The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 4a. 600 Tank Farm (ARCH-0404-2021) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING 280 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ACCESSORY USES, & 12,500 SF OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE WITH ASSOCIATED EXCEPTIONS, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, & REZONE. PROJECT ADDRESS: 600 Tank Farm BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner Phone Number: (805) 610-1109 Email: JFRickenbach@aol.com FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0407-2021 FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner APPLICANT: Covelop, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Stephen Peck RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the Airport Area Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, and provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING The proposed project is a 280-unit mixed use project on an 11.7-acre site generally north of Tank Farm Road and west of Acacia Creek. Development would occur within 10.9 acres of the site, with the remainder for public rights-of-way. The project entitlements would change the existing land use designation and zoning from Business Park to Service Commercial with the Specific Plan overlay (C-S-SP), which would allow a mixed-use project providing up to 280 residential units and up to 12,500 square feet of commercial - service/office uses defined in Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Table 4.3. The project also includes a 2,250-square foot clubhouse building with a 2,800-square foot patio area. In addition, various offsite transportation improvements are not part of the development itself, but are required in order to facilitate the project, and are therefore also evaluated in the Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project involves zoning-level entitlements: a General Plan Map Amendment, a rezone of the property, a Specific Plan Amendment to the AASP, Minor Subdivision and Major Development Review. Approval of these entitlements would allow a final Development Plan (consistent with the requirements of the granted entitlements), including grading permits, improvement plans and building permits to be handled by the City as ministerial approvals. The project is requesting the following exceptions (as further described in the Project Description (Attachment A): Meeting Date: 10/4/2021 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 45 Minutes Page 9 of 171 Item 4a 600 Tank Farm Road – ARCH-0407-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – October 4, 2021  Parking reduction (6.8% less than required)  Ground floor residential along Santa Fe Road  Encroachment of Buildings 14 & 21 into the 35-foot creek/riparian setback  No additional third floor creek setback General Location: Generally north of Tank Farm Road and west of Acacia Creek. Zoning and General Plan: Currently Business Park (BP) and Open Space (OS) within the Airport Area Specific Plan; proposed Commercial Service (C-S-SP) and Conservation Open Space (C/OS- SP) within the Airport Area Specific Plan Surrounding Uses: East: Planned residential at 650 Tank Farm Road across Acacia Creek (designated C/OS and C-S- SP) West: Undeveloped; in County jurisdiction (designated Commercial Service and Industrial) North: Damon-Garcia Sports Fields (designated PF) South: Undeveloped land across Tank Farm Road in County jurisdiction (designated Recreation) 2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN Architecture: see discussion below Design Details: see discussion below Materials: various; see discussion below Colors: various; see discussion below) The project site would be developed at a density of 23.69 units per acre, with shared public and private open spaces, common yards, and a recreation center with a community building. The proposed residential development would include a mix of one -bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units. Balconies and outdoor activity areas would be located on the north and east faces of the buildings to minimize exposure to vehicle noise from Tank Farm Road and aircraft flyovers from the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport located south of the project site. The proposed zoning would allow for up to 12,500 square feet of commercial-service/office space. There would be a total of 26 buildings, consisting of six building types. As shown in Figure 2, there are four residential building types proposed (shown as “Type A,” “Type B,” “Type “, and “Type D”), and two mixed use building types (“Type E” and “Type F”). All buildings would be of similar architectural style. Figure 1: 600 Tank Farm Road Project Site Page 10 of 171 Item 4a 600 Tank Farm Road – ARCH-0407-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – October 4, 2021 Examples of each of these building types and architecture are included as attachme nts to this agenda report (Attachment B). Table 1 below summarizes the various unit types by size and distribution within the project site. Table 1: Project Characteristics The project plan set (Attachment B) shows build sections and elevations for each of the building types. The sections are found on Sheets A8 and A9, while the elevations are on Sheets A16, A18, A20, A22, A25, A26 and A28. Colors and materials are included on Sheets A29 through A32. In general, buildings are three stories, with heights up to 36 feet for occupied areas, and as much as 46 feet if unoccupied area is included. Project architecture is inspired by the strong connection to the historic agrarian influences of the southern San Luis Valley between South Hills open space and Islay Hill. The architecture also takes cues from nearby commercial uses along Tank Farm Road in its mixed use concept, transitioning to more traditional residential forms as the project progresses deeper into the site. The architecture opens to a central gathering green, intended to maximize the views to the adjacent foothills and open space, and captures human interaction areas along Acacia Creek. Unit Type Size (sf) Units Residential Area (sf) Non-Residential Area (sf) Acres (net) Units/Acre Townhomes and Cluster Units 750-1,450 140 154,000 n/a 6.5 21 Stacked Flats 600-925 100 85,700 n/a 2.9 34 Mixed Use (studio and 1-bed) 450-625 40 21,500 12,500 1.5 26 Total 450-1,450 280 261,200 12,500 10.9 25.7 sf = square feet Figure 2: Architectural Site Plan Page 11 of 171 Item 4a 600 Tank Farm Road – ARCH-0407-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – October 4, 2021 Project buildings include a variety of materials and colors. Building Types A through D include asphalt shingle or metal roofing, with board and batten siding in a color palette of grays, black and white. The mixed use building (Building E) also includes brick veneer and precast concrete in addition to the other elem ents included in the strictly residential buildings. The Clubhouse (Building F) expands on that further with the inclusion of wood plank siding. Figure 3 shows a more detailed overall site plan that identifies a variety of design elements, including bicycle and pedestrian access and parking features, outdoor areas, public art and entry monument locations, and creek setbacks. This figure is also included as Sheet A33. A detailed site plan for the clubhouse is shown as Sheet A34. Additional information about other proposed design elements, including site furnishing, landscaping, lighting, signage, parking area treatments, walls and fences may be found on Sheets A35 to A40. 3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW On April 21, 2020, the City Council approved the initiation of the project and authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The Council, with a vote of 5:0, provided d irection to the applicant and staff to work toward a Development Agreement to accomplish the needed planning area infrastructure outlined in the AASP and maximize housing opportunities for those individuals in geographic areas included in the City’s annual jobs- housing balance analysis (Attachment C, Council Initiation 4.21.20). Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan Page 12 of 171 Item 4a 600 Tank Farm Road – ARCH-0407-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – October 4, 2021 On July 16, 2020, the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) reviewed the conceptual design of the project and by consensus provided 21 directional items regarding the proposed bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, as well as consistency with the latest updates to the City’s Active Transportation Plan for the applicant to incorporate into the project design and associated materials (Attachment D, ATC Report and Comments 7.16.20). On August 17, 2020, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) revie wed the conceptual design of the project and by consensus provided nine directional items regarding building orientation in relation to site access and private/common open space areas, and provided comments on the architectural style of the project in term s of compatibility between the different uses for the applicant to incorporate into the project design and associated materials (Attachment E, ARC Report and Minutes 8.17.20). On September 23, 2020, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the conceptual design of the project and by consensus provided seven directional items regarding building orientation in relation to Tank Farm Road, mixed-use development compatibility, and on- site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation for the applicant to incorpo rate into the project design and associated materials (Attachment F, PC Report and Minutes 9.23.20). The applicant has provided responses to each of the conceptual review comments as provided in the Attachment G (Conceptual Review Response Matrix). 4.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW The Architectural Review Commission’s (ARC’s) role is to review the proposed project in terms of consistency with the AASP Design Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and applicable City Standards and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning the proposed project design, focusing on building architecture and layout. The applicant has provided a set of project plans (Attachment A), some of the key sheets of which are referenced in Section 2 .0 of this report. Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104 The project is also located with the Airport Area Specific Plan, and thus subject to direct ion within that document. A link to that document may be found here: Airport Area Specific Plan: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/4294/637493456 364330000 5.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS In a general sense, design related direction for the project is found in the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Additional direction is also provided in the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), mostly in terms of general goals and policies, and in certain cases, within the text of the document. Page 13 of 171 Item 4a 600 Tank Farm Road – ARCH-0407-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – October 4, 2021 The applicant has provided a response to each AASP design review standard applicable to the project as provided in Attachment H (AASP Conformity Matrix). In their review, staff has determined that the project is in general conformance with both the CDG and AASP. Relevant portions of each document are discussed below in the context of the proposed project. Key Sections Discussion Items Community Design Guidelines § Section 3.1: Commercial Project Design Guidelines The mixed use buildings closest to Tank Farm Road would include ground floor commercial uses, and thus present as commercial buildings from the street level. This section of the CDG includes several key principles related to integrating project scale, site planning, appropriate architectural elements, parking/building orientation, and pedestrian orientation. More specifically related to architectural review, the section also calls for the use of a variety of “honest” materials, building articulation, and connectivity to pedestrian areas. Sheet A10 shows interior pedestrian circulation, while Sheets A16 through A34 illustrate architectural elevations, colors and materials. While the project seems generally responsive to these issues, and consistent with the intent of these principles, the ARC could discuss the following issues: 1) are the buildings sufficiently functional and attractive for residents of the buildings?; 2) is the mixed use building sufficiently integrated into the rest of the development to allow for easy pedestrian connection, or does the residential component of the mixed use building appear too isolated?; and 3) does the shared parking concept “work” for project residents? § Section 5.2: Subdivision Design and General Residential Design Principles This section of the CDG includes several key principles related to integrating open space into the design, project scale, and pedestrian orientation. More specifically related to architectural review, the section also calls for durable and low maintenance finishes, the use of a variety of materials, building articulation, and garage orientation. Sheet A10 shows interior pedestrian circulation, while Sheets A16 through A34 illustrate architectural elevations, colors and materials. While the project seems generally responsive to these issues, and consistent with the intent of these principles, the ARC could discuss the following issues: 1) Does the design provide sufficient orientation toward planned or natural open space amenities?; 2) Is the parking design functional, efficient and attractive?; and 3) does the design allow for pedestrians to easily move on and off the site? Page 14 of 171 Item 4a 600 Tank Farm Road – ARCH-0407-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – October 4, 2021 § Section 5.4: Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design Among the principles articulated in this section of the CDG, the following includes: clustering units with direct walk-up access; providing garages as the preferred method of onsite parking; consistency with architectural styles in the vicinity, featuring porches, building articulation, and other features to enhance architectural interest; and stairway and building access design. The project is responsive to issues related to parking, as most units include a garage, which reduces the visual and functional impacts that can occur with large parking lots in multi-family developments. In terms of architecture, this section encourages substantial roof and façade articulation, which are included in the project as proposed. With regard to scale, the project includes three- story structures that are tightly clustered, separated by interior roadways, paseos, courtyards and small areas of open space. The project density has the potential to create some inevitable shading on lower stories because there are not large areas of separation between the buildings. Some of the larger units include balconies and porches, and all units have some sort of private open space area, which are consistent with the intent of the CDG’s encouragement of these features. The different building types would include 12 to 24 units in each building, which is more massive than envisioned in the CDG Section 5.4.A.2., which suggests that buildings outside the downtown area should generally have no more than 6 units in each. As a discussion item, is the proposed density of housing within the buildings an appropriate design because other city goals with respect to providing sufficient housing are more achievable with such a design? With respect to parking design, the CDG encourages garages, but when they are not provided, recommends dispersed parking courts. While garages and parking courts are shown on northern side of the site associated with Building types A and B, onsite parking for Building types C and D is provided in a somewhat visually prominent longer linear fashion along major project entrance roadways rather than with dispersed parking courts. As a discussion item, is the proposed parking design appropriate, or should more covered parking be required? Airport Area Specific Plan Section 5.0 Community Design This section of the AASP encourages projects that promote openness, connectivity, transition, ruralness and diversity. Development that allows for views or does not block views is encouraged. Projects that provide pedestrian connectivity to other parts of the City, including creeks and open space, are encouraged. As designed, there would be direct pedestrian Page 15 of 171 Item 4a 600 Tank Farm Road – ARCH-0407-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – October 4, 2021 access to areas long Acacia Creek, with the Damon Garcia Sports Fields nearby. Landscaping would focus on native and drought tolerant species, promoting a transition from the urban to natural rural environment. The AASP also calls for “adjacent buildings to be of compatible styles, or separated sufficiently to allow each style to be appreciated independently of the other.” The development includes a compatible architectural theme throughout, and is separated from nearby development either by Tank Farm Road or Acacia Creek. See Sheets A3, A10, A33, and A35 through A40. As a discussion item, does the project provide sufficient pedestrian orientation or connectivity to open space areas? Goal 5.1. Streetscape edge and pedestrian activity This goal supports pedestrian activity through various design elements. As designed, the project is walkable internally with various pathways, and includes onsite amenities such as the central clubhouse and nearby creek. It also has connectivity to existing or planned bikeways offsite. See Sheets A10, A33, and A34. As a discussion item, does the project appropriately orient to the two adjacent major streets, including Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road, such that the primary entrance from Santa Fe Road is obvious and easy to read? Goal 5.2. Integrate new development with the open space framework The project promotes views of nearby hillsides and open areas, and includes connectivity elements as described above. See Sheets A6, A11-A14, and A33. See previous discussion items that relate to open space and pedestrian connectivity. Goal 5.3. Attractive outdoor pedestrian use areas adjacent to buildings See the previous discussion. Goal 5.4. Parking—safe, attractive, visually subordinate to development Parking is designed to be broken into smaller lots distributed throughout the development, appropriately landscaped, appropriate in scale for the development, and visually unobtrusive. See Sheets A6, A10 and A33. See previous discussion items that relate to parking design. Goals 5.5 and 5.6. Outdoor storage that are visually screened and unobtrusive The project includes visually attractive and screened storage and trash enclosures. See Sheets A36, A38 and A38. As a discussion item, does the project provide for sufficiently unobtrusive trash and storage areas? Goal 5.7. Maintain unobstructed views of scenic features from major roadways The project promotes views of nearby hillsides and open areas, and includes connectivity elements as described above. See Sheets A6, A11-A14, and A33. As a discussion item: is the visual analysis provided sufficient to determine whether proposed development is sufficiently Page 16 of 171 Item 4a 600 Tank Farm Road – ARCH-0407-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – October 4, 2021 6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Density 256.88 260.16 Setbacks 16 feet between buildings and property lines along streets 10 feet between parking lots and property lines along streets 5 feet between parking lots and property lines along adjacent parcels Per AASP Table 4-7: 16 feet between buildings and property lines along streets 10 feet between parking lots and property lines along streets 5 feet between parking lots and property lines along adjacent parcels Creek Setback Upper Story Step Backs 27 feet 0 feet 35 feet 10 feet Maximum Height of Structures 36 feet (occupied); 46 feet (unoccupied) 36 feet (occupied); 46 feet (unoccupied) Floor Area Ratio 0.59 0.6 Max Lot Coverage 65.6% 90% Affordable Housing 11 units 3 units Public Art On-site On-site or In-Lieu fee Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Number of Vehicle Spaces EV Spaces 435 (6.8% requested reduction) 48 (EV ready) 117 (EV capable) 467 48 (EV ready) 117 (EV capable) Bicycle Spaces Short-term Long-term 63 563 63 563 Motorcycle Parking 23 23 Environmental Status A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared to analyze the effects of the project, and is available for review on the City’s website at: http://www.slocity.org/government/department- directory/community-development/documents- online/environmental-review-documents. *2019 Zoning Regulations; Airport Area Specific Plan (updated October 2020) set back from roadways to maintain hillside views from public roadways? Page 17 of 171 Item 4a 600 Tank Farm Road – ARCH-0407-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – October 4, 2021 7.0 NEXT STEPS The project is scheduled for review by the Tree Committee on September 27, 2021, which will provide a recommendation along with the ARC to be reviewed by the PC before being considered by the City Council. 8.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 8.1 Recommend approval of the project. An action recommending approval of the application based on consistency with the Airport Area Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines will be forwarded to the Planning Commission, so they can make appropriate recommendations to City Council for final action. This action may include recommendations for conditions to address consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and Airport Area Specific Plan. 8.2 Continue the project to a hearing date certain, or uncertain. An action continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 8.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan , Airport Area Specific Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. 9.0 ATTACHMENTS A – Project Description B – Project Plans C – Council Initiation 4.21.20 D – ATC Report and Comments 7.16.20 E – ARC Report and Minutes 8.17.20 F – PC Report and Minutes 9.23.20 G – Conceptual Review Response Matrix H – AASP Conformity Matrix J – Final EIR (link at: http://www.slocity.org/government/department- directory/community-development/documents- online/environmental-review-documents) Page 18 of 171 1 Project Location Theprojectsiteislocatedat600TankFarmRoad,130feetnortheastoftheintersectionofTank FarmRoadandSantaFeRoad,inthesouthernportionoftheCityofSanLuisObispo.Theproject siteiscomprisedoftwoparcels(AssessorParcelNumbers[APN]053Ͳ421Ͳ002and053Ͳ421Ͳ006) totalingapproximately11.7acres,aswellasproposedoffͲsitetransportationimprovementareas southandwestoftheparcelboundarytotalingapproximately1.0acre.Thetotalprojectsiteareais 12.7acres.Figure1showstheregionallocationoftheprojectsite,whileFigure2showstheproject sitewithinthelocalcontext.Theprojectsiteslopesfromthenorthwesttosoutheast,withsite elevationsat210feetmeansealevel(msl)inthenorthwestcornerofthepropertyand150feet mslatthesoutheastcorneroftheproperty.DamonGarciaͲSportsFieldstothenorth,undeveloped ChevronpropertyistothewestandsouthandAcaciaCreekistotheeast.TheSanLuisObispoCity Limitlinefollowsthesouthernandwesternboundaryofthesubjectparcelsandparallelsthe southernsideofTankFarmRoadsouthoftheprojectsite.TheSanLuisObispoCountyRegional Airportislocatedapproximately1,400feetsouthoftheprojectsite. ExistingSiteCharacteristics GeneralPlanDesignationandZoning TheprojectsiteislocatedwithintheAirportAreaSpecificPlan(AASP)andiscurrentlydesignated BusinessPark(BP)withasmallportionofthepropertywithintheConservationOpenSpace(C/OS) zone.Theexistingdevelopmentpotentialofthe11.7Ͳacresiteisapproximately250,000squarefeetof businessparkdevelopment. SurroundingLandUses TheprojectsiteisborderedbyTankFarmRoadtothesouth,AcaciaCreektotheeast,DamonGarciaͲ SportsFieldstothenorth,andundevelopedChevronpropertytothewest.TheSanLuisObispoCity Limitlinefollowsthesouthernandwesternboundaryoftheprojectsiteandparallelsthesouthern sideofTankFarmRoadsouthoftheprojectsite(refertoFigure3).TheDamonGarciaͲSportsFields propertynorthoftheprojectsiteisdesignatedPublicFacilities(PF).AcaciaCreekeastoftheproject siteisdesignatedConservationOpenSpace(C/OS)andthemobilehomeparkeastofthecreekis designatedServiceCommercialwiththeSpecificPlanoverlay(CͲSͲSP).TheundevelopedChevron propertywestoftheprojectsiteboundaryisdesignatedCommercialServiceandIndustrialbySanLuis ObispoCounty.TheundevelopedpropertysouthofTankFarmRoadisdesignatedRecreationbySan LuisObispoCounty.Propertieswestoftheprojectsitelocatedat650TankFarmRoadand660Tank FarmRoadincludeapprovedentitlementsfordevelopmentofresidentialmixedͲuseandassistedliving facilities,depictedonFigure3. ProjectCharacteristics Otherentitlementsareunderway,includingaGeneralPlanMapAmendment,arezoneofthe property,aSpecificPlanAmendmenttotheAASP,aMinorUsePermitforamixedͲuseproject, ConceptualSitePlan,MajorDevelopmentReview,areimbursementagreement,andenvironmental clearanceandpermittingfornecessaryoffͲsiteimprovements.Approvaloftheseentitlementswould allowafinalDevelopmentPlan(consistentwiththerequirementsofthegrantedentitlements), includinggradingpermits,improvementplansandbuildingpermitstobehandledbytheCityas ministerialapprovals. Page 19 of 171 2 Figure 1 Regional Project Location Page 20 of 171 3 Figure 2 Project Site Boundary Page 21 of 171 4 Page 22 of 171 5 Figure 3 Surrounding Land Uses Page 23 of 171 6 TheGeneralPlanMapAmendmentisnecessarytochangetheprojectsite’slandusedesignationin theCity’sLandUseElementinordertoreflectproposeddevelopment.TheSpecificPlan Amendmentwouldchangethesite’slandusedesignationaccordinglyandwouldalsomake associatedtextamendmentstotheAASP,asfollows: 1. AmendallAASPtablesandtexttoreflecttheadditionof240highdensityunits,40mixedͲ useunits,and12,500squarefeetofcommercialͲservice/officespacefortheprojectsite; 2. AmendvarioustextsectionsoftheAASPtoconformtotheproject; 3. ModifytheroadsectionfigurestoreflectmodificationstoTankFarmRoadandSantaFe Roadconsistentwithtrafficprojectionsandfullbuildoutofthecirculationsystem; 4. Describenecessarysetbackofimprovementsandbuildingstodelineatedwetlandareasin conformancewithprojectBiologicalAssessments;and, 5. UpdatereferencestotheSLOCountyRegionalAirportLandUsePlananddescribethe updatedAirportLandUsePlan. Therequestedentitlementswouldallowfor280totalresidentialunits,whichistheequivalentof 256“DensityUnits”asdefinedbytheCityofSanLuisZoningOrdinance(DensityUnitsarethe numberofdwellingspernetacre,basedondwellingsizeandnumberofbedrooms,i.e.,studiounit under600squarefeetequals0.5DensityUnits,whileatwobedroomunitequals1.0DensityUnits). Inaddition,theprojectwouldprovidearoundaboutattheintersectionofTankFarmRoadand SantaFeRoadandinterimimprovementsforSantaFeRoadincludingtwotravellanesandClassIV bikepaths. Conceptual Site Plan Residential and Mixed-Use Rezone TheprojectentitlementschangethelandusedesignationfromBusinessParktoService Commercial,whichwouldallowamixedͲuseprojectprovidingupto280residentialunitsand commercialͲservice/officeusesdefinedinAASPTable4.3.Figure4showstheproposedconceptual siteplanfortheproject. Theprojectsitewouldbedevelopedatadensityof23.7DensityUnitsperacre,withsharedpublic andprivateopenspaces,commonyards,andarecreationcenterwithacommunitybuilding.The proposedresidentialdevelopmentwouldincludeamixofstudios,oneͲbedroom,twoͲbedroom, andthreeͲbedroomunits.Theproposedzoningwouldallowforupto12,500squarefeetof commercialͲservice/officespace.Table1providestheproposedprojectcharacteristics,including themixofresidentialunittypesandbuildingareafortheprimarycomponentsoftheproject. Page 24 of 171 7 Figure 4 Conceptual Site Plan Page 25 of 171 8 Thispageintentionallyleftblank.Page 26 of 171 9 Table 1 Project Characteristics ResidentialNonͲResidentialAcres UnitOccupancyTypeSize(sf)UnitsArea(sf)Area(sf)(net)Units/Acre R3Occupancy (1Ͳ,2Ͳand3Ͳbeds) 750Ͳ1,450140154,000n/a6.521.7 R4Occupancy (studio,1Ͳ,and2Ͳbed) 600Ͳ92510085,700n/a2.934.7 MixedUse (studioand1Ͳbed) 450Ͳ6254021,50012,5001.526.3 Total450Ͳ1,450280261,20012,50010.925.8 sf=squarefeet Other Project Components Theprojectincludesa2,250Ͳsquarefootclubhousebuildingwitha2,800Ͳsquarefootpatioarea. Theclubhousebuildingwouldprovidemeetingareas,anindoorgamearea,acommonlounge, administrativeofficearea,andacommunitykitchen.Thebuildingwouldalsoserveasatemporary salesofficeandanadministrativebuildingduringprojectsalesandconstruction. CitydevelopmentregulationsspecifyasetbackforAcaciaCreekof35feet,Figure6showsthe locationofthetopofbankforAcaciaCreekneartheprojectsite.TheZoningRegulationssection 17.70.030requirea35Ͳfootsetbackfromthetopofbankfornewstructures.Theproposedproject isrequestingaminimumsetbackofapproximately10feetfromtheaveragetopofbankfora bicycle/pedestrianpathtoconnecttoDamonGarciaSportsFields(andanaveragebikepathof20 feet)andaminorexceptionforamaximum15Ͳfootencroachmentintothesetbackforportionsof Buildings14and21fromtheaveragetopofbank.ZoningRegulationssection17.70.030stipulate thatanexceptiontothecreeksetbackrequirementsmaybeconsideredwheresubstantiated evidenceisavailablethatwillresultinbetterimplementationofotherZoningRegulationsor GeneralPlanpolicieswhileallowingreasonableuseofthesite.TheBiologicalResourcesAssessment (BRA)preparedfortheprojectbyKevinMerkAssociates,LLC(AppendixA)concludesthe encroachmentareawillnotthreatensensitivespeciesortheripariancorridor.Inordertofurther thepurposesofZoningRegulationssection17.70.030,theprojectproposesanincreaseinthe ripariansetbackelsewherealongthecorridor,witharipariansetbackthataveragesapproximately 40feet.ProposedbuildingsetbacksalongTankFarmRoadandSantaFeRoadis16feet Theproject’srequiredcreeksetbacks,commonareasandopenspaceinthenorthwestcornerofthe projectsitewouldresultin18percentofthesitebeingonsite“green”commonopenspace, includingplayareas,totlots,andlandscapeparkways.Theprojectwouldrequireremovalofsixteen (16)nonͲnativeornamental/invasivetreesontheprojectsite.Nonativetreesareproposedtobe removed. Bikeandpedestriantripswouldbesupportedbyaconnectiontothe650TankFarmRoadproperty andextensionoftheonsitebikepathtothebikepathattheDamonGarciaͲSportsFieldstothe north.Anewbridgeconnectingtheprojectsitetothe650TankFarmRoadpropertyisplannedto beinstalledbythedeveloperofthatproperty(refertoFigure4).Theplannedbridgeconnectingthe projectsitetothe650TankFarmRoadpropertywouldprovideasecondaryemergencyaccess route,pedestrianaccessandbicycleaccess.Theplannedbridgeconnecting600TankFarmand650 TankFarmwillnotbeforgeneralvehicletraffic. Page 27 of 171 10 Regional Transportation Improvements Theprojectwouldimplementseveraltransportationfeaturesunderareimbursementagreement withtheCity,includingprovidingaroundaboutattheintersectionofTankFarmRoadandSantaFe RoadandinterimimprovementsforSantaFeRoadincludingtwotravellanesandClassIVbike paths.TheseimprovementsareincludedintheCity’slistofTransportationCapitalProjectsinthe GeneralPlanCirculationElement(SantaFeRoadExtension)andareshownintheAASP.Final improvementsforbikepaths,curbing,sidewalk,andparkwaystripwouldbeinstalledonthe project’sfrontages.PlannedregionaltransportationimprovementsareshowninFigure5,which providesaconceptualillustrationoftheSantaFeRoad/TankFarmRoadRoundabout.Theprojectis alsoproposingtodopreliminaryplanningandengineeringfortheTankFarmCreekClassIbike path. ATransportationImpactStudy(TIS)wascompletedbyCentralCoastTransportationConsultingin supportoftheCity’sGeneralPlanCirculationElementconsistencyevaluation.TheTISconcluded thattheprojectcomplieswiththeCity’sVMTguidelines,withoutmitigation,andalsocomplies withtheLevelofServicestandards. Grading/Drainage Thesitewouldbesteppedinfour5Ͳfootsections/benches,withanupperbenchofapproximately 174Ͳ180feetmslinthenorthernportionoftheproperty,amiddlebenchofapproximately160Ͳ166 feetmslaroundthecentralportionoftheproperty,andtwolowerbenchesofapproximately152Ͳ 156feetmslinthesouthernportionoftheproperty.Figure6showstheconceptualsitesections. Theproposedgrading,totaling35,000Ͳ40,000cubicfeet,wouldbebalancedontheprojectsite(no soilimporttothesiteorexportfromthesiteisproposed).Thegradingwouldcontourtheproject sitetodrainfromwesttoeasttowardlocalizedsurfacebioswalesadjacenttoAcaciaCreek,which woulddraintowardanexistingretentionbasininthesoutheastcornerofthesite.Thisbasinwould dischargeintoAcaciaCreekatthepreͲdevelopmentrateasrequiredbytheCity’sDrainageMaster Plan,asrequiredbytheCity’sstormwaterregulations.Thereisalsoanexistingdrainagepipeunder TankFarmRoadthatpermitssitedrainagetothesouth. Phasing Theprojectisplannedtobeconstructedintwophases.Phase1wouldinclude80townhomeand60 stackedflat(singleͲfamilycondominium)dwellingsunitsonthecentralportionoftheprojectsite, thecompletionofSantaFealongtheprojectfrontage,completionoftheClassIbikepathfromTank FarmtoDamonGarciaSportsPark,andthecompletionofthefrontageimprovementsalongTank FarmRoad.Phase2wouldinclude60townhomeunits,40stackedflatunits,the40mixedͲuseunits and12,500squarefeetofcommercialͲservice/officespace,andremainingprojectimprovements. Theintersectioncontrolimprovementswillbephasedasnecessaryaccordingtothetrafficanalysis fortheproject.TheconceptualphasingplanisshowninFigure7. Page 28 of 171 11 Figure 5 Conceptual Illustration of the Santa Fe Road/Tank Farm Road Roundabout Page 29 of 171 12 Figure 6a Conceptual Site Grading – Sections/Benches Page 30 of 171 13 Figure 6b Conceptual Site Grading – Sections/Benches Page 31 of 171 14 Thispageintentionallyleftblank.Page 32 of 171 15 Figure 7 Conceptual Phasing Plan Page 33 of 171 16 t Thispageintentionallyleftblank.Page 34 of 171 17 Project Objectives Theprimaryobjectivesfortheprojectareasfollows: 1. Developmentofaneconomicallyfeasiblespecificplanthatisconsistentwith,and implements,policieswithintheCity’sLUCEandAASP. 