Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/23/1991, 1 - STUDY SESSION ON FOCUSED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN JATEIG CM ��il►�I►IIII�IIII1111111III������f��plll►►i►�III of sAn tuisoBispo Clt 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 March 20, 1991 MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: John Dunn Subject: Study Ses 'on on Focused Economic Development Plan I believe all of us thought that the Council goal setting exercise early last December was most worthwhile. One of the advantages was that it gave solid direction to the staff for preparing the budget based on Council consensus and priority. We then knew that certain projects were "As", and others were "Cs", and appropriate staff assignment and follow-up were given. As a suggestion, for our forthcoming meeting on the Focused Economic Development Plan, following discussion of the individual items, each Councilmember could "vote" by giving each item a score from 1 to 5 as follows: 1. Highest priority - proceed as a matter of community necessity 2 . High priority - endorse as worthwhile pursuing in the near term 3 . Medium priority - recognize as having value, but not one to concentrate on 4. Low priority - defer, as not being that important now 5. Lowest priority - reject, as neither necessary nor desirable. In this way we can obtain a series of scores which, when arranged, will give us a working priority list. Another advantage of this approach is that the prior discussion may produce different suggestions or modified approaches which can also be added to the list and prioritized. This is an idea for your consideration. Again, in the neartime if you have other candidate items prior to the study session, please give the items to me and they will be added to the list. JD:mc d/redp ��►���������►����iii��iilill�llllh1°""°���� (III cityo san hues oBispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 March 15, 1991 MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Johecil Subject: Citgoal of Focused Economic Development Plan Attached is a draft of a discussion paper outline which staff would like to discuss with you in a forthcoming study session. Most of the ideas were "brainstormed" at a Management Team meeting; I have added a few additions. There will probably be ideas on the list you will like, and perhaps some ideas that you don't care for. It is essential that, first, we develop a consensus on what a Focused Economic Development Plan for the City should be and, secondly, to prioritize and schedule so that we proceed within the financial and staff resources available to us. Independently but related, Steve Nukes just called and volunteered to present the half-hour version of his San Luis Obispo County Economic Overview to the City Council. I told . him that I would solicit the City Council as to their interest in hearing the presentation. If there is interest, then a possible agenda would be Steve's presentation, followed by our discussion of the Focused Economic Development Plan. If you have any thoughts which you would like to see added for discussion, please let me know and they will -be added. Thank you. JD:mc Attachment c. Management Team 5/cconomic �� h RAS FOCUSED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN At an earlier Management Team meeting, we asked ourselves the following questions? • What specific actions should we take as part of an overall economic development . program? In answering this specific question, we agreed we also need to ask ourselves: • Is there a real commitment to focusing our efforts on economic development activities? • In developing our plan for economic stability, do we need to fine-tune our current approach or do we need to make a major change in our way of thinking on this? The following is a summary of points that should be considered in deciding on a focused economic development plan: Planning and Preparation • Ensure that there is political commitment and support for a meaningful economic development program prior to developing and implementing specific actions. • Address perceptions regarding economic development and its compatibility with quality of life goals. • Update Strategic Plan and prepare economic base study. Prepare a strategic plan for economic development that uses a citizen-based process. • Streamline the development review process; there needs to be greater certainty as to what is required and how long it will take. • Identify and target the kind of retail commercial and light industrial development that will best improve our fiscal and community economic health. Talk with business community representatives on an ongoing, informal basis. • Investigate the development of a regional conference center. • Identify opportunities for locating a quality conference hotel downtown, or adjacent to a regional conference center. • Identify and develop staff roles for an economic development program. • Consider establishing an Economic Development Commission for the City. f-3 Clarify minor annexation policy standards to facilitate desired annexations (present annexation policy can be viewed as a deterrent to positive economic development activity). Set forth City role for various components of economic development process. Action Steps • Facilitate auto retailers locating in the Los Osos Valley Road area. • Annex the Southern California Gas Company property. • Complete the downtown physical concept,plan, and develop an implementation plan. • Develop a financial assistance program for sprinkler/earthquake retrofits for private property owners in the downtown (and possibly other areas). • Retain County administrative office space in the downtown. • Increase parking supply in the downtown. • Continue our efforts to develop the Court Street property. • Develop the northern portion of the Dalidio property as an integrated expansion of Central Coast and Madonna plazas (and better integrate Madonna Road Plaza and Central Coast Plaza). • . Annex the Airport Area and other "expansion areas" in order to plan and control future land uses. • Evaluate the feasibility of locating a factory outlet center in San Luis Obispo, and implement plans if feasible. Develop and implement a business retention program (emphasis on retaining existing businesses before attracting new ones). Develop programs to use Amtrak service to San Luis Obispo as an opportunity, to get our visitors off the train and into the community. • Solicit and review proposal from Gottschalk's on their proposed expansion. • Consider retention of a contract "project expeditor" to accomplish a desired action step, as necessary, to augment staff resources. 5/economic MEMNQ AMA _Am - • 1MX � City Council Study Session on Focused Economic Development Plan April 23, 1991: A. Background Dunn 1. City Council Goals and City Budgets a. Perceptions of budget review process from June 1989 b. Council establishment of Goals Committee C. Goals Committee recommendation d. City Council Goal Setting Study Session December 1990 e. Management Team "Brainstorming" of possible components of Focused Economic Development Plan Dunn 2. Citizens Advisory Committee Deliberation a. Major purpose: Examine need for City revenue increases to support City services and facilities b. White Paper - major points Statler 3. 1983 Strategic Plan a. What was it? b. What was agreed to? C. What was accomplished? d. If it were. to be updated, what would be done? Jonas 4. Planning Commission Consideration of Land Use Element a. Brief summary of process to date b. Council-Commission perceived need for economic advice C. Where we are in that process d. Where do we go from here? Hampian 5. What Other Cities Do in Economic Development B. Focused Economic Development Plan .- General Dunn 1. ' What is it - how should it be defined? a. Consistency with City goals b. Relationships with other activities 2 . What is "focused" intended to mea A$�` Nooks Action FYI Q caum ❑ CDDDIL . C3 CAO ❑ NN.DR 0 ACno ❑ FME CHIEF &'ATTUDW p FWnut ETCJMK/ORIQ ❑ POLIC£CH. 12'MC MT TEAM ❑ RM nut 3. What does it need if it is to have meaning and to act as the basis for City action? a. Need for commitment to it b. Need for consensus on what it should be C. Need for community support d. Need for carefully selecting elements for implementation e. Need for setting priorities, and adhering to them f. Need for design of implementation methods - budget, staffing, contracts, etc. C. Next Step: options 1. Review the list of possible economic development activities, and identify specific items to be pursued by staff (in addition to those which are currently underway) ; or 2. Direct staff to prepare a report which provides more detailed information concerning options for a stronger economic development program, including: • Current City activities which could be considered supportive of economic development • Alternatives for enhancing existing efforts • Suggested areas of emphasis (e.g. business retention vs. other possible economic development goals) • Staff roles and responsibilities • Resource requirements (depending upon desired level of enhancement) • Approaches for assuring a formal citizen-based process (e.g. Economic Development Commission, other advisory body approaches) JD:mc d/eq Q-0-tit ENTS FOR STUbY SESS 1 ON E=OCUSEb QNOM 1 C bEVEJ OPMENT PL ,R4N Tuesday, April 23, 1991 - 7:00 - 9::00 P.M. Distribute to Mayor and Councilmembers, Clerk for record, John Dunn, Members of the Management Team and Community Development by JIM MERKEL 392 PISMO ST SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401 (805)541-0904' 1. Is it appropriate. for city staff to be spending tax payers money developing a Focused Economic Plan and be recommending large developments in light of the survey where citizens of San Luis Obispo consider job and shopping opportunities asa low priority when compared with quality of life and environmental issues? 2.- This plan that John-Dunn and the ."Management Team" brainstormed, could change the face of San Luis Obispo forever! The Citizens are extremely concerned with the pace of development currently taking place. It seems that these brainstorming sessions should have included members representing all aspects of our. community. , Because the.implementation• of this plan• could have severe environmental and quality of life impacts, active members of groups such as the Citizens Planning Alliance, Sierra Club, Ocean Sanctuary Coalition, Earth Day Coalition, Mothers For Peace, SLOZINE, ECOSLO, Earth News, just to name a few, should be included from the beginning.- 3. Would it be more appropriate for the city council to direct staff to prepare an ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN= or.a QUALITY OF. LIFE DEVELOPMENT PLAN that is answering the concerns already. gathered from the citizens in recent surveys. The ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN should include a very important section of maintaining a healthy sustainable economy. - 4. Some very difficult questions. need to be answered .prior to any "Focused" plans. - Ecology can exist without People, but can people exist without ecology? - NO ECOLOGY,-. NO: ECONOMY! . .. • . _ . - Is bigger better?: Do- we need to grow at all?: - At "Build Out" what then? , A higher build out? 1% growth doubles in 70 years, 2% in 35 years, 3% in 23 years How big do the citizens what their city. - What are the cumulative effects of development. - Do the citizens want any more large developments? Lure 70- 0 ❑ J1 /0 art DDDM goo ID �,° ❑ PDUCECFL 10 1dCMT T&%M ❑ M DOL 13 0- T- ET F z COMMENTS RELATIVE TO P1-ANNING AND PREPARATIQN Items to add to list. - What is the overall goal? is it to simply create employment and shopping opportunities? Or is it to create long term, ecologically sustainable, fulfilling job opportunities that will be providing necessary goods and services at a low cost? - Do we envision large corporations with lots of minimum wage employees who spend their lives in boring jobs that create products that simply further deplete the earth of resources yet provide no social or quality of life enhancement? - Do we envision keeping our current businesses healthy while creating incentives for small businesses to form and supply the local people with local products? - Address specific and global concerns regarding economic development and its compatibility with the ecology and quality of life for the current and future residents and business owners. - What are the long term impacts and cumulative effects of development. - The city should plan to be responsible to the citizens, the county, state and globe in its planning. Items to be modified from PLANNING AND PREPARATION item 6 - Identify and target the kind -of businesses that will best improve our ecologic health, quality of life, fiscal and community economic health. item 7 - Talk with environmental, social justice, and business community representatives on an ongoing formal basis. item 10 - Identify and develop staff roles for an integrated "Quality of life" or "Ecological Development" program with an economic program. item 11 - Consider establishing a Quality of life Commission for the city: This should include sustainable development and environmental protection and ecological restoration. 3 Items to be modified from PLANNING AND PREPARATION con t item 12 , - Clarify minor annexation policy standards and solicit citizen input as to their desire to see any more annexations for., development purposes. Consider annexation policy to facilitate a green belt around the city-- or other urban open space. _ Items to be deleted. from PLANNING AND PREPARATION item 8 - Investigate the development of a regional conference center. item 9 _ - Identify opportunities for locating a quality conference hotel downtown, or adjacent to a regional conference center. MMENTS RELATIVE TO ACTION STEPS Items to add to list. - Create an appropriate economic development department. The department would consist of experts to train local people in starting and operating small businesses that provide needed goods and services to the community. The following is a list of some appropriate businesses that should be solicited- for a long term sustainable community:- - ommunity:- Video Conferencing; computer links to work from home. Consider Implementation of ISDN(Information Service Distribution Network). - Jobs for Computer and Electronic fields. - . . : -• --Water conservation and efficiency programs. Jobs for contractors, plumbers, planners, apprentices;- - - - Energy conservation and renewable energy. sources. Jobs for architects, engineers, contractors;- plumbers; -planners, apprentices. - Alternative shopping that is designed for zero throw away. -Jobs for industrial and mechanical engineers; packaging and food' services specialists. - Community planning and design where most goods, services and employment are within a 10 min walk or bike ride. Jobs for planners, environmentalist, architects and business planners. - Develop transit to service city;. county: and state with goals of efficiency, cost effectiveness, and pollution reduction:: Jobs for transit planners, engineers, manufacturing: - Develop. bicycle facilities and paths that. will .be safe for all ages and actually save time over the automobile by having direct routes that avoid car traffic completely such as along the rail road tracks. Jobs for bicycle sales and service and manufacture and installation of bike facilities. Engineers and construction workers for path construction. - Restoration of destroyed native habitat(we could be the last generation that knows what a central coast eco-system looked like). Encourage planting native species within the city to re-establish to the extent possible the actual habitats that were once here. Jobs for biologists, resource management, landscape architecture, xeroscapers and gardeners. - Community Based alternative schools with increased parental participation. Jobs for teachers. 