HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-2025 PC Agenda Packet
Planning Commission
AGENDA
Wednesday, February 26, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission meetings can be viewed remotely on Channel 20, the City’s YouTube Channel,
and on the City’s website under the Public Meeting Agendas web page. Attendees of City Council or
Advisory Body meetings are eligible to receive one hour of complimentary parking; restrictions apply,
visit Parking for Public Meetings for more details.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting):
Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401.
Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your
email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not
be read aloud during the meeting.
Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the
agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be
limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
*All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received
after the deadline may not be processed until the following day.
Public Comment during the meeting:
Meetings are held in-person. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be
present at the meeting location.
Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy,
Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire
to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation must provide display-ready
material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's
Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7114.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cooley will call the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order.
2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the
agenda. Comments are limited to three 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.
3.CONSENT
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-
controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may
request the Planning Commission to pull an item for discussion. The public may
comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute
time limit.
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
5
Recommendation:
To approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2025.
4.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. 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.
4.a CONSIDERATION OF THE 2024 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT 9
*This item will be continued to a date certain, the March 12, 2025
Planning Commission meeting, to allow staff additional time to verify
development activity data.
4.b REVIEW OF PROPOSED CIRCULATION MODIFICATIONS TO THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 600 TANK FARM ROAD PROJECT (MOD-
0753-2024)
11
Recommendation:
Adopt the Draft PC Resolution recommending the City Council:
Approve a modification to conditions of approval related to
revised offsite public circulation improvements for the
previously approved 600 Tank Farm Road project; and
1.
Approve an Addendum to the previously certified Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 600 Tank Farm
Road project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
2.
4.c REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN (SPEC-0457-2023)
121
Recommendation:
Adopt the Draft PC Resolution recommending approval to the City
Council to introduce an Ordinance to amend the Airport Area Specific
Plan to allow for mixed-use residential development in the Service
Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones subject to a conditional
use permit, and to approve an Addendum to the Final EIR for the Airport
Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans.
5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Receive a brief update from Deputy Community Development Director
Tyler Corey.
6.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for March
12, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES for the hearing impaired--see the Clerk
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible
to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who
requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting
should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114 at least
48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Planning Commission meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20 and on
the City's YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/CityofSanLuisObispo. Agenda
related writings or documents provided to the Planning Commission are
available for public inspection on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-
minutes.
1
Planning Commission Minutes
February 12, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Planning
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioner Sheryl Flores, Commissioner Bob Jorgensen,
Commissioner Steve Kahn, Commissioner Eric Tolle, Vice Chair
Dave Houghton, Chair Justin Cooley
Planning
Commissioners
Absent:
Commissioner Juan Munoz-Morris
City Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, Deputy
City Attorney Sadie Symens, Megan Wilbanks, Deputy City Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to
order on February 12, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Cooley.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
3. CONSENT
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 2025 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
Motion By Vice Chair Houghton
Second By Commissioner Flores
To approve the Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2025.
Ayes (6): Commissioner Flores, Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner
Kahn, Commissioner Tolle, Vice Chair Houghton, and Chair Cooley
Absent (1): Commissioner Munoz-Morris
CARRIED (6 to 0)
Page 5 of 214
2
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.a REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 (SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS) AND TITLE 17 (ZONING REGULATIONS) (CODE-0031-
2025) OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE
Housing Policy & Program Manager Teresa McClish, Assistant Planner
Ethan Estrada, and Housing Coordinator David Amini presented the staff
report and responded to Commission inquiries.
Chair Cooley opened the Public Hearing
Public Comment:
Eric Veium
Michael Clark
Emily Ewer
Chris Allen
Christina Pires
Dustin Pires
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Cooley closed the Public Hearing
Motion By Vice Chair Houghton
Second By Commissioner Jorgensen
Adopt the Draft Resolution, which recommends that the City Council
introduce and adopt an Ordinance amending Title 16 (Subdivision
Regulations) and Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the City’s Municipal
Code regarding accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units,
urban lot splits, and clarifications to regulations for affordable housing
projects.
