The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/17/2021 Item 4a, Corey/Bell - Staff Agenda Correspondence Memorandum DATE: November 17, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director Community Development VIA: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner and John Rickenbach, Contract Project Planner SUBJECT: Item #4a – GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020, ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407- 2021, & EID-0608-2020 (600 Tank Farm Road) – Agenda Correspondence Staff Response Memo DISCUSSION The following memorandum provides City staff responses to comments received from members of the Planning Commission that relate to the 600 Tank Farm Road project. 1. Site Plan: The legends of the site plans on agenda packet pages 193 and 194 are not legible. Could revised site plans be sent to Commissioners? Response: City staff agrees the legends of the site plans on those two pages are not legible. High resolution plans have been provided to the Planning Commission separately through the City Clerk’s Office. The attachments in escribe have also been amended for legibility. 2. Acacia Creek Restoration: Is the project at 650 Tank Farm responsible for restoring and enhancing Acacia Creek adjacent to this site? Response: 650 Tank Farm is completing some restoration in the creek in areas the project disturbs, including along Tank Farm Road where the applicant is expanding the culvert to the road to accommodate the Tank Farm improvements and at the bridge connecting 650 and 600 Tank Farm. 650 Tank Farm will be installing a pedestrian path along the creek as well, which will enhance the creek setback space. Notably, Acacia Creek is almost entirely within the boundaries of the 650 Tank Farm Road site, not the 600 Tank Farm Road site. 3. Mixed Use, Compatible Uses: Table 4-23 in the AASP lists many uses as “allowed” (without an Administrative Use Permit) in the C-S Zone. Some of those allowed uses may not be compatible with the planned residential uses in the mixed use building adjacent to Tank Farm and Santa Fe Roads. Some examples are dry cleaning, wholesale and distribution, printing, and veterinary clinics. Memo: 600 Tank Farm Road, PC Agenda Correspondence Memo Page 2 a. Are dry cleaning, wholesale and distribution, and printing considered “manufacturing or industrial activities” per Section 17.70.130D.4.c. and therefore not allowed in mixed use developments? (those uses are listed under the heading, “Industry, Manufacturing & Processing Wholesaling in Table 4-3 in the AASP). Response: Uses within the project must be consistent with both the AASP and zoning requirements that apply to the site. The uses described in the comment above, while identified in the AASP as possible in the C-S portion of the specific plan, are incompatible uses with nearby residential development per Section 17.70.130D.4.c. of the Zoning Regulations, and therefore would not be allowed in this mixed-use project. Uses listed under AASP Table 4-3 under the category “Industry, Manufacturing & Processing Wholesaling” may be permissible so long as they do not conflict with the prohibited uses and activities identified in 17.70.130.D.4, including any uses that are not determined to be incompatible with residential activities and do not “have the possibility of affecting the health or safety of mixed-us development residents.” b. Even if a proposed use is listed as an “allowed” use in the AASP, is it still subject to the standard in Section 17.70.130D.4.d. that enables the review authority (I presume the Director in that case) to determine that a proposed use is incompatible with residential uses and therefore not allowed in that case? If not, does the Planning Commission have the ability to limit allowable uses on this site through an amendment to the AASP or a Condition of Approval? Response: Yes, the Community Development Director can determine whether a use is incompatible for this or any other project per Section 17.70.130D.4.d. Uses which require discretionary action would be reviewed on a case by case basis. The proposed application does not include any amendments to the AASP for uses allowed or conditionally allowed within the AASP; and any such amendments to the AASP would require a separate Specific Plan Amendment with review by the Airport Land Use Commission, including environmental review. It should be noted that no additional restrictions on land uses were placed on the adjacent development at 650 Tank Farm. 4. Noise: Mixed Use Building E adjacent to Tank Farm and Santa Fe Roads appears to have upper story decks/balconies that face towards Tank Farm Rd. and towards the east and west (left and right elevations) close to Tank Farm Road. The Acoustical Analysis does not address potential noise conditions and mitigation for the outdoor areas of this mixed use building. The Acoustical Analysis does show that noise levels at the decks/balconies in question are up to about 68 db(A). The decks appear to be recessed, but will their design adequately mitigate noise levels to meet the standards for outdoor activity areas? Response: Residential balconies in Building E that face Tank Farm Road could be subject to street noise estimated to be 68 dB per the acoustical analysis. Section 9.12.060 (Table 1) of the noise ordinance allows for exterior noise levels of up to 70 dB within th e C-S zone. Notably, there are only four balconies facing Tank Farm Road, and each is recessed into the structure and provide a solid railing system to further mitigate noise consistent with Municipal Code thresholds. Memo: 600 Tank Farm Road, PC Agenda Correspondence Memo Page 3 5. Pedestrian Safety: Building Type B has garages that do not appear to provide direct access to the building interior, requiring occupants of the flats to walk from the garage around the building to the entrances to the flats on the other side of the building. This is of particular concern in the case of Buildings 8, 9 and 11, which have garages located along primary driveways. a. There appear to be separate walkways along the driveways serving the garages of Buildings 8, 9 and 11, as well as along the driveways of the garages of Buildings 12 and 13. Is that correct, and if so, how wide are the walkways? b. Are there continuous and well lighted walkways leading from all the garages of Type B buildings around the buildings to the entrances to the flats? Response: There is a pedestrian path that leads from the garages to the paths that connect to the entrances of the structures, per Section 17.70.130.G.5.a all pedestrian paths are required to be six feet wide. The applicant has not provided a site lighting plan, however, Condition 9 requires that a photometric plan is provided to determine compliance with lighting requirements. Attachment: Project plan replacement pages (pages 193 and 194 of the agenda packet) 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021ACACIACREEK26262613%L1DESIGN .E<CLU%HOUSE - SEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET 32PEDESTRIAN WAL.WA<, T<P.SHORT-TERM %I.E PAR.ING, T<P. (63 MIN.)SEE SHEET A35COMMUNIT< MAIL%OXES - SEE ARCH SHEETS111555555557777777777777777MULTI-USE PATH 22222FLEXI%LE USE DEC. AT %IORETENTION AREA333ENTR< NODE AT MULTI-USE PATH WITH SEATING4466NATURAL PLA< AREA - SEE ENLARGEMENTDECORATIVE PERMEA%LE PAVERS, T<P.PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGLOADING =ONETRASH ENCLOSURE, T<P. - SEE SHEET A37EXISTING ROC. OUTCROP9998888812121313%1313131414141414141414COMMUNIT< PICNIC AREAS10101010%IORETENTION AREA, T<P. - SEE CIVIL SHEETS111111111111RIGHT-OF-WA< IMPROVEMENTS - NOT A PART15161515LONG TERM %I.E PAR.ING %ARNS, T<P. (5)SEE SHEET A35 35· ACACIA CREE. SET%AC.16161616171717RETAINING WALL, T<P. - SEE CIVIL SHEETS A3618181818181818FUTURE %I.E/ PEDESTRIAN %RIDGE - NOT A PART1919ACACIA CREE. %UFFER202020%IC<CLE REPAIR STATION WITH SEATINGDROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTINGSEE SHEET A39 FOR LANDSCAPE PLANFENCING - 6·H POOL FENCING - 6·H PRIVAC< ENTR< MONUMENT LOCATION - SEE SHEET A35FENCING - 42µH ON WALL - SEE SHEET A36 EARTH MOUNDSPU%LIC ART LOCATION22222221212323232323F1F1F2F3F32425FFF226F32524EXISTING EUCAL<PTUS CANOP< T<P.SEE SHEET A40 FOR TREE INVENTORY & REMOVALSSANTA FE ROADTANK FARM ROAD0·80·40·20·75·0·160·80·40·320·SCALES: 1µ = 80·- 0µ (12”X18” SHEET) 1µ=40·-0µ (24”X36” SHEET)NORTH600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A33ENTITLEMENTSPACKAGEPRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021COVERED OUTDOOR PATIOPOOL / SPAOVERHEAD STUCTURE - SEE A34OUTDOOR SEATING, T<P. - SEE A33-34, 36S<NTHETIC TURF EXERCISE AREA - SEE A34FIRE TA%LES WITH SEATINGTIM%ERSTAC.S CLIM%ING LOGS - SEE A33FLEXI%LE USE DEC. OVER %IORETENTION AREAEXERCISE E4UIPMENTWATER TROUGH ENTR< FEATURECENTRAL %OARDWAL.6· H PERIMETER POOL FENCE - SEE A36CLIM%ER PLA< FEATURE - SEE A3330-42µH LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALLS, T<P. SEE SHEET A36CA%ANAS WITH RAISED PLANTERS112223334444445566778899101011111112121313141414151518-30µH SEATWALL, T<P. - SEE SHEET A361616161616ART / MURAL 171717%AR%ECUE AND COUNTER 1818DRAGONFL< PLA< ELEMENTOUTDOOR PING PONG TA%LEFIREPLACE 192021212019CLU%HOUSE DESIGN .E<600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A34ENTITLEMENTSPACKAGESITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT