HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-10-14City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm
Street, during normal business hours.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
September 10, 2014 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of August 27, 2014. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed
since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
1. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Review of Draft Land Use Element (LUE) Chapter 7,
Circulation Element Chapter 11 of the General Plan, Proposed Airport Overlay
Zone, and associated changes to Noise and Safety Elements for consistency; City
of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Dept., applicant. (Continued from
August 27, 2014, meeting) (Gary Kaiser)
2. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use Element
(LUE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San Luis Obispo,
Community Development Dept., applicant. (Gary Kaiser)
Focus for this meeting: Provide recommendation to City Council for certification of
the Final EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and provide
recommendations to the City Council for updated Policies and Programs in
Chapter 8 (Special Focus Areas) of the Draft Land Use Element.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
4. Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Gary Kaiser
Meeting Date: 9-10-14
Item Number: X
2222
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Continued Review of Draft Land Use Element (LUE) Chapter 7, Circulation
Element Chapter 11 of the General Plan, proposed Airport Overlay Zone and associated
changes to the Noise and Safety Elements of the General Plan for consistency.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Gary Kaiser, contract planner
Phone Number: 781-7097
E-mail: gkaiser@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: GPI/ER 15-12 FROM: Derek Johnson,
Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION: Review the Draft Land Use Element Chapter 7, Circulation Element
Chapter 11, proposed Airport Overlay Zone and associated sections of the Noise and Safety
Elements and provide input and recommendations for consideration by the City Council.
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Representative Gary Kaiser, Contract Planner
Zoning Multiple
General Plan Multiple
Site Area ~13 square miles
Application
Complete February 1, 2012
Environmental
Status
Environmental Impact Report
Draft released on 6-13-14
SUMMARY
The City’s General Plan update was formally initiated in January 2012 with funding through a
grant from Strategic Growth Council augmented by General Funds for the environmental
review portion of the process. Since that time, the City has conducted a variety of outreach
efforts (see Attachment 1) to engage the community and generate ideas and input for the update
project. With the City Council direction that this update should be focused rather than a
wholesale overhaul of the Land Use and Circulation Elements, the work effort has responded to
legislative changes and identified opportunity areas for growth in the planning area and
circulation infrastructure to support the city’s buildout. The remaining areas of the work effort
have centered on updating policies to strengthen and protect residential communities; add goals
1
PC1 - 1
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update)
Page 2
and policies for Healthy Communities and Sustainability, provided policy
direction/performance standards for the opportunity areas; and updated circulation policies and
programs to facilitate a multi-modal transportation system which considers the needs of
different modes of transportation including, pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicles.
The Planning Commission previously reviewed the draft Land Use and Circulation Elements
(LUCE) on December 12th and 16th, 2013 and endorsed the draft elements to the Council for
the project description to be evaluated through the EIR process. In January 2014, the City
Council reviewed the Commission recommendations and identified the project description for
the environmental review. The LUCE draft environmental impact report (DEIR) was released
on June 13, 2014 for public review. On July 1, 2014, the Planning Commission and City
Council held a joint study session to receive information regarding the DEIR’s evaluation of
the project description and associated findings, and to review both the EIR process and the
LUCE update hearing schedule. Tonight, the Planning Commission is being asked to consider
Airport related draft policy and program language in light of the EIR and public input, and to
provide recommendations to the Council regarding proposed language. This report
summarizes the findings and comments on the section of the LUCE update project that the
Planning Commission is being asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council on
tonight related to LUCE policies affecting the airport area and the draft implementing Airport
Overlay Zone (AOZ) regulations.
To enable the greatest participation by the full Commission, review of the draft Land Use and
Circulation Elements has been phased to consider policies and programs that are potentially
affected by airport issues or other potential conflicts. Therefore, Chapter 7 of the Land Use
Element, Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element, and implementation through a proposed
Airport Overlay Zone are coming before the Commission prior to the remainder of the Land
Use and Circulation Elements. This item was continued from August 27, 2014 due to lack of
quorum.
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Proposed LUCE and Airport Issues
The draft LUCE and DEIR were referred to the Airport Land Use Commission on June 13,
2014 as required by Public Utilities Code 21676(b)1. On July 16, 2014, the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) discussed the draft LUCE update and found the project inconsistent
with the Airport Land Use Plan. With this determination, City Council consideration was
required to provide direction to the LUCE process to either re-visualize the location and type
of future development in the LUCE or to carefully consider an overrule of the Airport Land
Use Commission’s consistency determination2. (For more background on the basis for the
tentative overrule determination, see Attachment 2, City Council Staff Report 8-19-14).
On August 19, 2014, the City Council approved a resolution of intent to overrule the ALUC’s
inconsistency determination, and directed staff to forward draft overrule findings to the
1 PUC code 21676(b) requires certain actions including general plans within the airport planning boundary to be
referred to the ALUC for a determination of consistency.
2 PUC code 21676(b) provides for agency overrule with 2/3 vote based on specific findings the action is
consistent with the intent and purpose of the State Aeronautics Act.
PC1 - 2
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update)
Page 3
ALUC and to the State (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics for review and comment
(Attachment 3). This preliminary step is required under Public Utilities Code 21676(b).
Under the State Aeronautics Act, findings must demonstrate how the proposed overrule
action complies with the intent and purpose of PUC section 216703. The referral of these
findings must occur at least 45 days prior to a final decision by the Council to allow both the
ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to provide a response for the Council to consider
prior to taking final action on the overrule.
The Council’s action on August 19, 2014 was not a determination of the final LUCE policies,
programs or map designation changes, but rather an indication of the City’s intent to allow the
community, Planning Commission, and City Council to consider the draft LUCE evaluated in
the EIR. The LUCE documents will see additional edits in response to community and
advisory body comments and input prior to being considered by the City Council. Tonight’s
hearing before the Planning Commission is the first step in that process.
1.2 Proposed Policy Changes
The proposed policy changes in the Land Use and Circulation Elements are coming to the
Planning Commission for review and comment. These areas of the LUCE – specifically
Chapter 7 of the Land Use Element and Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element address
Airport issues directly. The drafts of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are shown in
legislative draft to indicate where additions and deletions to existing policies and programs
have been proposed. Full copies of the draft elements and associated EIR may be found on
the project website at www.slo2035.com. Copies of the draft elements have been provided to
the Commission for use during the hearing process for reference.
1.3 Proposed Implementation
In order to demonstrate how the City will review development in the airport area for
compliance with the State Aeronautics Act, an amendment to the Zoning Code is required. A
draft of the proposed Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) is provided for Planning Commission
review as Attachment 4. In addition, to maintain consistency between elements, figures and
references in the Safety Element and Noise Element will need to be updated to accurately
show the areas of the city that are subject to airport influence (Attachment 5).
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the General Plan
and for making recommendations to the City Council under Government Code section §65353.
The Commission is responsible for implementing the General Plan through a recommendation
to City Council regarding changes to the zoning ordinance (Government Code section §65103).
Finally, the Commission will also make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the
adequacy of the FEIR (local practice).
The review of the draft elements and implementation, supported by evaluation in the associated
EIR has been staged in sections for Planning Commission review to facilitate the Commission
3 The intent and purpose of the SAA (PUC Code 21670(a)(1)&(2)) is to promote the goals and objectives of
California airport noise standards; prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems, and to protect public
health, safety, and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion airports and adoption of land use measures that
minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airpor ts.
PC1 - 3
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update)
Page 4
and the public’s focus on chapters in each element. The incremental review of each element
will be documented in recommendations to the Council where necessary to conclude
discussions as the Commission moves through the review of the elements.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Proposed changes in Chapter 7 of the draft Land Use Element, Chapter 11 of the Circulation
Element, and the proposed changes to the zoning code are briefly described below. Please note
that the Table of Contents, figures and tables are will be updated and all references will be
corrected in the final version. The Commission should review the legislative draft documents
and be prepared to pause for discussion of those policies or programs for which Commissioners
wish to make adjustments for Council consideration.
3.1 Land Use Element - Chapter 7: Airport Area
The original chapter addressing the Airport Area focused on the need to develop a specific plan
for the area. In the intervening years since 1994, the City adopted, and is currently updating,
the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). Proposed changes to existing policy and program
language in the draft chapter reflect this updated information. New policies have been
recommended to address the compatibility report prepared by the City’s aviation consultant,
Johnson Aviation, and to reflect the larger geographic area of the city that is subject to airport
influence beyond the boundaries of the AASP. Edits reflect the desire to address appropriate
noise and safety constraints associated with existing and future airport operations to meet the
intent of the State Aeronautics Act.
The Council Resolution to retain the right to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission
supports the desire to have land use limitations based on “fact-based consideration of airport
noise and safety zones”. The updates proposed for Land Use Element Chapter 7 in
combination with the proposed Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) indicate how the City intends to
comply with the State Aeronautics Act.
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics provided comments as part of the EIR process that General
plans must include policies restricting the heights of structures to protect airport airspace.
Review processes and height restrictions supported through the LUCE and Airport Overlay
Zone require compliance with federal standards as stated in draft Land Use Element Program
7.3.12, Airport Overlay Zone. The Draft LUCE update and associated implementation through
an Airport Overlay Zone reflect the Handbook guidance for the most recent Airport Master
Plan. However, to provide clarity regarding federal standards, an additional policy is
recommended for Chapter 7 of the Land Use Element to read as follows:
7.X Airspace Protection
The City shall use the Airport Master Plan Update and FAA airport design standards and
Part 77 surfaces to keep the airspace surrounding the airport free of objects where required
by the FAA or shall limit the height of objects as required by the FAA.
The City shall also ensure obstruction clearance is provided for all en route and terminal
(airport) instrument procedures as per the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS) to avert modifications to any planned or published instrument
approach or instrument departure procedures at SBP.
PC1 - 4
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update)
Page 5
3.2 Circulation Element - Chapter 11: Air Transportation
Updates in this chapter remove references to land use and refers the reader to the Land Use
Element for related policies and programs. Updates are proposed to address air transportation
needs in light of the City’s role in those efforts and to remove a direct reference to the Airport
Land Use Plan. Two programs have been updated and two new programs are proposed.
Changes are offered to correctly assign responsibility for airport operations to the County
instead of the Airport Land Use Commission and to indicate the City’s desire to participate
with the Airport Land Use Commission as it updates the Airport Land Use Plan.
3.3 Title 17: Zoning Code – Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) (Attachment 4)
If the Council determines an overrule is appropriate when a final decision on the LUCE is
being made, PUC §21676(b) requires the City to make findings that the proposed action is
consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code §21670 (State Aeronautics Act). To
demonstrate compliance with the State Aeronautics Act, policies and programs in the LUCE
would need to be supported by procedures and standards demonstrating how the City would
apply and implement on an ongoing basis, safety and noise considerations in light of planned
airport operations reflected in the Airport Master Plan. The proposed Airport Overlay Zone, or
AOZ, contains zoning standards that ensure compliance with the State Aeronautics Act. The
AOZ was developed after careful review of the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report prepared by Johnson Aviation, and
consideration of the airport’s local setting. Provisions to address procedures, development
standards and uses, overlay zones, airspace protection, noise, overflight notice and open land
objectives have been included.
The proposed regulations would only be applicable within the City limits and for areas
considered for development under the LUCE update. The proposed AOZ does not change
approved Specific Plans such as Margarita Area, and for proposed rezones that were not
considered as part of the LUCE update, separate referral to the Airport Land Use Commission
will still be required. The Commission should review this proposed new section of Title 17 of
the Zoning Ordinance and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
3.4 Noise and Safety Element edits
Updates in the Noise and Safety Elements of the General Plan are included as part of the
Commission consideration in order to address consistency issues within the General Plan.
References to the Airport Land Use Plan have been amended to reflect consistency with state
law, Handbook guidance, and federal regulations.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The Commission should review the draft Land Use and Circulation Element chapters along
with updates provided by staff at the hearing and provide input and direction as appropriate.
Staff will forward the Planning Commission’s recommendation for consideration by the City
Council.
4.1 Environmental Review
The LUCE update was evaluated through preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR).
The Draft EIR fully described the safety and noise issues associated with airport operations and
PC1 - 5
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update)
Page 6
aircraft flight patterns. Those discussions may be found under Land Use, Noise, and Hazard
sections of the DEIR. Comments on the EIR related to the chapters under consideration tonight
include letters from the ALUC and from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics (referred to as A8
and A5 respectively in the FEIR). The responses to those comments may be found in the
FEIR directly after each letter. The Draft EIR impact analysis found less than significant
impacts (Class III) in the areas of noise, safety, and hazards since land use development
patterns in the LUCE update are based on guidance of the California Land Use Planning
Handbook and FAA standards and will not result in physical environmental safety impacts.
The Draft EIR identified a Class 1 significant and unavoidable impact (Impact LU-1) since the
LUCE update was evaluated as having the potential to conflict with ALUP. However,
responses to the Draft EIR did not provide persuasive evidence to indicate the LUCE update
project would result in significant physical environmental impacts or significant airport-related
safety or noise hazards. Therefore, the Final EIR amends Impact LU-1 to reflect a less than
significant impact (Class III) because the potential impact is a policy impact only, without
physical affects. The Final EIR was released to the public on September 3, 2014. Please see
additional details within the response to comments and the FEIR errata.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Public Works staff has been directly involved and assisting in the update of the Circulation
Element. All departments have contributed to the background reports and the review of
technical information.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
Continue the project with direction to staff.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Community Outreach Summary
2. Council Agenda Report, 8-19-14 (w/o attachments)
3. Council Resolution of Intent to Overrule with Findings
4. Draft Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)
5. Resolution LUE Chapter 7, Circulation Element Chapter 11, and associated sections of
the Safety Element and Noise Element for consistency
6. Resolution Draft Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), Chapter 17.57
PC1 - 6
O UTREACH O VERVIEW
JULY 23, 2014
Community Survey
• 20,700 copies of the survey were printed for distribution. Distribution was primarily done
through an insert distributed with the City’s utility bills (during the weeks of April 9, 16, 23
and 30) and by direct mail to those that do not receive utility bills. In all, surveys were sent
to more than 25,000 homes and businesses in the City. Approximately 2,030 people
returned their completed surveys by mail with an additional; 161 opting to take the survey
online.
Public Workshops (#signed in does not include staff and consultant team)
• Future Fair 4 (May 31, 2014) > 88 signed-in
• Future Fair 3 (December 7, 2013) > 125 signed-in
• Future Fair 2 (June 1, 2013) > 130 signed-in
• Future Fair (December 1, 2012) > 120 signed-in
• Public Workshop #2 (September 27, 2012) > 40 signed-in
• Public Workshop #1 (May 16, 2012) > 95 signed-in
Attendance exceeded numbers shown as “signed in”.
Promotion done for each workshop
• Outreach at Thursday and Saturday Farmer’s Markets before events
• News Releases and Media outreach to all local print, radio, and television outlets
• Utility Bill Flyers – Ads/articles in advance of June and December 2013 Future Fairs and
separate flyer insert for May 2014 Future Fair
• Flyer to all San Luis Coastal Unified School District school children for Workshop #2
• Postcards for physical change areas for Workshop #5
• Channel 20 slide (PSAs)
• Posters on local buses
• Display ads in local newspapers – Tribune, SLO CITY NEWS, and New Times
• Community Calendar postings – KCBX and KSBY
• Banner on library (Future Fairs)
• Banner across Marsh Street for 2 weeks in advance of Future Fair 4
• e-Blasts for all workshops (minimum 2 per event)
• Media interviews with City Planning staff (most workshops, not all)
Neighborhood Open Houses
• Six neighborhood open houses (July and September 2012)
• Posters in 15+ locations within each sub-area
• Display ads in paper
• Request to Task Force members (posters provided) to inform neighbors and friends
Cal Poly Workshop
• November 7, 2012
PC1 - 7
Attachment 1
City Council Meetings
• July 1, 2014 (joint with PC)
• January 28, 2014
• January 14, 2014
• January 7, 2014
• October 15, 2013
• April 2, 2013
• October 16, 2012
• April 20, 2012
• March 20, 2012
• March 13, 2012
• March 6, 2012
• January 17, 2012
Planning Commission Meetings
• July 1, 2014 (joint with CC)
• January 8, 2014
• December 16, 2013
• December 12, 2013
• August 14, 2013
• July 24, 2013
• May 8, 2013
• March 13, 2013
• February 22, 2012
Task Force Meetings
• #34, June 18, 2014
• #33, February 19, 2014
• #32, January 15, 2014
• #31, December 10, 2013
• #30, December 5, 2013
• #29, December 4, 2013
• #28, November 26, 2013
• #27, November 25, 2013
• #26, November 20, 2013
• #25, November 14, 2013
• #24, November 7, 2013
• #23, November 6, 2013
• #22, October 30, 2013
• #21, October 24, 2013
• #20, October 17, 2013
• #19, October 16, 2013
• #18, October 2, 2013
• #17, September 18, 2013
• #16, July 9, 2013
• #15, July 1, 2013
• #14, June 27, 2013
• #13, June 19, 2013
• #12, May 14, 2013
• #11, April 30, 2013
• #10, April 17, 2013
• #9, March 7, 2013
• #8, February 20, 2013
• #7, January 16, 2013
• #6, October 17, 2012
• #5, September 19, 2012
• #4, July 18, 2012
• #3, June 20, 2012
• #2, June 7, 2012
• #1, April 18, 2012
Advisory Committee Meetings
• Parks and Recreation Commission August 21,2013
• Parks and Recreation Commission July 22, 2014
• Bicycle Advisory Committee July 18, 2013
• Bicycle Advisory Committee September 19, 2013
• Bicycle Advisory Committee July 17, 2014
• Mass Transportation Commission July 10, 2013
• Mass Transportation Commission July 9, 2014
• Cultural Heritage Committee July 28, 2014
Organization Outreach
• Chamber of Commerce – LUCE sub-committee (City staff attended some)
• Downtown Association (1 meeting + City staff attended several + Downtown Blasts to
members)
PC1 - 8
Attachment 1
• Latino Coalition (2 meetings)
• Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (2 meetings)
• Neighbors North of Foothill (1 meeting)
• Transition Towns (2 meetings)
• Rotary (promotion of meetings)
• SLO Green Energy (1 meeting)
• EcoSLO (1 meeting)
• Faith-based organizations (notices to all)
e-Blasts
• ~ 65 e-Blasts have been sent
• ~ 3,500 e-mail address are on the mailing list
• Over 225,000 messages have been sent so far as part of the General Plan Update project
Newsletters
• Newsletter 1, General Plan Update Overview, May 2012
• Newsletter 2, Alternatives, June 2013
Website and Social Media
See attached summary.
MindMixer
• Ran for six months from Fall 2012 – May 2013
• 240 registered participants
• 1,039 unique visitors
• 18,000 page views
• > 230 ideas generated
Theater PSAs
• 12 weeks in Fall 2012 (November 2012 – January 2013)
• Cinemark downtown – all screens (~ 20,000 impressions)
Spanish Language Outreach
• Newsletter 1 translated into Spanish
• Univision Spanish language PSAs on survey and workshop
• Media releases to all area Spanish language outlets
• Website page on Update
• Outreach through Latino coalition
Interviews with City Leadership
• The Consulting Team developed a set of five questions to be used in interviews with City
Council and Planning Commission members. During the week of March 19 – 23, the
Consulting Team’s management group conducted these individual interviews.
• Interviews were conducted with City department heads to gain insight on SWOT.
PC1 - 9
Attachment 1
Other Media
• 3-29-12 SLO CITY NEWS Article
• 4 -2012 City Staff interview aired on Channel 19 and Cal Poly Campus TV
• 11 -2012 California Edition – cable news channel interview re: LUCE Update
• 12-6-12 SLO CITY NEWS Article
• 6-6-13 SLO CITY NEWS Article
• 10-18-13 Tribune Article (Summary of Council Action on Alternatives)
• 10-24-13 SLO CITY NEWS Article
• 1-18-14 Tribune Article (Summary of Council Action on Draft LUE)
• 6-11-14 KSBY Google Alert
PC1 - 10
Attachment 1
PC1 - 11
Attachment 1
PC1 - 12
Attachment 1
PC1 - 13
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Gary Kaiser, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: INITIAL STEPS TO CONSIDER OVERRULE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION THAT
THE DRAFT LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE AND
IMPLEMENTING ZONING REGULATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review the County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) determination
(Attachment 1) that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update and
implementing zoning regulations are inconsistent with the County Airport Land Use
Plan; and
2. Consider a draft resolution (Attachment 5) of intent to overrule the inconsistency
determination, and direct staff to forward draft overrule findings to the ALUC and to the
State (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics for review and comment pursuant to Public
Utilities Code Section 21676(b)1.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City has been in the process of updating the Land Use and Circulation Elements of its
General Plan for over two years. During this time, the City has been aware that the 2005 ALUP
was not adopted consistent with State law requirements and is not based on verifiable technical
data or accurate airport operations data. As a result of significant technical analysis, City staff
concluded that the ALUP is flawed and contains policies and programs that unnecessarily restrict
development within the City in a manner that is not reasonably related to noise, safety or airport
operations concerns.
Since 2012, the City has met extensively with the ALUC and encouraged the ALUC to update
the ALUP based on objective data and verifiable airport operations assumptions. Staff and City
consultants have provided extensive technical and policy comments to the ALUC along with
offers of modern, accurate GIS mapping, FAA-required noise model expertise and other related
services in anticipation of the City’s long projected timeline for completion of its LUCE Update
process. Regrettably, the ALUP update has not proceeded.
As part of the LUCE Update process, the City retained a qualified airport land use compatibility
consultant to prepare an Airport Land Use Compatibility Report. The purpose of the
Compatibility Report is to ensure that the policies and programs contained in the LUCE Update
1 PUC Section 21676(b) requires the local agency to provide a copy of the proposed decision and findings to the
Airport Land Use Commission and the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation.
8-19-14
PH4
PC1 - 14
Attachment 2
LUCE – Airport Land Use Commission determination Page 2
will not negatively impact public health, safety and welfare and that the policies and programs
will not be incompatible with existing and planned airport operations. The Compatibility Report
finds that the policies and programs contained in the LUCE Update are in compliance with and
consistent with Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670 of the Public
Utilities Code2 and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, which specifically and effectively address these issues.
On July 16, 2014, the Draft LUCE Update referral package was determined by the Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) to be inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) with regard
to the types and densities of development that would be supported by the proposed LUCE land
use designations within the current ALUP boundaries (Attachments 1 & 2). The City provided a
detailed response to each of the ALUC’s findings, which outlines the draft LUCE Update
project’s consistency with the State Aeronautics Act (Attachment 3). Pursuant to Public Utilities
Code Section 21676(a), the City may, after a public hearing on the matter, propose to overrule
the ALUC’s determination by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. In order to overrule, the
City Council must make specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes
set forth in Section 21670 of the California Public Utilities Code to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare, and minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards
within areas around public airports. At least 45 days prior to such an overrule, the City must
provide the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics with notice of the Council’s intent to
overrule and draft findings, pursuant to Section 21676(b)3 of the Public Utilities Code.
In order to advance and promote the policies and programs contained within the LUCE Update,
staff seeks authorization from Council to notify the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
of the City’s intent to overrule the ALUC’s determination of inconsistency and to provide ALU C
and Caltrans with the opportunity to provide comments on the draft findings. Any comments
received during the required review period will be duly considered and presented to Council for
consideration, along with staff’s analysis and recommendations. Should the Council decide to
proceed with the overrule process, findings will be finalized and included in the final record of
decision.
DISCUSSION
Background
California state law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan “for the physical
development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its
planning” (Government Code § 65300). Referred to by the California Supreme Court as the
“constitution for future development,” the general plan expresses the community’s development
goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land uses, both public and
private. A general plan is required to address the specified provisions of each of the seven
2 The purpose of the Act is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion of airports
and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards
within areas around pubic airports.
3 The Airport Land Use Commission and Division of Aeronautics may provide comments within 30 days of
receiving the proposed decision and findings. The local agency may act without consideration of the comments if
they are not provided within 30 days.
PC1 - 15
Attachment 2
LUCE – Airport Land Use Commission determination Page 3
mandated Elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
The City of San Luis Obispo is currently in the process of updating its Land Use and Circulation
Elements (LUCE), with a 20-year planning horizon to approximately the year 2035. Several
factors will determine the actual final implementation or “buildout” date for the LUCE Update,
including but not limited to economic conditions.
The City’s LUCE Update was formally initiated in January 2012 with funding through a grant
from the Strategic Growth Council augmented by General Funds for the environmental review
portion of the process. The Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan provide a
framework for development in the City and will guide the land-use decision making process over
the next 20 years. The LUCE update project refines existing policies of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements and provides proposed areas of “physical changes” to guide land use
changes while balancing population growth with infrastructure availability. The “physical
changes” include identifying locations and establishing policy guidance for the formation of
specific plans and special planning areas which will outline future growth areas of the City. The
LUCE update also provides for a multi-modal transportation system which considers the needs
of different modes of transportation including pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicles.
Coordination with the Airport Land Use Commission
The City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of working closely with the Airport Land Use
Commission on airport compatibility issues. The last major planning efforts occurred in 2004
and 2005 with updates to the Airport Land Use Plan. In support of the 2004 update, the City
Council appointed a subcommittee to work with the Airport Land Use Commission on land use
issues in the Margarita Area. This resulted in a chapter of the Airport Land Use Plan dedicated
specifically to development in this area. Subsequently, the City adopted its Airport Area Specific
Plan and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, which were both deemed consistent with the ALUP by
the Airport Land Use Commission.
In this spirit of cooperation, the City of San Luis Obispo engaged with the Airport Land Use
Commission early on during the City’s LUCE update process. Initially, the City was eager to
develop a better understanding of the basis for the current ALUP safety zones, noise contours,
and policy requirements. To assist the City in this effort, technical expertise was sought and City
staff began to work with Johnson Aviation principal, Nick Johnson, who has worked on similar
issues throughout California.
Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning
During the preparation of the LUCE, it was important that the effort be fully informed by
accurate technical information regarding noise and safety related to existing and future
operations of the airport. With consideration of land use scenarios that would support residential
development in the southern portion of the City, including sites such as south Broad Street, Avila
Ranch, San Luis Ranch, and Madonna (off Los Osos Valley Road), it was necessary for the City
to have technical information (Johnson Aviation) to evaluate potential impacts associated with
airport operations and to offer this information to the ALUC in an effort to try to resolve
differences of opinion regarding technical compatibility issues. Early on during this process,
problems were discovered due to a few key factors, including:
PC1 - 16
Attachment 2
LUCE – Airport Land Use Commission determination Page 4
1. The maps of the safety zones included in the Airport Land Use Plan are inaccurate and
the zone boundaries could not be re-created based on the information provided to the City
by the Airport Land Use Commission.
2. The safety zones included in the Airport Land Use Plan differ greatly from the guidelines
provided by Cal Trans in the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and the justifications
provided by the ALUC for these deviations are not supported by factors that are unique to
SLO Regional Airport and which have not been considered in the CalTrans guidelines so
as to warrant such significant deviations.
3. Neither the Airport Land Use Commission, nor its staff at the County of San Luis
Obispo, could produce the noise study that is purported to have been the basis for the
contours and noise policies included in the Airport Land Use Plan.
4. The Airport Land Use Plan’s noise contour threshold of 55 dB CNEL is a standard for
rural areas that should not apply within the City limits of San Luis Obispo, which is
designated by the US Census as an urban area.
The City of San Luis Obispo communicated these issues to the Airport Land Use Commission in
an effort to work with the Commission to correct the mapping errors and address the other
issues, including the City’s land use planning objectives, in a cooperative manner
(Attachment 4). The City made its technical experts available to the ALUC to help it as the
ALUC realized the significance of the issues at hand, and began an effort of its own to update the
Airport Land Use Plan. However, progress was not made on these important matters. The
Airport Land Use Commission appointed a subcommittee that began to meet in private,
excluding City staff and our issue area experts. As the Airport Land Use Commission continued
to work on its update, it would not engage with the City on the land use issues being worked on
by the City Planning Commission and LUCE Task Force to help the City understand where
refinements might be desirable from the ALUC’s perspective.
Referral of the LUCE to the Airport Land Use Commission
On Friday, June 13, 2014 a Draft EIR (DEIR) was released for public review. The DEIR
included an evaluation of the potentially significant impacts that could result from
implementation of the proposed LUCE Update changes. One of the potential impacts identified
by the DEIR was inconsistency with the County Airport Land Use Plan. The DEIR identified
this as an impact that would be addressed by existing and proposed LUCE policies and therefore
did not require mitigation. The public review period for the DEIR closed on Monday, July 28,
2014 and a Final EIR is currently being prepared.
