HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6b. Review of Mixed Use Project 600 Tank Farm Road Item 6b
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: 2/1/2022
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING 280 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS & 12,500 SF OF COMMERCIAL, WITH ASSOCIATED
EXCEPTIONS, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE, &
ASSOCIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the
San Luis Obispo, California, approving the 600 Tank Farm mixed -use development
project, consisting of 280 residential units and 12,500 square feet of commercial/office
space, including a creek setback exception, specific plan amendments, general plan
map amendment, rezoning, and vesting common interest tentative parcel map #21 -
0015; and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, as
represented in the City Council agenda report and attachments dated February 1,
2022 (600 Tank Farm Road, PR-0005-2021, ARCH-0406-2021; SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019; SPEC-0407-2020; EID-0608-2020).”
2. Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a rezone for property at 600 Tank
Farm Road. The project includes amending the Zoning Map to change the zoning
designation of the associated properties from Business Park (BP -SP) to Commercial
Services (C-S-SP), respectively, and making associated text amendments to the
Airport Area Specific Plan to be consistent with the 600 Tank Farm mixed -use
development plan including adoption of a Final Environmental Impact Report , as
represented in the City Council staff report and attachments dated February 1, 2022
(600 Tank Farm: PR-0005-2021, GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020, EID-0608-
2020).”
3. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment C) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a reimbursement agreement with
Covelop, Inc. for specific infrastructure costs that are beyond the 600 Tank Farm
mixed-use development project’s fair share requirements , as represented in the City
Council agenda report and attachments dated February 1, 2022 (600 Tank Farm
Road, PR-0005-2021, ARCH-0406-2021; SBDV-0407-2021; GENP-0814-2019;
SPEC-0407-2020; EID-0608-2020)
4. .
Page 217 of 495
Item 6b
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant, Covelop, Inc., proposes a new mixed-use development consisting of 280
residential units and up to 12,500 square feet of commercial-service/office uses within the
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) area. The 11.7-acre project site is located at 600 Tank
Farm Road, 130 feet northeast of the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road,
in the southern portion of the City of San Luis Obispo , and west of Acacia Creek. The
project includes various off-site transportation improvements located in areas south and
west of the parcel boundary to facilitate the project, including construction of a new
roundabout at the Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road intersection , and advanced
planning and design to lead towards construction of a future shared -use pedestrian/bike
path on Tank Farm Road (to be constructed in the future by the City or others). Figure 1
shows the project site location.
The project includes a mix of residential unit
types including one-bedroom, two-bedroom,
and three-bedroom units. The project
developers are required to install significant
onsite and offsite transportation improvements
to serve the project and implement City plans. A
reimbursement agreement is recommended to
ensure these priority improvements are
constructed in a timely manner. The
reimbursements would come from multiple
sources, including Local Revenue Measure1 for
the City’s fair share, Transportation Impact Fee
(TIF) credits for on-site development, and from
TIF fees paid by neighboring projects that
benefit from these infrastructure improvements,
such as the 650 Tank Farm Road project and
the Northwest Corner site (both at the building
permit review phase).
In addition, funding for the City’s share of the reimbursements would be allocated from
the City’s Strategic Infrastructure Investment Fund and future Capital Improvement Plan
budget allocations. These reimbursements are recommended based on the high priority
of the transportation improvements to be installed.
1 Staff will be recommending the allocation of approximately $1.5 million in one time funding from Measure
G to support housing and infrastructure consistent with the Revenue Enhancement Oversight
Commission’s (REOC) funding priorities. The REOC is scheduled to consider the recommendation in
late January 2021.
Figure 1. Project Site Location
Page 218 of 495
Item 6b
The applicant has requested several design exceptions to various City standards
supported by the Planning Commission related to creek setback requirements, a
reduction in parking requirements, and fence heights. These requests are described
more fully in the Discussion section of this report.
The Tree Committee (September 2021) and the Architectural Review Commission
(October 2021) reviewed the proposed project and recommended the Planning
Commission find the project consistent with the City Tree Regulations, Airport Area
Specific Plan (AASP), Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and other applicable City
standards. On November 17, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and
associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and recommended certification of
the FEIR and approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on the findings
and conditions as outlined in the Draft Resolution (Attachment A), including minor
modifications to Conditions 68 and 115, which address design elements intended to
improve the safety and functionality of pedestrian circulation.
Finally, the project will be providing more affordable housing than required by the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The following table highlights the requirement for
affordable housing and the additional Moderate Income – For Sale units that will be
integrated into the project. The additional affordable housing was negotiated by City staff
to address City Council direction for a significant affordable housing component when the
Council authorized staff to process the entitlements. The additional affordable housing
with the significant infrastructure improvements to be delivered by the project are in line
with City affordable housing and infrastructure related Major City Goals.
Table 1. Affordable Housing Requirements
Site Details Proposed Required
Affordable Units 11 Moderate-Income Units
1 Unit (Residential: build
5% low5 - and 10%
moderate income ADUs,
but not less than 1 ADU per
project; Table 2A
Adjustment Factor of 0
based on Ave. Unit Size
<1,100 sq. ft.)
2 Units (Commercial: build
2 affordable units per acre
(0.86 acres), but not less
than 1 affordable unit per
project)
Page 219 of 495
Item 6b
DISCUSSION
Background & Project Details
The applicant, Covelop, Inc., proposes a new mixed-use development consisting of 280
residential units and up to 12,500 square feet of commercial-service/office uses within the
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) area. The project site is Road, 130 feet northeast of
the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road, in the southern portion of the
City of San Luis Obispo, and west of Acacia Creek. The project site comprises of two
parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APN] 053-421-002 and 053-421-006) totaling
approximately 11.7 acres. The project includes various off-site transportation
improvements located in areas south and west of the parcel boundary to facilitate the
project, totaling approximately 1.0 acre. The total project site area is 12.7 acres.
The 280 residential units include shared public and private open spaces, common yards,
and a 2,250-square foot clubhouse building with a 2,800 -square foot private patio area.
