Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/1993, B1 - Economic Strategy Task Force RECOMMENDATIONS ME` 'G�'� 14GENDA DATL # MEMORANDUM -- IDDDfti-_-- - r ,� Novembers 1993 arc_ 0 F:PECMEF M TO: City Council j -- FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer SUBJECT: November 9th ESTF Recommendations Councilman Settle has noted the absence of a staff report related to the November 9th ESTF recommendations, and has suggested that staffs views be provided to Council prior to action on the recommendations. Given this suggestion, I thought it might be helpful to clarify the ESTF process, and the options Council has on November 9th in terms of follow- up. The Council's direction last March was for the ESTF to provide recommendations to the City Council for improving the local economy. Therefore, the report before the Council on November 9th,including the overall summary recommendations outlined on the agenda,are coming directly from the ESTF, and not from staff. The ESTF debated at length the best way to present their recommendations to Council, and ultimately decided to do so without a great amount of detail concerning funding, priorities, or other procedural or technical details. They did so in the-interest of time, and also believing that such an analysis would be more appropriately an undertaking of the City Council and staff following receipt of their recommendations. Thus, it is understood that staff will follow up with a report to the City Council on those recommendations the Council refers for further analysis. The Task Force also discussed whether to ask Council to only receive their recommendations, or to receive and endorse their recommendations. Ultimately, they felt that an endorsement would be stronger and more meaningful. Still,however, they recognize that implementation will depend upon additional analysis and prioritization, and in some instances, other processes or commission actions. In terms of Council action on November 9th, the Council should: 1. Receive the report and presentation from the ESTF 2. Consider public comment, and 3. With respect to the specific recommendations: A. If conceptually acceptable, refer to staff for further analysis concerning implementation (staff will consider such issues as funding, timing, priority, the role of other advisory bodies or community organizations, appropriate processes and procedures, etc.). B. If of interest, but not necessarily immediately endorsed, refer to staff for for further information/analysis. Although many of the same issues outlined above will be explored through such analysis, the follow-up can also be tailored to respond to specific areas of interest or questions raised by Council on the 9th. C. Neither endorse nor refer a recommendation. If Council clearly cannot support a recommendation(s), then it would be best to indicate so in order to narrow the list of matters to be further analyzed by staff and considered by Council. In essence, the Council should refer to staff all recommendations which the Council feels deserve further consideration. However, the Council should not feel it is making absolute and irrevocable commitments to do and support everything on the list, even if"endorsed". Many of the recommendations, whether endorsed or not, will depend upon such things as funding,prioritization,matters outside city control,other parties,or legally defined processes (e.g. the airport area annexation). Some recommendations, such as the ideas related to tourism promotion,may be more appropriately followed-up by an advisory body, such as the Promotional Coordinating Committee. There are a number of other possibilities, all of which will be considered in the follow-up report by staff. In summary, as noted in the document, the Task Force believes its job has been to "set the sails" for the City, to "chart a general direction". However, Council and City staff will have to "row the boat" and "navigate" thereafter. Thus, more analysis and follow-up will be required by staff and Council prior to establishing and implementing a focused Economic Stability Program. I hope this additional information is helpful. . cc: City Administrative Officer KH:bw \g:estfcc "a .UING 7*0LMAGENDA ITEM # MEMORANDUM ti rte-.cin E November 9, 1993 a �""� ° "M E erg:=Fij !- `,w'� ° Lin: To: City Council a �c From: John Subject: Pre n f the Economic Strategy Task Force Recommendations The purpose of tonight's meeting is to give the City Council an opportunity to hear a presentation of the recommendations of the Economic Strategy Task Force. As the Council is aware, the Task Force has worked long and hard to prepare its recommendations for your consideration. I thought it was very important for the Council to receive the recommendations as they are 'transmitted to you by your duly appointed advisory body, and to avoid having any premature staff comments "filtering" these recommendations to you. Nevertheless, I do have two thoughts based or. the presumption that, for the most part, the recommendations of the Task Force will be referred to staff for further analysis and comment. First,.there can be a considerable distance between the desire or the aspiration or the lofty principle, and the way that things actually come out in the wash. Stated more "administratively",there can be considerable distance between legislative endorsement of the advisory committee's recommendations, and what actually happens to follow-up and achieve these recommendations in the years ahead. That simply means that there must be attention to both (1) the recommendations as they are presented, and (2) their ultimate form of implementation. As you listen to the recommendations, it might be helpful to be asking yourselves some basic questions, with the number one question being, is this really a good idea, something that I can endorse? If the answer to that is "yes", then the questions that ensue would be ones like who would do this, how would it be done, in what time frame, with what relative priority and at what cost? The reality is that the Task Force membership have given more thought to these issues than the rest of us have, so it would be entirely appropriate to ask for the Task Force's ideas or suggestions on appropriate follow- up/implementation, on particularrecommendations where these matters might be of concern to you. Going back to the first question, is it really.a good idea (or can I as an individual Councilmember endorse it)? If the answer is truly no, or might be no, then it is better for the Council as a whole to discuss it in order to determine if there is sufficient support for the Council asking the staff to a thorough analysis of the issue. Though staff doesn't mind doing further work in any of these areas, if the Council truly doesn't support an idea, then it makes it a lot simpler for everyone if this is said up front. On the other hand, if a Councilmember were to say, "I'm not sure whether I support this idea or not, it would depend on how it is to be worked out", then it would be appropriate to refer it to the staff for further work and delineation of implementation details. In summary, tonight's meeting represents an excellent opportunity for you to ask questions of the Task Force, in order to gain the best understanding of where they are in relation to the ultimate outcome. It also provides an excellent opportunity for you to provide any desired policy direction to the staff prior to the staff spending considerable work commenting on the details of implementation. Lastly, if the Council has suggested areas of priority, then it would be helpful to the staff if these were stated. JD:mc h/estfrec.mem MEETINGAGENDA DATE // + ITEM# MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY COU":_".?. ❑ CDD DIS November 9, 1993 pf f10 ❑ M114 k� CAS? ❑ PRE CHEF ;1 � Jf TO: City Council 61 CLER;;r�;,:� C r ii-ZCHF1 p , �!E �a ❑ P"G.:i' 1-'•.J L: rf FROM: Jeff Jorgensen BUBJBCTC Economic Stratgy Task Force Conflict of Interest Statements A question has been raised by the League of Women Voters concerning whether the members of the Economic Strategy Task Force are required to file Conflict of Interest Statements with the City Clerk as a condition to participation on the Task Force. Conclusion: Neither the Political Reform Act of 1974 nor the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission require the members of the Economic Strategy Task Force to file Conflict of Interest Statements. However, in order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict, the City Clerk has encouraged the members of the Task Force to voluntarily file such statements. Analysis: The Political Reform Act applies to "public officials" (Government Code Section 87100) , which includes not only elected and appointed officials, but also any "member, officer, employee or consultant of a state or local government agency. " (Government Code Section 82048. ) While there is no specific definition of the terms "officer" or "employee, " the Fair Political Practices Commission has defined the term, "member, " and interpreted the Act to apply to the members of all boards or commissions with decision-making authority. (C.C:R. , Title 2, Section 18700 (a) (1) . ) The FPPC has determined that a board or commission possesses decision-making authority whenever: 1. it may make a final governmental decision (C.C.R. , Title 2, Section 18700 (a) (1) (A) , In re Maloney, No. 76-082, 3 FPPC Opns. 69) ; 2 . it may compel or prevent the making of a governmental decision by its action or inaction (C.C.R. , Title 2, Section 18700 (a) (1) (B) ) ; or City Council November 9, 1993 Page Two 3 . its recommendations are routinely or recrularly followed, (C.C.R. , Title 2, Section . 18700 (a) (1) (C) , In re Rotman, No. 86-001, 10 FPPC Opns. 3) . The Economic Strategy Task Force does not meet the criteria established by the Fair Political Practices Commission for a Board or Commission possessing decision-making authority. In addition, the City's Conflict of Interest Code does not designate the Economic Strategy Task Force as a reporting body. From the above analysis, it is. clear that the Economic Strategy Task Force is not legally required to file Conflict of Interest Statements. Even though the members of the Economic Strategy Task Force are not legally required to file Conflict of Interest Statements, the City Clerk has encouraged them to voluntarily file such statements. I believe this is an appropriate approach given the important and far reaching task assigned to the Task Force, and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. The same analysis applies to the recently created Environmental Quality Task Force since the potential exists for members of either body to advocate actions or positions which may affect the member's economic interest. However, in the absence of more specific action by the Council, such as designation of the Task Force in our local Conflict of Interest Code, the members can not be compelled to file Conflict of Interest Statements. JGJ/sw Mr7NG 93AGENDA D ITEM #I •.,J,9,C ou� ❑ c D DIS O VA'✓ trFiN DIFF! ! November 7, 199 .cA^ _ ❑ F:R_�r:!=: F. t ❑ 0 EPS' ••J�1i To: San Luis Obispo City Council From: League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo Re: Economic Strategy Task Force - Conflict of Interest Statements We understand that only three members of the Economic Strategy Task. Force have filed State required Conflict of Interest Statements although the City Clerk asked all members to do so in a letter dated March 23, 1993. The League believes that responsible government depends on an informed citizenry and that public records must be accessible. In this case, there can be no opportunity for citizens to be informed or for records to be accessible until all members file Conflict of Interest statements. We suggest that the Council may want to question whether the Task Force report should be considered or if further Task Force meetings should be held until all members have carried out this basic responsibility. We thank you for your consideration. Lorna Brown, President League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo P.O. box 4210 � �Y San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 i 543-2220 j t- hC EIVET NOV 8 1993 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 11/09/93 17:26 $ 805 544 3922 ROSSETTI COMPANY P.01 11 -tmmwam v C O M M E. R C I A L R E A L E S T A T E November 8, 1W3 MEETING AGENDA DATES ITEM # Mayor Peg Pinard City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: ECONOMIC STRATEGY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS. Dear Mayor Pinard: I strongly urge you to adopt the recommendations presented by the Economic Strategy Task Force. it is imperative that the City of San Luis Obispo becomes proactive about the future economic growth in the City. The livelihood of many residents hinges on the Cities willingness to create meaningful local job opportunities without compromising our quality of rife. Providing a business climate in which local businesses can prosper and an environment In which new select Industries can expand in the city should be the councils number one economic priority. In order to meet our existing and new business needs, I implore the council to adopt the recommendation presented by the Economic Strategy Task Force with emphasis on the funding the economic development directors position. The money spent on the development directors position will go a long way in encouraging and promoting economic growth in the city. Sincerely, tt=n ilCOU":C!L 0��,�C D DIR cAO YFIN DIR T �.CAO EJ FIRE CHIEF �1 IFCLEPKPN;:^ 1':1 PGL';cCHFI•I ❑ P.".Q'i'l T':`W 1 1'I MiC GF 1+ 7 ❑JG READ P: Ury.G:F! f l � ECrtIVE : 1065 HIGUERA•SUIT[301 SAN LUIS OBISPO-CALIFORNIA•93401 NOV 9 1993 805.544.390D FAX•805.544.3922 f:30 p^ CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA MEF",.!G AGENDA DW ITEM # November 2, 1993 =7f..,D IS i N 0?.n1F1 I F;FZEC-Ij.!EF :9 I Honorable Mayor& Councilmembers L7 L! City of San Luis Obispo C. 7; P.O. Box 8 100 00 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Mayor Pinard and Councilmembers: Members of the six organizations comprising the San Luis Obispo Business Coalition have reviewed the draft recommendations of the City's Economic Stability Task Force, and are writing to voice our unanimous support for the document and its recommendations. We applaud the members of the Task Force for their months long efforts in working through difficult community issues and ultimately producing a consensus document. We are proud to be the group who helped initially spark the creation of the Task Force through the ideas and comments raised at the Economic Stability Forum. We appreciate the leadership demonstrated by Mayor Pinard in her creation of a well rounded, divergent viewpoint task force charged with addressing the economi -issues of concern in our community. It is gratifying to find diversified opinions embraced in a single document, one which accommodates both environmental concerns along with programs for economic stability in San Luis Obispo. While we acknowledge differences of opinion on individual issues within the report, we are pleased that the group overall found common ground and made a commitment to moving ideas forward. Although we support the recommendations found in the document,we understand that these ideas and concepts are only a precursor to a well defined action plan. The Business Coalition believes strongly in the overall goal of economic recovery and supports the Task Force recommendations as a means of moving us to that end. We continue to maintain that the single most important priority in achieving these goals is in the creation of an Economic Development Director position. We are all aware that 1993's projected economic upturn did not materialize in our community. Local unemployment continues to reach record levels, government services are increasingly difficult to provide, and the struggle for local residents to remain in San Luis Obispo wears on. We are anxious to halt this trendin1994,but we need your help to do it. The recommendations contained in the Task Force Report provide a framework for recovery. We urge you to adopt this document immediately so that we can instigate the actions needed to get San Luis Obispo on firm footing for 1994. We cannot allow our community to deteriorate further. RL(1�0VED NOV 4 1993 Ar?COUINICIL S^k,q LUIS OBISPI1 CA 11/2/93 Busines alition to Council re: Economic Stat Report page 2 We extend our thanks to the members of the Task Force for their dedication and expertis , well as to you for your continued leadership in helping steer our community into omic recon and future economic stability. e s, To Town, Chair Business Coalition C.M.qiorDen-c-e-,Pfesident, 1993 SLO Property Owners Association ±. Cribb, President SLO Association of Realtors `Charlie Fruit,Presi ent SLO Chamber of Commerce ick Cleeves,President Business Improv ment Association oresco, rest eat SLO Building Industry Association `"e: - �1ox Maggie Cox, Director SLO Association of Manufacturers & Distributors MFFTING 7'00*0 AGENDA L . . ITEM # S1 San Luis Obispo City Employees Association P.O. Box 8100,San Lula Obispo,CA 93405.8100 November 1, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: San Luis Obispo City•Employees' Association Tim Girvin, President-F- SUBJECT: Recommendations of Economic Strategic Task Force A is our understanding that it is the responsibility of the City Council to decide which recommendations of the Economic Strategic Task Force should be adopted. Our Organization asks that the following comments be reflected in your decisions. Though it is not our intention to dissect the document or re-formulate the Task Force's recommendations, we ask the Council to give strong consideration to our views concerning the hiring of an Economic Stability Coordinator. The SLOCEA supports•the plan to create the position of Economic Stability Coordinator and hiring.of support staff only if the person selected for that position has the authority and necessary leeway to actively and aggressively seek new business and industry that will produce added revenue for the City. In short, we would expect that the position of Economic Stability Coordinator, within a reasonable period of time, be able to prove that the position has generated more'than enough new revenue(or has received industry and business commitments) to completely pay for all costs - salary, benefits, office space, travel, and clerical assistance-' that would be associated with this new position. Also, we Would ask that, initially, this be a contract position and. if the position proves profitable, it could be made a permanent position at a later date. Our greatest concern is that if the commitment from the Council is not totally behind this concept, it will fail and all that will Have been accomplished would be the wasting of city funds on something that could be accomplished with existing city staff. Thank you. COU%CEL ❑ CDD DIR G�CAO IN"FIN DIR Q� CAO 13FIRE CHIEF �i /1 I IMEY 0 Pi' UN CLEn;JOS»^, Ci PCLIv �E CHF IF C h_ ' L ❑ �� I I �: k q GI:. J NOV � 199 1 AJC .