4 COMMENTS REL-AT 1 ME TO • ACT 1 con't - Community based care for the elderly and handicapped. Jobs for nurses, developmentally disabled specialists, and .students. - Community based economy: focused..to .some degree on the responsible use of local renewable resources. Jobs for resource specialists, material science, chemistry, manufacturing, industrial technology. - Local food self sufficiency based on sustainable agriculture practices. The communities food supply could be developed to be somewhat independent of national and global crisis that seem likely in the future. Jobs for agriculture students, growers, marketers, local distributors. - Develop dietary consulting businesses to stress health and ecological advantages to eating lower on the food chain. Jobs for dieticians. - Family planning and population reduction education programs. Jobs for social workers, councilors, environmentalists. Items to be modified from ACTION PLAN item 1 - Facilitate a moratorium on new auto dealerships and have those existing scale back their lot size. Los Osos Valley Road should not be considered a city sacrifice area item 4 - Develop a financial assistance program for sprinkler/earthquake retrofits for private property owners that meet a strict qualification program that includes: - Reuse and recycling of building materials - Priority for work to be done by locally owned and operated businesses. :_. - Any rebuild must where ever possible change use or portions of use of building to incorporate mixed use that can be proved to discourage auto travel. As an example, a downtown business could add two stories of low to moderate income apartments that an incentive program would ensure that downtown employees had first option to housing. Apartments had to be affordable to the owners and employees of businesses. - Buildings had to make use of solar- design concepts for lighting, heating and hot water. item 5 County administration office space should be decentralized into other areas of the county to reduce travel requirements.. Computer links using modems should be developed for county employees to work out of their homes where appropriate. Will save resources in all building operating costs and employee travel costs and the cost of pollution. 5 item 6 - Decrease the supply of parking for all businesses. Increase and standardize the parking rate for all parking in the city. Use the revenue from parking to increase transit, walkways and bikeways and programs to plan access through proximity. The multiple millions of dollars spent on each parking structure should be cost justified against using the same amount to enhance alternative non-polluting forms of transportation. Items to be modified from ACTION PLAN cont item 7 - The city should solicit a location for a permanent downtown market, perhaps the Court Street property. A market similar to those throughout Europe have mass appeal and could certainly contribute to the atmosphere that makes San Luis Obispo a place to visit, while also stimulating the local economy. The market could be semi open air that would be open for use by any local growers, artisans, crafts, and items that fall into categories of locally made, grown, manufactured or produced. Criterion should be established that screened products for their sustainable use of resources and pollution contribution. Priority should be given to those smaller business that cannot afford a store front and that intend most of their production for local consumption, say 80% of items more or less considered necessities. item 8 - The city should seek to scale down the Central Coast and Madonna Plazas and to transform them into less traffic generators and serviced by public transit and bikeways in a very efficient way. item 9 - The Airport creates noise pollution that is intolerable so close to the city. Take off and landing need to be altered to reduce noise. Development should be restricted in the noise and flight paths. item 14 - Consider very careful and deliberate review not a "project expeditor" on any desired action. Once prime AS land or prime wildlife habitat has been paved over, it is most likely gone forever! Items to be deleted from ACTION PLAN item 10 - Evaluate the feasibility of locating a factory outlet center in San Luis Obispo, and implement plans if feasible. item 13 - Solicit and review proposal from Gottschalk's on their proposed expansion. 'cOPMM: AGENDA I ❑•Dav*w Action DM Mu STEM # J-- �,,,,� C�3- nix. DATE�.. �o ter.�. PL�g'�A_A_ ❑ ate ATlL1�tN&Y O MDU. &-dEwORM. ❑ POucecH April 23, 1991 ❑ MCMT.TEAm ❑ REcDut TO: City Council SUBJECT: TELECON RE TONIGHT'S MEETING Kevin Duff, whose address is 763-B Foothill Blvd. #199, SLO 93405, called to express his concerns with regard to the Focused Economic Development Plan. It seems to be one-sided in favor of developers. I read a recent survey asking the community's opinion regarding the quality of life in SLO. The Econ. Dev. Plan doesn't reflect what the citizen's want. The two don't agree. Specifically, he doesn't understand why the city is interested in developing the businesses of auto retailers on Los Osos Valley Road. If businesses want to develop, the City should facilitate them, but not solicit. He disagrees with adding additional parking downtown. He believes wee should actually have less parking. Alternative means of transportation, more SLO trolleys, encouraging pedistrian and bicycle traffic should be looked at instead of more cars. Overall, almost the entire plan presupposes that a certain type of economic development is best for the community. But, there is no overall intent clearly put forth in the document and doesn't address other possible philosophies. Focuses too narrowly, on econ. development and not quality of life. With regard to talking with business reps informally, Mr. Duff thinks informal talks are dangerous and that they should be public hearings, not be limited to only the business community. Representatives from other sectors, such as environmental communities, and society in general should be involved in this type of discussion since economic development affects everyone, not just business. Mr. Duff doesn't like the idea of building a new regional conference center. Possible use of buildings at Cal Poly for conventions -- on a cooperative agreement is one answer. Possibly a city-run convention office where people can book their conferences w/o going to the expense of new buildings. MEETIN AGENDA 1 DATE • - ITEM #�.. 1 , 1 y t Downtown Physical Plan Design Committee Recommendations for County Office Expansion in Downtown San Luis Obispo 1 1� ' April, 1991 1 1 1 Downtown. Physical Plan Design Committee i Recommendations for County .Office Expansion .in Downtown 'San Luis Obispo April, 1991 Downtown Physical Plan Committees ' Design Committee Charles Crotser ' Rod Levin Andrew Merriam Pierre Rademaker ' Ken Schwartz Review Committee ' Howard Carroll Allan Cooper Dave Garth Betsey Irwin Barry Karleskint Dan Krieger Joe Kourakis Monte Lukov David Olson Fred Peterson Doug Pierce Rob Rossi David Smith Rob Strong Waft Tryon Mike Underwood Forrest Watts City Staff ' John Dunn, City Administrative Officer Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director 1 Additional Assistance Crawford Multari&Starr 1 ' County Office Expansion Options Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................P. 1 ' Background...............................................................................................p. 2 Summaryof Options...................................................................................p. 3 ' Option One: Expansion across Monterey Street..........................................p. 5 Option Two: Expansion of the Old Courthouse............................................p. 7 Option Three: "Sperry