As required by Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b)4, the City referred the proposed LUCE
Update to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). On July 16, 2014, the ALUC determined
that the proposed LUCE Update was inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). A
follow-up letter from the ALUC is attached hereto (Attachment 1). Tonight’s hearing is an
opportunity to review and discuss the Airport Land Use Commission’s findings of inconsistency
4 Referall to the ALUC for a determination of consistency is required for amendments to the general plan.
PC1 - 17
Attachment 2
LUCE – Airport Land Use Commission determination Page 5
with the County Airport Land Use Plan and to indicate whether the Council intends to consider
an overrule of the ALUC as part of the LUCE update. Staff is requesting that the Council
provide direction to pursue one of two paths: (1) revise the draft element with a goal to propose
uses and densities/intensities supported by the existing County Airport Land Use Plan, prepare a
revised EIR, and refer the revised update to the ALUC for a consistency determination; or (2)
submit draft findings to the ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics indicating that the Council
intends to exercise its statutory authority to overrule the ALUC’s determination.
The Public Utilities Code contains provisions which allow local agencies to overrule the
ALUC’s determination of inconsistency. An overrule would allow the Council to adopt the
LUCE update even though portions of the project have been found inconsistent with the Airport
Land Use Plan. However, the Public Utilities Code requires that draft findings (Attachment 5,
Exhibit A) be submitted to the ALUC and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics at least 45 days prior
to taking the overrule action5, so that the Council can have the benefit of their comments as it
considers a final overrule decision.
Airport Compatibility is Carefully Addressed in the LUCE Update
Public Utilities Code §21676.5(b)6 recognizes that land use authority is retained by the local
jurisdiction and provides a process by which a local jurisdiction can adopt land use regulations
within an airport area that are inconsistent with an adopted ALUP by overruling the ALUC’s
determination. If done at the General Plan level, subsequent review by the ALUC of individual
development projects that are consistent with the General Plan and development standards that
were the subject of the overrule is not required. However, subsequent General Plan
Amendments, Specific Plans, and zone changes and individual development proposals requiring
variances from adopted standards not addressed through an overrule action would still be
referred to the ALUC for a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan in effect
at the time.
The referral submitted to the ALUC provided the draft LUCE update, the supporting Draft EIR,
and a draft of an implementing zoning code which would establish an Airport Overlay Zone
(AOZ). The intent of drafting an Airport Overlay Zone would be to establish City development
criteria that ensure approvals are in compliance with the safety, noise, and land use compatibility
criteria in the State Aeronautics Act, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and
Federal Aviation regulations. While this approach is not typical, it provides the City with the
ability to establish overlay zones which have regulations that have a rational nexus to
operational, noise, and safety data associated with the airport. The Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)
would also provide a method for aligning the appropriate safety, noise and land use
considerations with the City’s zoning maps and designations, thereby providing more accurate
information and certainty for the community and most importantly, providing a policy
framework for ongoing consistency with the State Aeronautics Act.
The draft Airport Overlay Zone has not been reviewed nor endorsed by the Planning
Commission or the City Council. If the Council determines that an overrule may be desirable,
5 Public Utilities Code 2176(b)
6 The action included in the local agency overrule would not be subject to further commission review.
PC1 - 18
Attachment 2
LUCE – Airport Land Use Commission determination Page 6
staff will schedule review of the draft Zoning Code through public hearings with the Planning
Commission so that the Commission and the community have an opportunity to discuss and
provide input and a recommendation prior to Council taking action on the LUCE update.
Draft EIR Findings
The Draft LUCE Update, which includes the proposed policies and programs in the airport area,
is currently undergoing environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). A Draft EIR was prepared and made available for public review from June 13,
2014 to July 28, 2014. A Final EIR is currently being prepared and will be available prior to
adoption of the LUCE Update and prior to any final decision to overrule the ALUC.
The Draft EIR includes, as a technical appendix, the November 22, 2013 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Report by Johnson Aviation. Although potential inconsistency with the Airport
Land Use Plan is identified in the Draft EIR as a significant and unavoidable (Class 1) impact,
the Draft EIR does not identify significant and unavoidable airport-related noise or safety
impacts.
The Draft EIR evaluated and discussed airport compatibility in two ways: Compliance with the
actual County Airport Land Use Plan, and exposure to noise or safety hazards for the uses
supported by the policy and physical changes being considered. The DEIR determined that the
LUCE update had the potential to be inconsistent with the current ALUP (Class 1 Impact). It
further determined that the LUCE update (including proposed policy, physical changes, and
Airport Overlay Zone implementation) would minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise
and safety hazards consistent with the State Aeronautics Act (Class 3 Impact).
The ALUP is developed and maintained by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), an
independent body created by provisions in the Public Utilities Code Section 21670. The City
hired an aviation expert consultant to advise the City in the technical data needed to map and
understand the basis for safety and noise regulations associated with the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport. The City’s objective has been to work with the ALUC to ensure that airport
safety zones are reasonably and prudently mapped based on data and facts. This effort is
intended to support the continued operation and success of the airport consistent with State and
Federal rules and regulations as well as generally accepted noise and safety principles that aligns
with the City’s vision for future land use in the Airport Area.
The consultant, Johnson Aviation, provided an evaluation of the state and federal guidance and
laws that set the framework for developing Airport Land Use Plans, specifically as they apply to
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. This evaluation is documented in the Airport
Land Use Compatibility Report included in Volume IV, Appendix F to the EIR appendix, and
concludes that the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(Handbook) safety zones and associated land use limits provide more than adequate safety
provisions for the community and related airport operations and that there is no factually
supported or data driven basis for significant deviation from the standards included in the
guidelines.
PC1 - 19
Attachment 2
LUCE – Airport Land Use Commission determination Page 7
Land use restrictions based on noise associated with aircraft operations are also identified in the
ALUP. The current ALUP includes noise contours based on a hypothetical maximum use of
airport runways. This approach is inconsistent with the adopted Airport Master Plan forecast and
state requirements, and over-estimates noise associated with aircraft operations. The ALUC is
seeking consultant assistance to provide extended forecasts based on projected growth
anticipated in the Airport Master Plan. While the growth anticipated in the Master Plan has not
come to fruition, the ALUC has indicated a desire to assume current conditions that do not
reflect real current operations numbers extend and “grow” the forecasted operations out to a forty
year horizon. Noise contours developed with the forecast will be used by the ALUC to limit
where residential uses are allowed under the ALUP. The ALUC has indicated the continued
application of the 55 decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (dB CNEL) noise contour as
the basis for limiting residential development in the City of San Luis Obispo, which is more
stringent than the City’s noise policies. This issue is substantial in that it prohibits new
residential uses unless they are located within a mapped 55 dB CNEL or lower noise contour
(Attachment 6). This is inconsistent with the Handbook and not required in order to preclude a
significant impact.
Overrule Process
The ALUC determined the proposed update is inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan;
therefore, the Council has two options: (1) revise the draft element with a goal to propose uses
and densities/intensities supported by the existing County Airport Land Use Plan and prepare a
revised EIR and refer the revised update to the ALUC for a consistency determination; or (2)
submit draft findings to the ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics indicating that the Council
intends to overrule the ALUC. Once overruled, the ALUC no longer assumes liability related to
those matters on which the Council exercises its overruling authority.
If the Council overrules the ALUC, specific findings must be included in that action. These
findings must be transmitted to both the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics at least 45
days prior to the Council making a final decision on the LUCE. The agencies have 30 days in
which to review the findings and provide responses that the Council must consider prior to
taking final action on the LUCE update and implementation measures.
CONCURRENCES
The LUCE and DEIR were reviewed by all City departments and were distributed to various
California agencies for comment. The public comment period on the DEIR closed on July 28,
2014 and comments are currently being addressed by the consultant for the Final EIR.
FISCAL IMPACT
The LUCE Update was made possible by a Sustainable Communities grant in the amount of
$880,000 provided by the State of California Strategic Growth Council. Funding for the grant is
from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Act of 2006 (Proposition 84). General Funds in the amount of $467,500 were added
to the grant to fund the environmental review and additional support to address Public Works
and Fire Department staffing impacts.
PC1 - 20
Attachment 2
LUCE – Airport Land Use Commission determination Page 8
In order to satisfy the grant requirements, copies of the draft Land Use and Circulation Elements
and the associated DEIR must be submitted to the State Department of Conservation along with
a final status report and invoice for funds. The City Council is required to adopt and certify as
accurate the final report prior to submission to the State. The final report for grant close-out is
scheduled for consideration by Council on September 16, 2014. However, there is no
requirement that the Council certify the final report by a date certain and a Council decision to
direct further study or revision would not jeopardize the City grant. With the circulation of the
draft EIR, the City has met the only firm timing requirement associated with the grant funds.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff to work with the Planning Commission to comprehensively change the land
uses envisioned by the LUCE update to be consistent with the ALUP.
2. Continue consideration of the proposed public hearing schedule and direct staff to
provide additional information to the City Council at a future meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Notice of ALUC Action (determination of inconsistency), July 16, 2014
2. Airport Land Use Commission Staff Report, July 16, 2014
3. City response to ALUC findings of inconsistency, July 16, 2014
4. Mayor’s Letter to ALUC dated March 20, 2013
5. Draft Resolution of Intent to Override, including Draft Findings (Exhibit A)
6. Noise Contour Map from Draft LUCE EIR
The Draft LUCE and Draft EIR are available for review and CDs area available at the
Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street. These documents can also be
downloaded here: http://www.slo2035.com
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Airport Land Use Compatibility Report
Full Copy of Draft EIR and appendices (5 Volumes)
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-08-19\LUCE DEIR (Johnson-Murry)\CAR LUCE Update (ALUC determination)
PC1 - 21
Attachment 2
PC1 - 22
Attachment 3
PC1 - 23
Attachment 3
PC1 - 24
Attachment 3
PC1 - 25
Attachment 3
PC1 - 26
Attachment 3
PC1 - 27
Attachment 3
PC1 - 28
Attachment 3
PC1 - 29
Attachment 3
PC1 - 30
Attachment 3
PC1 - 31
Attachment 3
PC1 - 32
Attachment 3
PC1 - 33
Attachment 3
PC1 - 34
Attachment 3
PC1 - 35
Attachment 3
PC1 - 36
Attachment 3
Chapter 17.22: Use Regulation
Section:
17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones.
17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones.
A. Status of Uses. Uses within zones shall be as provided in Table 9, subject to parts B through IJ.
below. In Table 9, symbols shall have these meanings:
A The use is allowed;
D If the director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through
17.58.080, the use may be established;
PC If the planning commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through
17.58.080, the use may be established;
A/D The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the director approves an administrative use
permit, it may be established on the ground floor.
Special notes affecting the status of uses, indicated by number in Table 9, may be found at the end of
the table.
B. Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). Uses within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) as shown in Figure 10 are
subject to requirements of Chapter 17.57. See Table 10 to verify allowed uses and special restrictions
including density, overflight safety, and notification. Most areas within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)
are located within Specific Plan areas. Areas within the AOZ which are located in Specific Plans
designated with SP zoning shall follow regulations within their respective Specific Plans.
BC. Interpretation of Use Listing. These regulations are intended to permit similar types of uses within
each zone. The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66, shall determine whether
uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed subject to use permit approval in a
certain zone. This interpretation procedure shall not be used as a substitute for the amendment D.
CD. Principal and Accessory Uses. Listed uses are principal uses. Accessory uses are allowed with
principal uses.
DE. Production and Sales. Where manufacturing is allowed, incidental sale of items made on the
premises is allowed. When sale of a particular type of item is allowed, craftsman-type production of
such an item for sale on the premises is allowed.
EF Public School Uses. See Section 17.36.030 concerning uses which may be established within
public schools.
FG. Prohibition of Drive-through Facilities. Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any zone.
GH. Prohibition of Vacation Rentals. Vacation rentals are not allowed in any zone.
HI. Prohibition of Mineral Extraction. Commercial mining is prohibited in City limits. (Ord. 1365 (2000
series)(part)
IJ. Specific Plan Consistency. Some land subject to City zoning is also subject to one of several
Specific Plans, which are intended to provide additional direction for the development of those areas.
Land within Specific Plans, designated by the SP zoning, may be subject to further restrictions. The
list of uses and permit requirements in the Specific Plan shall prevail.
PC1 - 37
Attachment 4
J. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency. Some land subject to City zoning is also subject to the
Airport Land Use Plan, which is adopted and amended from time to time by the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Commission. The Airport Land Use Plan establishes additional limitations
on uses, which do not apply to City-adopted zones outside the area subject to the Airport Land Use
Plan. Table 9 is to be applied consistently with the Airport Land Use Plan on land subject to that
plan.
1. Prohibited Uses. The following are examples of prohibited uses. The uses and requirements of
the Airport Land Use Plan shall prevail. No use shall be established which:
a. Entails installation, construction, or enlargement of a structure that would constitute an
obstruction to air navigation, as defined in the Airport Land Use Plan, except as may be
approved by the Airport Land Use Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration;
b. Entails a risk of physical injury to operators or occupants of aircraft (such as outdoor laser
light shows);
c. Causes smoke or vapors, lighting, illumination, or reflective glare, or an electromagnetic
disturbance that would interfere with aircraft navigation or communication;
d. Attracts birds to the extent of creating a significant hazard of bird strikes (examples are
outdoor storage or disposal of food or grain, or large, artificial water features; this provision is
not intended to prevent enhancement or protection of existing wetlands or the mitigation of
wetlands impacts);
e. Is not allowed by the Airport Safety Areas and associated safety policies, subject to modified
provisions for the Margarita Specific Plan Area;
f. Is not allowed by the Airport Land Use Plan Noise Policies;
2. Notwithstanding section 17.22.010G. above, the provisions of this section are not intended to
supersede the provisions of Article 3.5 of the Public Utilities Code commencing with section
21670.
3. Avigation easements will be recorded for all properties involved in the proposed development.
4. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the
noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to entering any
contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties
within the airport area.
A. Right to Continue Existing Non-Residential Uses. Legal, conforming non-residential uses shall
have the right to continue operation, subject to compliance with applicable Zoning Regulations when
established prior to the development of housing on adjacent or nearby sites. City approvals of
housing developments adjacent to or within 300 feet of such uses shall include a condition requiring
written notice to new home buyers and/or renters of possible characteristics associated with non-
residential uses, such as noise, odors, vibration, and lighting.
PC1 - 38
Attachment 4
Figure 10 Airport Overlay Zone Boundary
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
City Limits
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Boundary
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) Boundary
Tank Farm Rd.Bro
ad
S
t
.S. Higuera St.£¤101
Buckley Rd.
Lo
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
South St.
A A S P
D o w n t o w n
PC1 - 39
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE
Areas within AOZ shall comply with 17.57 & Table 10 or applicable Specific Plan
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations
AGRICULTURE
Crop production A A A D D
Grazing A A
Greenhouse/Plant Nursery, commercial PC PC
Community Gardens D D D D D
Livestock feed lot PC PC
INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING, WHOLESALING
Bakery, wholesale A A PC
D A
Industrial research and development PC D D
PC A A A A
Laundry, dry cleaning plant A A
Manufacturing - Heavy PC PC
Manufacturing - Light D A A
Petroleum product storage and distribution D
Photo and film processing lab A A
Printing and publishing A A A
D
D
Recycling facilities - Small collection facility D D D A
Storage - Personal storage facility A A
Storage yard D A
Warehousing, indoor storage A A PC
Wholesaling and distribution A A PC
LODGING
Bed and breakfast inn D PC PC A A A
Homeless shelter PC PC A PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC 17.08.110
Hostel PC PC A A A
Hotel, motel A A A PC
Recreational vehicle (RV) park accessory to hotel, motel PC
Vacation Rental 17.22.G
Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above
Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table.
Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet
shop
Laboratory - Medical, analytical, research,
testing
Recycling facilities - Collection and processing
facility
Recycling facilities - Scrap and dismantling yard
PC1 - 40
Attachment 4
Page 95
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations December 2013
TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued
Areas within AOZ shall comply with 17.57 & Table 10 or applicable Specific Plan
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations
RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES
Club, lodge, private meeting hall D D A D A/D D D D
Commercial recreation facility - Indoor PC D D D D D(12)PC D 17.08.060
Commercial recreation facility - Outdoor PC PC
Educational conferences D D D D 17.08.010.C.6
Fitness/health facility D A D D PC A A D
Golf Course PC
Library, museum PC D D D D
Library, branch facility D D D D
Night club D D D D D D Chapter 17.95
Park, playground D D A A A A D D A A A
Public assembly facility PC D D D D PC
Religious facility PC D D D D A D D D A D(7)D(7)D(7)
PC PC
School - College, university campus PC
School - Elementary, middle, secondary PC PC D D PC D
School - Specialized education/training PC A/D A/D A A A
Special event D D D D D D D D D 17.08.010
Sports and active recreation facility PC PC PC PC
Sports and entertainment assembly facility PC PC
Studio - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.D D A/D A/D A PC A
Theater PC(8)D D D D Chapter 17.95
Theater - Drive-in PC PC
RESIDENTIAL USES
Boarding/rooming house, dormitory PC D D D Chapter 17.20
Caretaker quarters A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A D
Convents and monasteries PC A A D
Fraternity, sorority PC PC
High occupancy residential use D D
Home occupation H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 17.08.090
Live/work units A A A A A 17.08.120
Mixed-use project A A A A A A PC PC 17.08.072
A A A A A A A A
Mobile home park A A A A
Multi-family dwellings A A A A D D
A A A A A A A/D A/D A/D D
A A A A A D A/D A/D D
Residential hospice facility PC PC D PC PC D
Rest home A A A A A D A/D A/D D
Single-family dwellings A A A(2)A A A A D D
Secondary dwelling units A A A A A Chapter 17.21
Work/live units D D 17.08.120
Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above H = Home Occupation Permit required
Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table.
Page 96
Mobile home as temporary residence at
building site
Residential care facilities - 6 or fewer residents
Residential care facilities - 7 or more residents
School - Boarding school, elementary, middle,
secondary
School - College, university - Satellite
classroom facility
PC1 - 41
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued
Areas within AOZ shall comply with 17.57 & Table 10 or applicable Specific Plan
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations
RETAIL SALES
Auto and vehicle sales and rental D A PC
Auto parts sales, with installation D(5)A A
Auto parts sales, without installation A D A A A
Bakery, retail A A A A A D D
Bar/Tavern D D D D D D
Building and landscape materials sales, indoor A A A A A
D D A A A
D D
Convenience store D D D A A A A A D D D 17.08.095
Extended hour retail D D D D D D D D
Farm supply and feed store PC A A
Fuel dealer (propane, etc)D A
Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores A A A A
General retail - 2,000 sf or less A(3)A A A A
D(3)D A A
D A A D
D A A
PC PC PC
Groceries, liquor, specialty foods A(10)A A A PC
Mobile home, RV, and boat sales A PC
Office-supporting retail, 2,000 sf or less A A A A A D
D D A A D
Wine tasting room - off site D D D D D D D
Outdoor temporary and/or seasonal sales See Section 17.08.020 17.08.020
Produce stand D D A A A A
Restaurant A A A A A D D
Outdoor BBQ/Grill, accessory to restaurant D D D D D D D
Service station (see also "vehicle services")D D D D A 17.08.030
Vending machine See Section 17.08.050 17.08.050
Warehouse stores - 45,000 sf or less gfa D D D
Warehouse stores - more than 45,000 sf gfa PC PC PC
Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above
Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table.
Building and landscape materials sales, outoor
General retail - More than 60,000 sf, up to
140,000 sf
General retail - More than 45,000 sf, up to
60,000 sf
Office-supporting retail, More than 2,000, up to
5,000 sf
Construction and heavy equipment sales and
rental
General retail - More than 2,000 sf, up to
15,000 sf
General retail - More than 15,000 sf, up to
45,000 sf
PC1 - 42
Attachment 4
Page 97
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations December 2013
TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued
Areas within AOZ shall comply with 17.57 & Table 10 or applicable Specific Plan
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations
SERVICES - BUSINESS, FINANCIAL & PROFESSIONAL
ATMs A A A A A A A A A
Banks and financial services A A A A D(4)D(4)D
Business support services A A A/D A A A A
D D D A D(11)D(11)
Medical service - Doctor office A A/D A/D A D(11)D(11)
Medical service - Extended care PC PC D PC PC D
Medical service - Hospital PC PC
Convalescent hospital PC PC
Office - Accessory A A A A A A A A
Office - Business and service A A A/D A D (4)D(4)D
Office - Government D PC A A PC
Office - Processing D D D D(4)D(4)A
Office - Production and administrative A A/D A/D A D(4)D(4)A
Office - Professional A A/D A/D A D
Office - Temporary See Section 17.08.010.C
Photographer, photographic studio A A/D A PC A
SERVICES - GENERAL
Catering service D D A D A A
Cemetery, mausoleum, columbarium PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
Copying and Quick Printer Service A A A A A A A A
Day care - Day care center (child/adult)D(9)D(9)D(9)D(9)D(9)A A A A/D A D(9)D(9)D(9)D 17.08.100
Day care - Family day care home (small/large)A A A A A A A A A A A A 17.08.100
Equipment rental A A D
D D
Maintenance service, client site services A A PC
Mortuary, funeral home D D A D
Personal services A A A A D A D
Personal services - Restricted D D
Public safety facilities PC PC
Public utility facilities PC A A 17.08.080
A A D
Residential Support Services A A A A
Social service organization D A D A A A D D D
A A D
PC D A A D
Vehicle services - Carwash D D PC D D
PC PC D D
D D A A/D A A
D
Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above
Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table.
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, small
animal, indoor
Medical service - Clinic, laboratory, urgent care
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Major
Food bank/packaged food distribution center
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, small
animal, outdoor
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, large animal
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Minor
Repair service - Equipment, large appliances,
etc.
PC1 - 43
Attachment 4
Page 98
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued
Areas within AOZ shall comply with 17.57 & Table 10 or applicable Specific Plan
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations
TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS
Airport PC PC PC D
A D D
Antennas and telecommunications facilities D D D D D D D D D D D 17.16.120
Media Production - Broadcast studio A A/D A A A A
D D D
Heliport PC PC PC
Parking facility PC(6)PC(6)PC(6)D(6)D(6)D(6)
Parking facility - Multi-level PC(6)PC(6)PC(6)PC(6)PC(6)PC(6)
Parking facility - Temporary PC D D D D D D D D 17.08.010
Railroad facilities D A
Transit station or terminal PC PC PC D A
Transit stop A A A A A A A A
Truck or freight terminal A A D
PC PC
Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above
Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table.
Page 99
Water and wastewater treatment plants and
services
Media Production - Backlots/outdoor facilities
and soundstages
Ambulance, taxi, and/or limousine dispatch
facility
PC1 - 44
Attachment 4
Chapter 17.57: Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)
Sections:
17.57.010 Purpose and Intent.
17.57.020 Applicability
17.57.030 Procedures
17.57.040 Development Standards and Uses
17.57.050 Overlay Zones
17.57.060 Airspace protection
17.57.070 Noise
17.57.080 Overflight Notice
17.57.090 Open Land
17.57.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of the Airport Overlay Zoning District is to:
A. Implement the City’s General Plan policies to ensure that all land uses within the Airport Overlay
Zone (AOZ) are consistent with the State Aeronautics Act, State Law, Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations, and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines.
B. Ensure that land uses and development within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are compatible
with existing and future airport operations.
C. Prohibit the establishment of incompatible uses and further expansion of incompatible uses which
could detrimentally affect long term economic vitality of the airport; and to avoid or minimize
exposure of persons to potential hazards associated with current and future airport operations.
D. Prohibit development, uses, or any installations or activities which could represent a hazard to
existing and future flight operations.
E. Recognize unique constraints and considerations which apply to properties which could be
affected by airport operations by establishing regulations and review criteria for land use and
development which apply specifically to properties within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ).
17.57.020 Applicability
Regulations in this Chapter shall apply to all uses, activities, and existing and proposed development on
properties within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) as shown on Figure 10, Chapter 17.22, Use
Regulations.
A. Specific Plans. For properties located within the AOZ which also are located within specific
plans, development regulations, standards, and policies shall be followed per respective specific
plans. In cases where policies or standards are not provided within the specific plan, the policies
and standards within this Chapter will apply in addition to other applicable Zoning Regulations,
General Plan, or other standards and regulations which apply to the project or land use. In no
case will a land use, activity, or development be allowed to violate Airspace Protection Standards
of 17.57.060.
B. Existing Development and Land Uses. Notwithstanding 17.57.060, these requirements apply to
new development and land uses within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). Non-conforming uses
and structures shall comply with Airspace Protection Standards of 17.57.060 which prohibit any
activities that pose a risk to flight operations within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). Existing land
ALL NEW SECTION
PC1 - 45
Attachment 4
uses that are not consistent with the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are non-conforming uses and
may continue. Existing land uses may not expand more than 10% beyond the permitted project
size at the time of adoption of the AOZ. No increase in density for non-conforming residential land
uses is permitted. Non-conforming uses shall comply with Zoning Regulations Chapters 17.10
and 17.14 (Non-conforming uses and Non-conforming structures) provisions for expiration of non-
conforming status and proposed changes in land use which do not conform to the AOZ. In Zone
4, Non-conforming dwellings may be replaced or reconstructed provided density does not
increase. Related residential uses such as work/live units, residential care, may be established in
existing dwellings in Zone 4 if allowed in the underlying zone.
Development or land uses shall be considered “existing” if one of the following conditions is met:
1. A vesting tentative map has been approved and has not expired or all discretionary
approvals have been obtained and have not expired.
2. Building permits have been issued and have not expired.
3. The structures and site development have been legally established and physically exist.
17.57.030 Procedures
A. Approval. All ministerial and discretionary actions within the Airport Overlay Zoning District
(AOZ) shall be reviewed for consistency with this Chapter prior to approval.
B. Mandatory findings for approval. When a project or activity is subject to discretionary actions
requiring a public hearing or notice, the applicable review authority shall make all of the following
findings, as applicable:
1. The project or use complies with the noise compatibility policies of the Airport Overlay
Zone (AOZ).
2. The project or use complies with residential and non-residential density standards of the
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ).
3. The project or use complies with compatibility policies of the applicable Airport Overlay
Zone.
4. The project or use complies with the airspace protection policies of the Airport Overlay
Zone.
5. The project or use complies with the overflight policies of the Airport Overlay Zone.
C. Amendments. Other than General Plan, Specific Plan, or Zoning Code changes addressed
through a previous referral to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC), proposed general plan land use amendments, zoning amendments, and
specific plan amendments that impact density or intensity of development within the Airport
Overlay Zone (AOZ) shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of
compatibility with requirements of the State of California Department of Transportation Division of
Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements.
D. Overrule Provisions. Should the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
update the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo shall review the updated ALUCP and either make
changes to applicable General Plan sections, Zoning, and implementing ordinances, or the City
Council may, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), overrule the ALUC.
PC1 - 46
Attachment 4
17.57.040 Development Standards and Uses.
Land use compatibility standards are intended to minimize the risk to people and property on the ground
as well as to people in an aircraft in the event of an accident or emergency landing occurring outside the
airport boundary.
A. Allowable Uses & Non-Residential Density. Table 10 lists the uses that are appropriate in
the respectively numbered Airport Overlay Zoning District 1-6. Proposed uses and development
shall also comply with compatibility policies for Airport Overlay Zones per 17.57.050. Table 10
includes maximum density standards for each Airport Overlay Zoning District which shall be
calculated in accordance with the following method:
1. Non-residential density calculation. Calculations of non-residential density shall be
based on requirements of SLOMC 17.16.060. Parking Space Requirements with the
assumption of 1.3 occupants per space and gross parcel size including adjacent roads to
centerline of right-of-way. Non-residential density shall be calculated prior to reductions for
shared use, trip reduction, bicycle, etc. In determining allowed persons per acre, all
fractions shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.
Example - Proposed Development: Two office buildings, each two stories and containing
20,000 square feet of floor area per building. Site size is 3.0 net acres. Counting the
adjacent road to centerline of the right-of-way, 3.5 acres gross. The number of people on
the property is assumed to equal 1.3 times the number of parking spaces.
