HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/19761
1
Pledge
Roll Call
0
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 - 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAP4BERS, CITY HALL
PRESENT: Councilmen Gurnee, Graham, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer /City Clerk Pro -Tem;
Rob Strong, Director of Community Development; D.F. Romero,
Director of Public Services; and Terry Sanville, Planning
Associate
1. Report on Activities of Standing Council Committees:
A. Area Planning Council Councilman Gurnee
Councilman Gurnee went over the Joint Power Authority Agreement presented
in connection with the elderly and handicapped programs and expressed
opposition to the membership provisions and other aspects. He asked the
Council to review the proposed agreement before Wednesday so that he could
have a City position for the Area Planning Council meeting later that
afternoon.
B. Traffic Committee Councilman Norris
Councilman Norris had no report.
C. Tree Committee Councilman Graham
Councilman Graham mentioned that he-believed that the Council should have
input from the staff before holding a Study Meeting on this matter. It was
agreed that staff would present alternatives for Council's consideration.
D. Waterways Planning Board
Councilman Gurnee
Councilman Gurnee indicated that the Waterways Board was relatively
inactive, having delegated many matters to staff and Zone 9.
E. Whale Rock Commission
Mayor Schwartz
Mayor Schwartz described efforts of the Whale Rock Commission to acquire
ponding areas downstream and also indicated the Commission had agreed to
provide water for Morro Bay and Cuesta College on the normal year to year
contract basis.
F. Zone 9 Advisory Committee Councilman Graham
Councilman Graham stated that Zone 9 was reviewing the Master Plan Report,
and the next step was preparation of an'Environmental Impact Report.
G. Central Coast Criminal Councilman Norris
Justice Committee
Councilman Norris indicated that the C.C.C.J.C. has not been meeting because
of vacations, etc., but with the appointment of a new Executive Director
today, things should become more active. He indicated, however, that next
year's allocations wodlii- proFably be reduced from the $800,000 range to $400,000.
H. Mass Transportation
Councilman Petterson
City Council Minutes
September 13, 1976 --
Page 2
Councilman Petterson asked D.F. Romero to report on transit activities.
Mr. Romero said a new schedule would go into effect tomorrow. The Mass
Transit Committee was also preparing a new contract to be effective in
April, probably calling for one new larger bus to serve Cal Poly. He
stated that the A.S.I. proposed no change in subsidy.
I. Water Advisory Board
Mayor Schwartz
Mayor Schwartz said that a recent meeting of the Water Advisory Board indi-
cated another vote on Nacimiento water in the near future.
J. County Office of Manpower Services Councilman Norris
Councilman Norris indicated that, in connection with the Manpower programs,
the City.was probably-letting-the program down by not picking up one of the
CETA Firemen on a full.time basis.
Mayor-Schwartz commented on a recent meeting of the Mayor's Group which
featured discussions on the "911" Program as well as the Joint Powers
Agreement with the County and other cities.
2. Continued Public Hearing on the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to adopt the 1976 General Plan Update.;
Rob Strong, Director of.Community Development, reviewed a chart on. densities
in connection with the new General Plan...
Terry Sanville, Planning Associate, then- showed slides on various develop -
ments.in the community varying in densities-from 15 units per acre to 41.
1
Rob
Strong indicated that
staff had originally proposed three categories in
densities (dwelling units
per acre) as follows:, 1) Low - 4 thru 10; 2) Medium -
11
thru 20; and 3) High -
21 thru 40. There would normally allow 7, 16 and
31
units respectively, with "planned development permits" they would allow
10,
20 and 40 dwelling units per acre, respectively.
A subsequent proposal called for four categories as follows: .1) Low - 4 thru
6; 2) Medium - 7 thru 16; 3) Medium -High - 17 thru 24; and 4) High -.25
thru 32. The upper figures would be.permissible in combination with special
performance standards.
Mayor Schwartz asked staff to discuss the proposed development.standards
as contained in the chart prepared by Planning Staff.
Rob Strong said that the chart had not yet been considered by the Planning
Commission but it.provided for a typical 6 unit per acre for R -1 zones
with 1200 sq. ft. open space, a maximum coverage of 40% including building
and parking area, a maximum height of 25', reduced from 35', still allowing
1 or 2 stories. There would be a 10% incentive provided for Planned Develop-
ment, yielding a.maximum 6.6 units per. net acre. Mr. Strong then proceeded
to go through the suggested.standards for other zones and said he wanted to
meet with development interests in the near future but needed Council guidance
before doing so.
