Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 5.B 03/17/2003_y 4 • • Gif AI- 1 7 1Fin�; CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA T AGENDA BILL .genda. Title Aleeting Date: General Plan 200. 4 - 2025: Council discussion on the . Economic Health chapter of the Existing Conditions, 17 March 2003 Opportunities & Challenges Report and Fiscal Analysis and Meeting Time 3:00 PM the General Plan. ❑ 7:00 PM C'ateaory (check one) ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Rearing 4 New Business ❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation Department Director : Contact Person Phone Number General Plan Pamela Tuft AICP Pamela Tuft (707) 778 -4552 Administration Cost of Proposal N/A Account Number N/A Amount Budgeted N/A Name of Fund: N/A Attachments to Agenda Packet Item City of Petaluma Survey of Residents (originally released August 2002) Summary- Statement The Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges Report was the first major effort toward the preparation of the new General Plan., It provided baseline 'information on existing conditions in the City and its surroundings. It also described opportunities, challenges, and preliminary planning issues that will be considered further in subsequent steps of the General Plan process. It will also be used as a reference document for historic statistical information. The meeting of March 17"' is intended to continue the Council discussion, begun on January 27, 2003 with a Council discussion on Surface Water and Circulation issues. The March 17"' discussion will focus on Chapter 11, Economic Health and Sustainability. Roberta Mundie and Suzanne Lambert of Mundie & Associates, the General Plan economic consultant, will be present to'xeceive questions from the Council. Work on the General Plan will continue with the development, of plan alternatives to be completed in late spring 2003, followed by public review and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Council will identify the preferred alternative, leading to the development of the Draft General Plan and Ea. Public hearings on the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR are tentatively scheduled for late 2003. Recommended Citv Council Action /Suggested Motion No action is requested at this time. This is intended to be 'a working session to facilitate discussion on the contents of the Economic Chapter of the Existing Conditions Report, the questions from the January 11 public forum, and to generate questions from the Council for the economic consultant team. Reviewed by Finance Director: Review e `tv Attorne : Avvrovedbv Citv Manager: /Jty „ ate: � at Date: C Todav's Date t, Revision # and Date Revised: File Code: 2 February 2003 Y /GP2004 /reports \CG031703 economics.uoc rill CITY OF PETAL A, CALIFORNIA 17 MARCH 2003 AGENDA REPORT FOR General Plan 2004 -2025: Council discussion on'the Economic Health Chapter of the Existing Conditions, Opportunities & Challenges. Report, and Fiscal Analysis and the General Plan. 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges Report was the first major effort toward the preparation of the new General Plan. It provided baseline information on existing conditions in the City and its surroundings. It also described opportunities, challenges, and preliminary planning issues that will be considered further in subsequent steps of the General Plan process. It will also be used as a reference document for historic statistical information. The meeting of March 17 is intended to continue the Council discussion, begun on January 27, 2003 with a Council discussion on Surface Water and Circulation issues. The March 17' discussion will focus on Chapter 11, Economic Health and Sustainability. Roberta Mundie and Suzanne Lambert of Mundie & Associates, ,the General Plan economic consultant, will be .present to receive questions from the Council. Work on the General Plan will continue with the development :of plan alternatives to be completed in late spring 2003, followed by public review and consideration by the Planning Conunission and City Council. The Council will identify the preferred alternative, leading 'to the development of the Draft General Plan and EIR. Public hearings on the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR are tentatively scheduled for late 2003. 2. BACKGROUND The ECOC Report is formatted similarly to the future General Plan documents in the identification of various elements, or chapters, to address both the State required elements and optional elements identified to date as being of prime importance to Petaluma., We ask that the Council give particular attention to Chapter 11, Economic Health and Sustainability. A eat deal of informat great ioh on the building of Petaluma's economy is contained in this Chapter. The community 's evolution from a small primarily residential' community with strong agricultural ties to a mid -sized City with ,a more diverse employment base, population ethnicity, housing options, and retail opportunities is illustrated in trend and comparison charts. Issues addressed in this chapter include, but are not limited to, the following: • Employment growth • Increasing diversity in our economic base, retail sales leakage — filling the gap in retail options for the citizens? • Tourism as a more visible economic component of our budget. • Home- based,businesses— growing a quiet industry corrimunity asset or burden? • Redevelopment options for beautification, enticing desired growth and occupancies and ensuring long -range economic health. General Plan 2004 -2025 17 March 2003 Roberta Mundie of'Mundie & Associates will focus her : presentation on the context of fiscal analysis as it relates to the preparation of a community's General Plan. The public forum on the Existing Conditions Report, held January l l 2003, began discussions with the public regarding economic alternatives. The following summarizes the economic questions presented at the