HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/29/1976Roll Call
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1976 - 12:10 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PRESENT: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and
Mayor Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer; William Flory,
Grants -and Special Projects Manager; Mikel Park,
Fire Marshal; Rob Strong, Director of Community
Development; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer; D.F. Romero,
Director of Public Services; Terry Sanville, Planning
Associate; Pam Voges, Recording Secretary
1. Council consideration of proposal for design of the Fire Station
No. 4 by James T. Fickes, architect (cont'd from 9/20/76).
Bill Flory; Grants and Special Projects Manager,.stated that part of the
Fire House grant application had been completed and mailed in and that they
were continuing to wokk on the application.
Mr. Fickes, Architect, stated that he-had been ,,,a ded by the Historical _Society
in declaring this site one of non historical significance. He then gave a
brief up -date of their present studies of other fire stations, the site itself,
etc. The fire station was now estimated to be at 2,893 sq, ft. He outlined
the schematic plans and stated that to his:knowledge.there were no major pro-
blems with regard to earthquakes, etc..
Councilman Norris felt the plans were reasonable and good. He .did question
who was to pay for curb, gutter and sidewalks?
Mikel Park, Fire Marshal-and Project Coordinator, stated that he had already
talked to the Grants.Department and they - indicated that curb, gutter and
sidewalk could be included in the grant application.
Councilman Gurnee stated he thought the plan was good and would support it.
Councilman Graham agreed with Councilman Gurnee that the-plan was well
thought out and he could support it..
Councilman Petterson also liked the plan but questioned what provisions had
been made for the garbage dumpster.and.where the low spot for.washing of the
trucks would be as he was concerned with drainage.
Mayor Schwartz:felt.there might be a serious problem with the plan as now
presented as he-could see no provisions made for separate sleeping quarters,
bathing, or toilet facilities for both male and female and he wondered if
this might meet the Federal requirements of not discriminating against
women firefighters, should the City.Fire.Department.be in a position to
hire them-in the future.: He-felt that.provisions should be made for women
1 to be applied for in the grant as he would hate-to risk losing the Federal
Grant.
Mr. Fickes explained that the storage area would house two beds and there
would be a possibility of setting up a partition dividing the dormitory.
He stated that this would be looked into.
There was brief discussion of what the grant would cover as far as appliances,
built -ins, extras,-etc.
City Council Minutes
September 29, 1976
Page 2
Mikel Park stated that most everything necessary to build or operate the
fire station could be included in the grant although one could not be sure
of receiving it all.
On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Graham, to approve the
general scope of work for the Fire Station with emphasis on.handling of the
sexes with the architect to proceed with the grant application on a crash
basis. Motion carried, all ayes.
2. Council consideration of the General Plan - Residential Densities
(continued from 9/13/76).
Terry Sanville, Planning Associate, gave a brief report as to the determin-
ation of population levels as discussed at the last meeting, and further,
developed 2 charts to indicate the number of dwelling units, according
to- bedroom size, allowed per acre of land (excluding rights -of -way).
Density was expressed in terms of bedrooms in order to relate land develop-
ment to the number of-people likely to be concentrated in an area. The
"multiplier" was derived from census and apartment survey results, and
indicated, for example, that a one bedroom unit was considered to have about
two - thirds (.66) the population impact of a two bedroom apartment. Combin-
ations of unit types would be possible. In determining density within a
project, each unit would be counted according to the multiplier value.
He outlined density bonuses and how they would be provided under Planned
Development and supplemental performance standards. Special residential'
projects, such as group quarters for the elderly or for.students, would be
subject to specialized standards, not as yet determined.
Councilman Norris stated he would like to see Planned Development.given
more flexibility, and not be restricted in height limits, lot size or yard
space.
Vic Montgomery, Priest,.Richmond, Wolf. & Rossi, stated that he would like
see the General Plan allow higher height limits and a higher density in
the downtown area.
Andrew Merriam, of Meyer, Merriam and Associates, Inc., submitted a letter
suggesting three areas of comment as follows:
1. It was his feeling that reduction of density allowed in a zone designation
and allowing variation for given apartment size was appropriate and a
realistic response to the parking /density issue.
2. In regard to densities within the City, he felt the City should encourage
selected areas of relatively high density (R -3 and R -4 zones) and regardless
of the criticism of the visual impact of of higher density complexes, he
felt their value outweighed any disadvantages for the following reasons:
A. Control: Reasonable visual and aesthetic control could be maintained
by the A.R.C.
B. Cost: Lower densities fostered the old American dream, which might be
great,.but was statistically affordable by fewer and fewer families.
C. Aesthetics: The town should be kept as compact as possible. The
compact city in its rural setting was of greater aesthetic importance
to the community than whether certain areas appeared higher than tra-
ditional village densities.
D. Economic Efficiency: Fifty thousand people compactly placed were
more effi;.ient for the City to service, especially in the areas
of utilities.and public transportation.
3. He felt that especially in the downtown area, the proposed revision was
not responsive enough and that more zoning flexibility was necessary.
He felt that further study and refinement was needed in 1) specific
planning /urban design for the central area; 2) proposed PD incentives
were inadequate; and 3) the general tone of the proposed revision was
prescriptive rather than emphasizing basic performance requirements.
1
1
City Council Minutes
September 29, 1976
Page 3
Mike DeNeve also stated his support for more flexibility to be given the
Planned Developments.
Councilman Petterson stated he would like to get an economic cost factor
relative to density before the Council too much more action at setting densities.
Rob Strong stated it would take his department at least 6 months to a year to
1 obtain this information and even then he did not feel that density would be
found relative to cost of housing.
Due to the number of citizens in the audience still wishing to comment, the
meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, October 6, 1976 for further discussion.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, the meeting
adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
APPROVED: October 26, 1976 '
J itzpatrick, City Clerk
1
1