HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - ARCH-0216-2020 (600 Tank Farm)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: 3
Time Estimate: 45 minutes
Item 3
Packet Page 71
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
Item 3
Packet Page 72
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
Item 3
Packet Page 73
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.
Item 3
Packet Page 74
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
Item 3
Packet Page 75
600 Tank Farm Road
Residential Mixed-Use Project
City GP/COZ Initiation
Covelop, Inc.
May 1, 2020
Item 3
Packet Page 76
600 Tank Farm Road 2 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Introduction
A project is proposed at 600 Tank Farm Road that will provide for a mix of residential and com-
mercial uses, and that would complement the commercial, employment and residential uses now
planned in the vicinity of Broad and Tank Farm Road. It is being positioned to address housing and em-
ployment needs in the community through a combination of design excellence, value-added features,
and location. Proposed by Covelop Inc. of San Luis Obispo, it is comprised of APNs 053-421-02 and 053-
421-06 and located at what will be the northeast corner of Santa Fe and Tank Farm Road. (See Figure 1.)
The project involves the change in general plan designation, rezoning and an amendment to the Airport
Area Specific Plan from Business Park (BP) to Commercial Service (CS) on the property to allow a resi-
dential mixed-use development. This narrative and other supporting application materials explains the
justification for changing the city’s development regulations to allow the project.
As currently planned, it would include approximately 140 attached residences in a townhome
configuration at a density of 20 density units to the acre; 100 stacked flat units at up to 30 density units
per acre; and up to 40 studio and one-bedroom units over approximately 15,000 square feet of “Town
Center” commercial. Overall, the project would have 256 Density Units, approximately 23 density units
per acre, in compliance with the CS zone. The project is being designed and planned to address the
need for smaller dwelling unit sizes, especially smaller for-sale units, both for lifestyle preferences, and
affordability reasons. The townhomes will have a mix of one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bed-
room units ranging in size from 750 square feet up to 1,375 square feet with an average dwelling unit
size of less than 1,100 square feet. The stacked flats would range in size from 470 square feet to 925
square feet. Overall, the average unit size across the 280 units is less than 1,000 SF, lower than any
other recent mixed use/mixed tenancy project in the community. The townhome and stacked flat units
are intended as ownership units, while the mixed-use units will likely be as a rental product. The result-
ing project would provide for-sale units ranging in size from 470 square feet to 1,375 square feet,
providing an ownership opportunity to many families that currently don’t have that opportunity. The
project would be clustered around common open space, yards, and a recreation center with a commu-
nity building. Open space is planned along Acacia Creek and on the Flower Mound, with some units ori-
ented to those open space resources. Figure 2 shows the site plan for the project.
Various studies are underway, including a biological reconnaissance study, wetland delineation,
geotechnical study, noise study, traffic study (including capacity and lane configuration studies for Tank
Farm Road and Santa Fe), and others to satisfy City requirements. It is expected that the environmental
effects of the projects, and necessary mitigations, will be covered in an environmental impact report
(EIR).
Item 3
Packet Page 77
600 Tank Farm Road 3 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
The Project and Airport Development Regulations
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.
During the plan development process, we have consulted with ALUC staff and commissioners; commis-
sioned studies and technical analysis to determine the location of key ALUP regulatory zones on the
property; and modified the product mix to be compatible with the current and proposed ALUP policies
and standards. To that end, commercial and mixed use portions of the project have been located along
the project frontage in the 55 dB(A) CNEL noise zones (as determined by the May 2015 RS&H “CNEL
Contours and Technical Report for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport” noise study that is used
by the Airport Land Use Commission to determine noise compatibility); the apartment/stacked flat por-
tion is located in the middle of the project site in the 50 dB(A) CNEL zone; and the townhome portion is
located in the rear of the project site which is least affected by traffic and aircraft noise. A noise study
prepared for the project by 45dB Consultants confirmed the RSH projections.
Figure 1
Project Location
Item 3
Packet Page 78
600 Tank Farm Road 4 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Figure 2 Site Plan
Item 3
Packet Page 79
600 Tank Farm Road 5 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
FAA sectional charts, and approach and departure patterns were also reviewed, and it was con-
cluded that there is no potential for regular overflights by commercial or general aviation fixed wing air-
craft because of topographic constraints and established runway approach and departure corridors.
This would also indicate that the project site is appropriately classified in the ALUP current “S-2” Safety
Zone, or its Caltrans Handbook equivalent, Safety Zone 6. Both of these safety zones permit the project.
The project is located in the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), is part of the City of San Luis
Obispo’s Airport Compatible Open Space Plan (ACOS) with deed-restricted open space and reservation
areas nearby in the AASP and Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) areas, and is located in the ALUP’s
current “S-2” safety zone, or in the Caltrans Handbook Safety Zone 6. Neither of these safety zone des-
ignations have a limitation on the number of dwelling units (see Figure 4G of the Caltrans California Air-
port Land Use Planning Handbook with no overflights and no noise issues, and ALUP Table 7 with a CDZ,
DAP and ACOS). City zoning regulations for the CS zone specify a maximum density of 24 density units
per acre in the proposed CS zone, with the actual maximum number of permitted “doors” adjusted per
Section 17.70.040 (A) the zoning regulations. As currently planned, the project has approximately 280
total residential units and 256 City “density units” over 11.1 net acres, for a density of 23 density units
per gross acre.
The Project and City Development Regulations
The project site is currently zoned Business Park and is in the Airport Area Specific Plan area
(which is identified as Detailed Area Plan per the County’s Airport Land Use Plan). The project entitle-
ments will include a change in the land use designation from Business Park to Service Commercial, which
would permit a wide range of commercial uses, and up to 264 density units of residential development.
City development regulations also specify a setback for Acacia Creek of 35 feet. The project proposes a
variable riparian setback with an average setback of approximately 40 feet. Combined with the width of
the creek, and buffers and setbacks on the east side of Acacia Creek this will provide a wildlife/open
space corridor of 95 to 135 feet. Building and landscape setbacks along Tank Farm Road range from 10
to 15 feet (including the public sidewalk in a pedestrian easement), and 5 to 15 feet along Santa Fe.
City planning documents call for the development of Santa Fe as a Collector road with design
speeds of no more than 25 miles per hour, and a corresponding road centerline radius of 250-300 feet.
The project will implement the “alternative” design section for Santa Fe that has been identified by City
staff and in the Airport Area Specific Plan, with an interim design of one travel lane in each direction, a
vertically separated 6.5-foot Class IV bike path, a 7-foot parkway strip and a five-foot sidewalk, as shown
in Figure 3. Santa Fe will be extended north along the west property line for approximately 475 to 500
feet to a temporary offset cul de sac with a minimum 40-foot turning radius. Longer term, this tempo-
rary terminus will be built as a 90-degree roundabout to connect Santa Fe to the Prado Road extension
by the developers of the Chevron or Damon Garcia properties. The project will implement the City’s
plans for a roundabout at Tank Farm and Santa Fe, as illustrated in Figure 4. Final road geometry and
the number of lanes will be evaluated as part of the Project.
Item 3
Packet Page 80
600 Tank Farm Road 6 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Figure 3
Santa Fe Cross Section
Ultimate and Interim Cross Section
Item 3
Packet Page 81
600 Tank Farm Road 7 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Figure 4
Conceptual Illustration of Santa Fe/Tank
Farm Road Roundabout
Item 3
Packet Page 82
600 Tank Farm Road 8 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
The Site and the Project
The site is composed of 11.1 contiguous acres at the northeast corner of the designated Santa
Fe alignment 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 MSL at the
top of the Flower Mound, and 150 feet MSL 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.
The immediate surrounding (1/2-mile radius) neighborhood provides a wealth of services, facili-
ties and resources. 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-ser-
vice supermarket are currently located within biking or walking distance of the project site.
The site is also located near significant open space areas that are contractually restricted to re-
main in open space that contribute to airport land use compatibility and safety. Those include proper-
ties north and south of Tank Farm Road that are in City and County open space preserves, areas in Wil-
liamson Act agricultural preservation contracts, ACOS open spaces areas in the Margarita Area Specific
Plan, the Chevron conservation/restoration area and other formal open space preserves. (See Figure 6.)
Not including other lands outside of the City’s URL, these open space lands amount to approximately
825 acres, or approximately 25 percent of the land area immediately north and west of the airport.
Development Potential and Land Plan
The land plan and development program prepared for the project are based on the physical and
regulatory constraints applicable to the site, including the following: Acacia Creek. During peak flood
times, Acacia Creek conveys 500-1,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) of stormwater flows. Its width cur-
rently varies from 30 to 50 feet and is on the adjacent parcel; City development regulations prescribe a
35-foot setback from the creek to preserve the riparian corridor. A variable width corridor is proposed,
ranging from 20 feet to 70 feet, with an average of 40 feet. The area where setbacks will be less than 35
feet are located at the creek crossing from 600 Tank Farm Road to 650 Tank Farm Road; this reduced
setback area will be less than 10 percent of the total length of the setback. Per Zoning Ordinance Sec-
tion 17.70.030 (3), third story building components will be setback an additional 10 feet for a total of a
45-foot setback (except in the limited area where there is the bridge crossing).
1. Designated Flood Areas. According to FEMA Community Panels 0679C1069G and 0679C1332G,
the project site has limited, if any, area that is in a flood prone area. Any such area appears to be
confined to the Acacia Creek channel or the riparian setback area. A drainage study prepared by
RRM Design Group determined that this flooding has been caused by an undersized culvert for
the vehicle bridge that connects 600 Tank Farm Road to 650 Tank Farm Road. This bridge will be
replaced as part of the 650 Tank Farm Road project, with a culvert that has the same hydraulic
Item 3
Packet Page 83
600 Tank Farm Road 9 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
capacity as the Tank Farm Creek culvert. No flooding issues are anticipated after that improve-
ment.
2. “Flower Mound”/Grading. The northwest corner of the project site includes a former quarry
area, colloquially referred to as the “Flower Mound”. This hard and red-rock mound spans the
project property, Chevron property to the west, and the Damon-Garcia property to the north.
Most of the Flower Mound will be left as is with development occurring below the 173-foot
(MSL) elevation contour line. The site will be stepped in four 5-foot benches, with an upper
bench of about 168 feet MSL at the northern one-fourth of the site, 160 MSL to 165 MSL from
the club house north, a middle bench of about 160 feet MSL around the main entry, and two
lower benches of about 153-156 feet MSL for the multifamily, and 152-153 MSL for the commer-
cial/mixed use areas. Total needed site drainage is estimated to be 31,000 cubic feet (CF). The
site will drain to localized surface swales totaling 35,000-40,000 cubic feet in parking lot land-
scaped areas, large open space areas, the Acacia Creek setback, and in the Tank Farm Road land-
scape frontage. LID/treatment areas will be located throughout the project.