The average usage intensity would therefore be calculated as follows:
(1) 40,000 sq. ft. floor area x 1.0 parking space per 300 sq. ft. = 134
(2) 134 parking spaces x 1.3 persons per space = 174 persons per acre.
(3) 174 persons/3.5 acres gross site size = 50 persons per acre average for the site.
2. Exceptions. Subject to approval of an administrative use permit, the Community
Development Director may determine another method of density calculation is appropriate
based on the particular characteristics of the proposed use and/or development. The
method of calculation shall remain consistent with recommended methodologies of
Appendix “G” of the California Airport Land Use Plann ing Handbook.
B. Interpretation of use listing. The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66,
shall determine whether uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed subject to
use permit approval in a certain zone. This interpretation procedure shall not be used as a
substitute for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new types of uses to an Airport
Overlay zone.
PC1 - 47
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 10 - AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (AOZ) - MAXIMUM ALLOWED PERSONS
(Areas within AOZ and outside Specific Plan areas - 17.22.010.B.)
Maximum Allowed Persons per Acre (Overlay
Zones - Figure 13)
Specific Use & Noise
Regulations
Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 6
AGRICULTURE
Crop production FAA 80 150 200 150 UZ
Grazing FAA 80 150 200 150 UZ
Greenhouse/Plant Nursery, commercial 80 150 200 150 UZ
Community Gardens 80 150 200 150 UZ
Livestock feed lot 80 150 200 150 UZ
INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING, WHOLESALING
Bakery, wholesale 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Industrial research and development 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Laundry, dry cleaning plant 80 150 200 150 UZ
Manufacturing - Heavy 80 150 200 150 UZ
Manufacturing - Light 80 150 200 150 UZ
Petroleum product storage and distribution 200 UZ Hazardous materials - 17.57.050
Photo and film processing lab 80 150 200 150 UZ
Printing and publishing 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Recycling facilities - Small collection facility 80 150 200 150 UZ
Storage - Personal storage facility 80 150 200 150 UZ
Storage yard 80 150 200 150 UZ Hazardous materials - 17.57.050
Warehousing, indoor storage 80 150 200 150 UZ
Wholesaling and distribution 80 150 200 150 UZ
LODGING
Bed and breakfast inn 200 UZ NSLU
Homeless shelter 200 UZ NSLU
Hostel 200 UZ NSLU
Hotel, motel 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Recreational vehicle (RV) park accessory to hotel, motel 200 UZ NSLU
Vacation Rental 17.22.G
Key:NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use (if within 60 db CNEL contour - Figure 15 - See requirements of 17.57.070)
FAA = Use subject to FAA standards and criteria UZ = as allowed in underlying Zone or Specific Plan
Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet
shop
Laboratory - Medical, analytical, research,
testing
Recycling facilities - Collection and processing
facility
Recycling facilities - Scrap and dismantling yard
PC1 - 48
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations
TABLE 10 - AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (AOZ) - MAXIMUM ALLOWED PERSONS
(Areas within AOZ and outside Specific Plan areas - 17.22.010.B.)
Maximum Allowed Persons per Acre (Overlay Zones -
Figure 13)Specific Use & Noise Regulations
Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 6
RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES
Club, lodge, private meeting hall 200 UZ NSLU
Commercial recreation facility - Indoor UZ
Commercial recreation facility - Outdoor UZ
Educational conferences 200 UZ
Fitness/health facility 200 UZ
Golf Course 80 150 200 150 UZ
Library, museum 200 UZ
Library, branch facility 200 UZ
Night club 200 UZ
Park, playground 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Public assembly facility 200 UZ NSLU
Religious facility 200 UZ NSLU
UZ NSLU
School - College, university campus 200 UZ NSLU
200 UZ NSLU
School - Elementary, middle, secondary UZ NSLU
School - Specialized education/training 200 UZ NSLU
Special event 200 UZ NSLU
Sports and active recreation facility 200 UZ NSLU
Sports and entertainment assembly facility UZ
Studio - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.200 UZ NSLU
Theater UZ
Theater - Drive-in UZ
RESIDENTIAL USES
Boarding/rooming house, dormitory UZ NSLU
Caretaker quarters UZ NSLU
Convents and monasteries UZ NSLU
Fraternity, sorority UZ NSLU
High occupancy residential use UZ NSLU
Home occupation UZ NSLU
Live/work units UZ NSLU
Mixed-use project UZ NSLU
UZ NSLU - 17.57.020.B.
Mobile home park UZ NSLU
Multi-family dwellings UZ NSLU - 17.57.020.B.
UZ NSLU
UZ NSLU
Residential hospice facility UZ NSLU
Rest home UZ NSLU
Single-family dwellings UZ NSLU - 17.57.020.B.
Secondary dwelling units UZ NSLU
Work/live units UZ NSLU
Key:NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use (if within 60 db CNEL contour - Figure 15 - See requirements of 17.57.060)
FAA = Use subject to FAA standards and criteria UZ = as allowed in underlying Zone or Specific Plan
Residential care facilities - 6 or fewer residents
Residential care facilities - 7 or more residents
School - Boarding school, elementary, middle,
secondary
School - College, university - Satellite
classroom facility
Mobile home as temporary residence at building
site
PC1 - 49
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 10 - AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (AOZ) - MAXIMUM ALLOWED PERSONS
(Areas within AOZ and outside Specific Plan areas - 17.22.010.B.)
Maximum Allowed Persons per Acre (Overlay
Zones - Figure 13)Specific Use & Noise Regulations
Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 6
RETAIL SALES
Auto and vehicle sales and rental 150 200 150 UZ
Auto parts sales, with installation 200 UZ
Auto parts sales, without installation 200 UZ
Bakery, retail 200 UZ
Bar/Tavern 200 UZ
Building and landscape materials sales, indoor 150 200 UZ
150 200 150 UZ
150 200 150 UZ
Convenience store 200 UZ
Extended hour retail 200 UZ
Farm supply and feed store 200 UZ
Fuel dealer (propane, etc)150 200 150 UZ Hazardous materials - 17.57.050
Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores 200 UZ
General retail - 2,000 sf or less 200 UZ
200 UZ 17.57.050.C
200 UZ 17.57.050.C
200 UZ 17.57.050.C
200 UZ 17.57.050.C
Groceries, liquor, specialty foods 200 UZ 17.57.050.C
Mobile home, RV, and boat sales 150 200 150 UZ
Office-supporting retail, 2,000 sf or less 200 UZ
200 UZ
Wine tasting room - off site 200 UZ
Outdoor temporary and/or seasonal sales 150 200 150 UZ
Produce stand 150 200 150 UZ
Restaurant 200 UZ
Outdoor BBQ/Grill, accessory to restaurant 200 UZ
Service station (see also "vehicle services")200 UZ
Vending machine 150 200 150 UZ
Warehouse stores - 45,000 sf or less gfa 200 UZ
Warehouse stores - more than 45,000 sf gfa 200 UZ
Key:NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use (if within 60 db CNEL contour - Figure 15 - See requirements of 17.57.060)
FAA = Use subject to FAA standards and criteria UZ = as allowed in underlying Zone or Specific Plan
Office-supporting retail, More than 2,000, up to
5,000 sf
Construction and heavy equipment sales and
rental
General retail - More than 2,000 sf, up to
15,000 sf
General retail - More than 15,000 sf, up to
45,000 sf
Building and landscape materials sales, outoor
General retail - More than 60,000 sf, up to
140,000 sf
General retail - More than 45,000 sf, up to
60,000 sf
PC1 - 50
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations
TABLE 10 - AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (AOZ) - MAXIMUM ALLOWED PERSONS
(Areas within AOZ and outside Specific Plan areas - 17.22.010.B.)
Maximum Allowed Persons per Acre (Overlay
Zones - Figure 13)Specific use & Noise Regulations
Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 6
SERVICES - BUSINESS, FINANCIAL & PROFESSIONAL
ATMs 80 150 200 150 UZ
Banks and financial services 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Business support services 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Medical service - Doctor office 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Medical service - Extended care UZ NSLU
Medical service - Hospital UZ NSLU
Convalescent hospital UZ NSLU
Office - Accessory 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Business and service 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Government 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Processing 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Production and administrative 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Professional 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Temporary 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Photographer, photographic studio 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
SERVICES - GENERAL
Catering service 80 150 200 150 UZ
Cemetery, mausoleum, columbarium 80 150 200 150 UZ 17.57.070.2.c.
Copying and Quick Printer Service 80 150 200 150 UZ
Day care - Day care center (child/adult)UZ NSLU
Day care - Family day care home (small/large)UZ NSLU
Equipment rental 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Maintenance service, client site services 80 150 200 150 UZ
Mortuary, funeral home 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Personal services 80 150 200 150 UZ
Personal services - Restricted 80 150 200 150 UZ
Public safety facilities 80 150 200 150 UZ
Public utility facilities 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Residential Support Services 80 150 200 150 UZ
Social service organization 200 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Vehicle services - Carwash 80 150 200 150 UZ
200 UZ NSLU
200 UZ NSLU
200 UZ NSLU
Key:NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use (if within 60 db CNEL contour - Figure 15 - See requirements of 17.57.060)
FAA = Use subject to FAA standards and criteria UZ = as allowed in underlying Zone or Specific Plan
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, large animal
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Minor
Repair service - Equipment, large appliances,
etc.
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, small
animal, indoor
Medical service - Clinic, laboratory, urgent care
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Major
Food bank/packaged food distribution center
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, small
animal, outdoor
PC1 - 51
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 10 - AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (AOZ) - MAXIMUM ALLOWED PERSONS
(Areas within AOZ and outside Specific Plan areas - 17.22.010.B.)
Maximum Allowed Persons per Acre (Overlay
Zones - Figure 13)Specific Use & Noise Regulations
Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 6
TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS
Airport FAA FAA FAA FAA FAA FAA
80 150 200 150 UZ
Antennas and telecommunications facilities FAA FAA FAA UZ Airspace Protection 17.57.070
Media Production - Broadcast studio 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Heliport FAA FAA FAA FAA FAA FAA
Parking facility 80 150 200 150 UZ
Parking facility - Multi-level 80 150 200 150 UZ
Parking facility - Temporary 80 150 200 150 UZ
Railroad facilities 80 150 200 150 UZ
Transit station or terminal 80 150 200 150 UZ
Transit stop 80 150 200 150 UZ
Truck or freight terminal 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Key:NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use (if within 60 db CNEL contour - Figure 15 - See requirements of 17.57.060)
FAA = Use subject to FAA standards and criteria UZ = as allowed in underlying Zone or Specific Plan
Ambulance, taxi, and/or limousine dispatch
facility
Water and wastewater treatment plants and
services
Media Production - Backlots/outdoor facilities
and soundstages
PC1 - 52
Attachment 4
17.57.050 Airport Overlay Zones
The designation of Airport Overlay Zones as identified in Figure 13 is consistent with California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook Guidelines intended to minimize the risk to people and property on the
ground as well as to people in an aircraft in the event of an accident or emergency landing occurring
within, or in proximity of the airport boundary. The Airport Overlay Zone is based on the application of
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Safety Zones for an airport with similar characteristics to
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP). The AOZ contains six overlay zones each with
respective maximum non-residential intensity restrictions, maximum residential densities, and
compatibility policies. Land uses which conform to standards for overlay zones in Table 10 shall also
comply with compatibility policies in this section.
A. Overlay Zone 1 – Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Overlay Zone 1 is a very high risk area
with aircraft on very close final approach or departure. No uses or buildings should be allowed
in this area with the exception of the following uses which are subject to FAA standards and
criteria: agricultural activities, roads, and automobile parking.
Prohibit: Non-residential uses except if very low intensity in character and confined to the outer
sides. Parking lots streets and roads. Residential uses are prohibited.
B. Overlay Zone 2 – Inner Approach/Departure Zone. Overlay Zone 2 involves aircraft flying at
low altitudes on final approach and straight out departures and is a high risk area.
Special Restrictions. Office buildings shall be limited to single-story structures and non-
residential activities limited to activities that attract few people.
Prohibit: Residential uses except as infill in developed areas; theatres, meeting halls and other
assembly uses; office buildings greater than 3 stories, labor intensive industrial uses,
Children’s schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums, group
recreational uses, hazardous storage or uses (e.g. above ground bulk fuel storage).
C. Overlay Zone 3 – Inner Turning Zone. Overlay Zone 3 is a moderate to high risk safety area
used by aircraft (especially smaller piston powered aircraft) for final turning for landing
approach or for initiating turns to en route direction on departure.
Special Restrictions: Buildings may not exceed three above ground habitable floors.
Prohibit: Commercial and other non-residential uses with higher usage intensities including:
Major shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls, and other assembly facilities; children’s
schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing rooms.
D. Overlay Zone 4 – Outer Approach/Departure Zone. Overlay Zone 4 is a moderate risk area
with approaching aircraft usually less than traffic pattern altitude. Used for straight-in
instrument approaches and straight-out flight paths.
Special Restrictions: High Intensity retail or office buildings shall be avoided. Consider
potential airspace protection hazards of certain energy/industrial projects.
Prohibit: Children’s schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums, group
recreational uses.
E. Overlay Zone 5 – Sideline Zone. Overlay Zone 5 is a low to moderate risk level area and is
typically not overflown. The primary risk is with aircraft losing directional control on takeoff,
excessive crosswind, gusts or engine torque.
Special Restrictions: Avoid high intensity non-residential uses and residential uses since noise
is normally a factor. Consider height limitations for airspace protection.
Prohibit: Stadiums, group recreational uses, children’s schools, large daycare centers,
PC1 - 53
Attachment 4
hospitals, nursing homes.
F. Overlay Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern Zone. Overlay Zone 6 is a low risk area with aircraft using
the zone for regular traffic pattern and pattern entry routes.
Special Restrictions: Limit processing and storage of bulk quantities of highly hazardous
materials. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities should be avoided.
Prohibit: None.
17.57.060 Airspace Protection
Airspace Protection. Airspace protection standards are intended to reduce the risk of harm to people
and property resulting from an aircraft accident by preventing the creation of land use features and
prohibition of any activities that can pose hazards to the airspace used by aircraft in flight.
1. Objects affecting navigable airspace. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR Part 77) and Public
Utility Code (PUC) Section 21659 require that structures not penetrate the airspace protection
surfaces of the airport without a permit from the California Department of Transportation or a
determination by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the object does not constitute a
hazard to air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation. The airspace
surrounding an airport is divided into segments called “imaginary surfaces,” which identify height
limits for objects that require further study by the FAA to avoid creating hazards to air navigation .
Structures that have the potential to be considered an obstruction by the FAA shall be subject to
the provisions listed in a-c below:
a. Proponents of a project shall file a Notice of Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) if a proposed structure is more than 200 feet above
ground level or may exceed one foot in height for every 100 feet from the edge of the nearest
point on the runway for a distance up to 20,000 feet. Filing Form 7460-1 with the FAA will
initiate an aeronautical study that will ensure a proposed structure does not constitute a
hazard to air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation, including
impeding any en route or terminal (airport) instrument procedures as per the United States
Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) described in FAA Order 8260.3B
(Code of Federal Regulations §77.29 Evaluating Aeronautical Effect).
b. Approvals for such projects may include the requirement for an avigation easement, marking
or lighting of the structure, or modifications to the structure. The avigation easement shall be
consistent with the form and content of Exhibit H1 in appendix H of the California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook.
c. Building permits shall not be issued for a project until a Determination of No Hazard has been
issued by the FAA and any conditions in that Determination are met.
2. Other Flight Hazards Prohibited. Any activities within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) which
could pose a hazard to flight operations including but not limited to the following:
a. Glare or distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport lights;
b. Sources of dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision, or light shows, or laser
shows or spotlights;
c. Any emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air that generate
turbulence within the flight path;
d. Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation; and
e. Features that create an increased attraction for wildlife that may be hazardous to airport
PC1 - 54
Attachment 4
operations such as attraction of birds to the extent of creating a significant hazard of bird
strikes (examples are outdoor storage or disposal of food or grain, or large, artificial water
features; this provision is not intended to prevent enhancement or protection of existing
wetlands or the mitigation of wetlands impacts). Features which may pose these risks shall
be reviewed for consistency with the FAA’s Advisory Circular 150/5200 -33B, Hazardous
Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports.
f. Entails installation, construction, or enlargement of a structure that constitutes an obstruction
to air navigation through penetration of FAA Part 77 surfaces except as may be approved by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
17.57.070 Noise
A. Airport Related Noise. Noise compatibility standards are intended to prevent the establishment of
noise - sensitive land uses in portions of the airport environ that are exposed to significant levels of
aircraft noise. Where permitted within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), the following noise - sensitive
land uses shall comply with applicable noise exposure criteria.
1. Noise analysis from the Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (2006) shall be used
for mapping of the long term noise impact of the airport’s aviation activity which includes future
planned facilities development depicted in the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan. These noise
contours are shown in Figure 15.
New Residential Development. New residential uses within the 60 db CNEL contour as depicted
in Figure 15, shall demonstrate consistency with maximum noise levels by providing noise
analysis, construction details, or other information deemed necessary by the Community
Development Director to verify conformance with maximum interior noise levels.
2. Interior Noise Levels not to exceed 45db CNEL. For the following noise - sensitive land uses,
aircraft -related, interior noise levels shall not exceed 45dB CNEL (with windows closed):
a. Living or sleeping areas of single or multi -family residences;
b. Hotels and motels;
c. Hospitals and nursing homes;
d. Place of Worship, meeting halls, and mortuaries; and
e. Schools, libraries and museums.
3. Interior Noise Levels not to Exceed 50 dB CNEL. For the following noise - sensitive land
uses, aircraft-related, interior noise levels shall not exceed 50dB CNEL (with windows closed):
a. Office environments;
b. Eating and drinking establishments; and
c. Other miscellaneous commercial facilities.
17.57.080 Overflight Notice
A. Aircraft Overflight. Aircraft overflight standards are intended to provide overflight notification for land
uses near the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. It shall be the responsibility of all owners of
property offered for -sale or for -lease within the Airport Overlay Zoning District (AOZ) to provide the
following disclosure prior to selling or leasing property in San Luis Obispo.
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY
Ordinance # XX of the City of San Luis Obispo identifies a San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport “Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)”. Properties in this area are routinely subject to overflights by
aircraft using this public-use airport and, as a result, residents may experience inconvenience,
PC1 - 55
Attachment 4
annoyance, or discomfort arising from the noise of such operations. State Law (Public Utilities
Code Section 21670 et seq.) established the importance of public-use airports to protection of the
public interest of the people of the state of California. Residents of property near such airports
should therefore be prepared to accept the inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort from normal
aircraft operations. Residents also should be aware that the current volume of aircraft activity
may increase in the future in response to San Luis Obispo County and City population and
economic growth. Any subsequent deed conveying this parcel of subdivisions thereof shall
contain a statement in substantially this form.
All discretionary actions shall include a condition of approval requiring all owners of property offered for -
sale or for -lease within the Airport Overlay Zoning District to provide the aforementioned disclosure prior
to selling or leasing property. For new residential land uses, the overflight notification shall be recorded
and appear with the property deed.
17.57.090 Open Land
A. Open land. Open land areas are intended to increase the chances of a pilot successfully landing an
aircraft in an emergency situation where they are unable to reach the runway. The City has
identified properties to contain open land areas as follows:
1. Airport Area Specific Plan: 250 acres on the Chevron property with two areas specifically
improved to meet ALUC standards; and a 300’ wide strip adjacent to Buckley Road (24
acres) on the Avila Ranch site. AOZ areas 1,2,3, and 6)
2. Margarita Area Specific Plan: two open land areas amid clustered development. AOZ
areas 2, 3, and 6
3. Laguna Lake public park open area. Outside of AOZ but within the approach surface.
4. Brughelli property easement south of Buckley Road. AOZ areas 3, 4, and 6.
5. San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area, west of Highway 101 and south of Dalidio Drive.
AOZ areas 4 and 6.
6. City open space areas within the Airport Overlay Zone. AOZ area 6.
Where open space or conservation easements have been obtained and the topography supports it, the
City shall not allow uses to be established that conflict with their availability to be used as a landing option
in the event of an emergency. Where easements have yet to be obtained, the City shall incorporate the
requirement for open land as part of the discretionary approval process. The following table provides the
desired amount of open areas by safety zone consistent with the California Land Use Planning
Handbook.
Airport Safety Zone Open Land Objectives
AO1 Maintain all undeveloped land clear of objects in accordance with FAA
standards
AO2
Seek to preserve 25-30% of the overall area as usable open land. Preserve
as much open land possible in locations close to the extended runway
centerline.
AO3 At least 15-20% of the zone should remain as open land.
AO4
Seek to preserve 15-20% of the overall area as usable open land. Preserve
as much open land possible in locations close to the extended runway
centerline.
AO5 Seek to preserve 25-30% of the overall area as usable open land.
AO6 Seek to preserve open land approximately 100 ft by 300 ft in size every ½
mile.
PC1 - 56
Attachment 4
Figure 13 Airport Overlay Zones
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
City Limits
Airport Overlay Zones
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Boundary
Tank Farm Rd.Bro
ad
S
t
.S. Higuera St.£¤101
Buckley Rd.
L
O
V
R
South St.
Prado Rd.
Orcutt Rd.
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
.
AO-6
AO-6
AO-4
AO-2
AO-3 AO-1
AO-4 AO-4
AO-5
AO-1AO-1AO-2 AO-2
AO-3
AO-3
AO-3
AO-3
AO-5
AO-1
PC1 - 57
Attachment 4
PC1 - 58
Attachment 4
Figure 15
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
Noise Contours (CNEL)55 60 65 70 75
Prado Rd.
Buckley Rd.
Tank Farm Rd.
£¤101
Bro
ad
S
t
.S. Higuera St.Margarita Ave.Tank Farm Rd.
Suburban Rd.
Orcutt Rd.
")55
")60
")65
")70
75
(from Airport Master Plan EIR)
City Limits
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Boundary
Noise Contours
PC1 - 59
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
UPDATES TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
CHAPTER 11 OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND MINOR
CHANGES TO THE NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENTS TO ENSURE
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE GENERAL PLAN
(GPI/ER 15-12)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
December 12th and 16th, 2013, for the purpose of reviewing recommendations of the Task Force
for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF-LUCE) and recommending a set of
policy changes for the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) to be studied through the
environmental review process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the
recommendations of the Planning Commission at public hearings conducted January 14th and
28th, 2014 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
for the purpose of endorsing a LUCE update project description to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45 day comment period
that closed on July 28, 2014 and the Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, comments provided by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission in response to the Draft EIR have not raised
significant issues or provided persuasive evidence to indicate development supported by the
LUCE update will result in significant impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council endorsed consideration of an overrule of the Airport Land
Use Commission’s consistency determination regarding the LUCE update on August 19, 2014,
thereby supporting continuing consideration of the LUCE update and associated implementation
to demonstrate compliance with the State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation Administration
requirements, and consistency with the adopted Airport Master Plan for San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 10, for the purpose of considering amendments to Chapter 7 of the Land Use
Element, Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element, along with minor updates to the Noise and
Safety Elements of the General Plan to ensure internal consistency; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
PC1 - 60
Attachment 5
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, LUE Chapter 7, CE Chapter 11, Noise & Safety Elements
Page 2
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the public and interested parties, the Draft EIR, and comments and responses
provided in the Final EIR, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. Recommended updates to Chapter 7 of the Land Use Element and Chapter 11 of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan provide policy direction to address noise and
safety considerations associated with current and future operations of the San Luis
Obispo County Airport, as well as support a vibrant and viable airport.
2. Policy direction in Chapter 7 of the Land Use Element and Chapter 11 of the Circulation
Element supports development envisioned in the draft Land Use and Circulation
Element Update (LUCE) and ensures its consistency with land use compatibility
provisions, noise requirements, overflight provisions (Part 77), and disclosure
requirements regarding airport operations consistent with the California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook and the State Aeronautics Act.
3. The proposed amendments are consistent with Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act
and provide adequate protection for noise, safety, overflight and airspace protection.
4. Policy updates reflect guidance for noise, safety, airspace protection and overflight
consistent with the State Aeronautics Act, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
regulations, guidance provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook,
and recommendations of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report prepared by
Johnson Aviation, dated August 11, 2014 and incorporated into the LUCE EIR as
Appendix F. These policies will be implemented through creation of an Airport Overlay
Zone.
5. Updates to the Noise and Safety Elements of the General Plan are necessary in order to
maintain internal consistency and reflect noise contours associated with future aircraft
operations anticipated in the adopted Airport Master Plan for San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport as required by state law.
Section 2. Environmental. The LUCE Program EIR, supported by technical information
PC1 - 61
Attachment 5
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, LUE Chapter 7, CE Chapter 11, Noise & Safety Elements
Page 3
in the compatibility report (Draft EIR, Appendix F), evaluated proposed policy changes included
in the LUCE update and found less than significant impacts in noise and safety. In addition, due
to the lack of persuasive evidence offered in response to the draft EIR, the FEIR has been
amended to reflect that the LUCE update will not result in significant physical impacts due to
Land Use conflicts and the Class I Land Use impact offered in the draft EIR has been amended
in the Final EIR to reflect a Class III impact – no significant impact. Compliance with the
proposed policies and implementation will ensure that future development under the LUCE
Update will not result in significant airport‐related safety or noise hazards.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the
City Council adopt proposed amendments to Chapter 7 of the Land Use Element with additional
policy language for airspace protection, Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element, and minor
amendments to the Noise and Safety Elements of the General Plan to ensure internal consistency
as shown in attached Exhibit A.
On motion by Commissioner _____, seconded by Commissioner _____, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th of September, 2014.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission by:
PC1 - 62
Attachment 5
AIRPORT HAZARDS
The San Luis Obispo County Airport provides commuter, charter, and private service to the area (Figure
7). The primary hazard associated with the airport is the risk of aircraft crashing on approach and take-off
Aircraft flight operations are determined largely by the physical layout of the airport and rules of the
Federal Aviation Administration. Activities on the airport property are managed by the County.
In April 1998, a private plane made an emergency landing on Los Osos Valley Road west of Foothill
Boulevard, narrowly missing power lines and cars.
Existing land uses under the approach and take-off paths include agriculture and businesses close to the
airport, and shopping centers, dwellings, and schools at greater distances. State law requires the
independent, countywide Airport Land Use Commission to adopt an Airport Land Use Plan for each
airport. This plan establishes zones based on flight patterns, with the aim of having future development
be compatible with airport operations, considering safety and noise exposure. State and County policies
encourage future development to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
The City’s General Plan Land Use Element designates land -use categories that are meant to be
consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. When the City comprehensively updated its Land Use Element
in 1994, the Airport Land Use Commission was preparing an update of the Airport Land Use Plan. When
this Safety Element was adopted in 2000, the Airport Land Use Plan update had not been completed. The
Airport Land Use Plan was last amended in 2005 and is in process of being updated again.There were
some discrepancies between the City’s Land Use Element and the Airport Land Use Plan, mainly
affecting potential residential development in the Margarita Specific Plan Area. Changes to one or both of
the plans will be needed to resolve the inconsistencies. With the most recent update to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements, the City went through an exhaustive process to evaluate safety, hazard,
obstruction, and noise concerns associated with the current and future operation of the airport. Proposed
development associated with the Land Use and Circulation Elements update is consistent with direction in
the State Aeronautics Act, the FAA regulations concerning obstructions and notification, and guidance
provided in the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The City will
continue to work with the Airport Land Use Commission as it updates the Airport Land Use Plan for San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport to strive to achieve consistency between the Airport Land Use Plan
and the City’s General Plan.
8.0 Policy: Uses in the Airport Land Use Plan Area
Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the requirements of the California State
Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §21670, et. seq.), the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, and other related federal and state requirements relating to airport land use compatibility
planning.San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property that is subject to
airport influence should be so informed.