2. Establishmentofacompleteinternallyandexternally“linked”mixedusecommunitywith amenitiessuchasneighborhoodparksandcommercialgoodsandservicesthatcanserve theneighborhood. 3. Provisionofavarietyofhousingopportunitiesforawiderangeofsocioeconomicgroups andaffordabilitylevels,andataverageunitsizesthatarebelowcurrentCityaverages. 4. DevelopmentofaProjectwiththemaximumnumberofunitspermittedbytheunderlying zoning,approximately280residentialunits,withapproximately340,000squarefeetoftotal residentialfloorspaceand12,500squarefeetofcommercialfloorspace. 5. DevelopmentoftheAcaciaCreekfrontagethatprovidesthatareaasaProjectamenity withoutjeopardizingthecreeksbiologicalresourcesorriparianqualities. 6. InfrastructureobligationsthatdonotexceedthelevelofimpactfeesgeneratedonͲsiteover thebuildoutoftheproject;thatis,infrastructureobligationsshouldbesizedsuchthatoffͲ siteimpactfeesarenotnecessarytoreimbursethedeveloperinaccordancewitha ReimbursementAgreement. 7. ProvisionofawellͲconnectedinternalnetworkprivateparks,bicyclepaths,pedestrian sidewalks,openspacebuffers,andspacesforrecreationalactivities,includingdevelopment ofaClass1bikepathbetweenTankFarmRoadandDamonGarciaSportsParkwithinthe 35’creeksetback,andClassIVbikelanesconsistentwiththedraftActiveTransportation Plan. 8. Developmentoftheadjacentroadwaynetworkthatdoesnotoverbuildtheroadsabovethe longͲtermtrafficprojections,andwithpreferencefornonͲvehiculartrafficmodes. 9. Marketingandorientationoftheprojecttothesurroundingemployerstoreducevehicle milestravelledandtomaximizetheuseofnonͲvehiculartrafficmodes. 10. Developmentofaprojectthatcomplieswiththesafety,noiseandoverflightpoliciesofthe City’sAirportOverlayZoneandtheSanLuisObispoCountyAirportLandUsePlan. Required Approvals TheCityofSanLuisObispoistheleadagencyfortheproject.Asdescribedabove,theproposed projectrequeststhefollowingCityentitlements:aGeneralPlanMapAmendment,arezoneofthe property,aSpecificPlanAmendmenttotheAASP,ConceptualSitePlan,MinorUsePermit,Major DevelopmentReview,aDevelopmentAgreementandenvironmentalclearancefornecessaryoffͲ siteimprovements.Approvaloftheseentitlementswouldallowafinaldevelopmentplan (consistentwiththerequirementsofthegrantedentitlements),includinggradingpermits, improvementplans,andbuildingpermitstobehandledbytheCityasministerialapprovals. TheprojectwillbereviewedbytheAirportLandUseCommission(ALUC)todetermineifitis consistentwiththeadoptedSanLuisObispoCountyAirportLandUsePlan(ALUP).Developmentof theprojectsiteundertheproposedprojectwouldberequiredtocomplywiththeRegionalWater Page 35 of 171 18 QualityControlBoard(RWQCB)PostConstructionStormWaterRequirementsforredevelopedsites. Futuredevelopmentoftheprojectsite,includingwideningofTankFarmRoadalongtheproject’s frontageeastoftheprojectsitemayrequireworkwithinAcaciaCreek.Assuch,futuredevelopment undertheproposedprojectmayrequirepermittingperSection401/404oftheCleanWaterAct fromtheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersandtheRWQCB,andunderSection1600etseq.ofthe CaliforniaFishandGameCodefromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife.Aportionofthe offͲsiteimprovementsarelocatedonadjacentpropertythathasacertifiedEIR.TheFinalEIR preparedfortheChevronTankFarmRemediationandDevelopmentProject(StateClearinghouse No.2009031001)wouldbeusedtoidentifytheimpactsandrequiredmitigationmeasuresatthese offͲsiteimprovementlocations.Theresponsibilityfortheimplementationofthesemitigation measuresfromtheChevronTankFarmRemediationandDevelopmentProjectwillbedeterminedas partoftheEIR. Page 36 of 171 Comment19: Pleaseupdatetheprojectdescriptiontoclearlyidentifyanyandallexceptionsorconcessionsthatarerequested fromtheZoningRegulationsPropertyDevelopmentStandards(Chapter17.70),pleaseincludeallstandardincentive requestsforaffordablehousingprojects.Exceptionsandconcessionsorincentivesshouldbeclearlydescribed(i.e., upperstorycreekstepbacksandtheparkingreductionrequest,andgroundfloorresidentialusesalongSantaFe Road).Pleaseprovideadescriptionwhichincludesasummaryjustifyingeachexceptionorconcessionasitrelatesto relevantpolicyobjectives.SeeAASPSection4.4.7,5.4.5,or5.4.6toverifywhetheranyrequestedexceptionscanbe satisfiedthroughtheAmenityIncentivesopportunityorsatisfiesspecificdesignstandards. Response CreekSetbacks/UpperStoryCreekSetbacks TheprojectincludesvariationinthesetbacksforAcaciaCreek.Thebuildingsetbacksrangefrom29feetto50feet alongtheeasternportionofthepropertyandaverageapproximately43feetovertheentiresite.TheClassIbike pathfromTankFarmRoadtoDamonGarciaSportsParkislocatedwithinthesetback,withanaveragesetbackof approximately20feet.Theprojectalsodoesnotincludetheadditionalsetbackforthethirdstorythatiscalledfor inZoningCode17.070.030E3. ABiologicalAssessmentwaspreparedtodeterminewhetherornotthecreeksetbacksproposedbytheproject wouldprovideimpactstothewildlifecorridororbiologicalresources.TheBiologicalAssessmentconcludedthatthe bikepathandtheproposedbuildingsetbackswouldnot.Theprojectalsoincludescompensatorysetbackssothat theaveragegroundfloorsetbackalongtheeasternboundaryoftheprojectis43feetasapposedto35feet.With theseproposedsetbacksalongthethreeͲstoryfrontage,theprojectisproviding12%Ͳ15%greateraveragesetbacks thatcalledforbytheAASPandZoningOrdinance.Theproposedsetbacksarenecessarytoprovidereasonable developmentoftheparcel,asprovidedinPolicy7.7.9oftheOpenSpaceandConservationElement,anddonot adverselyimpacttheripariancorridor. ParkingReductionRequest Theprojectincludesprojectdesignfeaturesthatwillreduceparkingdemandandjustifyaparkingreduction exception.Theprojectincludesthefollowingfeatures: 1) Enhancedpedestrianandbicycleconnectivitythatisintegratedwiththeareawidesystem,includingped andbikeconnectivityto650TankFarmRoad,690TankFarmRoad,andDamonGarciaSportsPark.The projectwillimplementtheCity’snewraised“ClassIV”bikelanes. 2) Affordablehousingwillbeprovidedatadensityof23DensityUnitsperacre,andanaverageunitsizebelow 1,100squarefeetperdwellingunit(lessthan1,000squarefeetperunitacrosstheentireproject),the projectisaffordablebydesignandisrequiredtoprovidethree(3)deedrestrictedunits. 3) TheprojectislocatedonequarterofamilefromanexistingtransitstoponBroadStreetnearTankFarm Road. 4) Theprojectislocatedina“lowVMT”areaaccordingtotheCityandSLOCOGbecauseofthedensityof shoppingandjobsintheimmediatevicinity.Thereislessrelianceonvehicleformsoftransportation. Page 37 of 171 5) TheprojectwillhaveanonͲvehicular(bike,ped,transit)modesplitof17.3percentandhighervehicle occupancythanistypicaloftheremainderofthecommunity. 6) Privateonsiterecreationalamenitiesthatwillreducethenecessitytotraveltooffsiterecreation destinations. GroundFloorResidentialonSantaFe Section17.70.130oftheZoningOrdinancerequiresthatthedwellingunitsnotoccupythefirst50feetofground floorareawhichfacesapublicstreet,unlesstheCityfindsthattheprojectenhancesthepedestrianenvironmentin thesurroundingareaorwillperformafunctionorprovideaservicethatisessentialorbeneficialtothecommunity City.Theprojectincludesamixedusebuilding(Building21)onthecornerofTankFarmRoadandSantaFethat meetsthiscriterion,andaresidentialbuildingonthenorthernendofSantaFe(Building4)thatdoesnot.The reasonsfornotincludinggroundfloorcommercialspaceinBuilding4areasfollows: 1) SantaFeisnotanticipatedtobeconnectedtoPradoRoadfor10Ͳ15years,andSantaFewillfunctioninthe neartermasaresidentialculdesac.Groundfloorcommercialspaceinsuchalocationisnotdesirableto tenantsexceptindense,highlydevelopedareassuchasadowntown. 2) Theprojectisproviding12,500SFofcommercialgroundfloorspace.Thisamountofcommercialspaceis consideredthemaximumfeasiblefortheprojectsite,consideringotherproposalsinthearea,andthe goodsandservicesalreadyofferedinthearea(i.e..,MarigoldShoppingCenter). 3) Theprojectprovidesanessentialfunctionandservicethatisbeneficialtothecommunitybyproviding dwellingunitsthataresmallerinsizeandmoreaffordabletoworkersintheimmediatevicinity.Theproject maximizestheavailabilityoftheseunitsbydevelopingthegroundfloorofBuilding4asresidentialrather thancommercial. AASPPolicy4.4.7AmenityIncentivesProvided B. Bicycleorpublictransportationfacilities,integratedwithareawidesystems,suchasimprovedtransit stopsorbikepaths.(TheprojectincludesClassIandClassIVbikepathsthatareintegratedtothe areawidesystem.) F. Privaterecreationalfacilities(sportsandvolleyballcourts).(Aclubhousesandrecreationalfacilities areprovided.) AASPPolicy5.4.5 5.4.5 A10percentreductionintherequirednumberofparkingspacesmaybegrantedbytheDirectorfor developmentwithinoneͲquartermileofaregularlyscheduledtransitstop.(Atransitstopisprovidedon BroadStreetatTankFarm.) 5.4.6 A5percentreductionintherequirednumberofparkingspacesmaybegrantedbytheDirectorfor developmentthatprovidesshowersandchangingrooms,inadditiontothesecure,shelteredbicycle parkingfacilitiesalreadyrequiredbyCitycode.(Theclubhouseprovidesadditionalshowersandchanging areas.) Page 38 of 171 5.4.7 A5percentreductionintherequirednumberofparkingspacesmaybegrantedbytheDirectorfor developmentofparkingareasthatincreasestormwaterinfiltration(seeDrainageguidelinesinsection 5.2.4).(Theparkinglotsincludeperviouspaversandconcretethatincreasefiltration.Theprojectalso includesaseriesofconnectedbioswalesandwaterqualitymanagementareasthatwillfacilitate drainage.) Page 39 of 171 Page 40 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A1ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEVICINITY MAPTITLE SHEETPROJECT DESCRIPTIONTHE PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS PROPOSE A CHANGE IN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM BUSINESS PARK TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL, WHICH WOULD ALLOW A MIXED-USE PROJECT PROVIDING UP TO 280 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND UP TO 12,500 SF OF COMMERCIAL-SERVICE/OFFICE USES. THE PROJECT SITE HAS A DENSITY OF 23.5 DU/ACRE WITH SHARED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACES, COMMON YARDS, AND A RECREATION CENTER WITH A COMMUNITY BUILDING. THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCLUDE A MIX OF STUDIOS, ONE-BEDROOM, TWO-BEDROOM, AND THREE- BEDROOM UNITS WITH PRIVATE BALCONIES. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A 2,250-SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE BUILDING WITH A 2,800-SQUARE FOOT PATIO AREA. THE CLUBHOUSE BUILDING WOULD PROVIDE MEETING AREAS, AN INDOOR GAME AREA, A COMMON LOUNGE, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AREA, AND A COMMUNITY KITCHEN.THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS REQUESTING A MINIMUM SETBACK OF APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET FROM ACACIA CREEK FOR A BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PATH TO CONNECT TO DAMON GARCIA SPORTS FIELDS (AND AN AVERAGE BIKE PATH OF 20 FEET) AND A MINOR EXCEPTION FOR A MAXIMUM 15-FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SETBACK FOR PORTIONS OF BUILDINGS 14, AND 21 FROM THE AVERAGE TOP OF BANK.THE PROJECT’S REQUIRED CREEK SETBACKS, COMMON AREAS AND OPEN SPACE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROJECT SITE WOULD RESULT IN APPROXIMATELY 18 PERCENT OF THE SITE BEING ONSITE “GREEN” COMMON OPEN SPACE, INCLUDING PLAY AREAS, TOT LOTS, AND LANDSCAPE PARKWAYS. BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN TRIPS WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY A CONNECTION TO THE 650 TANK FARM ROAD PROPERTY AND EXTENSION OF THE ONSITE BIKE PATH TO THE BIKE PATH AT THE DAMON GARCIA-SPORTS FIELDS TO THE NORTH. A NEW BRIDGE CONNECTING THE PROJECT SITE TO THE 650 TANK FARM ROAD PROPERTY IS PLANNED TO BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER OF THAT PROPERTY.THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING THE FOLOWING EXCEPTIONS:• PARKING REDUCTION• GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL ALONG SANTA FE ROAD• ENCROACHMENT OF BUILDING 14 & 21 INTO THE CREEK/RIPARIAN SETBACK• NO ADDITIONAL THIRD FLOOR CREEK SETBACKPROJECT TEAMCLIENT:COVELOP COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENTADDRESS: 1135 SANTA ROSA ST, SUITE 210SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: DAMIEN MAVISEMAIL: DMAVIS@COVELOP.NETPHONE: 805.781.3133ARCHITECT:RRM DESIGN GROUPADDRESS: 3765 S. HIGUERA, SUITE 102SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: DARIN CABRALEMAIL: DJCABRAL@RRMDESIGN.COMPHONE: 805.543.1794CIVIL ENGINEER:RRM DESIGN GROUPADDRESS: 3765 S. HIGUERA, SUITE 102SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: NOAH WALTERSEMAIL: NGWALTERS@RRMDESIGN.COMPHONE: 805.543.1794LANDSCAPE ARCH:RRM DESIGN GROUPADDRESS: 3765 S. HIGUERA, SUITE 102SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: JAKE MINNICKEMAIL: JRMINNICK@RRMDESIGN.COMPHONE: 805.543.1794PROJECT STATISTICSPROJECT ADDRESS:600 TANK FARM ROADSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN:053-421-006 & 053-421-002CURRENT ZONING:BP-SPPROPOSED REZONING:CSOVERALL SITE AREA:11.7 ACRES (509,652 SF)NET SITE AREA:10.84 ACRES (472,190 SF)BUILDING AREASBUILDING TYPE BUILDING COUNT AREARESIDENTIAL:BUILDING A14 6,600 SFBUILDING B5 13,150 SFBUILDING C3 21,450 SFBUILDING D2 11,760 SFTOTAL RESIDENTIAL = 24 246,020 SFMIXED USE:BUILDING E 1 34,000 SFBUILDING F 1 2,574 SFTOTAL MIXED USE= 2 36,574 SFTOTAL BUILDINGS= 26 282,594 SFPROPOSED FAR 59.85%UNIT AREAS:UNIT TYPE UNIT COUNT AREAUNIT A1 (2-BR TH (SM)) 28 1050 SFUNIT A2 (2-BR TH (LG))14 1400 SFUNIT A3 (3-BR TH)28 1550 SFUNIT B1 (1-BR (WIDE))15 735 SFUNIT B2 (1-BR (LONG))15 765 SFUNIT B3 (2-BR (WIDE))10 1100 SFUNIT B4 (2-BR (LONG))30 1075 SFUNIT CD1 (STUDIO)8 565 SFUNIT CD2 (1-BR)18 725 SFUNIT CD3 (2-BR)74 950 SFUNIT E1 (STUDIO)20 450 SFUNIT E2 (1-BR)20 625 SFCOMMERCIALN/A 12,500 SFDENSITY & UNIT MIXALLOWED DENSITY:24 DU/ACREALLOWED DU’S260.16 DU’SPROPOSED:DU/UNIT UNIT COUNTTOTAL DU(DU/UNIT X UNIT COUNT)STUDIO0.5 DU/UNIT 28 141-BED0.66 DU/UNIT 68 44.882-BED1 DU/UNIT 156 1563-BED1.5 DU/UNIT 28 42TOTALS = 280 UNITS 256.88 DU’SPARKING CALCSVEHICLE PARKINGREQUIRED PARKING:RESIDENTIAL:STUDIO 0.75 SPACES/UNIT * (28 UNITS)= 21 SPACES1-BED 0.75 SPACES/UNIT * (68 UNITS)= 51 SPACES2-BED 1.5 SPACES/UNIT * (156 UNITS)= 234 SPACES3-BED 2.25 SPACES/UNIT * (28 UNITS)= 63 SPACESGUEST 1 SPACE/5 UNITS * (280 UNITS)= 56 SPACESTOTAL RESIDENTIAL= 425 SPACESCOMMERCIAL:1 SPACE/300 SF * (12,500 SF)= 41.7 SPACESTOTAL REQUIRED PARKING: 467 SPACESPROPOSED PARKING: (OVERALL 6.8% REDUCTION)435 SPACESEV PARKINGREQUIRED EV SPACES:RESIDENTIAL:READY 10% OF REQUIRED --> (425 * 0.10)= 43 SPACESCAPABLE 50% OF REQUIRED --> (425 * 0.25)= 106 SPACECOMMERCIAL:READY 10% OF REQUIRED --> (42 * 0.10)= 5 SPACESCAPABLE 25% OF REQUIRED --> (42 * 0.25)= 11 SPACESTOTAL EV READY REQUIRED= 48 SPACESTOTAL EV CAPABLE REQUIRED= 117 SPACESPROPOSED EV SPACES:EV READY 48 SPACESEV CAPABLE 117 SPACESBICYCLE PARKINGREQUIRED:RESIDENTIAL:LONG TERM 2 SPACES/UNIT * (280 UNITS)= 560 SPACESSHORT TERM (GUEST SPACES) 1 SPACE/5 UNITS * (280 UNITS)= 56 SPACESTOTAL RESIDENTIAL BIKE PARKING= 616 SPACESCOMMERCIAL:LONG TERM 25% OF REQUIRED --> 8.4 * 0.25= 2.1 --> 3 SPACESSHORT TERM 75% OF REQUIRED --> 8.4 * 0.75= 6.3 --> 7 SPACESTOTAL COMMERCIAL BIKE PARKING= 10 SPACESTOTAL LONG TERM BIKE PARKING= 563 SPACESTOTAL SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING= 63 SPACESPROPOSED BICYLE SPACES:LONG TERM 563 SPACESSHORT TERM 63 SPACESMOTORCYCLE PARKINGREQUIRED:1 MOTORCYCLE 20 PARKING SPACES 23.35 SPACESPROPOSED:23 SPACESBROAD ST TANK FARM RDINDUSTRIAL WAYPROJECT SITESANTA FE RDACACIA CREEK NET AREA EXHIBIT%%4 ; ; ; ; ; PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEROW BOUNDARYROW BOUNDARYTOP OF BANKTOP OF BANKOVERALL SITE AREA= 11.7 ACRESNET AREA= 10.8 ACRES(EXCLUDES STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAYANDAREA BETWEEN THE TOPS OF BANK OF ACACIA CREEK PER 6/20&)SETBACKS:PER SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, TABLE 4-7 REQUIRED (C-S)PROPOSEDDISTANCE FROM PL’S ALONG STREETS16 FT (BUILDINGS), 5 FT (PARKING) 16 FT (BUILDINGS), 5 FT (PARKING)DISTANCE FROM PL’S ALONG ADJACENT PARCELS0 FT (BUILDINGS), 0 FT (PARKING 0 FT (BUILDINGS), 0 FT (PARKINGBUILDING HEIGHT: PER SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, TABLE 4-9ALLOWED : OCCUPIED 36’-0”NON-OCCUPIED FEATURES 46’-0”3-STORIES MAXPROPOSED: VARIES, REFER TO BUILDING ELEVATIONSMAX. FAR:60% = (60% X 472,190 SF)= 283,314 SFMAX. BLDG & HARDSCAPE COVERAGE90% = (90% X 472,190 SF)= 424,971 SFMIN. LANDSCAPE COVERAGE10%=(10% X 472,190 SF)= 47,219 SFPROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:BUILDING/HARDSCAPE: 309,908 SF (309,908 SF/472,190 SF)= 65.6% LANDSCAPING: 162,282 SF (162,282 SF/472,190 SF)= 34.4% CLEAN ENERGY STATEMENTSHEET INDEXTITLE SHEET A1EXISTING SITE SURVEY A2SITE PLAN A3GRADING PLAN A4STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE PLAN A5ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A6SITE SECTIONS A7BUILDING SECTIONS A8BUILDING SECTIONS A9SITE CIRCULATION EXHIBIT A10VIEW STUDIES PER AASP A11VIEW STUDIES PER AASP A12VIEW STUDIES PER AASP A13VIEW STUDIES PER AASP A14BUILDING A FLOOR PLANS A15BUILDING A ELEVATIONS A16BUILDING B FLOOR PLANS A17BUILDING B ELEVATIONS A18BUILDING C FLOOR PLANS A19BUILDING C ELEVATIONS A20BUILDING D FLOOR PLANS A21BUILDING D ELEVATIONS A22BUILDING E FLOOR PLANS A23BUILDING E FLOOR PLANS A24BUILDING E ELEVATIONS A25BUILDING E ELEVATIONS A26BUILDING F FLOOR PLANS A27BUILDING F ELEVATIONS A28COLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 1 A29COLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 2 A30COLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 3 A31COLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 4 A32PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN A33SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT A34LANDSCAPE CHARACTER & AMENITIES A35SITE FURNISHINGS AND MATERIALS A36BICYCLE PARKING AND MONUMENT SIGNAGE A37SITE WALLS AND FENCING A38TRASH ENCLOSURES A39LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIALS A40PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN A41EXISTING TREE INVENTORY & REMOVALS A42LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5' AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’AVG. NATURAL GRADE CALCULATIONPage 41 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^OH OH OH OH OH OH OHPTN LOT 57 SLO SUBURBAN TRACT2/RS/551009/OR/474APN 053-421-002EXISTING FEMA FLOODZONE A, PER FIRMPANEL 06079C1332GEXISTING TOP OF BANKAND/OR EDGE OFRIPARIANEXISTING 35' ACACIACREEK SETBACKEXISTING 50' ACCESSEASEMENT TO BEABANDONEDEXISTING 20' PRIVATEUTILITY EASEMENT TO BEABANDONEDREMOVE EXISTING MATERIALSTORAGE AND ASSOCIATEDIMPROVEMENTSREMOVE EXISTINGBASE ACCESS ROADREMOVE EXISTING AC ANDCONCRETE DRIVEWAYIMPROVEMENTSREMOVE EXISTINGUNDERDRAIN AND STORMDRAINPROTECT EXISTING 18"CCFRPM SEWER(S = 0.0040)N1°20'06"E 1260.68'N87°55'14"W 449.10'N1°23'43"E 189.14'N14°00'29"W 200.10'N19°40'58"W 125.76'N8°53'28"E 445.94'N4°13'36"W 358.80'N88°36'26"W 375.24'REMOVE EXISTINGBASE ACCESS ROADUNDERGROUND EXISTINGOVERHEAD UTILITY LINESEX SSMH150.8± RIM131.3± INVREMOVE EXISTING GRAVELPARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTSREMOVE EXISTING FENCINGAND MISC STORAGEIMPROVEMENTS(TYP)REMOVE EXISTING FENCINGAND MISC STORAGEIMPROVEMENTSTANK FARM ROADPROTECT EXISTING FENCEACACIA CREEK(SECONDARY WATERWAY)SEE C9 FOR TREEINVENTORY ANDDISPOSITION(TYP)SEE C9 FOR TREEINVENTORY ANDDISPOSITION(TYP)SEE C9 FOR TREEINVENTORY ANDDISPOSITION(TYP)PTN LOT 57 SLO SUBURBAN TRACT2/RS/55APN 053-421-006N19°33'43"W 124.20'N36°15'34"W 150.03'N53°14'05"W 110.02'S79°41'29"W 12 8 . 8 2 'UNDERGROUND EXISTINGOVERHEAD UTILITY LINES ALONGPROPERTY FRONTAGELEGENDSSEXISTING 18" PUBLIC SEWER MAINWEXISTING 12" PUBLIC WATER MAINEXISTING EASEMENTEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A2ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEEXISTING SITE SURVEY0’ 40’20’10’ 60’0’80’40’20’ 120’SCALES: 1” = 40’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1”=20’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)NORTHPage 42 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^WWWWWWSDSDFWFWFWFWFWFWFWSDSDSDSSSSSSSSSSSSSD SDWWWWWWWWWWWFW FWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS WWWWWWRWRWRWRWRWRWSSSSSSSSW W W W W RW RW RW RW RW W FWFWWWSS SS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 7+00SSSDSSBUILDING #1BUILDING #2BUILDING #3BUILDING #4BUILDING #5BUILDING #6BUILDING #7BUILDING #8BUILDING #9BUILDING #11BUILDING #12BUILDING #13BUILDING #14BUILDING #15BUILDING #16BUILDING #17BUILDING #18BUILDING #19BUILDING #20BUILDING #21BUILDING #22BUILDING #23BUILDING #24BUILDING #25BUILDING #26BUILDING #27BUILDING #10TANK FARM ROADSANTA FE ROADEXISTING FEMA FLOOD ZONE APER FIRM PANEL 06079C1332GPROPOSED BIORETENTION AREA; SEESHEET C6 FOR STORMWATER DETAILS(TYP)ACACIA CREEK35' ACACIA CREEK SETBACKPROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE(TYP)SSMH169.42 RIM163.42 INVSSMH174.25 RIM168.25 INVSSMH179.08 RIM173.08 INVSSMH174.69 RIM168.69 INVSSMH170.08 RIM164.08 INVSSMH164.37 RIM158.37 INVSSMH159.18 RIM153.18 INVSSMH157.41 RIM151.41 INVSSMH153.51 RIM147.51 INVCONNECT TO EXISTING18" CCFRPM SEWER MAIN(INV = 132.4±)PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL(TYP)PROPOSED WATERSERVICE AND METER(TYP)PROPOSEDPERMEABLE PAVERSPROPOSEDPERMEABLE PAVERS(TYP)8.6' (TYP)61'TYP24'TYP61'9'8'PROPOSED RW IRRIGATIONPOC, SERVICE, & METER.16' BUILDING SETBACKPROPOSED BACK OFSIDEWALK AND RIGHT OF WAYPROPOSED FIRE AND DOMESTICWATER DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLYPROPOSED 8"PUBLIC WATER MAINPROPOSED PUBLICRECYCLED WATER MAINR50'R50'R83'R63'R120'R75'R35'R15' (TYP)R15' (TYP)R412'R35'R47'PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE(TYP)24'TYP24'TYPR46'R50'PROPOSED EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESSONLY AND REMOVABLE BOLLARDSPROPOSED EMERGENCYVEHICLE ACCESS ONLY ANDREMOVABLE BOLLARDSOVERLAND RIVER ROCKSWALE TO BASIN; SEE C4FOR GRADINGOVERLAND RIVER ROCKSWALE TO BASIN; SEE C4FOR GRADINGPROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE(TYP)PROPOSED FIRE AND DOMESTICWATER DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLYMATCH EXISTINGPUBLIC IMPROVEMENTSPROPOSED PUBLICRECYCLED WATER MAINPROPOSED 8"PUBLIC WATER MAINPROPOSED POOL AND FLATWORKPROPOSED RETAINING WALL;SEE SHEET C4 FOR GRADINGPROPOSED RETAINING WALL;SEE SHEET C4 FOR GRADINGPROPOSED RETAINING WALL;SEE SHEET C4 FOR GRADINGPROPOSED 12'MULTI-USE PATHINTERIM TURNAROUND;FUTURE INTERSECTIONIMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERSEXISTING ACACIA CREEK FLOWLINESSMH158.2± RIM150.20 INVSSMH149.9± RIM131.9± INVPROPOSED 100-YR FLOODLIMITSB A4'8.6'10' x 36' COMMERCIALLOADING ZONEPROPOSEDBUILDINGSECTION BNTSSANTA FE ROAD (INTERIM)PLPROPOSED ROW12'LANE6.5'BIKE12'LANE9'PARKWAY7'CL IV BIKE5'SW15'SETBACK2'EXISTINGGRADECLPROPOSEDBUILDINGEXISTING ROWEXISTING ROW12'LANEVARIESMEDIAN12.62'EXISTING13'LANE13'LANE8'BIKE LANESECTION ANTSTANK FARM ROAD9'PARKWAY7'SW5'15'SECTION CNTSTYPICAL BIKE PATH SECTIONPLPROPOSEDBUILDINGVARIES14'BIKE LANEVARIES4'PROPOSEDRETAININGWALLACACIAFLOW LINEACACIA TOPOF BANKEXISTINGGRADE10' AC BIKE LANE WITH2' MIN CLASS II BASESHOULDERSPORCHESPER PLAN14'LANE13'LANEWESTERLYPROPERTY LINE13'LANE2'7'BIKE7'PARKWAY5'WALKSECTION BNTSSANTA FE ROAD (ULTIMATE)FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSBY OTHERS7'CL IV BIKE5'SW9'PARKWAYPLCLSWSSPROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC WATERLEGENDPROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC SEWERPROPOSED PRIVATE 12" HDPE STORM DRAINSSEXISTING 18" PUBLIC SEWER MAINWEXISTING 12" PUBLIC WATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTSDRWPROPOSED RECYCLED WATER MAINIHHW PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN1. SEE SHEET C5 FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS2. INTERIM SANTA FE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN; FUTUREIMPROVEMENTS/WIDENING BY OTHERS3. ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATE UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISENOTE:DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE & METERFIRE SPRINKLER SERVICEFWC4600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A3ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGESITE PLANPage 43 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^OH OH OH OH OH OH OH RW WWWWWWWSDSDFWFWFWFWFWFWFWSDSDSDSSSSSSSSSSSSSDSDWWWWWWWWWWWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWRWRWRWRWRWRWSSSSSSSSWWWWW RW RW RW RW RW W FWFWWSS^ ^^^^^^^^^BUILDING #1BUILDING #2BUILDING #3BUILDING #4BUILDING #5BUILDING #6BUILDING #7BUILDING #8BUILDING #9BUILDING #11BUILDING #12BUILDING #13BUILDING #14BUILDING #15BUILDING #16BUILDING #17BUILDING #18BUILDING #19BUILDING #20BUILDING #21BUILDING #22BUILDING #23BUILDING #24BUILDING #25BUILDING #26BUILDING #27BUILDING #102%3%TYP3%TYP3%TYP3%TYP3%TYP3%TYP1%TYP1%TYP0.5%TYP0.5%TYP0.5%TYP0.5%TYP0.5%TYP0.5%TYP3.5%2%TYP2%TYP2%TYP2%TYP2%TYP 2%TYP 2%TYP2%TYP2% TYP 2% TYP2%TYP2%TYP2%TYP2%TYP2%TYP2%TYP2%3%TYPFF=177.00FF=180.00FF=174.50FF=173.00FF=171.00FF=170.00FF=165.50FF=166.00FF=170.00FF=174.00FF=163.00FF=172.50FF=172.50FF=163.00FF=163.00FF=177.50FF=180.00FF=163.00FF=160.00FF=157.00FF=157.00FF=158.00FF=155.00FF=154.00FF=154.00FF=154.00165170175160160165170175155154.36 RIM151.37 INV151.82 RIM149.20 INVBASIN BOTFG=151.0BASIN BOTFG=149.0BASIN BOTFG=156.0BASIN BOTFG=158.0BASIN BOTFG=163.0159.19 RIM153.93 INV156.99 RIM153.03 INV154.89 RIM152.20 INV160.66 RIM154.33 INV163.80 RIM156.80 INV167.45FS170.98FS175.10FS171.68FS174.58FS179.78FS177.42FSFF=179.00169.65FS150150 155160165170175180185190195200205 210215150150155160 165170175175 155155160160165170155155160155155150150155155150150155155CONSTRUCT EXPOSED ROCKCUT PER GEOLOGY REPORTRECOMMENDATIONSPROPOSED RETAINING WALLHEIGHT VARIESPROPOSED RETAINING WALLHEIGHT VARIESSEE SITE PLAN FOR BIKE PATHTYPICAL SECTIONNO PROPOSED GRADINGWITHIN EXISTING ACACIA CREEKTOP OF BANKCONNECT TO EXISTING 650TANK FARM IMPROVEMENTSPROPOSED BIORETENTIONBASIN; SEE STORMWATERCONTROL PLAN FOR DETAILS(TYP)EXISTING FEMA FLOOD ZONE APER FIRM PANEL 06079C1332GPROPOSED RETAINING WALLHEIGHT VARIES(4' MAX)164.05FS159.34FS158.06FS155.95FS153.48FS153.56FS/HPPROPOSED BASINSLOPE 3:1 MAX(TYP)PROJECT OUTLETTHRU EXISTINGOUTLET AT ACACIAHEADWALL153.18FS159.01FS159.87FS158.31FS153.42FS149.96FS151.98FSCONSTRUCTOVERLAND SWALE TOBIORETENTION BASIN(S = 0.01 FT/FT MIN)35' CREEK SETBACK154.36FSNO PROPOSED GRADINGWITHIN EXISTING ACACIA CREEKTOP OF BANK152.0TOP155.0TOP160.0TOP165.8TOP154.81 TC154.31 FS155.39 TC154.89 FS154.12 TC153.62 FS154.90 TC154.40 FS156.12 TC155.62 FS157.52 TC157.02 FS158.97 TC158.47 FS159.93 TC159.43 FS159.45 TC158.95 FS161.16 TC160.66 FS163.47 TC162.97 FS164.56 TC164.06 FS165.49 TC164.99 FS170.31 TC169.81 FS174.10 TC173.60 FS173.59FS179.61 TC179.11 FS174.57 TC174.07 FS153.46 TC152.96 FS154.50 TC154.00 FS152.97 TC152.47 FS154.39 TC153.89 FS163.40 TC162.90 FS164.81 TC164.31 FS156.02FSSEE SHEET C6 FOR WATERQUALITY BASIN161.43 TC160.93 FS160.99 TC160.49 FS161.72 TC161.22 FSPROPOSED 100-yr FLOOD LIMITSCONSTRUCT OFF-SITE AC PATHTO DAMON-GARCIACONCRETE PATHCONSTRUCT RETAININGWALL (H = 6' MAX)EXISTING METAVOLCANICROCKROCK CUT PER SOILSREPORTCONCRETE PEDESTRIANSIDEWALKPORCH PER ARCH PLANSPROPOSEDGARAGE FLOOR(FF PER PLAN)FIRST FINISHEDFLOORPROPOSED STEM WALLCONCRETE DRIVEWAYAPRON (3.5' TYP)6" MOUNTABLE CURBAC DRIVE AISLE PER PLANTRACT BOUNDARYPROPOSEDGARAGE FLOOR(FF PER PLAN)PORCH PER ARCH PLANSCONCRETE PEDESTRIANSIDEWALKPROPOSED RETAININGWALL (4' MAX)FENCING PER LANDSCAPEPLANSPROPOSED LANDSCAPEBUFFERAC BIKE PATH PER PLANEXISTING TOP OF BANK/EDGEOF RIPARIAN HABITAT PERPROJECT BIOLOGISTVARIESLIMITS OF PROPOSEDGRADINGLEGENDPROPOSED PRIVATE 12" HDPE STORM DRAINSSSEWER MAIN (SEE SITE PLAN - C4)WWATER MAIN (SEE SITE PLAN - C4)RWRECYCLED (SEE SITE PLAN - C4)SDRAW CUT: 16,700 cu ydRAW FILL: 28,700 cu ydRAW NET: 12,000 cu yd <IMPORT>AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 14.3 acQUANTITY ESTIMATES ON THESE PLANS ARE TO BE USED FORBONDING AND PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ACTUALQUANTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTIONAPPROXIMATE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A4ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEGRADING PLANPage 44 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^OH OH OH OH SDSDSDSD^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ADAADAEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPRELIMINARY PROPOSEDRIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONEXISTING TOPOF BANK35' TOP OF BANK AND EDGE OFRIPARIAN SETBACKSCM 2: PRIVATETRIB AREA: 121,100 sfC i: 0.54 (75%)V: 11,415 cfV from SCM 5: 3,279 cf SCM AREA: 2,800 sfSCM 6: PRIVATETRIB AREA: 25082 sfC i: 0.54 (75%)V: 3,015 cfSCM AREA: 1,005 sfSCM 4: PIPsTRIB AREA: 23,062 sfC i: 0.54 (75%)V: 3,171 cfSCM AREA: 1,057 sfSCM 5: PRIVATETRIB AREA: 110,268 sfC i: 0.54 (75%)V: 6647 cfSCM AREA:1,187 sfV to SCM 2: 3279 cf650 TANK FARM IMPROVEMENTS BYOTHERSACACIA CREEKACACIA CREEKSANTA FE ROADTANK FARM ROADDMA 2DMA 1DMA 5RELOCATE EXISTINGPROPOSED PRIVATESTORM DRAINSCM 1: PIPsTRIB AREA: 50,500 sfC i: 0.81 (95%)V: 6,625 cfSCM AREA: 5,300 sfDMA 7SCM 7: WATER QUALITY TREATMENT ONLY; SIZED4% OF DMA 7 PER PCR RECOMMENDATIONS(4,800 sf)DMA 4EXISTINGPROPERTY LINESDSDSDSDDMA 6DMA 8DMA 9DMA 3DMA 10SCM 3: PRIVATETRIB AREA: 111,640 sfC i: 0.54 (75%)V: 12,780 cf SCM AREA: 12,780 sfSCM 8: PRIVATETRIB AREA: 11,396 sfC i: 0.54 (75%)V: 2,600 cf SCM AREA: 2,600 sfSCM 3: PRIVATETRIB AREA: 11,250 sfC i: 0.54 (75%)V: 2,600 cf SCM AREA: 2,600 sfSCM 8: PRIVATETRIB AREA: 20000 sfC i: 0.54 (75%)V: 3,305 cf SCM AREA: 3,305 sfEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTING 35' TOPOF BANK SETBACK^ ^6+007+008+00SSWFW10' PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCEEASEMENTIHHW DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARYPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSPAVING AREA/SIDEWALK: 50640 sfBUILDINGS: 133,320 sfHARDSCAPE: 38,970 sfTOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 384,460TOTAL AREA: 10.5 ACRESPROPOSED TREATMENTBIORETENTION AREAPERVIOUS PAVERSTIER 1- RUNOFF REDUCTIONxROOF DRAIN DISCONNECTxMINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS AREASTIER 2 - WATER QUALITY (85th PERCENTILE = 1.15")xON-SITE RETENTION-BASED TREATMENT AND INFILTRATIONTIER 3 - RETAIN 95TH PERCENTILE STORM EVENT (1.95")xBASINS WILL RETAIN AND INFILTRATE THE REQUIRED95TH PERCENTILE RETENTION VOLUME WHERE:VOLUME (cf) = (1.95" / 12")* C i * AC i= 0.858i 3 - 0.78i 2 + 0.774i + 0.04A = TRIBUTARY AREA (sf)TIER 4 - PEAK MANAGEMENTxPEAK MANAGEMENT FOR THE ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT ISPROVIDED IN THE RETENTION BASINS AS SHOWN.xOFF-SITE RETENTION IS PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY BY THE AVOCETAND PADRE GRADING ACTIVITIES COMPLETED IN 2019 INRESERVOIR 4 AND THE NORTH MARSH RETENTION BASIN.24"VARIESCOBBLE OR SPLASHBLOCK WHERE STORMWATER ENTERSFLATBOTTOMNO SLOPES3:1MAX GRAVEL STORAGEBIORETENTION SOIL MIXDEPTH VARIESOVERFLOW /OUTLET STRUCTURETO POINT OF DISCHARGEOR ADJACENT STORMDRAINLEGENDTYPICAL BIORETENTION AREANTSHOA MAINTAINEDWATER QUALITYTREATMENT AREAREQUIRED STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURESCONCRETE PAVERS TYP.AGGREGATE INOPENINGS, TYP.GRAVELCONCRETE EDGESOIL SUBGRADECONCRETE PAVEMENTVARIESTYPICAL PERMEABLE PAVERS AREANTS600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A5ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGESTORMWATER AND DRAINAGE PLANPage 45 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021%%4 ; ; ; ; ; $'$$'$<,(/'<,(/'<,(/'BLDG. 5BUILING TYPEDBLDG. 6BUILING TYPEDBLDG. 7BUILING TYPECBLDG. 4BUILING TYPECBLDG. 3BUILING TYPECBLDG. 9BUILING TYPEBBLDG. 1-2BUILING TYPEEBLDG. 11BUILING TYPEBBLDG. 12BUILING TYPEBBLDG. 13BUILING TYPEBBLDG. 8BUILING TYPEBBLDG. 10BUILING TYPEFBLDG. 14BUILING TYPEABLDG. 16BUILING TYPEABLDG. 19BUILING TYPEABLDG. 21BUILING TYPEABLDG. 26BUILING TYPEABLDG. 24BUILING TYPEABLDG. 27BUILING TYPEABLDG. 25BUILING TYPEABLDG. 15BUILING TYPEABLDG. 17BUILING TYPEABLDG. 18BUILING TYPEABLDG. 20BUILING TYPEABLDG. 22BUILING TYPEABLDG. 23BUILING TYPEAPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEROW BOUNDARYROW BOUNDARYROW BOUNDARYTOP OF BANKTOP OF BANKBLDG. SETBACK16' - 0"BLDG. SETBACK16' - 0"2' - 6"15' - 6"24' - 0"15' - 6"5' - 0"15' - 6"24' - 0"15' - 6"2' - 6"8' - 7 1/4"EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EV EV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVMOTORCYCLE PARKING, TYPMOTORCYCLE PARKING, TYPMOTORCYCLE PARKING, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYPSHORT TERM BIKE RACK, TYP10' THIRD FLOOR CREEK SETBACK, TYP10' THIRD FLOOR CREEK SETBACK, TYPON-SITE LOADING AREA1 0 ' - 0" 1 0 ' - 0 "BIKE BARN, TYP. 