� i r.• ...1. CITY CLERK 0 P C-.1 9P""NIGD PA AGENDA L.,,i ITEM 0 'ND -1 CI 1�r r1t., ;O�Flp D?rl U07i C November 7, 1993 ?_CA0 F!R H.I To: San Luis Obispo City Council From: League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo Re: Economic Strategy Task Force - Conflict of Interest Statements We understand that only three members of the Economic Strategy Task, Force have filed State required Conflict of Interest Statements although the City Clerk asked all members to do so in a letter dated March 23, 1993. The League believes that responsible government depends on an informed citizenry and that public records must be accessible. In this case, there can be no opportunity for citizens to be informed or for records to be accessible until all members file Conflict of Interest statements. We suggest that the Council may want to question whether the Task Force report should be considered or if further Task Force meetings should be held until all members have carried out this basic responsibility. We thank you for your consideration. Lorna Brown, President League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 42 10 C �'� San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 NOY 8 IM CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA t , 2. OPEN..-SPACE ELEMENT (JONAS/462 - 60 min:) Continued consideration of the General Plan Open Space Element (Continued from 9/7/93, 9/21/93/ 10/20/93 and 10/26/93.) RECOMMENDATION: Receive and consider County comments on Planning Commission Legislative Draft Open Space Element and direct staff to make any appropriate changes; and 2) Adopt resolution to approve a negative declaration of environmental impact and to adopt the July 1993 Draft General Plan Open Space Element. (Please bring your agenda report from the 10/26/93 meeting) Jy f 1 ^ f 7 MEETING 7p'*( AGENDA DATE &L E-1 ITEM # A VISION FOR ECONOMIC STABILITY IN SAN LUIS OBISPO. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ECONOMIC STRATEGY TASK FORCE , OCTOBER 1, 1993 A VISION FOR ECONOMIC STABILITY IN SAN LUIS OBISPO: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ECONOMIC STRATEGY TASK FORCE ECONOMIC STRATEGY TASK FORCE: Charlie Fruit, Chairman David Blaine Lauren Brown Bob Davis Anne Dinshaw Valerie Endres Bert Forbes Carol Garsten Greg Hind Harold Miossi Mike Multari Ray Nordquist Dominic Perello Wanda Strassburg Pat Veesart Economic Strategy Task Force Staff: Ken Hampian Deb Hossli Brooks Walker October 1, 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND ...................................... 3 CHAPTER III: THE TASK FORCE PROCESS ........................... 6 CHAPTER IV: THE TASK FORCE PRODUCT A. THE BASIS FOR KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 10 B. A VISION FOR ECONOMIC STABILITY IN SAN LUIS OBISPO ............................. 15 CHAPTER V: FOLLOW-UP WORK ................................. 32 APPENDIX A: Minority Report APPENDIX B: Previous/Current City Economic Stability Efforts APPENDIX C: Task Force Members APPENDIX D: March 13 Workshop Summary APPENDIX E: List of Special Presentations/Guest Speakers APPENDIX F: List of Handouts APPENDIX G: List of Organizations Contacted for Input APPENDIX H: Town Hall Meeting Attendees "San Luis Obispo should be a well balanced community. Environmental, social, and economic factors must be taken into account on important decisions about San Luis Obispo's future. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Protection of the environment will depend on a healthy economy to pay for it. The social fabric of the community for both residents and visitors must also be part of that balance. " CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Many of us in San Luis Obispo like to point to the high "quality of life" we enjoy here. Several factors contribute to our pleasant circumstance, including a beautiful and relatively clean environment, attractive and comfortable neighborhoods, good public services, an array of cultural activities not often available in a town of our size, and extraordinary educational facilities. The Economic Strategy Task Force unanimously agrees that an essential element to this quality of life is a healthy economy, which provides jobs and income, offers a wide range of goods and services, and contributes significant monies to local government. The Task Force's mission has been- to develop specific recommendations for what the City can do to further enhance our economy and assure its health over time. Clearly, the private sector has the primary responsibility for the community's economic health and success, and there are undoubtedly further efforts which should be undertaken by them, independent of the City, to address San Luis Obispo's economic challenges. However, the charge to the Economic Strategy Task Force has been to offer recommendations for strengthening the role of city government in the local economic environment, and this has been the primary focus of our effort. Our recommendations are forwarded in what we have called "The Vision Paper", which is provided in Chapter IV. In developing our recommendations, Task Force members have often engaged eachother in healthy debate, considering philosophical arguments as well as technical analyses. An important goal was to achieve consensus on the recommendations and to a very large degree, this has been accomplished. Most recommendations are supported by virtually all Task Force members. Still, there are differences in some areas; differences which are not new or surprising, given the diversity of community perspectives represented on the Task Force. The major differences are outlined in a minority report, which is included in Appendix A. As we learned during the Town Hall meetings, and as our report is considered and discussed in future public hearings, some will feel that certain recommendations go too far, and for others, they will not go far enough. This may be the result of our effort to develop goals which, while establishing a much more active role for the City in supporting our economy, are balanced and sensitive to the special qualities of our community. In fact, throughout this process the Task Force has tried to assure that our recommendations supported the three sides of what we call 'The Community Triangle" economic, environmental; and social concerns. Thus, there may be disappointment for those who feel that our recommendations should be entirely based on economic considerations. There may be similar disappointment among those who feel a stronger environmental perspective should prevail in every circumstance. However, in reality economic and environmental considerations are not self -enclosed or Page 2 Recommendations of the ESTF sealed off from one another. In fact, in many ways they are interdependent. We have therefore tried to the best of our ability to integrate and unify these considerations throughout our work. We believe that the community as a whole will be better served in the long run - both economically and environmentally - through a greater merging of these interests, rather than through continued stalemate or conflict. While some recommendations are more specific than others, overall the Task Force has felt that' its primary mission is to "set the sails" for the City. That is, to chart a general direction toward a more active and creative economic stability program for San Luis Obispo. However, it has not been our intention to "row the boat", or navigate each and every mile along the way. Therefore, once the Council agrees on the direction, there will be much work to be done by the City to refine, schedule, budget for, and implement the many recommendations contained in our report. Copies of this report will be provided to the City Council on the evening of October 5th, and it will be distributed directly to over 60 organizations on October 6th. It is expected that numerous copies will be provided to interested individuals as well. Individuals and organizations will have approximately five weeks to review our report in advance of the City Council public hearing, which has been scheduled for November 9th. One suggestion made during a Town Hall meeting is that the City receive the input of the Rocky Mountain Institute prior to a final decision. While this could be useful, if the input of the Institute or .any other professional organization is of interest to the Council, we suggest that it be acquired .soon. Many of our recommendations are time sensitive, and overall, the time for action is upon us. On November 9, the Task Force will be recommending the following: 1. Following a public hearing, receive and endorse the recommendations of the Economic Strategy Task Force. 2. Direct staff to return with a report outlining a phasing and funding strategy for implementation. With this introduction, the Task Force would like to thank the Mayor and City Council for your guidance and for providing us with this extraordinary experience and opportunity to work in partnership for a better community. We hope you find our recommendations helpful. Page 3 Recommendations of the ESTF CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND The 1990's have brought the City the toughest financial challenges it has faced in many years. Like other cities, San Luis Obispo has been hit hard by the recession, suffering a record-breaking string of eight consecutive quarterly sales tax declines between September 1990 and June 1992- In addition, there have been repeated State budget grabs (over $1.4 million so far), increased competition from communities to the north and south, reductions in Cal Poly enrollment, expensive State mandated programs, and higher costs. As a result; over the last twelve months, the City has cut numerous positions, including some in the Police and Fire Departments, and decreased services in a number of other areas. On the other hand, there has been no decrease in the demand and need for services; in fact, service needs and expectations have tended to progressively grow. For example, police calls for service have increased significantly in the last few years, as has demand for City recreation programs. The need to maintain the City's infrastructure - streets, parks, sewer and water lines - is as strong as ever. Soon to be adopted plans and General Plan elements include a myriad of program recommendations, related for example, to park improvements and open space acquisitions, bike path facility improvements, affordable housing, neighborhood maintenance, transit. and transportation system improvements, and downtown enhancements. Many of the recommendations of the Task Force further support these program goals. Such program goals reflect the aspirations of an ambitious community that wishes to preserve its uniqueness and continually enhance its quality of life for all its residents. In the existing financial environment, however, even maintaining existing service levels is a major uncertainty. The days of a "recession -proof' local economy that prospers "all by itself' are over (if, in fact, they ever truly existed). Dependence upon the federal or state levels of government is no longer appropriate, and consequently cities must be more self-reliant. Recognizing this challenge, during a December 1990 goal setting session the City Council established an Economic Stability Program as a part of the 1991-93 Financial Plan. Key accomplishments during this two year period include: ■ Supporting the Performing Arts Center a Completing the Broad Street annexation Page 4 Recommendations of the ESTF ■ Designating the auto center expansion in the Draft Land Use Element ■ Appropriating over $350,000 annually for tourism promotion and cultural activities ■ Adopting the Downtown Physical Concept Plan ■ Helping to facilitate the expansion of several local businesses, including: Scolari's - Payless, Telegram -Tribune, and Copeland's 'Downtown Center" ■ Funding a pilot business retention program developed by the BIA ■ Sponsor of the UCSB Economic Forecast Project. Although these and other achievements provided in Appendix B were significant and will have a positive impact on the City in the future, the City's efforts have not been a part of a planned, coordinated, and fully funded economic development strategy. Recognizing the need for a more formal and active strategy, as part of the 1993-95 goal setting process, the City Council established the following Major Goal: "Implement a more defineA proactive Economic Stability Program." After establishing this goal, two key questions remained: (1) How can the City best define a "more proactive" program? (the process) and (2) What should the program goals consist of? (the product). Working with the business community, a Task Force was appointed and a process undertaken to identify "consensus program goals", as described below. Business Workshop/Economic S ng= Task Force Appointment Several months ago, a coalition of business organizations was formed for the purpose of sharing ideas on improving the local economy and better communicating those ideas to City government. Members of this coalition include the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Improvement Association, the Building Industry Association. of the Central Coast, the San Luis Property Owners Association, the Association of Realtors, the Monterey Street Motel Association, and the newly formed Manufacturers Association. During the 1993-95 goal setting process, the Coalition encouraged and endorsed the idea of developing a more formal program through the appointment of a task force. The Coalition also invited the Council to a one day "Economic Stability Workshop" designed to brainstorm ideas for improving the local economy, to be held after the appointment of the Task Force. On March 9, 1993, based on nominations submitted by individual Councilmembers, the Mayor recommended sixteen specific appointments to the "Economic Strategy Task Force". The Council unanimously endorsed these appointments, which are listed in Appendix C. The Task Force was structured to represent not only the divergent sectors within the business community (e.g., retail, industrial, hospitality), but also to represent other community interests, such as conservation and neighborhood concerns. Page 5 Recommendations of the ESTF Nearly all members of the Task Force were able to attend and participate in the Business Coalition's Workshop which was held on Tuesday, March 16, 1993. The day long session included presentations by the cities of Davis, Monterey and Visalia, and also the involvement of numerous and divergent community leaders. The detailed results and ideas emerging from the workshop is provided in Appendix D. The key result was the consensus direction of the Council to the Task Force, which was to avoid a "cumbersome, complex study' and instead produce a report that included: 1. Any short term opportunities for improving the economic climate that can be identified. 