The project includes a mix of residential unit types including, 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 applicant’s project description (Attachment D) includes several requests for
exceptions from various City development standards, as summarized below:
An exception is requested to allow a paved bike/pedestrian trail within the 35 -foot
creek setback, in accordance with § 17.70.030.G.2.c;
An exception is requested to allow portions of Buildings 14, 19, and 21, to encroach
within the creek setback to allow a 30-foot setback, where a 35-foot setback is
normally required, in accordance with § 17.70.030.G.4;
An exception is requested to allow portions of Buildings 4, 8, 14, 19, and 21, to
encroach within the upper-story creek setback2 to allow a 30-foot setback where a
45-foot setback is normally required, in accordance with § 17.70.030.G.4
An exception is requested to allow ground floor residential uses along Santa Fe
Road on the ground floor within the first 50 feet of Buildings 7 and 9, in accordance
with § 17.70.130.D.1.a;
A fence height exception is requested to allow a retaining wall with a maximum
height of 15 feet, where 8 feet is normally the standard, in accordance with §
17.70.070.H; and
A 6.8 percent parking reduction is requested to reduce the required parking from
467 vehicle spaces to 435 spaces, in accordance with AASP Standards 5.4.5,
5.4.6, and 5.4.7.
2 Zoning Regulations § 17.70.030.E.3 Additional Upper Story Setbacks. Where the zone allows more
than two stories, an additional 10-foot step back (upper story building setback) shall be provided
beginning at the third story level. The upper story step back shall be provided along all building
elevations with creek-facing frontage.
Page 220 of 495
Item 6b
These requests were evaluated in the Planning Commission (PC) agenda report (PC
Report & Minutes 11.17.21), and were supported by the PC in its public hearing of
November 17, 2021.
The project includes a total of 25 three-story buildings and one single-story clubhouse,
consisting of six building types. As shown in Figure 2, there are four residential building
types proposed (shown as “Type A,” “Type B,” “Type C“, and “Type D”), and one mixed
use building type (“Type E”) and the one clubhouse structure (“Type F”) (Attachment E,
Project Plans).
Table 2 below summarizes the unit types by size and distribution within the project site.
Table 2. Project Characteristics
To facilitate the project, the following entitlements are required: a General Plan Map
Amendment, a Specific Plan Amendment to the AASP, a rezone of the property, a Vesting
Common Interest Tentative Parcel Map, and Major Development Review. Approval of
these entitlements would allow a final development plan (consistent with the granted
entitlements).
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 221 of 495
Item 6b
The proposed General Plan Map Amendment would change the land use designation of
the property from Business Park (BP) to Services and Manufacturing (SM). This change
is necessary to accommodate the zone change from Business Park (BP -SP) to
Commercial Services (C-S-SP) within the AASP. Under the AASP and Zoning
Regulations, the BP zone does not allow for residential densities; the zone change
associated with the AASP text amendments would allow for a mixed -use development to
occur within the property.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment to the AASP would include the following text
amendments to address the mixed-use development (See Attachment B, Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B), and associated site improvements specific to the project site:
1. Change the site’s land use designation from BP-SP to C-S-SP with the Specific
Plan Overlay, which is necessary to allow the proposed mixed-use development;
2. Amendment to allow a mixed-use development specific to the property at 600 Tank
Farm within the C-S-SP zone;
3. Amend all AASP tables and text to reflect the addition of 280 residential units, and
12,500 square feet of commercial-service/office space for the project site;
4. Modify the road section figures to reflect modifications to Tank Farm Road and
Santa Fe Road consistent with traffic projections and full buildout of the circulation
system;
5. Describe necessary setback of improvements and buildings to delineated wetland
areas in conformance with project Biological Assessments;
6. Update applicable figures and graphics to reflect the changes in land use
designations and circulations systems.
A small portion on the east side of the property delineating a portion of Acacia Creek is
within the Conservation Open Space (C/OS) zone, and this designation will remain
unchanged.
The Vesting Common Interest Tentative Parcel Map (SLO 21-0015) proposes to divide
the two existing parcels into 11 common interest parcels (ranging in size from 0.44 to 1.90
acres) to establish 280 airspace condominiums (Attachment F).
Page 222 of 495
Item 6b
The project is planned to be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 would include 124
multifamily residential units on the central portion of the project site, the completion of
Santa Fe Road along the project frontage, completion of the shared -use
bicycle/pedestrian path along Acacia Creek connecting bicycles and pedestrians from
Tank Farm Road to Damon-Garcia Sports Complex, construction of the Tank Farm
Road/Santa Fe Road (west) roundabout (north, west and east legs with two westbound
lanes and one eastbound lane), and the completion of frontage improvements along Tank
Farm Road. Phase 2 would include 116 multifamily residential units, 40 mixed-use units,
12,500 square feet of commercial-service/office space, and remaining project
improvements. The conceptual phasing plan has been provided on Sheet C2 of the
project plans and is shown below in Figure 3, for quick reference.
Transportation Improvements Proposed to be Constructed with the Project. The project
would be required to construct several transportation improvements envisioned in the
City’s General Plan Circulation Element, AASP and Active Transportation Plan (ATP),
either as required mitigation or as conditions of approval per the circulation
recommendations identified in the focused transportation impact study prepared for the
project (refer to Attachment A, Draft Resolution for specific requirements). Improvements
to be constructed by the project include:
Figure 3. Conceptual Phasing Plan
Page 223 of 495
Item 6b
1. Widening of Tank Farm Road along the project frontage on north side of street
(provides two westbound auto lanes, landscaped parkway, westboun d protected
bike lanes, and sidewalk).
2. Construction of a portion of the Santa Fe Road Extension north of Tank Farm Road
(includes two travel lanes, landscaped parkway, northbound protected bike lane,
southbound striped bike lane, and sidewalk on east side)
3. Construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe
Road
4. Construction of the Acacia Creek Bikeway, a shared-use bicycle/pedestrian path
along the western bank of Acacia Creek, connecting from the Damon Garcia Path
network to Sante Fe and Tank Farm Roads.