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
INTRODUCE AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16
(SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) AND TITLE 17 (ZONING
REGULATIONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH CHANGES
ADDRESSING STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATES ON ACCESSORY AND
JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND URBAN LOT SPLITS,
AND CLARIFICATIONS TO REGULATIONS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS, WITH AN EXEMPTION FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA) AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF
Page 6 of 214
3
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 12, 2025 (CODE-
0031-2025)" with the following changes:
Section 16.15.020.I.2: Copies of the unrecorded easement
agreements must be submitted with the application. The easement
agreements must be recorded against the property before prior to
or concurrent with the final parcel map may being approved.
Section 16.15.025.D.2: There is a car share vehicle, as defined in
Section 16.26.065, located within one block[...]
Section 17.86.020.B.4.c: Building permit applications that
propose the expansion or alteration of an existing single-
family or multifamily dwelling, or the conversion of existing
space within a single-family or multifamily dwelling, for the
purpose of creating an accessory dwelling unit or a junior
accessory dwelling unit, are permissible under this Chapter.
Said expansion or alteration to an existing single-family or
multifamily dwelling shall be consistent with the City’s
objective design standards and any applicable zoning
regulations. The number of ADUs within the existing or
proposed converted space of a multifamily dwelling shall not
exceed 25 percent of the existing number of multifamily
dwelling units. The provisions of this section do not apply to
new construction multifamily dwellings.
Section 17.86.020.C.5: Except as provided by state law, the owner
of the property shall occupy either the primary residence or the
junior accessory dwelling unit.
Section 17.86.020.C.6: Except as provided by state law, prior to
the issuance of building permits for a junior accessory dwelling
unit[...]
Ayes (6): Commissioner Flores, Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner
Kahn, Commissioner Tolle, Vice Chair Houghton, and Chair Cooley
Absent (1): Commissioner Munoz-Morris
CARRIED (6 to 0)
Page 7 of 214
4
5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey provided the
following update of upcoming projects:
Scheduled for the February 26, 2025 meeting, is review of the
General Plan Annual Report (GENP-0089-2025), review of
amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan (120 Venture, SPEC-
0457-2023), review a modification to ARCH-0406-2021, a
previously approved mixed-use development located at 600 Tank
Farm Road (MOD-0753-2024).
Commissioner Tolle will be absent for the February 26, 2025 meeting.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission is scheduled for February 26, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
_________________________
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2025
Page 8 of 214
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF THE 2024 GENERAL
PLAN ANNUAL REPORT
BY: Ethan Estrada, Assistant Planner FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
Phone Number: (805) 781-7576 Phone Number: (805) 781-7169
Email: ejestrad@slocity.org Email: tcorey@slocity.org
This item will be continued to a date certain, the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission
meeting, to allow staff additional time to verify development activity data.
Meeting Date: 2/26/2025
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 10 minutes
Page 9 of 214
Page 10 of 214
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PROPOSED CIRCULATION MODIFICATIONS TO THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 600 TANK FARM ROAD PROJECT, AND ASSOCIATED
ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT ADDRESS: 600 Tank Farm Road BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
Phone Number: 805-610-1109
FILE NUMBERS: MOD-0753-2024 Email: JFRickenbach@aol.com
APPLICANT: Covelop, Inc. FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft PC Resolution (Attachment A) recommending the City Council:
1. Approve a modification to conditions of approval related to revised offsite public
circulation improvements for the previously approved 600 Tank Farm Road project;
and
2. Approve an Addendum to the previously certified Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) for the 600 Tank Farm Road project, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SITE DATA
Applicant
Representative
General Plan
Zoning
Site Area
Environmental
Status
Covelop, Inc.
Damien Mavis
Services & Manufacturing
Service Commercial (C-S) with
Airport Area Specific Plan overlay
(C-S-SP)
~11.7 acres; current action only
affects offsite improvements
A Final EIR was certified when the
600 Tank Farm Road project was
approved in 2022. An Addendum to
that document has been prepared.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
The 600 Tank Farm Road mixed-use development project was approved by the City
Council on February 1, 2022. The approved project included 280 residential units and
12,500 square feet of commercial space on an 11.7-acre parcel near the intersection of
Tank Farm and Santa Fe Roads. The approved site plan is included as Attachment B of
Meeting Date: 2/26/2025
Item Number: 4b
Time Estimate: 45 Minutes
Tank Farm Rd.