2. A longer term strategy to assure the economic vitality of the community. 3. A process for generating public input and educating the community about the City's Economic Stability Program. 4. A recommended statement of City philosophy regarding economic development. issues. 5. Funding sources for any recommended programs/staffing. Page 6 Recommendations of the ESTF CHAPTER III THE TASK FORCE "PROCESS" The Task Force met for the first time at 7:00 am. on the Friday following the workshop. At this first meeting, Charlie Fruit was selected as the Chair. The Task Force also established a meeting schedule which was rigorously adhered to over the next several months, with regular meetings held every Friday from 7:00 a.m. to at least 9:00 am., with other special meetings occasionally held in the evenings. The early morning timeframe was chosen to accommodate the responsibilities several Task Force members have to their businesses or jobs. In total, the Task Force has met on over 30 separate occasions, which includes both regular meetings and special meetings. Given the aggressive schedule, and the number of people involved, Task Force attendance has been exceptional. All meetings were noticed and open to the public. Public comment was received at several meetings, and correspondence from interested persons were routinely received by the.Task Force throughout the process (which are available for review in the City Clerk's Office). Other key, facts which illustrate the magnitude of the effort are: ■ An estimated 90 hours in meetings alone have been invested by Task Force members over the last six months; countless other hours were spent by individual members reviewing material and preparing for the meetings. ■ Special evening briefings were held related to such topics as the development review process, City finances, the Downtown Physical Concept Plan, and the role of the.BIA in downtown (see Appendix E). ■ Over 120 separate informational handouts and correspondence have been provided to Task Force members; some at their request, some provided by staff, and many others offered by Task Force members or members of the public (Appendix F). ■ Several Task Force staff members attended the countywide "Stakeholders: Economic Forum" on June 3 and 4 in order to become more familiar with the corresponding regional effort. ■ On August 6, 1993, the draft "Vision Paper" was sent to over 60 community organizations soliciting their ideas for economic stability and inviting them to the Town Hall meetings. Another 400 copies of the document were distributed prior to and during the Town Hall meetings. (Appendix G). Page 7 Recommendations of the ESTF ■ The Town Hall meetings_ were held on August 23 and 24 respectively, with a combined attendance of over 150 persons. Those who signed the attendance sheets for these meetings are listed in Appendix H. A substantial amount of written correspondence was received and considered after these meetings. ■ In response to a suggestion made at the Town Hall meeting, a detailed summary of the Task Force process, including exhibits outlining much of the information considered by the Task Force, was made available in the City -County Library on September 1. the YrsionlGoalsD Developing the vision statements and recommended goals began with Task Force members independently preparing a written summary of their individual perceptions of the community's assets and liabilities. This exercise helped familiarize Task Force members with their respective views as to the strengths and weaknesses of the community. The Task Force decided, however, not to consolidate or reconcile these individual views, but rather to allow the similarities and differences to stand as a baseline for future Task Force work. In general, however, there was far more agreement among Task. Force members than disagreement, and thus the exercise provided the insight that there was more common ground among Task Force members than may have been initially anticipated. In addition to the asset and liability exercise, Task Force members were asked to individually prepare a written vision for San Luis Obispo in the future. These individual "vision papers" were used as a starting point for a visioning/brainstorming process which spanned several weeks. The assets and liabilities list and various vision write-ups are available for review in the Council Reading File. Through the above process, the Task Force established eight vision categories: ■ Government ■ ' Retail/Commercial ■ Tourism Page 8 Recommendations of the ESTF ■ Industry ■ Education ■ Transportation ■ Geography/Neighborhoods ■ Housing Rough goal statements were then brainstormed by the group for each major category. In addition, the Task Force agreed to tackle a list of nearly 20 "hard issues". These issues were gleaned from several sources, including . issues developed at the Business Coalition Workshop, issues referred by the Council, issues submitted by the Task Force Chair, and issues commonly known in the community to be complex and difficult public policy questions. Examples of the "hard issues" are: ■ Should the City pursue expansion of the Auto Park on Los Osos Valley Road? ■ Should the City pursue the annexation of the Airport Area? ■ Should the City seek to be known as a tourist destination? ■ Should the City modify the ARC/Development Review Process to achieve greater streamlining? ■ Should the City support an expansion of the Central Coast Mall, and if so, to what extent? Given the sheer volume and complexity of issues facing the Task Force, including the assignment by the Council to study the proposed transportation impact fee, the Task Force narrowed the list of issues to be addressed as a part of its recommendations to the Council. The Council initially asked that the Task Force provide the Council with some fairly "easy" short term objectives as a first set of recommendations, with more complex longer-term objectives to follow. However, what the Task Force is forwarding as a "first set of recommendations" has turned out to be far more comprehensive than a simple list of short term objectives even after condensing the issues. In tackling our task, we found that: (1) few issues were truly "easy", and thus it seemed unproductive to separate those that were and process them through public input and Council decisionmaking - only to repeat this process a short time later for the majority of Page 9 Recommendations of the ESTF recommendations; (2) once the Task Force transcended its early orientation phase and gained momentum, it was difficult to interrupt the work; and (3) even most of the "easier" issues are in some way interrelated with other complex issues, and thus would be more meaningful if transmitted in a larger context. So, for these reasons, the Task Force has taken somewhat longer to forward its initial recommendations to the City Council; however, these initial recommendations probably compose over 85% of our eventual work effort. Page 10 Recommendations of the ESTF CHAPTER IV: THE TASK FORCE PRODUCT: THE BASIS FOR KEY RECOMMENDATIONS The "Vision for Economic Stability in San Luis Obispo" enclosed in this chapter represents the 12th draft of the document. This is indicative of the level of scrutiny members brought to the task, and the Task Force's interest in accommodating differing views and concerns. Nine drafts of the document were prepared prior to the Town Hall meetings, and further versions were prepared afterward, based largely on the tremendous amount of community input we have received from virtually all sectors within the community. As mentioned earlier, while unanimous agreement does not exist for each and every goal, a high level of consensus exists for most goals. Certain issues warrant special discussion: Economic Stability Coordinator /Economic Advisory Body: The Task Force is recommending approximately 70 separate goals for adoption by the City Council, several of which would be followed up directly by an Economic Stability Coordinator. Each one of these goals can spawn a multitude of other tasks and objectives. For example, initiating an ongoing business visitation program will undoubtedly lead to a number of follow-up tasks in order to address issues raised during the visits. Developing and implementing a comprehensive business retention and incentive program will require a considerable amount of thought and work. Reinvigorating the Court Street Project is a major undertaking. Encouraging in the near -.term the expansion of the Auto Center will require a great deal of interaction with existing dealerships and others. Strategic business recruitment efforts - to assure that we "get what we want" rather than "get what we get" - will demand the capacity to take positive action, rather than merely reacting to proposals. There are many other examples. The bottom line, however, is that if the City truly wishes to have a strong and proactive Economic Stability Program, then it needs to appropriately support the effort. If instead the task of implementation is to be made a part-time job of existing staff members, then it is likely to be carried out in a part-time, "as time permits", manner. With regard to an Economic Advisory Body, the volume and complexity of issues identified during the Task Force process, the additional referrals from Council, the clear need for follow-up in many areas, and the extraordinary level of community interest in these issues, all point to the need to institutionalize economic concerns through the creation of a standing Page 11 Recommendations of the ESTF advisory body. Such an advisory body, which would start with much on its plate, needs to be appropriately staffed in order to be successful. This further supports the need for a full- time professional dedicated to this purpose. It has been said that if an Economic Stability Coordinator .is created, and an Economic Advisory Body formed, then a comparable position and advisory body should be created to address environmental issues. It should be noted that the City already has institutionalized a number of positions, commissions, processes, and planning activities specifically designed to protect the community's physical environment and safety. With respect to positions, virtually the entire Community Development Department, which includes the Building and Planning Divisions, is focused on important environmental concerns, including CEQA and all other formal processes which exist to assure environmentally sensitive physical planning, careful project review, and substantial public input. In addition, there are several other departments which are heavily involved in environmental support activities. For example, the Fire Department is involved in hazardous material inspection, abatement, and waste removal, in addition to development and building plan review. The Utilities Department carries out the water conservation and reclamation programs, wastewater discharge inspection and enforcement duties, and a comprehensive "AB 939" solid waste reduction and recycling program. The Public Works Department plays a major role in conditioning development, completing traffic studies, and carrying out alternative transportation programs, such as the bicycle and transit programs. With respect to advisory bodies which help preserve and enhance our environment, there are the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Commission, the Cultural Heritage Committee, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Tree Committee, the Mass Transportation Committee, and the Bicycle Committee. Collectively, these advisory bodies are responsible for such things as the Land Use Element, the Downtown Physical Concept Plan, the Open Space Element, the Housing Element, the Parks and Recreation Element, the Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Circulation Element, the Transit Plan, and the Water and Wastewater Elements. Over the years, the City has invested tens of millions of dollars in the aforementioned staff, commissions, processes, and planning efforts. This investment in protecting the City's environment and physical safety is entirely appropriate, necessary, and supported by the Task Force. We are recommending that some investment also be made to ensure that economic stability efforts are included; in an ongoing and coherent way, among the interdependent mix of municipal programs designed to protect our quality of life. Indeed, to neglect filling this void in City government will undermine the very quality of life we hope to sustain and improve. Page 12 Recommendations of the ESTF Reorganizing/Streamlining the Permit Process: This is an area which received a considerable amount of attention during Task Force meetings (including two briefings by Community Development Department staff) and during the Town Hall meetings. In short, the Task Force strongly feels that action must be taken to streamline the existing process. We believe just as strongly that this can be done without undermining matters which truly relate to the public interest, and without limiting public access to the process. We offer suggestions for how to achieve this, including an idea for restructuring two existing commissions, the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission. The Task Force also recognizes, however, that this is a complicated area requiring more study before any major changes are made. Therefore, assuming the Council agrees with the overall goal of streamlining, the Task Force is recommending that this matter be referred to staff for analysis, and that staff be directed to work closely with both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission in preparing its follow-up report. Madonna Road Shopping�Area. Expansion: No single issue was more extensively discussed than this one by the Task Force, and unanimity was ultimately not achieved for the expansion of the, existing mall into the Dalidio Area. The strong majority of Task Force members, however, believe that San Luis Obispo stands to achieve more through compromise with regard to the Dalidio property than through "all or nothing" propositions. For those who wish to see the Dalidio property held in public ownership as open space, it must be recognized that this can only be achieved if the City pays the property owner a fair value for their land. The City does not have the financial resources to do so since the acquisition of the 120 acres could easily cost in excess of $10 million today. On the other hand, the risk of not acquiring the property is that, under different circumstances, it eventually could fully develop either within the County or the City. The compromise that can meet both environmental and economic goals would be to implement the expansion outlined in the Draft Land Use Element, and to work to acquire the remaining acreage for open space, in public ownership. Although the Task Force has not had the opportunity to review in detail the proposal recently announced by the property owner, which offers a dedication of 60 acres for open space, the proposal seems extremely promising and consistent with the goals of the Draft LUE, and may be the best opportunity for compromise in the foreseeable future. The Downtown: Like most of us, the Task Force feels that the downtown represents the "heart and soul" of San Luis Obispo. Consequently, the City must be especially attentive to its concerns and future, and numerous recommendations are offered in this regard. One particularly important recommendation is directly linked to the Madonna Road Shopping Page 13 Recommendations of the ESTF Area expansion: concurrent with an expansion of the shopping center, a professional study should be undertaken to identify ways that the downtown can best co -exist with, and compliment such an expansion, and promote itself accordingly. The mall expansion should not come at the expense of our Downtown's vitality. The Task Force, along with many downtown business persons, do not think this needs to be the case. However, more creative and strategic efforts on the part of the downtown, based on approaches identified through the preparation of the recommended study, will be needed. Airport Area Annexation: As the Council will recall, consensus was reached on this issue at an earlier time, with the Task Force's formal recommendation for City annexation of the area forwarded