Recreation and Amenities
The project site will be developed at an “urban” density of over 20 dwelling units per acre, with
shared public open spaces, private opens spaces, common yards, and common recreational amenities
will be used to provide the necessary relief. Balconies and small private yards will be developed
throughout the townhome and stacked flat product types with private open space areas. Balconies and
outdoor activity areas will be in areas least affected by vehicle traffic and airport noise, meaning they
will be located on the north and east faces of the buildings away from potential outdoor noise impacts.
The project’s required creek setbacks, common areas and the Flower Mound open space will
result in at 20 percent of onsite “green” common open space, including play areas, tot lots, and land-
scape parkways. Where possible, units will be oriented to common open space on the perimeter of the
site to encourage and open and spacious plan.
The project will also include a 2,250-square foot clubhouse building with a 2,800 square foot pa-
tio area. The clubhouse building will include meeting areas, an indoor game area, a common lounge, ad-
ministrative office area, and a community kitchen. It will also serve as a sales office and an administra-
tive building during project sales and construction.
The project also borders Damon-Garcia Park which will provide areas for organized sports activi-
ties.
Transportation and Circulation
The project will implement several major transportation features, the Santa Fe/Tank Farm Road
roundabout under a reimbursement agreement with the City, assuming enough project impact fees and
other revenues to reimburse Covelop during the term of the buildout. The Project will also construct in-
terim improvements for Santa Fe Road per Figure 3, including two travel lanes and Class IV bike paths.
Final improvements for the bike path, curbing, sidewalk, and parkway strip will be installed on the pro-
ject’s frontages. The Santa Fe/Tank Farm roundabout would also be constructed as part of the project.
Item 3
Packet Page 84
600 Tank Farm Road 10 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Both Santa Fe and Tank Farm Road are TIF funded projects. Bike and pedestrian trips will be supported
by a connection to 650 Tank Farm Road, and extension of the onsite bike path to the bike path at the
Damon-Garcia sports park. A new bridge will be installed by 650 Tank Farm Road and serve as an emer-
gency access route using KnoxBox bollards.
General Plan Modification Justification
Oversupply of Commercial/Business Park Zoning
The modification of the permitted land uses on the project site is justified by several policy fac-
tors. The AASP and the Land Use Element designate the site for Business Park. This designation has
been driven by the policies of the County’s ALUP which generally prohibit residential land uses in the
AASP, except for those properties that are currently zoned or developed for residential purposes. This
land use restriction is based on noise and safety information that is known to be outdated and the 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 pro-
ject. The ALUC has commissioned, and adopted, a noise study that documents the extent of these noise
issues, and the ALUC has been using that document as its office noise reference for approximately five
years now. The ALUC is also reviewing its safety zones and those zones will be modified to reflect a
more conventional configuration, more like that in the Caltrans Handbook and those used for other
County airports. Based on documents provided to the ALUC in November and consultation with ALUC
staff, it is believed that the S1-C Safety Zone designation will be eliminated, The updated safety zone
maps show the project in “Safety Zone 6” as defined by the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Hand-
book. Both the updated safety and noise analysis appear to support a revision to the land use designa-
tion for the site. The project will be dependent on the ALUP amendment, which is anticipated to be
complete in mid-2020.
The current ALUP has long confounded various City goals and policies associated with jobs-hous-
ing balance, infill development, the mixing (horizontal and vertical) of uses, and fiscal sustainability. Con-
sequently, the City has a bumper crop of Business Park, Service Commercial, Office and other non-resi-
dential land uses (having ‘defaulted’ to those uses when residential was not consistent with the ALUP),
with those uses being concentrated in the southern part of the community. As a result, the entire AASP
contains 320 acres of vacant commercial and industrial land uses capable of supporting 6,000 more jobs,
but with only 150 acres of residential land uses (650 Tank Farm, Avila Ranch and remaining Margarita SP
area) capable of supporting 2,800 additional residents and 1,800 workers (assuming 1.5 workers per
household). Providing more housing closer to the City’s concentration of employment, and with prefer-
ence given to those workers, is consistent with General Plan and AASP Policies.
The City General Plan Policy requires that the City maintain an adequate supply of land to retain
and expand the number of jobs in the community. According to SLOCOG/RHNA employment projec-
tions, the City may need to expand its 2010 supply of 643 developed industrial/employment acres to a
possible total of 843. That would indicate a need for 250 vacant acres of such land, assuming that there
would be a 25 percent estimating contingency. If the need for such land is based on the 11-year devel-
opment history for such land between 2008 and 2018, as reported in the General Plan Status Report,
Item 3
Packet Page 85
600 Tank Farm Road 11 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
the City would need an additional 132 occupied acres by 2035. There are approximately 332 vacant
acres of such land in an adjacent to the community to fill this need, providing anywhere from an 80-acre
to 160-acre surplus to meet local employment needs. Conversion of the 11.1-acre project property to
mixed use residential will therefore not hinder any City economic development goals.
Based on the above, it is concluded that conversion of the project site would be fiscally beneficial for the
City, would promote the completion of needed infrastructure (and several key pieces of infrastructure),
would significantly promote the City’s infill and jobs-housing balance (city macro and neighborhood mi-
cro) goals and policies, and would not hinder in any way, the City’s economic development policies and
objectives.
Infrastructure Financing Feasibility
Retention of the current Business Park land use and zoning designations will defeat several im-
portant infrastructure policies. First, the City’s infrastructure policies and implementation programs rely
almost exclusively on development projects to construct needed roads, sewer lines, water lines, parks,
etc. Except for key facilities like the treatment plant expansion, Prado Road overpass, LOVR interchange
and the Prado/San Luis Creek bridge, completion of other improvements is completely dependent on
the ability of individual development projects to construct, finance and be reimbursed for offsite im-
provements. The offsite improvements associated with the project, including Santa Fe, Tank Farm Road,
water and sewer improvements have a total cost estimated at approximately $2.5 million to $2.75 mil-
lion, with the predominant share of those costs being reimbursable from various City impact fee funds.
As shown in Table 1 below, impact fees from the project site as currently zoned would be insufficient to
pay for offsite traffic improvements, even assuming that 100 percent of the TIF fees were dedicated to
such repayment. The proposed project would make significantly greater contributions to all impact fee
programs and make a reimbursement program feasible. Otherwise, the City would need to step in with
additional funding.
The economics of developing the project as currently zoned has also been evaluated. A portion
of the project site was proposed for a data facility, and another portion of the site was evaluated for ex-
pansion of a local R&D business. Both those projects chose to not go forward because of the burden of
infrastructure costs (direct costs and fees), the site’s topographic and regulatory constraints, and better
opportunities elsewhere. There is also limited demand that could justify a speculative commitment (as
opposed to a larger build to suite) of the entire site as currently zoned. Based on City records, the total
amount of commercial/employment building growth in the community has been 30,000 to 100,000
square feet per year over the last 11 years, with an average of about 55,000 SF per year, according to
the most recent General Plan Status Report. It was concluded that the Project site could not capture a
significant enough share of annual demand to justify significant capital improvements.
Item 3
Packet Page 86
600 Tank Farm Road 12 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Table 1
Project Development Options
Assessed Value and City Impact Fees
Filling and Need for Affordable Housing
The City’s emphasis on the production of housing is starting to show tangible results. There are
a numerous individual housing projects that are being marketed, and many more are in production. The
Orcutt Specific Plan, that was decades in the making, has half a dozen projects in construction. San Luis
Ranch and Avila Ranch have recently been approved, and are in the site development phase.
Nevertheless, many of these projects have housing size ranging from 1,100 square feet to 3,100
square feet, with the average housing unit size being 1,850 square feet. Table 2 shows the proposed
product mix, and the proposed sizes of the housing units. As shown in Figure 5 on the following page,
the project fills a need that is currently not being met by any of the adopted Specific Plans, or individual
development projects.
Special Project Design Features
Special design features have been added to address mobility issues, affordable housing, energy
conservation, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. These features will reduce vehicle miles
travelled, reduce the need for personal vehicles, resulting parking demand, and airport compatibility.
1. Building energy efficiency standards that will enable the project to comply with the “net zero”
energy requirements and compliance with the City’s Reach Code.
Business Park
Zoning
Prposed Mixed Use
Project
Gross Acres 11.67 11.67
ROW (Acres) 0.55 0.55
Open Space (acres 1.04 1.04
Net Area (Acres) 10.08 11.12
FAR (per AASP) 0.20 0.57
Residential SF 18,000 274,600
Non-Residential SF 87,818 19,100
Total SF 105,818 293,700
Dwelling Units 24.00 275.00
Assessed Value 35,549,851 136,937,500
City Imact Fees
City Traffic Fee 958,412$ 2,106,057$
Water Fee 381,609$ 2,450,656$
Wastewater Fee 381,483$ 2,222,378$
City Parks 144,744$ 1,658,525$
Police 36,309$ 166,139$
Fire 31,180$ 141,645$
Total 1,933,736$ 8,745,400$
Item 3
Packet Page 87
600 Tank Farm Road 13 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Table 2
Unit Mix
Gross Area
APN 053-420-02 5.28
APN 053-420-06 6.39
Gross Area 11.67
ROW 0.81
Net 10.86
R3 MU
Type Size (SF)Units Density
Units Total Area Type Size (SF)Number Density
Units Total Area
1-BED 750 28 18.48 21,000 Studio 450 20 10.00 9,000
2-BED 1050 56 56.00 58,800 1-BED 625 20 13.20 12,500
2-BED TH 1200 28 28.00 33,600 Total 40 23.20 21,500
3-BED 1450 28 42.00 40,600 Average 538
Total 140 144.48 154,000 Acres 1.52
Average 1,100 Density Units/Acre 15.26
Acres 6.46 Units/Acre 26.32
Density Units/Acre 22.37
Units/Acre 21.67
R4 Total
Type Size (SF)Number Density
Units Total Area Type Size (SF)Units Density
Units Total Area
Studio 600 8 4.00 4,800 Studio-R4 600 8 4.00 4,800
1-BED 750 24 15.84 18,000 Studio-MU 450 20 10.00 9,000
2-BED 925 68 68.00 62,900 1-BED-R3 750 28 18.48 21,000
Total 100 87.84 85,700 1-BED-R4 750 24 15.84 18,000
Average 857 1-BED-MU 625 20 13.20 12,500
Acres 2.88 2-BED-R3 1050 56 56.00 58,800
Density Units/Acre 30.50 2-BED-R3 TH 1200 28 28.00 33,600
Units/Acre 34.72 2-BED-R4 925 68 68.00 62,900
3-BED 1450 28 42.00 40,600
Total 280 255.52 261,200
Average 933
Acres 10.86
Density Units/Acre 23.53
Units/Acre 25.78
600 Tank Farm Product Mix and Density
Item 3
Packet Page 88
600 Tank Farm Road 14 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Figure 5 Project Housing Size Compared to Existing Approved Projects
2. Shared Mobility strategies would be included to reduce the necessity for additional vehicles for
each family. Shared cars will be provided in each area of the development at an initial rate of
no less than one car per 50 residences, with 100 percent of that fleet in the form of electric vehi-
cles.
3. Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, including ped and bike connectivity to 650 Tank
Farm Road and 700 Tank Farm Road. The project will implement the City’s new raised “Class IV”
bike lanes. A parking requirement reduction/exception totaling 8 percent of the total statistical
parking demand per Section 17.72.050 will be part of the requested entitlements, and is justi-
fied based on shared parking between the residential and commercial in the mixed use center
(with peak residential parking in the evening and peak commercial parking in mid-day), car shar-
Item 3
Packet Page 89
600 Tank Farm Road 15 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
ing, pedestrian and bike connections to and through properties to the east, proximity to conven-
ience goods centers, onsite mixed use, and the buyer-renter preference program described be-
low.
4. Special at-grade “speed table” pedestrian street crossings have also been included. These pro-
vide for the traffic calming and a continuous walking experience.
5. Affordable housing will be provided at a rate above that required by City code. At a density of 23
Density Units per acre, and an average unit size below 1,100 square feet per dwelling unit (less
than 1,000 square feet per unit across the entire project), the project is affordable by design and
inclusionary housing is not required for the project. However, the project intends to collaborate
with a non-profit housing provider to build a mixed-use workforce and senior housing project
along the Tank Farm Road frontage for up to 20 affordable units and 15,000 square feet of com-
mercial and office space.
6. The project will include an onsite manager or contact who will be the first point of contact for
any noise complaints. Residents will also be required to certify that they have completed an
online training on airport operations, airport hazards and impacts, and acknowledgement that
they will contact onsite management for noise concerns.
7. An avigation easement will be placed on the property per County and ALUP regulations.
8. The project’s buildings will be arranged to diffuse sound, and to locate the most sensitive por-
tions on the project (ownership townhomes) on the rear half of the site. This will include ori-
enting any outdoor activity and patio areas so that they are the least impacted by airport and
traffic noise.
9. Per AASP Policy 4.5.3, all residential units shall be designed to limit the aircraft-related 24-hour,
10-second interval interior peak noise (Lmax) impacts to no more than 45 decibels, five decibels
less than in Table 4 or the current ALUP.
10. The project will implement a preference program for workers within a 1.5-mile radius of the
project site as shown on Figure 6. This area was selected to maximize the benefit to the employ-
ers and employees in the area, and to encourage bicycle commuting. For an avid rider, a five-
mile bike commute is considered feasible; a 1.5-mile radius bike commute is considered more
feasible for less experienced riders. This strategy will capture, and house, those working east of
Higuera, south of South/Santa Barbara, west of the railroad, and north of Crestmont Road. This
will provide preference to those working at MindBody, the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport,
Morabito Business Park, AeroVista Business Park, Sacramento Drive, and other south city Busi-
ness Park areas. Like the Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch projects, this will ensure that existing
commuting employees are given first preference for housing, and that their commute trip
length will be reduced and that many home-work trip modes will be shifted from personal vehi-
cles to biking or pedestrian modes. This preference program, however, will be focused on the
Item 3
Packet Page 90
600 Tank Farm Road 16 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
south and southeast portions of the community to ensure the greatest reduction in vehicle
miles traveled and to maximize the potential for ped and bike trips from the project to work
destinations.
Project Location Relative to Airport Facilities
The Project is located within 1,800 feet of airport Runway 11-29. One of the key factors in de-
termining compatibility with the airport is the project’s location relative to flight paths, regular and fre-
quent approaches and departures, and the ALUP’s various safety zone boundaries and noise contours.
The location of the various safety zones is driven by mathematical criteria associated with the location
of the runway facilities, distance from the runway ends, approved and frequently used approach and
departure corridors, and the probable elevation of aircraft at different points in their flight operations.
As described in Section 4.4.3.2 of the ALUP, the airport area is broken down into two Safety Areas and
three subzones. These zones are currently under review and refinement as part of the County’s update
of the ALUP. It is believed that the current zones will transition to the configuration and nomenclature
used in the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, with zone numbers from 1 through 6, and the
configuration prescribed in Handbook Figures 4B through 4G, and the zone dimensions described in
Handbook Figure 3A for a Long General Aviation Runway (runway length of 6,000 feet or more). See
Attachment A. (For the purposes of clarity and consistency with the existing and proposed ALUP safety
zones, the following refers to both the current zone names and the Caltrans safety zone names. For the
purposes of the discussion below, Caltrans Safety Zone “6” is essentially equal to current ALUP Safety
Zone “S-2”.)
In addition to safety zone considerations, there are also airspace, avigation and instrumentation
issues to consider. FAA Part 77 establishes imaginary surfaces to set the maximum height of structures
in the vicinity of the airport. None of the proposed structures will conflict with these maximums. ALUP
Policy 2.5.2.1 prohibits development of any structure that is higher than 200 AGL to protect the Part 77
air space surfaces. FAA Part 77.9 also has special regulations to control obstructions that may be a haz-
ard to avigation or to airport instrumentation. Projects that have an elevation greater than 1/100th of
their distance to the nearest runway end (that is, buildings and structures that penetrate an imaginary
surface that projects from the edges of the runway at a slope of 1 foot vertical for 100 feet horizontal)
are to be reviewed and cleared by the FAA before construction is proposed that penetrates this imagi-
nary service through a Form 7460-1 FAA Application. That is, any structures on the front of the site that
may have an elevation greater than 186 MSL (18 feet above the runway 11-29 threshold surface eleva-
tion 168 MSL), or any structures on the rear of the site that may have an elevation greater 192 MSL (24
feet above the runway 11-29 threshold surface elevation of 168 MSL) will need to be cleared by FAA
through the FAA Part 77.9 Form 7460-1 notification and review process. Based on the preliminary grad-
ing plan, structures on the north end of the site will have an elevation of 196-198 MSL; those in the mid-
dle of the site will have an elevation of 193-195 MSL and buildings along the Project’s frontage will have
an elevation of 188-190 MSL. The height of the structures will penetrate this imaginary 100:1 surface
by 2-5 feet in various portions of the site and will need to be evaluated. This application will be pre-
pared, and FAA responses provided as part of the formal application to the ALUC for a conformity deter-
mination.
Item 3
Packet Page 91
600 Tank Farm Road 17 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Figure 6
Owner-Renter Preference Area
Project
Site
Item 3
Packet Page 92
600 Tank Farm Road 18 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Figure 7
Existing Offsite ACOS Open Space
Project
Site
Item 3
Packet Page 93
600 Tank Farm Road 19 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Airport Land Use Plan Safety Zones
Safety Area S-1 is the area within the vicinity of the airport within which aircraft operate fre-
quently or in conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes below 500 feet above ground level (AGL). The
S-2 area is the area within two miles of the airport runway where aircraft may operate frequently or in
conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes between 501 and 1,000 feet AGL. In the S-2 Safety Area, fac-
tors of concern include circle-to-land instrument approaches south of Runway 11-29, extensive “pattern
work” by student pilots in fixed-wing aircraft (predominantly, but not exclusively to the south and west
of the airport), and extensive practice flight by students in rotary-wing aircraft to the north of the air-
port. Nonetheless, because aircraft in Safety Area S-2 are at greater altitude and are less densely con-
centrated than in other portions of the Airport Planning Area, the overall level of aviation safety risk is
lower than that in the S-1 Safety Areas or the Runway Protection Zone. The project site is currently
shown in ALUP Figure 3 as being in Safety Zone S-1-C, the Sideline Zone. Safety Zone S-1-C is for areas
with occasional or frequent overflights at or below 500 AGL because of downwind approach to Run-
way 29, circling procedures or touch and go trainings. However, local topography (South Hills) se-
verely limits Project site overflights. As shown in ALUP Figure 10, and the various FAA approach and
departure charts (see Attachment 1), the project site is not located in any touch and go pattern, or
designated approach or departure corridor to either runway 7-25 or 11-29. Therefore, based on the
definitions provided in the ALUP, the project site is in Safety Zone S-2, (or Caltrans Zone 6, the ALUP S-
2 equivalent).
Safety Area S-1C is related exclusively to Runway 11-29 operations and downwind approach
procedures and includes areas within one half nautical mile (a distance of 3,038 feet) of the Runway 11-
29’s centerline to accommodate low-visibility downwind aircraft operations at less than 500 feet AGL.
The location of this theoretical line would contain the entire Project site (see ALUP Figure 3). However,
based on the definition of and justification for the S-1-C zone in ALUP Figure 3 and ALUP Section 4.4.4.2,
this safety zone is believed to be potentially appropriate for areas south of the Runway 11-29, but not
north of it in the vicinity of the Project. Further, The ALUC is reviewing the location of the safety zones.
Based on the comments on that review it is believed that the Project is to be classified in the S-2 or
the Handbook Zone 6 safety zone.
Noise Zones
As with the safety area criteria, the noise impact contours also follow mathematical rules re-
lated to noise dispersion, and aircraft type and flight frequency along established and flight corridors.
Peak and average noise levels that are mapped in the ALUP were projected through the usage of the
FAA’s Integrated Noise Model, and contours are normally mapped relative to runway centerlines. In the
case of the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport, it is estimated that approximately 97%+ of the flights use
Runway 11-29, and that those flights that use Runway 7-25 normally use Runway 25 as an alternate ap-
proach. According to the Airport Master Plan, Runway 11-29 provides 98.9% favorable wind coverage,
and so the usage of Runway 7-25 is rare. Therefore, the ALUP’s and the Master Plan’s airport noise con-
tours are both mapped relative to the extended centerline of Runway 11-29, and there are no special
contours for Runway 7-25. A noise study was also prepared for the ALUC by RS&H that utilizes the most
current and validated version of the Integrated Noise Model confirmed these conclusions.
Item 3
Packet Page 94
600 Tank Farm Road 20 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
A portion of the mixed-use area of the project is in CNEL 55 according the RSH Noise Study. The
ground floor commercial will is deemed compatible, and the impacts to the second-floor residential
uses will be mitigated by architecture and structural features that will ensure that outdoor and indoor
noise levels are per City and ALUP standards, including orientation of any balconies or outdoor activity
areas to the north; additional noise insulation and baffling. CNEL 55 is considered to be consistent with
residential land uses, according to City, state and federal regulations. Part 150 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR) which implement the 1979 Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act specify that all
land uses are consistent with 65 CNEL/Ldn/DNL or less. California Airport Regulations in PUC Section
21669, and Section 5000 of the California Code of Regulations also states that 65 CNEL or less is accepta-
ble for residential uses. Further, 65 CNEL and greater is considered compatible if there is an avigation
easement, indoor noise exposure is limited to 45 dB(A) CNEL or less. The City noise standard is for an
interior CNEL/Ldn of 45 dB(A) or less, and an outdoor level of 60 dB(A) or less.
