The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-16-2012 ac cooper b2Goodwin, Heather RECEIVE D MT 14 7111 7 SLO CITY CLER K AGENDA CORRESPONDENC E Date 10II (OIljtem#15d-- From : Grimes, Maeve Sent Monday, October 15,2012 9 :12 A M To : Goodwin, Heathe r Subject: FW: October 16,2012 Business Item 2 Agenda Correspondence for B2 . Thank you . maeye kenneay cuime s City Cler k city of san Luis oalsp o 990 Palm Stree t San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1 phone : (805) 781-710 2 email : mgrimes@slocity .org From :Marx, Ja n Sent :Monday, October 15, 2012 8 :51 A M To :Grimes, Maev e Cc :Lichtig, Katie; Codron, Michae l Subject:FW : October 16,2012 Business Item 2 Agenda correspondenc e Jan Original Message From :Allan Cooper [allancoope(c gmail .com ] Sent :Monday, October 15, 2012 06 :59 AM Pacific Standard Tim e To ;Marx, Jan; Dan Carpenter ; Dan Carpenter; Dan Carpenter ; Carter, Andrew ; Smith, Kathy ; Ashbaugh, John Subject :October 16, 2012 Business Item 2 Dear Jan, et_al .- Could you kindly "redfile" this for me if it's not too late? Thanks ! - Allan Regarding: B2) Economic Development Strategic Plan Adoption . (Codron/Clark – 60 Minutes) Recommendation : Adopt The Economic Development Strategic Plan (Edsp). Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members – i Save Our Downtown has reviewed the Final Draft, September 28, 2012 City of San Luis Obispo Economi c Development Strategic Plan . We are asking you to CONTINUE Business Item B2 at your October 16, 201 2 meeting in order to allow some of our mutual concerns to be addressed in this "final" draft plan . We have expressed prior concerns with this report as there was virtually no mention of the Downtown Core no r were the needs addressed for reinforcing its economic vitality and quality of life . We agreed with Council's opposition to "bankrolling" expensive infrastructure within the proposed annexation areas and with it s opposition to "streamlining the approval processes". We acknowledge that the consultant did add section 4 .7 "Support For Downtown" but, as you will see below , we think that this part of the report needs significant elaboration. We would like to walk you through our concerns prefaced by specific excerpts (in quotation marks) taken out o f the report . "Enhance the San Luis Obispo quality of life" It is an embarrassing omission that nowhere in this report is there mention of an "historic and visually attractive" Downtown that provides a "vibrant mix of entertainment, shopping, living and work opportunities"! There is mention of a "thriving downtown" which unfortunately will no longer be the case if the City does no t advocate on its behalf within this plan (but relies solely on the Downtown Association for this purpose). "San Luis Obispo and the Central Coast in general is increasingly associated with a healthy and innovativ e lifestyle". There is nothing healthy or innovative (or sustainable for that matter) about this Strategic Plan's proposal fo r locating the majority of its head-of-household jobs in annexed land three miles from the Downtown core . "City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan " This Draft Strategic Plan weakens the greenhouse gas reduction strategy (under the heading of "transportatio n and land use") by not reinforcing easy work access opportunities for the majority of citizens who live in or nea r the Downtown Core . Based on a comparison between SLO and the benchmark jurisdictions of SLO Cnty ., Santa Barbara, Davis & Paso Robles, SLO City shows "some of the shortest processing times". 2 Nevertheless, "...processing time ...continues to be cited as a barrier to investment and job creation ." Perhaps these citations come from people who have erroneous perceptions? "...however, the primary opportunity sites for creating spaces for new buildings that could house significan t numbers of head-of-household jobs are located in the southern portion of the City within the Urban Reserve Line ." How is this substantiated? Why not expedite creating spaces within existing buildings Downtown for start-up s particularly because the infrastructure is already there and no one has to pay for it ? "The lack of infrastructure (for the Airport and Margarita Area Specific Plan areas) within the large r developable areas and cost of extending existing water, sewer and transportation systems are major barriers t o new job creation and expansion of existing businesses ." Wouldn't this recommend against developing these area in the near term and developing more infil l development Downtown ? "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 ." Why is the whole focus of this report on expansion and relocation of presumably large businesses as opposed t o accommodating "new, small start-up businesses" which would prefer be located Downtown anyway? Also , wouldn't these presumably large and successful businesses be in a better position to underwrite the costs of ne w infrastructure ? "The ability of private development to be the "bank" for new City infrastructure is limited by tighter lendin g policies as a result of the recent recession ." These "tighter lending policies" apply to municipalities as well! Do we want to bankrupt the city in order t o bankroll the development industry? "Evaluating projects at the administrative review level when applications meet City policies and desig n guidelines " Even if this were a "good idea" there is no way for this "streamlined" approach to be limited ONLY to th e Airport and Margarita Specific Plan areas ...this "fast track permitting" approach would also apply to projects i n the Downtown core . 3 "Monitor changes in State infrastructure finance law that increase financing options as a way to fund ne w investments in infrastructure (new bills are being introduced in response to the elimination of redevelopmen t agencies)". Governor Brown has vowed not to approve any new financing methods where the burden is ultimately passe d onto future generations ...and he certainly won't do this in this unpredictable economy . However, we have no problem with IFD's, BID's, assessment districts, CFD's and SCIP's so long as th e financial burden is NOT transferred to the City . "Identify all businesses with ten or fewer employees within the City . Conduct a survey of these business owner s (including home occupations) to determine what small businesses need to grow " As we have said once before, why wasn't this done PRIOR to this Final Draft? Perhaps the consultants woul d have discovered that most of these business owners would prefer to be located in the Downtown Core and no t three miles out of town. "Continue to support the Downtown as a vibrant destination and resource for residents and visitors . Research ways to encourage resident-serving businesses without limiting the ability of building owners to choose tenants " This laissez faire approach (i .e ., "without limiting the ability of building owners to choose tenants") wil l inevitably lead to the Downtown becoming a monoculture of bars and nightclubs . The City MUST remain vigilant in discouraging the current erosion of shop and office space (making way for the ever-burgeonin g demand for more restaurants, bars and nighclubs) Downtown . "Continue to help facilitate retail and office opportunities that f urther define SLO as the hub of the County fo r retail, jobs and social activities". YES! But the consultant fails to go into detail on how this could be done . Examples could include defining "critical impact areas" based on current crime statistics within which there would be assigned a maximu m number of bars and nightclubs, OR, reducing the current minimum square footage requirements for leasehol d retail space, OR, establishing within the City a small business recruitment program to induce resident-servin g shops to move into Downtown, OR, on a trial period basis, providing a modest subsidy to businesses to patc h them through their first month or two relocating into the Downtown Core, OR, providing clear interactive map s (i .e ., electronic) within the parking garages indicating where businesses are currently located, OR (god forbid!) providing height exceptions contingent upon ample setbacks from the second floor up to developments that accommodate extra office space . Et cetera, et cetera ... "Reestablish a "Shop Local" effort building on the lessons learned from past Shop Local Campaigns ." YES! Save Our Downtown has done this through our "cash mob" efforts . BUT the City could have been mor e proactively engaged in these sorts of efforts . It's telling that we have received virtually no support fro m Deborah Cash and/or the Downtown Association in our "cash mob" efforts . 4 Thank you, as always, for the many hours you put into your jobs and for the courage and leadership you display in providing timely input on controversial issues . Sincerely, Allan Cooper Chai r Save Our Downtown 5