HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/14/2021 Item 4a, Peck
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Stephen Peck <
To:Advisory Bodies; Corey, Tyler
Cc:Damien Mavis; ablubaugh@covelop.net; Marshall E. Ochylski (marshall@slolegal.com)
Subject:PC Item 4a; Draft EIR Public Hearing
Attachments:Clarifications 7-12-2021.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Commissioners,
Attached is correspondence relating to Agenda Item 4a on Wednesday night’s PC hearing. There are several items in the
staff report that need clarification to most accurately reflect the proposed project and several of the environmental
features associated with it.
1
July 13, 2021
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
City Clerk, San Luis Obispo City Hall
900 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Email: advisorybodies@slocity.org
tcorey@slocity.org
RE: Planning Commission Item 4a; Clarifications and Corrections to Staff Report
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of Covelop, Inc, the developers of the proposed residential project at the northeast
corner of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe, I wanted to provide some clarifications and corrections on cer-
tain statements in the Planning Commission Agenda Report for Item 4a. The matter is the review of the
Draft EIR for the project.
First, there are several references to a “Development Agreement” being part of the project’s en-
titlements. In fact, the City and applicant have concluded and agreed that a Reimbursement Agreement
will satisfy the direction that was provided by the City Council at project initiation. A Development
Agreement is no longer part of the project.
Second, there is a reference to an inclusionary housing plan and an "affordable by design" hous-
ing plan, and that these "have not been submitted by the project applicant”. Those proposals and plans
have, in fact, been submitted to and have been accepted by City staff. An Affordable Housing Agree-
ment is now being drafted by legal counsel to implement those plans. These plans will be reviewed dur-
ing the Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the project.
Third, Table 1 of the staff report provides an incorrect statement that the project will include
"R3" and "R4" occupancies, noting that the project includes units for "...4 people but no more than 16
who reside on a 24-hour basis and receive custodial care." This is not the case. The "R3" product type
on the project includes townhomes and cluster units, and the "R4" units are stacked flats. The R3 and
R4 designations do not refer to Building Code occupancies classes. There are no convalescent home
"R4" occupancies proposed for the site.
Fourth, please note that CEQA traffic impacts were "scoped out" of the EIR because of the find-
ings of the CEQA traffic study. The traffic study concluded that the project complied with VMT thresh-
olds (and that VMT was negative), and there were no CEQA traffic impacts.
Fifth, the report states that the EIR provides for "...a bike path on Tank Farm Road near the site
and related safety signage … as mitigation measures." Just to be clear, the proposed mitigation
measures include significant design work and right of way acquisition, which are the major current
constraints to actual construction of a bike path. Also note that the actual acquisition of right of way is
dependent on the City funding this matter in a future Financial Plan.
Thank you,
Stephen J. Peck, AICP
600 Tank Farm Road Project Representative.
Xc: Damien Mavis, Principal
Covelop