These improvements are included in the City’s list of Transportation Capital Projects in
the General Plan Circulation Element and Active Transportation Plan , are shown in the
AASP and are included in the project description. Stormwater runoff from these
improvements would be directed to a planned retention basin at the northwest corner of
the proposed roundabout. The anticipated area within which these required
improvements would be constructed is identified in Final EIR Section 2, Project
Description, Figure 2-2 on Page 2-3.
Contribution Towards Other Transportation Improvements. In addition to constructing
several transportation improvements, the project applicant would be providing a fair share
contribution to several other high-priority transportation improvements identified in the
General Plan Circulation Element, AASP and ATP. Through participation in the Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee Program, the project would be contributing financially towards
future widening of Tank Farm Road west of Santa Fe Road (to provide two lanes in each
direction, a landscaped median, and shared-use pedestrian/bicycle paths), capacity and
pedestrian/bicycle improvements at the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road intersection, and
the Prado Road Interchange and Extension (between Higuera and Broad Streets).
Further, the project applicant would be required to initiate focused planning and design
work for a future shared-use pedestrian/bicycle path along Tank Farm Road from Santa
Fe Road west to Innovation Way (4,700 feet west of Santa Fe Road), as identified in the
City’s ATP and the CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Memorandum and Multimodal
Transportation Impact Study (included as Appendix B to the Final EIR). This requirement
would be implemented through Condition No. 118 (Tank Farm Road Shared -Use Path),
which articulates the intent for the applicant to provide preliminary design and planning
analysis for the shared-use pedestrian/bicycle path, and a Reimbursement Agreement
detailing the specific requirements of the applicant to support the future improvement.
The goal of Conditions No. 113 (Transportation Impact Fees) and 114 (Reimbursement
for Public Improvements) require a Reimbursement Agreement to advance planning of
the shared-use pedestrian/bicycle path to a point where design details and right-of-way
needs are determined to a sufficient level to allow the City or others can take this on as a
capital improvement project in the near future.
Page 224 of 495
Item 6b
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
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 (Council Initiation and Minutes of 4.21.20). The
Council also authorized the processing of an application for a Development Agreement
(DA). A DA was expected to be necessary to accomplish additional affordable housing
for the project and cover the significant issues surrounding the reimbursement for
infrastructure expenditures. However, following initial negotiations, it was determined that
both issue areas could be addressed without the need for a DA. While a Development
Agreement can be an effective tool for accomplishing complicated project entitlements
and to negotiate public benefits beyond those required by policy or law, in this case, the
normal discretionary review process along with the reimbursement agreement were
sufficient for accomplishing City Council direction provided at project initiation.
Through 2020, the project was conceptually reviewed by the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC), Active Transportation Committee (ATC) and Planning Commission
(PC). Following conceptual review, the applicant revised the project in response to
advisory body comments, and the revised project was analyzed in a Draft EIR and is the
project now under consideration. A more detailed evaluation of the comments and
recommendations from the initial City Council hearing and preliminary review by the ARC,
ATC, Tree Committee (TC), Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and PC are
summarized in Attachment G (Previous Council and Advisory Body Action and Comment
Summary).
After the City Council authorization, the project has been reviewed in draft or revised form
ten times, as listed below.
Council Initiation and Conceptual Review
April 21, 2020 - Council Initiation Report & Minutes
July 16, 2020 - Conceptual ATC Report & Minutes
August 17, 2020 - Conceptual ARC Report & Minutes
September 23, 2020 - Conceptual PC Report & Minutes
EIR Scoping and Draft Review
December 9, 2020 - PC EIR Scoping & Minutes
July 14, 2021 - PC Draft EIR Review & Minutes
Previous Advisory Body Review
August 18, 2021 – Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Report & Minutes
September 27, 2021 - TC Report & Minutes
October 4, 2021 - ARC Report & Minutes
November 17, 2021 - PC Report & Minutes
Page 225 of 495
Item 6b
As summarized in the PC Agenda Report from November 17, 2021, the applicant
modified the project to reflect comments and recommendations from the ARC. The PC
reviewed the revised the project and recommended approval to the City Council with
minor modification to Conditions 68 and 115 but not otherwise recommending changes
to the project. The modifications are as follows:
Condition 68. Revisions shown in strikeout or underlined text: “Unless otherwise
waived by the City, the use of pervious pavers or alternate paving materials as
visual cues for pedestrians should be expanded to include some of the more
extensive parking areas serving the commercial lease spaces, common area/Club
House, the central pedestrian crossroads area, and the northerly shared parking
area on Lots 9 and 11 and the central area.”
Condition 115. Revisions shown in underlined text: “Tank Farm Road Frontage
Improvements. Project applicant shall reconstruct the Tank Farm Road project
frontage to current City Engineering Standards. Unless otherwise approved by the
Public Works Director, plans submitted for Public Improvement Plans shall include
widening the northern side of Tank Farm to a cross section that substantially
conforms with the Airport Area Specific Plan and Active Transportation Plan, which
includes the following typical cross section elements on the north half of the street:
5’ sidewalk / 7’ protected bike lane / 9’ parkway / curb and gutter / two westbound
12’-13’ auto lanes / raised median / one existing eastbound auto lane / existing
eastbound bike lane. Designs shall be developed in coordination with the frontage
improvements currently in development for the adjacent 650 Tank Farm Road
development to ensure that appropriate geometric transitions. Improvements shall
be approved or substantially approved to the satisfaction o f the Public Works and
Community Development Departments prior to issuance of any building permits
and improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of first occupancy permits.”
Reimbursement Agreement Details
The project will be constructing over $5 Million in infrastructure that is eligible for either
credits against the project’s own Transportation Impact Fee requirement, or direct
reimbursement from various sources.