Page 11 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
this report. As part of the approval, the project was required to construct several
transportation improvements, including:
Extending Santa Fe Road (West) north as a new collector street for primary
access to the site.
Widening Tank Farm Road to add width for two westbound lanes along the project
frontage.
Adding curb/gutter, landscaped parkways, elevated one-way protected bike lanes,
sidewalks, street trees, and lighting along the Tank Farm and Santa Fe (West)
project frontages.
Designing and constructing the north, east and west legs of a roundabout at the
Tank Farm/Santa Fe (West) intersection.
Creating a shared-use path through the site and along Acacia Creek to connect
to Damon Garcia Sports Complex.
Connecting to a pedestrian, bike, and emergency vehicle bridge to link the site
with the 650 Tank Farm development (bridge to be built by 650 Tank Farm).
Conducting preliminary design and environmental studies for a future shared -use
path along Tank Farm Road between Santa Fe (West) and Innovation Way.
Since the project was approved in 2022, the project applicant, Covelop, Inc., has worked
on designing the required on-site and off-site improvements. However, they have been
unable to acquire the necessary off-site land from Chevron/Union Oil to build the planned
Tank Farm/Santa Fe roundabout. Chevron/Union Oil is conducting environmental testing
for polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) substances on the former tank farm property and
is not ready to proceed with sale of the full right-of-way needed for the roundabout until
that testing is complete, which could take several more years, or longer.
After several years of coordination between the applicant, City Attorney’s Office, and City
Transportation staff, the City has confirmed that all reasonable efforts to acquire the land
have been made. Since the roundabout is currently considered infeasible, the applicant
has requested a modification to this aspect of the approved project, removing the
roundabout as a requirement for the 600 Tank Farm project.
To address circulation at this location, the applicant has proposed a modified/interim
access design concept for City review, detailed later in this report and in Attachment C
and Attachment D. This circulation change would not affect the land use plan, buildout
potential, or other required circulation improvements associated with project approval.
The reimbursement agreement for 600 Tank Farm, previously approved in 2022 for the
roundabout construction, would need to be updated if the roundabout is not constructed,
which is reflected in updated conditions of approval #113, #114, #116, #117, #118, and
#119. The applicant is still required to contribute to Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) for
future construction of the roundabout by others, as reflected in updated conditions of
approval #113 and #116.
Page 12 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
In addition to modifications to the Tank Farm Road transportation improvements, the
developer is requesting modification to the conditions of approval related to
undergrounding of utilities. There are eight (8) PG&E poles and overhead lines combined
on the project site and along the project frontage which are required to be undergrounded
with development. The developer is requesting to modify conditions of approval to allow
one (1) PG&E pole at the southeast corner of the project site to remain overhead due to
field conditions, lack of existing easements, and inability to obtain required new
easements from neighboring property owners that prevent the undergrounding of the one
PG&E pole without significant increases in undergrounding costs across several
neighboring property frontages. Seven (7) poles and attached lines are proposed to be
undergrounded including all poles and lines along the project frontage. In addition, the
developer would construct a conduit crossing the creek to the east of the project sit e to
facilitate future undergrounding of the pole and power line that is proposed to remain in
place. The pole that would remain in place would not conflict with the proposed interim
public improvements or future roundabout construction.
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s (PC’s) role is to 1) review and make recommendations to the
City Council regarding the proposed project modifications’ consistency with the previous
project approval, which was found to be consistent with the General Plan 1, Airport Area
Specific Plan (AASP)2, Zoning Regulations3, Active Transportation Plan4, and other
applicable City development standards, and 2) review and make a recommendation to
the City Council regarding the associated Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).