PC1 - 63
Attachment 5
Exhibit A
Figure 7: Airport Hazards
PC1 - 64
Attachment 5
Exhibit A
PC1 - 65Attachment 5 Exhibit A
PC1 - 66Attachment 5 Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
ZONING REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS AND ADOPT
AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONING REGULATIONS
(TITLE 17 – ZONING REGULATIONS)
(GPI/ER 15-12)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
December 12th and 16th, 2013, for the purpose of reviewing recommendations of the Task Force
for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF-LUCE) and recommending a set of
policy changes for the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) to be studied through the
environmental review process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the
recommendations of the Planning Commission at public hearings conducted January 14 th and
28th, 2014 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
for the purpose of endorsing a LUCE update project description to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45 day comment period
that closed on July 28, 2014 and the Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, comments provided by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission in response to the Draft EIR have not raised
significant issues or provided persuasive evidence to indicate development supported by the
LUCE update will result in significant impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council endorsed consideration of an overrule of the Airport Land
Use Commission’s consistency determination regarding the LUCE update on August 19, 2014,
thereby supporting continuing consideration of the LUCE update and associated implementation
to demonstrate compliance with the State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation Administration
requirements, and consistency with the adopted Airport Master Plan for San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed implementing Airport Overlay
Zoning (AOZ) regulations which implement the intent of the State Aeronautics Act to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare of the community and the ongoing viability and enhancement
of airport operations;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 10, 2014, for the purpose of considering amendments to Chapter 7 of the Land Use
PC1 - 67
Attachment 6
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, Airport Overlay Zone
Page 2
Element, Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element, along with minor updates to the Noise and
Safety Elements of the General Plan to ensure internal consistency; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the public and interested parties, the Draft EIR and comments and FEIR responses
thereto, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The recommended Airport Overlay Zoning (AOZ) provides for implementation of the
Community’s intent to update the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements with
policies that balance goals for a vibrant economy and support of housing opportunities
with conservation of the City’s natural environment, and protection of the City’s unique
character and heritage.
2. Implementing Airport Overlay Zoning (AOZ) Regulations are consistent with the
General Plan since development envisioned in the draft Land Use and Circulation
Element Update (LUCE) would be consistent with the AOZ and future development in
areas envisioned for development within the airport area would be required to comply
with regulations of the AOZ, which include land use compatibility provisions, noise
requirements, overflight and obstructions (Part 77) provisions, and disclosure
requirements regarding airport operations consistent with the California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook, the State Aeronautics Act, and Federal Aviation
Administration requirements.
3. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
since Airport Overlay Zoning (AOZ) Regulations are consistent with Article 3.5 of the
State Aeronautics Act and provide adequate protection for noise, safety, overflight and
airspace protection.
4. Airport Overlay Zoning (AOZ) Regulations for noise, safety, airspace protection and
overflight are consistent with the State Aeronautics Act, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations, guidance provided in the California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook, and recommendations of the Airport Land Use Compatibility
PC1 - 68
Attachment 6
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, Airport Overlay Zone
Page 3
Report prepared by Johnson Aviation, dated August 11, 2014.
5. Airport Overlay Zoning (AOZ) Regulations ensure that land uses and development
within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are compatible with existing and future airport
operations since allowed uses and residential and non-residential density have been
prepared based criteria of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
Section 2. Environmental. The LUCE Program EIR evaluated the compatibility report
(Draft EIR, Appendix F) and proposed development in the LUCE update project and found less
than significant impacts would occur with the proposed AOZ safety and noise provisions and
regulations based on the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and relevant state and
federal regulations. The AOZ codifies airport compatibility criteria for areas subject to the
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) consistent with the requirements of Cal. Pub. Utilities Code
Section 21670, et. seq, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and other related
federal and state requirements relating to airport land use compatibility planning. These include
allowable uses and development standards such as density and intensity limitations,
identification of prohibited uses, infill development, height limitations, and other hazards to
flight, noise insulation, buyer awareness measures, airspace protection, aviation easements,
nonconforming uses and reconstruction, and the process for airport compatibility criteria reviews
by the City. Compliance with the proposed policies and regulations would ensure that future
development under the LUCE Update would not result in significant airport‐related safety
hazards. In addition, due to the lack of persuasive evidence offered in response to the draft EIR,
the FEIR reflects that the LUCE update will not result in significant physical impacts due to
Land Use conflicts and the Class I Land Use impact offered in the draft EIR has been amended
to reflect a Class III impact – no significant impact. Compliance with the proposed policies and
implementation will ensure that future development under the LUCE Update will not result in
significant airport‐related safety or noise hazards.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the
City Council adopt proposed amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) and adoption of
Airport Overlay Zoning Regulations of the Municipal Code as shown in Attachment 6 of the
September 10, 2014, Planning Commission Staff Report.
On motion by Commissioner _____, seconded by Commissioner _____, and on the
following roll call vote:
PC1 - 69
Attachment 6
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, Airport Overlay Zone
Page 4
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of September, 2014.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission by:
PC1 - 70
Attachment 6
2222
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Mitigation Monitoring
Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Land Use and Circulation
Elements (LUCE) Update; and, review and recommendation of the following Land Use and
Circulation Element Chapters: Land Use Element Chapters 1-6, 9-12, Chapter 8 (Special
Focus Areas), and Circulation Element Chapters 1-5.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Gary Kaiser, contract planner
Phone Number: 781-7097
E-mail: gkaiser@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: GPI/ER 15-12 FROM: Derek Johnson,
Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council take the following actions: (1) Certify
the LUCE FEIR and associated documents; (2) Approve policy and program updates to Land
Use Element Chapters 1-6 and 8-12; and (3) Approve policy and program updates for South
Broad Street Area Plan; and (4) Approve policy and program updates for Circulation Element
Chapters 1-5.
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Representative Gary Kaiser, Contract Planner
Zoning Multiple
General Plan Multiple
Site Area ~13 square miles
Application
Complete February 1, 2012
Environmental
Status
Environmental Impact Report
FEIR released on 9-3-14
1.0 BACKGROUND
For a summary of previous review including outreach efforts, public review, goals of the
update, and previous Planning Commission review, please see the previous item continued
from the 8-27-14 Planning Commission hearing. Previous staff reports are available at:
Meeting Dates: 9-10-14
Item Number: 2
Meeting Dates: 9-11-14
Item Number: 1
PC2 - 1
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-10-14 & 9-11-14
(FEIR cert, MMRP, SOC, LUE Ch. 1-6 & LUE Ch.8-12 & CE Ch. 1-5
Page 2
http://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/plancom/stfrprts.asp
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the General Plan
and for making recommendations to the City Council under Government Code section §65353.
The Commission will also make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the adequacy
of the FEIR (local practice).
The review of the draft elements and implementation, supported by evaluation in the associated
EIR has been staged in sections for Planning Commission review to facilitate the Commission
and the public’s focus on chapters in each element. The incremental review of each element
will be documented in recommendations to the Council where necessary to conclude
discussions as the Commission moves through the review of the elements.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The meetings of September 10th and 11th have been scheduled to address the Final EIR and the
Land Use Element updated policies and programs as well as a portion of the Circulation
Element. Review is anticipated to occur as follows:
September 10th:
Review and recommendation of Airport related items (Land Use Element Chapter 7,
Circulation Element Chapter 11 and Airport Overlay zone) continued from August 27,
2014 (Agenda item #1); and
Review and recommendation of Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program and
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
Review of Chapter 8 (Special Focus Areas) of the Land Use Element.
September 11th:
Carryover of items not yet completed from September 10th.
Review and recommendation of Chapters 1-6 and 9-12 of the Land Use Element; and
Review and recommendation of Chapters 1-5 of the Circulation Element.
The staff report will highlight or summarize substantive changes in each area of review
including input received during public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
3.1 FINAL EIR REVIEW
The Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 and comments were due on July 28, 2014. The
City received 25 responses to the EIR, eight from agencies and 17 from individuals. In
addition, the Draft EIR was reviewed by the City’s advisory bodies:
July 1, 2014 Joint study session by Planning Commission and City Council
July 9, 2014 Mass Transportation Committee
July 17, 2014 Bicycle Advisory Committee
July 21, 2014 Architectural Review Commission
July 22, 1014 Parks and Recreation Commission
July 28, 2014 Cultural Heritage Committee
PC2 - 2
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-10-14 & 9-11-14
(FEIR cert, MMRP, SOC, LUE Ch. 1-6 & LUE Ch.8-12 & CE Ch. 1-5
Page 3
Most comment letters provided input regarding policy discussions and/or observations
regarding current circulation operational issues versus input regarding environmental impacts.
Some letters requested project level evaluation for individual development sites, however, the
more general nature of the LUCE update project and the associated programmatic level of
environmental evaluation do not address this detailed and specific review. Responses have
been provided to comments within the Final EIR which was released on September 3, 2014.
The Final EIR includes mitigations for identified Class 1 impacts (those that remain
significant with mitigation) and Class 2 impacts (those that can be mitigated to less than
significant level). No mitigations are required for Class 3 impacts, which are considered to be
less than significant. The Executive Summary of the FEIR is included as Attachment 1.
The FEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic
and Circulation with the LUCE update.
Class 1 Impacts:
Air Quality:
These impacts are related to long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors associated with development under the LUCE update. This is primarily due to
assumptions contained in the Air Pollution Control District’s (APCD) Clean Air Plan that
assign growth rates and vehicle miles traveled to the area. Since the LUCE anticipated
growth rate does not match up with the APCD plan, long term air quality impacts are
considered significant and unavoidable. This situation will most likely be remedied with the
update of the Clean Air Plan, but until that time, the FEIR finds Class 1 impacts remain.
Noise:
The FEIR identified that construction noise associated with development supported by the
LUCE update will exceed applicable standards in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance from
temporary use of construction equipment. Despite existing policies and regulations, these
short term noise impacts are not able to be mitigated to less than significant levels.
Traffic and Circulation:
The FEIR identifies three areas where circulation impacts are considered significant and
unavoidable. Impacts to certain roadway segments and intersections were identified where
levels of service drop below acceptable minimum performance levels identified in the
Circulation Element. Finally, impacts to the US 101 freeway are identified in several
segments that pass through the City. While impacts are difficult to isolate to the LUCE
update, growth in the City will contribute to travel/trips on this facility. Caltrans is studying
the possibility of widening US 101 from 4 to 6 lanes in various locations. Mitigations are
included to continue City support of Caltrans and SLOCOG efforts to address demand on
Highway 101. Despite this effort, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.
The FEIR also studied the effects of changing the planned full interchange at Prado Rd. to an
overpass only and the elimination of the planned overpass at Bishop Street. Several
significant impacts associated with both of these changes were identified and therefore it was
found that it’s not prudent to make those changes at this time.
PC2 - 3
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-10-14 & 9-11-14
(FEIR cert, MMRP, SOC, LUE Ch. 1-6 & LUE Ch.8-12 & CE Ch. 1-5
Page 4
Land Use no longer a Class 1 impact:
One impact that had been identified in the Draft EIR as significant and unavoidable was the
inconsistency of the LUCE update with the County Airport Land Use Plan. After thorough
evaluation, and lack of persuasive evidence submitted by the Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics or Airport Land Use Commission in response to the Draft EIR, the potential
impact was re-characterized as a Class 3 impact. The evaluation centered on whether changes
associated with the LUCE update would result in adverse physical environmental effects
associated with the inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. Although policy
inconsistencies continue to exist, neither Caltrans Aeronautics nor the Airport Land Use
Commission provided information that would lead to a conclusion that the policy
inconsistency results in a physical impact. The emphasis in both letters was focused on the
process of overrule and state code requirements for purview and action. As such, this impact
which had previously been identified as Class 1 has been modified to a Class 3 impact.
Class 2 Impacts:
Class 2 impacts are those that can be mitigated to less than significant levels. There were
three of these impacts identified: Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, and Cultural
Resources. The policy mitigation to address potential impacts to Agricultural Resources
includes minor word changes to Land Use Element policy 1.7.1 to change the word “should”
to “shall” in two places. Implementation of APCD recommended construction measures is
identified as a mitigation for short term Air Quality impacts. Finally, modification of
language (“should” to “shall”) in three Conservation and Open Space policies has been
identified as a mitigation for potential impacts to cultural resources.
Circulation Analysis:
In January, 2014, the City Council identified several options for study as part of the
circulation analysis to understand how various infrastructure changes would affect local and
city-wide circulation. These included running the circulation model with variations on
circulation infrastructure such as:
Bishop Street overpass versus no Bishop Street overpass;
Prado overpass versus interchange;
Laurel Lane overpass versus no overpass
Calle Joaquin extension to Froom Ranch/Dalidio Drive versus no connection
Buckley by-pass from S. Higuera to Los Osos Valley Road versus no by-pass
Additional connection between Tank Farm and Buckley Road versus no connection
Vachell Lane connection to Los Osos Valley Road versus no through connection
This analysis was conducted by modeling the maximum potential arrangement of circulation
options and then testing the sensitivity of variations independently. This sensitivity
assessment has been included as part of the technical studies in Appendix N of the EIR.
Based on the sensitivity analysis results, several circulation options were rejected due to
significant impacts or failing to deliver an adequate benefit. The remaining options have been
compiled into the proposed project and are summarized below:
PC2 - 4
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-10-14 & 9-11-14
(FEIR cert, MMRP, SOC, LUE Ch. 1-6 & LUE Ch.8-12 & CE Ch. 1-5
Page 5
Add Grade Separated Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing at Boysen & Santa Rosa
Add Broad St. Ramp Closure and Upgrade of Hwy 1 & 101
Convert Marsh & Higuera to Two Way (Santa Rosa to California Blvd.)
Locate Transit Center in Vicinity of Santa Rosa & Higuera
Extend Mission Plaza
Extend Victoria Ave. to Emily
Add Broad St. Corridor Circulation Improvements
Add New Collector between Tank Farm & Buckley
Develop Policy to review realignment of Chorro, Boysen, & Broad with development
Develop Policy to review realignment of Bianchi Ln. & Pismo St. with development
Develop Policy to review realignment of Madonna Rd. to Bridge St. with
development
In some cases, only localized improvements in circulation were realized and discussion of
cost and impacts associated with that particular infrastructure lead to a recommendation to not
include that improvement as part of the proposed project. In other instances, significant
circulation impacts would result without inclusion of the facility and hence it was included
into the proposed project. For several of the potential options, direction is included in the
land use policies to consider and define the optimal circulation improvements that may be
appropriate and desirable at the time the surrounding land use development is reviewed.
Alternatives:
Feasible alternatives were offered for consideration included a maximum infrastructure
circulation alternative, a reduced development alternative, and the CEQA-required no project
alternative.
No Project alternative
This alternative would result in no changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan. This would mean that no policy or program changes intended to address multi-
modal priorities, nor enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian circulation would be
implemented. Minor reductions in impacts to aesthetics, air quality (due to fewer residences),
biological resources, cultural resources, and geologic resources would result. However,
beneficial aspect of the LUCE update project would be lost regarding Global Climate Change
impacts. Other minor reductions could be found in impacts related to hazards, hydrology,
public services, and utilities. The no project alternative does result in minor increase in
impact due to traffic congestion.
Reduced Development alternative
This alternative included assumptions that the proposed specific plan areas would provide the
minimum number of residential units which results in reductions of approximately 20% of
development capacity. In addition, the non-residential portions of these opportunity areas
were reduced to the minimum development range which would result in nearly 50% reduction
in some areas. The alternative would not reduce development associated with existing
specific plans, planned and approved projects or other vacant land in the city. This alternative
PC2 - 5
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-10-14 & 9-11-14
(FEIR cert, MMRP, SOC, LUE Ch. 1-6 & LUE Ch.8-12 & CE Ch. 1-5
Page 6
resulted in minor impact reductions in the categories of aesthetics, air quality, biological,
cultural, geologic, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards, hydrology, land use, noise,
transportation, and utilities resources. It had similar impacts to the project description for
agricultural, population, and recreation impacts.
Maximum Circulation Improvements alternative
This alternative included the proposed project and some of the circulation options that were
rejected due to impacts or failure to deliver substantial benefits. This alternative resulted in
impacts to aesthetics, geology, hazards, hydrology, land use, population, public services,
recreation and utilities. Minor increases to impacts resulted in categories of agricultural,
biological, cultural, and noise categories. Very slight decreases were seen in categories of
greenhouse gas emissions, air quality and transportation. Based solely on the slight
difference in Vehicle Miles Traveled calculations this was considered the environmentally
superior alternative due to the minor reductions in impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas
emission.
Staff does not recommend this alternative as the “proposed project” because the < 0.1%
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is not persuasive when compared to the potential
impacts to aesthetics, agriculture, and biological resources.
Other input
Input in the form of comments offered during the EIR comment period that are not related to
potential environmental effects but rather relate to policy content or direction have been
included as Attachment 2. These comments are sorted by element and chapter and may be
considered by the Commission as the corresponding area is discussed.
3.1.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 3)
When changes or alterations have been incorporated into a project in order to avoid or lessen
significant environmental effects, CEQA requires adoption of a program for reporting and
monitoring those changes (§15091d). This requirement is reflected in a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP identifies each Class 1 and Class
2 impact, and lists the associated mitigation measure(s), the body responsible to implement
each measure, and the timing of when it will be monitored. The LUCE update FEIR
identifies both physical infrastructure and minor policy edits as mitigations for potential
impacts. Since the Environmental Impact Report is programmatic in nature, future
development may have additional mitigations that are identified when specific projects are
proposed and further evaluated. Minor policy edits that were identified as mitigations will be
updated as part of the adoption of the final LUCE update. Infrastructure changes identified as
mitigations will be addressed as part of future development review and project construction or
may be included in future fee programs. The MMRP is included in Attachment 3.
3.1.2 Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 4)
An EIR does not represent a decision but rather is an informational tool to assist decision-
makers’ understanding of the potential environmental effects of proposed changes. As such,
CEQA contains provisions for the decision-making agency to consider and “balance, as
applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide
or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable
PC2 - 6
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-10-14 & 9-11-14
(FEIR cert, MMRP, SOC, LUE Ch. 1-6 & LUE Ch.8-12 & CE Ch. 1-5
Page 7
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.”1 This may include
approving a project despite knowing that it has the potential to generate significant adverse
environmental effects. In order to approve the project, findings that document the
consideration and balancing of influences are included in a statement of overriding
considerations. The LUCE update will need to be accompanied by a statement of overriding
considerations. A draft of this statement is included for Commission review as part of the
Resolution in Attachment 4 and lists the outweighing benefits associated with the LUCE
update including provision of new residential development, increase of per capita parkland,
policies to support well-planned neighborhoods and complete streets that have the potential to
reduce vehicle trips, provision of new employment opportunities, and continued preservation
of open space due to the focus on infill development.
3.2 LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
The drafts of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are shown in legislative draft to indicate
where additions and deletions to existing policies and programs are proposed. Descriptions
under the chapter headings below summarize the draft changes that were reviewed by
Commission and endorsed by City Council for review through the EIR process – no changes
have been made to the documents.
Please note that the Table of Contents, figures and tables are will be updated and all references
will be corrected in the final version. The Commission should review the legislative draft
documents and be prepared to pause for discussion of those policies or programs for which
Commissioners wish to make adjustments for Council consideration.
3.2.1 Land Use Element – Chapter 8: Special Focus Areas
The Special Focus Areas of the Land Use Element provides policy direction for three future
specific plan areas – San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch, and Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road -
in addition to several other sites that will not require specific plans, but could benefit from
greater emphasis on appearance, land use approach, or compatibility with surrounding areas.
The South Broad Street Area Plan is also included by reference in this Special Focus Area
chapter. This plan was recommended by Planning Commission and endorsed by the City
Council in September 2013 for inclusion in the LUCE update (Attachment 5). Both the
Commission and the City Council previously reviewed and provided updates to the language in
the plan, so it is anticipated that the Commission will not need to provide updates to the plan.
Staff has noted one revision needed for consistency with Council action to support the LUCE
update and it is shown in legislative draft below:
Medical services
To approve a Medical Service use in the C-S zone, the Hearing Officer must make the
following findings:
a. The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses.
b. The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking
1 CA Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15093
PC2 - 7
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-10-14 & 9-11-14
(FEIR cert, MMRP, SOC, LUE Ch. 1-6 & LUE Ch.8-12 & CE Ch. 1-5
Page 8
impacts in residential neighborhoods.
c. The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
dc. The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for
these uses when compared with medical services.
ed. The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed medical
service and will not result in other lease spaces being under-utilized because of a lack of
available parking.
The Commission should review provisions in Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element to ensure
policy direction for the Special Focus Areas is clear and captures the community’s desired
vision and intent.
****************************************************************************
September 11, 2013 Planning Commission Hearing:
3.2.2 Land Use Element – Introduction, Goals, and Chapter 1: Growth Management
Policies
This section contains the background to the LUCE update, the goals and relocated land use
designations and growth management policies. The consultant team recommended removal of
the section which speaks of the 1994 LUE background for purposes of clarity and brevity. The
Commission should provide feedback on this direction.
3.2.3 Land Use Element – Chapter 2: Conservation and Development of Residential
Neighborhoods
With the LUCE focus on infill development, several policies were added or updated in this
chapter to help describe livable neighborhoods and to provide direction for development to be
compatible with the existing neighborhood fabric.
3.2.4 Land Use Element – Chapter 3: Commercial and Industrial Development
The largest amount of change in this chapter resulted from relocated the designation
descriptions and associated purpose and intensity standards to the table at the front of the
element. However there are edits to existing policies, one new policy addition and four new
programs proposed.
3.2.5 Land Use Element – Chapter 4: Downtown
Updates to this chapter focused on the mix of uses in the Downtown, the need to update the
Downtown Concept Plan, and the desire to ensure Downtown is safe and vibrant at all times of
day and night.
3.2.6 Land Use Element – Chapter 5: Public and Cultural Facilities
Updates to this chapter were minor.
PC2 - 8
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-10-14 & 9-11-14
(FEIR cert, MMRP, SOC, LUE Ch. 1-6 & LUE Ch.8-12 & CE Ch. 1-5
Page 9
3.2.7 Land Use Element – Chapter 6: Resource Protection
Updates to this chapter included addition of a new program to evaluate options for addressing
flood concerns; as well as new policies to address drainage requirements. Specific flood control
measures listed in Policy 6.5.1 are proposed for removal in favor of policy direction that is
implemented through ordinance, specific plans, and other design standards that can be
responsive to changes in state law and best practices.
3.2.8 Land Use Element – Chapter 7: Airport
This chapter was addressed as a continued item from August 27, 2014.
3.2.9 Land Use Element – Chapter 9: Sustainability
This is a new chapter of the element and includes policy and program support for efforts to
implement the Climate Action Plan; and to seek ways to promote more energy efficiency in
buildings and the city’s built form. The City Council added a policy and p rogram to address
the urban forest subsequent to Planning Commission review in December 2013.
3.2.9 Land Use Element – Chapter 10: Healthy Community
This is a new chapter and includes Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) policies. It includes
policy support for local food systems and walkability.
3.2.10 Land Use Element – Chapter 11: Review and Amendment
Only minor grammatical edits were made in this chapter.
3.2.11 Land Use Element – Chapter 12: Implementation
Information in this chapter was updated to reflect implementation that has occurred since 1994
such as adoption of Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement. In
addition, language changes to the Environmental Review section were made to clarify the
community’s desire to fully understand potential environmental impacts associated with
projects.
3.3 CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW
The Circulation Element is shown in legislative draft format to indicate where additions and
deletions to existing policies and programs are proposed. Descriptions under the chapter
headings below summarize the draft changes that were reviewed by Commission and endorsed
by City Council for review through the EIR process – no changes have been made to the
documents.
Please note that the Table of Contents, figures and tables are will be updated and all references
will be corrected in the final version. The Commission should review the legislative draft
documents and be prepared to pause for discussion of those policies or programs for which
Commissioners wish to make adjustments for Council consideration.
PC2 - 9
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-10-14 & 9-11-14
(FEIR cert, MMRP, SOC, LUE Ch. 1-6 & LUE Ch.8-12 & CE Ch. 1-5
Page 10
3.3.1 Circulation Element – Chapter 1: Introduction
This section contains the purpose and objectives of the Circulation Element. In addition, this
chapter contains the updated modal split objectives and a new policy to support multi-modal
circulation.
3.3.2 Circulation Element – Chapter 2: Traffic Reduction
Changes in this chapter include revisions to policies that refer to trip reduction requirements.
In accordance with SB 437 (Lewis), trip reduction requirements are inconsistent with current
State Law (§ 40717.9 Health and Safety Regulations) and updated policy and program
language reflects this transition to voluntary commuter benefit programs.
3.3.3 Circulation Element – Chapter 3: Transit Service
Updates in this chapter reflect that the City has adopted implementation through a Short Range
Transit Plan that it updates every five years. The edits in this chapter are fairly minor but
reinforce the intent to make transit a suitable mode choice for residents.
3.3.4 Circulation Element – Chapter 4: Bicycle Transportation
Updates in this chapter focus on the importance of implementing the Bicycle Transportation
Plan, as well as coordinating bike infrastructure planning with regional efforts and the local
campus master plans.
3.3.5 Circulation Element – Chapter 5: Walking
This chapter has several policy updates to reflect the desire for pedestrian connectivity
throughout the community. A new program has been added to call for development of a
Downtown Pedestrian Plan. While this effort was initiated with the LUCE update, the public
engagement and discussions required to complete a public review draft of the Pedestrian Plan
have not yet occurred and are anticipated to follow the LUCE update.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The Commission should review the draft Land Use and Circulation Element chapters along
with updates provided by staff during the hearing and provide input and direction as
appropriate. Staff will forward the Planning Commission’s recommendation for consideration
by the City Council.
Upcoming Planning Commission special hearings include:
September 17th
Remaining Circulation Element chapters 6-10 (including new multi-modal
chapter) and chapters 12-16.
Review of Financial Report of the LUCE update with review of fiscal balance
PC2 - 10
GPI/ER 15-12 (City-wide LUCE update) 9-10-14 & 9-11-14
(FEIR cert, MMRP, SOC, LUE Ch. 1-6 & LUE Ch.8-12 & CE Ch. 1-5
Page 11
of land uses and discussion of infrastructure costs associated with the LUCE.
September 18th
Continued discussion from September 17th for any unfinished items or
discussion.
Map changes for Land Use and Circulation Element Diagrams and Zoning Map
changes
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Public Works staff has been directly involved and assisting in the update of the Circulation
Element. All departments have contributed to the background reports and the review of
technical information.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
Continue the project with specific direction to staff.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Executive summary of FEIR
2. Matrix of policy comments received during EIR comment period
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program
4. Resolution recommending certification of FEIR with overriding considerations
5. Council Resolution endorsing South Broad Street Area Plan
6. Resolution recommending updates to LUE Chapter 8, Special Focus Areas
7. Resolution recommending updates to LUE Chapters 1-6 and 9-12 and Circulation
Element Chapters 1-5
PC2 - 11
ES
Executive Summary
Final EIR Page ES‐1
The purpose of this Final EIR (FEIR) is twofold. First, this document provides copies of the comment letters made on the
LUCE Update and EIR and provides written responses to all environmental issues raised in these comments on the Draft
EIR (see Public Resources Code, Section 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088(c)). Second, this document is
designed to function as the Final EIR for the Proposed Project, and as such has been designed to meet the content
requirements of a Final Program EIR as specified in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (See Public
Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines [California Code of Regulations, title 14, Section 15000 et
seq.].
This Final EIR comprises four chapters that meet the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines, as outlined above. The
four chapters that make up this Final EIR are as follows:
“Executive Summary” provides a brief project description and presents a summary table of the Proposed
Project’s environmental effects.
Chapter 1, “Introduction” provides a brief overview of the Proposed Project, environmental compliance activities
conducted to date, and outlines the contents and organization of the Final EIR
Chapter 2, “Response to Comments” provides a list of commenters and a copy of written comments (coded for
reference) received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, and provides the City’s response to each
comment received.
Chapter 3, “Minor Edits to Draft Program EIR” includes any corrections and/or additions to the Draft EIR text as a
result of comments made on the Draft EIR. These changes to the draft EIR are indicated by revision marks
(underline for new text and strikeout for deleted text).
Chapter 4, “Report Preparation” provides a list of the individuals involved in the preparation of the final EIR.
In reference to Section 15132(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR for the Proposed Project has been
incorporated by reference into this Final EIR. A copy of the Draft EIR is on file at the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department located at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. A copy can also be viewed by visiting the LUCE
Update web site at (www.slo2035.com).
The following section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed LUCE Update, alternatives considered in this EIR,
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of
significance of project impacts after mitigation.
Please note that where changes to the Draft EIR Executive Summary text resulted from the responses discussed in
Section 2.0 (Response to Comments) or edits shown in Section 3.0 (Minor Edits to the Draft Program EIR), those changes
are presented in the text of the Final EIR Executive Summary below as shown by underlining new text (e.g., new text) and
striking out text to be deleted (e.g., deleted text).