Councilman Petterson asked about parking requirements which he felt
tended to dictate densities. He didn't feel parking standards were
excessive,.nor should they.be lessened. He felt -that they could possibly
be considered in connection with the new zoning ordinance. In general
he felt there was a trend towards more open space which didn't cost
excessively. However, he felt that this wasn't;too practical with students
who tended to destroy private open space. He felt that the City had
tried to put too much into too little space in connection with student
housing.
Rob Strong indicated thet_Cityf, had held to a maximum of 32 units per acre
lately.
City Council Minutes
September 13, 1976
Page 3
Councilman Norris asked for the present figures which would compare with
the figures on the proposed chart. ,A discussion ensued on the matter of
gross vs. net units per acre.
Terry Sanville said that staff was using a factor of 25% for streets.
Rob Strong indicated that if the maximum amount of units were reduced
from 40 to 32, the ultimate population within the recommended plan would
be reduced.from 65,000 to 60,000.
Councilman Norris said it was hard to judge the slide show, since Irish
Hills Hamlet with comparatively low densities looked terrible and Judson
Terrace with high densities looked very nice.
Rob Strong said it made a difference whether.the "units per acre" had one
or two bedrooms.
Councilman Gurnee had no questions or .comments but said he would like to
hear from the people..
A short intermission took place at this time.
Mayor Schwartz then called upon the audience for comments.
Bill Broadbent said he didn't understand.the reason for the minimum
lot requirement for a Planned Development. He felt this defeated the
incentives for innovative land use. He.said that the proposed standards
might also be creating a great number of non - conforming uses.
Rob Strong indicated that the minimum size preferred by staff for planned
developments had not been discussed with'the Planning Commission.
Vic Montgomery . appeared expressing six concerns - he felt that the number
of bedrooms and persons residing therein could-make a difference. He
also asked if parking space were included in the coverage calculations.
He said parking lots ate up a lot of space. He felt that in C -2 zones,
you could-.exceed 44 units per acre, the Anderson Hotel for instance. He
felt performance standards for planned developments could be improved
especially as far as A.R.C. considerations were concerned. He questioned
the building height limits in R -2 zones and said it would be hard to limit
the height to 25' unless you had flat roofs. He also mentioned the problem
of applying standards to guest parking.
Rob Strong said he agreed with most comments of Mr. Montgomery. The bedroom
suggestion was good and generally was as recommended by staff. He was
reluctant to get into a.full discussion of possible zoning ordinance standards
before the Council made basic decisions on densities.
Herbert Miles suggested that 32 units per acre was high. He understood
that Santa Barbara was considering a top of 20 units which would tend to
make that City a good place to live. He said the people should also have
a right to determine whether or-not they wanted to pay for•an additional
water supply to accommodate higher densities: He felt the City should
present this question to the voters in a plebiscite.Otherwise, the people
might take it to an initiative.
Don Smith appeared to suggest a maximum of 12 units per acre for apartment
houses, maybe 15 in exceptional cases. He questioned the quality involved
when higher units per acre were allowed. There was also the matter of
using up available water supply.- He felt that the limit should be 15 units
until the City obtained an additional -major source.of water.
Al Ingersoll appeared to state that economics should be considered.
We can't expect to live in utopia, he said. You have'to make a living
in•order to live. In his work with the Housing Task Force, he learned.
to consider seriously the needs of low and medium income families. He
said you have to have higher densities or you will end up with rents
of $600, $700 or $800 per month.
City Council Minutes
September 13, 1976
Page 4
Ron Dunin said the Council should request the Planning Commission to
determine what affect the General Plan will have on the City. He was
fearful that height and density limits which were too strict would
prevent people from living in the City.
Alf Starkie said the City was Poly oriented. He felt that this called
for a little higher density-than would normally be the case.
Archie Lux asked that the cost of housing to the average family be con-
sidered. He said the 1972 General Plan for developing his property was
in conflict with the current zoning ordinance. He had been waiting for
some time to have the new General Plan adopted and inflation was running
10% a year. He felt that medium -high density should be allowed in his
area. Cal Poly was creating a tremendous demand. He said he was not an
out of town developer but had been here since 1947.
Bill Broadbent said densities called for in the fourth category seemed
to be a step in the right direction, but further consideration should also
be given to high rises.
Al Ingersoll asked that the staff consider an economic model. What would
units have to rent for?