Building" Site.........................................................p. 12 Option Four: "Mitsubishi Motors" Site........................................................p. 12 Courthouse Expansion toward Santa Rosa Street.......................................p. 15 Parking....................................................................................................P. 15 Options Not Recommended.......................................................................p.18 Other Comments by Review Committee.....................................................p. 18 Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee County Office Expansion UpLions Table of Figures ' 1.Summary of All Options: Vicinity Map.......................................................p. 4 ' 2. Option One: Conceptual Site Plan...........................................................p. 6 3. Option Two: Conceptual Site Plan...........................................................p. 8 4. Option Two: Rendering..........................................................................p. 9 5. Option Two: Structural Floor Plan Schematic..........................................p. 10 ' 6. Option Two: Conceptual Section...........................................................p. 11 7. Option Three: Conceptual Site Plan......................................................p. 13 r8. Option Four: Conceptual Site Plan........................................................p. 14 9. Courthouse Expansion toward Santa Rosa Street...................................p. 16 10. Parking Structure Concept..................................................................p. 17 ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee County Office Expansion Options Introduction ' The Downtown Physical Plan Design Committee was asked to evaluate and make recommendations about options for County office expansion in the downtown. The Committee discussed this topic at eight different meetings from January through March. During this time,the Committee met with the County Administrative Officer and General Services staff twice. They also considered input from City staff,the BIA and the Chamber of Commerce. Committee members prepared generalized site plans for all options.They reviewed structural plans for the Old Courthouse to better understand how an addition might work in conjunction with ' the required seismic upgrade of that building. A conceptual rendering and sections of this option were produced as well. The Design Committee presented their recommendations to the larger Review Committee on ' April 3. The format of the meeting was an informal discussion and no vote by the Review Committee was taken in regard to the various options. It did appear that the Review Committee generally supported the conclusions contained herein. A summary of other comments by the Review Committee members is included at the end of this report. iFred Sweeney,who has been retained by the City to design the City Hall expansion,first met with the Design Committee earlier this year. Mr. Sweeney was very enthusiastic about the work of the committee, and he and the group shared ideas about the area near City Hall and the Government Center. On April 3, Mr. Sweeney presented an update of his work to the two committees. It appears that his ideas are, in many respects,complementary to the recommendations of the Design Committee. 1 1 ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 1 1 ' County Office Expansion OpLions Background ' In formulating their recommendations, the committee considered the following factors: •The County currently leases about 50,000 square feet of office space in the downtown area; the County's preference is to own their required office space. •The County will realize certain operational efficiencies if their offices can be consolidated. • The County's need for space will continue to increase;thus, plans for downtown expansion should be flexible to accommodate this future growth. ' •The City and the community prefer that a significant amount of the County offices that serve this area or have a County-wide client base remain downtown. • County-owned property in the downtown would be the logical first priority for County office ' expansion. The best opportunities are 1) the County-owned garage on Monterey Street across from the Government Center, and 2) a more efficient use of the Courthouse- Government Center site. ' •The Old Courthouse must be retrofitted to meet seismic requirements. Expansion in conjunction with the seismic rehab may be especially cost-effective. ' •The Old Courthouse is a building of some historical and aesthetic value and should not be totally razed; expansion of the building in conjunction with the required seismic upgrade should be permitted, however, 6 the design incorporates and respects elements of the existing building. ' •The County needs to find a new location for its computer facilities which are located in the Old Courthouse; because of the cost of relocating this equipment, the County's preference is that it be moved only once, if possible, rather than temporarily relocated. ' • Downtown expansion options should be cost-effective relative to other options, but the cost-benefit analysis must properly include the increased efficiency of operations realized ' through office consolidation, cost savings that can be gained by adding new space in conjunction with the required rehab of existing facilities, and other public benefits which may not be directly financial, such as improved convenience to the public. ' • Parking will need to be considered in any option for downtown expansion, but parking solutions may be phased. ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 2 1 County Office Expansion Uptions ' Summary and Priority of Options The following are the options recommendeded by the Committee i4iority order. The Committee ' wishes to stress, however,that this is not intended to be rigid; rather, a different order or a combination of these options is certainly possible after fuller consideration of different space needs and economic variables. Option One: Expansion to County-owned property on Monterey Street across from the Government Center. ' To maximize this option, the County should purchase the small,privately held property at the corner of Monterey and Santa Rosa. A direct pedestrian connection should be considered between the Government Center and the new building. This option could allow over 80,000 sq. ft. of space without exceptions from current City zoning standards. ' Option Two: Expansion in conjunction with seismic rehabilitation of the Old Court House. ' The Old Courthouse will be subject to a significant seismic retrofit, which provides an opportunity to enlarge the existing building in an especially cost-effective way. A new structure, tying together the Old Courthouse and the Government Center, would be a key element of this concept. Some on-site parking could be provided in this option. This option could itself be phased. In total, this option could create over 80,000 sq. ft. of space(net). ' Option Three: The "Sperry Building" site. This option could stand alone or be a later phase following either Option One or Two, above. It is privately owned and would have to be purchased or leased. The existing buildings would need to be razed and businesses relocated. This option provides over 100,000 sq. ft. ' Option Four: The "Mitsubishi Motors" site (including the corner gas station). This option would involve purchase of private property. On-site parking could be incorporated into the design. Pedestrian connections to the Government Center across Santa Rosa should be considered. Practical options for the relocation of the auto uses is an important consideration. This option could create over 100,000 sq. ft. of space. ' Option A: Expansion of the courts toward Santa Rosa. ' A "mirror image"of the existing court rooms and related facilities could be provided in the air space above the ground level on the Santa Rosa side of the Courthouse Annex and Government Center. This is a logical option which can be built independently or in conjunction with any other option listed above. This provides about 30,000 sq. R. of space. Sites considered but not recommended. Court Street, French Pavilion and the site on Palm Street across from the parking structure were also considered by the Committee but are not recommended for County expansion . ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 3 1 County Office Expansion Options Figure 1. Summary of All Options: Vicinity Map 1 =County-owned parking garage on Monterey (and privately-owned corner parcel) 2 = Additions to Old Courthouse in conjunction with seismic rehab ' 3= Sperry Building 4= "Mitsubishi Motors"site and adjacent gas station A= Expansion of courts (recommended with alt options) B= Parking structure over transit terminal and service commercial uses I I I l ��all I City/county 0Ubrary s•r I I I ?. l (Wdltl4n rj �' 3 Story MdrmVe !CmlRhoosa - I I Petentlal Gavammnrc E"nelon' sugding' _ :..F•?: I I I I WRh Parting sdov (6.4 oterlm) ____ ——___ E—•%i mmteroy street commoroial ' 'Fraew�2r, — Te Beim 'i ,Tlrcaim., CAR" I III Comnurralal 5 I I sonloe Q c. t: spery Wdso 5envilmspading sullding s SS-4$tory N� BWiding —_ _ ,' I I I Bus TA C.' Hlpu sheat -� .�• ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 4 f 1 County Office Expansion OPL,ons Option One: Expansion to County-owned property on Monterey Street across from the Government Center. This option would involve a four-story building constructed on County-owned property (used as a parking garage) across Monterey from the existing County complex. See Figure 2. Purchase of ' the small parcel at the corner of Monterey and Santa Rosa would appear to be a logical addition to the County-owned piece. In combination,these parcels could accommodate approximately 80,000 square feet of space, without any exception from current zoning standards, and including amenities such as a comer cut-off at Monterey and Santa Rosa, upper story setbacks and patios, and some other ground level open space. ' Pedestrian connections to the existing County complex are needed. Options include a bridge over Monterey, a tunnel underneath, or possibly a better defined pedestrian crossing at street level. Any"sky bridge"should be sensitive to its relationship to the Fremont Theater facade. ' An advantage of using this option for the first phase is that the offices and computer facilities in the Old Courthouse could be relocated to this new building while the seismic upgrade of that ' structure is taking place (see Option Two). Furthermore, the proposed building would be large enough so that a significant amount of the existing downtown lease space could be consolidated there, too. After the Old Courthouse is retrofitted and expanded, further consolidation could occur. There would also be enough capacity to accommodate some future space needs as well. ' The Old Courthouse offices could be moved to the new Monterey Street building, and much of the existing lease space consolidated there,without a significant increase in overall parking demand(although some parking spaces associated with lease sites may be lost to the County's ' direct use). However, as later phases are implemented, additional parking will need to be provided. This may be best located in a new structure constructed directly across Santa Rosa from this site (shown as"B" in the figures). About 450 spaces could be included in a structure there. The time frame for the development of this structure would parallel that of Option Two (the retrofit and expansion of the Old Courthouse). If this new parking structure is built across Santa Rosa, direct pedestrian links, such as over-street ' bridges, should be considered. Monterey Street itself should be redesigned to have a more pedestrian character. A landscaped median should be possible. The option of closing Monterey to through traffic and creating a large ' ceremonial outdoor space in front of the Government Center and the Fremont Theater should be considered, but is not necessarily recommended at this time. Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 5 ' County Office Expansion VNcions Figure 2. Option One: Conceptual Site Plan Existing I i I : 41 Government ® L . . . I• Center �L I *' 6 5toy i Addition 3 Story y �m i Addition ' Old Courthouse I � I � �. Tro le loConfie Street 1 � ",ommercial Fremont Bridge To I Below Theater Gov't Center I I I - IF 2perry 4 Story I �- ' 3uilding Building ' 3-4 Story 3uilding I Trolley ``' o Higuera Street, • — ' North IF Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 6 t County Office Expansion Options 1 Option Two: Expansion In conjunction with seismic rehabilitation ' of the Old Court House ' The Old Courthouse needs to be seismically upgraded. This upgrading will provide an opportunity for efficient expansion of the offices there. Two possibilities were considered. See Figure 4. ' The first involves the construction of a six-story element in the center of the building, and extending into the open area between the Old Courthouse and the new Government Center. This new addition would connect these two existing buildings, which will facilitate a solution to the required seismic upgrade. This element alone would accommodate about 60,000 square feet ' (net), over and above existing square footage in the building. The addition would need to be designed to complement the architecture of the existing exterior ' facades. Upper story elements would be setback to help maintain the scale of the existing building. See Figure 6. The Old Courthouse is actually composed of three separate structures. An analysis of the those ' structures by the Committee suggested that removing the portion illustrated in Figure 5 would be the most efficient approach. Clearly, more detailed analysis is called for. The second idea foresees an expansion of the building into the large open entry way facing Osos ' Street. In essence,the existing facade would simply be moved out over the existing front stairs. This would accommodate approximately 25,000 square feet. ' In this option, some subterranean parking may be possible on site. See Figure 6. This option may be especially cost-effective because the marginal cost for the addition, above the cost that is necessary for the seismic upgrade of the existing structure, may be quite competitive ' with other construction options even outside the downtown. Importantly,the existing offices must be relocated at least temporarily while the upgrading and expansion take place. This makes it difficult for this option to be the first phase and is an important reason why the Committee recommends that the move across Monterey be the first phase: if the Monterey Street building is available,then the Old Courthouse offices can be relocated there while the old building is being rehabilitated and expanded. 1 t 1 ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 7 ' County Office Expansion OpLions 1 Figure 3. Option Two: Conceptual Site Plan 1 1 1 fa1m�v-t -- - - - --- - 41 rA, 43 m o City / County O Library 3 Story Addition : OI Existing Government . . . I • Center ' i 6 Stony I Additi&n 4 Andrew's Old Building Courthouse 1 Commercial. Fremont Bridge 1 North Below. Theater Govt c 1 Sperry 4 Story' Building Building ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 8 1 ' County Office Expansion Opaons Figure 4. Option Two: Rendering ! \ 1 r ! 1 1 � ' i 1 , 1 L t � / L � U 1 U tI E ti " � 3 ! lid 1 ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 9 ' County Office Expansion Options ' Figure 5. Option Two: Structural Floor Plan Schematic County Government Center 1i:�i:�i::�i:�'::�::�+:�i:::i:•ii i::�::::::.::::..:::i.:•i:::i::{•i:•::�"'::�i:�::i:v:�:;.:�. ................................ .4.........t.4.......<:. :::::::. ::.......:........; f: i ... q ; Old :>:<:<':>:>::: ti .' .. i9#1<<' ii;;: :i>is>:>:>'<:.`<.:.::;;`.'.': Old r Courthouse ; <: :::::;:: :.: : . :>:::<: . s:::.;:.;:.;:;::..'::::.;:.;:.::<.;:::::::::.::..::.:: :;::>::K+r.;;;:>;:.;::.:.•z Courthouse q 1 'a ::,i"t;;i.>;:i.<2ii:5:'•:�:i1.;::'`:si',''<:::>:?::: +:'%i:'i i':`:�::'i:<�s:v?i::'::: q r T 1 ' 0505 Street 1 1 Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 10 1 ' County Office Expansion Options Figure 6. Option Two: Schematic Section 1 1 1 ' 6 yF - 5 �fgl� 4 Annex ' �I y ) — 2I m� Cross. Section a-2 t ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 11 County Office Expansion Opoons Option Three: The "Sperry Building" site ' In this option, the building fronting on Osos, between Monterey and Higuera, would be purchased, demolished and replaced with a three to four story structure. See Figure 7. Within the existing zoning standards, such a building could probably accommodate at least 100,000 square feet of office space while also including upper story setbacks, patios and even some ground level open space. The existing buildings do not appear to have any historical or aesthetic significance, so demolition would be acceptable. First floor retail may be appropriate along Monterey Street. Some on-site parking could be ' incorporated into the,design. Although it is rated as third priority by the Committee, this option can stand alone and could be t developed as an earlier phase. However,the Committee viewed lt primarily as a longer term expansion option, to be implemented after the more immediate space needs are met on downtown properties already owned by the County. ' A direct connection between this building and the first option may be possible along Higuera Street, behind the Fremont Theater. ' Option Four: The "Mitsubishi Motors" site (west side of Monterey between Santa Rosa and Toro) ' This site,which includes the now vacant gas station on the corner of Monterey and Santa Rosa along with the auto dealership, could accommodate office space excess of 100,000 square feet, as well as a significant amount of on-site parking. See Figure 8. The grade change between Palm and Monterey could facilitate a design which includes parking. A significant disadvantage is that this site is not now owned by the County. Before it could be ' available,options for relocating the auto-related uses must become practical. This would probably involve opening up more of the Los Osos Valley Road area for car sales and service. ' This option takes the County's expansion across Santa Rosa. This is not viewed as a problem; in fact,the Committee envisions this part of the downtown as the most logical place for long term County expansion, both in terms of government offices and other related private offices and services. Some service and retail uses related to government activities may be preferred along the Monterey Street first level. 1 ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 12 1 County Office Expansion Options Figure 7. Option Three: Conceptual Site Plan i 1 1 .. . . .� ' I Existing 6 Stogy Government i Additi6n Center 4 Andrew's Old 1 Building' Courthouse Commercial Fremont ria Below Theater Got Sperry 141 Building Bud v a° O ' -- — 3-4 Story .� Building 1 North Higuera Street 1 1 Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 13 1 ' County Office Expansion GN«ons Figure 8. Option Four: Conceptual Site Plan 1 i story addition ►In 1 I Potential Government Expansion' =I I With Parking Below (3-4 stories) _ _= Tro le --1011 Monterey Street I I - OSP, 1 ► � IF Commercial I... ..5ervice'- . ... Qa`p�p Bridge Service I Support • a I 144 � I I O I ' North I ► Bus Depot 1 � Higuera treet Trolley 1 Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 14 ' County Office Expansion Uptions Adjunct to all of the above: Expansion of the courts toward Santa Rosa. iA"mirror image"of the existing court rooms and related facilities could be provided in the air space above the ground level on the Santa Rosa side of the Courthouse Annex and iGovernment Center. See Figure 9. This is a logical option recommended in conjunction with all the others listed above. It would result in about 30,000 square feet of space. It would be most appropriate for expanding the i courts and related facilities. The ground level would continue to have direct vehicle access for prisoner transportation and security. i iParking Options 1 As significant expansion occurs, additional convenient parking will be required in the vicinity i of the County offices. One short term idea is to convert the sections of Morro Street between Marsh and Higuera, Higuera and Monterey, and Monterey and Palm, into temporary parking lots. This could be done by making these sections one-way,one lane, with diagonal parking on both sides of a center aisle. This approach could result in a 20-30 additional spaces. iThe Committee, however, believes that Morro Street, in the long term, may be more as a pedestrian area, perhaps with expanded street level retailing and food service opportunities. The Committee also realizes that a longer term, larger scale parking solution is also necessary. iThe long term parking option, to serve the County's expansion needs, now favored by the Committee,would be a large structure on the block bounded by Santa Rosa, Higuera, i Monterey and Toro. A concept considered by the Committee would be to locate a transit terminal and related services(eg:a gas station) on the first floor,with parking above. A four- level structure could accommodate about 450 parking spaces. See Figure 10. i This parking would have excellent accessibility to the existing Government Center and to Options One and Four discussed above. Linking the office buildings to the parking structure by over-street bridges is an idea worth considering further. 1 1 1 ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 15 1 County Office Expansion GN[ions ' Figure 9. Courthouse Expansion toward Santa Rosa Street , • . • • • . a ,3 Story 1 I I Addition .. I I � i I i I .• Existing .,. . . .I.: Government ' ice• Center O i Addition 3 Story i ' Addition Old I ' Courthouse III � I Tr? le ' �v('o�ite 5treet�� i nercial Fremont ridge To I / v. Theater Gov't Center I �1Co A10 Se in •�, 4 Story -Brid ' ing North Building ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 16 1 County Office Expansion Options Figure 10. Parking Structure Concept 1 1 r-' KA� 41 �43 3 Story 1 Addition Im ISI I Potential Government Expansion With Parking Below (3-4 stories) 1 Tro le Monterey Street .er i F1 commercial 1 � I I I Service Q `Ik4j I �—Bridge 1 � Service Support I II I0 I Bus Depot 1 Trolley � ' F7North _ ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 17 County Office Expansion Options 1 Sites Considered but Not Recommended ' Court Street, The Committee feels that the potential for a multi-level retail or other mix of uses is still best for this site, and it should be reserved for that possibility. Thus, Court Street is not recommended as a high priority for County office expansion. ' French Pavilion Site. This location was seen as too far from the existing Government Center to be considered a high priority. Furthermore, it remains most appropriate for intensive retail ' development. East side of Palm, south of Morro. This site has significant potential for a combined office- retail-parking complex. Some upper story residential may even be appropriate. It was viewed as too far from the existing County complex and more valuable to support other downtown needs. ' Additional Comments from the Review Committee At their meeting on January 30, both the Design Committee and Review Committee discussed the possible relocation of certain County offices from downtown to the "TRW site". There was a clear consensus that retaining the County presence downtown was vital and that practical ideas ' for County expansion downtown needed