2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
The original City Council February 1, 2022 project approval was based on previous review
from various advisory bodies from July 2020 through November 2021, including the Active
Transportation Committee (ATC), Tree Committee (TC), Architectural Review
Commission (ARC), and Planning Commission. The project was also reviewed by the
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and found to be consistent with the San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. One of the required offsite improvements of the
City Council approved project was a roundabout at the intersection of Tank Farm Road
and Santa Fe Road (West).
On January 16, 2025, the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) reviewed the proposed
modified/interim circulation improvements for consistency with the Active Transportati on
Plan (ATP). The ATC recommended approval of the proposed interim transportation
improvements, subject to additional modifications which have since been incorporated
1 General Plan: Land Use Element Chapter 2 (Conservation and Development of Residential
Neighborhoods), Housing Element Chapter 3 (Goals, Policies and Programs), Circulation Element Chapter
6 (Multi-Modal Circulation) and Chapter 9 (Street Network Changes)
2 AASP: Chapter 4.0 (Land Use); Chapter 5.0 (Community Design)
3 Zoning Regulations Article 3 (Regulations and Standards Applicable to All Zones) and Article 8 (Housing-
Related Regulations)
4 Active Transportation Plan Chapter 5 (Recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects), Chapter 6
(Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs), and Chapter 7 (Implementation)
Page 13 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
into the proposal by the applicant as further detailed and analyzed in Section 4.3 of this
report below.
3.0 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
As currently proposed by the developer, the modified project would eliminate the
previously planned roundabout at the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road
(West), replacing this project component with a modified/interim access design concept
that would provide access to the project site without the roundabout until it can be built in
the future by the City or other private development when the required right-of-way is
available. Key features of the interim transportation improvements include:
Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road (West) Intersection: Unsignalized, with stop
control on the Santa Fe Road (West) approach.
Minor Road Widening on Tank Farm Road: Widening to add an eastbound left-
turn lane into Santa Fe Road (West) and buffered on-street bike lanes along Tank
Farm Road.
Frontage Improvements:
o Santa Fe Road (West): Landscaped parkway, lighting, street trees, and an
elevated (sidewalk-level) two-way shared-use pedestrian/bicycle path on
the east side of street only. The shared-use path is to be constructed with
permanent materials (concrete) and designed with flexibility to convert to a
separate pedestrian sidewalk and one-way northbound protected bike lane
in the future by others, which is the ultimate configuration recommended
per the ATP.
o Tank Farm Road: Landscaped parkway, lighting, street trees, and a two-
way shared-use path between Santa Fe (West) and the Mindbody traffic
signal. Shared-use path constructed in permanent materials (concrete)
along 600 Tank Farm Road frontage, and with temporary (asphalt) east of
frontage to Mindbody signal. The shared-use path is to be designed with
flexibility to convert to a separate sidewalk and one-way westbound
protected bike lane in the future by others, consistent with the ATP. Tank
Farm Road improvements also include widening of the existing culvert at
Acacia Creek.
Temporary Sidewalk: Asphalt sidewalk on street-level along the north side of Tank
Farm Road from the Mindbody signal to Broad Street with a protective curb
separating pedestrians from vehicle traffic. This provides pedestrian connectivity
between the development and Tank Farm Road/Broad Street intersection until
permanent sidewalks are constructed by neighboring properties in the future.
Traffic Safety Features: Landscaped center median along Tank Farm Road
frontage to prevent illegal left turns, acceleration lanes to improve left -turn access
to Tank Farm Road from southbound Santa Fe (West) and northbound Sant a Fe
(East), radar speed feedback signs, striping and warning signage to encourage
safer speeds.
Page 14 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
Signal Modifications: Updates to the Tank Farm Road/Mindbody intersection to
add pedestrian and bicycle signals phases and bicycle left turn box to improve
Tank Farm Road crossings.
The improvements on Tank Farm Road east of the project site (in the direction of the
Tank Farm Road/Mindbody intersection and Broad Street) would occur on two adjacent
properties with approved projects: the 650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project (Mitigated
Negative Declaration SCH #2018111054) and the 660 Tank Farm Northwest Corner
Broad and Tank Farm Mixed-Use Commercial/Assisted Living Project (Mitigated
Negative Declaration SCH #2019049030). The modified project transportation
improvements are substantially consistent with the existing entitlements on these
properties in the context of their footprints and area of potential disturbance .