The RSH noise study places about half of the mixed use/commercial portion of the project in the CNEL
55 noise band, and the balance of the Project site in the CNEL 50 noise band. A noise study prepared
for the Project by 45dB confirmed that the noise level on the Project site from airport operations are
consistent with the RSH noise model projections. The airport related Lmax was determined to be 62
dB(A) on the north half of the site and 79 dB(A) on the southern portion of the site closest to the air-
port. The Project complies with federal, state, City and ALUP standards.
Airport Land Use Compatibility
The project is consistent with the ALUP’s compatibility criteria, zones and contours. Observa-
tions from those findings for the ALUC’s consideration and review are the following:
1. The project proposes development totaling 280 dwelling units and 256 City density units.
There is no limit on the number of dwelling units under the current ALUP assuming develop-
ment of a Detailed Area Plan (Airport Area Specific Plan), ACOS and CDZ. The AASP has 37
percent open space in the S-1 portions and 25 percent open space in the S-2 portions of the
plan. According to Section 4.5.1 of the AASP, approved by the ALUC, the AASP is a Detailed
Area Plan and a Compact Development Zone for the purposes of the ALUP.
2. The site itself contains 24.8 percent open space in the form of the Flower Mound, riparian
setback and corridor and adjacent landscaping. The site itself would qualify as a CDZ.
3. All residential development is confined to the S-2 (Caltrans Zone 6) zone.
4. There are Reservation Areas in the adjacent Margarita Area Specific Plan, and on the Chev-
ron property to the west. Since the Project is not under any sort of regular (or even occa-
sional) approach or departure corridor, no onsite Reservation Areas would be beneficial.
5. The ALUP amendment proposes to set the maximum permissible noise for residential area a
60 CNEL (see Attachment B). The RSH noise contours indicate that entire site is outside of
the 60 CNEL contour and there will be no inconsistencies of the proposed project with the
ALUP. Residential development is allowed on the entire site per the standards in the cur-
rent ALUP, and the proposed mitigations and project design features. Residential develop-
Item 3
Packet Page 95
600 Tank Farm Road 21 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
ment at the density proposed is also consistent with land use compatibility criteria con-
tained in Figure 4G for Caltrans Handbook Safety Zone 6. Lmax impacts will be the ad-
dressed with project design features described above.
The following sections provide a consistency analysis with each of the ALUP policies.
General Policies
Policy G-1: Notwithstanding any other provision of this ALUP, a proposed project or local action will be
determined to be inconsistent with the ALUP if the information required for review of the proposed lo-
cal action is not provided by the referring agency.
Response: The formal application will include all the necessary materials per the Referral Form and
Appendix 2 of the ALUC’s by-laws.
Policy G-2: Notwithstanding any other provision of this ALUP, a proposed project or local action will be
determined to be inconsistent with the ALUP if the proposal would, in the considered opinion of ALUC,
present specific incompatibilities to the continued economic vitality and efficient operation of the Air-
port with respect to safety, noise, overflight or obstacle clearance.
Response: Normal approach and departure flight tracks from Runways 7-25 and 11-29 indicate that
no aircraft traffic passes over the site at elevations below 1,000 AGL (South Hills are at 550-600 MSL
north of the Project site). All residential development is confined to the S-2 Safety Area, and the pro-
posed number of dwelling units is significantly less than that permitted by the ALUP. The project sta-
tistics demonstrate compliance with the density and noise requirements. A noise study was prepared
for the project as part of the EIR which confirmed the findings of the RSH noise contours. The ALUC
also commissioned a noise study that concluded that the peak and average contours do not occur on
the project site. Further, to reduce complaints related to noise events that are occur from operations,
a more restrictive 45-decibel interior peak noise standard is proposed. Therefore, there are no known
specific incompatibilities associated with the project.
Policy G-3: Except as provided in Policy G-4, a proposed project or local action will be determined to be
inconsistent with the ALUP if the proposal is not in conformance with all applicable Specific Land Use
Policies. If the site affected by a proposed project or local action is in more than one noise exposure area
or aviation safety area, the standards for each such area will be applied separately to the land area lying
within each noise or safety zone.
Response: Table 1 shows the site’s compliance with the various regulations applicable to the multiple
noise and safety zones on the project site. The 60 dB and 65 dB noise contours are located offsite, out-
side of the areas proposed for development, no residential uses are proposed for the ALUC S-1B and S-
1C Safety Areas, and the compatibility criteria for each Safety Area are applied separately to each
area. The project is in compliance with both the County ALUP safety and noise requirements, and
those in the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
Item 3
Packet Page 96
600 Tank Farm Road 22 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Policy G-4: When the site affected by a proposed project or local action is in more than one noise expo-
sure area or aviation safety area, the Airport Land Use Commission may, at its sole discretion, elect not
to apply the requirements of Policy G-3 if:
i. the total gross area(s) within the more restrictive area(s) is 2 acres or less; and
ii. the land area(s) within the more restrictive area(s) is less than 50% of the total gross land area af-
fected by the referred project or local action.
In such instance, the ALUC may elect to apply the policies applicable to the least restrictive noise and/or
safety zone to the entire site affected by the project or local action. The ALUC must adopt specific find-
ings that the proposed project or local action, so considered, would not result in the potential develop-
ment of land uses incompatible with current or future airport operations.
Response: All of the Project’s development is in the S-2 zone. The Project is consistent with the re-
quirements for that zone. This is in strict compliance with General Policy G-3.
Noise Policies
Maximum Allowable Interior Noise Exposure from Aviation-Related Noise Sources-- (The reference
event for determination of required single event noise mitigation shall be the straight-in arrival of a re-
gional airline jet landing on Runway 29 and the straight-out departure of a regional airline jet from Run-
way 29. Measurements are to be of the maximum noise level, are to be A-weighted, and are to be ob-
tained using a Fast response time).
Residential dwellings 50 dB(A) Lmax
Offices, office buildings 60 dB(A) Lmax
Response: The ALUP 65-decibel single event contour is located offsite. The noise study prepared for
the Project calculated an Lmax of 62 dB on the northern half of the site and 79 dB at the property line
nearest Runway 11-29. All buildings will be designed to ensure a maximum interior Lmax noise level
of 45 decibels or less.
Policy N-1 – Would permit or fail to sufficiently prohibit establishment within the projected 60 dB CNEL
contour of any extremely noise-sensitive land use.
Response: No portions of the site are within the 60 Ldn/CNEL area. This was confirmed by the map-
ping of the ALUP contours on the project site, by the noise study prepared for the project, and by the
ALUC-commissioned noise study prepared by RS&H.
Policy N-2 – Would permit or fail to sufficiently prohibit any extremely noise-sensitive land use within
the projected 55-dB CNEL contour, with the exception of developments which meet the criteria deline-
ated in Section 4.3.2.3 for designation as infill.
Item 3
Packet Page 97
600 Tank Farm Road 23 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Response: Under current ALUP regulations only, Commercial/Mixed use development allowed within
the 55 dB Ldn/CNEL contour. The ALUP amendment will change the noise level permitted for residen-
tial area to 60 dB and below. According to the RSH Noise Study, none of the site is in the 60 CNEL con-
tour. This was confirmed by the mapping of the ALUP contours on the project site, by the noise study
pre-pared for the project, and by the ALUC-commissioned noise study prepared by RS&H. Structural
and architectural features will be used mitigate noise exposure.
Policy N-3 – Would permit or fail to sufficiently prohibit any moderately noise-sensitive land use within
the projected 55-dB CNEL contour, with the exception of developments which meet the requirements
for mitigation of interior noise levels specified in Table 4 and in Section 4.3.3.
Response: Commercial/mixed use development only is proposed within the 55 dB Ldn/CNEL contour.
All land uses are compatible with this noise level and there are on anticipated inconsistencies with the
proposed ALUP.
Policy N-4 – Would permit or fail to sufficiently prohibit, in any location which is within or adjacent to an
area of demonstrated noise incompatibility or in an acoustic environment substantially similar to an
area of demonstrated noise incompatibility:
a. Any new residential or other extremely noise-sensitive development
b. Any new moderately noise-sensitive development, unless adequate, specific, and detailed provisions
are set forth to mitigate noise incompatibility between allowable or proposed noise-sensitive uses (in-
cluding foreseeable outdoor activities) and airport operations.
Response: The mixed-use portion of the project would be in or adjacent to the 55 dB contour. Residen-
tial and commercial uses are permitted in areas with 60 dB i Mitigation measures will be included to
make these units compatible with the ALUP noise policies Noise monitoring on the site and the ALUC’s
RSH Noise Study confirm that the noise levels on the site do not exceed the levels projected in the
ALUP and there are no known noise impacts that are not adequately documented or accounted for in
the ALUP.
CNEL Level Compatibility
Extremely Noise Sensitive Moderately Noise Sensitive
(Residential) (Office/Retail)
Land Uses Land Uses
Inside 60 dB CNEL contour Prohibited With mitigation
Between 55- and 60-dB contours Infill only with mitigation
Outside 55 dB contour Allowable Allowable
Item 3
Packet Page 98
600 Tank Farm Road 24 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Response: The mixed-use portion of the project would be in or adjacent to the 55 dB contour. Mitiga-
tion measures will be included to make these units compatible with the ALUP noise policies. Noise
monitoring on the site confirms that the noise levels on the site do not exceed the levels projected in
the ALUP and there are no known noise impacts that are not adequately documents or accounted for
in the ALUP. Further, the ALUP amendment currently proposed will permit all land uses proposed in
the project.
Safety Policies
Policy S-1 – Would permit or lack sufficient provisions to prohibit structures and other obstacles within
the Runway Protection Zones for any runway at the Airport, as depicted in Figure 4.
Response: The project is not located in a Runway Protection Zone or Safety Area S-1A.
Policy S-2 – Would permit or fail to adequately prohibit any future residential or nonresidential develop-
ment or redevelopment which would create, within the site to be developed or redeveloped, a density
greater than specified in Table 7 or any mixed-use development or redevelopment which would create,
within the site to be developed or redeveloped, densities greater than illustrated in Figures 5 through 8.
Response: Table 1 hereof demonstrates the compliance of the project with the ALUP Table 7 (See Ta-
ble 2, reproduced below). There is no residential development proposed in Safety Areas S-1C and S-1B.
With the City adopted ACOS and the Airport Area Specific Plan as a Detailed Area Plan, the AASP and
Project site as a Cluster Development Zone in Safety Area S-2 (or this site as CDZ), the number of per-
mitted dwelling units is “unlimited”. Two hundred eighty (280) dwelling units are proposed at a com-
posite density of 24 dwelling units per gross acre. The Project qualifies as a Cluster Development Zone
as well since it has more than the 25 percent open space called for in Section 4.4.5.4 of the ALUP.
Maximum proposed density is 35 dwelling units to the acre in the stacked flat portion of the site that
is in the S-2 zone. As a Detailed Area Plan with an ACOS and CDZ, maximum residential density for in-
dividual parcels or subareas is “unlimited”.
Policy S-3 – Would permit or fail to adequately prohibit any future development project which specifies,
entails, or would result in a greater building coverage than permitted by Table 7.