to the City Council on May 28, 1993. It is the Task Force's understanding that the City is now actively engaged in discussions with the Airport Area property owners to achieve this annexation. The Task Force would like to emphasize that we believe that this is another area where more can be achieved through compromise than through conflict or inaction. If the City reaches an appropriate agreement to annex the area, then the City can control land uses in a way that assures appropriate open spaces within the boundaries of the Airport Area, and through the implementation of joint City -County policies, a greenbelt on its southern edge. If community conflict causes inaction, then the area will continue to develop within the County in the current piecemeal and substandard manner. Eventually (and while it may take a number of years), the area will buildout with the development impacts felt by the City while the revenues flow to the County.. If the City decides at that juncture to annex, it is highly unlikely that the County would be willing to transfer these revenues to the City; instead, the City will inherit costly service responsibilities to a developed, substandard area. Tourism: As mentioned previously, the focus of our work has been largely directed toward what City government can do relative to the local economy. There is one area, however, where a direct recommendation to the private sector is made, and that is in the area of tourism. Specifically, the Task Force is recommending the formation of a "Tourism Network" to bring together the divergent "players" within the hospitality industry to significantly improve communication, planning, and marketing efforts. At the present time, there is little ongoing coordination among these parties, and consequently promotional efforts are typically undertaken in an autonomous, disjointed fashion. Fractured efforts of this kind are costly, both in terms of dollars and results. The Network is a rather simple idea, but one that can produce important results through the synergism and complimentary use of resources that will result from such a group. The City's existing investment in community promotion (currently in excess of $350,000 annually, Page 14 Recommendations of the ESTE including cultural activity grants) may also be more effectively utilized through ideas generated by the Network. The Task Force has offered some suggestions for participants in the Network. However, there may be several other parties which should be included, including regional organizations. One potential outcome of such an effort could be a tourism development plan, created on either a local or regional basis. Such a plan could address and prioritize several of the ideas set forth by the Task Force. This concludes the special discussion section of our report. Issues not mentioned should not be thought of as any less important; perhaps, just less controversial. The Task Force has viewed each and every vision and goal statement as extremely important, and in nearly every instance, has agonized over precise wording in our vigilance to capture the spirit and intent of the group. What follows is the product of this difficult but rewarding effort. "A Vision for Economic Stability in San Luis Obispo". A VISION FOR ECONOMIC STABILITY IN SAN LUIS OBISPO Page 16 Vision Paper A VISION FOR ECONOMIC STABILITY IN SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE GOALS TO BE PURSUED IN SUPPORT OF THE VISION The Situation Until recently, the City of San Luis Obispo has enjoyed an economy that has continuously prospered and provided sufficient resources for City government and the services desired by residents. The presence of traditionally recession -proof institutions - Cal Poly, California Men's Colony, Cuesta College, and County and City government - have previously buffered the City from down cycles in the economy which have affected other areas of the state and nation. During the 1990's, it has become clear that our relative prosperity cannot be taken for granted, and that the City of San Luis Obispo needs to articulate clear goals, policies or programs to maintain and enhance the community's economic health. While there are City staff and. commissions with specialties in such varied fields as environmental protection, bicycle planning, and social services, there is no parallel attention given to economic concerns. Instead, economic concerns have often been viewed as in conflict with our interest in protecting San Luis Obispo's physical environment and quality of life. Communication between the City government and the business community can be improved Possibly a consequence of regulations and processes established in response to community concerns related to growth, people who wish to start or expand businesses often perceive (whether real or not, or intentional or otherwise) roadblocks to their success set up by the City. They often report attitudes toward business development that are not always helpful For a small community, an impressive number of quality companies have been spawned in San Luis Obispo. However, many of these same companies are now being actively recruited by other cities, and even by otherstates. Therefore, communication between the business community and the City must be better than ever. While we all acknowledge the need for strong environmental protection, regulations to ensure public safety, and maintenance of our high community aesthetic standards, the current regulatory process is often considered redundant, unnecessarily confusing expensive, and focused on matters other than true public interest. Improving the process, without sacrificing legitimate safety, environmental and aesthetic concerns, is necessary. Also, opportunities for stronger public-private cooperation to enhance the local economy are needed, as is greater cooperation among government agencies in addressing regional problems. A recognition that the City's long- term economic stability hinges on the availability of an adequate water supply is also essential The Vision: A strong and trusting partnership exists between San Luis Obispo city government and the business community to proactively and creatively support community economic stability in a way that balances economic, environmental, and social goals. Page 17 Vision Paper Supporting Goals: ■ Establish a clearly defined City economic policy by: (A) adopting the vision and goals recommended by the Economic Strategy Task Force; and (B) including in the Land Use Element (e.g., a separate chapter) goals, policies and programs related to the continuing health of the local and regional economy. ■ Establish an Economic Advisory Body whose purpose will be to advise the Council on appropriate economic stability policies, and to oversee the implementation of approved economic stability goals and strategies. ■ Hire an Economic Stability Coordinator, to be located in City Administration and possibly funded through Community Development Block Grant funds. The Coordinator's purpose is to implement the City's economic stability goals (as outlined throughout this document), support the Economic Advisory Body, and advise the business community on ways in which it can develop proposals that are responsible and effective in promoting economic stability in our community. e The priority of the Economic Advisory Body and Economic Stability Coordinator should be to develop and implement a local business retention and expansion program. New business recruitment efforts should be limited to filling key existing building vacancies and selectively attracting desirable companies to unbuilt areas designated as appropriate in the City's General Plan (so that we "get what we want" rather than "get what we get"). ■ Enhance communication between the City and the business community, starting with the implementation of a regular business visitation program by high level City officials. Initially, the City delegation should include the Mayor, CAO, and key department heads. Eventually, the Economic Advisory Body chairperson and Economic Stability Coordinator should be included, with much of the Economic Stability Coordinator's workload involving follow-up to problems identified through the visitation program. ■ Foster a customer friendly attitude in City Hall toward business and the community. ■ Continue and strengthen current efforts to streamline the City permit process to: (A) eliminate excessive and inconsistent City review; (B) establish clear upfront criteria and performance standards; and (C) improve communication between the City and its customers throughout the process to avoid misunderstandings and last minute surprises. This should be accomplished without compromising community standards, established growth rates, and approved build -out projections. Page 18 Vision Paper ■ Revise the ARC and Planning Commission review processes to reduce such problems as multiple advisory body review (and often conflicting advisory body conclusions), over attention to detail without substantive public benefit, excessive applicant and City cost, and unnecessary meetings. The intent is not to limit opportunities for public access to the development review process nor is it to reduce community standards. Ideas which could be considered include the following: ► Creation of a commission charged with reviewing and acting on all current planning applications requiring discretionary review, combining most of the project review functions of the Planning Commission and ARC; and creation of a commission to focus on long range planning. ► Improved guidelines for all commissions with development review and planning responsibilities setting forth clearly their specific purviews. ► Establishment of clear city standards and thresholds of acceptability for new development which wi11 apply to staff and commission project review. Focus both commission and staff review on matters which relate to the public interest and good, as opposed to the individual tastes and interests of the reviewer. In other words, invest time and energy in matters of substantive community importance, and not in the over management of less important details. ► Improved and ongoing training on CEQA and local environmental guidelines to better focus the review process. ■ Based on criteria which consider long-term economic, environmental, and community goals, offer incentives to attract and/or retain businesses, such as: a sales tax reimbursement program; reduced development fees; use of assessment districts to finance various upfront costs. ■ Utilize the powers of government to achieve shared public-private goals (e.g., eminent domain to assemble land for significant/special business development). ■ Support the development of additional water sources above current supplies for the City to implement the General Plan; options should include importation of Nacimiento water, enlargement of the Salinas Dam, groundwater, conservation, reclamation of wastewater, and desalination. Technical feasibility, reliability, cost, timeliness, and environmental impacts must be considered in deciding among water options. However, failure to secure additional water will seriously degrade our quality of life here. Page 19 Vision Paper The Situation: The City has traditionally served as a regional center in employment, retailing, government, education, health care, finance, professional services, cultural events, recreation, and entertainment. This role has come about largely as a result of our history, central location and numerous incremental decisions, and is not the result of a consensus strategic plan. More recently, several factors have begun to undermine the City ability to fulfill its traditional role in some of these areas. These factors include the recession, .increased retail competition from northern and southern communities, governmental downsizing, and decreases in Cal Poly and Cuesta College enrollment. Sales tax, which is the single largest revenue source to the. City's General Fund and thus supports a number of services, has been hit particularly hard As an example, between 1990 and 1992, the City suffered an unprecedented eight consecutive quarters of sales tax. decline. While the reduction in sales was experienced in a variety of sectors, decreasing auto sales were particularly hurtful, since automobile sales compose a full 20% of the City's total sales tax. In addition, a new reality which has impacted City revenues is the increasing competition from cities north and south, which have explicit policies for increased population and economic growth. It is common knowledge that a significant number of City residents shop outside the community, which not only hurts local businesses and City revenues, but which also suggests that the goods, services, and value desired by many are not being met within the community. The downtown, traditionally viewed as the heart and soul of San Luis Obispo, is increasingly serving a more narrow tourist -oriented marketplace niche. Enhanced support for tourism has positive aspects; however, if the day-to-day needs of residents are not being adequately met. within the community, and if the City loses its attraction regionally, then both the downtown and other major shopping areas suffer. Evidence of this is the excessive turnover among downtown businesses, and a weakening of occupancies at Central Coast Plaza Mall. Excessive competition between different communities can be a zero sum game that is not in the overall public interest. It is not suggested, therefore, that the City pursue a policy of absolute dominance within the regional market. However, the City must preserve its traditional strength, and enhance its ability to meet the diverse needs of residents and visitors. The Vision: San Luis Obispo has a healthy, diverse, and regionally competitive retail sector which utilizes our unique community character as a shopping draw, but which also meets the basic shopping needs of residents to prevent sales tax leakage to other communities. Page 20 Vision Paper Supporting Goals: ® Enhance the downtown as the City's entertainment, cultural, and social center (meeting the needs of diverse age groups and interests) and as the County's service and financial hub. , These can be achieved by ► preserving and enhancing the historical scale and architecture within the downtown.. ► retaining and enhancing the downtown's special character and attractiveness for both tourists and City residents, including such amenities as sidewalk cafes, bulbouts at appropriate locations, and pedestrian -friendly areas established through appropriate street closures. ► providing strong, fair and consistent enforcement of existing zoning and property regulations; improving regulations, as appropriate. ► expanding residential uses in the downtown, and encouraging residential serving commercial development in order to meet the needs of downtown residents. to. working to retain the County seat (including the courts and other offices) in downtown San Luis Obispo consistent with the goal of preserving the downtown as the service and financial center of the County. ► treating the adopted Downtown Physical Concept Plan as a living/evolving document and using it as the baseline reference point in considering future downtown development and improvements. ► pursuing expeditiously the development of the Court Street property consistent with the concept outlined in the Downtown Plan, which includes an opening of the creek, a park/plaza area, and a mixed use development. The development could be achieved through a public-private partnership with the City retaining underlying property ownership. ► improving existing trolley service and, consistent with the availability of equipment to meet the need, expanding service .to/from the hotel -motel areas to facilitate added tourism spending in the downtown and reduced traffic congestion. ■ LI N LL Page 21 Vision Paper ► considering the viability of a daily open-air farmers' market with a small business focus. ► provide a one-stop cultural and recreation event information center and ticket booth for events taking place in the City and consider the Mission Plaza Adobe as a possible location. ► concurrent with the expansion recommended below, engage the services of a professional consultant to evaluate ways that the downtown can best co -exist with, and compliment, the Madonna Road shopping area.. The study should result in an appropriate promotional strategy to assure the downtown's continued vitality even after the expansion. Take immediate actions to facilitate an expansion of the Madonna Road shopping area, including: ► supporting limited discount shopping opportunities, up to and including a Costco, which the community now travels elsewhere to find. supporting the annexation, rezoning, and service delivery necessary for expansion of the Central Coast Plaza Mall (project to be facilitated in a streamlined fashion, as outlined under Government). ► encouraging the redevelopment of the Madonna Plaza Shopping Center to enhance its commercial and aesthetic appeal, and. to avoid excessive sprawl into the expansion area. Establish and maintain policies which support San Luis Obispo as the professional, service and finance hub of the County. Expand and retain, through strategic business attraction efforts, the City's role as a regional medical center. Make available adequate zoned land to meet future expansion needs of the professional service sector, including within the downtown core. Expand and enhance the existing Auto Center on Los Osos Valley Road to strengthen auto sales citywide, and to improve land uses elsewhere, by: Page 22 Vision Paper ► annexing and serving property identified for expansion of the existing auto center, consistent with longstanding policy. ► involving local dealerships in auto center expansion planning, and as a first priority encouraging the relocation of dealerships currently within the City (particularly in the downtown) through the provision of a meaningful incentive program. ► completing the expansion based on a masterplan, which includes frontage improvements for Los Osos Valley Road and Highway 101 to assure that the expansion is done in a quality manner, and improves the existing aesthetics of the area. ■ Develop and implement an ongoing business retention program to support existing local businesses. ■ Develop and implement a Shop San Luis Obispo promotional program to encourage local and regional shopping in the City. ■ Improve freeway and other signage to direct visitors to local business and tourist areas. ■ Work with the business community to assist them in improving their service orientation to customers (e.g., support training programs). ■ Accommodate and encourage appropriate home businesses which do not deteriorate the quality of neighborhoods. ■ Adopt a citywide going out of business time limit ordinance that will discourage going out of business operations from locating in the City (many cities including Santa Maria have ordinances of this nature). Tourism The Situation; Tourism is very important to the economy of the City. Tourism provides jobs and important revenues to both the public sector (hotel -motel tax, sales tax) and the private sector. Tourism is also a clean industry which does not add significantly to the population. Historically, San Luis Obispo's tourist industry has depended more heavily on stopover visitors titan destination tourists. In the past, many persons have stayed in San Luis Obispo on their way to someplace else, as opposed to visiting and experiencing San Luis Obispo specifically. Destination tourists tend to stay longer and spend more money than stopover visitors. Despite Page 23 Vision Paper our central location, the lack of adequate facilities for mid -to -larger -size conferences has been a deterrent to the City being chosen for various conferences and business meetings, which has diminished destination visits. San Luis Obispo' share of the destination tourism industry has grown largely as a result of the same amenities and natural assets that cause people to want to live in San Luis Obispo. These assets and amenities, however, have not been adequately promoted in order to increase our share of the destination tourist market. Therefore, efforts to enhance San Luis Obispo as a destination tourist location must be built upon the protection of those qualities which have attracted tourists here in the first place. our clean and safe environment, the small town fees and the easy accessibility of amenities, such as arts and cultural events and outdoor activities. On the other hand, characteristics which create a tourist trap atmosphere must be avoided, 'fest we kill the goose that lays the golden eggs!" The Vision: San Luis Obispo has a robust and diverse tourist industry, serving as a true destination tourist attraction, while also meeting the needs of stop over visitors. Supporting Goals: ■ Develop a stronger, better coordinated, and more creative promotional program which emphasizes our natural assets and unique community character to attract tourists to San Luis Obispo and its environs. ■ A "tourism network" should meet to bring together the various groups involved in tourism promotion and special events to enhance communication, improve coordination, and consolidate and better use their existing resources (e.g., the Chamber of Commerce, BIA, VCB, PCC, Hotel/Motel Association, regional representatives, cultural arts representatives). ■ Work, on a regional basis where appropriate, to increase the number of events and special attractions for tourists such as: ► . Performing Arts Center activities and other major performances P. regular entertainment in Mission Plaza ► daily historical walking tours off season events (e.g., Spring Arts Festival) ► eco -tourism activities (e.g., hiking and biking) Page 24 Vision Paper ► arts tourism ► SLO Lighthouse ► Cuesta Amphitheater ► Cal Poly Open House ■ Work to attract more group tours, and improve the information available to tourists upon their arrival regarding local attractions. ■ Improve and promote alternative transportation services for tourists (e.g., establish train packages for business conferences). ■ Support the development, or acquisition of, an additional conference facility (e.g., the Veteran's Memorial Hall or a facility on or near the Cal Poly campus). ■ Allow Bed and Breakfasts in residential districts to help restore and preserve historic buildings, subject to their meeting development standards, (including parking) to ensure neighborhood compatibility. Industry The Situation: While industry is important in itself, it reaches its greatest importance in relationship to other sectors of the economy. Industry provides critical base level jobs, and good jobs are fundamental to the quality of life for most people. In addition, industry stimulates the economy through its payroll as well as the sales tax revenues it generates. Industry also provides economic diversification and reduces economic vulnerability in an economic downturn. In San Luis Obispo, it augments our strong governmentally based economy, as well as the retail and tourist economies. Despite several impressive locally founded companies, industry in San Luis Obispo has been largely unrecognized in its importance. There has been insufficient communication between City government and the industrial/manufacturing sector. Despite the clean nature of most local industries, a smokestack perception of manufacturing still persists for many people. There is little in the City's policies or planning activities which supports the expansion of existing industries, or strategically identifies the industries that would be desirable to attract. In fact, a common complaint of those in the industrial sector is that there is inadequate zoned land within Page 25 Vision Paper the City for local expansion or strategic attraction. Conversely, suitably zoned land on the perimeter of the City is under County jurisdiction and could develop inconsistent with our community standards. A lack of strong communication links between City government and the industrial sector, combined with constraints to expansion, increases the possibility that desirable employers will relocate elsewhere. As mentioned earlier, many local industries are being aggressively and continuously recruited by other cities and states. The lack of a business retention program is very risky in such an environment. With respect to industrial attraction, there is currently no specific strategy in place. The absence of such a strategy. could create missed opportunities to attract desirable, environmentally sensitive industries capable of providing higher end jobs to our underemployed citizens. The Vision: San Luis Obispo has a strong, diverse, and environmentally sensitive industrial base, reinforced by the expansion/attraction of environmentally -conscious, cutting edge companies which offer enhanced employment opportunities for local residents. Supporting Goals: ■ Establish a team of City officials and business representatives that can be called upon in efforts to attract select companies or assist existing industries in expanding their operations locally. ■ Continue working closely with the County of San Luis Obispo and Cal Poly in support of the development of a business research park. ■ . Make adequate land available (through annexation and/or rezoning) for light manufacturing and industrial expansion and attraction - but selectively, based on criteria which are consistent with our economic, environmental, and community standards. ■ With regard to the Airport Area: ► Annex the entire area in the near-term so the City can masterplan and control development on its southern edge to assure high standards, quality and adequate open space. ► Concurrent with annexation, enter into a Memorandum of Agreement/contract with the County to assure that areas outside the City's ,z -.,)here of influence, and under County control, will be retained as rural in a Page 26 Vision Paper character and inclusive of open space; areas within the City's sphere and under City control, will accommodate reasonable urban development, but will also include open space and greenbelts. ► Provide phased urban infrastructure/services to the airport area within a reasonable timeframe; if not, a rate of development should be allowed to proceed in the City, generally consistent with what is permissible and feasible under County jurisdiction. ■ To address the problem of under -employment in the community, work to maximize the availability of new meaningful employment opportunities for local residents, with the recognition that the non-profit industry can also offer base level jobs and thus should not be ignored in business retention and expansion efforts. ■ Establish a streamlined permit process for desired business expansion or development, based on specific criteria to be established (consistent . with recommendations under Government). The Situation: Our community is blessed with the presence of two extraordinary local resources. California Polytechnic State University and Cuesta College., In fact, San Luis Obispo has become the community that it is as a result of these institutions, particularly the University. Cal Poly contributes to the quality of our City in many ways, both directly and indirectly, including our intellectual life, cultural amenities, various facilities, athletics and special events. These contributions enrich our community with a vitality that is greater than what is found in most cities our size. In addition to these quality of life factors, both Cal Poly and Cuesta are vital players in the local economy, and offer resources that can greatly enhance our economic stability efforts in several areas, such as in training and research. The City of San Luis Obispo does not directly control the policies and decisions of these institutions. However, through greater collaboration and partnerships, the financial and human resources of these institutions can greatly aid local economic stability efforts. While some forms already exist for such collaboration, and while there have been recent individual project successes (e g., the Performing Arts Center), assurance of an ongoing partnership between the educational institutions, the City, and the business community is needed. The Vision: A creative and active government -business partnership exists with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. Page 27 Vision Paper Supporting goals: ■ Establish a Partnership Committee, consisting of the City of San Luis Obispo, local business leaders, and Cal Poly and Cuesta officials to identify and implement collaborative programs for supporting mutual goals, such as taking better advantage of technology and research resources available through Cal Poly. ■ Encourage graduate programs that relate to cutting edge disciplines. ■ Continue using Cuesta College as a major player in meeting the training needs of local businesses and employees. ■ Include a representative of the education community on any Economic Stabilization Commission. Transportation The Situation. An effective transportation system is essential to a strong economy. Goods, services, and people must be able to efficiently get to the City, and once here, circulate within the City with a minimum of wasted time. In order for a transportation system to be effective, it must offer diverse and innovative modes of transportation. The days of total reliance on the automobile, with ever increasing highway and road system expansions, are over due to exorbitant costs, both financial and environmental. Cities which have failed to provide effective alternative transportation systems have, almost without exception, eventually reached unacceptable levels of traffic congestion. In addition to negative environmental consequences, such a condition is ham, ful to commerce and economic productivity. Because of San Luis Obispo's historic role as the County's medical, commercia4 and governmental hub, with many employees essentially using the road system to mitigate the high cost of San Luis Obispo housing, an effective transportation system to and within the City is essential Given the City's tourism goals, it is also important to offer a diversity of transportation options to visitors, especially if tourism promotion is to legitimately offer our unique quality of life as a major attraction. At the present time, San Luis Obispo has one of the more successful transit programs for a population of our size. However, the frequency of service is inadequate to attract more voluntary riders, as opposed to those who have no other options. The City's fledgling bike program has made recent progress, but remains undeveloped as a significant transportation system, much less as a tourist draw. Page 28 Vision Paper The Vision: San Luis Obispo is a city with an innovative mix of transportation alternatives for people traveling to San Luis Obispo, and for visitors/workers/residents traveling within the City. Supporting goals: ■ Maintain San Luis Obispo as the hub of regional public transportation. ■ Continue to expand the City's transit system to assure frequent, safe, and dependable service that will attract greater ridership. ■ Pursue the development of a transit transfer center. ■ Develop a strong inter -city cross-town system, which includes a range of alternative forms of transportation (e.g., bicycle, bus, trolleys, dial -a -ride, scooters). ■ Assure that air service at the County Airport is adequate to meet our changing needs. ■ Work with the Air Quality Control District to implement creative trip reduction programs to preserve and improve air quality. ■ Continue to encourage bicycling as a viable and desirable transportation option, and to promote San Luis Obispo as a bicycle friendly city. ■ Improve alternatives to cars (for example, bikes, trains, trolleys, buses; and alternative fuel vehicles) to connect regional housing, job and educational centers. Use of existing rights-of-way should be emphasized. Geography/Neighborhoods The Situation: Much of the concern associated with economic development can be attributed to worries about the destruction of the community's physical environment and a deterioration in the atmosphere of neighborhoods and the quality of life for which the City has become known. Such concerns are legitimate, and must be addressed in tandem with an active economic stability program. The City's scenic surroundings are important to business and residents, yet while there has been much discussion and planning for open space and greenbelts, very little space has been obtained In contrast, development on the City perimeter; but within County jurisdiction, slowly continues, Page 29 Vision Paper often in a substandard way. Hard and clean community edges are desired, and depend upon some level of expansion to afford the City control over certain areas adjacent to our current boundaries (e.g., the Airport Area). With regard to neighborhoods, absentee landlords, overcrowding, and inadequate support for zoning and property maintenance have had very negative consequences in some areas. Funding is currently inadequate in tha City to significantly invest in neighborhoods to reverse such trends. However, improvements are needed with respect to traffic controls park facilities, parking, noise control, and property maintenance. Successful neighborhoods are usually those in which a human scale has been retained, and residents feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for its character and atmosphere. Absent strategic neighborhood planning