PC 2-12
Attachment 1
Page ES‐2 Final EIR
ES-1 Project Description
The LUCE Update Project (the “Project” or “proposed Update Project”) provides proposed changes to the City’s existing
Land Use Element and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (last updated in 1994). It is the intent of the proposed
Project to establish and implement a refined set of goals, policies, and programs for regulating development in the city,
guiding the land use decision‐making process, balance population growth with infrastructure availability, and provide a
true multimodal transportation system that will guide the community over the next 20 years.
The LUCE Update reflects extensive efforts and input from community surveys, workshops and open houses, advisory
bodies, the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (TF‐LUCE), City staff, consultants, the Planning
Commission, and City Council. Based on direction from the City Council that the Update Project primarily address infill
opportunities, changes in legislation, and the need to update existing policy direction to reflect current values and
requirements, the LUCE Update focuses on updated policy language and several areas of the City where “physical” land
use changes are proposed. The proposed physical land use changes would apply only to specified areas that over the next
20 years may have the potential to accommodate changes in the land use type or intensity or are in need of circulation
and infrastructure improvements. From a policy aspect, the LUCE Update proposes changes to existing policy and
program language, and new policies and programs where needed to enhance the two Elements or cover items not
previously addressed. The policies and programs included in the LUCE Update are intended to:
Address notable policy gaps that have been identified over time in the existing LUCE;
Provide new policy direction to address issues raised during the proposed Project’s public participation process;
Respond to changes in state law;
Address topics or items that the City committed to addressing as part of the Sustainable Communities grant that
provided funding for the Update Project; and
Address inconsistencies between the proposed project and the Airport Land Use Plan for San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport.
The Land Use Element Update proposes to “preserve and enhance” existing conditions in most areas of the city. The
physical changes proposed by the Land Use Element Update are for the most part limited to changes in land use type or
intensity in specific areas. These changes include proposed mixed use redevelopment of some sites, the infill of
underutilized locations, and four sites that will require modified or new specific plans to addresses development
parameters such as the location and types of land uses, infrastructure needs, and designs to address environmental
constraints. These four sites include: Potential modification of the Margarita Area Specific Plan to allow increased
residential densities; and new specific plans for the San Luis Ranch (formerly known as the Dalidio site), the Madonna
property at Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), and the Avila Ranch. Policy direction was also refined relative to a set of
“Special Planning Areas” (Section 8.3.3 in the proposed Land Use Element Update) throughout the City. This policy
guidance provides statements regarding the City’s expectations for these sites of new development, redevelopment, and
infill opportunities.
The following table lists each of the original 19 proposed “physical alternative” locations, identifies the sites dropped from
further consideration, the sites where no physical changes are proposed, and describes the type of development that
could occur at the proposed development sites. Throughout the Land Use Element Update process the 19 proposed
“physical alternative” sites were identified by the letters A through S (see Figure ES‐1).
PC 2-13
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!o
£¤101£¤1
South St
Edna RdBroad
S
t
£¤101
£¤1
O
r
c
u
t
t
R
d
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alley
R
d
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
Ave
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
Califo
rnia
BlvdHiguera
St
!A
!B
!D
!C
!M
!N
!O
!L !K
!J
!I
!E
!F
!G
!H
!P
!Q
!R
!S
Margarita
HW
Y
1
EDNA RDHWY 101 KERN AVE
BUCKLEY RD
ONTARIO RDA
L
T
E
G
R
E
S
S
O
C
O
N
N
O
R
W
A
Y
HIGUE
R
A
S
T
FOOT
HI
L
L
B
L
V
D
JESPERSEN RDSEE CANYON
RDCASTILLO
RDDAVENPORT CREEK RDS
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
T
UNNAMED ST
LOS
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
GREYSTONE PLO
L
D
1
0
1
DRIVEWAY
VIA CARTA VACHELL LNO
R
C
U
T
T
R
D
HOOVER RDMONTE RDL
E
W
I
S
L
N
EVANS RD
TANK FARM RD
LO
S
R
A
N
C
HO
S
R
D
SEQU
OI
A
D
R
BROAD ST
MIOSSI
R
D
H
U
M
B
O
L
T
A
V
E
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
HA
C
I
E
N
D
A
A
V
E
CA
B
A
L
L
E
R
O
S
A
V
E
PERIMETER
S
TTUOLUMNE AVEPUMA CTMELLO LNALT EGRESS UNNAMED STHWY 101 HWY 101 U
N
N
A
M
E
D
S
TUNNAMED ST101 S BROAD S
T
101 N
BUCKLEY
ORCUTT RD
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
TANK FARM RD JOHNSON AVECHORRO ST
MADON
N
A
R
D
MILL STPISMO ST
MARS
H ST
HIGHLAND
D
R
HIGUERA S STFOOTHILL BLVD
HIGH ST ISLAY STFOOTHILL W BLVDSANTA ROSA STT
O
R
O
S
TPEACH STELKS LNA
UG
U
S
T
A
S
TELLA STBUL
LOCK
LNPOLY CANYON O
C
E
A
N
A
I
R
E
C
T
MEISSNER HILL STFULLE
R
R
D
AIRPORT ROCKVIEW
P
L
D
A
L
I
D
I
O
LIZZIE
S
TCASA STVI
A
L
A
G
U
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
B
A
L
B
O
A
S
T
KENDAL
L 101 N OFF NASELLA LNKLAMATH 101 S ON OJAI
IRONBARK STLAWTON AVEHE
L
E
N
A
S
T
BOND ST
ISABELLA
W
A
Y
HORIZON CENTER STHARMONY
RAMONA DR
CRAIG WAY
VIA LA PA
Z 101 N OFF 101 N BROAD STFigure ES-1-
Legend
LUCE SOI Area
Area of Potential
Land Use Change
Specific Plan Area
Preserve and Enhance
!!!!City Limits
Water Body
Highway
Major Road
Streets
Railroad
o Airport
Source: City of Sanu Luis Obispo, 2012
0 10.5
Miles
Land Use Options Considered
!A
PC 2-14
Attachment 1
Page ES‐4 Final EIR
Site
Letter Site Description
Capacity
Units Population
Non-
Residential
Sq. Ft.
Employment
A Nativity Church Site
Removed from consideration. ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
B Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area
Consider mixed use for the area on both sides
of Foothill between Chorro and Santa Rosa.
Consider both horizontal and vertical mixed
use. Emphasis on retail and housing. Policies
to support consideration of parking and height
changes to facilitate mixed use.
80 183 ‐1,184 ‐3
C Pacheco Elementary Site
Removed from consideration. ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
D Diocese Site near Bressi Pl. & Broad St.
Removed from consideration. ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
E Upper Monterey Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
F Downtown Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
G Mid‐Higuera Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
H Caltrans Site
Mixed use to include tourist commercial,
office and some residential. Site may be
appropriate to review height limit changes to
accommodate desired development.
Consider more public open space uses to
serve as gateway and uses compatible with
conference facilities.
53 121 101,943 185
I General Hospital Site
Residential development on the site behind
existing structure within the existing Urban
Reserve Line. Outside the Urban Reserve Line,
retain the current designation of Open Space.
Policies should support flexibility so that a
range of residential uses can be considered
(i.e. residential care, adjunct to transitional
care use, other residential uses consistent
with area) within the residential land use
designations.
41 94 48,788 89
PC 2-15
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐5
Site
Letter Site Description
Capacity
Units Population
Non-
Residential
Sq. Ft.
Employment
J Broad Street Area
Incorporate physical alternative described in
South Broad Street Area Plan endorsed on
September 17, 2013 by City Council (Council
Resolution 10460).
589 1,349 229,068 416
K Sunset Drive‐In/Prado Road Site
Consideration of mixed use. Develop policies
to address appropriate mix of uses. Policy
discussion should address historic nature of
Sunset Drive in and ensure the site is able to
accommodate Homeless Services center.
Provide bike connections as called for in
bicycle transportation plan.
0 0 483,668 879
L San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area
Consideration of a mix of uses with a
substantial open space/agriculture
component. Residential uses to be consistent
with applicable airport policies.
500 1,145 470,000 855
M Pacific Beach Site
Policy development to support consideration
of Commercial Retail/mixed use fronting LOVR
and Froom Ranch and park to serve
neighborhood.
38 87 ‐37,352 ‐68
N Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area
Consideration of mixed use in the context
with the Dalidio property and the City's
agricultural parcel and focus on connectivity
to the neighborhoods to the north. Develop
policies to address appropriate mix of uses.
0 0 200,066 364
O Madonna Specific Plan Area
Future development to consider viewsheds,
hillside and open space protection, height
limits, wetland protection, access to other
connections, historic farm buildings, mixed
use to accommodate workforce housing, and
neighborhood commercial type uses.
115 263 336,170 611
P LOVR Creekside Area
Consideration of medium high density
residential infill housing with open space.
159 364 0 0
Q Margarita Specific Plan
Policy to support consideration of changes to
the previously approved Specific Plan to allow
increased density on eastern portion of
specific plan site.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
PC 2-16
Attachment 1
Page ES‐6 Final EIR
Site
Letter Site Description
Capacity
Units Population
Non-
Residential
Sq. Ft.
Employment
R Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd. Site
Consideration of a mix of commercial uses
with limited residential on upper floors.
Commercial uses should serve the
surrounding businesses and bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity must be addressed.
41 94 135,906 247
S Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area
Consider a mix of residential densities,
connections to shops to the north, connection
to S. Higuera and a mix of uses. Respect
creek/wildlife corridor.
700 1,603 25,000 45
Source: Matrix Design Group, 2014; Mintier Harnish, 2014
The policy and program updates proposed in the Airport Chapter of the Land Use Element reflect airport safety, noise,
height and overflight considerations consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act. Policies, programs, and
Zoning Code implementation have been drafted to create an Airport Overlay Zone to codify airport compatibility criteria
for areas subject to airport influence consistent with the requirements of Cal. Pub. Utilities Code Section 21670, et. seq,
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and other related federal and state requirements relating to airport
land use compatibility planning. These include allowable uses and development standards such as density and intensity
limitations, identification of prohibited uses, infill development, height limitations, and other hazards to flight, noise
insulation, buyer awareness measures, airspace protection, nonconforming uses and reconstruction, and the process for
airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City.
The Circulation Element Update describes how the City plans to provide for the transportation of people and materials
within San Luis Obispo with connections to other areas in San Luis Obispo County and beyond. The Circulation Element
Update recognizes the implications of land use policy on all modes of movement, and establishes policies, standards, and
implementation measures that work with the Land Use Element to address both existing and potential circulation
opportunities and deficiencies. But beyond addressing changes in land use, the Circulation Element Update also looks at
the circulation system of the community as a whole. Introducing the concept of “complete streets”, the update looks to
integrate and enhance all types of circulation in order to create a more comprehensive and functional circulation system.
The proposed Circulation Element provides policy language to address a variety of circulation‐related issues, including:
traffic reduction; transit; encouraging the use of bicycles and walking; traffic management; future street network changes;
truck, air and rail transportation; parking management in commercial areas and residential neighborhoods; and scenic
roadways. A new section added to the Circulation Element addresses multi‐modal transportation, or the development
and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all modes of travel.
As part of the LUCE Update, a comprehensive list of circulation improvements to be considered (called the “project
description”) was reviewed and approved for further analysis by the City Council. This list also included variations of
those improvements. Appendix N provides the sensitivity analysis performed on those individual variations. The results
of this sensitivity analysis were then used by the City to determine which variations would be included as part of the
Proposed Project presented in the EIR. From this analysis, the City identified 17 circulation improvements to include in
the Proposed Project. These are listed on the following table.The table below lists the 17 proposed “physical alternative”
street network modifications identified by the Circulation Element Update public participation and Element preparation
process.
PC 2-17
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐7
Site Number Site Description
1 Boysen Ave. and Santa Rosa St.
Consideration of separated crossing for bikes/pedestrians of Santa Rosa at Boysen. Consider all vehicular
alternatives for Boysen intersection at SR 1 including full closure, access restrictions, and retaining its current
configuration.
2 Realign Chorro St., Boysen Ave., and Board St.
Consideration of realignment of Chorro and Broad and Boysen.
3 Potential Ramp Closures at Highway 101 and State Route 1
Consideration of ramp closures and consolidated SR1/Highway 101 interchange including the need for a
signage/way‐finding program.
4 Broad St. and Highway 101 Ramp Closures
Consideration of ramp closures at Broad with the addition of bike and pedestrian overpass.
5 Convert Marsh St. and Higuera St. to Two‐way
(Santa Rosa St. to California Blvd.)
Consideration of two way vehicular circulation of Marsh and Higuera between Santa Rosa and California.
6 Transit Center Location on Santa Rosa St. and Higuera St.
Consideration of site/block of Higuera/Santa Rosa/Monterey for the transit center location and consider use
of both public and private property. Consider ideas from student projects and the Downtown Concept Plan.
7 Mission Plaza “Dog Leg”
Consideration of several design alternatives with varying degrees of streets affected. Analyze full closure of
roadways. Develop policy direction regarding desired outcomes and nature and phasing of treatment for the
area.
8 Realign Bianchi Ln. and Pismo St.
Consideration of realignment of street intersection (Pismo to Bianchi).
9 Realign Madonna Rd. to Bridge St Instead of Higuera St.
Consider appropriate connection from Madonna to S. Higuera associated with redevelopment of Caltrans site.
Potential to realign Madonna to connect with Bridge Street may better address some pedestrian and bike
connections.
10 Bishop St. Extension
Evaluate elimination of Bishop Street bridge over railroad tracks and consider reducing the width of Johnson
Ave.
11 Victoria Ave. Connection to Emily St.
Consideration of Victoria connection to Emily.
12 Broad St. – Consolidate Access
Consideration of Broad Street consolidation of access points.
13 Orcutt Rd. Overpass
Keep facility as part of Circulation Element. Do not consider removing facility due to concerns about
increasing rail traffic.
14 Froom Rd. Connection to Oceanaire Neighborhood
Provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity only.
15 Prado Rd. Interchange vs. Overpass
Evaluate both interchange and overpass
16 North‐South Connection between Tank Farm Rd. and Buckley Rd.
Consideration creating a north‐south connection between Tank Farm and Buckley for future connectivity.
17 LOVR Bypass
Consider (Buckley to Higuera connection and Higuera to LOVR behind Los Verdes ‐ 101 bypass.
Source: Matrix Design Group, 2014; Mintier Harnish, 2014
PC 2-18
Attachment 1
Page ES‐8 Final EIR
ES-2 Project Objectives
Land Use Element Update
For the purposes of CEQA analysis, the objectives of the Land Use Element Update are to:
1. Respond to changed conditions in San Luis Obispo.
2. Incorporate sustainable practices and policies into the Land Use Element.
3. Respond to new State planning requirements.
4. Engage the community in a reaffirmation of the community’s vision and goals for the City’s future.
5. Provide residential infill opportunities.
6. Maintain a healthy and attractive natural environment within a compact urban form.
Circulation Element Update
For the purposes of CEQA analysis, the objectives of the Circulation Element Update are to:
1. Encourage better transportation habits.
2. Promote alternative forms of transportation.
3. Manage traffic by limiting population growth and economic development to the rates and levels stipulated by the
Land Use Element.
4. Support environmentally sound technological advancement.
5. Support a shift in modes of transportation.
6. Establish and maintain livable street corridors.
7. Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that supports and balances the needs of all
circulation modes.
ES.3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table EXES‐1, at the end of this section, contains a detailed listing of the environmental impacts of the proposed project,
proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. Impacts are categorized by classes: Class I impacts are defined as
significant, unavoidable adverse impacts, which require a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Section
15093 of the CEQA Guidelines if the project is approved. Class II impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be
feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Class III impacts are adverse, but less than the identified significance thresholds.
ES.4 Alternatives
Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
“an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project, which would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
As stated above, the development on an EIR is to include consideration of a “reasonable range” of alternatives to foster
informed decision‐making and public participation.
CEQA requires the EIR to identify feasible alternatives to the proposed project that will avoid, or at least lessen, significant
impacts associated with the project. CEQA defines “feasible” as follows:
“‘Feasible’ means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.”
PC 2-19
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐9
Three alternatives to the LUCE Update project have been evaluated in this EIR. Each alternative is described below.
No Project Alternative: This alternative evaluates environmental conditions that would result if the proposed LUCE
Update Project were not implemented and future development in the City was implemented consistent with the land use
and policy requirements of the existing 1994 Land Use Element and Circulation Elements.
Reduced Development Alternative: This alternative evaluates environmental conditions that would result if the
development capacity proposed by the Land Use Element Update were reduced by approximately 20 percent.
Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative: This alternative evaluates the environmental conditions that would
result if three additional modifications were added to the proposed LUCE Update. These modifications include the re‐
introduction of two circulation improvements that were removed from the EIR traffic modeling (the “Vachel Lane
Realignment” and “Calle Joaquin Connector to Dalidio Drive” improvements) and a revised version of the “Buckley Road
to Los Osos Valley Road Connection” improvement. The three additional street network changes added to the Maximum
Circulation Improvements Alternative were options identified during the preliminary public review of potential street
system changes but were not included in the proposed Circulation Element traffic modeling.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative: Buildout of the No Project Alternative would generally reduce the environmental
impacts that would have the potential to occur if buildout of the City of San Luis Obispo was conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the existing 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements of the general plan. Implementation of the
No Project Alternative, however, would not implement the beneficial policy revisions proposed by the LUCE Update.
Based on the potential for the No Project Alternative to reduce environmental impacts when compared to the impacts of
the proposed Project, it would be the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project alternative, however, would
not implement any of the proposed projects’ objectives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) indicates that “if the
environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives.”
The Reduced Development Alternative would generally have reduced or similar environmental impacts when compared
to the impacts of the proposed project. The Reduced Development Alternative, however, would not implement the
environmental objectives of the proposed LUCE Update. A reduction in development in the proposed specific plan areas
would be inconsistent with the objective to protect the environment within a compact urban form because developing
the specific plan areas at densities that are substantially less than their capacity could promote additional development in
other areas, such as unincorporated areas adjacent to the city. A reduction in development in the proposed special
planning areas would have the potential to reduce environmental impacts, however decreased development those areas
would not fully achieve the Land Use Element Update objective of promoting infill development. Reduced residential and
non‐residential density could be inconsistent with the implementation of State‐mandated planning requirements, such as
the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 375. This bill provides a mechanism for more sustainable and efficiently‐planned
transportation infrastructure, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved compatibility with land uses. A
substantial reduction in future development density may impede the attainment of requirements to provide
transportation‐oriented development, would not respond to this State planning requirement, and would be inconsistent
with the Land Use Element objective of incorporating sustainable practices into the Land Use Element.
The Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative would provide three street system modifications not included in the
proposed Circulation Element Update impact analysis. This alternative would generally result in environmental impacts
that are similar to the proposed Project, but would have fewer air quality, greenhouse gas emission, and traffic impacts
due to more free –flowing traffic circulation conditions. This alternative would also have the potential to result in
increased cultural resource and noise impacts along portions of one of the alternative roadway system projects; however,
it is likely that those impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of appropriate
design and other mitigation measures. The Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative would result in substantial
and area‐wide environmental benefits and would not impede the implementation of proposed Land Use and Circulation
Element Update objectives. As stipulated under CEQA Guidelines §§15126.6(e), an EIR must evaluate the environmental
effects of project (or plan) alternatives, compare these effects to those of the proposed project, and identify the
environmentally superior alternative. Based on the reasons discussed above,Therefore, the Maximum Circulation
Improvements Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project that fulfills the
basic objectives of the proposed LUCE Update.
PC 2-20
Attachment 1
Page ES‐10 Final EIR
ES.5 Incorporation of Studies, Reports and Other Documents
This EIR contains references to studies, reports and other documents that were used as a basis for, or a source of,
information summarized in the body of the EIR. These documents are incorporated by reference in this EIR in accordance
with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. Where a study, report or document is briefly cited or referred to for
convenience in the body of this EIR, the reader should consult the “References and Preparers” section of this document
for the full citation. It is important to note that the bulk of the references used for this EIR are pulled forward from
Appendix D, Background Report (Volume III of this EIR).
ES.6 Areas of Public Controversy
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15123(b)(2), this EIR acknowledges the areas of controversy and issues to be
resolved which are known to the City of San Luis Obispo or were raised during the scoping process. No areas of
substantial controversy were raised in response to the Notice of Preparation that was circulated Thursday, December 5,
2013 with a required comment period originally set to end on Friday, January 10, 2014, but extended by the City until
Friday, January 24, 2014. However, the City received comments letters identifying a number of issues of concern in
response to the NOP and the public scoping meeting held in association with the regularly scheduled Planning
Commission on Wednesday, January 8, 2014.
As a result of the publishing of the NOP and the City’s outreach to the public and regulatory agencies, the City received
valuable input on the contents of the proposed EIR (please refer to Appendix E, Volume IV, of this EIR for a copy of all NOP
comments received and associated responses). This includes:
Regulatory Agency Comments
APCD: General comments concerning the responsibility for future development under the LUCE Update to ensure the
proper construction and operational permits are received prior to development, and the necessary environmental
information is provided that will be needed for the APCD to make determinations on impacts resulting from potential
future development.
CalTrans: General comments concerning the responsibility to work with the Airport Land Use Commission on the
development of the LUCE Update, and the requirements to provide adequate environmental analysis for future projects
within the Airport Land Use Plan area.
ALUC: Comments concerning project consistency with the ALUP, recommendations for environmental issue areas that
should be addressed through the EIR process, a needs assessment for residential growth, and analysis of a limited growth
EIR alternative.
Other Agencies/Offices
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce: Comments concerning a need to focus on the City’s jobs/housing balance and
recommendations for land use amendments to specific areas in the city related to increased residential development
opportunities. This includes general comments regarding the need for increased housing. No comments on the nature of
the environmental impact analysis.
Public Comments
General comments include area‐specific concerns regarding various environmental issues effecting current city residents
and a general concern over the existing state of the city’s environmental resources. General concern about circulation
changes to the South Broad Street Area and concern regarding including impacts related to diverting collector traffic onto
residential streets. Comments also include a request for a complete impact assessment of a future extension of Prado
Road and an assessment of impacts relating to the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Redevelopment project as well as
the potential Johnson Avenue development project on SLCUSD property. Comments also include general
recommendations on development within the identified Specific Plan Areas.
PC 2-21
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐11
Table ES‐1. Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance After
Mitigation
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Class I: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Air Quality
Impact AQ‐2 (Long‐Term)
Implementation of the LUCE
Update would involve operation
of development projects that
generate long‐term emissions of
criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors. Implementation of
the LUCE Update would not
result in the exposure of
sensitive receptors to substantial
sources of local carbon
monoxide concentrations, odors,
or TACs. However, with regards
to criteria air pollutants and
precursors implementation of
the LUCE Update would not be
consistent with the assumptions
contained in the most recent
version of the APCD’s Clean Air
Plan even with the incorporation
of the proposed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies.
Thus, long‐term air quality
impacts are considered Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
With regards to criteria air pollutants and
precursors implementation of the LUCE Update
would not be consistent with the assumptions
contained in the most recent version of the APCD’s
Clean Air Plan even with the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City
policies. Thus, long‐term air quality impacts are
considered Class I, significant and unavoidable.
APCD states that a Class 1 can be determined from
a qualitative analysis.
Significant and unavoidable.
Land Use
Impact LU‐1
The proposed LUCE Update
would have the potential to
conflict with an applicable land
use plan of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. With the
implementation of proposed
LUCE Update policies, potential
land use conflict impacts are
considered to be a Class I,
significant and unavoidable
impact.
No mitigation measures have been identified to
reduce potential inconsistencies with the existing
ALUP to a less than significant level.
The proposed Project has the
potential to be found inconsistent
with the existing ALUP by the
Airport Land Use Commission.
While physical environmental
impacts of safety and noise have
not been identified for the LUCE
update from existing or future
airport operations as described in
the adopted Airport Master Plan,
development envisioned in the
proposed Project presents a
conflict with the ALUP.
PC 2-22
Attachment 1
Page ES‐12 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Noise
Impact N‐1
Short‐Term Construction Noise
Levels. Implementation of
development projects under the
proposed LUCE Update would
involve construction that could
generate noise levels that exceed
applicable standards for mobile
construction equipment in the
City’s Noise Control Ordinance
and result in temporary
substantial increases in noise
levels primarily from the use of
heavy‐duty construction
equipment (see thresholds a and
c). Even with the incorporation
of the proposed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies,
short‐term construction noise
levels are considered Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
Enforcement of the Noise Element and noise
control ordinance with respect to the existing
practice that accommodates infill construction
activity during the currently allowed hours of 7 AM
to 7 PM would reduce impacts to the extent
feasible.
With the implementation of
feasible construction noise
reduction measures and
exemptions, construction activities
could still exceed applicable
standards especially if activities are
near existing receptors and/or
occur during the nighttime. Thus,
short‐term construction noise
levels are considered Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
Traffic And Circulation
Impact CIR‐1
Development and street network
changes under the LUCE Update
will cause roadways currently
operating at LOS D or better to
deteriorate to LOS E or F, in
downtown San Luis Obispo,
roadways operating at LOS E or
better will deteriorate to LOS F,
or will add additional traffic to
roadways operating at LOS E
(outside of downtown) or F (in
downtown). This is considered a
Class I, significant and
unavoidable impact.
As future development under the LUCE Update is
proposed, the City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General Plan and the
policies/programs listed above. However, with the
incorporation of the Proposed Project, adherence
to proposed and existing City policies and programs
discussed above, and continued support of
Caltrans’, and SLOCOG’s and SLORTA’s efforts to
address demand on US 101 in the vicinity of San
Luis Obispo, these mitigation measures would not
mitigate the impacts and widening to 6‐lanes is not
feasible.
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies would not fully
mitigate the impact, so the impact
would remain potentially
significant and unavoidable.
Impact CIR‐2
Development and street network
changes under the LUCE Update
will cause intersections currently
operating at LOS D or better to
deteriorate to LOS E or F, in
downtown San Luis Obispo,
intersections operating at LOS E
or better will deteriorate to LOS
The following mitigation measures would be
options to mitigate impacts for these intersections
to meet the LOS standard. It should be noted that
installing a signal to mitigate an LOS impact would
be contingent on the intersection meeting signal
warrants per the MUTCD under future year
conditions. However, the decision to install a traffic
signal should not be based solely upon a single
warrant. Delay, congestion, driver confusion, future
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies and reliance on
establishment of project‐specific
mitigation measures where
appropriate would reduce
potential impacts to a less than
significant level. However, many of
the proposed mitigations are
infeasible due to right‐of‐way or
PC 2-23
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐13
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
F, or will add additional traffic to
intersections operating at LOS E
(outside of downtown) or F (in
downtown). Impact is considered
to be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
land use or other evidence for right of way
assignment beyond that provided by stop controls
must be demonstrated. The City will adhere to
Caltrans’ process for intersection control
evaluation.
CIR‐1. Grand & Slack (#8)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
CIR‐2. California & Taft (#12)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
CIR‐3. Grand & US 101 SB on‐ramp (#13)
Install dedicated WB right‐turn lane.
CIR‐4. San Luis & California (#55)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
CIR‐5. Higuera & Tank Farm (#85)
Add NB right‐turn lane, WB dual right‐turn lanes,
two‐way left‐turn lane on Tank Farm between
Higuera and Long.
CIR‐6. Broad & High (#89)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
Augment bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐7 Broad & Rockview (#94)
Install downstream signal at Broad & Capitolio.
Augment bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐8. Broad & Capitolio (#95)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
Augment bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐9. Johnson & Orcutt (#96)
Install roundabout.
CIR‐10. Broad & Tank Farm (#98)
Establish time‐of‐day timing plans.
Add SB dual left‐turn lane, NB dedicated right‐turn
lane and WB dedicated right‐turn lane.
Augment Bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐11. Broad & Airport (#102)
Install TWLTL north of intersection.
Augment Bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
funding constraints. Therefore, the
impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
PC 2-24
Attachment 1
Page ES‐14 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Impact CIR‐3
Development under the LUCE
Update will increase traffic on
freeway facilities. Impact is
considered to be Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
As future development under the LUCE Update is
proposed, the City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General Plan and the
policies/programs listed above. However, with the
incorporation of the Proposed Project, adherence
to proposed and existing City policies and programs
discussed above, and continued support of
Caltrans’ and, SLOCOG’s and SLORTA’s efforts to
address demand on US 101 in the vicinity of San
Luis Obispo, these mitigation measures would not
mitigate the impacts and widening to 6‐lanes is not
feasible.