The interim transportation improvement design concept proposed by the applicant is
shown in Figure 1 below and included as Attachment C of this report, and the applicant’s
narrative of the proposed transportation modifications is included as Attachment D .
In addition to the proposed interim transportation improvements, the applicant is
proposing a modification to conditions of approval regarding undergrounding of overhead
utility lines. There are eight (8) PG&E poles and overhead lines combined on the project
site and along the project frontage which are required to be undergrounded with
development. The developer is requesting to modify conditions of approval to allow one
(1) PG&E pole at the southeast corner of the project site to rema in overhead. The
applicant’s written request regarding undergrounding is included as Attachment E.
Figure 1: Proposed Interim Transportation Improvements Design Concept: Tank Farm Road
Page 15 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
Coordination with PG&E over the past year has provided cost estimates for
undergrounding. Due to site conditions, lack of existing easements, and the inabil ity to
obtain new easements for electrical facilities needed to underground the pole at the
southeast corner of the project site, the additional offsite undergrounding that would be
required to comply with the current undergrounding condition would exceed $1.3 million
in addition to the costs for undergrounding on the project site and along the project
frontage. The applicant is requesting the project’s conditions of approval be modified to
allow the pole at the southeast corner to be left in place or moved slightly as required to
underground the rest of the project frontage to allow for undergrounding by a neighboring
property at a later date. In addition, the developer proposes to construct a conduit
crossing the creek to the east of the project site to fa cilitate future undergrounding of the
pole and power line that is proposed to remain in place. The pole that would remain in
place would not conflict with the proposed interim public improvements or future
roundabout construction.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The 600 Tank Farm project as approved in 2022 was found to be in conformance with the
General Plan, AASP, and applicable aspects of the Zoning Regulations, as well as
applicable Engineering Standards. The currently proposed modification to offsite
transportation features and undergrounding of utilities must also conform with applicable
policies and standards. Staff has evaluated the proposed project modifications and
identified discussion items for the Planning Commission to consider, including
recommendations provided by the ATC. These are discussed Section 4.1 below.
No other aspect of the approved project’s development potential or any related onsite
improvements are proposed to change as a result of this action and remain in
conformance with applicable provisions of the City’s regulatory framework.
4.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The previously approved project was found to be consistent with all aspects of the
General Plan. The discussion below is limited to the proposed circulation modifications
and undergrounding of utilities as they relate to the relevant aspects of the General Plan.
Land Use Element (LUE): The approved project has components that support circulation-
oriented policies in the LUE. LUE Policy 10.4 (Encourage Walkability) states that the City
shall encourage projects which provide for and enhance active and environmentally
sustainable modes of transportation, such as pedestrian movement, bicycle access, and
transit services. The proposed circulation modification is consistent with that policy, as it
still provides multi-modal access between the project site and nearby non -residential
destinations.
Circulation Element (CE): The CE describes how transportation will be provided in the
community. The project includes features that support multi-modal transportation,
consistent with the following policies. CE Policy 4.1.1 (Bicycle Use) states that the City
shall expand the bicycle network and provide end of trip facilities to encourage bicycle
use and to make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable. CE Policy 5.1.2 (Sidewalks
and Paths) states that the City should complete a continuous pedestrian network
Page 16 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
connecting residential areas with major activity centers as well as trails leading into city
and county open spaces.
Project Features that Support General Plan Policies
Project components that support Circulation-related policies include improvements to
transit, bicyclist facilities, and pedestrian facilities. Bicycle facilities in the study area
consist of Class II bike lanes, which provide a striped lane for one -way on-street bicycle
travel. Broad Street and Tank Farm Road both have Class II bike lanes on both sides of
the road throughout the study segments. The modified project would still provide
improvements to pedestrian circulation facilities along Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe
Road. The proposed project would provide for improved pedestrian facilities and
connectivity by connecting and improving existing sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian
signals at signalized intersections. The reconfigured intersection of Tank Farm Road and
Santa Fe Road without a roundabout would still provide multi-modal access to nearby
offsite non-residential destinations, traffic operations consistent with the City’s adopted
performance thresholds, and remain consistent with Circulation Element policies.