Response: Projects which have a Detailed Area Plan (AASP and Development Plan), an ACOS, and a
CDZ do not have a coverage standard per ALUP Table 7. However, for the sake of information, total
projected building coverage in the S-2 zone is estimated to be 25 percent compared to the 20 percent
maximum in ALUP Table 7 (for projects without an ACOS, CDZ or DAP).
Policy S-4 – Would permit or fail to adequately prohibit high intensity land uses or special land use func-
tions (impaired egress uses or unusually hazardous uses), except that, when conditions specified by Ta-
ble 7 for density adjustments have been determined to be met by the ALUC, high intensity land and/or
special function uses may be allowed in Aviation Safety Area S-2.
Item 3
Packet Page 99
600 Tank Farm Road 25 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Response: Section 4.4.2.2 of the ALUP defines “High Intensity Land Uses” as any use which is charac-
terized by a potential to attract dense concentrations of persons to an indoor or outdoor area, even
for a limited period of time. Such uses include amusement parks, fairgrounds, convention/exhibit
halls, major auditoriums, stadiums and arenas, temporary events attracting dense concentrations of
people such as fairs, circuses, carnivals, revival meetings, sports tournaments, conventions, but not
including events for which exposure to aviation safety hazard is a well-known expectation (air shows,
airport open houses, pilot’s meetings, etc.) None of these uses are proposed for the project site and
are prohibited in the S-2 zone per the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17.57), and the Airport Area
Specific Plan.
Reserve Space - Reserve space shall be provided where deemed necessary which meets the design crite-
ria specified in Table 6 of the ALUP, and is restricted in perpetuity by deed restriction, easement, or
other suitable legal instrument to uses characterized by low occupancy levels and substantially free of
structures. Land uses which may, if the standards established in Table 6 are met, be consistent with this
definition of Reserve Space include: 1) undeveloped land – “green belt” reserve; 2) parks; 3) agriculture;
4) certain low intensity recreational uses such as golf courses, shooting ranges; and, 5) cemeteries.
Response: There are designated Reservation Areas to the north in the Margarita Area Specific Plan
and to the west on the Chevron property. Since there are no overflights over the Project site, a Reser-
vation Area is not necessary.
Runway Protection Zones – Areas immediately adjacent to the ends of each active runway, within which
the level of aviation safety risk is very high and in which, consequently, structures are prohibited, and
human activities are restricted to those which require only very low levels of occupancy. The size and
configuration of the Runway Protection Zones are specified by Federal Aviation Regulations. The Run-
way Protection Zones are also referred to as the “clear zones” for each runway.
Response: The project is not located in a Runway Protection Zone or Safety Area S-1A.
Safety Area S-1A – Those portions of Safety Area S-1 which are located within 500 feet of the extended
runway centerline of Runway 11-29 and within 5,000 feet of an existing or planned runway end or which
are within 250 feet of the extended runway centerline of Runway 7-25 and within 3,000 feet of the run-
way end.
Response: The project is not located in a Runway Protection Zone or Safety Area S-1A.
Safety Area S-1B – Those portions of Safety Area S-1 which are not included in Safety Area S-1a, but are
within probable gliding distance for aircraft on expected approach or departure courses; also, includes
State-defined sideline safety areas, inner turning zones and outer safety zones for both Runway 11-29
and Runway 7-25 and portions of existing Airport Land Use Zone 3. Aviation safety hazards to be particu-
larly considered in this area include mechanical failures, fuel exhaustion, deviation from glideslope or
MDA during IFR operations (due to pilot error or equipment malfunction), loss of control during short
approach procedures, stall/spin incidents during engine-out maneuvers in multi-engine aircraft, loss of
control during “go around” or missed approach procedures, and midair collisions. Figure 3 description:
Areas within gliding distance of prescribed flight paths for aircraft operations at less than 500 feet above
Item 3
Packet Page 100
600 Tank Farm Road 26 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
ground level, plus sideline safety areas, and inner turning zones and outer safety zones for each runway.
Figure 3 of the ALUP also defines this zone as being “areas within gliding distance of prescribed flight
paths for airport operations at less than 500 feet AGL, plus sideline safety areas, inner turning zones,
and outer safety zones for each runway.
Response: The project is not located in a Runway Protection Zone or Safety Area S-1A.
Safety Area S-1C – Those portions of Safety Area S-1 which are not included in Safety Areas S-1a or S-1b
but are adjacent to (within 0.5 nm) frequent or low-visibility aircraft operations at less than 500 feet
above ground level. Aviation safety hazards to be considered in this area include mechanical failures,
deviation from localizer or VOR during IFR operations (due to pilot error or equipment malfunction),
stall/spin incidents during engine-out maneuvers in multi-engine aircraft, loss of control during “go
around” or missed approach procedures, and loss of visual references by aircraft performing circle-to-
land procedures. ALUP Figure 3 description: Areas not included in Safety Areas S-1a or S-1b, but adja-
cent (within 0.5 nm) to aircraft operations at less than 500 feet above ground level.
Response: While the Project site is currently mapped in the S-1C area per Figure 3 of the ALUP, it does
not meet any of the avigational criteria for that Safety Zone. There are no “frequent or low-visibility
aircraft operations at less than 500 feet above ground level” and there are no resulting aviation safety
hazards associated with mechanical failures, deviation from localizer or VOR during IFR operations
(due to pilot error or equipment malfunction), stall/spin incidents during engine-out maneuvers in
multi-engine aircraft, loss of control during “go around” or missed approach procedures, and loss of
visual references by aircraft performing circle-to-land procedures. Therefore, the Project site is in
ALUC Zone S-2 or Caltrans Handbook Zone 6. No development is proposed in the S-1C Safety Area.
Safety Area S-2 – The area, as designated in Figure 3, within the vicinity of which aircraft operate fre-
quently or in conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes between 501 and 1,000 feet above ground level
(AGL). Aviation safety hazards to be considered in this area include mechanical failures, fuel exhaustion,
loss of control during turns from downwind to base legs or from base to final legs of the traffic pattern,
stall/spin incidents during engine-out maneuvers in twin engine aircraft, and midair collisions. Aircraft in
Area S-2 are at greater altitude and are less densely concentrated than in other portions of the Airport
Planning Area, the overall level of aviation safety risk is considered to be lower than that in Area S-1 or
the Runway Protection Zones
Response: The project site meets the definition of Safety Zone S-2 and the safety risks are considered
low. Proposed development is for 280 dwelling units, at or below the City Zoning maximum.
Airspace Protection Policies
Policy A-1 – Projects shall ensure that no structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature, whether
temporary or permanent in nature, shall constitute an obstruction to air navigation by having a height
that is 200 feet above ground level (AGL) or is above 409 feet MSL, whichever is greater, or obstruct the
approach or departure “imaginary surface” as defined in Section 77.25 or 77.29 of the Federal Aviation
Item 3
Packet Page 101
600 Tank Farm Road 27 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Regulations and as illustrated in Figure 9 of the ALUP. Further, that no use or activity shall constitute a
hazard to air navigation by constructing an object which entails or is expected to entail characteristics
which would potentially interfere with the takeoff, landing, or maneuvering of aircraft at the Airport,
including objects that create electrical interference with navigation signals or radio communication be-
tween the aircraft and airport, has lighting which is difficult to distinguish from airport lighting, produces
glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, contains uses which attract birds and create bird strike haz-
ards, contains uses which produce visually significant quantities of smoke, and contains uses which en-
tail a risk of physical injury to operators or passengers of aircraft (e.g., exterior laser light demonstra-
tions or shows).
Response: City Zoning Ordinance regulations and the AASP limit the height of structures to 35 feet to
the highest architectural feature, and the projected maximum elevation of any structure on the pro-
ject site is 200 MSL. Development on the project site will not exceed the 200 AGL or 409 MSL stand-
ards, lower than the elevations required for FAA Form 7460 notification and determination. FAA noti-
fication will be required per Part 77.9 evaluation relating to any structures which are higher than a
100:1 slope from the edge of the runway. Runway 11 is approximately 1,775 feet from the Project site
boundary so any commercial structure greater in height than 163 MSL (runway elevation plus 18 feet)
will require FAA review, and any residential structure greater in height than 165 MSL will require re-
view. The results of this review will be provided as part of the final application.
Policy A-2 – Would permit or lacks sufficient provisions to prohibit any new landfill or other disposal site
at a site or of a configuration which is not consistent with all current state and federal statutes, FAA reg-
ulations, and FAA Advisory Circulars concerning the relationship of landfills and waste disposal sites to
aeronautical operations and facilities.
Response: The project does not involve the development of a landfill site.
Overflight Policies
Policy O-1 – Notwithstanding any other provision of this ALUP, any proposed general plan, general plan
amendment, specific plan, specific plan amendment, zoning ordinance, zoning ordinance amendment,
building regulation modification, or individual development proposal will be determined to be incon-
sistent with the ALUP if the proposed local action lacks sufficient provisions to ensure that both of the
following provisions will be carried out:
1. Avigation easements will be recorded for each property developed within the area included
in the proposed local action prior to the issuance of any building permit or conditional use
permit; and,
2. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive full and accurate disclosure concern-
ing the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to enter-
ing any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or
properties within the airport area.
Response: Avigation Easements and Natural Hazard Disclosure Reports are required for real estate
transactions in the Airport Area. An enhanced Avigation Easement is proposed, as well as additional
Item 3
Packet Page 102
600 Tank Farm Road 28 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
disclosures for the first buyer and subsequent buyers of homes, standardized deed restrictions and dis-
closures recorded with the property, and standard lease conditions for rental properties.
