Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/1/2022 Item 6b, Johnson / Rickenbach - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 1, 2022 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Item 6b – ARCH-0406-2021; SBDV-0407-2021; GENP-0814-2019; SPEC- 0407-2020; & EID-0608-2020 (600 Tank Farm) Agenda Correspondence Staff Response Memo DISCUSSION The following memorandum provides City staff responses to comments received from members of the City Council that relate to the 600 Tank Farm Road projec t. 1. Is the City’s portion of the roundabout ($1.5 mil) already proposed for the mid-year budget review? Response: Yes, the City Manager is planning to recommend full funding for the City’s share of the roundabout costs at mid -year to help ensure there are no delays in project delivery. 2. On page 228 of the packet, it notes that there are 11 moderate income units being proposed and that is more than required (3, only). Where are those located and are they evenly distributed throughout the project? I don’t remember seeing the size or locations of those units noted on the plans. Response: The 11 units would be spread throughout the project site, and would include a variety of housing types, including studios, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units. The location of these units was shown in Figure 5 of the Planning Commission Report of November 17, 2021 , as well as Sheet C4 on the project plans, and will be discussed and shown in tonight’s City Council presentation, but for reference is also shown here. Item 6b. 600 Tank Farm, Council Agenda Correspondence Page 2 3. On page 259, see this item: Is there a reason that we didn’t just do 7 ft protected lanes on both sides? (I’m assuming this is protected going one direction and one un -protected going the other?) Response: Yes, the developer is required to construct the permanent street improvements along their frontage and 2/3 of the ultimate street – minimum auto travel lanes and a striped Class II bike lane on the west side to provide at least a dedicated interim southbound bike lane until either the Chevron property develops or Santa Fe Road is extended north to the future Prado Road Extension. The interim and ultimate road section for Santa Fe from the 600 Tank Farm plans are shown in Figure 2 below. Until the Chevron property develops or Santa Fe Road is extended further, a striped Class II bike lane operate per the volume/speed thresholds in our ATP (at this time, Santa Fe will carry <1,000 veh/day with speeds of 25 mph). Figure 1: Inclusionary Housing Plan Item 6b. 600 Tank Farm, Council Agenda Correspondence Page 3 4. I noticed a Directional Item from the ATC requesting separation of bikes/peds from traffic in the roundabout. How was this addressed? Response: The ATC provided direction to ensure that the roundabout design for Tank Farm/Santa Fe maintains a physically separated route for bicyclists. This is our plan—the roundabout will retain physically-separated ped/bike paths at each approach/corner. The ATC also asked that we try to provide separate ped/bike crossings (green bike crossings & hi -vis ped crosswalks) at each leg of the roundabout, as we’ve done with recent roundabouts in the San Luis Ranch development. That approach is incl uded in our ATP design guidelines and we will endeavor to do this with the Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout designs. Figure 2: Santa Fe Road section cuts Item 6b. 600 Tank Farm, Council Agenda Correspondence Page 4 5. I had questions about the creek setback waiver that staff is recommending for this project. 2 feet from 35? I also would like to hear about t he details on the second- story setback waiver (45 to 30 I think it is)? Response: The Planning Commission Report of November 17, 2021 hearing includes an overview of the Creek setback exception requests. The setback requests are also outlined in Table 3 of the Council Agenda Report February 1, 2022. For quick reference, Figure 3 below outlines the top of bank in green, and the 35-foot setback for Acacia Creek in orange (Zoning Regulations §17.70.030.E.2.b), the upper -story setback boundary is outlined in yellow (§17.70.030.E.3). The Upper Story Setback requires that structures greater than 2 stories in height, provide an additional 10-foot step back beginning at the third story level. The upper story step back shall be provided along all building elevations with creek-facing frontages. The requested exceptions are summarized below: • Portions of the paving area for the bike/pedestrian path are proposed to encroach up to 2-feet from the top of bank, where 35 would normally be required (see Figure 4 below). The Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the proposed encroachments and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has addressed all potential impacts to existing riparian habitat and flood control measures. Furthermore, this bike/pedestrian path is in alignment through the site consistent with the bike/pedestrian circulation exhibit shown in the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). Figure 3: Top of Bank (green), 35-foot creek setback (orange), and an additional 10-foot upper story step back (yellow). Item 6b. 600 Tank Farm, Council Agenda Correspondence Page 5 • Portions of Buildings 14 and 21 encroach within the setback by 5-feet or less, resulting in 30-foot setback from the top of bank, where 35 feet would normally be required (see Figure 5 below). • Portions of Buildings 4, 8, 14, 19, and 21, along the third floors, encroach within the upper-story setback by up to 15 feet (see Figure 6), resulting in a setback of 30 feet from the top of bank, where 45 feet is normally required for the third floor. Zoning Regulations §17.70.030.G.4 stipulates that an exception to the creek setback requirements may be consid ered where substantiated evidence demonstrates that there is no practical way to comply with the provisions and that no other feasible alternatives will result in better implementation of other Zoning Regulations or General Plan policies while allowing reasonable use of the site, subject to required findings. Figure 4: Paving encroachment within the 35-foot creek setback to provide circulation and a bike/pedestrian path. Figure 5: Portions of Building 14 and 21 encroachment within the 35-foot creek setback. Figure 6: Portions of Buildings 4, 8, 14, 19, and 21, third story encroachment within the additional 10-foot upper story setback. Item 6b. 600 Tank Farm, Council Agenda Correspondence Page 6 The City’s creek setback regulations provide for setback exceptions that are consistent with State and Federal Law, and the request does not result in any specific adverse impact to the public health, safety, or the physical environment. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full 35 - foot creek setback because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy, or biological resources impacts would occur. A larger creek setback within the project design is not possible without a substantial project redesign that could adversely affect site circulation, safety, functionality, and the provision of housing consistent with City goals. Thus, the proposed design exception is supportable in the larger context of achieving multiple City goals to the extent possible .