Table 5 of the Circulation Element provides direction for the design of improvements to
Tank Farm Road, as follows:
“Widen Tank Farm Road as a Parkway Arterial with 2 lanes in each direction, a
center turn lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes, sidewalks and Class I
bike lanes (where feasible) from Higuera to Broad. (see AASP)”
Based on this, the project remains consistent with the General Plan, since it does not
specify whether or not a roundabout is required at the intersection of Tank Farm and
Santa Fe Road. However, the table also refers to the AASP, which provides more
direction on the nature of this improvement. As discussed in the following section on the
AASP, that document does specify a roundabout at the intersection of Tank Farm and
Santa Fe Road. The project’s consistency with that document is discussed in the
following section of this report.
In relation to undergrounding of utilities, the General Plan does not include specific
requirements for undergrounding. General Plan Policy 8.1.2 refers to specific plans, which
include development standards that would apply to the Airport Area, as discussed in detail
in the following section of this report.
4.2 Consistency with the Airport Area Specific Plan
The project area is within the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) boundaries, and thus
subject to its goals and policies. The AASP effectively establishes a link between
implementing policies of the General Plan and the individual development proposals
within the AASP boundaries.
Page 17 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
Circulation Modifications
Chapter 6 of the AASP includes goals and policies related to circulation. The AASP
defines the roadway classifications for roads traversing the area. Tank Farm Road is
defined as a “Parkway Arterial”, while Santa Fe Road is a “Commercial Collector.” As
part of the 2022 project approval, required improvements to those roadways were
consistent with those classifications.
Figure 6-1 of the AASP shows a roundabout at the intersection of Tank Farm Road a nd
Santa Fe Road. The approved project included a roundabout and was consistent with
this aspect of the AASP. The proposed modification to this intersection does not include
the roundabout. However, the project applicant is constrained by the inability to acquire
the land needed for the roundabout for reasons beyond the applicant’s control.
Section 6.2.1 of the AASP acknowledges the potential tradeoffs in designing the street
system within the plan area, and states the following:
“A unique challenge is to design the AASP arterial and collector street system to
meet the access, mobility, safety and vehicle classification needs of the area
without over-designing the facilities.”
The intent of this statement is the overall circulation goal of the AASP i s to ensure access,
mobility and safety in the design of the arterial and collector streets. The plan is open to
different design approaches to meeting goals related to safety, access , and mobility.
Based on the City Engineer’s review of the updated circulation concept, the modified
design meets the goals of the AASP. Notably, while constructing a more standard
intersection configuration than the previously planned roundabout, the applicant shall also
prepare designs, dedicate on-site right-of-way, and pay fair share fees towards the future
roundabout to be constructed by others, as required by conditions of approval #113
through #117. The modified conditions of approval not only reflect elimination of the
obligation to construct the Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout, but also include the
following considerations to facilitate future construction of the roundabout at a later date:
In addition to payment of TIF fees, the applicant is required to pay additional fair
share fee for the portion of the Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout costs that exceed
the amount currently programed in the Citywide TIF program under which the
project will remained vested. Through the preliminary designs developed over the
past several years, the roundabout has been identified to cost significantly more
than the current TIF identifies. If the applicant receives approval to defer
construction of the roundabout to others, the project is still required to pay their fair
share percentage of that delta, as noted in condition #113.
Updated condition #113 requires the applicant to pay a deposit for the costs
needed to remove/reconstruct their interim frontage improvements when the future
roundabout is constructed by others. The proposed condition requires the
applicant to provide an engineer’s estimate for this cost and escalate the amount
out 10 years into the future using California Construction Cost index. The intent is
that these funds would be used in the future by whomever is constructing th e
roundabout, so that the City (or other developer) is not paying any direct costs for
reconstruction of 600 Tank Farm’s interim frontage improvements.