Item 3
Packet Page 103
600 Tank Farm Road 29 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Table 3
ALUP Table 7
Item 3
Packet Page 104
600 Tank Farm Road 30 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Attachment A
Existing Conditions, Site Plan and Preliminary Civil
Site Plan
Item 3
Packet Page 105
1622-01-LP19 FEBRURARY 17, 2020
600 TANK FARM ROAD
600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
A1
INITIATION
PACKAGE
TITLE SHEET
PROJECT STATISTICS
PROJECT ADDRESS:600 TANK FARM ROAD
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN:053-421-006 & 053-421-002EXISTING ZONING:BP-SPPROPOSED REZONE:CSTOTAL SITE AREA:11.1 ACRES ALLOWED DENSITY:24 DU/ACREALLOWED DU: 266.4 DU
UNIT MIX & DENSITY
ALLOWED
STUDIO 0.5 DU/UNIT
1-BED 0.66 DU/UNIT
2-BED 1 DU/UNIT
3-BED 1.5 DU/UNIT
PROPOSED
TOTAL UNIT COUNT TOTAL DU
STUDIO 28 (28 X 0.5 ) = 14 DU
1-BED 72 (72 X 0.66) = 47.52 DU
2-BED 152 (152 X 1) = 152 DU
3-BED 28 (28 X 1.5) = 42 DU
TOTALS 280 UNITS 255.52 DU
PARKING
REQUIRED (INCLUDING GUEST PARKING)
STUDIO 1.2 SPACES/UNIT (28 X 1.2 ) = 33.6 SPACES
1-BED 1.2 SPACES/UNIT (72 X 1.2) = 86.4 SPACES
2-BED 1.7 SPACES/UNIT (152 X 1.7) = 258.4 SPACES
3-BED 2.45 SPACES/UNIT (28 X 2.45) = 68.6 SPACES
COMMERCIAL 1 SPACE/300 SF (15,000 SF/300) = 50 SPACESTOTAL497 SPACES
PROPOSED (INCLUDING 8% REDUCTION 457.2 SPACESPROVIDED458 SPACES
PROPOSED # OF BUILDINGS
RESIDENTIAL 19
MIXED USE 2TOTAL21
CS ZONING REGULATIONS (PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.36.020)
MAX. DENSITY 24 UNITS/ACRE
MIN. SETBACKS FRONT 10 FEET (BLDGS),
WHERE NO BUILDING ADJOINS 5’-0” (PARKING
LOTS)
INTERIOR SIDE AND REAR N/A
CORNER LOT-STREET SIDE 10 FEET (BLDGS),
WHERE NO BUILDING ADJOINS 5’-0” (PARKING
LOTS)
MAX. BLDG. HEIGHT 35’-0”
MAX. LOT COVERAGE 75%
MAX. FLOOR AREA RATIO 1.5
MIN. LOT AREA 9,000 SF
Item 3
Packet Page 106
1622-01-LP19 FEBRURARY 17, 2020
600 TANK FARM ROAD
600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
A2
INITIATION
PACKAGE
EXISTING CONDITIONSN:\1600\1622-01-LP19-600-Tank-Farm-Road-Due-Diligence-Assistance\Engineering\DesDev\Exhibits\Site Plan (Existing)_021320.dwg, SHEET TITLE, Feb 17, 2020 3:48pm, ngwaltersFebruary 17, 2020
EXISTING CONDITIONS C1
0 feet100
1"=50'
50 150
600 TANK FARM
Item 3
Packet Page 107
1622-01-LP19 FEBRURARY 17, 2020
600 TANK FARM ROAD
600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
A3
INITIATION
PACKAGE
PRELIMINARY CIVIL SITE PLANN:\1600\1622-01-LP19-600-Tank-Farm-Road-Due-Diligence-Assistance\Engineering\DesDev\Exhibits\SitePlan_021320.dwg, SHEET TITLE, Feb 17, 2020 3:49pm, ngwalters0 feet100
1"=50'
50 150
February 17, 2020
PRELIMINARY CIVIL SITE PLAN
600 TANK FARM C2
Item 3
Packet Page 108
1622-01-LP19 FEBRURARY 17, 2020
600 TANK FARM ROAD
600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
A4
INITIATION
PACKAGE
CONCEPTUAL SITE SECTIONS
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
Item 3
Packet Page 109
1622-01-LP19 FEBRURARY 17, 2020600 TANK FARM ROAD
600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 1622-01-LP19 FEBRUARY 12, 2020
A2SITE PLAN - OPTION 1
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 1 BUILDING 1 BUILDING 1 BUILDING 1
BUILDING 1 BUILDING 1 BUILDING 1
BUILDING 1 BUILDING 1 BUILDING 1
BUILDING 1 BUILDING 1 BUILDING 1
BUILDING 1
MIXED-USE
MIXED-USE
SCALES: 1:50 (24X36 SHEET)
1:100 (12X18 SHEET)
PARKING:
REQUIRED:497 SPACES
PROPOSED:457.2 SPACES (BASED ON 8% REDUCTION FROM CITY REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING GUEST PARKING)
PROVIDED:458 SPACES 600 TANK FARM ROAD
600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
A5
INITIATION
PACKAGE
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
RIPARIAN SET BACK
RIPARIAN SET BACK
BIKE/PEDESTRIAN PATH
0’100’50’25’150’
0’200’100’50’300’SCALES: 1” = 100’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET)
1”=50’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)NORTH
Item 3
Packet Page 110
1622-01-LP19 FEBRURARY 17, 2020
600 TANK FARM ROAD
600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
A6
INITIATION
PACKAGE
CHARACTER SKETCH
Item 3
Packet Page 111
600 Tank Farm Road 31 of 31
City Zoning, General Plan and ALUP Analysis
May 1, 2020
Attachment B
ALUC Proposed ALUP Safety Zone Maps
(Contained in November 2019 Agenda Packet)
Item 3
Packet Page 112
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Legend
Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone
Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone
Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone
Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone
Zone 5: Sideline Zone
Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone
±10,000'1,000'500'3,000' at 30°6
,
0
0
0
'
a
t
3
0
°1,500'4,00
0
'1,000'1,00
0
'500'500' Extension
DRAFT #2 - Attachment 1
Page 1 of 1
Item 3
Packet Page 113
0 0.65 1.30.325 Miles
Legend
Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone
Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone
Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone
Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone
Zone 5: Sideline Zone
Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone
±
CNEL 60
CNEL 65
CNEL 70
CNEL 75
Safety Zones
Noise Contours (RJ Service Only Scenario)
DRAFT
#2 - Attachment 4
Page 1 of 1
Item 3
Packet Page 114
1622-01-LP19JUNE 19, 2020600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A1CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PACKAGETITLE SHEETPROJECT STATISTICSPROJECT ADDRESS:600 TANK FARM ROADSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN:053-421-006 & 053-421-002EXISTING ZONING:BP-SPPROPOSED REZONE:CSTOTAL SITE AREA:11.1 ACRES ALLOWED DENSITY:24 DU/ACREALLOWED DU: 266.4 DU UNIT MIX & DENSITYALLOWEDSTUDIO 0.5 DU/UNIT1-BED 0.66 DU/UNIT2-BED 1 DU/UNIT3-BED 1.5 DU/UNIT PROPOSEDTOTAL UNIT COUNT TOTAL DUSTUDIO 28 (28 X 0.5 ) = 14 DU1-BED 72 (72 X 0.66) = 47.52 DU2-BED 152 (152 X 1) = 152 DU3-BED 28 (28 X 1.5) = 42 DUTOTALS 280 UNITS 255.52 DUPARKINGREQUIRED (INCLUDING GUEST PARKING)STUDIO1.2 SPACES/UNIT(28 X 1.2 ) = 33.6 SPACES1-BED1.2 SPACES/UNIT(72 X 1.2) = 86.4 SPACES2-BED1.7 SPACES/UNIT(152 X 1.7) = 258.4 SPACES3-BED2.45 SPACES/UNIT (28 X 2.45) = 68.6 SPACESCOMMERCIAL1 SPACE/300 SF(15,000 SF/300) = 50 SPACESTOTAL497 SPACESPROPOSED(INCLUDING 8% REDUCTION457.2 SPACESPROVIDED 458 SPACESEV PARKINGREQUIRED RESIDENTIALREADY 10% OF REQUIRED 45 SPACESCAPABLE50% OF REQUIRED 224 SPACEPROPOSED RESIDENTIALREADY45 SPACESCAPABLE224 SPACEREQUIRED COMMERCIALREADY 10% OF REQUIRED 5 SPACECAPABLE 25% OF REQUIRED 13 SPACESPROPOSED COMMERCIALREADY5 SPACECAPABLE13 SPACESPROPOSED # OF BUILDINGSRESIDENTIAL 19MIXED USE 2TOTAL 21CS ZONING REGULATIONS (PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.36.020)MAX. DENSITY24 UNITS/ACREMIN. SETBACKSFRONT10 FEET (BLDGS), WHERE NO BUILDING ADJOINS 5’-0” (PARKING LOTS)INTERIOR SIDE AND REARN/ACORNER LOT-STREET SIDE10 FEET (BLDGS), WHERE NO BUILDING ADJOINS 5’-0” (PARKING LOTS)MAX. ALLOWABLE BLDG. HEIGHT35’-0”MAX. ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE75%MAX. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO1.5MIN. ALLOWABLE LOT AREA9,000 SFItem 3Packet Page 115
1622-01-LP19JUNE 19, 2020600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A2CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PACKAGEEXISTING CONDITIONSItem 3Packet Page 116
1622-01-LP19JUNE 19, 2020600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A3CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PACKAGEPRELIMINAR CIVIL SITE PLANXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
/////
/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSSXX////////////XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXX
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XX
XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX XX XXX XXX XXXX X XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXX XXX XXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXXX XX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXXX XXX XXXX XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX XXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXX
XXX
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX
XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX
XXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXX
XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX
XXXXX
XXX XX XXXXXX XX XXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
XXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XX XXXX XXX XXXXX XXX XX XXX XXX XXX XX XXXXXX XXX XX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXX XXXX XX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXX XXX XXX XX XXXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XX X XX XXX XXX XX XXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXX XX XXXX XX XXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX
XX XXXXXXXXX X XXX XXX
XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
X XXXXXXXXXXX XXX X X XXX XXXX XXXX
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXX
XX XXXXX XXX
XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
X XXXXXX XXXX X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XXX XXX XXX X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X XX X X X X XX X X X XX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 161.4
55.4155
4
54155.15555.444155.4455.455.444444444444
154.7154.77771111
15
155
3
155
3
155
3
155.355555
156.1115111115111151151515
159.
