The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-07-2012 ac B2 cooper b2Richardson, April Subject:FW ; Draft Economic Development Strategic Pla n e AGENDA CORRESPONDENC E Date'C-.Item #Original Message From :Allan Cooper [allancoope@u,gmail .com ] Sent : Monday, August 06,2012 10 :23 PM Pacific Standard Tim e To :Marx,Jan ; Ashbaugh, John ; Carpenter,Dan ;Carter, Andrew ; Smith, Kathy ; Davidson,Doug ;Johnson, Derek Subject :Draft Economic Development Strategic Plan Dear Jan, et . al .- Unfertunately,I will not be able to attend tomorrow's important meeting .Could you kindly "red file" this for me ? Thanks! - Alla n Regarding : August 7, 2012 Council Meeting Agenda Item B2) Draft Economic Development Strategic Pla n Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers- as draft Economic Development Strategic Plan failed to address a number of concerns mentioned in th e nsultant's 12/05/11 SWOT analysis They are as follows : 1) the cost of housing, 2)the lack ofjob options for trailing spouses, 3) creating an expanded range of housing, and 4) the threat of urban sprawl Th e SWOT analysis mentioned that SLO's top two strengths were "a lot of land properly zoned for business" an d a vibrant downtown. Ironically this report now challenges the assumption that there is "a lot of land properly zoned for business" by asking for the development of more office parks in the City's expansion areas thereby contributing to urban sprawl Again, ironically, the consultant does not even give lip service to encouragin g more business development in the already "vibrant downtown" along with the inclusion of more workforc e housing which in turn would reduce the consultant's third "threat"(as mentioned in the SWOT analysis ) which is the "increase in crime". Save Our Downtown is also concerned about the dwindling supply of necessity goods stores within the Downtown Core which would attract residents into the Downtown and thi s was not mentioned in this report . Unfortunately, this report is a prescription for "urban sprawl" and the consequent erosion of open space. Why hasn't the report addressed the vacant non-residential land (which we have) in the Downtown Core ? Doesn't this land meet the consultant's definition of "shovel ready"? Wouldn 't it make more environmenta l sense if small businesses expanded within the Downtown core instead of out in the perimeter? Why is all office expansion relegated to the so-called "expansion areas'ofSan Luis Obispo, i.e., the Airport an d Margarita areas? Head of household job growth does not depend exclusively on the expansion of already large businesses trying to locate in larger leasehold spaces within existing or proposed business parks as th e sultant suggests Head of household job growth can be very effectively spurred on through encouragin g e proliferation of small businesses (Le.,10 employees orfewer) that can preferably fit into existing office spaces within the Downtown Core . The consultant already confirmed this by reporting that 50% of al l 1 businesses have 4 employees or fenend 70%of all businesses have 10 a ees or fewer.Why no t provide more publicprivatepartnerships to support the small businessman aiming to locate in the Downtow n Core? • Per recommendation in the Strategic Plan : "Identify all businesses with ten or fewer employees within th e City: Conduct a formal survey ofthese business owners (including home occupations) to determine wha t small businesses need to grow and develop an action plan that benefits businesses ofthis size." Why didn 't the consultants already do this? Perhaps they would come up with other findings besides " develop more office parks within the City's expansion areas". However, what we don't want to see is the erosion of this office inventory Downtown by replacing it with restaurants and bars (vis-a-vis,the SLO Brew relocation into the Carrissa Building).This concern should also be included within the Strategic Plan . The justification for this report is based on `per capita wage growth as a leading indicator of economi c transformation." The consultant's argument reads as follows: • "The City's per capita income (about $25,000)is lower than the County and the State (both of which are about $29,000). Although this may be a reflection of the student population,the County's per capita incom e has grown at a faster rate than the City. According to the U.S.Census, between 1990 and 2010 the City's per capita income has grown by 72%, while the County's has grown by almost 90% over the same time period: Thus wage growth in the City appears to be rising at a slower rate when compared to the region." This can be explained by the fact that 30% of the population is aged 20-24,thatpublic sector job salaries have been frozen (or even lowered) in this current recession and that a large percentage (15%) of residents are retired on fixed incomes. However, 15% of all households earn over $100,000 per year an d 17% ofall households earn between $50,000 and $75,000 per year. Perhaps, instead, the leading indicator o f economic transformation should be based on `per capita growth in NET WORTH"...which could compare much more favorably with both the County and State. • We agree that "uniquely SLO" jobs are one of the job clusters that have potential for driving prosperity ! 2 Per the consultant's "aspects of the SLO life": 0 Arts education group s Public open space in and around the City Recreational amenities in the regio n Performing and visual arts City support of the arts and recreation via Grants in Aid and other support Programs and events • Wine and Agricultur e What is missing from this list ? • Promote the "SLO life"to enhance business opportunities by encouraging short commute s (preferably on foot or bicycle) and/or live-work arrangements that obviate long commutes Historic downtown charm Ready (i.e., walking) access to night-time entertainmen t • Sense ofplace (which would NOT exist in the myriad business parks built within the City's expansion areas) Therefore, counter to the consultant's recommendations, we propose that these "uniquely SLO jobs" b e located in the Downtown Core, not within or adjacent to the City's greenbelt. The consultant also recommends reducing another impediment to development by reducing infrastructur e costs (to both the developer and the City) and reducing impact fee s LUE 1.13 stands for the proposition that new development must pay its fair share of development costs an d infrastructure. This is seen by developers as a barrier to the creation of head of household jobs, and the plan takes thatpoint of view If developers do not pay their fair share, city residents (the general fund or debt obligation) will pick up the tab . The city has operated successfully since 1994 with this policy, an d 'elopers have not complained the whole time that our fees are too high . • Moreover, in this highly unpredictaaworld economy the City SHOULD 4use it's AA credit rating to borrow to pay for infrastructure in the expansion areas that will lead to more urban sprawl In the end , private development has to be the "bank"for new City infrastructure in lieu ofraising debt and/or taxes. • The consultant recommends that the City lower its infrastructure construction standards.How could this be done without negatively impacting safety, access and long-term City maintenance costs? Reducing developer's fees, such as environmental review costs, is predicated on the assumption that the City ca n administer the application process without immediate compensation (i .e., that compensation would b e deferred to the time that property taxes can be collected). Deferred compensation (based on an uncertain economic future)isjust another example ofhow cities can go bankrupt Ac-cording-to Dan-Buettner 'baok "Thrive". "San Luis Obispo has high levels of volunteerism and _a large number of nonprofits .Active civic engagement contributes to the local quality of life and helps builda more resilientlocaleconomy." How would "streamlining the development review process" through "establishing administrative revie w when applications meet City policies and design guidelines" encourage "active civic engagement"? We should not encourage the growth of non-residential development IF we cannot provide local housing for these workers There is mention in this report of the currentjobs-housing imbalance already promoting long commutes from outlying region . So, again, why no mention ofproviding more work force housing Downtown ? In conclusion , this draft Economic Development Strategic Plan does not even come close to the consultant's minimum standard as set forth in their own SWOT analysis. Thank you for your time and consideration . Allan Cooper, Chair Save Our Downtown 756 Broad St, San Luis Obispo