Attachment B of Exhibit 4 in the reimbursement agreement identifies the overall costs for
public infrastructure to be constructed by the project and subject to reimbursement, as
follows:
Page 226 of 495
Item 6b
The General Fund share of the reimbursement is $2.25 Million, which represents costs
that exceed the developer’s fair share and cannot legally be reimbursed through the City’s
Traffic Impact Fee program. This funding is recommended to be appropriated from the
City’s Strategic Infrastructure Investment fund. A total of $715,000 from this fund was
already appropriated as part of the 2021 -23 Financial Plan for the Tank Farm/Santa Fe
Roundabout, which will support the initial design development phase of the project. The
reimbursement agreement would then require staff to recommend appropriation of an
additional $1.5 Million as part of either the 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Review (to be
presented to the City Council on February 15, 2022) or the 2021-23 Financial Plan
Supplement (to be presented to the City Council in June 2022). If the Council appropriates
the additional funding at that time, then the project could move forward into the
construction phase once the infrastructure permits are issued.
The reimbursement agreement is recommended for approval because it will result in the
delivery of one of the most important transportation improvement projects iden tified in the
City’s General Plan. The reimbursement agreement is a mutually beneficial agreement
that allows the housing project to move forward without realizing significant carrying costs
and uncertainty that would be the result if reimbursement for the se extra costs was not
available in the near term. The infrastructure costs, if not appropriately reimbursed, would
delay both the delivery of housing and important transportation infrastructure. Such
projects are identified as “Partnership Projects” in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan
and include important public benefits. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt
a resolution approving the proposed reimbursement agreement.
Uses
Santa Fe Road
(Area 3)1
Tank Farm Road
(Area 4)2
Acacia Creek
Bike Path3
Tank Farm Bike
Path PSE4 Total
Design $ 30,306.93 $ 262,682.72 $ 36,024.83 $ 189,750.00 $ 518,764.49
Rights of Way $ 37,375.00 $ 525,500.00 $ - $ 562,875.00
Direct Expense $ 316,159.86 $ 2,837,596.79 $ 475,468.73 $ 3,691,275.04
Contingency $ 40,409.24 $ 350,243.63 $ 62,049.67 $ 37,950.00 $ 490,652.54
Total $ 424,251.02 $ 3,976,023.14 $ 573,543.23 $ 227,700.00 $ 5,201,517.39
Sources
General Fund $ 254,550.61 $ 1,560,656.94 $ 376,005.65 $ 68,310.00 $ 2,259,523.21
Offsite Paid TIF5 $ 120,555.17 $ 1,715,876.15 $ 159,390.00 $ 1,995,821.32
$ 197,537.58 $ 197,537.58
Onsite TIF (Credits) $ 49,145.24 $ 699,490.05 $ 748,635.29
Total $ 424,251.02 $ 3,976,023.14 $ 573,543.23 $ 227,700.00 $ 5,201,517.39
4 30% of Costs from GF
1 60% of cost from GF; Balance from TIF
2 30% of Direct and Indirect Project Cost from GF; 100% of ROW from GF
3 100% of Non-Project Contributions from GF
5 Projected Fees from 660 Tank Farm and 3985 Broad Street Retail Pads Plusn 100% from 650 Tank Farm Road
Direct Project Contribution
Page 227 of 495
Item 6b
Policy Context
The proposed project must conform to the standards and limitations of the General Plan,
AASP, and any applicable aspects of the Zoning Regulations, and Engineering Standards
not otherwise addressed in the AASP that apply to the overall development plan approval
including the subdivision component. The PC evaluated the project including
recommendations provided by the ARC, and recommended that the Council find the
project to be consistent with all applicable policies, related to the following regulatory
framework:
General Plan
Airport Area Specific Plan
Zoning Regulations
Subdivision Regulations
Airport Land Use Plan
Affordable Housing Requirements
The PC report from the November 17, 2021 hearing, provided an in depth analysis of the
projects consistency with the regulatory framework, please see Section 4.0 of the PC
Report and associated attachments.
Project Statistics
Table 3 summarizes the project’s consistency with key policy requirements in the context
of various aspects of the proposed project design.
Table 3. Project Characteristics and Requirements
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Density (net area 10.84 acres) 256.88 density units 24 du/ac (260 density units)
Setbacks
Street Setback (Buildings)
Street Setback (Parking Lots)
Side Yard (Parking Lots)
16 feet
10 feet
5 feet
16 feet
10 feet
5 feet
Creek Setback
Pathways
Structures
Upper-Story Step Backs
2 feet
30 feet
30 feet
35 feet
35 feet
45 feet
Maximum Height of Structures
Occupied
Un-occupied
36 feet
46 feet
36 feet
46 feet
Fence Heights 15 feet (max) 8 feet
Floor Area Ratio 0.60 0.60
Max Lot Coverage 65.6% 90%
Affordable Housing 11 units (moderate income) 3 units or In-lieu fees
Public Art On-site (differed) On-site or In-lieu fee
Page 228 of 495
Item 6b
Table 3. Project Characteristics and Requirements
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
Total # Parking Spaces
EV Parking (Ready)
EV Parking (Capable)
Bicycle Parking
Short Term
Long Term
Motorcycle Parking
435 (6.8% reduction)
48
117
63
563
23
467
48
117
63
563
23
*2019 Zoning Regulations; Airport Area Specific Plan (updated May 2021)
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) Manual and the City’s
Municipal Code, the project was noticed in compliance with the City’s notification
requirements for Development Projects for each public hearing associated wi th the
project. 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
within 300 feet of the project site ten days before the hearing.
CONCURRENCE
The City’s review of the project involved all City departments in the development review
process. Various conditions of approval from these departments were included in the
Resolution related to the project approval, based on those conditions set for th in the
Planning Commission Resolution related to this action, as modified as a result of Planning
Commission recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and circulated for a 50 -day public review period that
began on June 15, 2021 and ended on August 3, 2021. In addition, a public meeting was
held on Wednesday July 14, 2021, at a Planning Commission meeting to receive public
comments on the Draft EIR.
The City of San Luis Obispo received nine comment letters on the Draft EIR and five
public comments during the public meeting. A Final EIR was prepared that addressed
the comments, and responses to comments received are provided in Chapter 8 of the
Final EIR. While there were several relatively minor changes in the Final EIR, none
resulted in new impacts, or increased the severity of previously i dentified impacts. None
of the clarifying information in the Final EIR warranted recirculation of the Draft EIR
pursuant to CEQA.
Page 229 of 495
Item 6b
One impact (Impact HAZ-3) was found to be significant and unavoidable. The project
would contribute to new pedestrian demand along Tank Farm Road west of the project
site, which does not have dedicated pedestrian facilities. The potential increase in
pedestrian demand would result in a potential hazard to pedestrians. The applicant will
be required to reduce this impact by funding and installing interim signage along Tank
Farm Road west of Santa Fe Road to highlight potential safety hazards to pedestrians
along this connection. The signage shall remain in place until the future shared -use
pedestrian/bicycle path along the north side of Tank Farm Road between Santa Fe Road
and Innovation Way is constructed and open to the public , an improvement that is out of
the control of the project applicant because it requires the consent and cooperation of the
neighboring property owner. With that said, as noted above, the applicant will be
conducting preliminary engineering and environmental review for a future shared -use
path, which will expedite the potential for this to be constructed by the City or others as a
future project.
The Final EIR, including responses to comments on the Draft EIR, maybe be found at the
following link: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-2187
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2021-22
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 will be no net fiscal impact related to approving the proposed project. To budget
and appropriate the necessary Eligible Fees to provide reimbursements, including, but
not limited to timely appropriation of General Fund amounts, and reservation of any
Citywide Traffic Impact fees paid by Benefitting Properties. To this end, the City has
appropriated $715,000 in the 2021-2023 Financial Plan that will cover design and the
Tank Farm Bike Path Plans, Specifications and Estimates, and the City Manager
presently intends to recommend that the City, subject to the City Council’s discretion in
the exercise of its budgeting authority, appropriate at least an additional $1,544,600
during or prior to adoption of the 2022 Supplement to the Financial Plan to cover the costs
of needed rights of way. No previously unanticipated fiscal impacts would occur as a
result of this action.
Page 230 of 495
Item 6b
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the application to a future date. The Council may
continue its review of the project to a date certain hearing if additional time or
information is needed to make a decision. If additional information is needed, direction
should be provided to staff so that it can be presented at that subsequent hearing. The
Council may direct staff and the applicant to make specific changes to the project.
Direction on changes should be specific and preferably within the scope of the
environmental document prepared for the project. Changes beyond the scope of the
IS/MND prepared for the project would require additional environmental review and
delay the project entitlement process.
2. Deny the project. The Council may deny the project, based on findings of
inconsistency with California State Law, the City’s General Plan, AASP, Zoning
Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, or other policy documents.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Council Resolution (Major Development Review, Tentative Parcel Map, General
Plan Map Amendment, and FEIR)
B - Draft Ordinance (AASP Text Amendments and Rezoning)
C - Draft Resolution (Approving Reimbursement Agreement)
D - Project Description (ARCH-0407-2021)
E - Project Plans (ARCH-0407-2021
F - Vesting Common Interest Tentative Parcel Map #21-0015
G - Previous Council and Advisory Body Action and Comment Summary
Page 231 of 495
Page 232 of 495
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2022 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 600 TANK FARM MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CONSISTING OF 280 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
AND 12,500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE SPACE,
INCLUDING A CREEK SETBACK EXCEPTION, SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENTS, GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT, REZONING,
AND VESTING COMMON INTEREST TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21 -
0015; AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE PROJECT AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED
FEBRUARY 1, 2022 (600 TANK FARM ROAD, PR-0005-2021, ARCH-
0406-2021; SBDV-0407-2021; GENP-0814-2019; SPEC-0407-2020; EID-
0608-2020)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City San Luis Obispo conducted a web based
teleconference hearing on April 21, 2020, authorizing the initiation of the project and
issuance of a request for proposals for preparation of an Environmental Impact Repor t
for the project, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under GENP-0814-2019, Covelop Inc.,
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a web based teleconference hearing on July 16, 2020, and provid ed
recommended direction on the conceptual designs of the proposed mixed -use
development, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0216-2020, Covelop Inc.,
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a web based teleconference hearing on August 17, 2020, and provided
recommended direction on the conceptual designs of the proposed mixed -use
development, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0216-2020, Covelop Inc.,
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
web based teleconference hearing on September 23, 2020, and provided direction on the
conceptual designs of the proposed mixed-use development, pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under ARCH-0216-2020, Covelop Inc., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
web based teleconference hearing on December 9, 2020, for the purposes of reviewing
the scope of the Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020, and EID-0608-2020, Covelop Inc., applicant; and
Page 233 of 495
Resolution No. ______ (2022 Series) Page 2
R _____
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
web based teleconference hearing on July 14, 2021, received public testimony and
provided input on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021, GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-
2020, and EID-0608-2020, Covelop Inc., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of the County of San Luis Obispo,
upon receipt of a formal referral from the City of San Luis Obispo, conducted a web based
teleconference hearing on August 18, 2021, and determined consistency with the San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan subject to conditions, pursuant to a
proceeding instituted under PR-0005-2020, Covelop Inc., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based teleconference hearing on September 27, 2021, and provided recommendations
for consideration by the Planning Commission including a recommendation of
consistency with the City’s Tree Regulations, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under
ARCH-0406-2021, Covelop Inc., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a web based teleconference hearing on October 4, 2021, and recommended
approval of the project to the Planning Commission based on consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines and Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Design Standards
and Guidelines, including recommended directional items pursuant to a proceedin g
instituted under ARCH-0406-2021, Covelop Inc., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
web based teleconference hearing on November 17, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021, GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-
2020, and EID-0608-2020, Covelop Inc., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based teleconference hearing on February 1, 2022, pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021, GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020, and
EID-0608-2020, Covelop Inc., applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered
all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation
and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
Page 234 of 495
Resolution No. ______ (2022 Series) Page 3
R _____
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and to approve the
General Plan Map Amendment, Rezone, Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment, Vesting
Common Interest Tentative Parcel Map, and Major Development Review for the 600 Tank
Farm Mixed Use Project. This resolution is based on the following findings, California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations,
mitigation measures, and conditions:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council does hereby certify the 600 Tank Farm
Mixed Use EIR and approve the project, inclusive of applications ARCH-0406-2021;
SBDV-0407-2021; GENP-0814-2019; SPEC-0407-2020; EID-0608-2020, a Specific Plan
Amendment, General Plan Amendment/Rezoning, Vesting Common Interest Tentative
Tract Map, and Final EIR, based on the following findings:
General Plan Map Amendment and Airport Area Specific Plan Amendments Findings
1. The Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) as amended is consistent with policy
direction for the area included in the General Plan, and in particular with the
following General Plan policies: Policy LUE Policy 1.5 Jobs/Housing Relationship,
because the project provides additional housing opportunities at a location close
to major employers and multimodal transportation facilities; LUE Policy 2.2.6 and
2.2.7, which promote quality neighborhoods and infill development, because the
project is located within walking distance to MindBody Headquarters, SESLOC
Credit Union, other nearby employers as well as retail uses and other services of
the Marigold Shopping Center; and Circulation Element policies 3.1.7 Transit
Service Access, 4.1.1 Bicycle Use, and 5.1.2 Sidewalks and Paths, because SLO
Transit Routes 1 and 3 provide service to the project site area and because the
project would provide improvements to bicyclist and pedestrian facilities in the
project area.