161.6
163.6163.63.66666666
162.6162.6162.61111621166626666666262
6
22
DENSE TREE COVER
DENSE TREE
COVER
COVERDENSE TREE
DENSE TNNSE TENTREE
CCOVERCR
54545141111141411411111451141114111144111141015015015555555515551555160016006666060600011605555555
150501150165165145111145114R
R
15150D E
V
CE
5555155515555 165E
V
NSE
O
454E
VE
NEN
C
T
E
DE
C
TR
ER
D
150R
R
EDENSE TREE
DENS
O
EEDENSE TREE COV
D E
OV
EOVERCOEN
TR
VE
COENOS
00E
1160EEECOOVERVDDDDDD
N
CCCCC
SE
OVV
SE
V
EE
V
SE
V
EE
V
E
V
SE
VVOVV
S
O
4511XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X XXXXXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX XXX XXX X XXXX
SS
XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX X
X XXXX
X XXX XX X
SSSS
XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX33.333
55555555555
3.33333333
5555555555555555
RRRREREREREOVOVVEVEVEVEVEVEOVOVVVVCCEEEEEEEEREREEEERENENNNENENNNSNSNSENSNSNSDEEDEDENSDEDRRRRRREREEREEREOVVVEVEVEVEEEVEVVEVOVOOVOVVVEEEEEEEEEEREEEEREEREEEEENEENENNNNENENNNNNSNSNSNSNSNSENSNSNSDEEDEEEEDEDEDDDEDREREROVOVVVVEECEEEEEENNSNNSNSNSDEDE159.0FS153.5FSFFF = 153.0±FF 53.0FF = 153.0±FF = 155.0±FFF = 156.0±56.066FF = 156.0±FFFF = 155.0±FF = 156.0±FF =1=15656666666666FFFF 1156.00FF = 161.0±FFFF = 164.5±FF = 164.5±FF = 167.07FF= 167.0±FF = 161.0±FFF = 162.5±FF = 164.0±FF = 168.0±FF = 169.0±FF = 165.5±FF = 165.5±FF = 167.0±67.077FF = 167.0±6.0X6FF = 164.0±A-AAAAAAAAAAAAAA-AA------------AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB-BBBBBBBXBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB-BBBBBB-BB-BB-BBBBBXBBXBBBBXBBXBBBBBBBBBBB
ACACIA CREEKACCACACIA CEKCACIA CREEACIA CRKEREEREERRRCCCAACCCACAAAAAACACIA CREEKACACIA CREEKCIA CREEKEEKACACIA CREEKACACACKKEEREEEEREEEEREEEEEEEEEEECCAAAAAAAAACCCACAEXISTING PROPERTY LINEXXPRELIMINARY PROPOSEDRIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONFUTURE ADDITIONAL PAVE OUTFOR TRUCKTURNAROUNDPROPOSED SANTA FE INTERIMIMPROVEMENTSSANTA FE ROADTANK FARM ROAD RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS FORTANK FARM ROADIMPROVEMENTSINTERIM BIKE LANEIMPROVEMENTS ONLY — NOSIDEWALK SOUTH SIDE ONLYPROPOSED BIKE AND PEDIMPROVEMENTSRIGHT TURN IN AND RIGHTTURN OUT MOVEMENTSONLY5050500500501550000000005005050050500500500500500500500500500500500500505050505050505050050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050150501505015050150505050155155155155155150505050505050505050505050501505015015050150501505155505051505151555151115155111511515150515051505150515051505150515051505150515051505150515015150155511150515015150151515511150155155511150501501555155511111501551555111150155155511115015551555111115155115051501550505515555111115015505050550505055151551111111501555155511111501550505515551111150155050551555111115155515111501555555551511505555550555551515555555551515115155555551115155555551115155515111511515505555551515151515555551515555555555555151151151555555551515151515151511515115151511111
1555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555515515555555555555555555551555155515551555515551555155515555155551555515555155551555515555155551555515555155551555515555155551555155551555515555155151555155515551555155151551515515155151551515515155151551515511551515511551551551551151151151151151151155151515515515515151551515151515151515151555151555111116016000606060606060606060606060606060606060606016060160116016016011601160116011601601160161601160161601616601601160161601616016160160160161601616016160160160160160160160601606016060166016016016060160601660160601606016001600160016001600160016016001600160016001600160016001600160016001601601601601601616161661661616161616161161161161611611616161611611155111155555555555555555555555555555656665616566661666556566666566661111111111111111111111170170117070170070717000000000000700707070700707707707707707707070707070170707070707170017017017001701700170017001700170017001700170017170701700700700170017001770071707017070170701707017070170701707017017070170701707017070170701707017070170701707017070170701707017070170717071707170171701717071707170717017170171701717017170177017701770171701701717017017011701170117011701170117017017017017017017017017017011717171717171717171717171717171111111711717177555555555555755757557575757557557557557575757575757575757575751175717575777575751777577575775757517171717171717171717177171717117117117117171711717117111111111757517171751717117517555555575555575575757575757557557557557557755775575575575575575757557557557557557551757575757575757575757575757575757575757575757575175751757517575175751757517575175751757517517517517517517517517517575175175175175175175175171751751751751751751751717517175171751717517175171717175171751775751751717171757175775717517175717571751717517175717517175171751717517175171751717517175117517175117511751175117511751117511751171171171171171175117177171717717171717171117117111111111111111111111111
14814481484884888148481481414148144148148148141414814814448148141414814814414814141481441488148814881414148484881441488148814481414848148141484814811481441441414811481484144148141414814814414814814814814814814814814814814814814814814811148148114141441444949494949999999994949499499499499499499499499499494994994994949494949494949499494949494949494949494949494949494949491491414914144141414494949494949494949494949149494949494949494949141494949494949149491494914949144949414941494914941494149491441494494941444944149414941494149414914149414941494141414914149144949149141491414144941491414914149141491414914149141491414914149141491414914149141411411411411411411411411411411411414141414141414114141411111
15115151515151515115155151115515515111151151111115115151511511515151151155151515115115151515151515151515151515151515155115515151515151515151511515151515151151511515115151151515151151551515115151151511515115155515151515151555515155151151515155151515115515515115151511515151151515115151515515115155551511515115151511515151151515515551511511151151515115515151511515115151511515111515551515151115151551515151151111515111551515151115151511151515111151511515551511515111511151115115115115115115111155515115111511511511511511511511511511511511511555151515515111111111122 152211522215225212225252522152152521521521521152152215221521522152215215151525215515215215215215151525215515215215155215522222222222222222222222222222222222222222252152525252222152215215215215221521521521521521521522152152252152525215252525215151525252151525221522151115215215151551555225225221521525525525525225525155552515521525255215525525215152152525215151152225521515525221552211111152111252525252115222111521111112521215211125225222522152111521112522211152111152222222152151111522552552511522515225125222152252211521511111152151152151111111111111152511111111111111152221152151111152151115315333333153355553555351535153311521521521522522331531531531531531531531531531531531531531531153115311531153333333331531153331535335315553535553535353153331553351553355555355555333333333331535333333333531531515531551153551535355515315315315315315315333153331533315311111133333315333333111133333315333333111133315335555355551333333315331533153315331533153315333531533335353333315333331533333333153333351535151511531515155353531535351535553515555351551531515151551551535153553535315335331533153553515553515515315315311111111521521521521521521521521521521521521521521521521533153153522115215252211521521515151511521521152152522151551111111521152115151515151515151515115211521511521152151111115252522522152152551521521521525552521521521515151552521515551522151555511521521522151555511521152151152152115215222115215211521521152152211521521115215215251152111111521522115211521111154115455541545515455154115415415415415415411541154115411541154115411541154154154154154154115411541541541545415454154151544154151541541544154415415415441541541541541541541541541541541545154515415415451545154515451545154515451545154154515515515451555154154154154154154154154154154154154154156115561565656565615656561565615615615615615615615665656156615565156615661566156615661565615661556156615661561561565615656156561556156151561515615156151561515615615561515611561156156156156565615156151556515615615615615615656561561565651561561515151515151515
1575157571575755757715715177775775575757575757557557575575757557575775757557575575755757557575575757555757555757157571577157571577157755757157571575715757157571575715757157571575715757157571575715757157571575715751575715751575157515751575157515751575157151575157515751575157515751571515715157151571515715157151571515711571157115711571157115711571157115711571157115115115115115115115151515555151551515151515151515151515151511111111
15851585558158155851581158588888888888855885588885585585585585855855585855855858585858585858585585858585858585858585858585815855858585858585815855815855815855815855815855815855815855815855815855815855815855581585581585558158558158558158558515855815855851585581585581585558158555158558515851585158515851585158555158555158558515851581515851585158515815158151581515815158151581515811581158115811581158115811581158115851158115851158511585158515851551551551515151551515151515111511
591595159159599999999999959995995959595959591599599599599599599599599595995995991599159915991599159915991599159591599159915991599159915991595915959159915915915915915915915915915915915959159515915915951595159515951595159515951591591591515951595159515951591159115911591159115911591159115911115911591159159159111511151159111511151111591159151151159111159111151111591159591591111159111159111591115951591159115151515151515551515551515151111111111
1161111611111111111611161611616161616616161616116116161161161161116111611161116111611161116111611161161616161616116161161616161616161611616116111616161616161611616161611161116111611161116161616161616111611161161161161161161116111611616161611616616161161616161616161616161616616166161111111111
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX1622261622622622262262XX62X222216622222262262XXX2222222222262262XXXX262262XXX62262XXXXXXX2262262XXXXXXX2262262XXXXXXX2262262XXXXXXX2262262XXXXXXX2262262XXXX262262XXXX262262XXX62262XXXXXXX2262262XXXXXXX2262262XXXXXXX2262262XXXX2262262XXXXX2262262XXXXX2262262XXXXX2262262XXXX2262262XXXX2262262XXXXX2262262XXX62X2262262XXXX262262XXXX262262XX62X2262262XX62X2262262XXXX262262XX62X2262262XX62X2262262XX6262262262XX62X2262262XX62262262XX62262262XX62X2262262XX6262262262XX6262262262XX626226222X626226222X626226222X6262262262XX6262216222X6262226222X626226222X626221622626262262226222X62622162262262221622626222162262622216226222622216262226221626222622162622262216226226222162622262621626222626221622226262162222626216262226221626226216262226262162622626216262262621626226216262262166162622626216262262626226262622621626226162622616262261666262262616116162226162226162226162226162226162226162226162226162226162226162226162226162226162616226162261622616261626162261621616261626162161621162116216162161621162116261621162116211611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611611616113111113333333333333333333333333363631631633636636111111111111111111111111111114111114444444444444444444444444444444446464164164464664611111111111111111111111111111111111111166666666616616166666666666666111666666666666611111111111167667676676766716161616161617777777777777777777777777777777777777777777676676767676676767676777676676766767667676676766767667676676766767667676676766767676676766767667676676766767667676676766767676676766767667676676766767667676766716161667667666666161616166161616616161616161661161616611616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616111616111111111116868616868686881681616116618888888686888868688686868686886868686886868868688686886868688686868868686886868868688686886868868688686886868688686886868868688686886868868688686886868868688686868686868686886868868688686868686868686868168686868686868686816868168681686816868168681686816868168681686868168681686816868168681686868681686868168686816868616868616868681686868168686816868616868616868616868616868616616868668686868168681616868616868616668686168161686816168681616868161681616816168161686816168161686816168161681616816168681168681168681168681168681168681168681168681161168681161161161161161161161161161616161616161611111111
169616969699691691699996969696969696969696969696969696969696969696969696969699696969969969699699169916991699169969916991699169916969169691699169916991696916969169691696916969161696969696969169691669696169691696916969169691696916961696916961696169616961696169616961696169161696169616961696169616961691616916169161691616911691616916169116116916169161691616916169116116911669161616911691161616161616166161616161666616616616161616161616111
1711117117171111111171111711717171717171717171171711711711711711111711711711111171111171111171111171111171111171111171111171111171111171111117111171111711117111171111711111171111171111117117117117117117171171171171171111711717117171171711717117171171771771711171117117111717111171111711117111171111711171711171711717111117111117111711111711111711117111711171117111711171117111711171117111711171117717717117117117111771777777777717717717717717177777171771717717717717717717717717717717717717717717717717717177177177171771711111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111721722722727272722272722222722727272272272272721722722722722722172217221722172217221722172217221722172217221722172217221722172217221722172217221722222172217221722222222172217222221722222172222217222221722222172222217222221722222172222217222272222172222217222221722222172222217222221722222172221721722222172227217222721721717217172171721717217172171721717217217217217217217217217211721172122172117212217211721172172172172172172172172172117211721172117211721172111711172117111711111111111111