Given that there are no feasible
mitigation measures under the
City’s purview apart from
implementation of the Proposed
Project policies and programs, or
no enforceable plan or program
that is sufficiently tied to the actual
mitigation of the traffic impacts at
issue, this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
Table ES‐2. Summary of Significant but Mitigable Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance After Mitigation
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Class II: Significant but Mitigable Impacts
Agricultural Resources
Impact AG‐2
Future development in
accordance with the LUCE Update
could occur on prime farmland,
unique farmland, and/or
farmland of statewide
importance. Buildout within the
City Limits would result in Class II,
significant but mitigable impacts
to agricultural conversion.
In order to ensure that prime farmland is
protected upon implementation of the
proposed LUCE Update, the following LUCE
Update policy edits shall be required:
AG‐1 1.7.1 Open Space Protection
Within the City's planning area and outside the
urban reserve line, undeveloped land should be
kept open. Prime agricultural land, productive
agricultural land, and potentially productive
agricultural land should/shall be protected for
farming. Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife habitat,
and undeveloped prime agricultural land
should/shall be permanently protected as open
space.
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies and reliance on
establishment of project‐specific
mitigation measures where
appropriate would reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
PC 2-25
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐15
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Air Quality
Impact AQ‐1 (Short‐Term)
Implementation of the LUCE
Update would involve
construction of development
projects that generate short‐term
emissions of criteria air pollutants
and ozone precursors. Emissions
from individual construction
projects could exceed APCD’s
project‐level significance
thresholds. Thus,
implementation of the LUCE
Update could result in
construction‐generated emissions
that violate or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation,
contribute a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
criteria air pollutants for which
the region is designated as non‐
attainment, and/or expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
Adherence to relevant policies
and implementation of APCD‐
recommended project‐specific
mitigation measures would
reduce potential short‐term
impacts to a less‐than‐significant
level. Thus, construction‐
generated air quality impacts are
considered Class II, significant but
mitigable.
APCD specifies construction mitigation
measures designed to reduce emissions of ROG,
NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 (both fugitive and
exhaust). These include standard mitigation
measures, best available control technology
(BACT), and construction activity management
plan (CAMP) and off‐site mitigation for
construction equipment emissions; along with
short and expanded lists for fugitive dust
emissions.
The City shall ensure the implementation of the
most current APCD‐recommended construction
mitigation measures to reduce construction‐
generated emissions to less‐significant levels as
defined by APCD.
Individual development would be
required to undergo separate
environmental review, which may
result in specific impacts that require
project specific mitigation consistent
with the most current APCD‐
recommended construction
mitigation measures. As stated in
APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, if
estimated construction emissions are
expected to exceed either of the
APCD Quarterly Tier 2 thresholds of
significance after the standard and
BACT measures are accounted for,
then an APCD approved CAMP and
off‐site mitigation would need to be
implemented to reduce air quality
impacts to a less‐than‐significant
level. In addition, all fugitive dust
sources shall be managed to ensure
adequate control below 20% opacity
as identified by Rule 401, for which
compliance is required by law.
Adherence to relevant policies and
implementation of APCD‐
recommended project‐specific
mitigation measures would reduce
potential impacts to a less‐than‐
significant level. Thus, construction‐
generated air quality impacts are
considered Class II, significant but
mitigable.
PC 2-26
Attachment 1
Page ES‐16 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Cultural Resources
Impact CR‐1
Development allowed by the
LUCE update could cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or
eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the
California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of
historic resources. This impact is
considered to be Class II,
significant but mitigable.
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update
could adversely affect historical resources. In
order to better facilitate the protection of the
city’s historical resources and reduce potential
impacts to less than significant levels, the
following changes to the City’s General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element
policies/programs shall be required:
CR‐1 3.3.2 Demolitions
Historically or architecturally significant
buildings should shall not be demolished or
substantially changed in outward appearance,
unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat
to health and safety and other means to
eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable
levels are infeasible.
CR‐2 3.3.5
Historic districts and neighborhoods. In
evaluating new public or private development,
the City should shall identify and protect
neighborhoods or districts having historical
character due to the collective effect of
Contributing or Master List historic properties.
CR‐3 3.5.10 Southern Pacific Water Tower
The historic Southern Pacific Water Tower and
adjoining City‐owned land should shall be
maintained as open space or parkland.
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies, reliance on
establishment of project‐specific
mitigation measures where
appropriate, and incorporation of the
required policy/program language
changes will reduce potential impacts
to a less than significant level.
Public Services
Impact PS‐1
Buildout of the proposed Land
Use Element would increase the
demand for fire protection
services by increasing population
and the number of structures in
the city. This is a Class II,
potentially significant but
mitigable impact.
The following policy shall be added to the
proposed Land Use Element prior to adoption:
PS‐1 New Policy
Development should shall be approved only
when adequate fire suppression services and
facilities are available or will be made available
concurrent with development, considering the
setting, type, intensity, and form of the
proposed development.
Implementation of the proposed
mitigation measure and Land Use
Element policy would require the
development of a new fire station in
the southern portion of the city prior
to or in conjunction with the
development of the Avila Ranch
Specific Plan. The construction and
operation of a new fire station would
be required to comply with applicable
regulatory requirements, City
development review policies and
requirements, and may be subject to
the implementation of additional
mitigation measures identified by a
project‐specific environmental
review. With the implementation of
PC 2-27
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐17
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
the proposed mitigation measure and
existing development review
requirements, the proposed Land Use
Element Update would result in less
than significant adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or altered facilities needed to
achieve consistency with the City’s
fire response standard.
Table ES‐3. Less Than Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance After Mitigation
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Class III: Less Than Significant Impacts
Aesthetics
Impact AES‐1
Development under the LUCE Update would introduce new
development along viewing corridors and scenic roadways,
including state scenic highways, in the San Luis Obispo area. This
could have a substantial adverse effect on scenic resources or an
identified visual resource or scenic vista from a public viewing
area. With the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies, potential impacts to such views
are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact AES‐2
The LUCE Update emphasizes both reuse of existing urbanized
lands, infill development on vacant parcels, and new
development on vacant parcels near urban areas. The
development of such areas could degrade the existing visual
character and its surroundings. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update and existing City policies and programs,
potential impacts related to existing visual character changes are
considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact AES‐3
Proposed development in accordance with the LUCE Update
would introduce new sources of light and glare. However,
adherence to policies included in the Zoning Ordinance and
Community Design Guidelines would reduce potential impacts to
a Class III, less than significant, level.
None required. Less than significant.
PC 2-28
Attachment 1
Page ES‐18 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Agricultural Resources
Impact AG‐1
The LUCE Update could alter the existing land use and zoning on
sites throughout the city and may result in incompatibilities with
adjacent urban and agricultural uses. However, the General Plan
reduces land use conflicts through policies and plan review.
Therefore, impacts that would occur from development would be
Class III, less than significant.
None required Less than significant.
Biological Resources
Impact BIO‐1
Development under the LUCE Update has potential to impact
common habitat types including non‐native annual grasslands
and disturbed/ruderal areas that provide habitat for common
wildlife and plant species. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing governing policies,
potential impacts to these common habitats are considered Class
III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact BIO‐2
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to
impact four Natural Communities of Special Concern present
within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea including Serpentine
Bunchgrass, Northern Interior Cypress Stand, Central Maritime
Chaparral, and Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh. With the
incorporation of the proposed and existing City policies, and the
requirements of regulatory and oversight agencies, potential
impacts to sensitive habitats are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant
Impact BIO‐3
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has the potential
to impact special‐status plant species within the LUCE SOI
Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed and
existing City policies, and the requirements of regulatory and
oversight agencies, potential impacts to special‐status plant
species are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact BIO‐4
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to
impact special‐status wildlife species within the LUCE SOI
Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed and
existing City policies, and the requirements of regulatory and
oversight agencies, potential impacts to special‐status wildlife
species are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
PC 2-29
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐19
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact BIO‐5
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to
impact common wildlife species and species of local concern
within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of
the proposed and existing City policies, and the requirements of
regulatory and oversight agencies, potential impacts to common
and species of local concern are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Cultural Resources
Impact CR‐2
Development facilitated by Land Use and Circulation Element
Update could adversely affect identified and previously
unidentified archaeological and paleontological resources. This
includes potential disturbance of human remains. General Plan
policies would ensure that such impacts are addressed on a case‐
by‐case basis. Impacts would be considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO‐1
New development under the LUCE Update could be susceptible to
impacts from future seismic events, creating the potential for
structural damage or health and safety risks. However,
compliance with required building codes and implementation of
General Plan polices would result in a Class III, less than
significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact GEO‐2
Future seismic events could result in liquefaction of soils near San
Luis Obispo Creek, Prefumo Creek and other low‐lying areas.
Development in these areas could be subject to liquefaction
hazards. The compliance of future development projects with the
California Building Code (CBC) and General Plan policies would
result in Class III, less than significant impacts.
None required.
Less than significant.
PC 2-30
Attachment 1
Page ES‐20 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact GEO‐3
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could occur on soils
that have the potential to present natural hazards (expansive
soils, erosive soils, and differential settlement) to structures and
roadways. Development could also result in the loss of a unique
geologic feature. However, compliance of future development
projects with the California Building Code and adopted General
Plan policies would ensure that resulting impacts are Class III, less
than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact GEO‐4
Steep slopes outside of the existing city limits present potential
on‐ or off‐site landslide hazards. In addition to human safety
impacts, a landslide has the potential to damage or destroy
structures, roadways and other improvements as well as to
deflect and block drainage channels, causing further damage and
erosion, including loss of topsoil. The compliance of future
development projects with the California Building Code (CBC) and
General Plan policies would result in Class III, less than significant
impacts.
None required. Less than significant.
Global Climate Change
Impact GCC‐1
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update could result in an
increase in GHG emissions due to short‐term construction and
long‐term operational activities associated with new housing and
commercial development, resulting in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the impact of global climate change.
However, because the proposed LUCE Update would be
consistent with the City’s CAP and incorporates applicable CAP
policies and programs that would reduce GHG emissions, this
impact would be considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ‐1
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could occur near
known hazardous material users or result in construction in areas
with existing hazardous materials. Implementation of the LUCE
Update could expose individuals to health risks due to
soil/groundwater contamination or emission of hazardous
materials into the air and could impact an adopted emergency
response/evacuation plan. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City policies,
potential impacts are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐2
Development consistent with the proposed LUCE Update could
introduce incompatible residential and commercial land uses into
safety zones established through the Airport Land Use Plan and
may result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
these areas. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
PC 2-31
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐21
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact HAZ‐3
Development consistent with the proposed LUCE Update would
introduce residential land uses into areas designated as having a
Moderate or High Wildland Fire Hazard, introducing the potential
to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss and/or
injury. However, compliance with existing policies and state and
local regulations would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than
significant level.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐4
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could introduce
sensitive receptors to additional hazards related to exposure to
radiation, electromagnetic fields and hazardous trees. With the
incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing
City policies, potential impacts are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐5
Development under the proposed LUCE Update could potentially
introduce sensitive receptors to areas in direct proximity to
hazardous materials transportation corridors including the Union
Pacific Railroad and Highway 101 and could potentially create a
public safety hazard. This is a Class III, less than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HWQ‐1
New development under the LUCE Update within the 100‐year
flood plain could be subject to flooding and have the potential to
impede or redirect flood flows. However, with implementation of
General Plan policies and adherence to the City’s Floodplain
Management Regulation impacts related to flooding would be
Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact HWQ‐2
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update has the potential to
increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the city. This
could result in a decrease in percolation to the Groundwater
Basin, the alteration of drainage patterns and increases in the
volume of surface runoff. Compliance with the City’s Stormwater
Management Plan (SWMP) would reduce impacts to a Class III,
less than significant level.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact HWQ‐3
Point and non‐point sources of contamination could affect water
quality in San Luis Obispo Creek, Prefumo Creek as well as other
surface waters and groundwater in the city. However,
compliance with existing regulations and implementation of
General Plan policies and the City’s Stormwater Management
Plan (SWMP) would result in Class III, less than significant
impacts.
None required. Less than significant.
PC 2-32
Attachment 1
Page ES‐22 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact HWQ‐4
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update has the potential to
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems,
resulting in increased stormwater runoff and has the potential to
result in the need for additional stormwater infrastructure.
Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP), and State regulatory requirements, would reduce
impacts to a Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Land Use
Impact LU‐1
Aspects of the proposed LUCE Update would conflict with the
airport land use plan. However, with the implementation of
proposed LUCE Update policies, potential land use conflict
impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
No mitigation measures are
required because impacts
would be less than significant.
The proposed Project
includes policies and
programs that would
ensure the orderly
expansion of the airport
and provide adequate
protection for safety and
noise. Impacts would be
less than significant
without mitigation..
Impact LU‐2
The proposed LUCE Update would have the potential to result in
land use conflicts between existing and proposed land uses. With
the implementation of proposed LUCE Update policies, potential
land use conflict impacts are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact LU‐3
The proposed Land Use Element Update would result in conflicts
with applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community
conservation plans. With the implementation of proposed LUCE
Update policies, potential plan and policy conflict impacts are
considered Class III, less than significant.
None required.
Less than significant.
Impact LU‐3
The proposed Circulation Element Update identifies future
roadway improvements that would have the potential to result in
a significant impact if the improvements would physically divide
an established community. This impact is considered Class III, less
than significant.
None required.
Less than significant.
Noise
Impact N‐2
Long‐Term Roadway and Railroad Traffic Noise Levels
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update would increase
traffic volumes and associated noise levels along major
transportation routes. In some instances, traffic‐related noise
increases could be more than 3 dB, the level typically audible to
the human ear and; therefore, considered a substantial increase
in noise.
New development associated with the proposed LUCE Update
None required. Less than significant.
PC 2-33
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐23
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
could also result in the siting of new sensitive receptors in close
proximity to transportation noise sources such as the railroad,
with potential to exceed the land use compatibility and
transportation noise exposure standards in the existing Noise
Element. However, because the City’s Noise Element contains
policies and programs that would address and mitigate potential
site‐specific impacts for individual projects in the future, this
impact would be considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact N‐3
Exposure of Noise Sensitive Receptors to Stationary Sources.
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update could increase
stationary source noise levels from new development. New
development associated with the proposed LUCE Update could
also result in the siting of new sensitive receptors in close
proximity to these source types, with potential to exceed the land
use compatibility and stationary noise exposure standards in the
existing Noise Element. However, because the City’s Noise
Element contains policies and programs that would address and
mitigate potential site‐specific impacts for individual projects in
the future, this impact would be considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact N‐4
Airport Noise Exposure. Implementation of the proposed LUCE
Update would result in the designation of noise‐sensitive land
uses located within or near the 55 dBA and 60 dBA noise contours
of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan.
This could result in exposure of people to excessive noise levels.
However, with the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update
policies that address airport noise compatibility and consistency
with the adopted ALUP, this impact would be considered Class III,
less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact N‐5
Exposure to Excessive Vibration Levels. Implementation of the
proposed LUCE Update could increase exposure to vibration
levels. However, because the City’s ordinance contains and that
these sources (existing and proposed) would be anticipated to be
minor, this impact would be considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Population and Housing
Impact PH‐1
The LUCE Update would not result in residential unit
development or associated population growth that exceeds an
adopted average annual growth rate threshold. Potential
population and housing impacts are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required.
Less than significant.
PC 2-34
Attachment 1
Page ES‐24 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact PH‐2
The LUCE Update would not result in a substantial displacement
of residents or existing housing units. This impact is considered
Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Public Services
Impact PS‐2
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element Update would
increase the demand for police protection services by increasing
population and development in the city. This is a Class III, less
than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact PS‐3
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element Update would
increase enrollment in public schools by increasing the population
of the city. This is a Class III, less than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
PC 2-35
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐25
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Recreation
Impact REC‐1
Buildout of the proposed LUCE Update would increase the
population of the city and would facilitate the development of
additional parkland. Buildout of the proposed LUCE Update
would result in a small increase in total per capita parkland in the
city when compared to existing conditions. Although the LUCE
Update would not comply with the City’s per capita parkland
standard, this would not result in a physical effect. Therefore the
LUCE Update would result in a Class III, less than significant
environmental impact related to the increased use of existing
park and recreation facilities.
The proposed LUCE Update
would result in less than
significant recreation‐related
environmental impacts and
no mitigation measures are
required. Although the LUCE
Update would result in less
than significant
environmental impacts
related to the provision of
parkland in the city, the
existing condition where the
City’s per capita parkland
standard is not achieved
would continue to exist. The
City’s per capita parkland
ratio goal is intended to meet
the community’s desire for
increased recreational
opportunities, and is not
considered to be a policy
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
Therefore the identified
inconsistency is not
considered to be a significant
environmental impact and no
mitigation is required.
Recommendations to address
the City’s goals for meeting
the per capita parkland ratio
include, but are not limited
to, the following additions to
the Parks and Recreation
Element:
Development may be
required to fund or dedicate
parkland greater than what is
required through the Quimby
Act in order to meet the
community’s needs and goals
for parkland.
The City shall pursue a gift of
Cuesta Park from the County
to the City as part of the City’s
parkland system.
Less than significant.
PC 2-36
Attachment 1
Page ES‐26 Final EIR
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Impact REC‐2
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element would potentially
provide up to 52.4 acres of new park facilities in the city. The
construction and use of the proposed parks would have the
potential to result in significant environmental impacts. This is
considered a Class III impact, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Traffic and Circulation
Impact CIR‐4
Development under the LUCE Update may increase traffic
volumes or traffic speed in designated neighborhood traffic
management areas. Impact is considered to be Class III, less than
significant.
As future development under
the LUCE Update is proposed,
the City will be required to
ensure consistency with the
General Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐5
Development under the LUCE Update may encourage increased
heavy vehicle traffic on non‐designated truck routes. Impact is
considered to be Class III, less than significant.
As development under the
LUCE Update is proposed, the
City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General
Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐6
Development under the LUCE Update will cause increased activity
at San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport that may lead to
changes in traffic volumes or traffic patterns that result in
deteriorated safety conditions. Impact is considered to be Class
III, less than significant.
As development under the
LUCE Update is proposed, the
City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General
Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐7
Development and street network changes and adoption of the
policies and programs under the LUCE Update would not conflict
with adopted policies that are supportive of increased active
transportation. Impact is considered to be Class III, less than
significant.
The LUCE Update significantly
strengthens the City’s policies
on active transportation
which will lead to reduced
traffic congestion and a
healthier population.
Therefore, no mitigation
measures are required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐8
Development and adoption of the policies and programs under
the LUCE Update would not conflict with adopted policies that
are supportive of increased transit ridership and provision of
services. Impact is considered to be Class III, less than significant.
As future development under
the LUCE Update is proposed,
the City will be required to
ensure consistency with the
General Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
PC 2-37
Attachment 1
Final EIR Page ES‐27
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After
Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact USS‐1
New development that could occur as a result of the proposed
LUCE Update would increase existing water demand. This is a
Class III, less than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact USS‐2
New development that could occur as a result of the LUCE Update
would generate wastewater flows that exceed the existing
capacity of the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility. This is a
Class III, less than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact USS‐3
New development that could be facilitated by the LUCE Update
would require the construction of new water and wastewater
infrastructure or the replacement of existing infrastructure. The
construction or replacement of infrastructure has the potential to
result in significant environmental effects. This is a Class III, less
than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
Impact USS‐4
New development that could be facilitated by the LUCE Update
would increase the demand for solid waste disposal at county
landfills. Potential new development would also comply with
applicable regulations related to the management of solid waste.
As such, solid waste disposal impacts of the LUCE Update are
Class III, less than significant impact.
None required. Less than significant.
PC 2-38
Attachment 1
Page ES‐28 Final EIR
Please see the next page.
PC 2-39
Attachment 1
1
Land Use Element Policy Input
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 1
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-1 Cal Poly Chapter
1 (LUE) 1.12.3
Rationale for
annexation of Cal Poly
should be stated.
New policy 1.12.3 directs the City to
analyze the costs/benefits to annexing
Cal Poly. No changes proposed by
staff.
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 2
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P12-4 Kovesdi Chapter
2 (LUE) 2.2.7
Comment
recommended adding
"protect in kind" or
"create in kind habitat
off site"
Not recommended for addition to this
policy which directs residential
developments to preserve and
incorporate natural features.
P12-5 Kovesdi Chapter
2 (LUE)
2.2.9
G(b)
Comment
recommended adding
"healthy and native" to
policy that directs new
development to
maintain mature trees
on site.
Not recommended for addition to this
policy. The policy already has
provisions for "feasibility" that would
address concerns about restoration
projects and non-native trees.
P13-
15 Lopes Chapter
2 (LUE) 2.2.9
Concern that criteria
defining “compatible
development” may
encourage increased
density and zone
changes in
neighborhoods.
Recommend policy updates as follows:
2.2.9 Compatible Development…..All
multifamily development and large
group-living facilities shall be
compatible with any nearby, lower
density development. Compatibility
for all development shall be evaluated
using the following criteria:...H.
Housing Diversity. A mix of housing
types, and a range of density within a
neighborhood an area is generally
desirable (see also Policy 2.1.6)
PC 2-40
Attachment 2
2
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 3
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-5 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (LUE) 3.5.7.8
Wants additional
language to reflect OS
areas are acquired and
maintained for use of
residents and tourism
programs are not to
include national
marketing of City OS
areas.
The areas impacted by overuse are
popular areas for both tourists and
residents and should be addressed by
specific actions to address each
situation. Survey currently underway
to develop profile of open space users
to better understand demographics.
No change to program proposed.
P2-6 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (LUE)
3.5.7.1
2
Requests removing
specific reference to
Economic
Development Strategic
Plan (EDSP)
EDSP went through public process (4
workshops and hearings) and
incorporates city policies for
development’s responsibility to bear
cost of facilities and services required
to serve it. Removing specific
reference to EDSP in this program will
not remove Council direction to
implement it.
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 6
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-7 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.4.5
Request to replace
“encourage” with
“require” for rainwater
percolation from roof-
hardscape areas.
P2-8 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.4.6
Request to replace
“encourage” with
“require” for project
designs that minimize
drainage
concentrations.
P2-9 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.5.1
Request to restore
deleted language
specifying approaches
to flood protection.
Not recommended to specify
particular approaches that may no
longer meet FEMA or Stormwater
regulations. Broader policy language
to support flood plain standards is
appropriate.
PC 2-41
Attachment 2
3
Policy input
Land Use Element Chapter 8
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-2 Cal Poly Chapter
8 (LUE)
8.3.3.1
3
CalFire /Cal Poly site
shows up in Cal Poly
Master Plan as
designated for Faculty
and Staff housing.
Update Plan to show
this designation.
Update policy to state, "The Cal Poly
Master Plan currently designates this
area for Faculty and Staff housing.
The City shall collaborate….."
A6-7 SLOCOG Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.3.8
Executive summary
mentions need to
reflect Homeless
Center use of
Prado/Sunset Drive-in
Site but doesn’t
mention RTA new
facility at this location.
Policy 8.3.3.8 includes reference to
both Homeless Services center and
transportation agency use. Staff
recommends retaining Office
designation for this portion of the site
to ensure LUCE update does not
create non-conforming use.
P2-10 Sierra Club Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.2.6
Delete provision for
meeting a portion of
open space
requirement off-site
Task Force generated this concept and
it was carried through PC and CC.
P16-
13
Mila
Vujovich-
LaBarre
Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.2.4
San Luis Ranch should
be retained for
agriculture.
Policy in LUCE provides for
development consistent with current
policy direction to retain 50% open
space/ag.
P16-
16
Mila
Vujovich-
LaBarre
Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.3.1
Need access for
pedestrians and bikes
across Santa Rosa
This circulation alternative is part of
the LUCE but wasn’t explicit in the
land use policy direction for this site.
Recommend clarifying policy
direction:
“Redevelopment plans shall include
consideration of improving the
existing complex intersections of
Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability
of modifying Boysen at and through
the property on the northeast corner
of the area, and enhancement of
pedestrian, bicycle and transit
connections across Foothill and Santa
Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus.”
PC 2-42
Attachment 2
4
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 9
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy # Input Policy Response
P2-11 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (LUE) 9.3.7D
Request to expand
policy supporting grey
water systems to
include a builder
incentive program to
build new homes with
an onsite water
recycling system
included.
In 2009 the state amended the grey
water regulations to make it easier to
install a “simple” system which uses
washing machine water only and
doesn’t require a permit to install. A
full home recycling grey water system
is supposed to be designed to match
the output of the house which
includes the number of occupants and
size of the landscape and it is illegal to
store grey water. Therefore, while a
house may be plumbed to be grey
water-ready, it could not actually have
an installed system until all the
variables are known. Recommend
policy be updated to state, “Utilize
plumbing fixtures that conserve or
reuse water such as low flow faucets
or grey water systems, and encourage
new homes to be constructed to be
grey water ready.”
P5-3 DiGangi Chapter
9 (LUE)
No
specific
policies
Add electric vehicle
charging stations to
residential
developments.
Add incentives to
development that
incorporate features
that off-set
operational energy
use.
Incorporate
requirements for
buildings to be solar-
ready.
Add these as examples to draft
programs:
“Incentive Program: The City shall
consider the feasibility of providing
incentives for new and renovated
projects that incorporate sustainable
design features such as constructing
new buildings that are solar ready, or
off-setting significant operational
energy use through use of solar water
heating, photovoltaic systems,
geothermal or wind energy systems.”
“Building Code Update: The City shall
regularly review and update its
building code and ordinances to
identify revisions to promote energy
efficient building design and
construction practices, for example by
including requirements for electric
PC 2-43
Attachment 2
5
vehicle charging stations for new
residential developments.”
P5-3 DiGangi Chapter
9 (LUE) 9.3.7 G
Add “trees” in
addition to building
elements to address
Solar Shade Act.
Public Resources Code contains
provisions that restrict height of
vegetation on properties adjoining
properties with solar collectors. Prior
notice is required and local ordinance
may modify or opt not to apply PRC
code. If Commission is interested in
including this concept, staff
recommends adding a new program in
Chapter 9 that directs the City to
explore local conditions to support the
Solar Shade Act as reflected in PRC
25980-25986.
PC 2-44
Attachment 2
6
Circulation Element Policy Input
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 1
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-12 Sierra Club Chapter
1 (CE) 1.9 1A Request to expand
language in objective.
Support updated language for
objective 1.9: A.
“The City will continue to support the
use and development of compressed
natural gas and biodiesel fueling
stations, EV recharging stations, and
other alternative fuel stations in the
San Luis Obispo area.”
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 2
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-3 Cal Poly Chapter
2 (CE) 2.1.4 Request to expand
language.
Support updated language, “The City
shall continue to work with Cal Poly,
Cuesta College and other…..”
P2-13 Sierra Club Chapter
2 (CE) 2.1.3
Request to restore text
requiring mandatory
trip reduction.
Per SB 437 (Lewis), the language was
removed because it is inconsistent
with current State law (code 40717.9
in Health and Safety regulations).
Replacement text emphasizes
commuter benefit options instead.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 3
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A6-
26 SLOCOG Chapter
3 (CE) 3.0.3
Request to edit
language regarding
seniors and persons
with disabilities.
Staff supports. See PH6-6 below for
language.
PC 2-45
Attachment 2
7
P2-14 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (CE) 3.0.6
Request to restore
bullet point directing
frequency of transit
service to compare
favorably to use of
private vehicle.
If Commission wishes to retain
direction regarding transit service
frequency, staff recommends:
“The frequency of City transit service
will not pose a barrier to this mode
choice.”
PH6-
6
Mass Transit
Committee
Chapter
3 (CE)
3.0.3,
3.0.4,
3.1.4
Requests for updated
language.
Supported by staff:
3.03 The City shall continue to support
paratransit service for the elderly and
disabled persons provided seniors and
persons with disabilities by public and
private transportation providers.
3.0.4 Campus Service. The City shall
continue to work with Cal Poly to
maintain and expand the free fare
subsidy program"....
3.1.4 The City shall coordinate with
the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the
cost effectiveness of benefits and
drawbacks of coordinated and
consolidated service.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 4
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-1
and
P15-5
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
4 (CE) 4.1.6
Concern that bikeways
and pedestrian paths in
railroad rights of way
are not compatible due
to security problems
and potential to block
adjacent properties’
access to be served by
rail.
No change to policy or program is
proposed.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 6
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-15 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (CE) 6.0.5 Remove text that
references “fair share”
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
PC 2-46
Attachment 2
8
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 9
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-16 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (CE) 9.0.1
Request to remove
reference to "fair
share" and include
language "as mitigation
for the impacts of
development".