2. The AASP Amendment, General Plan Map Amendment, and Rezone allow the
implementation of the 600 Tank Farm Road Mixed -Use Project by:
a. Updating the City’ s General Plan and Specific Plan land use maps from
Business Park to Services Manufacturing to reflect the development pattern
included in the 600 Tank Farm Mixed-Use development plan;
b. Rezoning the site from Business Park (BP-SP) to Commercial Services (C-
S-SP) to be consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, and
development plan.
3. As conditioned, the County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission, on
August 18, 2021, found the proposed project to be consistent with the Airport Land
Use Plan.
4. The proposed General Plan Map Amendment and AASP Amendments will not
conflict with easements for access through the property.
Page 235 of 495
Resolution No. ______ (2022 Series) Page 4
R _____
Development Review Findings
5. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible
with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood.
6. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.3.6 “Housing
and Businesses” and 3.8.5 “Mixed Uses” because future development facilitated
by the proposed project would provide residential dwellings within a commercial
district near neighborhood commercial centers, major activity nodes and transit
opportunities. Housing at this location is compatible with proposed and existing
commercial and residential uses on adjacent properties.
7. The project is consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.4.3
because the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more
efficient use of public facilities and services and to improve the jobs/housing
balance.
8. As conditioned, the project design maintains consistency with the City’s
Community Design Guidelines and Chapter 5 (Community Design) of the AASP
through articulation, massing, and a mix of color/finish materials that are
compatible with the neighborhood and complementary to other development within
the immediate vicinity. The project design is consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines by providing a variety of architectural treatments that add visual interest
and articulation to the building design that complements the design and scale of
the existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood (CDG, Chapter 5.4).
9. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project will not negatively alter the
overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the
development is designed in a manner that does not deprive reasonab le solar
access to adjacent properties. The project incorporates vertical and horizontal wall
plan offsets, which provide a high-quality and aesthetically pleasing architectural
design.
Mixed-use Project Findings
10. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for Mixed-
Use Projects (Section 17.70.130), because the proposed building design complies
with objective design criteria and performance standards for mixed -use
development by providing internal compatibility between the different uses in terms
of noise, hours of operation, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, access, and use of
open space.
Page 236 of 495
Resolution No. ______ (2022 Series) Page 5
R _____
Creek Setback Exception Findings
11. The location and design of the Buildings 4, 8, 14, 19, and 21, and the proposed
bike/pedestrian path receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic
resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife
habitation, rest, and movement, because the project includes the implementation
of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-2(e).
12. As conditioned, the exceptions for portions of Buildings 14, 19, and 21 to reduce
the setback requirement to 30 feet, where 35 feet is normally required, and for
portions of the upper story setbacks for Buildings 4, 8, 14, 19, and 21 to reduce
the setback requirement to 30 feet, where 45 feet is normally required, as well as
the proposed bike path within the creek setback will not limit the City’s design
options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted
City flood policies.
13. The exceptions will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor
increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans because
the proposed bike/pedestrian path is designed in accordance with the Active
Transportation Plan.
14. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as a greater creek setback
requirement than other properties in the vicinity, that would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning.
15. The exceptions will not constitute a grant of special privilege because the
bike/pedestrian path is envisioned with the Active Transportation Plan to provide
a connection to the Damien Garcia Sports Fields, and the exceptions for Buildings
4, 8, 14, 19, and 21 are considered minor.
16. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area of the project or downstream, because the project includes the
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-2(e).
17. A larger creek setback within the project design is not possible without a
substantial project redesign that could adversely affect site circulation, safety,
functionality, and the provision of housing consistent with City goals.
Placement of Residential Units Along Street Frontage Findings
18. The allowance of ground-floor residential units within the first 50 feet of floor area
adjacent to the street for Buildings 3, 7, and 9, will not negatively alter the overall
character of the neighborhood or the streets appearance because primary
commercial activities in the neighborhood are oriented toward the intersection of
Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road.
19. The majority of residential uses within the project are outside the 60 -decbel noise
contour from Tank Farm Road or are otherwise shielded by the commercial mixed
use structure adjacent to Tank Farm Road.
Page 237 of 495
Resolution No. ______ (2022 Series) Page 6
R _____
20. Those residences within the structures adjacent to Santa Fe Road can meet state
and local interior noise standard of 45 decibels through a project design that that
includes building materials and windows that attenuate noise to achieve this
standard.
21. The residential units within the project would enhance the pedestrian environment,
in that those residents would be adjacent to commercial development, which
encourages walking to such services, rather than taking a vehicle to a similar
commercial establishment elsewhere in the City. Moreover, front doors that face
the street would encourage direct pedestrian access to Santa Fe Road, which is
consistent with the City‘s goal of providing multimodal transportation facilities.
Fence Height Exception Findings
22. As conditioned, the proposed height of 15 feet for the retaining wall along the west
property line between the Santa Fe Road cul-de-sac and Building 26 is acceptable
because the fence provides adequate security and safety for circulation of the site
due to the drop in grade.