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A6ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANB-BB-BA-AA-AC-CC-CNORTH0’ 40’20’10’ 60’0’80’40’20’ 120’SCALES: 1” = 40’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1”=20’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)Page 46 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A7ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGESITE SECTIONSSITE SECTION A-ASITE SECTION B-BHEIGHT 29.9’HEIGHT 29.9’HEIGHT 29.9’HEIGHT 29.9’GROUND FLOORHEIGHT 29.9’BLDG 7BLDG 41 & 2BLDG 5BLDG 6BLDG 10BLDG 131718202223SITE SECTION C-CHEIGHT 29.9’HEIGHT 29.9’BLDG 18192627Page 47 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021 !""# !"#" !$# !"#" !$# !"#,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1.5,--./012)3/4- 1 !"#,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1.5,--./012)3/4- 1" !$# !"#" !$# !"#,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1.5,--./012)3/4- 1 !""# !"#" !$# !"#" !$# !"#,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1.5,--./012)3/4- 1 !""# !"#" !$# !"#" !$# !"#"" !%"&#$" !'%"&#' !'#(' !)#"( !*%"&#$( !$%"&# !""# !"#" !$# !"#" !$# !"#"" !%"&#$" !'%"&#,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1.5,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1.5,--./012)3/4- 1600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A8ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING SECTIONSBUILDING A SECTIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" BUILDING B SECTIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" BUILDING C SECTIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" BUILDING D SECTIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" Page 48 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021(+ !,# !"#" !$# !"#" !$#"* !#", !,#$+ !,#,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1,--./012)3/4- 1.5,--./012)3/4-1 .5,--./012)3/4- 1600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A9ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING SECTIONSBUILDING E SECTIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" Page 49 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A10ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGESITE CIRCULATION EXHIBITLEGENDSANTA FE RDTANK FARM RDACACIA CREEKACACIA CREEKCONNECTION TO 650 TANK FARM PROJECTCONNECTION TO DAMON GARCIA SPORTS FIELDNORTHPage 50 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A11ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEVIEW STUDIES PER AASPKEY MAPVIEW OF PROJECT FROM TANK FARM ROADTANK FARM RD ACACIA CREEKSANTA FE RDPage 51 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A12ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEVIEW STUDIES PER AASPVIEW OF PROJECT FROM INTERIOR PARKING LOTKEY MAPTANK FARM RD ACACIA CREEKSANTA FE RDPage 52 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A13ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEVIEW STUDIES PER AASPVIEW FROM BUILDING ‘F’ PARKING ON SITEKEY MAPTANK FARM RD ACACIA CREEKSANTA FE RDPage 53 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A14ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEVIEW STUDIES PER AASPVIEW OF PROJECT FROM SANTA FE ROADKEY MAPTANK FARM RD ACACIA CREEKSANTA FE RDPage 54 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 20213/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(31' - 6"112' - 1"31' - 11 1/8"3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(111' - 11 1/4"'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.31' - 6"2' - 0"3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(3/$17<3($%('72:1+20(112' - 1"6&$/( %8,/',1*$ *5281')/2256&$/( %8,/',1*$ 6(&21')/2256&$/( %8,/',1*$ 7+,5')/225600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A15ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING A FLOOR PLANSPLAN TYPE - A11/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TYPE - A21/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TYPE - A31/8" = 1'-0" 2BED 2.5 BATH TOWNHOMEAPPROX. 1,050 SF2BED 2.5 BATH TOWNHOMEAPPROX. 1,400 SF3BED 2.5 BATH TOWNHOMEAPPROX. 1,550 SFLAUNDRYLAUNDRYLAUNDRYENTRYENTRYENTRYSTORAGE & BIKE PARKINGSTORAGE & BIKE PARKINGSTORAGE & BIKE PARKINGBALCONYBALCONYBALCONYBED 1BED 2BED 2BED 2BED 1BED 1BATH 1BATH 1BATH 2BATH 2BED 2BATH 2BATH 1POWDERPOWDERPOWDERGREATROOMGREATROOMGREATROOMKITCHENKITCHENKITCHENDININGDININGGARAGEGARAGEGARAGE0’ 16’8’4’ 24’0’ 32’16’8’ 48’SCALES: 1/16” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/8”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)Page 55 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A16ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING A ELEVATIONSLEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" MAX. HT (UNOCCUPIED SPACES)220.0’MAX. HT (OCCUPIED SPACES)210.0’HEIGHT CALC:LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5' AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’*FF = 180.0’ (BUILDING # 24 & 25)*FF = 163.0’ (BUILDING #14)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT**NOTE:PROVIDING HEIGHT INFORMATION FOR INSTANCE OF BUILDING TYPE AT HIGHEST AND LOWEST LOCATIONS ON SITE.AVG. NATURAL GRADE174.0’ 210.0’ (BUILDING # 24 & 25)193.0’ (BUILDING #14)BLDG MAX. HEIGHT*218.58’ (BUILDING # 24 & 25)201.58’ (BUILDING #14)Page 56 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 20213/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$7*$5$*( *$5$*( *$5$*( *$5$*( *$5$*( *$5$*( *$5$*( *$5$*( *$5$*('(&. '(&. '(&.3/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$7'(&. '(&. '(&.'(&. '(&.106' - 0 1/2"116' - 0 1/2"55' - 5 1/2"21' - 9 1/2"30' - 0"3/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$73/$17<3(%%(')/$7'(&. '(&. '(&.'(&.'(&. '(&.6&$/( %8,/',1*% *5281')/2256&$/( %8,/',1*% 6(&21')/2256&$/( %8,/',1*% 7+,5')/225600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A17ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING B FLOOR PLANSPLAN TYPE - B11/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TYPE - B31/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TYPE - B21/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TYPE - B41/8" = 1'-0" 1 BEDROOM 1 BATH FLATAPPROX. 735 SF2 BEDROOM 2.5 BATH FLATAPPROX. 1,100 SF1 BEDROOM 1 BATH FLATAPPROX. 765 SF2 BEDROOM 2 BATH FLATAPPROX. 1,075 SFBED 1BED 1BED 1BED 1BED 2BED 2BALCONYBALCONYBALCONYBALCONYLAUNDRYLAUNDRYGREATROOMGREATROOMGREATROOMGREATROOMKITCHENKITCHENKITCHENKITCHENDININGSTORAGELAUNDRYLAUNDRYDININGSTORAGEBATH 1BATH 1BATH 2BATH 2BATH 1BATH 1SECOND BIKE PARKING @ GROUND UNITS ONLYSECOND BIKE PARKING @ GROUND UNITS ONLYSECOND BIKE PARKING @ GROUND UNITS ONLYBIKE PARKING SECOND BIKE PARKING @ GROUND UNITS ONLYBIKE PARKINGBIKE PARKINGBIKE PARKING0’ 16’8’4’ 24’0’ 32’16’8’ 48’SCALES: 1/16” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/8”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)Page 57 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A18ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING B ELEVATIONSLEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" HEIGHT CALC:LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5' AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’MAX. HT (UNOCCUPIED SPACES)220.0’MAX. HT (OCCUPIED SPACES)210.0’*FF = 172.5’ (BUILDING # 12 & 13)*FF = 160.0’ (BUILDING #8)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT**NOTE:PROVIDING HEIGHT INFORMATION FOR INSTANCE OF BUILDING TYPE AT HIGHEST AND LOWEST LOCATIONS ON SITE.AVG. NATURAL GRADE174.0’ 202.5’ (BUILDING # 12 & 13)190.0’ (BUILDING #8)BLDG MAX. HEIGHT*216.04’ (BUILDING # 24 & 25)203.54’ (BUILDING #14)Page 58 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 20213/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$7'(&. '(&.'(&. '(&.'(&. '(&.'(&.'(&.3/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$7'(&. '(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.151' - 4"161' - 4"51' - 9 1/2"26' - 0"25' - 9 1/2"3/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(""3/$17<3(&'%(')/$7'(&. '(&. '(&. '(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.6&$/( %8,/',1*& *5281')/2256&$/( %8,/',1*& 6(&21')/2256&$/( %8,/',1*& 7+,5')/225600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A19ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING C FLOOR PLANSPLAN TYPE - CD21/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TYPE - CD31/8" = 1'-0" 1 BEDROOM 1 BATH FLATAPPROX. 725 SF2 BEDROOM 2 BATH FLATAPPROX. 950 SFSECOND BIKE PARKING @ GROUND UNITS ONLYSECOND BIKE PARKING @ GROUND UNITS ONLYBIKE PARKINGBIKE PARKING0’ 16’8’4’ 24’0’ 32’16’8’ 48’SCALES: 1/16” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/8”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)Page 59 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A20ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING C ELEVATIONSLEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" HEIGHT CALC:LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5' AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’MAX. HT (UNOCCUPIED SPACES)220.0’MAX. HT (OCCUPIED SPACES)210.0’*FF = 158.0’ (BUILDING #7)*FF = 154.0’ (BUILDING #3)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT**NOTE:PROVIDING HEIGHT INFORMATION FOR INSTANCE OF BUILDING TYPE AT HIGHEST AND LOWEST LOCATIONS ON SITE.AVG. NATURAL GRADE174.0’ 188.0’ (BUILDING # 24 & 25)184.0’ (BUILDING #14)BLDG MAX. HT*199.71’ (BUILDING # 24 & 25)195.71’ (BUILDING #14)Page 60 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 20215' - 11"52' - 10"63' - 1"3/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'678',23/$17<3(&'678',23/$17<3(&'678',23/$17<3(&'678',285' - 4"'(&. '(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.3/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$7'(&. '(&.'(&. '(&.75' - 9 1/2"3/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$73/$17<3(&'%(')/$751' - 10"60' - 6"85' - 4"'(&. '(&.'(&.'(&.6&$/( %8,/',1*' *5281')/2256&$/( %8,/',1*' 6(&21')/2256&$/( %8,/',1*' 7+,5')/225600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A21ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING D FLOOR PLANSPLAN TYPE - CD31/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TYPE - CD11/8" = 1'-0" 2 BEDROOM 2 BATH FLATAPPROX. 950 SFSTUDIOAPPROX. 565 SFSECOND BIKE PARKING @ GROUND UNITS ONLYSECOND BIKE PARKING @ GROUND UNITS ONLYBIKE PARKINGBIKE PARKING0’ 16’8’4’ 24’0’ 32’16’8’ 48’SCALES: 1/16” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/8”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)Page 61 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A22ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING D ELEVATIONSLEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" HEIGHT CALC:LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5' AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’MAX. HT (UNOCCUPIED SPACES)220.0’MAX. HT (OCCUPIED SPACES)210.0’*FF = 157.0’ (BUILDING #6)*FF = 155.0’ (BUILDING #5)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT**NOTE:PROVIDING HEIGHT INFORMATION FOR INSTANCE OF BUILDING TYPE AT HIGHEST AND LOWEST LOCATIONS ON SITE.AVG. NATURAL GRADE174.0’ 187.0’ (BUILDING #6)185.0’ (BUILDING #5)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT198.71’ (BUILDING #6)196.71’ (BUILDING #5)Page 62 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021&200(5&,$/63$&(&200(5&,$/63$&(81,76725$*((/(&75,&$/5(6,'(17 6(175</2%%<7494 SF572 SF459 SF641 SF5295 SF(/(95220200' - 4"212' - 3"51' - 4"57' - 0"155' - 3"149' - 1"6+2:(56 /2&.(563/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',2452 SF453 SF613 SF612 SF'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.3/$17<3((678',2'(&.'(&.3/$17<3((678',2528 SF'(&.452 SF'(&.'(&.'(&.456 SF456 SF'(&. '(&. '(&. '(&. '(&.6&$/( %8,/',1*( *5281')/2256&$/( %8,/',1*( 6(&21')/225600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A23ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING E FLOOR PLANS0’ 16’8’4’ 24’0’ 32’16’8’ 48’SCALES: 1/16” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/8”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)Page 63 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 20213/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((%(')/$73/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',2612 SF3/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',23/$17<3((678',2'(&.'(&. '(&. '(&. '(&. '(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.'(&.3/$17<3((678',2'(&. '(&.'(&.'(&.3/$17<3((678',26&$/( %8,/',1*( 7+,5')/225600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A24ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING E FLOOR PLANSPLAN TYPE - E21/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TYPE - E11/8" = 1'-0" 1 BEDROOM 1 BATH FLATAPPROX. 615 SFSTUDIOAPPROX. 450 SFBIKE PARKING. (2) VERTICALBIKE PARKING. (2) VERTICAL0’ 16’8’4’ 24’0’ 32’16’8’ 48’SCALES: 1/16” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/8”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)Page 64 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A25ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING E ELEVATIONSFRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" LEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" HEIGHT CALC:LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5' AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’MAX. HT (UNOCCUPIED SPACES)220.0’MAX. HT (OCCUPIED SPACES)210.0’FF = 154.0’ (BUILDING #1-2)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT*AVG. NATURAL GRADE174.0’ 190.0’ (BUILDING #1-2)BLDG MAX. HEIGHT200.0’ (BUILDING #1-2)0’ 16’8’4’ 24’0’ 32’16’8’ 48’SCALES: 1/16” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/8”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)Page 65 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A26ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING E ELEVATIONSREAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" Page 66 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021/281*(63$&(287'225%%4$5($.,7&+(1(175<%86,1(66$5($555555322/(48,30(17(/(&7(;(5&,6(52206+2:(5 6+2:(56&$/( *5281')/2253/$1600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A27ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING F FLOOR PLANS0’ 16’8’4’ 24’0’ 32’16’8’ 48’SCALES: 1/16” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/8”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)Page 67 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A28ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBUILDING F ELEVATIONSLEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" HEIGHT CALC:LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5' AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210'MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’MAX. HT (UNOCCUPIED SPACES)220.0’MAX. HT (OCCUPIED SPACES)210.0’FF = 163.0’ (BUILDING #10)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHTAVG. NATURAL GRADE174.0’ 173.0’ (BUILDING #10)BLDG MAX. HT183.25’ (BUILDING #10)MAILBOX LOCATIONPage 68 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021COLOR AND MATERIALS PALETTE FOR BUILDING TYPES A & B2. BOARD & BATTEN FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATT SIDING3. HORIZ. SIDING FIBER CEMENT 8” LAP SIDING4. PAINT COLOR SHERWIN WILLIAMS WHITE SNOW SW 9541 5. PAINT COLOR SHERWIN WILLIAMS GRAY SHINGLE SW 76705600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A29ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGECOLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 1CHARACTER SKETCH111555552134761. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING: OWENS CORNING OAKRIDGE TWILIGHT BLACK6. METAL ROOFING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING, - DARK GRAY88. LIGHT FIXTURE STYLE: MAXIM MODEL 86393BZ (NIGHT SKY COMPLIANT)33333367. STOREFRONT: MILGARD WINDOWS BLACK FRAME222233333322222266666622222333334444444222222244445555555222222444444Page 69 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021COLOR AND MATERIALS PALETTE FOR BUILDING TYPES C & D3. BOARD & BATTEN FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATT SIDING COLOR:SHERWIN WILLIAMS WHITE SNOW SW 95414. HORIZ. SIDING FIBER CEMENT 8” LAP SIDING COLOR:SHERWIN WILLIAMS WHITE SNOW SW 95415. BOARD & BATTEN FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATT SIDING COLOR:SHERWIN WILLIAMS LIVEABLE GREEN SW6176 6. CEMENT PLASTER: SHERWIN WILLIAMS GREEN EARTH SW 7748 4444444600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A30ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGECOLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 2CHARACTER SKETCH111666666666666666666666666666666666666666666621347652. METAL ROOFING: MCARTHY WHOLSALE STANDING SEAM METAL SHAKE GRAY55553333335555589. LIGHT FIXTURE STYLE: MAXIM MODEL 86393BZ (NIGHT SKY COMPLIANT)1. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING: OWENS CORNING OAKRIDGETWILIGHT BLACK9222222222226666668. RAILING: POSTS AND RAILING STAINED WOOD BALISTRADE: BLACK HOG WIRE55554444443333333334444444444444227. STOREFRONT: MILGARD WINDOWS BLACK FRAME888888888888888888888888888Page 70 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021zzCOLOR AND MATERIALS PALETTE FOR BUILDING E (MIXED USE)5. BRICK VENEER TRAIN STATION THIN BRICK BRICK VENEER3. PAINT COLOR SHERWIN WILLIAMS WHITE SNOW SW 9541 3600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A31ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGECOLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 3CHARACTER SKETCH3214561. METAL ROOFING: MCARTHY WHOLSALE STANDING SEAM METAL SHAKE GRAY4. PAINT COLOR: SEVEL 4 SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH COLOR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS SAGE GREEN LIGHT111111666662. HORIZ. SIDING FIBER CEMENT 8” LAP SIDING77777777. STOREFRONT: STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM - BLACK6. WAINSCOT: PRECAST CONCRETE 3555555555533333333333111111555555555555555522222222222777777788. LIGHT FIXTURE STYLE: MAXIM MODEL 86393BZ (NIGHT SKY COMPLIANT)4444444444444446666Page 71 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021COLOR AND MATERIALS PALETTE FOR BUILDING F (CLUBHOUSE)4. PAINT COLOR SHERWIN WILLIAMS WHITE SNOW 9541 4600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A32ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGECOLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 4CHARACTER SKETCH11111122222222135761. METAL ROOFING: MCARTHY WHOLSALE STANDING SEAM METAL SHAKE GRAY2. BOARD & BATTEN FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATT SIDING3. HORIZ. SIDING FIBER CEMENT 8” LAP SIDING 555555555. WOOD PLANK SIDING: HORIZ. CEDER PLANK 6. BRICK VENEER TRAIN STATION THIN BRICK BRICK VENEER8. LIGHT FIXTURE STYLE: MAXIM MODEL 86393BZ (NIGHT SKY COMPLIANT)C3333336666666666666666666687. STOREFRONT: STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM - BLACK44444444444411Page 72 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021ACACIA CREEK26262613BL1DESIGN KEYCLUBHOUSE - SEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET 32PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY, TYP.SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING, TYP. (63 MIN.)SEE SHEET A35COMMUNITY MAILBOXES - SEE ARCH SHEETS111555555557777777777777777MULTI-USE PATH 22222FLEXIBLE USE DECK AT BIORETENTION AREA333ENTRY NODE AT MULTI-USE PATH WITH SEATING4466NATURAL PLAY AREA - SEE ENLARGEMENTDECORATIVE PERMEABLE PAVERS, TYP.PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGLOADING ZONETRASH ENCLOSURE, TYP. - SEE SHEET A37EXISTING ROCK OUTCROP9998888812121313B1313131414141414141414COMMUNITY PICNIC AREAS10101010BIORETENTION AREA, TYP. - SEE CIVIL SHEETS111111111111RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS - NOT A PART15161515LONG TERM BIKE PARKING BARNS, TYP. (5)SEE SHEET A35 35’ ACACIA CREEK SETBACK16161616171717RETAINING WALL, TYP. - SEE CIVIL SHEETS & A3618181818181818FUTURE BIKE/ PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE - NOT A PART1919ACACIA CREEK BUFFER202020BICYCLE REPAIR STATION WITH SEATINGDROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTINGSEE SHEET A39 FOR LANDSCAPE PLANFENCING - 6’H POOL FENCING - 6’H PRIVACY ENTRY MONUMENT LOCATION - SEE SHEET A35FENCING - 42”H ON WALL - SEE SHEET A36 EARTH MOUNDSPUBLIC ART LOCATION22222221212323232323F1F1F2F3F32425FFF226F32524EXISTING EUCALYPTUS CANOPY TYP.SEE SHEET A40 FOR TREE INVENTORY & REMOVALSSANTA FE ROADTANK FARM ROAD0’ 80’40’20’ 75’0’160’80’40’ 320’SCALES: 1” = 80’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1”=40’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)NORTH600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A33ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEPRELIMINARY SITE PLANPage 73 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021COVERED OUTDOOR PATIOPOOL / SPAOVERHEAD STUCTURE - SEE A34OUTDOOR SEATING, TYP. - SEE A33-34, 36SYNTHETIC TURF EXERCISE AREA - SEE A34FIRE TABLES WITH SEATINGTIMBERSTACKS CLIMBING LOGS - SEE A33FLEXIBLE USE DECK OVER BIORETENTION AREAEXERCISE EQUIPMENTWATER TROUGH ENTRY FEATURECENTRAL BOARDWALK6’ H PERIMETER POOL FENCE - SEE A36CLIMBER PLAY FEATURE - SEE A3330-42”H LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALLS, TYP. SEE SHEET A36CABANAS WITH RAISED PLANTERS112223334444445566778899101011111112121313141414151518-30”H SEATWALL, TYP. - SEE SHEET A361616161616ART / MURAL 171717BARBECUE AND COUNTER 1818DRAGONFLY PLAY ELEMENTOUTDOOR PING PONG TABLEFIREPLACE 192021212019CLUBHOUSE DESIGN KEY600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A34ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGESITE PLAN ENLARGEMENTPage 74 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021OUTDOOR AMENITIES &NATURAL PLAY SEE SHEETS A31 & A32 FOR LOCATIONS OF ELEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A35ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGELANDSCAPE CHARACTER & AMENITIES Page 75 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021WALL LIGHTSLITHONIA WM1925850 LUMEN LED850 LUMEN LEDWASTE RECEPTACLESVICTOR STANLEYRB 36 AND SD 242RB-36 AND SD 242PEDESTRIAN LIGHTSLITHONIA W527 WITH PM30POST MOUNT 12 HIGH, LEDPOST MOUNT - 12’ HIGH, LEDBOLLARDLITHONIA RADEAN LEDSEE ARCH AND VSEEARCHANDVSIGN LIGHTSLITHONIA M707 & E12 ARM850 U850 LUMEN LEDALL LIGHTS AND BOLLARDS IN COLOR BLACK OR BRONZESITEFURNISHINGS AND MATERIALSSEE SHEETS A31 & A32 FOR LOCATIONS OF ELEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET, EXCLUDING LIGHT FIXTURES600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A36ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGESITE FURNISHINGS AND MATERIALSPage 76 of 171 1622-02-RS20July 30, 20216$1/8,62%,632&$6&$/(,1&+(6'$7('5$:1%<&0+(0$,/LQIR#3HDN5DFNVFRP3+21(0$7(5,$/6 ),1,6+0$7(5,$/6+2752//('5281'%$5+2752//('5281'%$5[[$1*/(),1,6+67$1'$5'+27',33('*$/9$1,=('237,21$/32:'(5&2$7%$6,&&2/256%,.(6,1*/(6,'(':+((/63$&,1* 127('5$:,1*1266&56$1/8,62%,632&$0$,/IR#3HDN5DFNVFRP3+21(42-60”H ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNAGE - WOOD OPTIONSCEDAR WOOD SLAT MATERIAL WITH CONCRETE ACCENTSALUMINUM LETTERING, 24 SQ FT LETTERING MAX.DIMENSIONS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF SLO STD.SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS, SHEET A31 42-60”H ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNAGE - GABION OPTIONSSTONE GABION WITH STEEL ACCENTS ALUMINUM LETTERING, , 24 SQ FT LETTERING MAX.DIMENSIONS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF SLO STD.SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS, SHEET A31 SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING PEAK ‘CAMPUS’ RACKS, GALVANIZED POWDER COATED STEEL IN COLOR BRONZESURFACE MOUNT PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONSSEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS AND QUANITITIES, SHEET A31LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS AND QUANITITIES, SHEET A31SEE TITLE SHEET FOR BIKE PARKING STATISTICS, SHEET A1MATERIAL AND FINISH TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A35ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEBICYCLE PARKING AND MONUMENT SIGNAGEPage 77 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 202118"1P.I.P. CONCRETE WALL2ADJACENT PAVING, SEE PLAN3COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASEPER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT4CONCRETE FOOTING5EXPANSION JOINT6#4 REBAR HORIZONTAL AS SHOWN7#4 REBAR @16" O.C. VERT9HOOK TAILS INTO FOOTING, TYP.67213595881/2" CHAMFER ALL EDGES, TYP.3'-6"1" MIN.6’ WOOD SLAT PRIVACY FENCE AND GATE42” METAL FENCE ON WALL4-6’ METAL PICKET GATE30-42” LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALLCONCRETE BOARDFORM FINISH, IN COLOR GREYSEE EXAMPLE IMAGERY AT RIGHT, THIS SHEET6’ METAL PICKET FENCESEE CIVIL SHEETS FOR RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONSSEE SITE PLAN SHEETA31 FOR FENCING LOCATIONSSEE SHEET A31 & ENLARGEMENT SHEET A32 FOR LANDSCAPE WALL LOCATIONS CMU RETAINING WALLSHEIGHT VARIES, SEE CIVIL PLANSCOLOR, TYPE AND FINISH TO MATCH TRASH ENCLOSURES, SHEET A3730-42” LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALLSCONCRETE BOARDFORM FINISH, IN COLOR GREY18-30” SEATWALLSFINISH TO MATCH LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALLS WITHWOOD SLAT INSETS* FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN FUTURE SUBMITTAL 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A38ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGESITE WALLS AND FENCINGPage 78 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021SIDE ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSURENOTES:1. FINISHES OF CMU WALL, WOOD, ROOF, AND HARDWARE TOMATCH CORRESPONDING ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES.2. ENTRANCE TO SIDE ACCESS ENCLOSURE WILL OCCUR ONEITHER SIDE DEPENDING ON SITE LOCATION.FRONT ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSURESLIDE BOLT AND SLEEVEDROP BOLT AND SLEEVE6'-0"8'-0"10'-0"PRECAST CONCRETE CAPWOOD POSTCORRUGATEDMETAL ROOFCMU BLOCK WALL4 CU YD BINWOOD POSTCORRUGATEDMETAL ROOFPRECAST CONCRETE CAPCMU BLOCK BSPLIT-FACE BLOCK8x8x16 HALF-SCORE9'-1"6" ALL SIDESSTEEL GATE FRAMEBARREL HINGEWOOD PANELSCMU BLOCK APRECISION BLOCK8x8x16 STANDARD4 CU YD BINORGANICSORGANICS18'-5"10'-7"(2) DOUBLE SWING GATESROOF POST3'-5"PLAN VIEW - TRASH ENCLOSURE (SIDE ACCESS OPTION)CMU WALLROOF OUTLINEGATE POST6'-7"10'-7"(2) DOUBLE SWING GATESROOF POSTCMU WALLROOF OUTLINEGATE POST5'-4"6'-7"4 CU YD BIN4 CU YD BINPLAN VIEW - TRASH ENCLOSURE (REAR ACCESS OPTION)8'-0"3.REFER TO CIVIL SITE PLAN, SHEET A3 FOR LOCATIONS OF TRASH ENCLOSURES. 4.TRASH ENCLOSURES SHALL BE SCREENED WITH VEGETATION PER CITY OF SLO STD.600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A39ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGETRASH ENCLOSURESPage 79 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021SENECIOSERPENSKNIPHOFIA UVARIALOMANDRA LONGIFOLIAARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP.LEUCADENDRON ‘SAFARI GOLD STRIKE’DECOMPOSED GRANITE ALOE POLYPHYLLAAGAVE ‘BLUE GLOW’ & AGAVE ATTENUATAFURCREA FOETIDA ‘MEDIOPICTA’OLEA EUROPEA ‘FRUTILESS’ECHEVERIA SPP.DWARF CITRUSCOTINUS COGGRYIAASST. CITRUSPLANT PALETTEASSTSUCCULENTSDROUGHT TOLERANT MASSINGLID MEADOW MIX600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A40ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGELANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIALSPage 80 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 2021ACACIA CREEKSANTA FE ROADTANK FARM ROADPLANTING LEGENDIRRIGATION COMPLIANCE & DESIGN CRITERIAD SOIL THE PLANT PALETTE IS COMPRISED OF SPECIES KNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL MEDITTERAENEAN CLIMATE ANEQUIREEQUIRECONDITIONS. THE PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL OUTSIDE OF AREAS ALLOCATED FOR RECREATIONAL USE WILL RCONDITIONS THE PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL OUTSIDE OF AREAS ALLOCATED FOR RECREATIONAL USE WILL RSCRIBEDLOW TO VERY LOW WATER ONCE ESTABLISHED. THIS PLANT PALETTE COUPLED WITH THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIONBELOW HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO MEET OR EXCEED THE STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS FOR WATER CONSERVATBASED ON THE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE PER SLOMC 17.70.220 ANDA WEATHER SENSING, ‘SMART CONTROLLER’ WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THE PROVISION OF IRRIGATION WATERHRUBS,MANAGE DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH HYDROZONE. ALL TREES, SHATER CANAND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED ON SEPARATE HYDROZONES SO THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, WATINGBE REGULATED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER. TREES WILL BE IRRIGATED BY BUBBLERS. ALL ORNAMENTAL PLANTBEWILL RECEIVE DRIP IRRIGATION OR OTHER HIGHLY EFFICIENT IRRIGATION. ALL ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES SHALL BSCREENED WITH VEGETATION.SUCH AS:ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLEALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA WHITE ALDERGLEDITSIA TIACANTHOS INERMIS ‘SHADE MASTER’ THORNLESS LOCUSTGINGKO BILOBA ‘AUTUMN GOLD’ GINGKO KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA CHINESE FLAME TREELOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOXLIRIODENRON TULIPIFERA TULIP TREECERCIDIUM PARKINSONIA ‘DESERT MUSEUM’ PALO VERDE TREEPISTACHIA CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHEPLATANUS X ACERIFLOIA (HISPANICA) LONDON PLANE TREEQUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK QUERCUS TOMENTELLA ISLAND OAKSHADE & STREET TREES (15 GAL - 24” BOX) QTY 161SHRUBS, GRASSES, AND GROUNDCOVERS (1, 5, 15 GAL) QTY 56,835 SFSUCH AS:ARBUTUS X ‘MARINA’ MARINA ARBUTUSARCHONTOPHOENIX CUNNINGHAMIANA KING PALMBAUHINIA BLAKEANA HONG KONG ORCHID TREEBRACHYCHITON SPP. PINK BOTTLE TREEBRAHEA EDULIS GUADALUPE PALMCASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA GOLDEN MEDALLION TREECERCIS X ‘HEARTS OF GOLD’ GOLDEN REDBUDHYMENOSPORUM FLAVUM SWEETSHADELAGERSTROEMIA SPP. CRAPE MYRTLEMYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLEOLEA EUROPEA ‘SWAN HILL’ - STERILE FRUITLESS OLIVEPYRUS CALLERYANA FLOWERING PEARACCENT TREES (15 GAL) QTY 65 SUCH AS:CHORISIA SPECIOSA (CIEBA) FLOSS SILK TREEJACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA MULTI-TRUNKPLATANUS RACEMOSA MULTI-TRUNK CALIFRONIA SYCAMOREQUERCUS AGRIFOLIA MULTI-TRUNK COAST LIVE OAKSPECIMEN TREES (24-36” BOX) QTY 10TOTAL ON-SITE LANDSCAPE AREA: 56, 835 SFESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE: 1,543,411.3 GAL / YR.,, /MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE: 1,543,411.3 GAL / 0 YR.MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE: 1 543 411 3 GAL / 0 YR,, /AREAS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE THAT ARE TO BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND ALL AREAS THAT WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH RECLAIMED WATER ARE CLASSIFIED AS SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS. SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FOLLOWING CALCULATIONS AND ARE REFLECTED IN THE MAXIMUMAPPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE PER CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS AND THE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. TOTAL TREES TO BE PLANTED ON THE PROJECT SITE 236TOTAL TREES TO BE PLANTED ON THE PROJECT SITE=236SEE EXISTING TREE DISPOSITION TABLE SHEET A40 FOR SPECIES, SIZE, QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF (E) TREES TO REMAIN, PROTECT, AND TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL.ACACIA COGNATA `COUSIN ITT` RIVER WATTLEADENANTHOS SERICEUS COASTAL WOOLLYBUSHAEONIUM CANARIENSE AEONIUMAGAVE ATTENUATA `NOVA` BLUE CLONEAGAVE DESMETTIANA `VARIEGATA` VARIEGATED AGAVEAGAVE VILMORINIANA OCTOPUS AGAVEAGAVE X `BLUE GLOW` BLUE GLOW AGAVEALOE POLYPHYLLA SPIRAL ALOEALOE STRIATA CORAL ALOEALYOGYNE HUEGELII `SANTA CRUZ` BLUE HIBISCUSARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. MANZANITABACCHARIS PILULARIS `PIGEON POINT` COYOTE BRUSHBULBINE FRUTESCENS STALKED BULBINECAESALPINIA SPP. YELLOW/RED BIRD OF PARADISECAREX PRAEGRACILIS CALIFORNIA FIELD SEDGECAREX TUMULICOLA BERKELEY SEDGECEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS `YANKEE POINT` CALIFORNIA LILACCERCIS CANADENSIS `RISING SUN` RISING SUN REDBUDCHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSHCISTUS PULVERULENTUS `SUNSET` ROCKROSECLYTOSTOMA CALLISTEGIOIDES VIOLET TRUMPET VINECOTINUS COGGYGRIA `ROYAL PURPLE` ROYAL PURPLE SMOKE TREEDIANELLA CAERULEA `CASSA BLUE` CASSA BLUE FLAX LILYDIETES BICOLOR FORTNIGHT LILYECHEVERIA X `AFTERGLOW` AFTERGLOW ECHEVERIAFURCRAEA FOETIDA `MEDIOPICTA` MAURITIUS HEMPHARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA `HAPPY WANDERER` LILAC VINEHESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCAHETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYONHEUCHERA SANGUINEA CORAL BELLSJUNCUS EFFUSUS `OCCIDENTAL BLUE` OCCIDENTAL BLUE RUSHKNIPHOFIA UVARIA `ECHO MANGO`REBLOOMING TORCHLILYLAVANDULA X INTERMEDIA `PROVENCE` PROVENCE LAVENDRTLEUCADENDRON SPP. CONEBUSHLEUCOSPERMUM CORDIFOLIUM NODDING PINCUSHIONLEYMUS CONDENSATUS `CANYON PRINCE` NATIVE BLUE RYELOMANDRA SPP. MAT RUSHMIMULUS AURANTIACUS STICKY MONKEY FLOWERMUHLENBERGIA DUBIA PINE MUHLYMUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASSNEPETA X FAASSENII `WALKERS LOW` WALKERS LOW CATMINTOLEA EUROPAEA `LITTLE OLLIE` TM LITTLE OLLIE OLIVEPENNISETUM SPATHIOLATUM RYE PUFFSPENSTEMON X `FIREBIRD` FIREBIRD BEARD TONGUEPHLOMIS FRUTICOSA JERUSALEM SAGEPHORMIUM X `SEA JADE` NEW ZEALAND FLAXPITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM `SILVER SHEEN` SILVER SHEEN TAWHIWHIPODOCARPUS X `ICEE BLUE` ICEE BLUE PODOCARPUSRHUS INTEGRIFOLIA LEMONADE BERRYRIBES SANGUINEUM RED FLOWERING CURRANTRIBES SPECIOSUM FUCHSIA FLOWERING GOOSEBERRYSALVIA GREGGII `RASBERRY DELIGHT` AUTUMN SAGESALVIA SPATHACEA HUMMINGBIRD SAGESALVIA X `POZO BLUE` POZO BLUE SAGESENECIO MANDRALISCAE BLUE FINGERSESLERIA AUTUMNALIS AUTUMN MOOR GRASSSTRELITZIA NICOLAI GIANT BIRD OF PARADISEVERBENA BONARIENSIS PURPLETOP VERVAINVERBENA LILACINA `DE LA MINA` LILAC VERBENAVERBENA X `BALENDAKLE` TM ENDURASCAPE PURPLE VERBENAVITIS CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPEINDICATES SPECIES IS ALSO SUITABLE USE IN BIORETENTION AREASINDICATES SPECIES IS ALSO SUITABLE FOR USE IN ACACIA CREEK BUFFERPROPOSED STREET TREES PER CITY OF SLO STREET TREE MASTER PLAN*************PLNORTH0’ 80’40’20’ 75’0’160’80’40’ 320’SCALES: 1” = 80’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1”=40’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)********************600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A41ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEPRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 81 of 171 1622-02-RS20September 3, 20217677717470696872737567434241403938373635343332313029282725242322212019188517161514131211109875432184818283798078TANK FARM RDEXISTING TREEDRIPLINE, TYPICAL.TOP OF BANK PERBIOLOGICAL RESOURCESASSESSMENT BY KEVINMERK ASSOCIATES, LLC,DATED 8-14-20, TYPICAL600 TANK FARM ROADAPN: 053-421-001,053-421-006PROPERTYLINE, TYPICAL650 TANK FARM ROADAPN: 053-421-005ACACIA CR E E K ACACIA CREEK ACACI A C R E E KSCALE: 1" = 80'1.TREE INVENTORY, LOCATIONS, AND TAG NUMBERS PER ARBORIST REPORTPREPARED BY RRM DESIGN GROUP, DATED 08/06/2021.2. ALL TREES LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST DESIGNATEDRIPARIAN AREAS DEFINED IN THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT BYKEVIN MERK ASSOCIATES, DATED NOVEMBER 4, 2020, ARE TO REMAIN.3. NESTING RAPTORS ARE KNOWN TO INHABIT THE STAND OF BLUE GUMEUCALYPTUS LOCATED ALONG ACACIA CREEK. PLEASE CONSULT WITHTHE PROJECT BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO ANY TREE MAINTENANCE ORREMOVAL OPERATIONS.4. SEE SHEET A39 IN THE ENTITLEMENT DRAWING PACKAGE AND/OR C7 OFTHE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP DRAWING PACKAGE FOR SPECIES,LOCATION, AND SIZE OF PROPOSED TREE PLANTINGS.NOTESEXISTING SITE PLANTree TagBotanical Name Common NameDiameter at BreastHeight (in.)Approx. Dripline ØDisposition1(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'blue gum98.5 45'2blue gum72.5 50'3blue gum33.5 20' Remove4blue gum53.5 35'5(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum115.5 50'TREE TAG 6 NOT USED7(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum71.0 60' Protect8blue gum112.5 55' Protect9(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum65.5 40' Protect10(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum60.5 60'11(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum39.5 50' Protect12blue gum54.0 20' Protect13blue gum60.055' Protect14(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum33.0 40' Protect15(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum58.0 60' Protect16(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum55.0 60' Protect17blue gum64.0 50'18blue gum49.5 30' Protect19blue gum52.0 30'20blue gum52.0 30'21blue gum71.5 30'22blue gum38.5 20' Remove23blue gum38.5 20'24blue gum50.0 20' Remove25blue gum62.0 20'TREE TAG 26 NOT USED27blue gum50.0 20'28blue gum49.5 20' Remove29blue gum30.5 40'30blue gum48.5 20' Remove31blue gum53.0 20'32blue gum26.0 20' Remove33blue gum32.0 20'34blue gum22.5 20'Remove35blue gum16.0 20' Remove36blue gum17.5 20' Remove37(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum80.5 60'38(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum70.0 60'39(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum53.0 60'40(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum44.0 60'41(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum61.0 60'42(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum82.0 60'43(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum42.0 25'TREE TAGS 44-66 NOT USEDExisting Tree InventoryPrepared By: Jake Minnick, PLA, ISA Certified Arborist #WE-11830ADBH Measurement Height: 54"Date of Evaluation: 06/01/2021686FKLQXVPROOHCalifornia pepper49.5 30' Remove696FKLQXVPROOHCalifornia pepper27.0 20' Remove706FKLQXVPROOHCalifornia pepper21.5 30' Remove716FKLQXVPROOHCalifornia pepper54.0 20' Remove726FKLQXVPROOHCalifornia pepper69.0 30' Remove736FKLQXVPROOHCalifornia pepper67.035' Remove746FKLQXVPROOHCalifornia pepper48.5 25' Remove756FKLQXVPROOHCalifornia pepper3.0 3' Remove766FKLQXVPROOHCalifornia pepper48.5 25' Remove776FKLQXVPROOHCalifornia pepper53.5 25' Remove78(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum35.5 30'79(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum20.0 20' Remove80(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum7.5 10' Remove81(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum8.5 6' Remove82(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum5.0 5' Remove83(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum11.0 15' Remove84(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum54.0 25' Protect85blue gum47.5 30' ProtectExisting Tree Inventory ContinuedINDICATES AN EXISTING TREE TO REMAININDICATES AN EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVEDTREE TAG NUMBERLEGENDQUANTITY60342691 MIN.3.5:1 MIN.TREE DISPOSITION TABLEEXISTINGPROTECTTOTAL REMOVALSPROPOSEDPROPOSED MITIGATION RATIO74TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ARE IN POOR HEALTH, ARE OVERCROWDED, EXHIBIT STRUCTURAL DEFECTS, ORCONFLICT WITH PROPOSED ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS, SUCH AS BUILDING LOCATIONS, A STORMWATER BASIN, A MULTI-USEPATH, AND ASSOCIATED GRADING. THESE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ENCROACH INTO THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ)OF TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL. ALL TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ARE RECOGNIZED AS INVASIVE SPECIES BYTHE CALIFORNIA INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL (CAL-IPC), AND EACH SPECIES HAS NATURALIZED ONSITE AND SPREAD TOOFFSITE LOCATIONS NEARBY.TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ONSITE SHOULD BE REMOVED, AND THEIR STUMPS GROUND DOWN TO A DEPTH OF 24".SEVERAL TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ARE LOCATED OFFSITE, ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN ACACIA CREEK TOP OFBANK BOUNDARY. THESE TREES SHOULD BE CUT FLUSH NEAR THE TOP OF THE ROOT COLLAR AND THE STUMPS AND ROOTSLEFT IN PLACE TO PROVIDE INTERIM STABILIZATION OF THE CREEK BANKS WHILE SUITABLE REPLACEMENT RIPARIAN SPECIESESTABLISH. THE PROJECT ARBORIST WILL FLAG TREES WITH STUMPS AND ROOTS THAT ARE TO REMAIN PRIOR TO THEINITIATION ANY TREE WORK.OFFSITE TREES PROPOSED TO REMAIN ALONG ACACIA CREEK SHOULD BE PRUNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THEPROJECT ARBORIST. IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT ALL TREES TO REMAIN CAN BE PRUNED TO ACCOMMODATE THEPROPOSED PROJECT. IN GENERAL, TREES TO REMAIN HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED IN MANY YEARS. MANY HAVE LARGEAMOUNTS OF DEAD WOOD THROUGHOUT THE CROWN, AND SEVERAL HAVE UNBALANCED CROWNS. MOST WILLREQUIRE A CROWN CLEANING TO REDUCE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH DEAD LIMB DROP AND SEVERAL WILL REQUIRE ACROWN REDUCTION TO ENSURE A BALANCED CROWN.A TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN IS PROPOSED FOR BOTH ONSITE AND OFFSITE TREE REMOVALS AT A MINIMUM 3.5:1REPLACEMENT RATIO. THIS EXCEEDS THE REQUIRED 1:1 REPLACEMENT RATIO SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 12.24 TREEREGULATIONS OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE BY 3.5X. ONSITE REPLACEMENT TREE SPECIES ARE PROPOSEDAS A MIXTURE OF NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE SELECTIONS BASED ON THEIR PROVEN SUCCESS UNDER LOCAL CLIMATICAND SOIL CONDITIONS.PRUNING, REMOVAL, AND REPLACEMENT PLANProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectRemoveProtectProtectProtectRemoveProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectTree TagBotanical Name Common NameDiameter at BreastHeight (in.)Approx. Dripline ØDisposition67(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXVblue gum55.5 45' ProtectONSITE REMOVALSOFFSITE REMOVALS1610(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A42ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGEEXISTING TREE INVENTORY & REMOVALSPage 82 of 171 W WWWWWWSDSDSDSDSDSSS S SSSS^^BUILDING #1BUILDING #2BUILDING #3BUILDING #4BUILDING #5BUILDING #6BUILDING #7BUILDING #8BUILDING #9BUILDING #11BUILDING #12BUILDING #13BUILDING #14BUILDING #15BUILDING #16BUILDING #17BUILDING #18BUILDING #19BUILDING #20BUILDING #21BUILDING #22BUILDING #23BUILDING #24BUILDING #25BUILDING #26BUILDING #27BUILDING #10SWSSPROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC WATERLEGENDPROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC SEWERPROPOSED PRIVATE 12" HDPE STORM DRAINSSEXISTING 18" PUBLIC SEWER MAINWEXISTING 12" PUBLIC WATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTSDRWPROPOSED RECYCLED WATER MAINN:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\C4_Site Plan.dwg, C4, Jun 01, 2021 8:36am, ngwaltersJune 1, 2021600 TANK FARM0feet801"=40'40120PRELIMINARY SITE PLANC41. SEE SHEET C5 FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTSNOTE:DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE & METERFIRE SPRINKLER SERVICEFW(1) 2-bed unit, 2nd Floor(1) 1-bed unit, 3rd Floor(1) 2-bedunit(1) 1-bed unit, 3rd Floor(1) Studio unit, Ground Floor(1) Studio unit, 2nd Floor(1) Studio unit, Ground Floor(1) 1-bed unit, 2nd Floor(1) 1-bed unit, 3rd Floor(1) 1-bed unit, 2nd Floor(1) 1-bed unit, 2nd FloorPage 83 of 171 Page 84 of 171 Department Name: Community Development Cost Center: 4003 For Agenda of: April 21, 2020 Placement: Public Hearing Estimated Time: 15 Minutes FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner SUBJECT: INITIATION OF A PROJECT TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM BP -SP TO C-S-SP TO ALLOW FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF 280 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. PROJECT INCLUDES AUTHORIZATION OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RECOMMENDATION Receive a summary presentation on the project proposal from staff and the project applicant and consider directing staff to proceed with the following: 1. Proceed the processing of the Project through the entitlement process; and 2. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project and related entitlements; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a consultant services agreement with the consultant that best responds to the RFP in terms of qualifications, cost, and approach , that is funded consultant and staff costs) solely by the Applicant. DISCUSSION The purpose of the initiation of this Project before the City Council is to provide for the orderly processing of a Project Application requesting a General Plan Amendment and Rezone in a manner consistent with the overall goals of the community’s planning program and the requirements of State law. It is intended to assure that the General Plan is amended for good reason and with due consideration of community-wide interests, to achieve and maintain internal consistency of General Plan elements, and conformance with other guiding documents such as the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). Staff has determined that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance for the project requires preparation of a Project EIR that evaluates potential environmental effects and identifies project alternatives. If initiated by Council, an RFP (Attachment A) will be published on the City’s website and distributed to consultants with relevant experience in the preparation of a project-level EIR with similar environmental issues and constraints. Item 8 Packet Page 59Page 85 of 171 Background The site is composed of 11.1 contiguous acres at the northeast corner of the designated Santa Fe realignment and Tank Farm Road. It is comprised of two separate parcels: APN: 053 -421-06 and APN: 053-421-02. The site slopes from the northwest to southeast, with site elevations at 210 feet at the top of the Flower Mound, and 150 feet at the Acacia Creek/Tank Farm Road headwall. Acacia Creek borders the project on the east, although the creek area itself is located on the adjacent parcel to the east. Figure 1: Conceptual Site Plan The project site is currently zoned Business Park (BP-SP) within the AASP. The BP zone as well as the AASP prohibit residential uses at this location. The project application proposes to amend the AASP and rezone the property to Commercial Services (C-S-SP) zone to allow for a mixed- use project, similar to what has been approved on the adjacent property at 650 Tank Farm March 5, 2019, Council Agenda Report for the Ordinance Adoption of 650 Tank Farm: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=91166&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk). The proposed mixed-use project consists of 280 residential units and approximately 15,000 square feet of commercial space. The residential units are provided within three different housing types: 140 townhomes, 100 stacked flat units, and 40 studio and one-bedroom units over the commercial structures. The townhome and stacked flat units are intended as ownership units, while the mixed-use units will likely be a rental product (Attachment B). The project will be required to construct or contribute to several major improvements to transportation infrastructure as identified by the Circulation Element and AASP including the Santa Fe/Tank Farm Road roundabout, Santa Fe re-alignment, and associated improvements for Santa Fe Road including two travel lanes and Class IV bike paths. The full extent to fair share contributions and/or mitigation measures to implement transportation projects will be fully evaluated and defined through the development review process. Policy Context Land Use Designation. The Business Park land use designation provides for research and development and light manufacturing in a campus setting. The Project’s proposed Services & Manufacturing designation provides for a wide range of uses including business and professional services, medical services, research and development, and retail sales. It also provides for residential uses as part of a mixed-use project with a residential density of up to 24 density units/acre. Item 8 Packet Page 60 http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx? id=91166&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Page 86 of 171 The development conceptually identified for the project site would be consistent with allowances for mixed-use projects in the Services & Manufacturing land use designation. The City’s General Plan provides several policies regarding mixed-use development. The following provides a discussion and initial analysis of the proposed project in regard to these policies. Major City Goal. Housing was determined to be one of the most important, highest priority goals for the City to accomplish over the 2019-21 Financial Plan. The goal states: Facilitate the production of housing with an update of the Housing Element, including an emphasis on affordable housing (including unhoused people) and workforce housing through the lens of climate action and regionalism. Housing Element. The Housing Element (HE) Policy 6.10 encourages infill residential development and the promotion of higher-residential density where appropriate1. Land Use Element. In accordance with the Housing Major City Goal cited above and Housing Element policies and programs, the proposed General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and Rezone would allow for the development of a mixed-use project. The proposed project would facilitate several General Plan policies such as: Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.2.62, as the project site provides a variety of housing types within close proximity to public transportation and is located within walking distance to MindBody Headquarters, SESLOC Federal Credit Union, and other nearby employers, as well as retail uses and other services of the Marigold Shopping Center; and LUE Policy 1.53, as the project would help reduce the gap between housing demand and supply by supporting additional residential units Additionally, the LUE encourages mixed-use projects where they can be found to be compatible with existing and potential future development. The LUE encourages compatible mixed uses in commercial districts and specifically discusses residential and commercial mixed use (LUE Policy 2.3.6)4. LUE Policy 10.1 (Neighborhood Access) states that all residences should be within close proximity to food outlets including grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and community gardens. 1 HE Policy 6.10. To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. 2 LUE Policy 1.5. Jobs/Housing Relationship. The gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply should not increase. 3 LUE Policy 2.2.6. Neighborhood Characteristics. The City shall promote livability, quiet enjoyment, and safety for all residents. Characteristics of quality neighborhoods vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, but often include one or more of the following characteristics: A mix of housing type styles, density, and affordability. Design and circulation features that create and maintain a pedestrian scale. Nearby services and facilities including schools, parks, retail (e.g., grocery store, drug store), restaurants and cafes, and community centers or other public facilities. A tree canopy and well -maintained landscaping. A sense of personal safety…. Convenient access to public transportation. Well-maintained housing and public facilities. 4 LUE Policy 2.3.6. Housing and Businesses. The City shall encourage mixed use projects, where appropriate and compatible with existing and planned development on the site and with adjacent and nearby properties. The City shall support the location of mixed-use projects and community and neighborhood commercial centers near major activity nodes and transportation corridors / transit opportunities where appropriate. Item 8 Packet Page 61Page 87 of 171 LUE Policy 10.4 (Encourage Walkability) states that the City shall encourage projects which provide for and enhance active and environmentally sustainable modes of transportation, such as pedestrian movement, bicycle access, and transit services. The immediate surrounding neighborhood provides services, facilities and resources within a half mile of the project site: a day care, drug stores, restaurants, schools, a major grocery store, a bank, several places of worship, a fitness center, medical and/or dental services, personal care services, and a full- service supermarket are currently located within biking or walking distance of the project site. Airport Area Specific Plan. The AASP was initially adopted on August 23, 2005 and provides a planning framework for future growth and development within the approximately 1,500-acre area along the City’s southern boundary. The AASP sets forth guidance for land use, conservation and resource management, community design, circulation and transportation improvements, and utilities and services needed in the planning area. The AASP has been amended multiple times, with the last amendment adopted in March 2019, with the approval of the 650 Tank Farm project. Amendments to the AASP require review by the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow for the site to be developed with a mixed- use project. This would accommodate the continuation and expansion of the residential uses in the vicinity (650 Tank Farm). This residential expansion is an example of urban infill development that would improve and enhance the supply of housing near jobs and services, and is consistent with many General Plan goals, policies, and programs (as discussed above). The project would need to conform to all relevant design considerations and performance standards. Consistency COVID-19 Orders and Current Fiscal Contingency Plan. This activity, planning for housing production, is presently allowed under the State and Local emergency orders associated with COVID-19. This Project, the EIR, and associated staff work, will be reimbursed by the Developer directly or indirectly through fees and therefore consistent with the guidance of the City’s Fiscal Health Contingency Plan. Next Steps Once all application materials are collected and the project applications are deemed complete, and environmental review has been conducted pursuant to CEQA, public hearings will be scheduled before the ALUC and Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC will provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission (PC). The PC will review the project and associated entitlements for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City development standards and guidelines, with a recommendation to City Council for final action. Associated entitlements are envisioned at this time to include: Environmental Impact Determination, General Plan Map Amendment (includes rezoning), Specific Plan Amendment, Minor Subdivision, Minor Use Permit, and Development Review (Major). Public Engagement Consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) Manual and the City’s Municipal Code, the project was noticed per the City’s notification requirements for Development Projects. Newspaper legal advertisements were posted in the New Times ten days prior to the hearing. Additionally, postcards were sent to both tenants and owners of properties located within 300 feet of the project site ten days before the hearing. Item 8 Packet Page 62Page 88 of 171 CONCURRENCE The project was previously reviewed by other City Departments through a pre-application meeting held on June 6, 2019 including Community Development (Planning and Engineering) and Public Works (Transportation), Fire, Building, Utilities, and Administration (Natural Resources). No additional concurrence has occurred at this time as further review from the other departments is dependent on the results of the Council initiation. The project entitlements will be routed to the various City Departments to ensure that staff has adequate information for a complete application to evaluate the project and identify any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. All City Departments will be providing comments that will be incorporated into the staff reports and recommended resolution/ordinance as conditions of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The CEQA does not apply to the recommended action in this report because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378. Future applications for entitlements will be subject to CEQA at the time the applications are filed. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: N/A Funding Identified: No Fiscal Analysis: Funding Sources Total Budget Available Current Funding Request Remaining Balance Annual Ongoing Cost General Fund N/A State Federal Fees Other: Total There is no fiscal impact associated with initiating project applications. The developer will reimburse the City for all staff and consultant fees associated with processing the applications. As part of the applications, the applicant will be required to prepare a fiscal impact study that would analyze the project’s effects on the City. Due to the size of the project, the applicant will be paying for actual costs for staff and consultant time rather than a flat fee to process all of the required permits and to coordinate the preparation of an EIR. Item 8 Packet Page 63Page 89 of 171 ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the consideration of the application. The Council should provide findings in reference to specific General Plan provisions that identify the project as inconsistent with overall General Plan policy direction. a. Decline to authorize the RFP or deferred to a future time. 2. Continue consideration of the application to a future date. The Council can continue review of the project to a future meeting. If this alternative is taken, the Council should provide direction to staff regarding additional information needed to provide further direction regarding the project application. a. Provide direction regarding an amended RFP and continue authorization of the RFP to a date uncertain. This alternative is recommended if the City Council would like to review and consider major revisions to the RFP. 3. Initiate the project application and provide direction regarding an amended RFP. The Council may authorize the RFP based on finalization and approval by the Community Development Director. This alternative is recommended if the Council provides direction resulting in minor revisions to the RFP. Attachments: a - Request for Proposal to Prepare EIR b - COUNCIL READING FILE - Project Proposal Item 8 Packet Page 64Page 90 of 171 Tuesday April 21, 2020 Regular Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 6:01 p.m. by Mayor Harmon, with all Council Members teleconferencing. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Andy Pease, Erica A. Stewart, Vice Mayor Aaron Gomez, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Absent: None City Staff Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Teresa Purrington, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. PRESENTATIONS 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION Mayor Harmon presented a Proclamation declaring April to be “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” to RISE. 2. ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND RESILIENCY PROJECT PLAN PRESENTATION City Manager Derek Johnson and Assistant City Manager Shelly Stanwyck presented a PowerPoint on the Economic Recovery and Resiliency Project Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None End of Public Comment--- CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 3 thru 7. 3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. Page 91 of 171 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 21, 2020 Page 2 4. MINUTES REVIEW – APRIL 7, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held on April 7, 2020. 5. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE ON-CALL SERVICES REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS – STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Approve the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide Structural Engineering Design Services, Specification No. 5009.2020.SE; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected consulting firms; and 3. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend Purchase Orders for individual consultant service contracts not-to-exceed the authorized project budget; and 4. Authorize the City Engineer to amend or extend the agreement for services in accordance with its terms and within the available annual budget. 6. AGREEMENT WITH ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL TO PREPARE THE COMPREHENSIVE HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND ADAPTATION STRATEGIES FOR THE GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT RESILIENT SAN LUIS OBISPO) CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the Community Development Director to enter into an agreement with Ascent Environmental in the amount of $287,500 to prepare the comprehensive hazard and vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies for the General Plan Safety Element update funded through the Caltrans Climate Change Adaptation Grant, “Resilient SLO.” 7. RECEIVE AND FILE THE 2020 AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEXUS STUDY CARRIED 5-0, to receive and file the 2020 Affordable Housing Nexus Study, which completes a significant Housing Major City Goal task. RECESS Council recessed at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened at 7:22 p.m., with all Council Members present. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 8. INITIATION OF A PROJECT TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM BP -SP TO C-S- SP TO ALLOW FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF 280 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND AUTHORIZATION OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Council Members Pease noted her Ex Parte Communication with Steve Pack, Applicant’s Representative regarding the project. Council Member Christianson, Council Member Stewart, Vice Mayor Gomez, and Mayor Harmon reported having no Ex Parte Communications. Community Development Director Michael Codron and Associate Planner Kyle Bell provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Page 92 of 171 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 21, 2020 Page 3 Public Comments: Stephen Peck End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1. Proceed the processing of the Project through the entitlement process; and 2. Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project and related entitlements; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a consultant services agreement with the consultant that best responds to the RFP in terms of qualifications, cost, and approach, that is funded (consultant and staff costs) solely by the Applicant. With the added direction to include requested changes by the Applicant, staff to work toward a Development Agreement or other enforceable mechanism, with the applicant to accomplish the infrastructure scope, the locals preference and other areas as determined by staff and to include early feedback from the Active Transportation Committee and Planning Commission for the conceptual review and scoping. 9. APPROVAL OF THE UPDATED EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE DISASTER LEADERSHIP PLAN Fire Chief Keith Aggson and Management Analyst James Blattler provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve the Comprehensive Disaster Leadership Plan (CDLP) as the updated 2011 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). 10. 2020 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM City Attorney Christine Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None End of Public Comment--- Page 93 of 171 San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 21, 2020 Page 4 ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to: 1.Adopt Resolution No. 11112 (2020 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, establishing the City Legislative Action Platform for 2020 and appointing the council member and staff person to act as liaison between the City of San Luis Obispo and the League of California Cities;” and 2.Appoint the Mayor, City Attorney, and City Manager to act as the primary legislative liaisons between the League of California Cities and the City of San Luis Obispo. With changes proposed during the meeting. 11.DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING PROCLAIMING THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY REGARDING COVID-19 PANDEMIC City Manager Derek Johnson provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: None End of Public Comment--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 11113 (2020 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, proclaiming the continuing existence of a local emergency regarding the COVID- 19 Pandemic. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., via teleconference. Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 05/05/2020 Page 94 of 171 CityofSanLuisObispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Agenda ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Teleconference Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment. Additionally, members of the Active Transportation Committee are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are encouraged to participate in Council meetings in the following ways: 1.Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view: View the Webinar: Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6454527288375917837 Webinar ID: 915-314-723 2.Public Comment - The Active Transportation Committee will still be accepting public comment. Public comment can be submitted in the following ways: Mail or Email Public Comment Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Emails sent after 3:00 PM and up until public comment is opened on the item – will be archived and distributed to Advisory Body members the day after the meeting. Emails will not be read aloud during meetings. Verbal Public Comment o Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to the Committee Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting o During the meeting – Verbal comments may be made by joining the webinar (instructions above). Verbal comments are limited to three minutes. https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/ register/6454527288375917837 mailto:cityclerk@sl ocity.org Page 95 of 171 Active Transportation Committee Agenda July 16, 2020 Page 2 All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting. MISSION: The purpose of the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) is to provide oversight and policy direction on matters related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to bicycling and walking outside the City. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Jonathan Roberts ROLL CALL : Committee Members Thomas Arndt, Lea Brooks (vice chair), Donette Dunaway, Timothy Jouet, Briana Martenies, Russell Mills, Jonathan Roberts chair) PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the June 11, 2020 Special Meeting ACTION ITEM 2. 600 TANK FARM ROAD ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES BELL – 60 MINUTES) 1) BACKGROUND A project at 600 Tank Farm Road has been initiated to redevelop 11.1 acres at the northeast corner of Tank Farm Road and the designated location for realignment of Santa Fe Rd. The applicant has submitted a conceptual application as an early review of the project prior to the formal application submission process. Given the early stage of the approval process, this meeting is intended to receive comments on active transportation issues that should be considered as the application develops further and work begins on the environmental study. 2) PROJECT INFORMATION The 600 Tank Farm site is comprised of two separate parcels: APN: 053-421-06 and APN: 053- 421-02. The project site is currently zoned Business Park within the Airport Area Specific Plan AASP). The AASP prohibits residential uses at this location and the project application proposes to amend the AASP and rezone the property to Commercial Services zone to allow for a mixed use project, similar to what has been proposed on the adjacent property at 650 Tank Farm. The mixed-use project consists of 280 residential units and approximately 15,000 square feet of Page 96 of 171 Active Transportation Committee Agenda July 16, 2020 Page 3 commercial space. The residential units are provided within three different housing types: 140 townhomes, 100 stacked flat units, and 40 studio and one-bedroom units over the commercial structures. 3) PROPOSED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES As described in the Conceptual Application submitted by the applicant (See Attachment 2), the bicycle and pedestrian facilities proposed as part of the development project are summarized as follows: Tank Farm Road Widening o Widen westbound direction along the project frontage per Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) to provide: 2 westbound auto lanes Width for center median/turn lane Sidewalk with parkway Class IV sidewalk-level cycle track (Modified from AASP, which proposed Class II bike lanes) Class I path between north-south creek path and Tank Farm/Santa Fe intersection Santa Fe Road Extension to the North o New extension of Santa Fe Road north of Tank Farm, aligned west of the existing Santa Fe Road alignment south of Tank Farm. Will ultimately connect with Prado Road extension to the north. Cross section includes: 2 auto lanes (Modified from AASP, which proposes 4 auto lanes) Center median/turn lane Sidewalks with parkway (interim installation w/ no sidewalk on west side—to be completed by Chevron development) Class IV protected bike lanes (Modified from AASP, which proposed Class II bike lanes. Interim installation with Class II bike lane on west side—to be upgraded to Class IV with Chevron development) Tank Farm/Santa Fe Extension Intersection o New roundabout (traffic study will guide sizing/geometrics) North-South Creek Path o New north-south Class I path along west side of creek, connecting Tank Farm Road north to Damon Garcia Park pathways Connection to Adjacent 650 Tank Farm o Proposed ped/bike/emergency access only bridge to adjacent 650 Tank Farm development to the east. Since the City’s Active Transportation Plan has not yet been adopted by the City Council, the proposed facilities will be evaluated for consistency with the currently adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. Proposed bicycle facilities in the current Bicycle Transportation Plan relative to this project include a Class I Shared Use Path on Tank Farm Road, a north-south Class I path along the creek connecting to Damon Garcia Sports Fields, Class II bike lanes on Santa Fe Road, and retaining existing Class II bike lanes on Tank Farm. As shown in the above summary list, the applicant proposes to upgrade facilities in several locations to align with the preliminary concepts presented as part of the ATP, which prioritize Class IV protected bike lanes along collector and arterial streets. Page 97 of 171 Active Transportation Committee Agenda July 16, 2020 Page 4 Additional summary maps are provided in Attachment 3 to help convey the proposed pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within the greater vicinity of the proposed project site. Staff Recommendation: Receive initial comments on the 600 Tank Farm project as submitted by the applicant regarding the project’s consistency with the Bicycle Transportation Plan. Attachment 2: 600 Tank Farm Rd Conceptual Application Attachment 3: 600 Tank Farm Rd Maps ACTION ITEM 3. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY RECOVERY FUKUSHIMA – 45 MINUTES) The Public Review DRAFT Climate Action Plan (CAP) for Community Recovery is currently open for review. The CAP establishes a community-wide goal of carbon neutrality by 2035, adopts sector specific goals, and provides foundational actions to establish a trajectory towards achieving that goal while also recovering from the economic impacts of COVID-19. Regarding Active Transportation, the CAP sets the policy framework as well as certain actions for achieving climate neutrality by 2035 including: Connected 1.1 – Establish a consistent method for tracking and reporting mode split metrics. Connected 1.2 – Research and develop an approach to a “Mobility as a Service” platform for people to easily use all modes of low carbon mobility in the City. Connected 2.1 – Complete Active Transportation plan and begin implementation immediately. Connected 2.2 – Launch micro mobility program by 2021 See Attachment 4 for an excerpt on the CAP on Pillar 4: Connected Community for more detail on these actions. The complete Public Review Draft of the CAP can be found at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/office-of- sustainability/climate-action/climate-action-plan-1949 In January 2019, the ATC received an update on the CAP. At this meeting, the ATC can provide comments on the Public Review DRAFT. The document is open for public review until July 22nd and the City Council will consider adoption on August 18th. Staff Recommendation: Receive comments from the committee on the Public Review DRAFT Climate Action Plan. Attachment 4: CAP Pillar 4: Connected Community ADJOURNMENT https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/office-of- sustainability/climate-action/climate-action-plan-1949https://www.slocity.org/government/department- directory/city-administration/office-of- sustainability/climate-action/climate-action- plan-1949 Page 98 of 171 Active Transportation Committee Agenda July 16, 2020 Page 5 The next Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee is scheduled for Thursday , September 17 , 20 20, at 6:00 p.m., by teleconference. ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes of the June 11, 2020 Special Meeting 2. 600 Tank Farm Rd Conceptual Application 3. 600 Tank Farm Rd Maps 4. CAP Pillar 4: Connected Community The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. Agenda related writings and documents are available online or for public inspection at the Public Works Department, 919 Palm Street, SLO. Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following web address: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/fol/60965/Row1.aspxhttp://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/fol/60965/ Row1.aspx Page 99 of 171 Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of July 16, 2020 Page 1 Minutes ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Thursday, July 16, 2020 Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee was called to order on Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 6:05 p.m. via teleconference by Chair Roberts. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Thomas Arndt, Lea Brooks (vice chair), Timothy Jouet (joined at 6:10), Briana Martenies, Russell Mills, and Jonathan Roberts (chair) Absent: Donette Dunaway Staff: Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima, Associate Planner Kyle Bell, and Recording Secretary Lareina Gamboa PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. --End of Public Comment-- APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Review Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee Meeting of June 11, 2020: ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MILLS, CARRIED 5-0-2 (COMMITTEE MEMBERS DUNAWAY AND JOUET ABSENT), to approve the Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee Meeting of June 11, 2020, as presented. Public Comment None. --End of Public Comment-- ACTION ITEMS 2. 600 Tank Farm Road Active Transportation Facilities Associate Planner Kyle Bell and Active Transportation Manager Fukushima provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries in regards to the 600 Tank Farm Road mixed- use development and its relation to Active Transportation projects in the city. The applicant for Page 100 of 171 Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of July 16, 2020 Page 2 the project, represented by Darin Cabral from RRM Design Group, also provided a presentation and responded to questions. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ARNDT, CARRIED 6-0-1 (COMMITTEE MEMBER DUNAWAY ABSENT), to recommend providing committee suggestions to staff and the applicant for consideration as the project progresses. Public Comment None. --End of Public Comment-- 3. Climate Action Plan For Community Recovery Active Transportation Manager Fukushima provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Committee inquiries in regards to the Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery and its relation to the Active Transportation Plan. Public Comment None. --End of Public Comment-- ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ARNDT, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, CARRIED 6-0-1 (COMMITTEE MEMBER DUNAWAY ABSENT), to thank City staff for their work putting together the Climate Action Plan, and moves to request that the list of Climate Action Plan comments recorded during the meeting be included for consideration. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The next Regular Active Transportation Committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., by teleconference. APPROVED BY THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 08/20/2020 Page 101 of 171 July 16, 2020 -- Active Transportation Committee Comments on 600 Tank Farm Committee Member Lea Brooks 1) The project should consider bicycle and pedestrian connections along Tank Farm Rd to improve east-west connections between Higuera and Broad Streets 2) The project should study bicycle and pedestrian impacts to the Broad/Tank Farm Rd intersection 3) Concerned about connecting the Acacia Creek Path to a wrong way Class IV bikeway 4) Consider the potential of connecting Clarion Court to Fiero Lane as an alternative to Tank Farm Road for bikes and peds 5) If Hawthorne Elementary is the designated school for this site, consider how children will walk and bike there 6) Consider what possible role a bridge across the Railroad Safety Trail at Industrial Way could do to provide access to the east side of the railroad tracks 7) Consider the role that bike lanes on Industrial Road could play to improve access to the site and avoid busy arterial streets like Tank Farm 8) Concerned about the impact widening Tank Farm Road to 5 lanes would have on bicycle and pedestrian comfort levels. Committee Member Thomas Arndt 1) Suggests the design of roundabout at Tank Farm / Santa Fe should separate bike and ped modes 2) Requests that the Acacia Creek Path have adequate connections to other bikeway and pedestrian facilities 3) Suggests considering other options before using bollards on the bike/ped bridge across creek to 650 Tank Farm. If bollards are the only option, make safe as possible. Page 102 of 171 4) Avoid bike facility designs that encourage wrong way riding. Committee Member Russell Mills 1) Recommends avoiding multilane road on Tank Farm to minimize bike/ped impacts. Consider not widening Tank Farm Road for multilanes 2) Ensure adequate sidewalk connections throughout internal development 3) Suggests more separation than 2 feet between Class IV bikeway and motor traffic. Suggests adding a parkway between the bike and motor vehicle modes. Committee Member Briana Marteneis 1) Recommends that pathways for pedestrians throughout the development are direct Committee Member Tim Jouet 1) Please look for ways to incorporate design elements of the forthcoming Active Transportation Plan as much as possible into the project 2) Recommends to incorporate slower roadway speeds where possible 3) Consider locating the bridge to 650 Tank Farm farther north 4) Please provide more separation between ped/bike/motor vehicle modes on Tank Farm Road cross section Committee Member Jonathan Roberts 1) Suggests that a lot of thought be put into how the project will provide good bike/ped connectivity to destinations outside of the project Page 103 of 171 Page 104 of 171 Meeting Date: August 17, 2020 Item Number: 2 Item No. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner PROJECT ADDRESS: 600 Tank Farm FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0216-2020 APPLICANT: Covelop Holding, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Stephen Peck For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING The project application includes proposals to amend the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) to rezone the property to Commercial Services (C-S-SP) zone to allow for a mixed- use project, similar to what has been proposed on the adjacent property 650 Tank Farm. The mixed-use project consists of 280 residential units and approximately 15,000 square feet (SF) of commercial space. The residential units are provided within three different housing types: 140 townhomes, 100 stacked flat units, and 40 studio and one- bedroom units over the commercial structures. The townhome and stacked flat units are intended as ownership units, while the mixed-use units will likely be a rental product (Attachment 1, Project Plans). General Location: The site is composed of 11.1 contiguous acres at the northeast corner of the designated Santa Fe re-alignment and Tank Farm Road. The site slopes from the northwest to southeast. Acacia Creek borders the project on the east. Present Use: Off-site Vehicle Storage Zoning: Business Park within the Airport Area Specific Plan (BP-SP) General Plan: Business Park Surrounding Uses: East: Mobile Home Park West: Undeveloped County Land North: Damien Garcia Sports Fields South: Undeveloped County Land 2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN Design details: Contemporary architecture, with gable roofs with exposed rafters, and flat/shed roofs for commercial structures, covered entries and balconies, internal landscape pedestrian corridors Materials: Stucco siding, horizontal/vertical lap siding, wood panels, metal and composite roofs (colors and materials board not available at this time). Figure 1: Subject Property Page 105 of 171 ARCH-0216-2020 (600 Tank Farm) Page 2 3.0 NEXT STEPS The project was conceptually reviewed by the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) on July 17, 2020. Following this ARC conceptual review the project will be scheduled for conceptual review by the Planning Commission (PC). Following conceptual review, the applicant will consider feedback from the ATC, ARC, and PC and prepare a formal application for complete review. Once all application materials are collected and the project is deemed complete, and environmental review has been completed, the project will proceed with review hearings to be scheduled before the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), ARC, County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), PC, and City Council for final review of the project. 4.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, AASP and applicable City policies and standards, to provide the applicant and staff with initial feedback on the proposed conceptual design. Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104 Airport Area Specific Plan: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4294 5.0 AASP DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS Highlighted Sections Discussion Items AASP Chapter 5 – Community Design § Goal 5.1 Building Orientation and Setback The AASP states that buildings should be designed with a well-defined streetscape edge that unifies and enhances the character of the development areas and that supports pedestrian activity through its site planning and design. The ARC should provide initial feedback regarding the location of buildings and parking areas as viewed from the public right-of-way. Figure 2: Rendering internal of the residential portion of the project Page 106 of 171 ARCH-0216-2020 (600 Tank Farm) Page 3 § Goal 5.4 Parking The AASP states that vehicular parking areas should be designed to be in scale with and visually subordinate to the development and landscape setting. The ARC should discuss the proposed parking layout in terms of minimizing the visual impact associated with large areas of parking and pedestrian circulation. § Goals 5.9-14 Architectural Character The AASP is designated to be primarily a “work” environment (as opposed to a retail or residential environment). Given the business, service, and manufacturing uses proposed for the area, “function” will typically be the primary generator of built form for future development, but this does not suggest that the aesthetic character is any less important. The ARC should provide initial feedback regarding architectural styles as portrayed in the conceptual renderings of the project. CDG Chapter 5 – Residential Project Design Guidelines § 5.4: Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design The CDG states that multi-family and clustered housing projects tend to generate larger parking areas and provide less private open space. If not properly designed, parking can dominate a multi-family site, and open space may only be provided as “left over” areas, unrelated to other project features, that are not usable for outdoor activities, and expose residents to uncomfortable noise levels. The ARC should discuss the residential layout and of the multi-family structures specifically in regard to common and private open space areas, proximity to the creek and other pedestrian circulation areas. 6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS/ASSOCIATED STUDIES The application provided to assist with the conceptual review does not include sufficient information to determine compliance with all development standards relevant to the project site (i.e. setbacks, lot coverage, floor area ratio, etc.), the list below is a partial list of development standards that were identifiable in the project plans. Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Creek Setback 35 feet 35 feet Maximum Height of Structures 35 feet 35 feet Density Units (DU) 255.52 DU 266.4 DU Total # Parking Spaces 458 (8% reduction) 497 *2019 Zoning Regulations & AASP Development Standards 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 7.1 Project Description 7.2 Project Plans Page 107 of 171 Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Monday, August 17, 2020 Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, August 17, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Allen Root. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Michael DeMartini, Micah Smith, Vice Chair Christie Withers and Chair Allen Root Absent: Commissioners Richard Beller and Mandi Pickens Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None End of Public Comment-- CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1.Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of August 3, 2020. ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SMITH CARRIED 4-0-2 (Commissioners Beller and Pickens absent), to approve the minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of August 3, 2020. Page 108 of 171 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of August 17, 2020 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.Project address: 650 Tank Farm Road; Case #: ARCH-0755-2019; Zone: C-S-SP; Agera Grove Investments, LLC, owner/applicant. Review of a mixed-use development that includes a 17,500 square foot, two-story commercial structure, 249 residential units that are housed within 18, three-story structures, and a 4,325 square-feet single story clubhouse with a creek setback exception request to allow a third-floor creek setback of 0 feet where 10 feet is normally required. The project is consistent with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review, adopted on February 5, 2019. Contract Planner Brandi Cummings presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Applicant representatives, Pam Ricci and Scott Martin with RRM Design Group, responded to Commissioner inquiries. Public Comments: None End of Public Comment-- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DEMARTINI CARRIED 4-0-2 (Commissioners Beller and Pickens absent), to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project with the following recommendations: Vary the backside elevations of Townhome Buildings A and F (the side where garages interface with the drive aisle) to address articulation and massing. Suggestions include: adjusting tonality and brickwork, providing contrast, providing materiality, applying a mix of techniques and aesthetic details, and demonstrating a higher level of attention to provide four-sided architecture. 3.Project address: 600 Tank Farm Road; Case #: ARCH-0216-2020; Zone: BP-SP; Covelop Holdings, LLC, applicant. Conceptual review of a mixed-use project consisting of 280 residential units and 15,000 square feet of commercial space, the project also includes an amendment to the Airport Area Specific Plan to rezone the property from Business Park (BP - SP) to Commercial Services (C-S-SP), and an associated and a General Plan Map Amendment. The project will include preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Applicant representative, Scott Martin with RRM Design Group and Damien Mavis with Covelop, responded to Commissioner inquiries. Page 109 of 171 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of August 17, 2020 Page 3 Public Comments: None End of Public Comment-- ACTION: BY CONSENSUS (COMMISSIONERS BELLER AND PICKENS ABSENT) THE COMMISSION PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE APPLICANT: Incorporate more open space between the parking area and the commercial building creating a plaza for patrons of the commercial businesses. Incorporate more recessed windows to add articulation. Identify fencing along Acacia Creek, promote Acacia Creek to be accessible to residents as open space. Consider ways to engage the street along the commercial building to encourage exterior space along Tank Farm. Consider adding small patios that relate to the retail use. The residential and retail buildings would benefit from a common color pallet or more compatible architectural styles. Incorporate a serpentine pattern to the drive aisles on the site plan. Create an interfacing element between the wood siding and the shed roof on the residential units. Incorporate a pronounced rafter tail (similar to the SESLOC building) on the edges of the buildings to tie the commercial space with the residential. 4.Project Address: 830 Orcutt Road; Case #: ARCH-0764-2019, AFFH-0210-2020, USE- 0209-2020; Zone: Commercial Services (C-S) zone; 830 Orcutt, LLC, owner/applicant. Continued review of a mixed-use project consisting of 15 residential units and 1,500 square feet of commercial space within the Commercial Services (C-S) zone. The project includes a density bonus of 20% including a request for an alternative incentive to relax development standards for the creek setback requirement to allow a two foot setback, where 20 feet is normally required, a request to allow residential uses on the ground floor within the first 50 feet of the structure along the street frontage, and a request for a 10 percent parking reduction. Project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA). Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Applicant representative, Bryan Ridley with Bracket Architecture, responded to Commissioner inquiries. Public Comments: Karla Hodgson End of Public Comment-- Page 110 of 171 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of August 17, 2020 Page 4 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS CARRIED 4-0-2 (Commissioners Beller and Pickens absent), to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project with the following recommendations to the applicant: Consider improving the rhythm of the siding over the drive aisle by changing the material pattern to A-B-A-B (wood versus Indigo) rather than A-B-B-B. Considering incorporating planters to create a vehicle buffer around the garages and to introduce vertical landscaping to soften the architecture along the drive aisle. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. The next rescheduled Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission is scheduled for Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference. APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 09/14/2020 Page 111 of 171 Page 112 of 171 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Conceptual review of a mixed-use project consisting of 280 residential units and 15,000 square feet of commercial space, including a General Plan Map Amendment to rezone the property from Business Park (BP-SP) to Commercial Services (C-S-SP), and an associated Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment to address the rezone and the development plan for the mixed-use project proposal at the subject property. PROJECT ADDRESS: 600 Tank Farm Road BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 E-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0216-2020 FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to the applicant and staff on items to be addressed in plans submitted for formal entitlement review. SITE DATA SUMMARY The project application includes proposals for a General Plan Map Amendment to rezone the property from Business Park (BP-SP) to Commercial Services (C-S-SP) zone and an Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Amendment to allow for a mixed-use project. The BP zone as well as the AASP prohibit residential uses at this location. The project application proposes to amend the AASP and rezone the property to Commercial Services (C-S-SP) zone to allow for a mixed use project, similar to what has Applicant Covelop Holding, LLC Representative Stephen Peck Current Zoning BP-SP (Business Park within the Airport Area Specific Plan) Proposed Zoning C-S-SP (Commercial Services within the Airport Area Specific Plan) General Plan Current Business Park General Plan Proposed Commercial Services Site Area ~11.1 acres Environmental Status Final plans for the proposed project will require further environmental analysis. A Draft Environmental Impact Report is under preparation. Meeting Date: September 23, 2020 Item Number: 2 Time Estimate: 45 minutes Page 113 of 171 ARCH-0216-2020 (Conceptual) 600 Tank Farm Road Page 2 been proposed on the adjacent property 650 Tank Farm (Attachment 1, Project Description). The proposed mixed-use project consists of 280 residential units and approximately 15,000 square feet (SF) of commercial space. The residential units are provided within three different housing types: 140 townhomes, 100 stacked flat units, and 40 studio and one-bedroom units over the commercial structures. The townhome and stacked flat units are intended as ownership units, while the mixed-use units will likely be a rental product (Attachment 2, Project Plans). 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The purpose of conceptual review before the Planning Commission is to offer feedback to the applicant and staff as to whether the project’s conceptual site layout and building design is headed in the right direction before plans are further refined and formal entitlement applications are filed; and to specifically discuss concerns and questions related to land use consistency. 2.0 BACKGROUND On April 21, 2020, the City Council approved the initiation of the project and associated General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Specific Plan Amendment and authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The Council with a vote of 5:0 provided direction to the applicant and staff to work toward a Development Agreement to accomplish the needed planning area infrastructure outlined in the AASP and maximize housing opportunities for those individuals in geographic areas included in the City’s annual jobs- housing balance analysis (Attachment 3, Council Initiation 4.21.20). On July 16, 2020, the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) reviewed the conceptual design of the project and by consensus provided 21 directional items regarding the proposed bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, as well as consistency with the latest updates to the City’s Active Transportation Plan for the applicant to incorporate into the project design and associated materials (Attachment 4, ATC Report and Comments 7.16.20). On August 17, 2020, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the conceptual design of the project and by consensus provided nine directional items regarding building orientation in Figure 1: Project Rendering as seen from High Street. Figure 1: Rendering internal of the residential portion of the project Page 114 of 171 ARCH-0216-2020 (Conceptual) 600 Tank Farm Road Page 3 relation to site access and private/common open space areas, and provided comments on the architectural style of the project in terms of compatibility between the different uses for the applicant to incorporate into the project design and associated materials (Attachment 5, ARC Report and Draft Minutes 8.17.20). 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting The site is composed of 11.1 contiguous acres at the northeast corner of the designated Santa Fe Road realignment and Tank Farm Road. It is comprised of two separate parcels: APN: 053-421-06 and APN: 053-421-02. The site slopes from the northwest to southeast, with site elevations at 210 feet at the top of the Flower Mound, and 150 feet at the Acacia Creek/Tank Farm Road headwall. Acacia Creek borders the project on the east, although the creek area itself is located on the adjacent parcel to the east. Project Statistics The application provided to assist with the conceptual review does not include sufficient information to determine compliance with all development standards relevant to the project site (i.e. setbacks, lot coverage, floor area ratio, etc.); therefore, the list below is a partial list of development standards that were identifiable in the project plans. Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Creek Setback 35 feet 35 feet Maximum Height of Structures 35 feet 35 feet Density Units (DU) 255.52 DU 266.4 DU Total # Parking Spaces 458 (8% reduction) 497 *2019 Zoning Regulations & AASP Development Standards 4.0 DISCUSSION The conceptual review application is not intended to provide the necessary materials (supplemental studies) needed to provide a detailed environmental review or analysis of the project. Staff has identified a set of specific discussion items for Commission’s consideration. The following discussion items highlight the key issues the Commission should discuss and provide direction to the applicant and staff: 1. Specific Plan Amendment: The AASP was initially adopted on August 23, 2005 and provides a planning framework for future growth and development within the approximately 1,500 -acre area along the City’s southern boundary. The AASP sets forth guidance for land use, conservation and resource management, community design, circulation and transportation improvements, and utilities and services needed in the planning area. The AASP has been amended multiple times, with the last amendment adopted in March 2019, with the approval of the 650 Tank Farm General Plan Amendment, rezone and AASP Amendment. The existing General Plan Business Park land use designation provides for research and development and light manufacturing in a campus setting. The proposed General Plan Services & Manufacturing designation provides for a wide range of uses including business and professional services, medical services, research and development, and retail sales. It also provides for Page 115 of 171 ARCH-0216-2020 (Conceptual) 600 Tank Farm Road Page 4 residential uses as part of a mixed-use project with a residential density of up to 24 density units/acre. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow for the site to be developed with a mixed-use project. This would accommodate the continuation and expansion of the residential uses proposed in the vicinity (650 & 660 Tank Farm). 2. Airport Land Use Plan: The current and proposed county Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) and city airport compatibility regulations have significantly informed and influenced the location and extent of the proposed uses. The project is outside of the Runway Protection Zone and within Safety Area S-1c. Pursuant to the current ALUP, this safety area is very restrictive with residential density allowing only 0.2 dwelling units per acre, which equates to about 24 units on the 11.1 - acre portion of the site proposed for C-S-SP zoning. This residential density restriction is based on noise and safety information that is known to be outdated and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is now in the process of updating the ALUP so that it is consistent with the operational projections in the Airport Master Plan, and with the most recent version of the Caltrans Handbook. The extent of noise impacts is now known to be confined to properties south of Tank Farm Road in the vicinity of the project. The ALUC is reviewing its noise and safety zones which will be modified to reflect a more conventional configuration, similar to those found in the Caltrans Handbook and those used for other County airports. During the plan development process, the applicant team has consulted with ALUC staff and commissioners to determine the location of key ALUP regulatory zones on the property, and modified the product mix to be compatible with the anticipated updated ALUP policies and standards. The project will be dependent on the ALUP update, which is anticipated to be complete in 2021. As General Plan and Specific Plan amendments are proposed, the project will require review by the ALUC at a future date. 3. Site Layout and Building Design: The proposed project provides a mixed-use development within the Commercial Services zone. The project will be reviewed for consistency with Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.4 (Guidelines for Specific Commercial and Industrial Uses) and Chapter 5.4 (Multi-family and Clustered Housing Design). Mixed-use developments are conditionally allowed in the C-S-SP zoning district with a minor use permit. Discussion Item #1: The Commission should discuss whether the conceptual site layout and building design is compatible with adjacent uses. Specifically, the Commission should discuss and provide direction to the applicant and staff regarding the building orientation along the street frontages, parking throughout the site, and architectural styles in consideration of the context of the site and projects within the vicinity. 4. Sante Fe Intersection Re-configuration. The project will implement several major transportation features including the Santa Fe/Tank Farm Road roundabout, Santa Fe Road re- alignment, and associated improvements for Santa Fe Road including two travel lanes and Class IV bike paths. Santa Fe Road will be extended north along the west property line for approximately 475 to 500 feet to a temporary offset cul-de-sac. Longer term, this temporary terminus will be built as a 90-degree roundabout to connect Santa Fe Road to the Prado Road extension by the developers of the Chevron or Damon Garcia properties. Discussion Item #2: The Commission may provide comments, suggestions, or questions related to the reconfiguration Santa Fe Road and pedestrian and bicycle connections for the applicant and staff to address through the Draft EIR or associated application materials. Page 116 of 171 ARCH-0216-2020 (Conceptual) 600 Tank Farm Road Page 5 5.0 NEXT STEPS Following conceptual review, the applicant will consider feedback received from the ATC, ARC, and PC and prepare a formal application for complete review. Once all application materials are collected and the project is deemed complete, and environmental review has been completed, the project will proceed with review hearings to be scheduled before the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), ARC, ALUC, PC, and City Council for review of the project. Associated entitlements are envisioned at this time to include: General Plan Map Amendment (includes rezoning), Specific Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, Minor Subdivision, Minor Use Permit, and Development Review (Major). The City determined that the project would require the preparation of a Project EIR. Following the authorization by the City Council on April 21, 2020, the City has released a Request for Proposals (RFP) and selected a consultant (Rincon Consultants) to prepare the EIR. The City will hold a Notice of Preparation of an EIR public hearing with the PC at a later date. The EIR will evaluate project- specific and cumulative impacts, in addition to secondary effects that may occur as a result of implementation of mitigation measures and conditions of approval, noting the other large development projects (650 Tank Farm, 660 Tank Farm, San Luis Ranch, Froom Ranch, and Avila Ranch) currently under review by the City, in addition to existing and reasonably foreseeable development. 6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS A pre-application meeting was held on June 6, 2019, for an earlier design of a potential project, comments from other City Departments including Engineering, Transportation, Utilities, Fire, and Building have been provided to the applicant team outlining the necessity of the supplemental studies and materials requested in conjunction with the entitlement application submittal. The Transportation Division noted that a Traffic Impact Study would be required for the proposed project and that the realignment of Santa Fe Road south of Tank Farm is not expected at this time to be required as part of the project, but the roundabout would need to be designed to accommodate addition of the south leg of the intersection when the Santa Fe Road realignment occurs at a later date. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Description 2. Project Plans 3. Council Initiation Report and Minutes 4.21.20 4. ATC Report and Comments 7.16.20 5. ARC Report and Minutes 8.17.20 Page 117 of 171 CityofSanLuisObispo, Council Agenda, CityHall, 990PalmStreet, SanLuis Obispo Minutes - Draft Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, September 23, 2020 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., via teleconference, by Chair Dandekar. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Michael Hopkins, Steve Kahn, Nicholas Quincey, Michelle Shoresman, Mike Wulkan, Vice-Chair Robert Jorgensen, and Chair Hemalata Dandekar Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Principal Planner Tyler Corey, Contract Planner John Rickenbach, Associate Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant City Attorney Roy Hanley, and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None 1. CONSENT AGENDA – CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR JORGENSEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WULKAN, CARRIED 7-0-0 to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of September 9, 2020 with modifications. Page 118 of 171 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2020 Page 2 of 4 PUBLIC HEARING 2. Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) to subdivide Lot 7 of previously approved Tract 3096 into 11 parcels ranging in size from 0.30 to 2.77 acres, and Specific Plan Amendments (SPA) to the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (SLRSP) to increase the number of residential units from 580 to 654 for increased affordable housing, update of design guidelines for mixed-use development on the Neighborhood Commercial site, relocation of Community Garden location in previously approved Tract 3096, and minor updates to reduce the anticipated amount of floor area of commercial space from 150,000 square feet to 139,000 square feet and a reduction in office space from 100,000 to 97,000 square feet. An addendum has been prepared with a determination that the proposal is consistent with the certified Final EIR and Supplemental Final EIR for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. Project address: 1035 Madonna Road; Case #: SPEC-0172-2020 & SBDV-0173-2020; Zone: San Luis Ranch designations NG-10, NG-23, NG-30, AG and Neighborhood Commercial (NC); MI San Luis Ranch, LLC, applicant. Contract Planner John Rickenbach, Senior Planner Brian Leveille, and Community Development Director Michael Codron presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries. Applicant representatives, John Fowler (President/CEO People’s Self Help Housing) and Rachel Kovesdi (Planning Consultant), provided information on the development plan and responded to Commission inquiries. Chair Dandekar opened the public hearing. Public Comment: None Chair Dandekar closed the public hearing. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KAHN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WULKAN, CARRIED 5-1-1 (QUINCEY OPPOSED, HOPKINS RECUSED) to adopt a Resolution entitled, A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, IN ORDER TO ALLOW UP TO 139,300 SF OF COMMERCIAL, 97,000 SF OF OFFICE, AND 654 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE PLAN AREA; APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 3142 WITHIN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 3096 TO CREATE 11 LOTS IN THE NC ZONE OF THE SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR THE COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THESE LOTS, AS ALLOWED UNDER THE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT; AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED FINAL EIR AND FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR SAN LUIS Page 119 of 171 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2020 Page 3 of 4 RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ADDENDUM APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 18, 2020; AS REPRESENTED IN THE AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 (1035 MADONNA ROAD, SPEC-0172-2020)” amended as presented concerning COA 30 and COA 31. The Commission gave the following direction for inclusion in the Development Plan: Ensure that compatible design considerations are included for Lot 4 adjacent to the affordable housing. Ensure the loading/unloading area doesn’t infringe on the residential parking area for the affordable housing. Install a masonry wall instead of a wood fence and a 5 foot landscape buffer between the parking lot for lot 11 and the adjacent single family (NC-23) housing area to the south. Consider adding a pedestrian crossing of Dalidio Drive mid-block between the traffic circle and Madonna Road. Bike parking for Lot 11 should include charging stations for e-bikes and parking for large bikes, such as cargo bikes. RECESS The Commission recessed at 7:53 and reconvened at 8:05 with all Commissioners present. 3. Conceptual review of a mixed-use project consisting of 280 residential units and 15,000 square feet of commercial space, the project also includes a General Plan Map amendment and Airport Area Specific Plan amendment to rezone the property from Business Park (BP-SP) to Commercial Services (C-S-SP). The project will include preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Project address: 600 Tank Farm Road; Case #: ARCH-0216-2020; Zone: BP-SP; Covelop Holdings, LLC, applicant. Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries. Applicant representatives, Steven Peck of Peck Planning and Damien Mavis of Covelop, Inc., provided an overview of the project, focusing on traffic circulation, considerations for amending the land use, compatibility with the existing Airport Land Use plans, and the proposed housing affordability. Chair Dandekar opened the public hearing. Public Comment: Pam Ricci Chair Dandekar closed the public hearing. Page 120 of 171 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 23, 2020 Page 4 of 4 The Commission provided the following direction and comments to staff and the developer for possible enhancements to be included in their final proposal: Consider the circulation interrelationship of this and other nearby developments as a whole and their impact on bicycling and pedestrian connectivity in the immediate area as well as to further destinations in the City. Consider increasing the number of units. Ensure compatibility of the commercial services for this project and adjacent sites. Design of building adjacent to Tank Farm should be orientated to Tank Farm if they serve the general public rather than just the development. Provide a more prominent direct pedestrian connection between the residential and commercial areas – minimize crossing of parking areas. Consider broadening the proposed 1.5-mile local preference zone. Consider opportunities to enhance connectivity across the emergency bridge. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 4. Agenda Forecast – Principal Planner Tyler Corey provided an update of upcoming projects. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. The next Regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 14, 2020, via teleconference. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 10/14/2020 Page 121 of 171 Page 122 of 171 # Directional Item Response 1 include requested changes by the Applicant, staff to work toward a Development Agreement or other enforceable mechanism, with the applicant to accomplish the infrastructure scope, the locals preference and other areas as determined by staff and to include early feedback from the Active Transportation Committee and Planning Commission for the conceptual review and scoping. No longer applicable 2 The project should consider bicycle and pedestrian connections along Tank Farm Rd to improve east‐west connections between Higuera and Broad Streets Considered. Refer to the mitigation in the DEIR 3 The project should study bicycle and pedestrian impacts to the Broad/Tank Farm Rd intersection Refer to Traffic Study 4 Concerned about connecting the Acacia Creek Path to a wrong way Class IV bikeway No longer applicable. The connection has been revised to direct bicycle circulation to Santa Fe Road 5 Consider the potential of connecting Clarion Court to Fiero Lane as an alternative to Tank Farm Road for bikes and peds This request is outside the scope of this project 6 If Hawthorne Elementary is the designated school for this site, consider how children will walk and bike there This request is outside the scope of this project 7 Consider what possible role a bridge across the Railroad Safety Trail at Industrial Way could do to provide access to the east side of the railroad tracks This request is outside the scope of this project 8 Consider the role that bike lanes on Industrial Road could play to improve access to the site and avoid busy arterial streets like Tank Farm This request is outside the scope of this project 9 Concerned about the impact widening Tank Farm Road to 5 lanes would have on bicycle and pedestrian comfort levels. Noted. The design of the Tank Farm Road improvements have been directed by City staff. 10 Suggests the design of roundabout at Tank Farm / Santa Fe should separate bike and ped modes Noted City Council ‐ Rezone Initiation (April 21, 2020) ATC ‐ Conceptual Review (July 17, 2020) 600 Tank Farm - Conceptual City Comments Page 123 of 171 11 Requests that the Acacia Creek Path have adequate connections to other bikeway and pedestrian facilities The Acacia Creek crossing has been coordinated with thew adjacent project for pedestrian and bicycle use. 12 Suggests considering other options before using bollards on the bike/ped bridge across creek to 650 Tank Farm. If bollards are the only option, make safe as possible. The proposed bollards have been set back from the Class I path to limit vehicle access only and not impede pedestrian bicycle circuilation 13 Avoid bike facility designs that encourage wrong way riding. Agreed 14 Recommends avoiding multilane road on Tank Farm to minimize bike/ped impacts. Consider not widening Tank Farm Road for multilanes Noted. The design of the Tank Farm Road improvements have been directed by City staff. 15 Ensure adequate sidewalk connections throughout internal development Provided in project design 16 Suggests more separation than 2 feet between Class IV bikeway and motor traffic. Suggests adding a parkway between the bike and motor vehicle modes. Understood. The design of the road improvements have been directed by City staff. 17 Recommends that pathways for pedestrians throughout the development are direct Provided in project design 18 Please look for ways to incorporate design elements of the forthcoming Active Transportation Plan as much as possible into the project Provided in project design 19 Recommends to incorporate slower roadway speeds where possible The road speed is dictated by the width of the roadway improvements and City staff. 20 Consider locating the bridge to 650 Tank Farm farther north The proposed bridge crossing at Acaia Creek is located per the previous crossing location and the Environmental Analysis that was certified for the adjacent project (650 Tank Farm) 21 Please provide more separation between ped/bike/motor vehicle modes on Tank Farm Road cross section Understood. The design of the road improvements have been directed by City staff. 22 Suggests that a lot of thought be put into how the project will provide good bike/ped connectivity to destinations outside of the project Agreed. Please refer to the Site Circulation exhibit included in the ARC package Page 124 of 171 23 Incorporate more open space between the parking area and the commercial building creating a plaza for patrons of the commercial businesses. The design of the project was not able to accommodate this request. 24 Incorporate more recessed windows to add articulation. Concidered, but given the extensive amount of fiber cement siding, recessed windows are not recommended based on waterproofing concerns. 25 Identify fencing along Acacia Creek, promote Acacia Creek to be accessible to residents as open space. This project is not proposing fencing along Acacia Creek, thus residences would have access to the open space. 26 Consider ways to engage the street along the commercial building to encourage exterior space along Tank Farm. Providing exterior use spaces along Tank Farm Road is not desirable given the concerns regarding noise. 27 Consider adding small patios that relate to the retail use.Considered but felt they would not be approporiate 28 The residential and retail buildings would benefit from a common color pallet or more compatible architectural styles.Agreed. Refer to scheme 2 & 3 29 Incorporate a serpentine pattern to the drive aisles on the site plan. Refer to pavers in the main intersection off Santa Fe Road 30 Create an interfacing element between the wood siding and the shed roof on the residential units. The elevation design has been updated to reflect a more consistant relationship between the various building types. 31 Incorporate a pronounced rafter tail (similar to the SESLOC building) on the edges of the buildings to tie the commercial space with the residential. We have incorporated some shed roof and wood corbels into the Mixed‐Use building as well as the two buldings types (C & D) as a knod to SESLOC without matches their design ARC ‐ Conceptual Review (August 17, 2020) Page 125 of 171 32 Consider the circulation interrelationship of this and other nearby developments as a whole and their impact on bicycling and pedestrian connectivity in the immediate area as well as to further destinations in the City. Considered. 33 Consider increasing the number of units. Unable to acheieve this due to site constraints. 34 Ensure compatibility of the commercial services for this project and adjacent sites.Understood. 35 Design of building adjacent to Tank Farm should be orientated to Tank Farm if they serve the general public rather than just the development. Agreed. The Mixed‐Use building addresses Tank Farm and Santa Fe. 36 Provide a more prominent direct pedestrian connection between the residential and commercial areas – minimize crossing of parking areas. 37 Consider broadening the proposed 1.5‐mile local preference zone. Considered and not currently planning on broadening. 38 Consider opportunities to enhance connectivity across the emergency bridge. Bridge to be used for ped and bike access, or emergency vehicles only. PC ‐ Conceptual Review (September 23, 2020) Page 126 of 171 General Plan Land Use Element 2.3.1. Mixed Uses and Convenience The City shall promote a mix of compatible uses in neighborhoods to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores. Neighbor‐ hood shopping and services should be available within about one mile of all dwellings. When nonresidential, neighborhood serving uses are developed, existing housing shall be preserved and new housing added where possible. If existing dwellings are removed for such uses, the de‐ velopment shall include replacement dwellings (no net loss of residential units). Response: The project provides residential uses in an area with significant jobs and shop‐ ping. The project contributes to the improvement of the jobs‐housing balance in the commu‐ nity. 2.3.6. Housing and Businesses The City shall encourage mixed use projects, where appropriate and compatible with existing and planned development on the site and with adjacent and nearby properties. The City shall support the location of mixed use projects and community and neighborhood commercial cen‐ ters near major activity nodes and transportation corridors / transit opportunities where appro‐ priate. Response: The project adds housing to an area with significant jobs, shopping and services. 7.3. Airport Land Use Plan Land use density and intensity shall carefully balance noise impacts and the progression in the degree of reduced safety risk further away from the runways, using guidance from the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan, State Aeronautics Act, and California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The City shall use the Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for long‐term land use planning purposes. Prospective buyers of property subject to airport in‐ fluence should be so informed. Response: The project was found to be compatible with the County ALUP. 7.9. Internal Open Space The City shall ensure areas designated for urban uses in the Airport Area Specific Plan, but not necessarily each parcel, include open areas as site amenities and to protect resources, con‐ sistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. In addition, the City shall ensure wild‐ life corridors across the Airport Area shall be identified and preserved. Page 127 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 2 of 33 Response: The project include internal open space, adjacent open space with Acacia Creek and the Flower Mound, and complies with the open space requirements of the ALUP. Airport Area Specific Plan Community Design Guidelines Goal 5.1 A continuous, well‐defined streetscape edge that unifies and enhances the character of the development areas and that supports pedestrian activity through its site planning and design. Guidelines A. Buildings are encouraged to front directly on the landscaped setback adjacent to the street right‐of‐way, rather than locating parking between the street and building. B. Parking should be located behind or along the sides of buildings. C. The main entrance to any building with frontage on the primary street serving the pro‐ ject should be oriented toward the primary street. D. Building setbacks on adjacent parcels should be varied to provide visual interest, but not so much that the variation destroys the continuity of the streetscape frontage. The varia‐ tion between setbacks along a streetscape frontage should not be more than 5 meters (16 feet). Response: Buildings front on to Acacia Creek, Tank Farm and Santa Fe. All parking is located behind the commercial buildings fronting on Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe. Articulation is provided along both public street frontages. Standards 5.1.1 Principal buildings shall be oriented parallel to the street. 5.1.2 No more than one double‐loaded parking bay will be allowed between the street and the front of the building. 5.1.3 Direct pedestrian access shall be provided from the street serving the project to the main entrance. 5.1.4 Buildings shall have architecturally articulated entry features facing the street. Response: All buildings along the public street frontages are parallel to the street centerlines. Goal 5.2: New development fully integrated with a comprehensive open space frame‐ work. Pedestrian (bike and peds) access is provided by way of sidewalks and intersecting project sidewalks. Entry features are clearly marked and articulated. Page 128 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 3 of 33 Guidelines A. On sites with multiple buildings, building heights and separation between structures should be coordinated to allow views to surrounding open space and landforms. B. Development adjacent to public open space and trails should allow for public access to the open space from developments that do not share adjacency or direct access to the open space system. C. The siting of buildings, service facilities, circulation, parking, and other elements of new development should take into consideration established development patterns adjacent to the site. Potentially incompatible uses or design elements (e.g., loading areas, refuse collection areas, and high traffic access drives) shall be sited away from sensitive existing use areas on adjacent sites, such as entrances, plazas, lunch areas and other gathering places. Standards A.1.1 On properties adjacent to public open space and trails, convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections shall be provided for employees between the buildings and the open space system and to connect residential, commercial and recreational areas. Response: Finished floor elevations range from 154 MSL to 179 MSL. Building height finished elevations provide a range that allows views of open space, as illustrated in Sheet A7 of the entitlement submittal. Access is provided to open space areas by onsite sidewalks at least every other building. Goal 5.4: Safe and efficient vehicular parking areas that are designed to be in scale with and visually subordinate to the development and landscape setting. In addi‐ tion, parking is to be provided as a buffer element between residential uses and non‐residential uses, and between residential uses and areas of greater noise exposure. Guidelines A. On‐street parking is encouraged along all streets providing direct access to a develop‐ ment site. Response: Onstreet parking is not permitted. Page 129 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 4 of 33 B. The number of parking area entrances and exits should be minimized to reduce vehicular conflicts at intersections. Parking lots with more than 100 spaces should have more than one street access. Response: There are two access points to the main commercial parking lot. An additional ac‐ cess point is provided for the residential portions. These access points are interconnected and there three drives that provide direct or indirect access to the residential and commercial por‐ tions of the site. C. Where possible, parking lots on adjacent parcels should have vehicular and pedestrian connections between lots of adjacent developments in order to facilitate circulation. D. Parking areas should be divided into multiple small lots, rather than one large lot, through the siting of internal circulation corridors, landscaped medians, and buildings. E. The use of porous surfaces that reduce heat buildup and stormwater runoff are encour‐ aged for parking areas, particularly in overflow parking areas and those adjacent to open space (see drainage guidelines at the end of this chapter). F. Use low (approximately one meter in height) hedges, shrub masses or walls between parking areas and street. G. For each parking lot, a single tree species should be used for all end‐of‐aisle planting is‐ lands, and that species, or one additional species, should be used for planter areas be‐ tween stalls. H. The use of native plant materials that reference the natural landscape or ornamental versions of orchard‐type tree species that reference the area’s agricultural heritage are encouraged. Orchard‐style planting of parking areas can be achieved with an equally‐ spaced planting of trees at a ratio of one tree for every four parking spaces for Business Park development, and one tree for every six parking spaces for Services and Manufac‐ turing development. I. In R‐3 and R‐4 zones, parking bays and garages shall be placed adjacent to non‐residen‐ tial uses or adjacent to noise exposure areas to buffer sound impacts. Response: There are two access points to the main commercial parking lot. An additional ac‐ cess point is provided for the residential portions. These access points are interconnected and there three drives that provide direct or indirect access to the residential and commercial por‐ tions of the site. The project complies with Guidelines G, H and I regarding landscaping. Standards 5.4.1. Parking lots shall be located at the rear or side of buildings, rather than between the front facade of the building and the street. Side parking shall not exceed 40 percent of the frontage of the lot on the primary street. Page 130 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 5 of 33 Response: All parking is located behind street‐side buildings. Parking provided on the build‐ ing sides is less than 40 percent of the total frontage. 5.4.2 Where parking layout exceeds two rows in depth (i.e., one double‐loaded parking bay), parking lot aisles shall be oriented perpendicular to the building(s) (i.e., aligned in direc‐ tion of pedestrian movement) to increase pedestrian safety. 5.4.3 A pedestrian path or sidewalk located within the landscape median between parking bays is required in cases where there are more than three bays of parking or the config‐ uration of the bays makes it difficult for pedestrians to access the buildings, to the dis‐ cretion of the Community Development Director. Response: The commercial parking lot is perpendicular to the longest leg of the L‐shaped commercial building. A pedestrian path is provided through the parking lot. See Sheet A3. 5.4.4 Parking lots shall be planted with shade trees in a pattern and number that can be rea‐ sonably expected to shade at least 50 percent of the lot surface within ten (10) years of planting, and provide a nearly continuous canopy at maturity. Response: See Sheets A40 and A41. 5.4.5 A 10 percent reduction in the required number of parking spaces may be granted by the Director for development within one‐quarter mile of a regularly scheduled transit stop. 5.4.6 A 5 percent reduction in the required number of parking spaces may be granted by the Director for development that provides showers and changing rooms, in addition to the secure, sheltered bicycle parking facilities already required by City code. 5.4.7 A 5 percent reduction in the required number of parking spaces may be granted by the Director for development of parking areas that increase storm water infiltration (see Drainage guidelines in section 5.2.4). Response: The project is within one‐fourth mile of the transit stop on Broad/Tank Farm Road. A five percent parking reduction is requested. Goal 5.8 Roadway View Protection Tank Farm Road Davenport Hills to south; South Street Hills to north Building volume and mature street trees allow view of at least 60% of the scenic resources visible be‐ fore development, as seen from 1.5 meters (5 feet) above opposite side of roadway, looking perpendic‐ ular to road. (see following illustration.) Page 131 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 6 of 33 Santa Fe Road (Buckley Road to Prado Road) South Street Hills to north; Davenport Hills to south View of these features will be preserved mainly looking in the direction of the road rather than perpendicular to it. Response: Project drives and building articulations provides views to South Hills, Acacia Creek and other open space resources to the extent practicable. Goal 5.10: Building massing that adds visual interest, maintains human scale, and ex‐ presses building function. Guidelines A. Bold offsets and articulations of the wall plane should be used to reduce the apparent overall building mass; create a play of shadow; provide visual interest; and maintain a sense of scale. B. Facades that face public streets shall be articulated to give human scale, reduce the ap‐ parent mass of large buildings, to add visual interest and avoid the uniform, impersonal appearance typical of many large industrial and office type buildings. C. Massing may vary from building to building but must reinforce the concept of a harmo‐ nious and unified cluster of buildings. D. Building forms and placement should be used to create pedestrian areas that are pro‐ tected from the wind, but have appropriate sun exposure. Response: Building massing and articulation provides for variation. See Sheets A13, A14. The project also provides variations in building styles, colors schemes, wall planes, and building ori‐ entation. Standards 5.10.1 Building facades visible from streets shall vary in modules of 20 meters (66 feet) or less. On any building facade, continuous wall planes longer than 30 meters (100 feet) should be avoided. Where interior functions require longer continuous spaces, exterior walls should have architectural features such as columns or pilasters at least every 20 meters. Such architectural features shall have a depth of at least 3 percent of the length of the facade, and shall extend at least 20 percent of the length of the facade. Page 132 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 7 of 33 Response: The project complies with the requirements. 5.10.2 Facades that face public streets shall use elements such as arcades, awnings, entry fea‐ tures, windows, or other such animating features along at least 60 percent of their hori‐ zontal length. Response: Awnings, arcades, windows, entry features and other details are present in 90 per‐ cent of building street frontages. Goal 5.11: An overall development profile that contributes to the unity and harmony of the planning area when viewed as a whole, but also has enough variety to contrib‐ ute visual interest and avoid monotony. Guidelines A. Building height profile should be designed to create a harmonious relationship with adja‐ cent buildings both within the site and on adjacent sites. B. Building heights should be varied both within and between sites to provide visual interest and to mitigate the scale of the buildings. Lower building heights should be used near entrances, plazas and other gathering places to maintain human scale. C. Rooflines should be varied to add character and interest to buildings. Roof forms that reference rural, agricultural building prototypes are preferred over flat roofs. D. Rooftop equipment shall be consolidated as much as possible and screened from public views, including open space areas open to the public. Enclosures for rooftop equipment shall be integrated into the overall design of the structure. Response: The building masses are consistent with those of the adjoining property (650 Tank Farm Road. Finished building elevations are varied because of the sloping nature of the site, and the variation is roof styles and slopes. Standard A.11.1 Table 4‐9 shows building height standards for the planning area. See the Zoning Regula‐ tions for allowed height in the R‐2 zone. Response: Sheet 1 summarizes the building heigh requirements per Table 4‐9 of the AASP. Oc‐ cupied portions of structures are permitted to be 36’‐0” above average existing grade (210’msl), and non‐occupied portions of structures are permitted to be 46’‐0” above average existing grade (220’ msl). Sheets A16, A18, A20, A25 and A28 show how the building comply with this standard. Page 133 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 8 of 33 Goal 5.12: Architectural detailing that gives buildings human scale, visual interest and dis‐ tinctiveness through the use of high‐quality finishes and materials that are har‐ moniously combined to unify individual buildings and to ensure a consistent level of design quality. Guidelines A. Arcades and/or recessed exterior balconies should be used to articulate building form, provide a sense of scale, and create a play of light and shadow. B. Wall and window surface planes should be articulated with reveals, trim, recesses, pro‐ jections, or other details to provide visual interest and a sense of scale. C. Rooftop equipment should be shielded to provide pleasant roof views from taller adja‐ cent buildings or other elevated viewpoints such as open space areas and trails. D. Building entries should be clearly defined and highly visible. This can be accomplished through architectural feature such as a portico, overhang, decorative cornice, canopy or arcade, and accentuated with a change in materials and color, and accent plantings. E. Emphasize main building entries with entry courtyards or other features so they are eas‐ ily recognizable from approaching automobiles and to provide “ceremonial” entry for pe‐ destrians. F. Exterior gutters, scuppers, leaders, leader heads and other exterior rainwater drainage devices are allowed only if they are visually integrated into the building design as a deco‐ rative enhancement. Response: Sheets A16, A18, A20, A25 and A28 show how the buildings comply with these guidelines. Goal 5.13: A unified identity through use of a harmonious, but varied, palette of materials and colors that is coordinated with landscape elements and signage. Guidelines Exterior Materials A. Within a given architectural design, the exterior appearance of a building should receive a consistent treatment of material and colors on all sides, although the proportion of materials may vary. Page 134 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 9 of 33 B. In general, materials should be used honestly, reflecting their natural character, and arti‐ ficial versions of natural materials such as wood, rock, and masonry should be avoided. C. Reflective or shiny exterior finishes such as glazed roofing tiles, enameled metals, reflec‐ tive glass, and glossy vinyl coatings are discouraged. When used, glass panels or win‐ dows that cover a large portion of the building facade should be clear or moderately re‐ flective. Highly reflective mirror glass is discouraged. Color D. In general, colors should be restrained. Colors that are compatible and complementary with the range of natural tones found in the surrounding landscape are preferable for exterior walls. Trim and accent colors may be brighter, but should still be somewhat muted. Response: Sheets A16, A18, A20, A25 and A28 show how the buildings comply with these guidelines. Goal 5.14: An attractive and sustainable landscape pattern that unifies and enhances the quality of the proposed development, while being compatible with the rural ag‐ ricultural landscape that bounds the area to the south and east. Guidelines A. Street trees in the Airport Area should be planted to enhance the area’s image, and create a strong sense of identity and unity regardless of the variety in land uses and architectural styles. B. Landscaping along streets and trails should employ a relatively simple palette of plants and other materials that is repeated throughout the area to create a sense of continuity and visual coherence. C. Focal areas, such as the Airport Area gateways, key intersections and project entries should be highlighted through the introduction of specimen trees, intensified planting schemes, special paving and other landscape enhancements. D. Native and naturalized plant species (plants that can easily survive local climatic and soil conditions) are favored over exotic species that require more water, higher maintenance, and are less compatible with the natural landscape. Page 135 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 10 of 33 E. The use of native trees and those associated with the agricultural landscape are encour‐ aged throughout the area. For example, Oak trees are a recognized resource in the area. The use of oak species, including Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) and Quercus lobata (valley oak), in focal areas and landmark locations is encouraged. California sycamore is another appropriate species, particularly in areas adjacent to riparian corridors and wet‐ land areas. F. The character of planted areas near riparian corridors should respect and respond to the natural landscape character of these areas. A gradual transition should be created be‐ tween zones of purely native vegetation and predominantly ornamental planting areas. G. The use of specimen trees and ornamental species is appropriate to highlight the im‐ portance of building entries and distinguish them from the rest of the site landscape. H. Development in the Avila Ranch area shall be designed so the projected annual water consumption is 35 percent less than the average annual community water consumption. To meet this goal, the following performance standards shall be used: 1. Turf shall not be permitted for individual yard landscaping. Landscape plans shall be developed which require lower water usage and lower maintenance. Landscape plans shall reflect the local climate zones and local plant material. 2. Turf may be used where it is associated with a common open space, parkways, sports field or other common area. Where feasible, these areas will be irrigated with recycled water. 3. Landscape and irrigation plans should use drip irrigation systems to the extent fea‐ sible. General broadcast irrigation is discouraged. 4. EPA Watersense fixtures shall be used. Goal 5.17: A consistent, high quality system of signs that allows for creativity in design and commercial identification, while avoiding extremes of size, number, color, height, and shape. Guidelines A. Signs should be visually integrated with the contours, forms, colors and detailing of the land‐ scape design. Low‐profile monument signs are generally preferred. Page 136 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 11 of 33 B. The colors and materials of signs should reflect the visual attributes of the buildings to which they refer. Harsh or garish colors for background or lettering are discouraged. C. The total square‐footage of on‐site signage is governed by the City’s Sign Regulations. Response: See sheets A35, A36, A40 and A41 for the overall landscape plan, plant materials, and site details that show compliance with these guidelines. Standards Goal 5.17.1: Building identity signs shall be limited to major site entries from public roadways. Corporate and business identity signs can be placed on the buildings themselves, if they are lo‐ cated near the building entrance and are for identification within the site (i.e., not from public roadways). Goal 5.17.2: Signs on poles or other raised structures are not allowed in the planning area. Goal 5.17.3: All signs shall be located on private property. Goal 5.17.4: Entry signs shall be externally illuminated. The light source shall be fully shielded from view from roadways and pedestrian walkways. Lighting levels shall be as low as possible while providing adequate illumination for signs to be seen by motorists. Response: Commercial building signage and entry signs will be covered under a separate per‐ mit. Sheet A37 shows the proposed signage concepts. Goal 5.18: A low level of ambient lighting that protects the rural ambience, while being consistent with public safety needs. Guidelines A. When illuminated, pedestrian pathways and plazas within development parcels should use light standards that limit the splay of light. Fixtures mounted no higher than 42 inches above the ground are preferred, but light standards up to 12 feet tall are acceptable. B. On‐site lighting to complement and enhance architecture, building identity and site design should be restrained in its application. Fixtures should be concealed to avoid glare and light intrusion into adjacent properties and streets. C. Service area lighting should be contained within the service area boundaries and enclosure walls. Light “spill over” outside service areas should be minimized. Standards Page 137 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 12 of 33 5.18.1 Provide minimum levels of lighting consistent with public safety standards along public roadways. 5.18.2 At a minimum, streetlights shall be required at intersections, marked pedestrian cross‐ ings, and directional/warning signs. Where used, street lighting shall emphasize the creation of “pools” of light around areas of concern, rather than providing a constant, even lighting across the entire area. 5.18.3 Luminaire height shall not exceed 30 feet on arterials and major collectors such as Broad Street, Prado Road, and Tank Farm Road. 5.18.4 To maintain a pedestrian scale and reduce ambient light levels, streetlights shall not ex‐ ceed 20 feet on all other streets. 5.18.5 Provide adequate illumination for safe use of parking lots after dark. 5.18.6 Color‐balanced lights that do not cast a tinted light are preferred. 5.18.7 Light fixtures shall be cut‐off type fixtures that focus light downward and shield the light source from surrounding areas not intended to be illuminated. 5.18.8 Luminaire height should be uniform over the parking lot and not exceed 20 feet. 5.18.9 Parking area lighting should be designed to minimize shadow/light interference by siting light standards between trees and below mature canopy tree height. Response: Lighting will be permitted under a separate permit. The project will demonstrate compliance under that permit. Goal 5.20: Drainage systems that employ Best Management Practices, consistent with City‐wide drainage standards, and are designed to be an integral part of the natural landscape. Guidelines A. Use of surface stormwater collection systems, including swales, detention ponds, and energy dissipaters, is encouraged to slow stormwater runoff and improve stormwater quality. Fea‐ tures such as sediment basins, filter strips, and infiltration beds can be included to further enhance the removal of pollutants from runoff. B. Where soils and water tables permit, developers are encouraged to use techniques for in‐ creasing stormwater infiltration. Such techniques could include infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, swales with check dams, and/or permeable pavements. Page 138 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 13 of 33 C. Use of permeable pavements, such as porous asphalt, porous concrete, and open‐celled pav‐ ers, is encouraged for pedestrian walkways, courtyards, parking areas and low‐volume roads. D. Use of parking lot planter strips as “bioswales” or infiltration beds that capture runoff from the parking area in the planter areas is preferable to raised planter areas that drain off onto the paved areas. The City can give up to a five percent reduction in required parking in ex‐ change for effective use of surface stormwater collection techniques that increase infiltra‐ tion. E. Catchment and diversion of stormwater runoff from rooftops into surface collection/deten‐ tion/infiltration facilities is encouraged. Response: The project will use an interconnected system of bioswales to manage stormwater consistent with Regional Board and Drainage Management Plan guidelines. See sheet A5. Community Design Guidelines Residential Project Design A. Develop neighborhoods. Each new residential project should be designed to inte‐ grate with the surrounding neighborhood to ensure that it maintains the established character. Subdivisions in City expansion areas should be designed so that individual, separately developed projects work together to create distinct neighborhoods, in‐ stead of disjointed or isolated enclaves. Response: The project integrates to the employment areas, shopping, service areas, and nearby recreation areas. It is integrated with the adjacent residential project with ped and bike accessways. B. Integrate open space. New subdivisions adjacent to planned or existing parks or other public open spaces (e.g., creeks, riparian areas), or the landscaped grounds of schools or other public facilities should maximize visibility and pedestrian access to these areas. Where these facilities are not already planned, the subdivision should be designed to provide usable public open spaces in the form of parks, linear bicycle and pedestrian trails, squares, and greens, as appropriate. Response: Acacia Creek and the Flow Mound are used as site amenities. Buildings and view areas are oriented to these areas. Buildings are used to define local open spaces and yards. C. Edges. "Gated communities," and other residential developments designed to ap‐ pear as continuous walled‐off areas, disconnected and isolated from the rest of the community, are strongly discouraged. While walls and fences may be useful for se‐ curity, sound attenuation and privacy, these objectives can often be met by creative Page 139 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 14 of 33 design that controls the height and length of walls, develops breaks and variations in relief, and uses landscaping, along with natural topographical changes, for screening. Response: There are no exterior walls. Buildings are used to line the public streets, per AASP requirements. D. Scale. New residential subdivisions, and groups of subdivisions that, in effect, collec‐ tively create a new neighborhood, should be designed to provide a "walkable" scale, that places all homes within 1/4 mile of neighborhood shopping opportunities, a neighborhood park, or a public facility that can serve as a "center" for the neighbor‐ hood. Ideally, each neighborhood should have a center that includes all three facili‐ ties. Response: The project is within walking distance of the shopping, services and jobs. The club‐ house and recreation center (see Sheets A13, A28 and A32) services as the meeting area and focal point for the project. E. Site planning. Residential subdivision and multi‐family project site planning should em‐ phasize the needs of pedestrians and cyclists rather than cars 1. Street layout. New public streets and sidewalks should be aligned with, and be connected to those of adjacent developments to interconnect the community. a. Pedestrian orientation. Subdivision design should emphasize pedestrian connectivity within each project, to adjacent neighborhoods, nearby schools and parks, and to transit stops within 1/4‐mile of planned resi‐ dential areas. All streets and walkways should be designed to provide safe and pleasant conditions for pedestrians, including the disabled, and cyclists. Response: The project is connected to services and jobs with on‐site and offsite bike paths and sidewalks. The Tank Farm/Broad transit stop is located within one‐quarter mile. b. Block length. The length of block faces between intersecting streets should be as short as possible, ideally no more than 400 feet, to provide pedestrian connectivity. Response: N/A. There are no internal public streets. c. Street width and design speed. Streets within neighborhoods should be no wider than needed to accommodate parking and two low‐speed travel lanes. Streets in new subdivisions should be designed to accommodate Page 140 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 15 of 33 traffic speeds of 25 miles per hour or less, with most streets in a subdivi‐ sion designed for lower speeds. Response: Street widths and design speeds are defined by the City’s improve‐ ments standards, and the AASP. d. Parkway/planting strips. Sidewalks should be separated from curbs by parkway strips of at least five feet in width. The parkways should be planted with canopy trees at an interval appropriate to the species of the selected street tree that will produce a continuously shaded sidewalk. The parkways should also be planted with ground covers and other plant materials that will withstand pedestrian traffic. Response: Parkway strips on Santa Fe and Tank Farm Road comply with City standards in the Circulation Element and the AASP. e. Access to open areas. Single‐loaded streets (those with residential devel‐ opment on one side and open space on the other) should be used to pro‐ vide public access to, and visibility of natural open spaces, public parks, and neighborhood schools, as well as a means for buffering homes from parks and schools. Where single‐loaded streets are not feasible or desira‐ ble, other methods that provide similar access and visibility may be used, including private streets, bike and pedestrian paths, or the placement of private common open space or recreation facilities adjacent to the public open space. Response: There are no public street defined adjacent to Acacia Creek. Drain‐ age basins and bioswales adjacent provide open vistas to the Acacia Creek cor‐ ridor. f. Cul‐de‐sac streets. The use of cul‐de‐sac streets should be avoided wher‐ ever possible. If cul‐de‐sacs are necessary, the end of each cul‐de‐sac should provide a pedestrian walkway and bikeway between private par‐ cels to link with an adjacent cul‐de‐sac, street, and/or park, school, or open space area. Response: Santa Fe is an interim cul‐de‐sac/turnaround. Ped and bike access are provided to and through the cul‐de‐sac. g. Alleys. Alleys may be provided for garage access, otherwise individual lots should be wide enough to accommodate a side yard driveway to a detached garage at the rear of the lot, so that appearance of the street frontage is not dominated by garages and pavement. Response: There are no alleys. Page 141 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 16 of 33 2. Open space and natural features. Providing open space and integrating natural features into a residential project can significantly increase the appreciation of residents in their neighborhoods, provide safe places for children and families to play, and maintain a strong sense of connection with the surrounding natural en‐ vironment in the city as a whole. a. Natural amenities (such as views, mature trees, creeks, riparian corridors, rock outcrops, and similar features) should be preserved and incorpo‐ rated into proposed development to the greatest extent feasible. Re‐ duced density and the clustering of units in hillside areas is encouraged as a means of achieving this goal. b. Development adjacent to parks or other public open spaces should be de‐ signed to provide maximum visibility of these areas. c. Development on hillsides should generally follow the natural terrain con‐ tour. Stepped building pads, larger lot sizes, and setbacks should be used to preserve the general shape of natural land forms and to minimize grade differentials with adjacent streets and with adjoining properties. d. Public access and visibility to creeks, and the separation of residences and other uses from creeks should be provided through the use of single‐ loaded frontage roads in combination with multi‐use trails. Pedestrian access to and along creeks and riparian corridors may need to be re‐ stricted to flatter areas (e.g. beyond top of bank, natural benches) where grading needs and erosion potential are minimal, and where sensitive en‐ vironmental resources require protection. Response: Acacia Creek, the Flower Mound, and Damon‐Garcia Sports Park are integrated to the project through orientation of buildings, sidewalks, a Class I bike path along Acacia Creek. The Class I bike path along Acacia Creek is according to the Circulation Element and the Active Transportation Plan. E. Exterior finish materials. Exterior finish materials should be durable and require low maintenance. The use of combined materials (such as stucco and wood siding) can provide visual interest and texture; however, all sides of each single‐family dwelling or multi‐family structure should employ the same materials, design details, and win‐ dow treatment. No residential structure should have a carefully designed and de‐ tailed facade facing the street, and use bland, featureless stucco or other simple ma‐ terials on the other exterior building walls. Each residential structure should look like the same building from all sides. Response: Response: Sheets A16, A18, A20, A25 and A28 show how the buildings comply with this guideline. Page 142 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 17 of 33 F. Windows. Where one or more windows are proposed 10 feet or less from a side lot line, or within 10 feet of another dwelling, the windows should be located and/or screened to provide privacy for the residents of both structures. In some cases, glass block or translucent glass may be appropriate to provide light, but also provide privacy between buildings. Response: All residential building are typically separated from others by at least 15 feet. H. Garages and carports. Accommodating vehicle storage in both single‐family dwellings and multi‐family projects should avoid the common problem of creating streets that ap‐ pear garage‐ and driveway‐dominated. 1. In the limited instances where an exception is granted for a setback to a garage of less than 20 feet from a property line or internal driveway, the garage shall be equipped with a roll‐up door. This requirement is intended to discourage vehi‐ cles from parking in front of garages and blocking the adjacent driveway or side‐ walk. 2. Where carports are provided, they may be bordered by patio walls, or used to define public and private open space, but should not be located adjacent to pe‐ rimeter streets. Each carport end should be screened by a low wall, berm, and/or landscaping. 3. Where multiple garages are located together, landscaped tree wells should be placed between every two garage doors. Each tree well should be a minimum of 10 square feet. 4. Carports and detached garages should be designed as an integral part of a pro‐ ject. Their materials, color, and details should be the same as the principal struc‐ tures. Carports may have flat roofs but should not project above the exterior walls of any buildings adjacent to streets. Prefabricated metal or canvas tent‐like carports should not be used. Where garages are utilized, doors should appear set into walls rather than flush with the exterior wall. 5. The use of quality materials, windows, and features with horizontal and vertical relief are encouraged to add interest and character to the design of garage doors and to coordinate their design with the architecture of the primary residence. Response: There are no residential garages or carports that front onto, or have direct access from public streets. Parking spaces are located at driveway entrances, but these areas com‐ prise less than 15 percent of any public street frontage. See Sheets A3, A11 and A14. 5.4 ‐ Multi‐Family and Clustered Housing Design Page 143 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 18 of 33 A. Site planning. Site planning for a multi‐family or clustered housing project should create a pleasant, comfortable, safe, and distinct place for residents, without the project "turn‐ ing its back" on the surrounding neighborhood 1. The placement of new units should consider the existing character of the sur‐ rounding residential area. New development should respect the privacy of adja‐ cent residential uses through appropriate building orientation and structure height, so that windows do not overlook and impair the privacy of the indoor or outdoor living space of adjacent units. Response: The project is screened and buffered to the project to the east (650 Tank Farm Creek) by Acacia Creek. 2. Multi‐family units should be clustered. A project of more than 10 units outside the Downtown should separate the units into structures of six or fewer units. See Figure 5‐1. Response: The guideline is feasible for projects at densities of 15 units per the acre or less. It is not feasible for projects of greater density, or for smaller unit sizes as pro‐ posed for this project. In order to comply with this requirement, the units would have to be 75% larger which conflicts with the City and project objectives for the develop‐ ment of the site. 3. Multi‐family structures should be set back from adjacent public streets con‐ sistent with the prevailing setback pattern of the immediate neighborhood. Response: There is no prevailing setback pattern. The project setbacks are consistent with those established in the AASP. 4. Lower density multi‐family projects should be comprised of "walk‐up" rather than "stacked" units, with each unit adjacent to a street having its primary pe‐ destrian entrance from the street sidewalk. Higher density projects should be designed either with ground floor units having individual sidewalk entrances, or as courtyard projects with at least one significant pedestrian entrance from the street sidewalk. Where individual units have access to the street sidewalk, pri‐ vate "front yard" outdoor space may be differentiated from the public right‐of‐ way by a porch, or small yard enclosed by a low fence. See Figures 5‐1 and 5‐2. Response: The project is a higher‐density multi‐family project. N/A. 5. Residential units and activity areas not adjacent to a street should be accessible via pedestrian walkway and driveways. Response: See Sheet A10 for site circulation. Page 144 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 19 of 33 B. Parking and driveways. Individual closeable garages are the preferred method for providing parking for residents in multi‐family projects. If garages within the residential structures are not provided, dispersed parking courts are acceptable. 1. Long, monotonous parking drives and large, undivided parking lots are discour‐ aged. 2. The main vehicle access into a multi‐family site should be through an attractive entry drive. Colored and textured paving treatment is encouraged outside of the public street right‐of‐way, and within the project. 3. Parking areas should be visible from the residential units to the extent possible. 4. Safe and protected bicycle parking should be located convenient to each dwell‐ ing unit. 5. Parking courts, with or without carports, should not consist of more than two double‐loaded parking aisles (bays) adjacent to each other. The length of a park‐ ing court should not exceed the width of eight adjoining stalls. 6. Parking courts should be separated from each other by buildings within the pro‐ ject or by landscape or natural open space areas at least 30 feet wide. 7. Large scale multi‐family projects (i.e., more than 20 units) with internal streets should have the streets designed as if they were pleasant public streets, with comprehensive streetscapes including sidewalks, and planting strips between curb and sidewalk with canopy trees. Response: A quarter of the residential parking is provided in garages that are tucked under residential structures. There are approximately 200 residential parking spaces that are pro‐ vided in 10 separate parking lots. Bike parking is provided per City building codes and Active Transportation Plan regulations. C. Multi‐family project architecture. The exterior design of multi‐family projects should be derived from architectural styles in the surrounding neighborhood. Often, these types of projects are adjacent to single family neighborhoods, and care in design should en‐ sure that the height and bulk of the higher density projects do not impact adjacent lower density residential areas. 1. Facade and roof articulation. A structure with three or more attached units should incorporate significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale. Changes in wall planes and roof heights, and the inclusion of elements such as balconies, porches, arcades, dormers, and cross gables can avoid the bar‐ racks‐like quality of long flat walls and roofs. Secondary hipped or gabled roofs Page 145 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 20 of 33 covering the entire mass of a building are preferable to mansard roofs or seg‐ ments of pitched roof applied at the structure's edge. Structures (including gar‐ ages and carports) exceeding 150 feet in length are discouraged. See Figures 5‐2 and 5‐4. 2. Scale. Because multi‐family projects are usually taller than one story, their bulk can impose on surrounding uses. The larger scale of these projects should be considered within the context of their surroundings. Structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor level and/or upper levels (stepped‐down) along the street frontage so they do not shade adjacent properties or visually dominate the neighborhood. Large projects should be bro‐ ken up into groups of structures, and large single structures should be avoided. See Figure 5‐4. 3. Balconies, porches, and patios. The use of balconies, porches, and patios as part of multi‐family structures is encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value. These elements should be used to break up large wall masses, offset floor set‐ backs, and add human scale to structures. Multi‐family units with individual ac‐ cess to the street sidewalk should have individual covered porches. See Figure 5‐ 4. 4. Dwelling unit access. The use of balconies and corridors to provide access to five or more units should be avoided. Access points to units should instead be clus‐ tered in groups of four or less. To the extent possible, main entrances to individ‐ ual units should be from adjoining streets. Distinctive architectural elements and materials should be used to highlight primary entrances. 5. Exterior stairways. Stairways providing access to the upper levels of multi‐family structures should be located mostly within the buildings themselves. Where ex‐ terior stairways are necessary, they should provide residents and visitors protec‐ tion from weather, and should be of stucco, plaster or wood, with accent trim to match the main structure. Thin‐looking, open metal, prefabricated stairs that are not integrated with the design of the structure are discouraged. 6. Accessory structures. Accessory structures should be designed as an integral part of a project. Their materials, color, and details should be the same as the principal structures on the site. Response: See Sheets A12, A14, A16, A18, A20, A22, A25 and A26 for building elevations and details which comply with these guidelines. The longest residential structure is less than 165 feet long. Page 146 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 21 of 33 Miscellaneous Design Details A. Energy and resource conservation. Site planning and building design should take ad‐ vantage of all reasonable opportunities to reduce energy and other resource con‐ sumption, in compliance with the Energy Conservation Element of the General Plan. The City also encourages all proposed development to comply with the standards for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) developed by the Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org). 1. The placement of a building on a site and the building itself should be designed to maximize opportunities for the optimal operation of passive systems for heat‐ ing, cooling and lighting. Sunlight should be used for direct heating and illumina‐ tion whenever possible. Natural ventilation and shading should be used to cool a building. 2. The use of exterior shading devices, skylights, daylighting controls, high perfor‐ mance glazing that allows the transmission of light with minimal heat gain, and high thermal mass building components is encouraged. 3. An application for proposed building construction shall include a solid waste re‐ cycling plan for recycling discarded building materials, such as concrete, sheet‐ rock, wood, and metals from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance. Response: The project complies with the most recent version of the CalGreen Code, city building codes, Climate Action Plan, and the City’s Clean Energy Choice Program. B. Fences and walls. Fences and walls can effectively provide safety, security, screening, and privacy, but can also be unsightly site elements because of their length and visibil‐ ity, unless thoughtfully designed. 1. The design and placement of fences, retaining walls, gates, arbors, footbridges and other site features should relate well to building architecture and site topog‐ raphy. These elements should be of the same quality in design and materials as the buildings. 2. The color of fence and wall materials should complement the other structures on the site. The use of chain‐link fencing and “crib” retaining wall designs are dis‐ couraged. Tall retaining walls (five feet and higher) should be divided up into two or more shorter walls (depending on height), with the upper portion of the wall set back from the lower wall at least two feet, with the slope between the Page 147 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 22 of 33 walls not exceeding 4:1. Landscaping (with an irrigation system) should be in‐ stalled in the space between walls. 3. Long, monotonous fences or walls should be avoided. Fences and walls should be offset at least every 10 feet. Landscaping should be installed in offset areas where appropriate. Landscaping along fences and walls should be coordinated with the street tree planting scheme. Response: The project uses stained‐wood with contrasting black hog wire patio and balcony fences for private patio areas (see Sheet A30). See Sheet A38 for site walls and fencing. Oth‐ erwise, buildings are used to define and contain interior spaces. C. Lighting. Exterior lighting should be designed to be compatible with the architectural and landscape design of the project while preserving the night sky, and not create a nui‐ sance for adjacent and nearby properties. See also the Night Sky Preservation standards in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. 1. Outdoor lighting fixtures, including lighting for outdoor recreational facilities, shall be cutoff fixtures designed and installed so that no emitted light will break a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the fixture (See Figure 6‐ 1). 2. Outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded, recessed, directed downward and not spill onto adjacent properties and public rights‐of‐way (See Figure 6‐1). 3. An appropriate hierarchy of lighting fixtures/structures and intensity should be considered when designing the lighting for the various elements of a project (i.e., building and site entrances, walkways, parking areas, or other areas of the site). 4. To achieve the desired lighting level for parking and pedestrian areas, it is pre‐ ferred to have more, smaller scale lights instead of fewer, overly tall and large lights. Parking lot lights shall be as low in height as possible, and shall not exceed a height of 21 feet from the approved finished grade to the bottom of the fix‐ ture. 5. The design of outdoor light fixtures should be in keeping with the architectural style of adjacent structures. Outdoor wall‐mounted fixtures should not exceed a height of 15 feet from grade or the height of the building, whichever is less. 6. The maximum light intensity on residential and nonresidential sites shall not ex‐ ceed a maintained value of 10 footcandles at grade. Exceptions are allowed for sports lighting. Page 148 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 23 of 33 7. No lighting on private property shall produce an illumination level greater than two maintained horizontal footcandles at grade on any property within a resi‐ dential zoning district except on the site of the light source. 8. The use of exterior lighting to accent building architecture is encouraged. When neon tubing is used to illuminate portions of a building it should be concealed from view by parapets, cornices or ledges. Small portions of exposed neon tub‐ ing may be used to add special emphasis to an architectural feature, but this must be well thought out and integrated into the overall design. 9. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, rotate or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. 10. Exterior lighting should enhance building design and landscaping, as well as pro‐ vide for safety and security, but should not create glare for residents or neigh‐ bors. Cut sheets or details of lighting fixtures shall be submitted with plans to confirm that lighting will be cast downward, rather than spreading glare onto ad‐ jacent properties. 11. Lighting fixtures should be durable, and of a design that complements building design and landscaping. 12. The Architectural Review Commission can approve an exception to these stand‐ ards based on specific extenuating circumstances. Response: Lighting will be permitted under a separate permit. The project will demonstrate compliance with these guidelines and the City’s Dark Sky regulations under that permit. D. Mechanical equipment. The attractive appearance of an otherwise appropriate building design can be ruined by the placement of mechanical equipment (for example, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) in visible locations on the roof, or on the ground adja‐ cent to the structure. Equipment that is not effectively integrated into the building de‐ sign should be screened as follows. 1. All mechanical equipment (e.g., compressors, air conditioners, pumps, heating and ventilating equipment, generators, solar collectors, satellite dishes, commu‐ nications equipment, etc.) and any other type of mechanical equipment should be concealed from view of public streets, and neighboring properties, and should be insulated as necessary to prevent noise generated by the equipment from be‐ ing audible off the property. 2. Roof‐mounted mechanical equipment should be screened by a building parapet or other effective roof design. If equipment will be visible above the parapet, Page 149 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 24 of 33 some other type of screen shall be proposed. Plans must clearly call out the height of equipment and demonstrate how equipment will be adequately screened. A line of site diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. Ground or interior‐mounted mechanical equipment (with appropriate screening) is encouraged as an alternative to roof‐mounting. 3. Roof penetrations (such as plumbing and exhaust vents, air conditioner units, and transformer boxes) should be grouped together where feasible to minimize their visual impact. The roof design should help to screen or camouflage rooftop protrusions. 4. Solar heating equipment should be as unobtrusive as possible and complement the building design. 5. Standpipes for fire sprinkler systems should be shown on plans early in the re‐ view process so that their visual impact will be understood. They should prefera‐ bly be placed within the building. Response: See Sheets A12, A14, A16, A18, A20, A22, A25 and A26 for building elevations, de‐ tails and mechanical equipment screening which comply with these guidelines. F. Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened with a solid fence, wall or mature hedge or other screen planting at least six feet high (per Zoning Regulations Sec‐ tion 17.6.090). Response: There are no outdoor storage areas. F. Trash/recycling enclosures & service areas. Refuse containers, service areas, loading docks, and similar facilities should be located out of view from the general public, and so that their use does not interfere with on‐site parking or circulation areas, and adjacent uses, especially residential uses. 1. Trash/recycling enclosures and service and loading docks should be conveniently located and large enough to accommodate the uses on the site, but must not in‐ terfere with other circulation or parking on the site. 2. Trash containers should be located away from public streets and primary build‐ ing entrances, and should be completely screened with materials that are con‐ sistent with those on adjacent building exteriors. 3. If space constraints or excessive site slope mandate that a trash/recycling enclo‐ sure be installed in a street yard, then it should be located so it gates do not face the street; finished with high quality materials to match the architecture of the project buildings; and utilize surrounding landscaping to further screen and Page 150 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 25 of 33 enhance its appearance. Screening techniques such as trailing vines on walls, berming alongside and rear walls, and overhead trellises are all encouraged. 4. Trash storage areas that are visible from the upper stories of adjacent structures should be screened with a trellis or other horizontal cover to mitigate unsightly views. The covering structure should be consistent with the architectural style of adjacent buildings. 5. Enclosures should be designed for long‐term use and made of durable materials built on a concrete pad, in compliance with the standards for trash enclosure de‐ sign in Appendix B, “City of San Luis Obispo Development Standards for Solid Waste Services.” 6. Pedestrian access through a separate gate to trash/recycling enclosures is re‐ quired for developments with multiple businesses, and multi‐family residential projects, such as condominiums and planned developments, consistent with Sec‐ tion D of Exhibit 4. of the Bin Enclosure Standards available at www.sloc‐ ity.org/utilities/recycling.asp. Response: See Sheet A6 for the location of trash enclosures. See Sheet A36 for waste recepta‐ cles to be used on the site, and Sheet A39 for trash enclosure details that meet these guide‐ lines. G. Utilities. The location of meters and electrical transformers, control boxes, utility poles and lines, fire safety apparatus and any other utility equipment needs to be conceptu‐ ally shown on plans submitted for architectural review pending final utility company ap‐ proval. Equipment and fixtures must be accessible for their intended purposes, but also located and otherwise designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 1. Utility service equipment (for example, electric and gas meters, electrical panels, and junction boxes) should be located in a utility room within the structure, or enclosed utility cabinets at the rear of the structure that are consistent with building architecture and, where feasible, integral to the building. Locations of meter boxes and other similar equipment should be clearly shown on elevations. Response: See Sheets A12, A14, A16, A18, A20, A22, A25 and A26 for building eleva‐ tions, details and utility location and screening which comply with these guidelines. 2. Transformers must be placed so that they are not visible from streets adjacent to the site. When transformers are unavoidable in a front setback, they should be placed below grade. If below grade placement is not possible, they should be completely screened by walls and/or thick landscaping, and should be located to not obstruct views of tenant spaces, monument signs, windows, and/or Page 151 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 26 of 33 driveways. Underground placement and screening is also necessary when trans‐ formers must be located in side setbacks that are visible from the street. Response: Transformers, switchgear and other utility structures will be located in ac‐ cordance with the design requirements of the relevant utility. Where feasible and per‐ missible, they are located underground. However, transformers and switchgear must be accessible from a public road or utility easement without obstruction. 3. The location of any required backflow prevention devices shall be shown on all site plans, including the landscaping plan, as part of an application for architec‐ tural review. When buildings are located within 20 feet of the front right‐of‐way line, the backflow preventer may be installed just inside this front part of the building in direct alignment with the fire service lateral from the water main in the street. Exterior backflow prevention devices shall be painted to blend in with the landscaping or other background material. In addition, the backflow prevention device shall be screened using a combination of slopes, landscaping, or other site improvements such as garden walls. Specific screening proposals shall allow access to the device for required annual testing, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, or for projects requiring their approval, the Architectural Review Commission. Response: These details will be included in the Construction Plans. 6.2 – Landscaping A. Goals for landscaping. The landscape design goals for the City include landscape that: 1. Enhances building architecture. 2. Reflects local climate and is water conserving 3. Emphasizes native species while providing botanical and visual diversity 4. Helps to preserve and create views 5. Is low maintenance, while in keeping with the City’s high standards for the best of design 6. Provides aesthetic links and transitions between centers of activity 7. Uses plantings as examples of design, creative combinations of shapes, textures, and colors 8. Provides shade, either seasonal or year round 9. Provides seasonal variety Page 152 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 27 of 33 10. Preserves and utilizes historic plantings 11. Preserves and establishes landmark trees 12. Provides imaginative combinations of plantings and hardscape B. Landscape design guidelines. The following guidelines are intended to assist in achiev‐ ing the above goals. 1. Overall landscaping guidelines. Planting areas should be integrated with the building design, enhance the appearance and enjoyment of the project and sof‐ ten the visual impact of buildings and paving. Landscaping should use a combi‐ nation of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Project plantings should blend with vegetation on nearby property if the neighboring greenery is healthy and appro‐ priate. The City encourages innovation in planting design and choice of land‐ scape materials. 2. Vegetation and natural features. Healthy existing vegetation and natural rock formations should be kept and incorporated into site and planting plans if they improve site appearance or enhance its proposed use. 3. Extent of landscaping. A site should be adequately planted on all sides, and within its interior. Trees must be planted along streets in compliance with the City’s Tree Regulations, and should be selected from the City’s “street tree” list. Trees not on the list may be used if approved by the City’s Arborist. Trees may also be required at other locations on a site for screening. 4. Plant selection. The purpose of planting for shade, screening, erosion control or appearance should inform the selection of plant types. Thickness, height, color, seasonal characteristics and ultimate growth should be considered. Where planting is intended to perform a function such as screening or shading, its initial size and spacing should be selected to achieve its purpose within two years, or it should be supplemented by temporary architectural features such as screen fencing or an arbor. 5. Water conservation. The conservation and efficient use of water are important City goals. To that end, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1547 (2010 series) that promotes the use of native and drought tolerant materials and sets water efficient landscape standards consistent with State law. The purpose of the standards are to provide landscape designers and project applicants with the tools they will need to design a landscape that is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines goals and meet the more stringent requirements for water conservation. The landscape standards apply to the following types of develop‐ ment: Page 153 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 28 of 33 New construction and rehabilitated landscapes for institutional, commer‐ cial and multi‐family development projects with a landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet which are otherwise subject to a building permit or development review. Developer‐installed single‐family residential landscapes and common ar‐ eas of a project with a landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet which are otherwise subject to a building permit or develop‐ ment review. Where model homes are included, the developer shall in‐ stall at least two model homes with landscapes that comply with the City Engineering Standards requirements and include signs and printed mate‐ rials explaining design strategies and plant materials for water conserva‐ tion. New construction landscapes which are homeowner‐provided and/or homeowner‐hired in single‐family projects with a total project landscape area equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet requiring a building per‐ mit or development review. Response: See sheets A35, A36, A40 and A41 for the overall landscape plan, plant materials, and site details that show compliance with these guidelines. 6.3 ‐ Parking Facilities A. General design principles. Parking areas should be designed to serve pedestrian needs as effectively as vehicle parking needs. 1. The City strongly encourages shared parking arrangements. Parking areas on ad‐ joining parcels should be connected to allow continuous vehicle, bicycle, and pe‐ destrian access. Pedestrian linkages between parcels should be located sepa‐ rately from vehicle connections where possible and, in all cases, clearly differen‐ tiated from vehicle ways. 2. Pedestrian ways should connect parking areas to streets. 3. Pedestrian ways should be incorporated in parking lots, where practical, using such elements as accented paving, trellises, and lighting. Response: Parking is provided adjacent to the mixed use building, in dedicated residential garages, and in distributed parking lots. A quarter of the residential parking is provided in garages that are tucked under residential structures. There are approximately 200 residential parking spaces that are provided in 10 separate parking lots. Bike parking is provided per City building codes and Active Transportation Plan regulations. See Sheet A10 for site circulation Page 154 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 29 of 33 and pedestrian connections to parking, and special pedestrian connections through parking lots. B. Siting and screening. Parking lots should not dominate street views of projects. Wher‐ ever possible, parking lots should be placed behind buildings. 1. Motorcycle and bicycle parking spaces and accessible parking spaces should be located for convenience and safety. 2. When parking lots are proposed along street frontages, they shall be screened by a three‐foot (minimum) high wall, fence, hedge consisting of five gallon or larger plants, or landscaped berm. The area between such screen and the street shall be landscaped. (per Parking and Driveway Standards). 3. A parking lot on a non‐residential site adjacent to a residential use shall be screened by a solid six‐foot high wall, fence or an existing mature hedge. 4. Structured parking is encouraged to minimize “vast seas of parking” in large commercial projects. 5. The number of driveway entries to a site should be minimized, and located as far away as feasible from adjacent street intersections. Opportunities for common driveways and shared parking areas through reciprocal easements should be pursued. 6. Where there is adequate space to do so, planters should be created along the edge of driveways leading to parking lots, rather than up to the property line. Response: There are no residential garages or carports that front onto, or have direct access from public streets. Parking spaces are located at driveway entrances, but these areas com‐ prise less than 15 percent of any public street frontage. See Sheets A3, A11 and A14. Access points on Santa Fe and Tank Farm Road are separated from the intersection by at least 250 lineal feet, and the number of entries is limited to that required for adequate fire access and per the AASP. C. Landscaping in parking areas. The City encourages landscaping in parking lots to provide visual interest, buffers between land uses and shading for cars and people. 1. A minimum of five percent of the total area of a parking lot shall be devoted to landscaping, in compliance with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards. 2. To provide for trees in parking lots, planters shall be placed after each six parking spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces, in compliance with Parking and Driveway Standards Section I.1. Page 155 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 30 of 33 3. Trees in parking lots should be selected to provide adequate visual interest and shading when they mature. Trees with messy fruit and excessive litter should be avoided. 4. Landscape areas shall have a minimum dimension of four feet exclusive of any car overhang area, and eight feet where intended to accommodate trees. Land‐ scape areas shall be defined by concrete curbing at least six inches wide, de‐ signed to minimize damage to pavement caused by irrigation of landscaping. 5. Landscaping in parking lots should be located and maintained so as to not block a driver’s view. 6. Planter areas should be provided between buildings and adjacent parking lots to visually break up the hard surfaces. Response: See sheets A35, A36, A40 and A41 for the overall landscape plan, plant materials, and site details that show compliance with these guidelines. Parking is provided in conform‐ ance with the Improvement Plans and Standards. Statistically, the commercial parking lot contains 6.5% of total area as landscape. The project complies with dimension minimums specified above. D. Pedestrian access. Parking lots should be designed to help direct pedestrians comforta‐ bly and safely to building entrances. 1. Walkways should be clearly delineated by changes in the color or texture of pav‐ ing materials. 2. Parking lot aisles should generally be oriented to run perpendicular to the build‐ ing’s entry to allow pedestrians to walk parallel to moving cars. This strategy also minimizes the need for the pedestrian to cross parking aisles and land‐ scaped areas. 3. The design of pedestrian access within a site should also consider pedestrian ac‐ cess to adjacent sites and uses. Response: See Sheet A10 for overall pedestrian and bicycle access to and through the site. See Sheet A33 for usage of materials and identifying pedestrian facilities D. Alternative paving materials. The City supports the use of innovative paving materials such as colored and/or stamped concrete, brick or grasscrete to help define an entry or walkway, to minimize the visual expansiveness of large paved areas, or to help save a specimen tree. However, care should be taken that walkways connecting disabled‐ac‐ cessible parking stalls or public sidewalks and transit stops to proposed uses are con‐ structed with smooth surface materials that can be comfortably. Page 156 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 31 of 33 Response: See Sheets A5 and A33 for the areas where pervious paving materials are pro‐ posed. F. Bicycle parking. Adequate on‐site facilities for bicycle parking throughout the City will encourage more widespread bicycle use. 1. Each new multi‐family, office, commercial, or industrial project that requires 10 or more automobile parking spaces must provide both short‐term (racks) and long‐term (lockers or interior space) bicycle parking. The number of spaces re‐ quired is based on the percentages included in Section 17.16.060, Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Section 17.16.060 E. of the City’s Zoning Regulations al‐ lows a project that provides more bicycle and/or motorcycle spaces than re‐ quired, to reduce its vehicle parking requirement at the rate of one vehicle space for each additional five motorcycle or bicycle spaces, up to a 10 percent reduc‐ tion. 2. Each bicycle rack should: a. Stand a minimum of 30 inches from ground level and support each bike in a stable position by providing at least two vertical contact points for a bi‐ cycle frame. The rack should be coated with, or constructed of a durable material that prevents rust and corrosion. Inverted “U” racks or “Peak Racks” bike racks have been identified as complying with the City’s stand‐ ards, illustrated in Figure 6‐4. Other similar designs may be allowed upon approval by the Public Works Director. b. Allow the frame and both wheels (one wheel removed from the frame) to be locked to the rack using a common locking device such as a standard‐ sized "U"‐lock. c. Be installed with mounting brackets on a concrete surface with access provided in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications for place‐ ment and clearance from obstructions as shown in Figure 6‐5. d. Be installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main en‐ trance of the destination as possible and be located at least as conven‐ iently as the most convenient automobile parking space available to the general public. e. Be distributed to serve all tenants/visitors on sites that contain more than one structure or building entry. f. Be visible from the interior of the destination. g. Be placed where they will not be damaged by vehicles or vandals. Page 157 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 32 of 33 h. Be located where clear and safe pedestrian circulation is ensured. i. Be illuminated at night to the extent that the destination supports nighttime activity. j. Be sheltered, when shelter can be attractively integrated with project ar‐ chitecture. Response: See Sheet A1 for bicycle parking calculations. See Sheet A6 for location of bicycle parking. 7.1 ‐ Creekside Development A. Streambed analysis. The project permit application shall include a site‐specific streambed analysis prepared by a hydrologist, civil engineer, or other qualified profes‐ sional to determine the precise boundary/top of bank of the waterway. The Director may waive this requirement if it is determined that the project, because of its size, loca‐ tion, or design will not have an impact on the waterway, or that sufficient information already exists, and further analysis is not necessary. A required streambed analysis shall include all information and materials required by the Department. B. Creek setback development guidelines. Each proposed structure shall comply with the following guidelines. 1. A building setback line along the waterway shall be measured from the existing top of bank or from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from the creek flow line. Applicants should review the City Creek Setback Standards (Municipal Code Section 17.16.025), for additional in‐ formation and exceptions for creek setback measurements and requirements. 2. A path or trail may be located within a creekside setback where biological and habitat value will not be compromised; however, no other structure, road, park‐ ing access, parking space, paved area, or swimming pool should be constructed within a creek or creekside setback area. The surfacing of a path or trail may most appropriately be permeable; the type of surface will be based on the need to protect riparian resources and minimize runoff to the creek channel. 3. No grading or filling, planting of exotic/non‐native or non‐riparian plant species, or removal of native vegetation shall occur within a creek or creekside setback area. 4. Where drainage improvements are required within a creek or creek setback area, they shall be placed in the least visible locations and naturalized through Page 158 of 171 ____________________________________ 600 Tank Farm Road Policy and Standard Conformity Checklist Page 33 of 33 the use of river rock, earthtone concrete, and landscaping with native plant ma‐ terials. 5. Proposed development should incorporate permeable surfaces in hardscape ar‐ eas (for example, wood decks, sand‐joined bricks, and stone walkways) where feasible, to minimize off‐site flows and facilitate the absorption of water into the ground. 6. Development or land use changes that increase impervious surfaces or sedimen‐ tation may result in channel erosion. This may require measures to stabilize creek banks. a. Creek rehabilitation is the preferred method of stabilization, with the objective of maintaining the natural character and quality of the creek and riparian area. Rehabilitation may include enlarging the channel at points of obstruction, clear‐ ing obstructions at points of constriction, limiting uses in areas of excessive ero‐ sion, and restoring riparian vegetation. b. Concrete channels and other mechanical stabilization measures are not appro‐ priate, and should be considered for use on a case‐by‐case basis and only unless no other alternative exists. c. If bank stabilization requires other rehabilitation or vegetative methods, hand‐ placed stone or rock rip‐rap are the preferred methods. 7. Public access and visibility to creeks should be provided through the use of sin‐ gle‐loaded frontage roads adjacent to creeks, but outside of the creek setback. Structures, or lots that back‐on to creeks are discouraged. However, certain ar‐ eas along the creek may not be appropriate for public access due to on‐going conservation plans and programs. These areas are determined by the City’s Nat‐ ural Resource Manager. Response: Building setbacks have been provided in conformance with Zoning Regulation re‐ quirements based on the average setback across the eastern property boundary. The set‐ backs vary, and areas within the statutory setbacks were determined to not have a significant affect on wildlife or plant life. The modified setbacks have been reviewed by the Natural Re‐ sources Manager. Page 159 of 171 Page 160 of 171