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
P2-17 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (CE) 9.1.6
Request to add
reference to “complete
streets” model.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. This policy addresses
appearance of streets and roads.
Addition of complete streets model,
which is addressing mode share of
right-of-way, is covered in policy 6.0.1.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 12
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-7
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
12 (CE) 12.1.3
Request to remove
policy regarding idling
trains.
No changes to policy are
recommended. Commenter response
to GHG emissions but rails to note the
noise concerns to surrounding
neighborhoods which is main focus of
policy.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 14
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-18 Sierra Club Chapter
14 (CE) New
Request to add new
policy:
14.0.4 Unbundled
parking: The City shall
Schools are superior agencies and City
cannot set policy for them. General
intent of unbundled parking is
accomplished through downtown
PC 2-47
Attachment 2
9
introduce unbundled
parking, congestion
pricing, shared parking,
fair price policies,
positive transportation
demand management
(TDM) and the other
components of an
Intelligent Parking
program for schools
and government
buildings with the goal
of creating a Request
for Proposal process
for full
implementation.
parking in-lieu districts and in zoning
provisions that allow for parking
modifications for projects that include
car-sharing, employer-paid transit
passes, off-peak work hours and/or
trip reduction plans.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 15
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A6-
28 SLOCOG Chapter
15 (CE) 15.0.5
Request to remove
reference to US 101
Aesthetic study
Revise D to read, "Actively
participating in the development and
periodic updates of the Caltrans US
101 Aesthetic Study of San Luis Obispo
County.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 16
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-2
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
16 (CE) 16.0.2
Request to specifically
address freight mobility
as a benefit to regional
congestion.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. Policy 16.0.2 encourages
programs that reduce dependence on
single occupant vehicles and
encourages use of alternative modes
without listing them. Rail is an
alternative mode.
PC 2-48
Attachment 2
10
P2-20 Sierra Club Chapter
16 (CE) 16.1.2
Request to remove
reference to “fair
share”.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
PC 2-49
Attachment 2
MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element Update
Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1.0 Introduction
As of January 1, 1989, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) for projects where mitigation measures are a condition of their approval and development. This MMRP
has been prepared in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15091(d) and
15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which require public agencies to “adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the
revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects.” An MMRP is required for the LUCE Update because the Program EIR prepared for the Project
identified significant adverse environmental impacts that would result from the Project’s implementation, and mitigation
measures have been identified to mitigate or avoid the identified impacts.
2.0 Purpose of the MMRP
This MMRP has been prepared to ensure that all mitigation measures identified by the LUCE Update Final Program EIR are
implemented. The attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting table will assist the responsible parties in implementing
the MMRP. The table lists the environmental impacts identified by the EIR that would result from the implementation of
the LUCE Update; the mitigation measures identified by the EIR; methods to monitor the implementation of the identified
mitigation measures; when the specified monitoring is to occur; and the agency/department responsible for ensuring
compliance with the mitigation measures.
3.0 Roles and Responsibilities
The City of San Luis Obispo is responsible for taking all actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures listed on
the attached table according to the specifications provided for each measure and for demonstrating that the mitigation
measures have been successfully implemented and completed.
4.0 Implementation of The Final Program EIR
The Final Program EIR prepared for the LUCE Update identified mitigation measures that would mitigate or avoid
environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the Project. Those mitigation measures are
identified in the attached table, along with required mitigation measure monitoring and reporting requirements. It is
important to note that Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIR (Minor Edits to the Draft EIR) includes minor modifications to policies
of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. Those suggested policy language modifications are proposed only to
clarify the intent and requirements of the policy language. The policy modifications included in Final EIR Chapter 3.0 are
minor adjustments to the proposed Project and are not required to mitigate or avoid an environmental impact of the
LUCE Update Project. Therefore, the suggested policy modifications included in Final EIR Chapter 3.0 are not listed on the
attached MMRP table.
PC 2-50
Attachment 3
LUCE UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LUCE Update Project
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure
Method(s) to
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation
Timing of
Mitigation
Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
for Monitoring
Impact N‐1. Short‐Term
Construction Noise Levels.
Implementation of development
projects under the proposed
LUCE Update would involve
construction that could generate
noise levels that exceed
applicable standards for mobile
construction equipment in the
City’s Noise Control Ordinance
and result in temporary
substantial increases in noise
levels primarily from the use of
heavy‐duty construction
equipment.
Enforcement of the Noise Element
and noise control ordinance with
respect to the existing practice that
accommodates infill construction
activity during the currently
allowed hours of 7 AM to 7 PM.
Evaluate for
compliance
during
development
review
Monitor during
project
construction
During
development
review
During project
construction
City Staff
City Staff
Impact CIR‐2. Development
and street network changes
under the LUCE Update will cause
intersections currently operating
at LOS D or better to deteriorate
to LOS E or F, in downtown San
Luis Obispo, intersections
operating at LOS E or better will
deteriorate to LOS F, or will add
additional traffic to intersections
operating at LOS E (outside of
downtown) or F (in downtown).
The following mitigation measures
would be options to mitigate
impacts for these intersections to
meet the LOS standard. It should
be noted that installing a signal to
mitigate an LOS impact would be
contingent on the intersection
meeting signal warrants per the
MUTCD under future year
conditions. However, the decision
to install a traffic signal should not
be based solely upon a single
warrant. Delay, congestion, driver
confusion, future land use or other
evidence for right of way
assignment beyond that provided
by stop controls must be
demonstrated. The City will adhere
to Caltrans’ process for
intersection control evaluation.
CIR‐1. Grand & Slack (#8) Install
increased traffic control (traffic
signal or roundabout).
CIR‐2. California & Taft (#12) Install
increased traffic control (traffic
signal or roundabout).
Evaluate for
compliance
during
development
review
City’s Traffic
Operations
Program
During
development
review
Bi-Annually
City Staff
City Staff
PC 2-51
Attachment 3
LUCE UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LUCE Update Project
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure
Method(s) to
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation
Timing of
Mitigation
Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
for Monitoring
CIR‐3. Grand & US 101 SB on‐ramp
(#13) Install dedicated WB right‐
turn lane.
CIR‐4. San Luis & California (#55)
Install increased traffic control
(traffic signal or roundabout).
CIR‐5. Higuera & Tank Farm (#85)
Add NB right‐turn lane, WB dual
right‐turn lanes, two‐way left‐turn
lane on Tank Farm between
Higuera and Long.
CIR‐6. Broad & High (#89) Install
increased traffic control (traffic
signal or roundabout). Augment
bicycle facilities and improve
transit headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐7. Broad & Rockview (#94)
Install downstream signal at Broad
& Capitolio. Augment bicycle
facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐8. Broad & Capitolio (#95)
Install increased traffic control
(traffic signal or roundabout).
Augment bicycle facilities and
improve transit headways on Broad
Street.
CIR‐9. Johnson & Orcutt (#96)
Install roundabout.
CIR‐10. Broad & Tank Farm (#98)
Establish time‐of‐day timing plans.
Add SB dual left‐turn lane, NB
dedicated right‐turn lane and WB
dedicated right‐turn lane. Augment
Bicycle facilities and improve
transit headways on Broad Street.
PC 2-52
Attachment 3
LUCE UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LUCE Update Project
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure
Method(s) to
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation
Timing of
Mitigation
Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
for Monitoring
CIR‐11. Broad & Airport (#102)
Install TWLTL north of intersection.
Augment Bicycle facilities and
improve transit headways on Broad
Street
Impact AG‐2. Future
development in accordance with
the LUCE Update could occur on
prime farmland, unique
farmland, and/or farmland of
statewide importance.
The following LUCE Update policy
edits shall be required:
1.7.1 Open Space Protection.
Within the City's planning area and
outside the urban reserve line,
undeveloped land should be kept
open. Prime agricultural land,
productive agricultural land, and
potentially productive agricultural
land should shall be protected for
farming. Scenic lands, sensitive
wildlife habitat and undeveloped
prime agricultural land should shall
be permanently protected as open
space.
Revise proposed
policy
Prior to final
adoption of
the LUCE
Update
City Staff
Impact AQ‐1 (Short‐Term).
Implementation of the LUCE
Update would involve
construction of development
projects that generate short‐term
emissions of criteria air
pollutants and ozone precursors.
Emissions from individual
construction projects could
exceed APCD’s project‐level
significance thresholds.
The City shall ensure the
implementation of the most
current APCD‐recommended
construction mitigation measures
to reduce construction generated
emissions to less‐significant levels
as defined by APCD.
Evaluate for
compliance
during
development
review
Monitor during
project
construction
During
development
review
During project
construction
City Staff
City Staff
Impact CR‐1. Development
allowed by the LUCE update
could cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either
listed or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic
Places, the California Register of
Historic Resources, or a local
register of historic resources.
The following changes to the City’s
General Plan Conservation and
Open Space Element
policies/programs shall be
required:
3.3.2 Demolitions. Historically or
architecturally significant buildings
should shall not be demolished or
substantially changed in outward
Revise proposed
policy
Prior to final
adoption of
the LUCE
Update
City Staff
PC 2-53
Attachment 3
LUCE UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LUCE Update Project
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure
Method(s) to
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation
Timing of
Mitigation
Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
for Monitoring
appearance, unless doing so is
necessary to remove a threat to
health and safety and other means
to eliminate or reduce the threat to
acceptable levels are infeasible.
3.3.5 Historic districts and
neighborhoods. In evaluating new
public or private development, the
City should shall identify and
protect neighborhoods or districts
having historical character due to
the collective effect of Contributing
or Master List historic properties.
3.5.10 Southern Pacific Water
Tower. The historic Southern
Pacific Water Tower and adjoining
City‐owned land should shall be
maintained as open space or
parkland.
Impact PS‐1. Buildout of the
proposed Land Use Element
would increase the demand for
fire protection services by
increasing population and the
number of structures in the city.
New Policy. Development should
shall be approved only when
adequate fire suppression services
and facilities are available or will be
made available concurrent with
development, considering the
setting, type, intensity, and form of
the proposed development.
Revise proposed
policy
Prior to final
adoption of
the LUCE
Update
City Staff
PC 2-54
Attachment 3
Resolution No. XXXX-14
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY THE FINAL EIR PREPARED FOR THE LUCE UPDATE PROGRAM
(APPLICATION #GPI/ER 15-12)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September
10, 2014, for the purpose of considering the Final EIR prepared for the LUCE Update Program; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the Final EIR for the
LUCE Update Program; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by
law; and
WHEREAS, The Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45-day comment period that
closed on July 29, 2014 and the Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR responded to 25 comment letters offered during the comment period
and found no new impacts or mitigation measures were identified; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final EIR and mitigation
monitoring program prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings in addition to the CEQA findings detailed in Exhibit A:
Findings
1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project.
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
3. For each potentially significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Agricultural
Resources, Cultural Resources and Public Services, the approved mitigation measures contained
in the EIR will avoid or substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental impacts of the
project to a level of insignificance and have been incorporated into the project.
PC 2-55
Attachment 4
Resolution No. XXXX-14
Page 2
4. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, Traffic and Circulation, and Noise sections of
the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all the
identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. However, the Planning Commission finds
that the adverse environmental effects are acceptable and makes a statement of overriding
considerations for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts because:
a. Mitigation strategies identified in the Final EIR and policies and programs contained in
the LUCE update that require compact transit-oriented infill development and improved
multi-modal circulation will help to reduce emissions to the extent feasible.
b. The project will result in increased housing capacity to link housing to employment
opportunities, resulting in reduced commuter trips and therefore reduced vehicle miles
traveled. This will help to reduce emissions in the long term.
c. The LUCE Update includes policies and programs that will improve internal circulation
within the City, such as north-south streets connecting Buckley and Tank Farm Roads,
the connection of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street and the Prado Road east to west
connection over US 101. This will also reduce vehicle miles traveled and will have air
quality benefits in the long term.
d. Policies and programs contained in the LUCE promote transit-oriented development,
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, complete streets other incentives that will reduce
the City’s reliance on the automobile. The will also have long-term air quality benefits.
SECTION 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the
City Council certify the Final EIR for the project with findings and mitigation measures as described in
attached Exhibit A.
Upon motion by Commr. , seconded by Commr. , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ____________ day of ____________ , 2014.
_____________________________
Derek Johnson
Planning Commission Secretary
PC 2-56
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FINDINGS OF MITIGATION AND
ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
LUCE UPDATE PROJECT
I. Environmental Determination
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo considers and relies on the Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2013121019) for the Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update in determining to carry out the proposed amendments to the General
Plan. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR; responses to comments on the Draft EIR; a list of persons
and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and technical appendices.
The City Council has received, reviewed, considered, and relied on the information contained in the Final
EIR, as well as information provided at hearings and submissions of testimony from official participating
agencies, the public and other agencies and organizations.
Having received, reviewed and considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all information
in the record, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby makes these Findings pursuant to,
and in accordance with, Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, as follows:
II. Summary Project Description
The LUCE Update Project (the “Project” or “proposed Update Project”) provides proposed changes to the
City’s existing Land Use Element and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (last updated in 1994). It
is the intent of the proposed Project to establish and implement a refined set of goals, policies, and
programs for regulating development in the city, guiding the land use decision‐making process, balance
population growth with infrastructure availability, and provide a true multimodal transportation system
that will guide the community over the next 20 years.
The LUCE Update reflects extensive efforts and input from community surveys, workshops and open
houses, advisory bodies, the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (TF ‐LUCE),
City staff, consultants, the Planning Commission, and City Council. Based on direction from the City
Council that the Update Project primarily address infill opportunities, changes in legislation, and the need
to update existing policy direction to reflect current values and requirements, the LUCE Update focuses
on updated policy language and several areas of the City where “physical” land use changes are proposed.
The proposed physical land use changes would apply only to specified areas that over the next 20 years
may have the potential to accommodate changes in the land use type or intensity or are in need of
circulation and infrastructure improvements. From a policy aspect, the LUCE Update proposes changes to
existing policy and program language, and new policies and programs where needed to enhance the two
Elements or cover items not previously addressed. The policies and programs included in the LUCE
Update are intended to:
Address notable policy gaps that have been identified over time in the existing LUCE;
Provide new policy direction to address issues raised during the proposed Project’s public
participation process;
Respond to changes in state law;
PC 2-57
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 2
Address topics or items that the City committed to addressing as part of the Sustainable
Communities grant that provided funding for the Update Project; and
Address inconsistencies between the proposed project and the Airport Land Use Plan for San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport.
The Land Use Element Update proposes to “preserve and enhance” existing conditions in most areas of
the city. The physical changes proposed by the Land Use Element Update are for the most part limited to
changes in land use type or intensity in specific areas. These changes include proposed mixed use
redevelopment of some sites, the infill of underutilized locations, and four sites that will require modified
or new specific plans to addresses development parameters such as the location and types of land uses,
infrastructure needs, and designs to address environmental constraints. These four sites include: Potential
modification of the Margarita Area Specific Plan to allow increased residential densities; and new specific
plans for the San Luis Ranch (formerly known as the Dalidio site), the Madonna property at Los Osos
Valley Road (LOVR), and the Avila Ranch. Policy direction was also refined relative to a set of “Special
Planning Areas” (Section 8.3.3 in the proposed Land Use Element Update) throughout the City. This
policy guidance provides statements regarding the City’s expectations for these sites of new development,
redevelopment, and infill opportunities.
The policy and program updates proposed in the Airport Chapter of the Land Use Element reflect airport
safety, noise, height and overflight considerations consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics
Act. Policies, programs, and Zoning Code implementation have been drafted to create an Airport Overlay
Zone to codify airport compatibility criteria for areas subject to airport influence consistent with the
requirements of Cal. Pub. Utilities Code Section 21670, et. seq, the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, and other related federal and state requirements relating to airport land use compatibility
planning. These include allowable uses and development standards such as density and intensity
limitations, identification of prohibited uses, infill development, height limitations, and other hazards to
flight, noise insulation, buyer awareness measures, airspace protection, nonconforming uses and
reconstruction, and the process for airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City.
The Circulation Element Update describes how the City plans to provide for the transportation of people
and materials within San Luis Obispo with connections to other areas in San Luis Obispo County and
beyond. The Circulation Element Update recognizes the implications of land use policy on all modes of
movement, and establishes policies, standards, and implementation measures that work with the Land Use
Element to address both existing and potential circulation opportunities and deficiencies. But beyond
addressing changes in land use, the Circulation Element Update also looks at the circulation system of the
community as a whole. Introducing the concept of “complete streets”, the update looks to integrate and
enhance all types of circulation in order to create a more comprehensive and functional circulation
system.
The proposed Circulation Element provides policy language to address a variety of circulation‐related
issues, including: traffic reduction; transit; encouraging the use of bicycles and walking; traffic
management; future street network changes; truck, air and rail transportation; parking management in
commercial areas and residential neighborhoods; and scenic roadways. A new section added to the
Circulation Element addresses multi‐modal transportation, or the development and maintenance of a
circulation system that balances the needs of all modes of travel.
As part of the LUCE Update, a comprehensive list of circulation improvements to be considered (called
the “project description”) was reviewed and approved for further analysis by the City Council. This list
also included variations of those improvements. Appendix N of the EIR provides the sensitivity analysis
PC 2-58
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 3
performed on those individual variations. The results of this sensitivity analysis were then used by the
City to determine which variations would be included as part of the Proposed Project presented in the
EIR. From this analysis, the City identified 17 circulation improvements to include in the Proposed
Project.
III. The Record
The California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091 (b) requires that the City's findings be
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Lead Agency's record consists of the
following, which are located at the City Community Development Department office, San Luis Obispo,
California:
Documentary and oral evidence, testimony, and staff comments and responses received and
reviewed by the Lead Agency during informational workshops, public review, and the public
hearings on the project.
The LUCE Update Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report, Volumes I, II, III, IV
and V.
IV. The September 2014 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the
LUCE Update
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo makes the following findings with respect to the
September 2014 Final Environmental Impact Report for the LUCE Update program SCH #201312019:
A. The City has considered the information contained in the September 2014 Final Programmatic EIR
for the LUCE Update, the public comments and responses previously submitted, and the public
comments and information presented at the public hearings.
B. The City Council hereby finds and determines that implementation of the LUCE Update may have a
significant adverse effect on the environment.
C. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final
EIR:
1. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and the policies and programs contained
within the LUCE Update, the City Council finds and determines that changes or alterations
have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Findings of Fact, the adverse
environmental effects related to long-term operational air quality and transportation and
circulation impacts, and temporary noise impacts associated with construction activity, are
significant effects which cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is approved
and implemented;
3. That no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in substantial or
potentially substantial adverse changes in the environment as a result of the LUCE Update
program.
PC 2-59
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 4
D. The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
1. All significant effects (except operational related air quality and cumulative transportation
impacts and temporary noise impacts associated with construction activities) that can be
feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened;
2. The LUCE policies and programs incorporate adequate measures to preclude significant
effects in the following categories: aesthetics; agricultural resources; biological resources;
cultural resources; geological resources; global climate change; hazards; hydrology and water
quality; land use; noise; population and housing; public services; recreation; and utilities and
services.
3. Based on the Final EIR, the Findings, and other documents in the record, specific
environmental, economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR;
4. Based on the Final EIR, the Findings, and other documents in the record, the remaining
unavoidable significant environmental effects of the LUCE program are outweighed and
overridden by the benefits of the project as described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
5. Should the LUCE program have the potential to result in adverse environmental impacts that
are not anticipated or addressed by the September 2014 Final EIR, subsequent environmental
review shall be required in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a).
V. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prior to approving a project or program for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified
and for which findings were made that one or more significant impacts would result because mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the EIR are infeasible, CEQA requires that the Lead Agency find
that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project or program
outweigh the significant effects on the environment. This must be a written finding stating the agency’s
specific reasons supporting its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The
requirements for a Statement of Overriding Considerations are established in Section 15093 of the State
CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and in the CEQA statute in Section 21081 of the Public
Resources Code.
The Program EIR for the LUCE Update identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts of
the program:
1. Implementation of the LUCE Update would involve operation of development projects that
generate long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. Implementation
of the LUCE Update would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
sources of local carbon monoxide concentrations, odors, or TACs. However, with regards to
criteria air pollutants and precursors implementation of the LUCE Update would not be
consistent with the assumptions contained in the most recent version of the APCD’s Clean
Air Plan even with the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City
policies.
PC 2-60
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 5
2. Implementation of development projects under the proposed LUCE Update would involve
construction that could generate noise levels that exceed applicable standards for mobile
construction equipment in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance and result in temporary
substantial increases in noise levels primarily from the use of heavy-duty construction
equipment.
3. Development and street network changes under the LUCE Update will cause roadways
currently operating at LOS D or better to deteriorate to LOS E or F, in downtown San Luis
Obispo, roadways operating at LOS E or better will deteriorate to LOS F, or will add
additional traffic to roadways operating at LOS E (outside of downtown) or F (in downtown).
4. Development and street network changes under the LUCE Update will cause intersections
currently operating at LOS D or better to deteriorate to LOS E or F, in downtown San Luis
Obispo, intersections operating at LOS E or better will deteriorate to LOS F, or will add
additional traffic to intersections operating at LOS E (outside of downtown) or F (in
downtown).
5. Development under the LUCE Update will increase traffic on freeway facilities.
For projects or programs which would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided,
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency balance the benefits of these projects against the unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the projects. If the benefits of these
projects/programs outweigh the unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered acceptable
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires that, before adopting such projects or programs,
the Lead Agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the reasons why the
agency finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant environmental effects caused by the
project. This statement is provided below.
Required Findings
The City has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures into the project. Although these measures will
significantly lessen the unavoidable impacts listed above, the measures will not fully avoid these impacts.
The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project and has incorporated portions
of these alternatives into the project in order to reduce impacts. The City has determined that none of
these alternatives, taken as a whole, is both environmentally superior and more feasible than the project.
Alternative 1 (No Project): The No Project Alternative compares the environmental impacts of the
proposed LUCE Update to the impacts that would result if the project were not approved and future
development in the city occurred in accordance with the land use and policy requirements of the existing
1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements. Buildout of the existing Land Use Element would result in
fewer dwelling units when compared to the proposed LUCE Update, however, buildout of the existing
Land Use Element would result in an increase of non-residential uses when compared to the proposed
Land Use Element. Under the No Project Alternative, several new street network changes and circulation
system modifications identified by the Circulation Element Update would not be implemented. In
addition, policies and programs intended to reduce vehicle trips; and to enhance transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian circulation would also not be implemented. As such, impacts would be generally greater with
implementation of the No Project Alternative.
PC 2-61
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 6
Alternative 2 (Reduced Development Alternative): This alternative evaluates environmental conditions
that would result if the residential and non-residential development capacity of the proposed Land Use
Element Update were to be reduced. This alternative would only reduce development identified by the
Land Use Update related to the proposed specific and area plans, and special planning areas. The
Reduced Development Alternative would not reduce planned development associated with existing
specific plans, planned and approved projects, or other vacant land in the city. The Reduced
Development Alternative would generally have reduced or similar environmental impacts when compared
to the impacts of the proposed Project. The Reduced Development Alternative, however, would not
implement the environmental objectives of the proposed Land Use Element Update and has the potential
to leave the city unable to meet capacity for future regional housing needs allocations. A reduction in
development in the proposed specific plan areas would be inconsistent with the objective to protect the
environment within a compact urban form because developing the specific plan areas at densities that are
substantially less than their capacity could promote additional development in other areas, such as
unincorporated areas adjacent to the city.
Alternative 3 (Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative): This alternative would provide three
street system modifications not included in the proposed Land Use and Circulation Element Update
proposed project. This alternative would generally result in environmental impacts that are similar to the
proposed Project, but would have slightly reduced air quality, greenhouse gas emission, and traffic
impacts. Considering the slight reduction in vehicle miles traveled and the associated slight reduction in
air emissions (a Class 1 impact) this alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior
alternative. This alternative would also have the potential to result in increased cultural resource,
biological resource and noise impacts along portions of the alternative roadway system projects; however,
it is likely that those impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of
appropriate design and other mitigation measures. The Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative
would result in area-wide environmental benefits associated with reductions in air emissions and
improved traffic conditions, and would not impede the implementation of proposed Land Use and
Circulation Element Update objectives. Therefore, the Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative
would be the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project that fulfills the basic objectives
of the proposed LUCE Update.
In preparing this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has balanced the benefits of the
proposed LUCE Update against its unavoidable environmental risks. For the reasons specified below, the
City finds that the following considerations outweigh the proposed project's unavoidable environmental
risks:
1. Provision of new Residential and Commercial Uses. The implementation of the LUCE Update
will include new residential development to meet the City's housing needs and that designates
sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips and provide for
the convenience of area residents.
2. Open Space and Natural Resource Protection: Implementation of the proposed LUCE
Update would result in the continued preservation of open space within the City's planning area
and outside the urban reserve line. Policies in the LUCE Update direct protection of undeveloped
land, prime agricultural land, productive agricultural land, and potentially productive agricultural
land. Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land will be
permanently protected as open space.
PC 2-62
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 7
3. Provision of Park and Recreational Facilities. Buildout of the proposed LUCE Update would
result in an incremental increase in total per capita parkland in the city when compared to existing
conditions.
4. Well-Planned Neighborhood Would Reduce Vehicle Trips: The LUCE Update would result
in new residential development opportunities intended to meet the City's housing needs and
designates sufficient land for neighborhood serving commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips and
provide for the convenience of city residents. The proposed Circulation Element provides policy
language to address a variety of circulation-related issues, including: traffic reduction; transit;
encouraging the use of bicycles and walking; traffic management; future street network changes;
truck, air and rail transportation; parking management in commercial areas and residential
neighborhoods; and scenic roadways. A new section added to the Circulation Element addresses
multi-modal transportation, supporting the development and maintenance of a circulation system
that balances the needs of all modes of travel.
5. Provision of New Jobs: The project would create new construction-related and permanent jobs
in the city. Increases in planned commercial development would provide new jobs that are
needed to support a household within the city.
6. Implementation of the General Plan: The LUCE Update contains policies and standards that
will facilitate appropriate development of land, protection of open space, improved citywide
circulation, and provision of adequate public facilities.
Accordingly, the City finds that the project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed
by these considerable benefits.
IMPACT ANALYSIS: Four categories of impacts are identified:
Class I. Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in Class
I impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of overriding
consideration that "... specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR..."
Class II. Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
measures identified in this EIR and the project description. When approving a project with Class
IT impacts, the decision-makers must make findings that changes or alternatives to the project
have been incorporated that reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Class III. Class III impacts are adverse but not significant.
Class IV. Beneficial impacts.
VI. Potential Environmental Effects Which Are Not Significant or Beneficial
The City Council has concluded that the following effects are not considered significant.
PC 2-63
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 8
Impact AES‐1
Development under the LUCE Update would introduce new development along viewing corridors and
scenic roadways, including state scenic highways, in the San Luis Obispo area. This could have a
substantial adverse effect on scenic resources or an identified visual resource or scenic vista from a public
viewing area. With the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City policies,
potential impacts to such views are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact AES‐2
The LUCE Update emphasizes both reuse of existing urbanized lands, infill development on vacant
parcels, and new development on vacant parcels near urban areas. The development of such areas could
degrade the existing visual character and its surroundings. With the incorporation of the proposed LUCE
Update and existing City policies and programs, potential impacts related to existing visual character
changes are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact AES‐3
Proposed development in accordance with the LUCE Update would introduce new sources of light and
glare. However, adherence to policies included in the Zoning Ordinance and Community Design
Guidelines would reduce potential impacts to a Class III, less than significant, level.
Impact AG‐1
The LUCE Update could alter the existing land use and zoning on sites throughout the city and may result
in incompatibilities with adjacent urban and agricultural uses. However, the General Plan reduces land
use conflicts through policies and plan review. Therefore, impacts that would occur from development
would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact BIO‐1
Development under the LUCE Update has potential to impact common habitat types including non‐native
annual grasslands and disturbed/ruderal areas that provide habitat for common wildlife and plant species.
With the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing governing policies, potential
impacts to these common habitats are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact BIO‐2
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to impact four Natural Communities of
Special Concern present within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea including Serpentine Bunchgrass,
Northern Interior Cypress Stand, Central Maritime Chaparral, and Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh.