23. As conditioned, the proposed fence’s design, placement, and materials are
consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because it is of the same quality
as adjacent structures and fences in the vicinity.
24. No public purpose is served by strict compliance with the City’s fence height
standards because the retaining walls will not create a visible or tangible
obstruction between properties or the public right -of-way because the retaining
walls are predominantly visible from within the project site that provides necessary
access and circulation for the project.
25. As conditioned, the fences will not have any sight distance impacts for vehicles
entering and exiting properties since there is a dequate clearance between the
retaining walls and the entrances to the street.
Parking Reduction Findings
26. The proposed 6.8 percent vehicle parking reduction is appropriate for the site
because the project is located within a quarter mile of a regularly scheduled transit
stop, consistent with AASP Standard 5.4.5 which qualifies for a reduction up to 10
percent.
27. As conditioned, the project qualifies for a 6.8 percent parking reduction in
accordance with Zoning Regulations Section 17.72.050.C and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Parking Demand, where the peak hours of use will not
overlap or coincide to the degree that peak demand for parking spaces from all
uses or projects will be greater than the total supply of spaces.
Page 238 of 495
Resolution No. ______ (2022 Series) Page 7
R _____
Vesting Common Interest Tentative Parcel Map Findings
28. As conditioned, the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design
and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan, including compatibility with
objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan
and the AASP because Housing Element Program 6.13 specifically identifies the
project site as appropriate for rezoning to provide for higher-density or mixed-use
housing as compatible with other projects in the vicinity.
29. The design of the project is consistent with the City’s Clean Energy Choice
Program that provides for future natural heating, or cooling opportunities.
30. As conditioned, the applicant has agreed to an indemnification clause to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officer s and employees
from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or
employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental
review (“Indemnified Claims”).The site is physically suited for the type and density
allowed in the Service Commercial zone (C-S-SP) within the Specific Plan overlay,
because the adjacent property at 650 Tank Farm is also zoned C -S-SP and
provides for a similar mixed-use development project.
31. The design of the tentative map is not likely to cause serious health problems,
substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat, since the subdivision will occur on a previously developed
site within an urbanized area and, approval of this subdivision does not include
variances or exceptions from applicable design standards set forth in the
Subdivision Regulations.
32. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those living
or working on the site and vicinity since it has been found in conformance with
development standards and the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), and the project
will be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the site and
the surrounding neighborhood.
33. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for
access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision since any
existing easements will remain in place following the subdivision and will be
applicable to the newly-created parcels; and code requirements require the
recordation of new easements and the relocation of utilities wherever necessary
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works
Department Director.
34. As conditioned, the proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity. The property is not
subject to fault rupture or landslide hazards. As a Common Interest Subdivision,
the project is subject to architectural review and enforcement of relevant building
and safety codes.
Page 239 of 495
Resolution No. ______ (2022 Series) Page 8
R _____
35. The project is consistent with Housing Element Policies 6.1 and 7.4 because the
project supports the development of more housing in accordance with the assigned
Regional Housing Needs Allocation and establishes a new neighborhood, with
pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to
adjacent neighborhoods consistent with the AASP.
SECTION 2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings, Mitigation
Measures, and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Based upon all the evidence, the City
Council certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearing House
#2020110426), subject to the following CEQA findings in support of all entitlements
related to the 600 Tank Farm Mixed Use project:
1. The 600 Tank Farm Mixed Use Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the State CEQA Guidelines, adequately addressing impacts associated with the
project.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the 600 Tank Farm
Mixed Use FEIR as proposed based on the CEQA Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15091 and 15093, and this approval incorporates those FEIR mitigation
measures as applicable to Vesting Common Interest Tentative Parcel Map #21 -
0015, as detailed below, and described more fully in the attached CEQA Findings
of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A) and Mitigation,
Monitoring, and Reporting Program (Exhibit B).
3. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR,
and reduced to the extent feasible, provided identified mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project and the mitigation monitoring program (refer to Exhibit
B, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program).
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory
code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process,
which may include additional requirements applicable to the project. The City Council
hereby approves the project to the City Council with incorporation of the following
conditions:
Planning Division
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall
be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning
Commission (ARCH-0406-2021). A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in
working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code
requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be
made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are
addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or
other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural
Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
Page 240 of 495
Resolution No. ______ (2022 Series) Page 9
R _____
2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall incorporate the design considerations
as described at the ARC hearing on October 4, 2021, the final designs of the
proposed project shall be modified to incorporate the following items, subject to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director:
a. Provide one more color scheme for Building A types.
b. Incorporate balcony railings that provide more privacy; 66%-75% solid
panels to screen views.
c. On the Building B rear elevation provide white garage doors rather than gray
to blend in more.
d. Provide more planting or other visual indicators for pedestrians and traffic
calming (referencing the red arrow shown on sheet A10 descending from
Santa Fe Road)
e. Use landscaping to reduce massing of Building E.
f. Provide well thought out pedestrian-scale elements.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all
proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall
be consistent with the color and material board submitted with Major Development
(Architectural) Review application. The project shall avoid repetition of design
color schemes, such that adjacent townhomes or buildings of a similar layout use
different color schemes. The applicant shall also note the use of smooth f inish
stucco on the building plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details or
equivalent shadow variation, and all other details including but not limited to
awnings and railings. Plans shall indicate the type of materials for the window
frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the
materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related
window features. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all
design features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible
with the neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a revised railing system for the
balconies that provides a design that visually obscures views of storage on the
balconies and provides additional privacy between existing and new residential
units, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
6. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current
parking calculation for the commercial component of the project upon the submittal
of Planning and Building permits for tenant changes or improvements, and/or each
business license, to ensure the site does not become under-parked.
7. All surface parking spaces must be available for common use and not exclusively
assigned to any individual use, required residential parking may be reserve d, but
commercial parking must be made available for guests or overflow from
residences.