forum and the responses received: (Note: Numbers displayed in parenthesis indicate the number of people who made the same or similar continent) L Should Petal economic expansion be "targeted" toward certain kinds of jobs? Examples: Higher- paying jobs Jobs held by local residents Jobs in "sustainable industries Yes I do agree that we should maintain our agricultural Heritage and continue to grow "bountiful" farms that will be visible by white - collar professionals that are, and will be, the residents ,of,' Petaluma. We are the next Marin and close to both San Francisco and Santa Rosa. Yes b How about all three examples? We have plenty of lower pay jobs. How does a city attract jobs for residents? It seems with the technology industry, that those employees. were , attracted to Petaluma following the job, but now our children have better job opportunities. Yes P Yes to -all the above examples plus professional services; and artisans.. Yes Focus on living and working in the corrununity. Focus on more "green industry" as work on non- monetary incentive. Yes Targeted toward "sustainable" jobs for the residents of our City. Should include providing for a portion of our food needs and a portion of our energy needs, etc. Yes Target local residents but type of job must enable employee to maintain standard of living in an industry that does not impact environment adversely. Yes The 29 -34 demographic is, the group that can't afford to live here. Let's aim jobs that can keep them here -- coordinate jobs with Sonoma State University and Santa Rosa Junior College. Yes All three above examples are important. Sustainability is a critical element in any decision. Yes Local jobs and jobs which will be around for along tinge. Yes Of the three examples listed above, I would say 3 - 2 - 1, from the bottom up. Yes ® Wherever possible,, without having to give away local taxes or paying costly incentives to companies interested in locating here. One category of job targeting should be based on positive environmental benefits of a company's, activities; i.e., organic fanning, environmental cleanup, "green" dry cleaners (non- perk), electrie'vehicle production or sales, etc. • 'h:pi/GP2000repcns \CC 031703 ecunomics.doc General Plan. 2004 -2025 • C7 1 1 7 March 200? Yes Ideally we would expand employment for current residents in sustainable industries. Yes 1 We should concentrate on encouraging I upper income employers who have minimal impact on the environment. Yes / Absolutely - jobs that contribute to a healthy, vibrant community. We can make that choice, and build it into our development protocol. Yes Let's look at what areas are experiencing "natural" or "market - driven" growth and target areas that are synergistic to the market growth areas. I would like to see a living -wage initiative. Sustainable and scaleable industries are also good. No A focus on supporting the local community is very important, both to the quality of life, and the unique character of our town. We oppose the influx of enormous corporate entities, which would alter the structure of our local economy. If we encourage independent, local, and creative business, the people will create jobs for themselves and the community with a larger potential for growth and economic well- being. Profit- driven corporations tend (generally) to provide minimum wage, entry -level jobs, with little opportunity for upward mobility, and take business from the established local economy. A balance of jobs. 2. Should Petaluma consider the public contributions of various land uses in deciding what land of future growth to provide for? If so, how? Examples: Land uses that generate relatively greater public revenues? Land uses that provide amenities the City currently lacks (such as a Cineplex)? Yes But only in the redevelopment district where "incremental" tax increases and all the revenue stays in the City's coffers. Yes We must remember that we are undertaking this whole effort for our benefit, so the question, . "what do we want Petaluma to be like;" is the right kind of question. Yes ® Through the entitlement process or creation of special funds. Yes 1 Promote the railroad, square area or at least clean it up. If it were developed, it would present the City in a better light. Yes Create Development Agreements where the developer clearly makes a contribution to the fabric of our community by funding needed items in ,return for something (i.e., reduced parking requirements, increased density, etc.) but be careful not to "give away the farm." Yes / If we can agree on who or what we want to attract. Yes b The contributions need to focus on quality of life issues, not short-term dollars. Yes Both of these sound good. Yes Art entertainment complex such as a Cineplex would be a good ' h:pt /dP2004 /repans\CC 031703 economics.doc General Plan. 2004 -2025 Yes Yes 17 March 2003 idea. kiso, engineering companies and companies deaiing with environmental issues, etc. I don't think'that the city can avoid thinking in this direction and still be responsible stewards. Let us be sure to focus on revenue generation over the long haul - even using pessimistic projections, rather than the short -term projections proffered by biased promotional people. Questionnaires like this one are a great way to gauge the impact of decisions on community opinion. ® Downtown residential would boost economic activity in core. Development and revenue bases should be focused in the downtown, not in the floodplain. The tax base must be considered on a long -tern, sustainable basis. The tax base is but one of -many considerations and maybe not even the most important one. ® Develop to limit burden in infrastructure. to increase accessibility by pedestrians. Measure, truthfully, cost to City vs. speculative revenue. Try to maintain an atmosphere that most of us found attractive. Petaluma needs development that fills its citizens needs and attracts the travelers (business and tourists). Look a Healdsburg- better small business (retail and restaurants) due to visitors. Devitalize the City. core. Demand social responsibility of employers — daycare. There has to be a balance between sufficient income and people - friendly services. The , community needs to balance its land use for the economic vitality of the overall community. Land use that provides affordable housing. Willing to consider - don't know enough. • 0 . The largest source of General Fund revenue used to finance City services (Police, Fire, Parks, etc.) is sales tax, generated by local buying. 3. Do you support or oppose additional retail development as a means of maintaining or enhancing current levels of community service? Support Support h I support appropriate retail development, not large chains that do not fit with Petaluma's character, but rather something more in keeping with our town. I would like to see what other towns have done. Support We need to bring in retailers people need and desire. Support I support additional retail developme nt to maintain and enhance community service if done in the Petaluma Way." Support Support but target areas we are weak in. Support Support: focus in .downtown and existing shopping centers. hipUGP3004 /reports \CC 031703 economics.doc Geno-al Plan 2004 -2025 -- 17 M 7003 Page 6 Support I support small and mid -size retail, i.e., neighborhood downtown, etc. Support Retail development is essential., and in order to benefit the commiuuty as a whole, it must take place within/near a) the existing downtown core, b) other downtown "nodes" on the east side. Support I support additional retail development in the downtown area. Support We are a bit behind in this regard. "I and most of my neighbors shop at the "big box" stores in Rohnert Park and Novato because of the prices and service, we would rather shop here." Support Additional retail development is desirable when it is locally owned and operated. National chains that suck the local economy dry are not at all desirable (i.e. Wal -Mart) and should continue to be opposed. There are plenty of those stores in Santa. Rosa. Uncertain I support it if it meets simple criteria: that the citing and layout do not create significant environmental impacts; that the sales taxes . generated are shown to actually exceed the costs of mandated public services - police, fire, water, sewer, utility services); that the jobs that come from such projects do not depend solely on paying low wages or importing all workers from outside the area; and the aesthetics of a project are decent. • Uncertain b Depends on the kind of retailing you are talking about. I support local owned and operated' "small retailers, not big chaun stores. Against, I do not support "big box" retail that generates 10,000 vehicle trips and closes small businesses doors. Against I am generally opposed for a number of reasons. First, it turns the city into an advertising company. Second, much of the advertising then gets directed to "big -box" stores - who then take the money out of county! Before we support retail, we need to absolutely sure that it will bring money IN to the city from other areas - not just take money away from existing stores. We cannot "retail" our way to success. It must be sustainable. It is better to support light industry, research and biotech - those will lead to the creation of retail and housing through natural market forces. The issue is not for or against retail_ development. The issue is: what kind of retail development do we want and where do we want it? Do we want to build a healthy central core in downtown and the new Central Petaluma Specific Plan, or do we want to string retail along a freeway corridor, carulibalizing downtown. Try to decrease 'dependence on sales tax and focus on taxing beneficiaries of government services, i.e., property owners; business sales tax is regressive. We need a strategy for "big box" retail especially with respect to citing and size. They will be lcnocicing at our door and we h:pt /GP2004 /reports \CC 031703 emnomics.doc General Plan 2004 -2025 17 March 200 n 1 need to be ready. b We need to find a way to stop the loss of sales tax dollars to neighboring towns. If Petalumans want "big box" stores, let's make a smart strategy, i.e., smaller square footage, subsidies to transit, transit incentives (your bus ticket gets you a discount) and extensive landscaping fees, etc. ® Given that the consumption of material resources, especially irz the US, is the largest threat to nature, we would want. to be careful about the kind of products whose throughput we encourage. I am more inclined to want to pay for public services directly, This also provides better feedback to "consumers" about what these services actually cost. Too many people believe all these things are free. Given concerns about cost of services and revenue balance in the long run: 4. Should Petaluina consider increasing City revenues through funding specific services (such as Fire Protection, Street Maintenance, and /or Park Maintenance) through new taxes or other revenue measures? Examples: Utility users' tax (used ii1 Santa Rosa) Benefit Assessment Districts; (established in many other cities) Yes Despite not wanting taxes to increase, I do not thirAc it reasonable assume we can get the money elsewhere (Federal, State, etc:).. Ultimately we are responsible for our own coif mUnities,.residents and business owners. Yes Fire or police districts. Utility tax is a good idea, but I believe the City Charter does not allow a utility tax. Yes New taxes perhaps.. What is a Benefit Assessment District? Yes Especially for services that do not benefit everyone or benefit some significantly more than others. I also think the best thing we could do to increase revenues is to use a portion of 'our waste water stream, treated to only the secondary level instead of tertiary, to grow a municipal redwood grove. The City could then begin harvesting in -a sustainable manner starting about 50 years after planting,. selling the lumber on the commercial market. In other words, the. City should be looping: at entering conurierc al or for - profit ventures where no one else is doing it, or they are 'not doing it in an envirom- nentally sustainable manner. This way, we. could generate revenue while setting a better example of how to do business. In many cases, corporations, by definition and in answering to stockholders, cannot or do not want to do business in a sound long -term way. The City should put its advantage to work. Yes There is no free lunch. Adequate services need to be paid for. Development fees need to be increased to actual impact levels. Yes We should have to expect to pay enough to fund what we need. Yes P How about a sliding scale so those who make less are not h:pt /GP2004 1reportslCC 03 IM economics.doc • is n Geiieis l Plaiz 2004 -20Z '7 1Vla]'Cl1. 