to be explored further. On April 3,the Design Committee presented their recommendations to the Review Committee. ' The format of the meeting encouraged informal discussion, so no formal votes were taken on the various options. However, it appeared that members of the Review Committee generally supported the options discussed in this report. Some additional comments were offered by Review Committee members;these are summarized below: Some members noted that on Osos, across from the Old Courthouse, relatively tall buildings are built up to the back of sidewalk on an almost continuous line. Thus, if the idea of extending the Old Courthouse toward Osos Street is pursued,care must be given to avoid a"tunnel effect' ' caused by taller buildings on both sides of Osos overpowering the pedestrian at street level. Several solutions to this concern may be possible including setbacks from the sidewalk, upper story setbacks, and opening up the facade at the pedestrian level. In any case, only a portion of ' the building is proposed for expansion outward. On a related point, some members felt that some kind of ceremonial entrance is needed at the County Center, so the complete elimination of the existing stairway and entry plaza may not be preferred. ' One member reiterated that if it is impossible to keep the full complement of current County functions in the downtown,then care should be given to retaining those which attract the most public contact and which generate the most benefits to downtown. ' Another committee member felt that City-owned property, such as Court Street and even the City Hall site, should be given an equal priority with options on privately owned parcels. ' The Design Committee will continue to consider the input of the Review Committee as they proceed with their work on the physical plan. ' Downtown Physical Plan -- Design Committee 18 1 MEETING AGENDA DATE, �3-9/ ITEM ►►���������n����������illllllllll@1°°11 �� II CityOf OBISPO san IuIs A 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 April 19, 1991 COMMUNICATION ITEM TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Penny Rappa SUBJECT: SUPPORT OF RECYCLING LEGISTATION To assist in meeting the necessary demands of AB 939, it would behoove us to support AB 1423 and SB 235, establishing minimum recycled content requirements on all paper, glass aluminum, steel and plastic containers sold in California. Further, AB 750 provides financial incentive for collecting more than 325,000 tons of recycled wine/liquor containers now littering our landfills. I would request that Council direct staff to bring these issues back to Council in the form of two resolutions (see attached). /ss COPIESTO- 0 [i7'•Dvmon Q Fa ❑ CDD DUL 11 FIN.DUL Lr A6A 0 Da AOR�AND Rf0rVLu IRO REr—ALZ ❑ -if i CAW Californians Against Waste s 3f,. _;,_ _ Towards a Recycling Economy Sol— April 4, 1991 Councilmember Penny Rappa City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 1100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Resolutions in Support of Recycling Legislation Dear Councilmember Rappa, Last year, working together as a coalition of local governments, recyclers and environmentalists, we successfully enacted legislation for expanding markets for recycled materials through minimum content legislation. We were also able to turn back glass industry legislation aimed at gutting the state's bottle bill. This year we again need your help in supporting recycling legislation aimed at assisting-your community in meeting the requirements of Assembly Bill 939. Assembly-Bill -750 by Assemblymember Burt Margolin (D-Los Angeles) will provide the financial incentive for the collection of. thousands. of tons of wine, liquor and non-carbonated water containers, by adding tham to thhe state's beverage container recycling program. Assembly Bill 1423 by Assembly Member Michael Gotch (D-San Diego) and Senate Bill 235 by Senator Gary Hart (D-Santa Barbara) will help to create markets for the materials collected for recycling by curbside and other recycling programs by requiring the container industry to use minumum recycled content in the production of new containers. AB 939, requires cities and counties to recycle 25% of their waste by 1995 and 50$ by 2000. The minimun content standards in AB 1423 and SB 235 will assist your community in meeting the requirements of AB 939 by helping to establish sizable markets for material collected. AB 750 can help funding these programs. We urge you to act quickly on this important issue, and join with recyclers, the League of Cities, the County Supervisors Association, and Californians Against Waste in supporting these measures. Attached is a model resolution and background information. Thank you for your-'attention to this urgent. matter.. If you have any questions, please' cojxtact us at ..(916)443-5422. Si ncerely, RECEIVED APR 11 1991 Mark Murray CITY CLERK r-AN LUIS OBI§.P_Oj 96 909 12th Street.Suite 201,Sacramento,CA 95814•(916)443-5422•Fax(916)443-3912•P.O.Box 289,Sacramento,CA 95812 Printed or copied on Recycled Paper Sample City/County Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE [CITY COUNCIL/HOARD OF SUPERVISORS] 'OF [CITY/COUNTY] SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 750 WHEREAS, the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of [City/County] is committed to recycling and waste reduction plans and programs in order to meet the requirements of the California Integrated Solid Waste Management and Recycling Act (AB 939, 1989 ) ; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 750 by Assembly Member Burt Margolin would provide a financial incentive for the collection for recycling of the more than 325,000 tons of wine and liquor containers littered and landfilled in California annually; and WHEREAS, the total cost to local government in California for the collection and disposal of wine and liquor bottles is estimated at more than $20 million annually; and WHEREAS, in the months since consumer refund values were increased to two-for-a-nickel under California's beverage container recycling program recycling rates have increased significantly; and WHEREAS, the enactment of AB 750 will assist the [City/County] in meeting the objectives of the California Integrated Solid Waste Management and Recycling Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [City/County] does hereby: 1. Support Assembly Bill 750. 2. Convey our support for AB 750 to -Assembly Member Burt Margolin, our Assembly and State Senate representatives, Assemblymember Byron Sher, Chair of the Assembly Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee, and the California League of Cities and County Supervisors Association of California. 3. Direct our legislative representative to join with representatives of the League of Cities, the County Supervisors Association of California, San Diego Association of Governments, Sierra Club California, the Planning and Conservation League, and Californians Against Waste in working for the passage. of AB 750. FACT SHEET ON ASSEMBLY BILL 750 By Assemblymember Burt Margolin to Expand Beverage Container Recycling Law CURRENT LAW The California Beverage Container Recycling Act (AB 2020) currently places a 2 1/2 cent Refund Value (RV) on all beer, soft drink and wine cooler containers under 24 ounces, and a 5 cent refund value on those containers 24 ounces or larger. CURRENT RECYCLING RATES According to the State Department of Conservation, the recycling rates for beverage containers in California reached an all time high in 1990, those rates are as follows: Pre-AB 2020 1989 Rates 1990 Rates Aluminum 41% 64$ 76g Glass 14% 45% 57% Plastic >1$ 7% 311% AB 2020 provides the financial underpinnings for hundreds of private, public and non-profit recycling operations, including more than 2000 recycling centers and 234 curbside programs.. SUMMARY OF AB 750 AB 750 would expand the beverage container recycling program beginning July 1, 1992. Materials currently collected are as follows: % Total Tonnage Percent Approx. ## Redemption Material Waste Generated Recycled Contnrs. Payment RV Glass 2.0 784, 000 50% 3, 136. mill 66.0 " Aluminum 0.4 184, 627 76%- 9, 231. 156.0 It PET Plas. 0.1 46,333 15% 556. 22.0 it Metal 0. 1 1, 000 2$ 10. .2 ------------------------------------ sub-total 2.7 1, 015, 627 12, 931. $244.2 Material to be added by AB 750 Wine & Liquor 1.6 592,000 8.6* 184. mill 7.3 * AB 750 follows recommendations to add containers included in a January, 1990 report to the legislature by DOC. * AB 750 targets containers that contribute to- the litter problem in parks, on beaches, and in urban areas. * AB 750 will simplify the program for consumers and recyclers who must now sort through containers to determine wchich glass and aluminum containers are included and which are not. Sample Resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE [CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS] OF [CITY/COUNTY] SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1423 AND SENATE BILL 235 WHEREAS, the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of [City/County] is committed to meeting or exceeeding the recycling and waste reduction requirements of the California Integrated Solid Waste Management and Recycling Act (AB 939, 1989); and . WHEREAS, a key to the long term success of recycling in California depends on a balanced strategy of creating incentives and implementing programs for the collection of recyclables, while stimulating material demand through thoughtful recycled material market development efforts; and WHEREAS, the legislature and Governor in 1989 adopted AB 1305, a successful recycled newsprint market development program mandating minimum levels of recycled content in newspaper; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1423 by Assembly Member Michael Gotch and Senate Bill 235 by Senator Gary Hart would, if adopted establish similar minimum recycled content requirements on all paper, glass, aluminum, steel and plastic containers sold in this state. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [City/County] does hereby: 1. Convey our support for AB 1423 to Assembly Member Michael Gotch, our assembly and senate representatives, Assembly Member Byron Sher, Chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, and the California League of Cities and County Supervisors Association of California. 2. . Convey our support for Senate Bill 235 to Senator Gary Hart, our assembly and senate representatives, Senator Dan McCorquodale, Chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee, and the California League of Cities and County Supervisors Association of California. 3. Direct our legislative representative to join with representatives of the League of Cities, the County Supervisors Association of California, Sierra Club California, the Planning and Conservation League, and Californians Against Waste in working for the passage of AB 1423 and SB 235. SUMMARY OF MINIMUM RECYCLED CONTENT LEGISLATION By 1993, it is conservatively estimated that California will collect for recycling 500,000 tons of glass, 300,000 tons of steel, 3.4 million tons of paper, 30,000 tons of plastic and 150,000 tons of aluminum. Essential to the success of our recycling efforts is the development of stable markets for this collected material. Assembly Bill 1423 by Assembly Member Michael Gotch (D-San Diego) and Senate Bill 235 by Senator Gary Hart (D-Santa Barbara) are intended to support state and local recycling efforts by closing the loop on packaging waste. By requiring producers of packaging containers to utilize specified minimum levels of recycled material in the manufacture of their products, we will help to assure stable markets for material collected in curbside and other recycling programs. SUMMARY OF AB 1423 AB 1423 would require manufacturers of glass, steel, bi-metal and aluminum containers to use the following minimum percentages of recycled content in the manufacture of their containers on and after the dates specified below: EFFECTIVE DATE 1/1/93 1/1/96 1/1/99 FLINT GLASS CONTAINERS 25$ 35% 45$ GREEN,AMBER AND MIXED COLOR CONTAINERS 40% 50$ 60$ STEEL AND BI-METAL CONTAINERS 35g 60% 85$ ALUMINUM CONTAINERS 60$ 75$ 90$ SUMMMARY OF SB 235 This measure would require manufactures of paperboard and rigid plastic containers to use the following minimum percentages of postconsumer content in the manufacture of their containers on and after the-dates specified below: EFFECTIVE DATE 1/1/93 1/1/95 PAPERBOARD CONTAINERS 50$ 50$ PLASTIC CONTAINERS 10$ 25$ _ m C/J J•C uC= 0 S.-CW- 0 y'y � O WL • C '00 d•q w. m ,.. J'.. m o0e3� cm -W yC-= 0 acE=ac �my �ec�3; yo a00md- cy I _ ym ; cQLc •vy` OOc �cs=.O-E-LE O E 0m � wr Yosno � a L 'eMU a €� efiEs >,� m > oM cn ... p `cy� v_ 3E ymc �bow m y _ocwcm ccCdcErc= mm •••..� � .Ci V mm � w- >l_ J I yt O cm m wap�+0 .0 y u 0= �'c w Y 3r7 ❑ a., > d m T7 m Z v c am° dcm °voLsr�u=do > 'm3'0' E �' m.mc �i''S_ Z.- 3c0nc Uri L O ` y m m m `m w C- Ecu C w m m °' dam F ` C O d u m s m ^^ O G me C�._=.a90 m Gm . amepmp._F= �+ mti w�C==mc y= i� O o� _�v• w °v 'm $- ° . wco0pc� v°m= - mm� m. co°G and �fn p w m m.0 p d m c o r m s J O L m �L a J L y m awl-• o� °°c-„.�`eea'pom ° ° yH-,v_ Gm= Edao�� m.^E CO v� O �m -us `UCO,.E moE > yOTrum � �_ u.- uEy ° ceoEdmr`°= m So � .:m � G'O ofu $ C o3. m iy ccG Lp uJcya_ c L h h OO � mZ 16 v` °y' OYgE�cc' mw m?"O� u ��Cwu3 amt wom �”, r puEUto EuJi ."S.E wio`i $=Cu uJ, uE2'�ac >� 2 EeL � w ` m` O CmydG u=,mmsCUCE umolaTc cs3; ci � � c O m�=m 2L E'w >. 90E- m'u `ua mL^'i EUc �gL m-w3m -c cy - oc E yr �.omc ;o�� GCmmGdua` d� d u9mc- Eu. Tmc °u° a 3oWE'o =_ °o- Es „._ '3 7 GO 07;U u w p y u J L a a `0 m?� C _a O` oa V7 IC• 0 0=•0 y 2 G O C C p C A '� ¢� y` m 3 m a_N T- G C E d� G E C_ m C•0 b 9 r y > W m C U L C O L m y U w 7- ` Q a m-. d= C U mu- 2 u-y C �V m L O Y-L'O m �N m c m m V C r C T C' O C m O= C u C G- C-0 C E L p L y 7 •• �d a,vc mr m�'6oGy 2 :=y c o9°E o z y 0� m mr c.p g E u 29 GE E oust v; W=) a s o c G , E2 ��me ms � E •ui� ° mccm � Sly° vi0 0,MU 0:2 cWm° R� do•mp L'o=� � mmcc�-mc dr e.01ommmF” 0Eemyr•-mQYNL�•,c-°Zt`ue�° 0� 'm' Qs� c �tccE'� a,Ua�, ai 'u9mE_ma ° "' E cm cc oe� E3 •',m3yemc`��c�v0i0.ocu� EQum`oa3i_maiwtmQtm.. E � mIL�i-'2Ei= ow ° i,E° m °v c m- m3= mm c=gym . cd°aEemto, to 'C °`- d� d `oL°cmwo �m=v`ooE6yc° y° Jv c 00Zb Is''amiu °_L v . um' 12m19 •icm TC rn E=�aciEoP�? Z— yymy vmit U:° Ralm u� =3.3�E33dW$a•B..BmEwazJm?me • cc E$ca,L •2m�°oEz�ma °r3o33 Z _ tL __ WOL CCLQmH E: 0 v E umRe � v.y93pE o p� and `_aur wa9_ A- o ve_ m W C h G r.9 C O m O— � G m p'`. C}R L Q = �.¢ O m O G U 3 y O m v L C y -' y .:=i O: d >C G y d 4 3 N M E C W a G- L J C C O E J C y W c > R J V y y':J m C C'_ :+ C U L_9 y m C m .v L L L C= < R=`OBILZ 7 `LCC-c E C E o .LULL ei- v e 9._ c m ec.= am vm ° 3 u _ 3e= `-- _e s` umep-_ e F D C C; CL�`L frL= J'C= == y m TC L V > t� CSi 0= C= yL V C L d' • E a3' `o _ 3 >._ em `- L'r v • r. gU >.c uE wr°.•`_� 3 c- > _ t c=> Cc � E 9m >.0 - caw =_� _ .. .- E � - ❑ LL c n v >.w'L_�x a U L C C! = :� ==E '! - d u= Cy9li?.7— GV uv CC V6uC� CU•o . = v w V � >. C m O VS rZv3z _ mcp- °' Qty c ' d J=c y.EauC. yC > �, c3 p p y E y a Y _ w E /r`� m �`c u �tEv`oE L� � Eoz.5 afL`c m ! V 7 u m E L ?rt--.. y Z li. m_^ C S R a d V. W. C F= i m y vmiwz > prEcc mE .. = : u E c cv u N 1ci r" U T V` O C :� i - 7 a i U U u e4[V V L C a _ t y y w C p '� = O m y =< y _ y V L U C v � V 3 C W C_ t ^L X E d y d R a w u_O O G ccJ y R v > 6+ C v _ 6 R L V. y DO C G m m- G G_-.? v R R E_ V _v E•y O G i E-• C E E U W b I C C_ O V O O y C T` __ J ./ v� R 3 w a y b'[ 0 ,�� � aE or iau ` EacS >uiEmi�LEm= eo`mcE '� 2i p"� P O E T�=•o m E .-p j9 ; m ami c c o m �y m aL v 0G mQ C•O O C 6r 0 _ O..- III:. C L C O y L r H 9 C^ C L_ m J i Z ° G m C V m 0 m R ° dt L p L J m m > U Y A Y V m 0 V C m t i- m� r Z .- E� `mZ,U � EwU=s` �Q