Page 241 of 495
Resolution No. ______ (2022 Series) Page 10
R _____
8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required
short and long-term bicycle parking for all intended uses, plans submitted for
construction permits shall include bicycle lockers or interior space within each
residential unit or parking area for the storage of at least two bicycle per residential
unit. Short-term bicycle racks such as “Peak Racks” shall be installed in close
proximity to, and visible from, the main entry into the buildings (inverted “U” rack
designs shall not be permitted). Sufficient detail shall be provided about the
placement and design of bike racks and lockers to demonstrate compliance with
relevant Engineering Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the
satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors.
9. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan, demonstrating
compliance with maximum light intensity standards not to exceed a maintained
value of 10 foot-candles. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style
landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building
permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly calle d out on building
elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall
complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall
include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut -sheets
on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure
that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night
Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter §17.70.100 of the Zoning
Regulations.
10. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the buildings.
With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of
the buildings, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other
mechanical equipment. If any condensers, transformers, or other mechanical
equipment are to be ground mounted or placed on the roof, plans submitted for a
building permit shall confirm that these features will be adequately screened. A
line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be
adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
11. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall be screened from the public
right-of-way consistent with §17.70.200 of the Zoning Regulations. The subject
property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times; free of
excessive leaves, branches, and other landscape material. The applicant shall be
responsible for the clean-up of any landscape material in the public right-of-way.
12. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The
legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and speci es of all
groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant
material showing their specific locations on plans. Landscaping plans shall include
the following information, at a minimum:
Page 242 of 495
600 TANK FARM
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
General Plan/AASP Amendment
Rezoning
600 Tank Farm Road
FEBRUARY 1, 2022
Where?
È Close to shopping and jobs.
Near enough to Mindbody,
South Broad/Morabito
Business Park, Sacramento
Drive Business Park, and SLO
County airport to walk or
bike. Marigold Shopping
Center is within walking
distance. An ÑinfillÒ location.
Requested
GP/SP
Changes;
Entitlements
Why Make A
Change In Land
Use
Designation?
È city needs 250 acres of
vacant BP, M and CS land
to meet future employment
needs. Developing this site
as mixed use residential will
leave 320 acres, an 80-acre
surplus. This site is close to
employment, shopping and
services and is better used to
balance jobs and housing in
South SLO.
Why?
Delivering
Critical
Infrastructure
ÈProject delivers the Santa Fe &
Tank Farm roundabout, with ped
and bike connections to Chevron
and Damon Garcia properties.
New ÑClass IV bike lanes surround
the site, and the project connects
Tank Farm bike paths to Damon
Garcia Sports Park.
Without the project, these
improvements would have to be
Installed by the City, or
substantially later by a large
project.
Why?
Special
Community
Benefits And
Features
ÈMaking a good project
better, the Project integrates
some of the most progressive
features to address
community needs,
affordability, and active
transportation.
MAJOR CITY GOALS
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
CLIMATE ACTION, OPEN SPACE & SUSTAINABLE
TRANSPORTATION
WHY
FILLING A NEED FOR
OBTAINABLE HOUSING
MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION
Class I Bike Path On-site
Bike Lanes along TFR
Bike Lanes on Santa Fe
Preliminary Design for
Bike Path along TFR
SITE PLAN
Tank farm frontage
More cohesive architecture
Private out door space
Materials and details
MIXED USE BUILDING & MATERIALS:
More cohesive to over all architectural theme
RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS
Roofline
Siding
Porch
Windows
THE CLUBHOUSE
OPEN SPACE
PED LINKAGE & TRAFFIC CALMING
ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES & TRAFFIC CALMING
MULTI-MODAL
ENLARGEMENT OF THE MULTI-MODAL/BIKE NODE
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS?
Applicant:
Representative:
Proposed Inclusionary Housing Locations
1010 Marsh St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 546-8208 . FAX (805) 546-8641
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of San Luis Obispo,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of
eighteen years, and not a party interested in the
above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of the New Times, a newspaper
of general circulation, printed and published
weekly in the City of San Luis Obispo, County
of San Luis Obispo, and which has been
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, under the date of
February 5, 1993, Case number CV72789: that
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy
(set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to -wit:
in the year 2022
I certify (or declare) under the the penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Luis Obispo, California, this day
Zi(%t//� of .�461�V�j(' 2022.
Patricia Horton, Horton, New Times Legals
Proof of Publication of
rr�
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all iMuclited
persons to attend a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 1, 202Z m 6d10 p.m. held via telecomburar e.
Pumuantto Executive Orders N-60-20 and N-08-21 executed
by the Governor of California, and subsequently Assembly
Bill 361, enacted in response to the state of emergency
relaling m novel commavirus disease 2019 (COV(O-19) and
enabling teleconferencing accommodations by suspending
or waiving specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act
(Government Code § M950 at seq.l, Council Members and
the Public may participate in this meeting by teleconference.
Meetings can be viewed an Government Access Channel 20
or stmamad live from the City. YouTube channel at httpd/
yoombsalo.city. Public comment prior to the start of the
meeting, may be submitted in writing via U.S. Mail delivered
to the City Clerk's office at 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401 or by email he emadcouncil®slocky.org.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
A Public Hearing to introduce an Ordinance amending
the Citys Zoning Map by changing the zoning designation
of the properties associated with the 600 Tank Farm Mixed -
Use Project from Business Park (BP-SP) to Commercial
Services (C-S-SP) and making associated ten amendments
to the Airport Area Specific Plan. The City Council will also
review the Egg Tank Farm Mixed -Use Project which has
280 Residential Units and 12,500sf of Commercial space,
associated exceptions, Specific Plan Amendment, Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map, General Plan Amendment and
Rezone, and associated Final Environmental Impact Report
(600 Tank Farm Road, ARCH-0407-20211,
for mare information, you are invited to contact Kyle Bell
Of the City's Community Development Department at %5)
781-7524 or by email at kbet0slociryarg
The City Council may also discuss other hearings or
business items before or after the items listed above. If you
challenge the proposed project in court you may be limped
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to,
Me public hearing.
January 20, 2022
M.. Y P—IJI.NTMG Admin/NTMG OFicHNU51NFSS/Public No,imiP,mforFLb