2003 . Yes slammed with new bills. I think we will have to. Yes Some sort of revenue must be determined to maintain services. Yes / Change the City Charter and allow a utility tax. It is fair to both business and residence. Exempt elderly low income from taxation. Yes ® I support increase in property .tax for street maintenance. Yes Fees should be charged for large events at Parks and Athletic Fields. However, fees for Fire and Police Services should be applied with caution because the average citizen believes that current taxes provide for. these services. Road Maintenance should be what our fuel and vehicle registration fees were supposed to cover. Yes / I support the development of revenue sources through taxation but the reason for the added tax needs to be narrowly defined and carefully articulated so that the resident knows there is a tangible reward to their added taxes. Yes I favor such consideration. I would like to keep payment and benefits as closely aligned as possible. What if street maintenance, for example,, is supported with a fee connected with that which incurs the - need for maintenance - perhaps vehicle weight and miles driven... which is probably directly correlated with fuel use, so can be collected at the fuel pump? Or - raise money for doing helpful things - reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sell green tags... save water; and sell the savings into the public tnist or an enviroIrunental water account (of course much work must be done on these in terms of policy development, but we need such new tools). Support trials of new resource efficiency technologies /services, and negotiate to obtain portion of license fees as they are rolled out across the country. Get ecotourism going in a big way and cash in. Oops - off task Here. Yes 6 Yes - it makes sense that those who use the services should pay for them. Yes Given the (reasonably) increased taxes are used efficiently and intelligently. ( Try unifying Petaluma to readjust how Federal and State Governments spend our tax dollars, i.e., less for military and prisons. 3. ALTERNATIVES A. Discuss and present specific questions to economic consultant and in -house team regarding contents of Chapter 11 of the ECOC Report. h:pt/GP2004 /reports \CC 031703 economics.doc General Plena 2004 -2025 17 March 2003 B. Gffer specific comments or direction to City Management regarding additional research or analysis for inclusion in the. future Economic Element of the General Plan 2004 -2025. 4. F+'INANCIAL IMPACTS The .General Plan has an approved budget. Budget expenditures for professional contract services (excluding the Water Resources. Element and Master Plans) over a 3 -year work effort, begun in the 2000 -01- budget year, are not -to- exceed $1,356,000. Preparation of the Water Resources Element, by Bldck & Veatch, including the. completion of the three Master Plans (Water Supply, Recycled Water, and Surface Water Management) is funded in the amount of $1,549,184 through allocations .from the water and sewer enterprise funds'. The FY 2003 budget for the Department of General Plan Administration is $917,800. CONCLUSION The community outreach and visioning process was the first step, of many, to involve the citizens in the General Plan 2004 -2025 preparation process. The distribution of the Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges Report primarily through the he spread sharing of the inforination in the Executive Summary document to the public through workshops conducted in November :2002 - January 2003, began the public di'scussioia of the various issues to be addressed in the Plan. Comments received and sununarized wilLaid in the preparation .of the Alternatives. Once the community and the Council have selected th,e preferred Alternative, work will begin on the Draft General : Plan. The Draft General Plan • Will include preferred .goals, policies and implementation strategies. A Draft Environmental .Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared concurrently with the General Plan to allow evaluation of the enviromneiital effects' of 1111P - it' the various programs included in the Plan. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR !COMPLE ,ION: November — February 2003 (completed) • Hosting of public workshops to allow comment and discussion on the various opportunities and challenges presented.in the Reports, or generated through the discussions; • Preparation of'surnrnary reports; March - May ® Conclude work on the Alternatives. May June ® Conduct public discussions on alternatives ;. ® Conclude public discussion with ,direction from Council on preferred Alteinative RECOMMENDATION No action is requested at this tire. This is intended to be a working session to facilitate discussion on the contents of the Economic Chapter of the Existing Conditions Report, the questions from the January 11 public forum, and to generate questions f! bin Council for the economic consultant team. Attachment: City of Petaluma Survey of Residents (originally released August 2002) h:pi /GP2004 /reports \CC 031703 economics.doc _1