Page 18 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
The proposed project modification is considered consistent with the intent of the
circulation aspects of the AASP because the interim improvements will provide the
transportation improvements required to serve the 600 Tank Farm project and will also
provide right-of-way, design work, and fair share funding to facilitate the Tank Farm
roundabout build out in the future once land acquisitions are available. Please also refer
to the discussion in Section 4.3, which analyzes the project’s consistency with the City’s
Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
Utility Undergrounding
Utility undergrounding requirements are also identified in the AASP. Section 7.7 states
“All new development shall be responsible for undergrounding of existing overhead utility
lines along that development’s frontage or constructing underground utility line s along
new roadways concurrent with the construction of new roadways.” The project conditions
of approval #75 and #76 were included to reflect this requirement.
AASP section 7.8 acknowledges that interim utility solutions may be needed if the
permanent systems cannot be made available at the time of development. Due to the
interconnection of the southeasterly pole to other power poles located offsite from the 600
Tank Farm project frontage, and the high cost associated with undergrounding the pole
at the southeastern corner of the project site, which would require continuing the
undergrounding beyond the southeast corner of the project site along several adjacent
property frontages, the applicant’s proposal to underground 7 of the 8 poles on the
property and along the project frontage and construction of the conduit crossing the creek
east of the project site to facilitate future undergrounding of the one remaining pole can
be considered an interim improvement, consistent with the long term plan for
undergrounding to be completed at a later date by other adjacent property owners.
Therefore, the applicant’s current proposal for modification to undergrounding
requirements is consistent with the AASP. Condition #76 has been modified in the
attached resolution to reflect the applicant’s request for one pole (and powerlines to the
east of that pole) to remain and require the installation of the conduit to the east across
Acacia Creek to facilitate future undergrounding of the lines/pole.
4.3 Consistency with the Active Transportation Plan
The project was reviewed by the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) on January 16,
2025. In that meeting, the ATC provided recommendations to address key design issues
related to the revised circulation concept, in order to ensure consistency with both the
Circulation Element and the Active Transportation Plan (ATP). These included the
following:
1. Support the proposed two-way shared-use path on Tank Farm as an interim design,
with a recommendation to design this so it could be converted to a separate one-way
protected bike lane and sidewalk (per the original project design and ultimate plans per
the ATP) in the future, if needed; and
2. Recommend designing the portion of the Santa Fe (west) bikeway similar to Tank
Farm. This would be as a two-way shared-use path instead of separate sidewalk and
one-way protected bike lane, designed so that it could be converted back to a separate
sidewalk and bike lane in the future consistent with the ATP, if desired; and
Page 19 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
3. Direction to staff to monitor use of the Broad/Tank Farm intersection once the project
is occupied to see if right-turn on red restrictions or other features are warranted if there
are conflicts with new eastbound cyclists at this intersection.
The ATC recommendations (1 and 2 above) have been incorporated into the updated
improvement design by the applicant, as shown in Figure 1 above and in Attachment C.
In addition to deferring the Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout, there are a few other
components of the modified/interim access design that differ from the long-term bicycle
and pedestrian facilities proposed on Tank Farm Road per the City’s currently adopted
Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Table 1, included as Attachment H of this report,
summarizes the consistency of the modified project to relevant city transportation
plans/policies and compares that to the originally approved project. Visual
representations of the bicycle and pedestrian circulation from both the approved 2022
designs and the proposed 2025 design are included in the January 16, 2025 ATC agenda
report.
The most noteworthy difference of the modified project is the elimination of the Tank
Farm/Santa Fe (West) roundabout as a project requirement, which has been deemed
infeasible at this time. Without the roundabout, it will be less convenient for autos, bikes,
and pedestrians to cross Tank Farm Road directly at this intersection. The Transportation
Impact Study prepared for the modified/interim project design (Attachment F) indicates
that Tank Farm/Santa Fe (West) intersection will operate within the City’s adopted
delay/congestion targets for autos until futu re planned modifications to Santa Fe are
constructed—if Santa Fe (West) is extended north to Prado Road or Santa Fe (East) is
realigned to the Santa Fe (West) as a single intersection, as planned per the Circulation
Element and AASP, installation of a roundabout or a traffic signal will be required. It
should also be noted that the modified project improves operations at the existing Tank
Farm/Santa Fe (East) intersection compared to current conditions through the addition of
a left-turn acceleration lane, which allows drivers to make the northbound left-turn onto
Tank Farm Road in two stages, which reduces delays and congestion.
