HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/1963FDJOURNED MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL
September 12, 1963 - 1:45 P. M..
CITY HALL
Invocation was given by Mayor Clay P. Davidson.
Roll Call
Present: Clay P. Davidson, R. L. Graves, Jr., Clell W. Whelchel
' Absent: Miss Margaret McNeil, Donald Q. Miller
City Staff
Present: Peter Chapman, Director of Planning & Building;
J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; W. Flory, Superintendent of
Parks &Recreation; W. M. Houser, City Attorney; R. D. Miller,
Administrative Officer; D. F. Romero, City Engineer.
Smith & Williams
Representatives Wayne Williams, Andrew Merriam, Al Coke
Stone & Youngberg
Representatives James Saffran
1. Mayor Davidson opened the meeting with a statement on the purpose of the
meeting which was to study and receive a report prepared by Smith & Williams
on a plan for the development of tl-.e Mission Plaza area and beautification of
the central business district.
Councilman Graves listed some of the background for prior studies made for the
development of the Mission Plaza area and tAe reasons for retaining the
arthitectural firm o_ Smith & Williams for preparation of a suggested plan
for the revitalization of the central business district, keyed to the Mission
Plaza development.
Mr. Wayne Williams, Architect, presented his proposal and thinking for the
development of the Mission Plaza and the general revitalization of the central
core of the City.
Mr. Williams then listed the items considered by his firm in preparing the
proposal for the City of San Luis Obispo.
Mr. Williams presented sketches and models of his impression of the developmen:
of the Mission Plaza area and general development of the City of San Luis
Obispo. (for details, see report of Smith & Williams)
Mr. Al Coke, economist for the firm of Smith & Williams, explained to the
City Council the basis for the financial estimates presented in the central
core area.
Mr. Coke explained what items he had considered in arriving at his costs and
also what items he had considered for possible revenue from the project for
operation and maintenance.
?ie explained that the plan was developed on the premise that the City woul;
' the principal in the project and this would be bad. Actually it would be
if the City were to rct as the prime mover.
Mr. Coke stated he did not wish to present figures on individual items of
proposed development without presenting a full support for each item as t-
would be rememoered as cost items and not how they were arrived at.
He refer -ad interested persons to the report presented for financial de*-
Mr. Coke cunt nue2 that lie believed the project would be a success if t:•.: ';. :y
Council, private citizens, and property owners would work together for -'-ill_ .
development.
W. Andrew Merriam, member of Smith & tilliams' staff, stated that in pis scudi