and investment, both economic and social costs, will be incurred A cohesive City image of the unique quality of life in San Luis Obispo must be maintained if the City is to be successful in attracting and holding onto environmentally sensitive businesses and tourism, as well as preserving the lifestyles of residents who came here because of this image. The Vision: San Luis Obispo is a city with defined boundaries surrounded by greenbelts with protected hillsides, clean air, and quiet and peaceful neighborhoods. Supporting goals: ■ Seize opportunities to control development within the City's urban reserve line through strategic annexations (e.g. Airport Area). ■ Use a variety of techniques to acquire or retain open space around the boundaries of the City, concurrent with annexations, independently, or in cooperation with other agencies. ■ Strengthen and enforce hillside protection policies. ■ Work with the County in its evaluation of a Countywide Transfer of Development Rights Program (TDR) and consider the City as a possible receiver site, consistent with the General Plan. ■ Support the continued expansion of Mission Plaza consistent with the Downtown Design Plan. Page 30 Vision Paper ■ Establish a long term goal of creating a pedestrian/bike path along San Luis Creek from the downtown which will extend to southern parts of the City. ® Implement appropriate City policies to assure quiet, peaceful, and beautiful neighborhoods, including: ► Encourage within defined residential boundaries higher densities, mixed uses, and small scale neighborhood serving businesses, where deemed appropriate after public and Council review, in order to avoid sprawl and reduce reliance on the automobile. ► Support the development of bicycle boulevards as a way of reducing automobile use and through -neighborhood traffic. ► Provide strong, fair, and consistent enforcement of existing zoning and property regulations; improve regulations, as appropriate. ► Encourage Cal Poly to provide more desirable student and faculty housing on campus. Housing The Situation: The availability of housing affordable to workers is important to the local economy. Housing affordability, restricted in San Luis Obispo by high land costs among other factors, is a complex problem . There is also an imbalance between the number of jobs and the availability of housing in San Luis Obispo which is largely a result of our historic role as an employment hub combined with policies for limiting residential development. Therefore, achieving a jobs -housing balance within the corporate limits of San Luis Obispo is likely unattainable It is also inconsistent with the historic development of our economy and the City's growth control program. However, the negative consequences of the imbalance can at least be partially mitigated without undermining the advantages of the City's historic hub role. More housing near employment centers, especially in the downtown, is needed. Properly planned higher densities can improve the living environment of a community by avoiding sprawl; preserving human scale neighborhoods, and encouraging the use of alternative forms of transportation. Thus, many of the goals intended to be achieved through an absolute city jobs -housing balance can be supported in other ways. Page 31 Vision Paper The Vision: San Luis Obispo's housing stock includes a significant supply of affordable single-family and multi -family housing (housing which fits the income -profile of the City's population). Supporting goals: ■ Facilitate the maintenance and improvement of existing housing through incentives and appropriate regulatory streamlining. ■ Accept higher densities (units per acre) for detached single family and multi family housing in new developments -- but with excellent design, landscaping, open space, and adequate parking.. ■ Encourage and accommodate more housing affordable to local workers near City job centers, such as downtown, but do not attempt- to achieve a city -scale jobs -housing balance. ■ Improve alternatives .to cars (for example, bikes, trains, trolleys, buses, and alternative fuel vehicles) to connect regional housing and job centers. Use of existing rights-of-way should be emphasized. \G:vis-goal.13 Page 32 Recommendations of the ESTF CHAPTER V FOLLOW-UP WORK To sum up, it is now up to the Council to decide which of our recommendations should be adopted, and how they should be pursued by the City. To start the process, we are recommending that the Council take the following actions on November 9, 1993: 1. Following a public hearing, receive and endorse the recommendations of the Economic Strategy Task Force. 2. Direct staff to return with a report outlining a phasing and funding strategy for implementation. Some have suggested that the Task Force should also recommend priorities and detailed implementation strategies. However, the Task Force has chosen not to establish specific priorities or recommended implementation strategies. Instead, the Task Force feels that this job is more appropriately the responsibility of the City Council, with the help of Commissions and staff, and is recommending that Council direct staff to return with the recommended phasing and funding strategy. As a general guideline, however, the Task Force feels that all eight major categories within the Vision Paper are integral to the City's long-term economic success, and consequently each category should receive some attention within the first phase of implementation. Hiring the Economic Stability Coordinator should also be given early attention, since tackling many of the other goals will hinge on the City's ability to properly support the effort necessary to carry them out. Finally, given the comprehensive nature of the Task Force's recommendations, and the huge time commitment required to formulate these recommendations, it is our hope that we can soon "pass the baton" back to the City, and eventually, to an Economic Advisory Body. However, the Task Force does have one major remaining issue to be addressed: the Transportation Impact Fee. The Task Force intends to tackle this issue as our next task, and return with a recommendation within the next 60 days. g:estfN APPENDICES A. Minority Report B. Previous/Current City Economic Stability Efforts C. Task Force Members D. March 13 Workshop Summary E. List of Special Presentations/Guest Speakers F. List of Handouts G. List of Organizations Contacted for Input H. Town Hall Meeting Attendees 16 September, 1993 To: San Luis Obispo City Council Subject: Economic strategy Task Force Minority Report From: Pat Veesart Serving on the Economic Strategy Task Force has been both a pleasure and an education. It has also been an honor for me to represent Conservation on the Task Force even though there are other members who have a long history of speaking for the Environment. I have the highest regard for all of the Task Force members and I respect their opinions, even when in disagreement. When this group was first formed, there was discussion about balancing economic, environmental, and community goals in our recommendations. As the meetings progressed, it became increasingly obvious that, given the time -frame in which we were operating and the charge given to us by you, our focus would have to be on producing recommendations that addressed the Economy. While the Environment and the Community have been considered in our discussions, often at great length, the document we have produced is an economic recommendation. While I am in agreement with the majority of the recommendations of the Task Force, my concern is that, taken all together, they represent a focus on the economy that could actually harm the city if not balanced with environmental concerns and community values. There are some specific recommendations in the Task Force's document which I am uncomfortable with and I will address them under the headings where they occur. GOVERNMENT I disagree with the recommendation to hire an Economic Stability Coordinator. I feel that this position is nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy for private enterprise. The city does not need a paid "cheerleader" for business. The business community is well represented before city government by the BIA and the Chamber of Commerce which both have paid staff to look out for their interests. I'm particularly opposed to using CDBG money to fund this position. Using money earmarked for the poor to improve business APPENDIX A (2) has the smell of "Trickle Down" on it and strikes me as being somewhat cynical. There is a recommendation to offer incentives to "attract and/or retain businesses, such as: a sales tax reimbursement program; reduced development fees; use of assessment districts to finance various up -front costs." While these kinds of incentives might be appropriate in very special circumstances, the city should use them sparingly. It is important that Development pay for itself and not be a financial burden on city residents. RETAIL/COMMERCIAL The big issue for me in this section is the recommendation to expand the Central Coast Plaza and include a "Big Box" retailer like Costco in that expansion. I have already made my views on this subject well known and I am including with this letter a copy of the opinion piece I wrote for the Telegram -Tribune that details my objections to this recommendation. Since I wrote that article, new information has surfaced to reinforce my objections. I'm referring to A LAND VALUE AND FISCAL. IMPACT STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE DALIDIO PROPERTY, done by ERA Associates. The Task -Force labored under the assumptions that: 1. The City of San Luis Obispo is experiencing significant retail leakage to the City of Santa Maria. 2. The Central Coast Plaza expansion (including Costco) would be a big revenue generator for the city. 3. Declining sales tax revenues mean that SLO is doing poorly in the collection of sales tax. The ERA report indicates that: 1. "The city itself is not experiencing noticeable retail leakage, except for sale attributed to non -retail outlets." 2. "The 435,000 square foot retail center and multi -family housing development scenario generates estimated fiscal revenue of $643,000 in the year 2004 (in 1992 (3) dollars) ... Most of this revenue is from sales tax receipts. ... the net fiscal surplus after expenditures is $406,000 (in 1992 dollars)." 3. "For retail outlets overall, the City of San Luis Obispo has a much higher than average sales per capita compared to the county or the state, and a comparable sales per capita figure when compared to the City of Santa Maria." (emphasis mine) City staff tells me that the inclusion of a Costco in the mall expansion could boost the net gain to the city to a figure "somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000." I realize that these are only estimates. The ERA report also says: "However,since retail sales per capita for these same categories are already higher than average within the city of San Luis Obispo, it would be unrealistic to expect that all sales attributed to the new center would be an incremental gain to the city. Therefore it was assumed that 70% of the retail sales in scenario 3A ..... would be an incremental gain to the city. The balance is considered sales that otherwise would have gone to other city retailers. " (emphasis .mine) Construction of a Prado Road interchange would be necessary to the project at a cost of $10 million. ERA has assigned $5.4 million of that cost to the Dalidio property (54% of the traffic would be generated by the project) and credits them $2 million for providing land for the right-of-way. That leaves $3.4 million to be paid by the developer. Is the developer willing to pay that? The balance of $44.6 million is assigned to the city. Staff has assured me that an assessment district and development fees will pay for the interchange and not General Fund revenues, but it seems likely that at least part of the cost of the interchange will come from the General Fund. I could go on and on (some would say I already have) about traffic impacts, noise, visual blight, loss of prime farm -land, consumerism, impacts on existing businesses, etc.. The bottom line is, how much is the city willing to sacrifice for $406,000 a year? Keep in (4) mind that the ERA report only addresses fiscal impacts and not community values. There are many things that one can't attach a dollar value to which must be considered. I disagree with the recommendation to expand the Auto Center on Los Osos Valley Road. San Luis Obispo's auto sales, per capita are already double the state average. We sell more cars than the City of Santa Maria does. The private automobile is the single greatest detractor of quality of life in urban settings.The city's circulation element calls for fewer trips by automobile and more trips by alternative forms of transportation. How is this recommendation going to help achieve that goal? An expanded Auto Park at the southern entrance to the city will be incredibly unattractive and will not invite visitors to stay in our town. This could hurt tourism and and possibly lessen TOT revenues. I could support a very limited expansion of the Auto Park to accommodate existing automobile dealerships currently located in the downtown as a means of freeing up appropriate land for retail and visitor -serving businesses. INDUSTRY It is with great reluctance that I am going along with the recommendation to annex the Airport Area. I am doing so, based on the information we have received, because I am convinced that the Airport Area will develop, whether the city annexes it or not, and probably to a lower standard than the city would allow. If we are going to annex, we should make sure that the needs and concerns of existing residents are adequately addressed and that community goals set forth in the General Plan are adhered to. I'm specifically referring to growth -rate and build -out figures. It is imperative that the property owners who are going to benefit from this annexation pay all the costs associated with it. The city should set high standards for development and not deviate from them. The annexation process should not be streamlined in any way and ample opportunity for public review should be provided. At some point, quite soon, the city needs to put an end to annexations and start improving on what we already have and protecting the rest. The majority of Task Force members have indicated that my comments here reflect their feelings on the subject as well. The comments regarding the Airport Area apply to all references to annexations in the document. I am basically opposed to the city annexing any more land except in very special circumstances and with extraordinary attention paid to the feelings of existing residents. That concludes my comments specific to the document. Former mayor, Ken Schwartz, in a letter to the Task Force wrote: "What are some of the problems created by the business community which also need to be addressed? To name a few: Speculation in land and rent or lease properties; Offering goods and services at the most competitive prices commensurate with costs and services rendered; Reduction of artificial barriers for low interest loans to new and/or expanding businesses; Accepting responsibility for designing environmentally sound and architecturally sensitive buildings that "fit" into the context of San Luis Obispo's character. All of these suggestions ask the business community to do the same thing it is asking city government to. do and that is to look at the whole picture comprehensively, assert a higher degree of self discipline. and to act responsibly for the common good." (emphasis mine) Since the work of the Task Force has been focussed on the economy, I think that it would be useful for you to appoint an Environmental Task Force in order to achieve a more balanced perspective. I would also like to see the city bring the Rocky Mountain Institute to San Luis Obispo so we could hear some alternatives to the traditional economic view. I hope that you will view the work of the Economic Strategy Task Force not as the final word, but as a part of the big picture. Please take time to "look at the whole picture comprehensively. before you make decisions that will affect us all. (6) Thank you for appointing me to this Task Force. It has been a pleasure to serve with such a high-caliber group of individuals and I can truly say that I have received an excellent return on my investment of time. Veesart Attachment: Costco article COSTCO ARGUMENT At its meeting of July 23, the City of San Luis Obispo's Economic Strategy Task force voted on whether its Visions/Goals paper should include a recommendation to the City Council to expand the Central Coast Plaza and whether to include a Costco