With the incorporation of the proposed and existing City policies, and the requirements of regulatory and
oversight agencies, potential impacts to sensitive habitats are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact BIO‐3
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has the potential to impact special‐status plant species
within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed and existing City
policies, and the requirements of regulatory and oversight agencies, potential impacts to special‐status
plant species are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact BIO‐4
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to impact special‐status wildlife species
within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed and existing City
PC 2-64
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 9
policies, and the requirements of regulatory and oversight agencies, potential impacts to special‐status
wildlife species are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact BIO‐5
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to impact common wildlife species and
species of local concern within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed
and existing City policies, and the requirements of regulatory and oversight agencies, potential impacts to
common and species of local concern are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact CR‐2
Development facilitated by Land Use and Circulation Element Update could adversely affect identified
and previously unidentified archaeological and paleontological resources. This includes potential
disturbance of human remains. General Plan policies would ensure that such impacts are addressed on a
caseby‐case basis. Impacts would be considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact GEO‐1
New development under the LUCE Update could be susceptible to impacts from future seismic events,
creating the potential for structural damage or health and safety risks. However, compliance with required
building codes and implementation of General Plan polices would result in a Class III, less than
significant impact.
Impact GEO‐2
Future seismic events could result in liquefaction of soils near San Luis Obispo Creek, Prefumo Creek
and other low‐lying areas. Development in these areas could be subject to liquefaction hazards. The
compliance of future development projects with the California Building Code (CBC) and General Plan
policies would result in Class III, less than significant impacts.
Impact GEO‐3
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could occur on soils that have the potential to present
natural hazards (expansive soils, erosive soils, and differential settlement) to structures and roadways.
Development could also result in the loss of a unique geologic feature. However, compliance of future
development projects with the California Building Code and adopted General Plan policies would ensure
that resulting impacts are Class III, less than significant.
Impact GEO‐4
Steep slopes outside of the existing city limits present potential on‐ or off‐site landslide hazards. In
addition to human safety impacts, a landslide has the potential to damage or destroy structures, roadways
and other improvements as well as to deflect and block drainage channels, causing further damage and
erosion, including loss of topsoil. The compliance of future development projects with the California
Building Code (CBC) and
General Plan policies would result in Class III, less than significant impacts.
Impact GCC‐1
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update could result in an increase in GHG emissions due to short‐
term construction and long‐term operational activities associated with new housing and commercial
development, resulting in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the impact of global climate
change. However, because the proposed LUCE Update would be consistent with the City’s CAP and
incorporates applicable CAP policies and programs that would reduce GHG emissions, this impact would
be considered Class III, less than significant.
PC 2-65
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 10
Impact HAZ‐1
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could occur near known hazardous material users or result
in construction in areas with existing hazardous materials. Implementation of the LUCE Update could
expose individuals to health risks due to soil/groundwater contamination or emission of hazardous
materials into the air and could impact an adopted emergency response/evacuation plan. With the
incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City policies, potential impacts are
considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐2
Development consistent with the proposed LUCE Update could introduce incompatible residential and
commercial land uses into safety zones established through the Airport Land Use Plan and may result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in these areas. Impacts would be Class III, less than
significant.
Impact HAZ‐3
Development consistent with the proposed LUCE Update would introduce residential land uses into areas
designated as having a Moderate or High Wildland Fire Hazard, introducing the potential to expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss and/or injury. However, compliance with existing policies
and state and
local regulations would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than significant level.
Impact HAZ‐4
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could introduce sensitive receptors to additional hazards
related to exposure to radiation, electromagnetic fields and hazardous trees. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City policies, potential impacts are considered Class III,
less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐5
Development under the proposed LUCE Update could potentially introduce sensitive receptors to areas in
direct proximity to hazardous materials transportation corridors including the Union Pacific Railroad and
Highway 101 and could potentially create a public safety hazard. This is a Class III, less than significant
impact.
Impact HWQ‐1
New development under the LUCE Update within the 100‐year flood plain could be subject to flooding
and have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows. However, with implementation of General Plan
policies and adherence to the City’s Floodplain Management Regulation impacts related to flooding
would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact HWQ‐2
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update has the potential to increase the amount of impervious
surfaces within the city. This could result in a decrease in percolation to the Groundwater Basin, the
alteration of drainage patterns and increases in the volume of surface runoff. Compliance with the City’s
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than significant level.
Impact HWQ‐3
Point and non‐point sources of contamination could affect water quality in San Luis Obispo Creek,
Prefumo Creek as well as other surface waters and groundwater in the city. However, compliance with
PC 2-66
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 11
existing regulations and implementation of General Plan policies and the City’s Stormwater Management
Plan (SWMP) would result in Class III, less than significant impacts.
Impact HWQ‐4
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update has the potential to create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, resulting in increased
stormwater runoff and has the potential to result in the need for additional stormwater infrastructure.
Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and State regulatory requirements,
would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than significant.
Impact LU-1
Aspects of the LUCE update would conflict with the airport land use plan. However, implementation of
LUCE policies and programs would ensure that land use conflicts are less than significant.
Impact LU‐2
The proposed LUCE Update would have the potential to result in land use conflicts between existing and
proposed land uses. With the implementation of proposed LUCE Update policies, potential land use
conflict impacts are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact LU‐3
The proposed Land Use Element Update would result in conflicts with applicable habitat conservation
plans or natural community conservation plans. With the implementation of proposed LUCE Update
policies, potential plan and policy conflict impacts are considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact LU‐3
The proposed Circulation Element Update identifies future roadway improvements that would have the
potential to result in a significant impact if the improvements would physically divide an established
community. This impact is considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact N‐2
Long‐Term Roadway and Railroad Traffic Noise Levels Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update
would increase traffic volumes and associated noise levels along major transportation routes. In some
instances, traffic‐related noise increases could be more than 3 dB, the level typically audible to the human
ear and; therefore, considered a substantial increase in noise.
New development associated with the proposed LUCE Update could also result in the siting of new
sensitive receptors in close proximity to transportation noise sources such as the railroad, with potential to
exceed the land use compatibility and transportation noise exposure standards in the existing Noise
Element. However, because the City’s Noise Element contains policies and programs that would address
and mitigate potential site‐specific impacts for individual projects in the future, this impact would be
considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact N‐3
Exposure of Noise Sensitive Receptors to Stationary Sources. Implementation of the proposed LUCE
Update could increase stationary source noise levels from new development. New development
associated with the proposed LUCE Update could also result in the siting of new sensitive receptors in
close proximity to these source types, with potential to exceed the land use compatibility and stationary
noise exposure standards in the existing Noise Element. However, because the City’s Noise Element
PC 2-67
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 12
contains policies and programs that would address and mitigate potential site‐specific impacts for
individual projects in the future, this impact would be considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact N‐4
Airport Noise Exposure. Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update would result in the designation of
noise‐sensitive land uses located within or near the 55 dBA and 60 dBA noise contours of the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan. This could result in exposure of people to excessive
noise levels. However, with the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies that address airport
noise compatibility and consistency with the adopted ALUP, this impact would be considered Class III,
less than significant.
Impact N‐5
Exposure to Excessive Vibration Levels. Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update could increase
exposure to vibration levels. However, because the City’s ordinance contains and that these sources
(existing and proposed) would be anticipated to be minor, this impact would be considered Class III, less
than significant.
Impact PH‐1
The LUCE Update would not result in residential unit development or associated population growth that
exceeds an adopted average annual growth rate threshold. Potential population and housing impacts are
considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact PH‐2
The LUCE Update would not result in a substantial displacement of residents or existing housing units.
This impact is considered Class III, less than significant.
Impact PS‐2
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element Update would increase the demand for police protection
services by increasing population and development in the city. This is a Class III, less than significant
impact.
Impact PS‐3
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element Update would increase enrollment in public schools by
increasing the population of the city. This is a Class III, less than significant impact.
VII. Potential Significant Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance
The City Council has concluded that the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Section XI.) will result in substantial mitigation of the following effects and that these effects
are not considered significant or they have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Impact AG‐2
Future development in accordance with the LUCE Update could occur on prime farmland, unique
farmland, and/or farmland of statewide importance. Buildout within the City Limits would result in Class
II, significant but mitigable impacts to agricultural conversion.
Impact AQ‐1 (Short‐Term)
Implementation of the LUCE construction of development projects that generate short‐term emissions of
criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. Emissions from individual construction projects could exceed
PC 2-68
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 13
APCD’s project‐level significance thresholds. Thus, implementation of the LUCE Update could result in
construction‐generated emissions that violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation, contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants for which
the region is designated as nonattainment, and/or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. Adherence to relevant policies and implementation of APCD recommended project‐
specific mitigation measures would reduce potential short‐term impacts to a less‐than‐significant level.
Thus, construction generated air quality impacts are considered Class II, significant but mitigable.
Impact CR‐1
Development allowed by the LUCE update could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources. This impact
is considered to be Class II, significant but mitigable.
Impact PS‐1
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element would increase the demand for fire protection services by
increasing population and the number of structures in the city. This is a Class II, potentially significant
but mitigable impact.
VIII. Potential Significant Unavoidable Effects for Which Sufficient Mitigation is not Feasible
Impact AQ‐2 (Long‐Term)
Implementation of the LUCE Update would involve operation of development projects that generate
long‐term emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. Implementation of the LUCE Update
would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial sources of local carbon monoxide
concentrations, odors, or TACs. However, with regards to criteria air pollutants and precursors
implementation of the LUCE Update would not be consistent with the assumptions contained in the most
recent version of the APCD’s Clean Air Plan even with the incorporation of the propos ed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies. Thus, long‐term air quality impacts are considered Class I, significant
and unavoidable.
Impact N‐1
Short‐Term Construction Noise Levels. Implementation of development projects under the proposed
LUCE Update would involve construction that could generate noise levels that exceed applicable
standards for mobile construction equipment in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance and result in
temporary substantial increases in noise levels primarily from the use of heavy‐duty construction
equipment (see thresholds a and c). Even with the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies
and existing City policies, short‐term construction noise levels are considered Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
Impact CIR‐1
Development and street network changes under the LUCE Update will cause roadways currently
operating at LOS D or better to deteriorate to LOS E or F, in downtown San Luis Obispo, roadways
operating at LOS E or better will deteriorate to LOS F, or will add additional traffic to roadways
operating at LOS E (outside of downtown) or F (in downtown). This is considered a Class I, significant
and unavoidable impact.
Impact CIR‐2
PC 2-69
Attachment 4
City of San Luis Obispo CEQA FINDINGS
2014 LUCE Update
Page 14
Development and street network changes under the LUCE Update will cause intersections currently
operating at LOS D or better to deteriorate to LOS E or F, in downtown San Luis Obispo, intersections
operating at LOS E or better will deteriorate to LOS F, or will add additional traffic to intersections
operating at LOS E (outside of downtown) or F (in downtown). Impact is considered to be Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
Impact CIR‐3
Development under the LUCE Update will increase traffic on freeway facilities. Impact is considered to
be Class I, significant and unavoidable.
IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when a public agency is making findings
required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(l), codified as Section 21081(a) of the Public
Resources Code, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the
proposed project which it has adopted or made a condition of approval, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment.
The City Council hereby finds and accepts that the Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program for the LUCE
Update attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference meets the requirements of Section 21081.6
of the Public Resources Code by providing for the implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures
intended to mitigate potential environmental effects.
PC 2-70
Attachment 4
MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element Update
Final Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1.0 Introduction
As of January 1, 1989, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) for projects where mitigation measures are a condition of their approval and development. This MMRP
has been prepared in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15091(d) and
15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which require public agencies to “adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the
revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects.” An MMRP is required for the LUCE Update because the Program EIR prepared for the Project
identified significant adverse environmental impacts that would result from the Project’s implementation, and mitigation
measures have been identified to mitigate or avoid the identified impacts.
2.0 Purpose of the MMRP
This MMRP has been prepared to ensure that all mitigation measures identified by the LUCE Update Final Program EIR are
implemented. The attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting table will assist the responsible parties in implementing
the MMRP. The table lists the environmental impacts identified by the EIR that would result from the implementation of
the LUCE Update; the mitigation measures identified by the EIR; methods to monitor the implementation of the identified
mitigation measures; when the specified monitoring is to occur; and the agency/department responsible for ensuring
compliance with the mitigation measures.
3.0 Roles and Responsibilities
The City of San Luis Obispo is responsible for taking all actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures listed on
the attached table according to the specifications provided for each measure and for demonstrating that the mitigation
measures have been successfully implemented and completed.
4.0 Implementation of The Final Program EIR
The Final Program EIR prepared for the LUCE Update identified mitigation measures that would mitigate or avoid
environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the Project. Those mitigation measures are
identified in the attached table, along with required mitigation measure monitoring and reporting requirements. It is
important to note that Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIR (Minor Edits to the Draft EIR) includes minor modifications to policies
of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. Those suggested policy language modifications are proposed only to
clarify the intent and requirements of the policy language. The policy modifications included in Final EIR Chapter 3.0 are
minor adjustments to the proposed Project and are not required to mitigate or avoid an environmental impact of the
LUCE Update Project. Therefore, the suggested policy modifications included in Final EIR Chapter 3.0 are not listed on the
attached MMRP table.
PC 2-71
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
LUCE UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LUCE Update Project
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure
Method(s) to
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation
Timing of
Mitigation
Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
for Monitoring
Impact N‐1. Short‐Term
Construction Noise Levels.
Implementation of development
projects under the proposed
LUCE Update would involve
construction that could generate
noise levels that exceed
applicable standards for mobile
construction equipment in the
City’s Noise Control Ordinance
and result in temporary
substantial increases in noise
levels primarily from the use of
heavy‐duty construction
equipment.
Enforcement of the Noise Element
and noise control ordinance with
respect to the existing practice that
accommodates infill construction
activity during the currently
allowed hours of 7 AM to 7 PM.
Evaluate for
compliance
during
development
review
Monitor during
project
construction
During
development
review
During project
construction
City Staff
City Staff
Impact CIR‐2. Development
and street network changes
under the LUCE Update will cause
intersections currently operating
at LOS D or better to deteriorate
to LOS E or F, in downtown San
Luis Obispo, intersections
operating at LOS E or better will
deteriorate to LOS F, or will add
additional traffic to intersections
operating at LOS E (outside of
downtown) or F (in downtown).
The following mitigation measures
would be options to mitigate
impacts for these intersections to
meet the LOS standard. It should
be noted that installing a signal to
mitigate an LOS impact would be
contingent on the intersection
meeting signal warrants per the
MUTCD under future year
conditions. However, the decision
to install a traffic signal should not
be based solely upon a single
warrant. Delay, congestion, driver
confusion, future land use or other
evidence for right of way
assignment beyond that provided
by stop controls must be
demonstrated. The City will adhere
to Caltrans’ process for
intersection control evaluation.
CIR‐1. Grand & Slack (#8) Install
increased traffic control (traffic
signal or roundabout).
CIR‐2. California & Taft (#12) Install
increased traffic control (traffic
signal or roundabout).
Evaluate for
compliance
during
development
review
During
development
review
City Staff
PC 2-72
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
LUCE UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LUCE Update Project
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure
Method(s) to
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation
Timing of
Mitigation
Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
for Monitoring
CIR‐3. Grand & US 101 SB on‐ramp
(#13) Install dedicated WB right‐
turn lane.
CIR‐4. San Luis & California (#55)
Install increased traffic control
(traffic signal or roundabout).
CIR‐5. Higuera & Tank Farm (#85)
Add NB right‐turn lane, WB dual
right‐turn lanes, two‐way left‐turn
lane on Tank Farm between
Higuera and Long.
CIR‐6. Broad & High (#89) Install
increased traffic control (traffic
signal or roundabout). Augment
bicycle facilities and improve
transit headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐7. Broad & Rockview (#94)
Install downstream signal at Broad
& Capitolio. Augment bicycle
facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐8. Broad & Capitolio (#95)
Install increased traffic control
(traffic signal or roundabout).
Augment bicycle facilities and
improve transit headways on Broad
Street.
CIR‐9. Johnson & Orcutt (#96)
Install roundabout.
CIR‐10. Broad & Tank Farm (#98)
Establish time‐of‐day timing plans.
Add SB dual left‐turn lane, NB
dedicated right‐turn lane and WB
dedicated right‐turn lane. Augment
Bicycle facilities and improve
transit headways on Broad Street.
PC 2-73
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
LUCE UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LUCE Update Project
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure
Method(s) to
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation
Timing of
Mitigation
Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
for Monitoring
CIR‐11. Broad & Airport (#102)
Install TWLTL north of intersection.
Augment Bicycle facilities and
improve transit headways on Broad
Street
Impact AG‐2. Future
development in accordance with
the LUCE Update could occur on
prime farmland, unique
farmland, and/or farmland of
statewide importance.
The following LUCE Update policy
edits shall be required:
1.7.1 Open Space Protection.
Within the City's planning area and
outside the urban reserve line,
undeveloped land should be kept
open. Prime agricultural land,
productive agricultural land, and
potentially productive agricultural
land should shall be protected for
farming. Scenic lands, sensitive
wildlife habitat and undeveloped
prime agricultural land should shall
be permanently protected as open
space.
Revise proposed
policy
Prior to final
adoption of
the LUCE
Update
City Staff
Impact AQ‐1 (Short‐Term).
Implementation of the LUCE
Update would involve
construction of development
projects that generate short‐term
emissions of criteria air
pollutants and ozone precursors.
Emissions from individual
construction projects could
exceed APCD’s project‐level
significance thresholds.
The City shall ensure the
implementation of the most
current APCD‐recommended
construction mitigation measures
to reduce construction generated
emissions to less‐significant levels
as defined by APCD.
Evaluate for
compliance
during
development
review
Monitor during
project
construction
During
development
review
During project
construction
City Staff
City Staff
Impact CR‐1. Development
allowed by the LUCE update
could cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource which is either
listed or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic
Places, the California Register of
Historic Resources, or a local
register of historic resources.
The following changes to the City’s
General Plan Conservation and
Open Space Element
policies/programs shall be
required:
3.3.2 Demolitions. Historically or
architecturally significant buildings
should shall not be demolished or
substantially changed in outward
Revise proposed
policy
Prior to final
adoption of
the LUCE
Update
City Staff
PC 2-74
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
LUCE UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LUCE Update Project
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure
Method(s) to
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation
Timing of
Mitigation
Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
for Monitoring
appearance, unless doing so is
necessary to remove a threat to
health and safety and other means
to eliminate or reduce the threat to
acceptable levels are infeasible.
3.3.5 Historic districts and
neighborhoods. In evaluating new
public or private development, the
City should shall identify and
protect neighborhoods or districts
having historical character due to
the collective effect of Contributing
or Master List historic properties.
3.5.10 Southern Pacific Water
Tower. The historic Southern
Pacific Water Tower and adjoining
City‐owned land should shall be
maintained as open space or
parkland.
Impact PS‐1. Buildout of the
proposed Land Use Element
would increase the demand for
fire protection services by
increasing population and the
number of structures in the city.
New Policy. Development should
shall be approved only when
adequate fire suppression services
and facilities are available or will be
made available concurrent with
development, considering the
setting, type, intensity, and form of
the proposed development.
Revise proposed
policy
Prior to final
adoption of
the LUCE
Update
City Staff
PC 2-75
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
PC 2-76
Attachment 5
PC 2-77
Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
UPDATES TO CHAPTER 8 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN
(GPI/ER 15-12)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
December 12th and 16th, 2013, for the purpose of reviewing recommendations of the Task Force
for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF-LUCE) and recommending a set of
policy changes for the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) to be studied through the
environmental review process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 17th, 2013 to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the
draft South Broad Street Area Plan (GPI 49-06), and directed staff to include the plan into the
into the preferred project as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements update to be studied
through the environmental review process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the
recommendations of the Planning Commission at public hearings conducted January 14th and
28th, 2014 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
for the purpose of endorsing a LUCE update project description to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45 day comment period
that closed on July 28, 2014 and the Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 10, 2014, for the purpose of considering amendments to Chapter 8 of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the public and interested parties, the Draft EIR, and comments and responses
provided in the Final EIR, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
PC 2-78
Attachment 6
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, LUE Chapter 8, including South Broad Street Area Plan
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. Proposed amendments to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element supports development and
redevelopment of sites that will accommodate the community’s future growth.
2. Recommended updates to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
provide policy direction to address development areas in the City or in the City’s urban
reserve areas which have special constraints or considerations.
3. Special focus areas in the community present opportunities to develop customized land
use and circulation approaches or special design implementation to enhance their
appearance and achieve their respective development potential in a manner that is
consistent with community values.
4. The proposed amendments to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element provide important
policy direction for future planning efforts, especially for subsequent specific plan
development for Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, and Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road
sites.
5. Proposed amendments to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element include implementation of
the South Broad Street Area Plan: a plan to help revitalize and beautify a particular area
of the city. The plan also includes rezoning to encourage mixed-use development and
higher density housing. This plan was developed and reviewed through a separate
planning effort involving 27 public hearings and approximately 40 public outreach
efforts.
6. Chapter 8 amendments also include deletion of policies that provide design direction
that is no longer necessary for areas that have subsequently developed in the intervening
years between 1994 and the current LUCE update.
Section 2. Environmental. The LUCE Program FEIR, supported by technical
information in the appendices, and informed by public comment and response, evaluated
proposed policy changes included in the LUCE update and found significant impacts in long
term Air Quality and Circulation, as well as short term Construction noise impacts associated
with the growth envisioned by the LUCE update over the next twenty years. Policy direction in
Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element does not, in and of itself, generate the significant impacts
identified in the LUCE Program FEIR. As a Program EIR, the FEIR serves as a first-tier
document that assesses and documents the broad environmental impacts of a program with the
PC 2-79
Attachment 6
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, LUE Chapter 8, including South Broad Street Area Plan
Page 3
understanding that more detailed site-specific environmental review may be required to assess
future projects implemented under the program.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the
City Council adopt proposed amendments to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element contained in the
legislative draft considered at the hearing on September 10, 2014 with modifications made
during the hearing by the Planning Commission; an official copy of which shall be maintained in
the Community Development Department referencing this resolution.
On motion by Commissioner _____, seconded by Commissioner _____, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th of September, 2014.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission by:
PC 2-80
Attachment 6
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
UPDATES TO CHAPTERS 1-6 & 9-12 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
AND CHAPTERS 1-5 OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT
(GPI/ER 15-12)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
December 12th and 16th, 2013, for the purpose of reviewing recommendations of the Task Force
for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF-LUCE) and recommending a set of
policy changes for the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) to be studied through the
environmental review process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the
recommendations of the Planning Commission at public hearings conducted January 14th and
28th, 2014 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
for the purpose of endorsing a LUCE update project description to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released on June 13, 2014 with a 45 day comment period
that closed on July 28, 2014 and the Final EIR was issued on September 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 11, 2014, for the purpose of considering amendments to Chapters 1-6 & 9-12 of the
Land Use Element, and Chapters 1-5 of the Circulation Element; and,
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the public and interested parties, the Draft EIR, and comments and responses
provided in the Final EIR, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
PC 2-81
Attachment 7
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, LUE Chapters 1-6 & 9-12, CE Chapters 1-5
Page 2
1. Recommended updates to LUE Chapters 1-6 provide policy updates and revisions in the
areas of Growth Management, Conservation and Development of Residential
Neighborhoods, Commercial and Industrial Development, Downtown Policies, Public
and Cultural Facilities, and Resource Protection.
2. Recommended LUE Chapters 9 & 10 provides new Sustainability & Healthy
Community policies.
3. Proposed policy updates to LUE Chapters 11 & 12 amend Review and Amendment
procedures and update implementation policies for the Community Design Guidelines
and Historic Preservation.
4. Proposed amendments to Circulation Element Chapters 1-3 amend goals and objectives
of the Circulation Element Introduction and update traffic reduction and transit service
policies.
5. Proposed amendments to Circulation Element Chapters 4 & 5 provide policy updates in
the areas of bicycle transportation and walking.
Section 2. Environmental. The LUCE Program FEIR, supported by technical
information in the appendices, and informed by public comment and response, evaluated
proposed policy changes included in the LUCE update and found significant impacts in long
term Air Quality and Circulation, as well as short term Construction noise impacts associated
with the growth envisioned by the LUCE update over the next twenty years. As a Program EIR,
the FEIR serves as a first-tier document that assesses and documents the broad environmental
impacts of a program with the understanding that more detailed site-specific environmental
review may be required to assess future projects implemented under the program.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the
City Council adopt proposed amendments to Chapters 1-6 & 9-12 of the Land Use Element and
Chapters 1-5 of the Circulation Element contained in the legislative drafts considered at the
hearing on September 11, 2014 with modifications made during the hearing by the Planning
Commission; official copies of which shall be maintained in the Community Development
Department referencing this resolution.
On motion by Commissioner _____, seconded by Commissioner _____, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
PC 2-82
Attachment 7
Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-14
GPI/ER 15-12, LUE Chapters 1-6 & 9-12, CE Chapters 1-5
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th of September, 2014.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission by:
PC 2-83
Attachment 7
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 27, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, and
Chairperson John Larson
Absent: Commissioners Michael Draze, William Riggs, and Vice-Chairperson
Michael Multari
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Assistant
City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane
Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended. Commr. Fowler recused himself from hearing
Item #2 City-Wide GPI/ER 15-12, leaving the Commission without a quorum.
MINUTES:
Minutes of August 13, 2014, were continued to the next meeting date due to a lack of a
quorum.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 3080 Rockview Place.TR/A/ER 202-13: Review of a nine-lot common-interest
subdivision. Construction of nine residences on a site designated Special
Considerations, and requested other yard, street yard, and creek setback
exceptions with review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact;
R-2-S zone; Covelop, Inc., applicant. (Marcus Carloni)
Contract Planner Hill presented the staff report, recommending that the City Council
approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3057 and Use Permit A 202-13, and adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, based on findings and subject
to conditions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Emily Baranek, SLO, Above Grade Engineering, presented the modifications made to
the project since it was last before the Commission.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 27, 2014
Page 2
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Fowler stated that he approves of the changes made because they addressed
all the issues the Commission requested.
Commr. Malak agreed and stated he would support the project.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Fowler, seconded by Commr. Malak, to approve the
recommendation that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3057 and
Use Permit A 202-13 and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact, based on findings and subject to conditions.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Fowler, Larson and Malak
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Draze, Multari, and Riggs
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
2. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: The staff report was not presented due to the lack of a
quorum of Commissioners but discussion was opened to allow for public comment.
Commr. Fowler recused himself because of a conflict of interest.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Eugene Jud, SLO, asked where the City is going with the Land Use and Circulation
Elements (LUCE) and read from a letter written by Christine Mulholland to the City
Council that states she is appalled that the City is pushing for development when the
State is in a drought and major shopping centers are near ghost towns. She noted that
traffic in the LOVR/Madonna area is already out of control and adding commercial and
residential density will decrease the quality of life. She also stated that the Airport Land
Use Commission did not approve residential development in the Margarita Ranch area.
Mr. Jud stated that Cal Trans has written two letters to Public Works asking that the City
not continue attempts to get the State to build a freeway interchange at Prado Road
because the LOVR and Madonna interchanges are each less than a mile from Prado
Road. He noted that Cal Trans and transportation agencies for many other states have
endorsed the use of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
Urban Street Design Guide. He suggested that the City make a reference to its own
endorsement of these guidelines in the Circulation Element. He added that the City's
traffic modeling makes huge assumptions that were not made public by staff.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre submitted several documents for the public record. The first
consisted of comments she submitted in July during the LUCE public comment period.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 27, 2014
Page 3
She added that she attended LUCE Task Force meetings and forums, and learned
there was a dissenting opinion on the Task Force. She then submitted a document that
she stated was about that dissent and about developer influence on the Task Force.
She submitted further documents, including a letter she stated was about City Council
Members failing to appropriately recuse themselves from consideration of certain items
before the Council. She noted that complaints will be filed with the Fair Political
Practices Commission. She stated that she is very concerned about airport safety, the
LUCE document, and the environment and drought.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Dandekar, seconded by Commr. Malak, to continue this item to
the next regularly-scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on September 10,
2014, at 6:00 p.m.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, and Malak
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Fowler
ABSENT: Commrs. Draze, Multari, and Riggs
The motion passed on a 3:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast – Davidson
• LUCE hearing continued to September 10, 2014
• Special meetings September 11 and 17 and, if needed, September 18
4. Commission – Commr. Fowler will be absent September 10 and 11.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary