Loading...
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