or other "Big Box" development in that expansion. The committee voted in favor of both these proposals. As a member of the Task Force, I voted against both these proposals for the following reasons: A Costco is completely out of scale for San Luis Obispo. We are a small town and visitors are drawn to San Luis Obispo for its small town charm. Huge shopping malls and "Big Box" retailers detract from that charm. The fact that we are different from all the other Southern California cities is money in the bank. Nobody vacations in Burbank. Shopping malls and "stand alone" "Big Box" retail outlets are typically built away from the downtown core of small cities. Because of this, they are extremely "auto -centric". In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a more unfriendly atmosphere for pedestrians or bicyclists than a shopping mall parking lot. Traffic congestion is already bad on Madonna Road with service levels at "C" or "D". Any further expansion of the Central Coast Plaza will require street improvements in order to avoid gridlock. Who will pay for and maintain these improvements? If the Costco is located near Los Osos Valley -Road and the freeway, there is potential for traffic congestion like that which occurred in Arroyo Grande when the K -Mart Shopping Plaza was built. Won't that be a lovely sight to greet visitors as they enter the city from the south? "Big Box" retailers are extremely predatory. By under -selling their competition, they drive small, locally -owned businesses out of business. While competition may be a good thing between small businesses, a small, local business just can't compete with a major corporation. There are only so many dollars in this community. Either they will be spent at many locations, benefitting many local people, or they will be spent at one location, benefitting stockholders in New Jersey (or wherever the corporate offices happen to be). Profits from local business stay in the community. Profits from Costco leave the community. I would like to know, what the net gain to San Luis Obispo is if we allow a Costco to be built here. If there is a net benefit to San Luis Obispo, it will be at the expense of other communities in the county. By drawing shoppers to San Luis Obispo, we will be taking sales tax revenues away from other cities who may very well need them more than we do. For example, San Luis Obispo already collects twice as much sales tax per capita than the City of Atascadero. Atascadero is on the other side of the jobs/housing imbalance with its residents having to leave town to find employment. Commuting adds to traffic congestion and air pollution, and makes necessary the 50 million dollar Cuesta Grade widening project. Maybe it would be better for the county as a whole if Costco located in Atascadero and provided jobs there. Better still, of course, would be if Atascadero refused Costco as well and focused instead on building a sustainable local economy. The proposed Central Coast Mall expansion and Costco will pave over some of the best farmland in the county. Preserving local farmland should be one of our top priorities. If we are ever going to have a sustainable local economy, the ability to feed ourselves with local resources will have to be a fundamental goal. It's only a matter of time before chemically dependent, centralized, "factory farming" fails. Common sense should tell you that we can't grow food for the entire world in only a few centralized locations. The land just can't sustain those kinds of yields for very long. In the not too distant future, communities are, once again, going to have to look to small local farms for their food as the huge agro-industry self-destructs. Where will we be then when we've paved over all the once - productive farmland? The only way to insure a healthy economic future for San Luis Obispo is to build a sustainable, local economy that is as insulated as possible from the state and national economies. Bringing in the big corporations is certainly not the way to do this. I believe our future depends on us not being like everyone else and not making the same mistakes just because that's what everyone else did. We live in a unique and beautiful place. Maintaining that uniqueness and beauty insures us a healthy future. If we choose to be like everyone else, the best we can hope for is mediocrity. The worst, I'd rather not think about. Pat Veesart 1570 Hansen Lane San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Tel. 546-0518 SUPPORTING THE L.00AL ECONOMY Samples of Things the City Is Already Doing Nurturing Existing Businesses & Jobs ■ Encouraged retention of County administration offices in the downtown ■ Worked more closely with existing businesses in assisting them with their plans for expansion. Examples include the Scolari's/Payless, Telegram Tribune, JBL Scientific, and Copeland's "Downtown Centre". ■ Improved capital project coordination with downtown business owners (e.g. Higuera water line) ■ Worked closely with the business community in establishing seismic and sprinkler retrofit standards Supporting "Destination Tourism" ■ Continued investment in the enhancement/expansion of Mission Plaza ■ Spending over $300,000 annually in promoting tourism and cultural activities, including providing grants to over 25 arts and cultural oriented organizations ■ Served as a partner in the construction of the Performing Arts Center at Cal Poly ■ Provided a high level of support services for special events like Farmers Market, La Fiesta, Mardi Gras, Christmas Parade, and others ■ Protected the City's overall environmental quality and character the key reason people are attracted to San Luis Obispo Keeping San Luis Obispo the Retail and Services Hub of the County ■ Encouraged Auto Center expansion ■ Pursued funds to build a transit transfer/parking facility center in the downtown ■ Completing a downtown physical concept plan ■ Operated a downtown trolley and improving our parking facilities and transit system ■ Provided financial support for downtown activities ■ Encouraged housing in the downtown to continue a vibrant mix of uses Ensuring our Policies and Services Recognize the Importance of our Local Economy ■ Completed the Broad Street Annexation ■ Enhanced our customer service programs, including developing a "user friendly" building permit guide ■ Supported community groups by giving them use of strategic City -owned property in the downtown. Examples include the Children's Museum, Little Theater, and Arts Center ■ Maintained a safe environment through quality police and fire services, including a class 2 fire rating and allocating significant police resources to special events. ■ Assisted businesses in complying with City regulations ■ Improved our infrastructure (over $54 million in the past.five years) ■ Served as sponsors of the UCSB Economic Forecast project , ■ Monitored sales tax trends in detail by business type and location APPENDIX B CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO -- ECONOMIC STRATEGY TASK FORCE DAVID BLAINE Wells Fargo Bank 1199 Grand Avenue Arroyo Grande 93420 LAUREN BROWN, Ph.D. JBL Scientific 277 Granada Drive SLO 93401 BOB DAVIS ` Apple Farm 2015 Monterey SLO 93401 ANNE DINSHAW Adobe Inn 1473 Monterey SLO 93401 VALERIE ENDRES Vista Associates 790 Islay Street SLO 93401 BERT FORBES Ziatech Corporation 3433 Roberto Court SLO 93401 CHARLIE FRUIT Commerce Bank 545 Higuera SLO 93401 CAROL GARSTEN Nature Gallery 844 Monterey Street SLO 93401 Representing Banking/Finance High Tech Industry Hotel/Restaurant Hotel/Restaurant Real Estate High Tech Industry Banking/Finance Retail APPENDIX C PAT VEESART Conservation 1570 Hanson Lane SLO 93401 Staff Representative: Ken Hampian Assistant City Administrator Established: As an ad hoc committee by Res. 8141 with the goal of forwarding a recommendation to Council 6/93. Task Force to sunset 10/93. i:economic.lst GREG HIND Manufacturing ' Hind, Inc. 3765 So. Higuera St. SLO 93401 HAROLD MIOSSI Agriculture Post Office Box 606 SLO 93406 MIKE MULTARI Building/Service 641 Higuera SLO 93401. RAY NORDOUIST Neighborhood/Service 750 Pasatiempo SLO 93405 DOMINIC PERELLO Economist/Education 1591 Slack SLO 93405 WANDA STRASSBURG Manufacturing San Luis Sourdough 3580 Sueldo Street SLO 93401 PAT VEESART Conservation 1570 Hanson Lane SLO 93401 Staff Representative: Ken Hampian Assistant City Administrator Established: As an ad hoc committee by Res. 8141 with the goal of forwarding a recommendation to Council 6/93. Task Force to sunset 10/93. i:economic.lst BUSINESS COALITION/CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC STABILIZATION WORKSHOP March 23, 1993 What follows is the transcribed product of an extended brainstorming session in which the Council, Coalition representatives, Task Force members and the general public participated. The ideas are well worth considering; but readers should be aware that none of them have been evaluated or refined in any way. It. is the Task Force's job to pick through them, revise them and extract those that are perceived to be consistent, feasible and, hopefully, effective. THE MISSION OF THE TASK FORCE The charge of the Task Force, as articulated in the Council packet, is "to develop recommended economic goals and strategies" so that the Council might "implement a more defined, proactive Economic Stability Program." Participants were challenged to identify the long term benefits that might be derived from such a program. The objectives articulated included the following: 1. A stable economy 2. Retaining existing businesses and manufacturing 3. Attracting new businesses and manufacturing 4. Adding to and upgrading the job/employment base 5. Providing jobs targeted to local residents 6. Retaining and expanding local sales tax revenues 7. Integrating economic information into decision making by local legislative bodies 8. Providing an adequate land bank for anticipated future development 9. Diversifying the local economy 10. Defining the economic identity of the community 11. Establishing a community consensus on development issues 12. Building a more viable and vital downtown 13. Reducing local unemployment 14. Increasing local family income 15. Assuring that there is no further degradation in the local natural or cultural environment 16. Maintaining a community consensus on economic development issues 17. Attracting tomorrow's businesses, those that will be stable contributors to employment 18. Providing adequate infrastructure for the community needs 19. Assuring quality educational opportunities in the community 20. Providing targeted vocational training 21. Maintaining the quality of life 22. Minimizing the inconvenience imposed by regulatory processes on individuals and businesses 23. . Fostering city/school joint ventures and partnerships 24. Encouraging regional cooperation on economic development programs 25. Fostering symbiotic relationships between local governments APPENDIX D Page 2 Economic Stabilization Workshop 26. Assuring that the economic development efforts continue to be market sensitive 27. Assuring economic development efforts are evaluated with reference to the benefits to the community as a whole THE PRODUCT Near the end of the session the Council was asked to summarize what it wants the Task Force to produce. A short list of requirements was produced. Councilmembers want the process to retain its momentum, and to avoid enlarging the task into a cumbersome, complex study. Instead, the Task Force report should include: 1. Any short term opportunities for improving the economic 'climate that can be identified 2. A longer term strategy to assure the economic vitality of the community 3. A process for generating public input and educating the community about the City's Economic Stabilization Program 4. A recommended statement of city philosophy regarding economic development issues 5. Funding sources for any recommended programs/staffing Timing for the report was discussed. The consensus was that an interim report on short term opportunities should be presented in June or July. A report on the four other basic issues should be presented by September or October. It was acknowledged that a number of the issues raised during the brainstorming might be too complex to resolve during this time period. Task Force recommendations might then include identification of areas for future study. PROCESS IDEAS Participants were asked to offer suggestions about how the Task Force might go about developing its recommendations. The following ideas were offered: 1. Inventory community resources that are available to support economic activity 2. Analyze the city and regional sales tax data 3. Use the census and other demographic data to create a profile of the community 4. Review the existing economic development programs of the city and other local entities 5. Review the economic development programs of other cities to see if any of them are appropriate for SLO 6. Look at the inventory of non-residential property currently available 7. Review the SLO/UCSB forecast B. Plan an effective public involvement process I Page 3 Economic Stabilization Workshop 9. Define the relationship between the Task Force and city staff 10. Involve the coalition members in selling the Task Force recommendations to the community 11. Determine the form of the report early on 12. Identify industries to target for recruitment POTENTIAL RESOURCES Participants were asked to identify resources which might be available to the Task Force to help it respond to its charge. The following suggestions were made. Note that, with some exceptions, contact must be made to confirm that the representatives of the various groups are able and willing to help. 1. The Chamber of Commerce has lots of data about the community, including the economic vision document. 2. BIACO has data on site locations, demographics, zoning and entitlement information. 3. Realtors are willing to provide data on property values and trends. 4. The city has information on the latest census and current zoning. 5. Environmental information should be available from a wide variety of groups including the Air Pollution Control District, ECOSLO, the Sierra Club, the Native Plants Society, the Citizen's Planning Alliance and others. 6. The County Medical Society might assist with marketing the community to medical interests. 7. The BIA has information on business turnover, structure and the main street program. 8. The Council of Governments has data on a variety of issues that might be relevant to the deliberations. 9. PG&E might have an economic forecast for the community. 10. UCSB might be willing to produce a tailored forecast for the community. 11. Cal Poly and Cuesta might be able to provide data, forecasts and access to a research center or interns. 12. EDD should be able to compile profiles of the local pool of workers, including those employed and unemployed. 13. The Visitors and Conference Bureau should have data on local tourism. 14. The Department of Motor Vehicles should be able to provide data on immigration and emigration. Prepared by: Ted Loring Workshop Facilitator SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS/BRIEFINGS Presentation of the Downtown Physical Concept Plan by Ken Schwartz and Pierre Rademaker on April 23, 1993 Briefing by Lynn Block, Executive Director of the Downtown Business Improvement Association, on May 7, 1993 regarding the role and activities of the BIA Briefing by Community Development Department on April 26, 1993 regarding the City's Development Review Process " Briefing by Bill Statler, City Finance Director, on City Finances Meeting of June 18, 1993 - Presentation by Ron Whisenand and Arnold Jonas, Community Development Department, concerning current and potential development streamlining efforts \estf\Gst APPENDIX E LIST OF HANDOUTS 1. Task Force Roster 2. Summary of 3/23/93 Workshop 3. Building Industry Association of the Central Coast Position Paper 4. Economic Strategy for the City of El Paso de Robles 5. City of Monterey Economic Strategy Plan and Economic Element 6. City of Davis - A Better Place to Do Business, Establishing a Business in Davis, Economic Development Task Force Report Comments 7. City of Simi Valley Industrial/Commercial Development Program 8. The Sunnyvale Advantage 9. The 55 Best Places to Do Business in California 10. Chamber Vision Paper 11. Sales Tax Information 12. SCORE Program Brochure 13. Advisory Body Handbook 14. SLO County Economic Outlook - The UCSB Economic Forecast Project (1993) 15. Vision Paper from Mike Multari 16. Vision Paper from Pat Veesart 17. Vision Paper from Greg Hind 18. Vision Paper from Dominic Perello 19. Vision Paper from Ray Nordquist 20. Vision Paper from David Blaine 21. Vision Paper from Valerie Endres APPENDIX F 22. . Vision Paper from Pat Veesart 23. . Vision Paper from Harold Miossi 24. Letter and "Vision Paper" from Kenneth Schwartz (November 17, 1969) 25. Richard Cohen article: "He went looking for America and found wall-to-wall mall" 26. Stakeholders: Economic Issues Forum Registration 27. Letter from Charlie West 28. BIA Presentation Papers 29. Hard Issues Paper from Charlie Fruit 30. Major Issues and Questions from Ken Hampian 31. Letter from City of Lompoc 32. Subcommittee Assets and Liabilities List 33. Downtown Physical Concept Plan 34. City of SLO Budget Graphics and Summaries 35. California's Jobs and Future (April 23, 1992) 36. Opinion Survey Results 37. Telegram -Tribune Article: "Historic Opponents Can Learn to Coexist" (June 22) 38. Memo from David R. Friend - Re: Streamlining the Development Review Process (June 23) 39. Telegram -Tribune Article: "Cheney, to Speak at County Forum" 40. Los Angeles Times Article: "A Triple Whammy for California's Economy" (February 14) 41. Letter from Douglas Pierce 42. Summary/handouts of Development Process/Streamlining Briefing 43. Letter from Wayne and Julie Moore 44. Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Moore from Mayor Pinard 45. Economic Strategy Task Force: The "Hard Issues" 46. Impacts of Alternative Nonresidential Growth Rates on Fiscal Conditions and the Jobs -Housing Balance in the City of San Luis Obispo & Comparison of Wages Paid in Different Land Uses 47. Land Use Statistics 48. SLO Sales Tax Newsletter (May 11) 49. Jack Smith's newspaper article - "Colorado's Town Crier" 50. Taxable Sales for City and County 51. Budget Briefing - General Fund Revenues/Costs 52. City of Simi Valley Industrial/Commercial Development Program 53. The Economic Renewal Program -In -Brief from "Eco -Tourism Conference" 54. Transportation Development Impact Fees - memo from City Clerk 55. Memo to City Council from Charlie Fruit Re: Airport Area Annexation 56. Memo to ESTF from Ken Hampian - Re: Past/Future Meetings 57. Memo to City Council from Charlie Fruit - Re: Traffic Impact Fee 58. Agenda Report - Process for Preliminary Review for Property Owner Requests to Modify Draft Land Use Element 60. Memo from City Clerk - Re: Transportation Development Impact.Fees 61. Economic Development in San Luis Obispo - SLO Forum - Stakeholder's 62. Architectural Review in San Luis Obispo 63. Promotional Coordinating Committee Enhanced Promotion Program 64. Letter from Keith Gurnee 65. Letter from Charlie Fruit to Keith Gurnee (June 16) 66. Telegram -Tribune article - "Cities and Business Join Hands" (June 28) 67. Article - Council to Promote Eco -Friendly Growth 68. Letter from Peter Wolff (June 12) 69. Letter from Ken Hampian to Peter Wolff (June 16) 70. Municipal Code for Architectural Review Commission 71. Community Development Department Development Review Survey Sheet 72. Memo from Ron Whisenand and Ken Hampian to ESTF - Re: Results of architectural review survey (June 15) 73. Community Development Department Permit Streamlining Project 74. Letter from Keith Gurnee (June 21) 75. Letter from Hayward Lumber to Mayor Pinard (June 15) 76. Letter from Charlie Fruit to Community Organizations (August 6) 77. Economies, Effiencies and Darned Good Ideas from the Los Altos Economic Development Department (League of California Cities) 78. Schedule for consideration of ESTF Recommendations 79. Non-residential. Growth Management Background Information 80. Letter from BIA (July 15) 81. BIA Vision Statement 82. Los Angeles Times article - "Costco -type Stores Losing Customers" 83. Los Angeles Times article - 'Prime Agricultural Areas Threatened" (July 10) 84. ESTF Press Release 85. Quarterly Economic Outlook Summer 1993 86. Economic Forecast Seminar Information 87. Letter from Crickett Handler of the SLO County Symphony 88. Letter from Chumash Village 89. Measure G Information from Carla Saunders 90. Letter from Ted Frankel (August 5) 91. Telegram -Tribune article -'Task Force Urges Fast OK for Mall" (8/6/93) 92. Letter from Dominic Perello (8/15) 93. General Plan Land Use Element (January 1992) 94. Framework for Planning (Inland) 95. South County Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis (Crawford, Multari & Starr) 96. South County Area Plan 97. New Times article - "Building Anger" (8/18) 98. Letter from Sharon Fredmann (8/25) 99. Letter from David Holmes (8/25) 100. Letter from Ken Schwartz (8/26) 101. Letter from John Dunn (8/26) 102. Letter from Clay Little (8/25) 103. Letter from Craig Anderson (8/19) 104. Letter from San Luis Obispo Association of Manufacturers and Distributors 105. Letter from Jim Merkel 106. Town Hall Meeting Summary Sheet 107. Letter from Rogoway Planning Group 108. Central Coast Plaza Expansion News Conference 109. Letter from Matt Quaglino 110. Letter from Michael Hesser 111. American Planning Association Newsletter (January 1993) 112. Sales Tax newsletter - First Quarter of 1993 113. Letter from J.A. Feliciano 114. News Times Article - Taking the Stabilization Task Force to Task 115. Letter from DK Packaging, Inc. 116. Sustainable Development: Prosperity without Growth 117. Letter from Business Industry Association of the Central Coast - September 2, 1993 118. Economics Research Associates - A Land Value and Fiscal Impact Study of Development Alternatives for the Dalidio Property - March 1993 119. New Times Article - Secret Weapon in Mall Deal 120. Letter from Warren Baker, President, Cal Poly, August 24, 1993 121. Letter from Dale Bowden, August 12, 1993 122. Article - "Feeling the heat, advisory board warms business climate" 123. Information on "Shopkeeper Homes" from SLO Assoc. of Realtors _ "Habitat hage is in store - well, actually, above store". 124. New Times Article - "In Defense of Growth" (Dodie Williams) 125. City of Monterey Economic Element of the General Plan and Economic Strategy Plan 126. Letter from San Luis Obispo County Visitors & Conference Bureau (9/13/93) 127. Pat Veesart's Minority Report 128. Article on Alameda County's Economic Advisory Board 129. Pat Veesart's Revised Minority Report 130. Letter from San Luis Obispo County Visitors & Conference Bureau (9/27/93) estf\handouts e , Dave Garth k Cleeves MAGGIE COX Chamber of Commerce^ -A Manufacturing and Processing 1039 Chorro Street' 670 Higuera Street Association San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 992 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 )iGna Club Residents for Quality Neighborhoods SLO Property Owners Assn P.O. BOX 15755 Atten. 'Ms. Dottie Connor --.P.O. BOX 12924 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 216 Albert Dirve San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Building Industry Assn Sandi Sigurdson Land Conservancy Dennis Moresco ECOSLO P.O. BOX 12206 P.O. BOX 6180 P.O. Box 1014 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Santa Maria, CA 93456 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Earth Journal Citizens Planning Alliance League of Women Voters 321 E Street,. Box 5 Attn: Carla Sanders P.O. Box 4210 Cayucos, CA 93430 P.O.. Box 15247 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Grace Mitchell President Warren Baker Dr. Edwin Denton Cuesta College Cal Poly University San Luis School District P.O. BOX 8106 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 1499 San Luis Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93403. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Kv '3 Club KIWANIS KIWANIS AT._4: Mel Shapiro ATTN: Maurice W. Schmitz ATTN: Robert Higginbotham P 0• Box 371 402 Buckley Road 1536 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Rotary Club #1532 Rotary. Club LIONS CLUB Attn: Jack FelicIANO Atten: Stan McGuire Attn: Jack Gatz P.O. Box 833 523 Cuesta Drive 1558 Laurel Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Exchange Club Women's Network Quota Club Atten: Ed Rose Attn: Marguerite. Stafford Attn: Wendy Pyper P.O. BOX 384 P.O. Box 1741 P.O. Box 533 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Don Hubbard Tom Brown John Cribb Business Coalition Business Coalition Association of Realtors 153 Broad. STreet 846 Higuera Street 1034 Mill STreet San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Terry Reay Carol Florence SLOCATS Mo sy St. Motel Assn. SLO Property Owners Association c/o Lyndon Thompson 193, .Monterey Street P.O. Box 12924 P.O. Box 1716 i Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 APPENDIX G I ., Bob Hendrbc CAO wner/Manager President, Tenant Association - County of San Luis Obispo" .41low Creek Mobile Home Park Willow Creek Mobile Home Park County Government Center 3500 Bullock Lane 3500 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association President, Tenant Association President, Tenant Association Valle Vista Mobile Home Park Matthew's Mobile Home Park Mission Trailer Park 333 Elks Lane 274 Higuera Street 546 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner/Manager President, Tenant Association Owner/Manager San Luis Mobile Home Park San Luis Mobile Home Park Chumash Village Mobile Home 2994 Higuera Street 2994 Higuera Street Park San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3057 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Owner/Manager President, Tenant Association Chumash Village Mobile Home Park Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park Rancho San Luis Mobile Home 3057 S. Higuera Street 3395 S. Higuera Street Park San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3395 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner/Manager Owner/Manager President, Tenant Association Silver City Mobile Home Park Creekside Mobile Home Park Creekside Mobile Home Park 3860 S. Higuera Street 3960 Higuera Street 3960 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner/Manager Owner/Manager President, Tenant Ass. Oceanaire Mobile Home Park Colonial Manor Mobile Homes Laguna Lake Mobile Estates 1121 Orcutt Road 1255 Orcutt Road 1 1801 Prefumo Canyon San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association I.B.E.W. #639 Laborers #1464 Village Mobile Home Park P. 0. Box 881 3440 Empresa Drive, #B 145 South Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 U.A. #403. Bill Hockey, Chairman Airport Area Property Owners 3710 Broad Street Stakeholders Assn. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 734 Pacific Street c/o RRM ' San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3026 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Frank Lanzone Richard Schmidt KCBX 4100 Vacheil Lane 112 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Alex Hinds, County Planning Director San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 County Government Cente►^ San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dr. Philip Bailey, Dean Bob Boyer College of Science & Mathematics PG&E Box 592 Visitors &Conference Bureau Cal Poly University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 1039 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Eric Nlcoll,ASCC Marquam Piros Cuesta College ASI P.O. Box 8106 Cal Poly University County Board of Supervisors San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93407 County Government Center ems.. 1 „;� rN;Icn, nA ogenp Name SIGN -IN SHEET Address 17�.�I✓ TM 1. �1'�•�c� Ale 2.-- lvr ,c= l�e.tle (IOCo Cczcc4�L�i�r. 1�-r. 3� Flo MopTw4f 5r. V70 gi civ ,f: e M) 10. C) CTA_ IL1��.r,l�L'L,11 Lei �f vIll- �S,L_o 5L 51 C) s(_<2� 14. G �( G_1' <-tai` ti't�G�c r(J�2 �2� ��"�7 l? �Mn L_��(/L/ 15. ,Is b,%jp o 4 4 l 16. (�1,.pAQC 7nAV L X 42 19. eh41. tw 64%UI 1� 21.����T 7�0SS 22. ill IChrr92 L W WE Sr,z �L 23 Vk LL.q 24. 25. G-Otita %C-,_il r4 S W, I?e3 Seto -4)l' i APPENDIX H a9� / j �•� 2 Lanz LO V13i'nDCLv S.L �a e S�.v i APPENDIX H SIGN -IN SHEET Name Address 277 /l e.GE / 4. �l�?n�( Lb«x/75 1� fjtZoa 5L0 5. Q _ -1` At' Ot . $.'�rL-Ll �I 94 �@N;V, �l &� E� 1o. JoDN' �c� 4.2— 11. 3.2. 13- 14. 15.ti�� 17: 19. 2 0. r 22✓�yYj la-lare�,r/ 23. 24.� 25. �b .0 --L `131 U.3 -2?o � N���- -0 J3wc) 5 l 6,1 _6 c,,Jliu c`xi S� E SLG sLa 137S (LI -L -e- C'�- 5L0 Z�046 Shr.] LOS (jam Sto \t 0l mm ka2'1 � 1 SLO s� 13 5`5 iia-C�.C� g3iLe ��� 1,llGctriq J'cv 45��,5�z� Fl-� iai S L G 73`x! SIGN -IN SHEET Name Address ciao �� l 1: 2 �6Sa+��-1 C SLC 3. Ca 4Vvt6L[(ey)L.A'- J1J1 -C_ SLo 9340it 1-0 3yo/ 9 : L4,r r&j 12 r� 13.fyc�l�t 14. ' 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. li413 �k1j Sia 93,45' /zZ� hjc.�.� �� • �G� �1. c3s�o! C Nane 1. uzot-rn pe 2 .j tri C�rw�S 3. L 4.,l%rn C_ . t►kr5 5. Ir cv 6. 8/c.L/K'.� 7. GAMY FE4SAIA y !y- 9. 10.I to 1 1 . G t'gV�liln. 12. 13 _ //1II0���. WIC t!� 14. 15. 16 . �R (S � (� o F1 SIC o 17. 0 18. (`t -e Aim Y� 19. 20. k- 0 21. ���21•{ Cv/J�II 22. �h'f{if iJ S�JE11 lL-c.E 23. JRcCl rEudMAW 24 . Srw._ SaawJl� t>;fati.r� . z�- 1�. Na C -;c 5-* 93 T" f ,u SIGN -IN SHEET Address 0-70 14 t clue -A 5L� 3 . IL s of -D SLO 3y10 d_ P -r,04 4 cJ 33t) lZr••�er... - �d �-a a23 `/ SAv7� �ys� S:w Y3 Yo.S- 534 c� �/ �/%/�Y�-�r.1 v5 U.�7•�5�/.Z/T <''-c �;c�,•.��r(: �Zr �n .r 1q-30, -L 145 Avi5cvur toz'7 � S►` : '� ? CJk�e-.sem 121 /Jo' X060 .S'Ky �c� aS�.fl �3 cla (o SCv `I3�o� SLo Q34K0! 43 Yo/ S L'o 93 q,© 5-O 1 Xv45� sL..o get Sri ss #,OC Seo 43 Yo/ of Z2 SIGN -IN SHEET Nane 2 . 3 ./07 4. 6. 7. YV� a ranZ r -F 9. 3.0. //�r 11. (.r�ri�w ReeLwA 12. Bhk,��� � 9J . 13 .)�-Cd.- 14. JIM 15. l�L 16. ¢LfCt� 17. rnC Address $-jql AzP1112o 5-/' Iffo �rw ticx J!D 14sio Avk� Ljg`"A" 7yo5 ?9&ec 5�er, rr7 p O S�3 --7 sy4-);/ 47 5Ya -q3245 5Ya ois� • . r Cmc oz&G Z_ 9% - 312.0 1 GD G rgvts T' 3- sr 1% . C.., 4PA�1- Z� � � �`•-Rti"� sem! i '311 � -igL.so -,�aa wie�vn-•rr.�y s sY3 - ��� '1"To "sr., SLO 18 . �'aa.e L •�juticc [ L`Gy I t'f ! -GTo crD 19. U00V rrc r�a-4/ 2gsv Mica«, �o B� 20. eel hd R1� 1:�OS s{'• s% -F. 21. PW Copeland 22. C) 9 v(f eC)P-,J e ro 23. GV_C�- '_Aawl 1 24. Ae ,� 5 � 25._ '�`�'' ►`i`ri 940 Mon �e.re y "1 9' O P2 /m / 2 1�� 1 n�1tITf�E`I S 643-709s .S" Y 3 3000 7 7Z -g2Zy 914 --mai ai 543-8,600 7Er/-7.54/s— SSS=lillyo S" /f_ E l ,STt`3 �%Lj c SIGN -IN SHEET Name Address — ftern. �f c laur / 3. LE/jf�YATT jao8'-pEkST, SLG 4. �(IKc f +6Uj�ls �S6 SIM. (, A -5.Z SLi a j z[O 6 . scn �t-ol 7. 9v� /yiu/1Pr,/y r 3 Z c'9c r F C viJ 5 G y3 �c 5 L40 `� 5) I 41/4 3r(o3 - G PL 1o. -An 1']39 Scn(.ulsDv-; vee SLO 4340/ 12. 13. ._ arrr���/a J��ro-yc 9W(2 A [ alp �a 9��oi 14. � in G�/ r� po$ao�, *1:40 51-0 ll 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. . -n < m m m CD e e c c CA r+ MCA CD m z m O z H Cb a R, Cb 2 3 ►i H i j 9 ri CL r/ ii a n ►. co `s lb z IImm< O Cb Cb n Cb Cb a. c�D ►i Fl M CA O 3 c�D cD Cb O 10 0 N 22. N '7 Z limmollc m 0 wn M 7n 0 „ •eoueleq jeyp 7o ped aq osle isnw sao !sin pue sluep!saa cyloq ao7 Aj!unwwoo eyl 7o ouge7 pgoos ayl -J! Jo7 Aed of Awouooa Agj1eay e uo puadapll!M Juawuounua 8yj7o uoIJoaJoid •juawuoiinua Atlyeay a uo spuedep Awouooa Aylleay y •ainin7 s,odslgo sm7 ueS ;noge suoisioap juepodwl uo jun000e ojcu ue�fej aq ;snw siojoe7 oiwouooa pue 'lepos '1ejuawuoainu3 &Aj!unwwoo paoueleq #am a aq pinoys odsigo sm7 ueS„ j Z Z O 0Z Z � O O a C) O a cD C CO co 10 cbx Z C O \ Cb 3, a a� \ i ar 5' �•, O 1� O z m a a s a a a a a m c® n w 0 0 I< z CD cr 0 0 0 0° Cl) 0 0 m C. 0 3 CD — e 0 0 CD �/M4 ® FD e w a a a �I Cb C O j C)Cb ftftm O ®� cQ�, y (b co cL Cb O Cb C Cb //qq�� v Cb V `y X1.1 `d Cb CL Z m m CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ECONOMIC STRATEGY TASK FORCE Representina Business Phone DAVID BLAINE Banking/Finance 473-2400 Wells Fargo Bank 1199 Grand Avenue Arroyo Grande 93420 LAUREN BROWN, Ph.D. High Tech Industry 544-8524 JBL Scientific 277 Granada Drive SLO 93401 BOB DAVIS Hotel/Restaurant 544-6100 Apple Farm 2015 Monterey SLO 93401 ANNE DINSHAW Hotel/Restaurant 549-0321 Adobe Inn 1473 Monterey SLO 93401 VALERIE ENDRES Hotel/Restaurent 544-1180 Vista Associates 790 Islay Street SLO 93401 BERT FORBES High Tech Industry 541-0488 Ziatech Corporation 3433 Roberto Court SLO 93401 TED FRANKEL Retail 541-2896 Tom's Toys 682 Higuera SLO 93401 CHARLIE FRUIT Banking/Finance 541-4166 Commerce Bank 545 Higuera SLO 93401 Revised 3/24/93 ECONOMIC STRATEGY TASK FORCE (Continued) CAROL GARSTEN Retail 544-6883 Nature Gallery 844 Monterey Street SLO 93401 GREG HIND Manufacturing 544-8555 Hind, Inc. 3765 So. Higuera St. SLO 93401 HAROLD MIOSSI Agriculture 543-1330 Post Office Box 606 SLO 93406 MIKE MULTARI Building/Service 541-3848 641 Higuera SLO 93401 RAY NORDQUIST Neighborhood/Service 543-2544 750 Pasatiempo SLO 93405 DOMINIC PERELLO Economist/ Education 543-9085 1591 Slack SLO 93405 WANDA STRASSBURG Manufacturing 543-6142 San Luis Sourdough 3580 Sueldo Street SLO 93401 PAT VEESART Conservation 546-0518 1570 Hanson Lane SLO 93401 Staff Representative: Ken Hampian Assistant City Administrator Established: As an ad hoc committee by Res. 8141 with the goal of forwarding a recommendation to Council 6/93. Task Force to sunset 10/93. h:economic.lst