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