1737331117313173177371731711717111337377333333737373373737373773777377377777773777777377373773373777717317737173177373737777377373773777173117737173117737173117737173117737173177371711771173177377373737371731171371711777373771731737173173717313173111317311131731113173131731317313173111317313117313173131731317313173131173131173131173131117313173311173131173131173131117331117331117331173311171111731317317337331731317313171117337173131731173131731173111337333317313733173137331731113337333173133317313331731333173133317313331731133733317311337333173137331733331731333173333173333173133317333317333317333317331733173317333317317317171731771731731731731731731731731731731717 173171737337333737373731737317317317317317317317317317317317317317317317317317317317373731731737371733173317331737317171733173317331771737317373737373737373737373737373173731737373737173171737173717371737173773173717311711717317317177317311731731731173731173173173173173173173173173173173173173171731731717171777117771117317331733333333333333733373733737317317317317317317317317317317171731731771733173317317317331733173173317331733173317331731731737317373173731733173171731717317173171731717317173171731717317731773171731731731731731731737373173173737171731731731731731731731731731731731717317171717171717711111 1731773173333333373337331737373173173731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731737373173173737173173173173173173173173173173731737317317317373173177331733173173177317731717317317173117311731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731731117417171174174444444744744747447447447474747447447447447447447474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474741741774747474747474747474747417417747747747417417174171741717417174171741717417171174171711711711711717117171717171717171711711111111174747474747474741717171444444447444747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747777177474747477747474174747417747417747417417474174747417747417417411741174174174741174174174741741741741741741174747417417474117474747417417474174174741741747411747474741174747474117447474117447474117474747411747474411747474741174747474117474747411747474411747474411747474741174741744117474744117474744111747417741174741741174741741174747441174174171741174741774117474177411741741744117474177411741741411741741474741741741171711717117417417474174174117417411717117171717417417474747417171171717474717171171711717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171171171171717117117117117117117111111111111111111111
EXISTING TOPOF BANK35' TOP OF BANK AND EDGEOF RIPARIAN SETBACKPROPOSED INTERIM BULB-OUTIMPROVEMENTSIHHW
Item 3Packet Page 117
1622-01-LP19JUNE 19, 2020600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A4CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PACKAGECONCEPTUAL SITE SECTIONSSECTION A ASECTION B B0 100 0 2 1 0 0 200 100 0 00 SCALES 1 100 - 0 (12”X18” SHEET) 1 0 -0 (24”X36” SHEET)Item 3Packet Page 118
1622-01-LP19JUNE 19, 2020BUILDING 3BUILDING 2BUILDING 2BUILDING 2BUILDING 3BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1BUILDING 1MIXEDUSEMIXEDUSE600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PACKAGECONCEPTUAL SITE PLANCREEK RIPARIANSETBACKBIKE PEDESTRIAN PAT CREEK RIPARIAN SET BACKA7A6A8EXISTING CONNECTION TO BE DESIGNED AND APPROVED B OT ERS0 100 0 2 1 0 0 200 100 0 00 SCALES 1 100 - 0 (12”X18” SHEET) 1 0 -0 (24”X36” SHEET)N Item 3Packet Page 119
1622-01-LP19JUNE 19, 2020600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A6CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PACKAGEC ARACTER SKETC MIXED USE BUILDINGS PERSPECTIVEItem 3Packet Page 120
1622-01-LP19JUNE 19, 2020600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PACKAGEC ARACTER SKETC R 4 RESIDENTIAL AREA BUILDINGS PERSPECTIVEItem 3Packet Page 121
1622-01-LP19JUNE 19, 2020600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PACKAGEC ARACTER SKETC R 3 RESIDENTIAL AREA BUILDINGS PERSPECTIVEItem 3Packet Page 122
1622-01-LP19JUL 1 , 2020IMAGE N.T.S600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A1EX IBITSBIC CLE CIRCULATION EX IBIT OPTION 1ADJACENT PROJECT PROPOSED BIKE/PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATIONPROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATIONPROJECT PROPOSED PATHSPROJECT PROPOSED PATHSINTERIM CLASS II.CLASS IV AT FUTURE CHEVRON DEVELOPMENTFUTURE 800,000 SF COMMERCIAL PROJECTWETLAND MITIGATION AREAN Item 3Packet Page 123
1622-01-LP19JUL 1 , 2020IMAGE N.T.SWETLAND MITIGATION AREA600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A2EX IBITSBIC CLE CIRCULATION EX IBIT OPTION 2ADJACENT PROJECT PROPOSED BIKE/PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATIONPROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATIONPROJECT PROPOSED PATHSFUTURE 800,000 SF COMMERCIAL PROJECTINTERIM CLASS II.CLASS IV AT FUTURE CHEVRON DEVELOPMENTN Item 3Packet Page 124
•Council Agenda Report
Department Name: Community Development
4003 Cost Center:
For Agenda of:
Placement:
Estimated Time:
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
April 21, 2020
Public Hearing
15 Minutes
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 3
Packet Page 125
Background
The site is composed of 11.1 contiguous acres at the northeast comer 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=O&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 3
Packet Page 126
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 worlforce 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 appropriate'.
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 1.5 3, 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 I transit opportunities where appropriate.
Item 3
Packet Page 127
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 3
Packet Page 128
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:
Current Remaining Annual
Total Budget Funding Balance Ongoing Cost
Funding Sources Available Request
General Fund NIA
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 3
Packet Page 129
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 proiect 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 3
Packet Page 130
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.
Item 3
Packet Page 131
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.
Item 3
Packet Page 132
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---
Item 3
Packet Page 133
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
Item 3
Packet Page 134
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.
Item 3
Packet Page 135
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
Item 3
Packet Page 136
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.
Item 3
Packet Page 137
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
Item 3
Packet Page 138
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.aspx
Item 3
Packet Page 139
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
Item 3
Packet Page 140
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
Item 3
Packet Page 141
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.
Item 3
Packet Page 142
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
Item 3
Packet Page 143
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
Item 3
Packet Page 144
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
Item 3
Packet Page 145
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
Item 3
Packet Page 146
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.
Item 3
Packet Page 147
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.
Item 3
Packet Page 148
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--
Item 3
Packet Page 149
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
Item 3
Packet Page 150
600 Tank Farm Road
ARCH-0216-2020
Conceptual review of a proposed 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.
September 23, 2020
Applicant: Covelop, LLC
Recommendation
The Commission may provide a motion inclusive of
individual comments or specific directional items for the
applicant or staff to consider.
Project Site and Location
3
Project Description
4
The project consists of;
◼19 three-story residential structures
◼2 three-story mixed-use structures
◼One residential amenity structure (clubhouse)
◼Extension of Santa Fe Road
◼New round-a-bout along Tank Farm Road
◼Pedestrian and bicycle connection to neighboring
Damien Garcia Sports Fields
Project Site and Location
5
6
Background
7
On July 16, 2020, the ATC 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.
On August 17, 2020, the ARC 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 terms of compatibility between the different uses.
Discuss Item 1: Site Layout and Building Design
8
Discuss whether the conceptual site layout and building
designs are compatible with adjacent uses. Specifically;
◼Building orientation along street frontages
◼Parking layout and pedestrian circulation
◼Architectural styles
◼Residential building layout in regard to common and
private open space areas, proximity to the creek and
other pedestrian circulation areas.
Discuss Item 2: Santa Fe Intersection
9
Provide comments,
suggestions, or
questions related to the
reconfiguration of Santa
Fe Road and pedestrian
and bicycle
connections.
Recommendation
The Commission may provide a motion inclusive of
individual comments or specific directional items for the
applicant or staff to consider.
General Plan/AASP Amendment
Rezoning
600 Tank Farm Road
Covelop, Inc.
Where?
…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
“infill” location.
Requested
GP/SP
Changes;
Entitlements
1.Re-classification of Tank Farm Road, Santa Fe Road and
bike lanes to match traffic projections, and Draft Active
Transportation Plan.
a.4-Lane Santa Fe is overdesigned and does not match
classification and speed design. Convert to 2
through lanes.
b.Tank Farm Road—two through lanes and bikeway
connection.
c.Class IV vertically separated bike lanes per ATP.
2.Land Use/Zoning/AASP changes for mixed use commercial
and residential.
Why Make a
Change in
Land Use
Designation?
1.While the production of housing has accelerated in recent
years, there is still a need for projects that are smaller, more
compact, close to existing services and affordable by design.
2.This project has a lower overall average unit size, in both the
for-sale and for-rent categories. Average unit size for the for-
sale townhomes 1,100 SF with sizes ranging from 450 SF to
1,450 SF.
3.Average unit size across the entire project is 933 SF,
substantially lower than other recent projects.
4.Project results in 15+ deed-restricted mixed-use in
cooperation with a local non-profit housing provider, far
above the City requirement.
5.Project makes the Santa Fe/Tank Farm roundabout and
connector feasible to install by private developer (with fee
reimbursements). Current BP zoning does not without the
City taking the financial lead.
6.Project is compatible with the proposed update to the
Airport Land Use Plan under any alternative being
considered.
7.Project provides a buyer’s preference for workers in the
immediate vicinity.
…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
…Project delivers the Santa Fe/
Tank Farm roundabout, with
ped and bike connections to
Chevron and Damon Garcia
properties. New “Class 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?
Compatible
with ALUP
Update
…Land use policy in the
southeast area of the city has
been heavily influenced by the
County Airport Land Use Plan.
The subject parcel has been
designated for many years as
Business Park because of ALUP
policies. The update to the
ALUP, to be adopted in late
2020, considers residential
development on the site to be
fully compatible with airport
safety and noise restrictions
under all alternatives being
considered.
Why?
Special
Community
Benefits and
Features
…Making a good project
better, the Project integrates
some of the most progressive
features to address community
needs, affordability, and active
transportation.
1.Creative partnership with local non-profit housing
developer for commercial mixed-use area.
1.Car sharing and other shared mobility strategies.
2.New “Class IV” bike lanes for safety; connectivity to
Tank Farm, 650 Tank Farm, and Damon Garcia
Sports Park bike path.
3.Enhanced noise mitigation.
4.Buyer’s preference program for workers in the
immediate vicinity to reduce VMT and encourage
active transportation modes.
What
Average unit size for the
townhomes is 1,100 SF with
sizes ranging from 450 SF to
1,450 SF.
Average unit size across the
entire project is 933 SF,
substantially lower than other
recent projects.
Project results in 15+ deed-
restricted mixed-use units in
cooperation with a local non -
profit housing provider, far
above the City requirement.
Why?
Filling a Need
for
Attainable
Housing
…the project has an average
unit size and price points that
are well below other projects
that are currently being
marketed in the community.
Smaller size results in lower
prices and greater attain-
ability.
Home Size and Price Range
Of Existing Projects
Home Size and
Price Range of
Project