CORRESPONDENC E Date loll 4 1 1 1-Item#6Z 1 should indicate that any such annexations would only be undertaken as a consequence of the existing Airpor t Area Specific Plan OR the LUCE Update . p . 15 :Please consider the wording in items 2 and 3 on this page ; they seem to be contradictory in nature : (see what I mean?) pp . 16-17 :The revisions to these items generally strengthen the commitment that we had been considering i n the Draft EDSP, with one exception : The deletion of former item 1 .7 . That item had read : 1 .7 Incentivize the creation of head-of-household jobs by facilitating infrastructure projects and reducin g fees for qualifying projects, consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1 .13, includin g consideration of: a.A limited duration program to facilitate infrastructure development by decreasing fees belo w the justified fee amount for a specific period of time or a specific amount of construction . b.Ways to overcome the administrative challenges associated with collecting impact fees at th e time of building occupancy and/or structured payment plans for fees . c.Conducting an economic benefit analysis as part of development review to identify potentia l economic benefits of a project as means to offset fees . d.Fee rebate programs . e.City to conduct environmental review on key sites to defray some costs borne by developers . I recall that the Council raised some concerns about this item ; in fact, I recall that I voiced some concern tha t any financial incentives be carefully targeted and directed primarily toward City participation in publi c infrastructure that would enable development to proceed where private financing is not available at the time, bu t where : 1) Clear public benefits can be demonstrated ; 2) There is no significant environmental impact ; and 3 ) Such development is consistent with our general plan, zoning, and development/subdivision standards . Long story short : Please consider RESTORING 1 .7 in some form . p . 18 :Please include a reference to the California Pollution Control Financing Authority,part of the State Treasurer's office, among the various infrastructure financing strategies and mechanisms . We would be remiss 2 2.Key opportunity sites need to be subdivided and/or lack infrastructure . These constraints add to the time an d complexity to bring projects online . 3.There are limited built office and business park spaces large enough to accommodate the expansion of som e companies currently in the City and companies looking to relocate to the area . to overlook the opportunity to include this agency in this plan ; it may very well have some significant funds tha t would enable, for example, upgrading of our wastewater plant . Additionally, the IWMA is considering the us e of this financing to assist with relocation of the San Luis Garbage Company to their new site in the Airport Area, particularly if it is combined with a composting facility using an anaerobic digester . (This project relate s directly to my earlier comment on the need to consider annexations as an economic development tool in th e Airport Area, on p . 14 above). p . 20 :Please define the acronym CENIC near bottom of this page . p . 22 :I'm very gratified to see that the changes in Section 3 on the "Quality of Life" measures are all positive – specifically including a new reference to the key role played by the only regional airport in the County (als o referenced in the table of findings on page 27, and in Strategy 4 .4e on page 29). I would suggest one way t o enhance and strengthen this section : Include a chart of the TOT revenues we collect in SLO over the past 5-1 0 years . This chart should at least appear in the Background Report, following page 27 of that document . p . 29 :Section 4 .7 regarding the Downtown has certainly evolved a lot, and it seems to have been strengthene d from the original Section 4 .3 . It should provide specific mention of the Downtown Association as a partner . I n the first bullet item, "Research ways to encourage resident-sewing businesses ..." – I have some concerns : While I note the interest by the Council in "encourag(ing) resident-serving businesses," it seems illogical fo r this EDSP to imply that we would possibly discourage local businesses from appealing to non-resident visitors , shoppers, and employees . The last bullet item in 4 .7 is also problematic : I would urge that we add the words, "...support for ke y Downtown development consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as th e Downtown Concept Plan (where possible)". I realize that if we do restore item 1 .7, and if we make changes to 4 .7 as noted immediately above, these ma y require corresponding changes to the Summary Matrix in pp .32-44 . In any event, I would hope that the Council can agree on these and other changes with minimal controversy o n Tuesday evening . The document is solid and deserves to be adopted, if at all possible, that evening . John B . Ashbaugh San Luis Obispo City Council 3