Rob Strong said that the units which had been approved during the last year
provided an example of "high densities" proposed. Staff studies imply that
initial costs are not the significant factor in determination of rent levels.
Landlords were charging what the market would bear. He would appreciate
any input from the financial community on economic implications.
At this time, the Mayor concluded'the public portion of the discussion.
Councilman Gurnee said that good input had been received from the
citizens. However, it was hard to decide densities without looking
at design or development standards. Previous standards had produced
mediocrity. The 20' setback was the worst offender. There should
be a conversion factor for -the number of bedrooms. When you exceed
20 units per acre, you lose quality. He said he recognized the profit
picture but that the Council had to look at the broader picture. Basically,
he was a dissenter to the proposed General Plan. The worksheets needed .
a lot of work. He could more or less go along with the R -1, R -2 and R -3
standards but not with R -4 unless real'amenities were provided. There
were very few developments of 32 units per acre which would provide good
living. He hoped that Council would not try to keep up with demand for
housing. He hoped that planners would come up with charts on housing
mix.
Councilman Norris said that staff needed direction. The Council wanted
quality but some higher densities were required. Some people liked high
density living. He would like to see no control on,the maximum number of
units for a planned development because the City had discretionary control.
He.said no private open space had been required in'the past, and these
new standards could result in a raise in rent. The housing user would
bear the brunt. He asked how the City would handle non - conforming uses.
Would parking be-included in open space or building coverage?
Councilman Petterson had walked these units today. He was impressed with
the landscaping, architecture, layout, but not with the maintenance. This
was very poor, particularly with private open space. After all of the
above factors were considered, you then got down to the density question.
Cal Poly was the worst. The density stood out because there was no land-
scaping, no architecture. The way to set densities was by the number of
bedrooms. Higher densities might be allowed in the Central Business District.
Special allowance should be allowed for people who didn't need parking. Resi-
dent and guest parking questions should be-settled before considering densities.
A financial model should be prepared, maybe by private parties or by Cal Poly
classes.
1
1
1
D
I
City Council Minutes
September 13, 1976
Page 5
Mayor Schwartz asked Councilman Petterson several questions including
how he would differentiate between different types of special housing.
Should the City treat student housing different than housing other groups?
Councilman Petterson said there was a tremendous difference in student living
habits and parking patterns. The elderly had to be handled differently
also.
Mayor Schwartz asked if special treatment wouldn't add to the bureaucracy.
Councilman Petterson said that if you tried to prescribe everything, maybe
so, but controls shouldn't be that tight.
At this time, Mayor Schwartz asked the Council to react to the presented
question of densities.
Councilman Petterson said that 32 units should be the highest density
but there should be guidelines for exceptions like Planned Developments.
Councilman Graham said the Council should look at the four classes of
density normally and also in connection with Planned Development. He too
was concerned with cost factors.
Mayor Schwartz said that cities were taking more responsibility in relat-
ing development standards to cost. Students needed higher densities.
However, higher densities caused many problems e.g.; blight costs, fire,.etc.
He felt that the City had to look at long range costs not short range.
Housing used to be more basic. Today's aspirations were higher. He wasn't
that concerned about lower densities driving costs up. He liked the bed-
room method of determining densities better than the dwelling unit method.
He felt that staff should determine conversion factors. He didn't feel
that changing the criteria to bedrooms would change densities that much.
He would like to see the figures for medium densities changed from a top
of 16 units to 12. He would like to see 4 groups with the range of 13 to
20 units for medium -high density and 21 to 28 for high (with 2 bedrooms
as the standard). Maybe these figures could be raised a little higher.
Staff should come back with density ranges based on the number of bedrooms.
He had definite ideas on C.B.D. but that was a different discussion.
Councilman Norris said he could accept the maximum densities on the
chart and moved that the new maximum figures of 6, 12, 18 and 24 units
be accepted assuming.two bedrooms per unit, with increases to be allowed
for Planned Development and other unusual factors. (Mr. Strong indi-
cated that up to 10% was normally allowed for a Planned Development).
Motion was seconded by Councilman Petterson with the understanding that
staff would bring back further information on conversion factors for
bedrooms.
Motion passed unanimously with staff to bring back conversion factors at
the Study Session on Wednesday, September 22, 1976, along with a list of
other decisions to be made by the Council.
Meeting adjourned to Wednesday, September 15, 19.76 at 12:10 p.m.
Approved: October 26, 1976
Fitzpatrick, City Clerk