Per the modified project proposal, pedestrians and bicyclists are encouraged to cross
Tank Farm Road at the nearby Mindbody signal. Under the modified project, the applicant
would construct improvements to this signal to better facilitate bike/pedestrian crossings
and construct a two-way shared-use path along the north side of Tank Farm between
Santa Fe and Mindbody to improve access to this crossing for eastbound cyclists. As
noted in Table 1 (Attachment H), this differs from the ATP, which calls for a westbound
one-way protected bike lane for this segment. The project applicant explored the
possibility of extending this two-way shared-use path all the way east to Broad Street;
however, the existing right-of-way east of Mindbody is not wide enough and the current
property owner(s) are not interested in negotiating additional right-of-way at this time. For
this reason, the project proposes a narrow temporary sidewalk only on the north side
between Mindbody and Broad Street for pedestrians, while eastbound cyclists would
need to cross the street at the Mindbody signal to continue easterly.
While the proposal to provide a two-way shared-use path on the north side of Tank Farm
along the project frontage is a logical interim design, it is not consistent with the ATP,
which calls for one-way protected bike lanes and separate sidewalks on each side of Tank
Page 20 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
Farm Road east of Santa Fe. However, the interim design does not preclude converting
the two-way path to separate one-way westbound bike lane and sidewalk at a future date
to ensure ATP consistency when other adjacent developments move forward . As
identified in modified condition of approval #126, the applicant shall demonstrate a good
faith effort to acquire the off-site right-of-way needed to extend this shared-use
pedestrian/bicycle path all the way east to the Tank Farm/Broad Street intersection, and
if right-of-way cannot be obtained, the interim pedestrian sidewalk shall be constructed
by the applicant within the available right-of-way.
At the January 2025 meeting, the ATC approved a motion supporting the design as two-
way shared-use ped/bike paths (Class I bikeway per Caltrans naming convention), but
did not want to formally amend the ATP. The direction was to provide two-way shared-
use paths for added connectivity in the interim, but to design in a way that could
reasonably be converted to separate sidewalk and one -way protected bike lanes (Class
IV bikeway per Caltrans naming) as called for in the ATP at a future date. For example,
the previously-approved developments at neighboring 650 Tank Farm and 660 Tank
Farm include plans for internal bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to Broad Street parallel
to Tank Farm Road; however, it is currently uncertain when these properties will develop.
The modified project design provides efficient two -way, east-west connectivity in the
interim until this off -street parallel route is available. If the neighboring properties at 650
and 660 Tank Farm develop in the future , there would be potential to then modify
striping/signage on the Tank Farm and Santa Fe shared -use paths to designate separate
sidewalk and one-way bike lanes, consistent with the ATP. The interim design proposed
by the applicant and recommended by ATC does not preclude the ultimate plans per the
ATP (which calls for one-way Class IV bikeways and separate sidewalks).
4.4 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The proposed circulation modifications and revised utility undergrounding do not affect
any aspect of the approved development related to zoning, including mixed -use
provisions, building design, square footage, the number of units, or other development
standards addressed in the zoning regulations. Therefore, the project as modified
remains consistent with the zoning regulations, as described in the February 2022 City
Council agenda report in support of the project’s original approval.
4.5 Consistency with the Subdivision Regulations
The proposed circulation modifications and revised utility undergrounding do not affect
any aspect of the approved development related to the approved common interest
phased subdivision. Therefore, the project as modified remains consistent with the
subdivision regulations, as described in the February 2022 City Council agenda report in
support of the project’s original approval.
4.6 Consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan
The San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) oversees
development subject to the ALUP to ensure safety related to airport operations, while the
City has ultimate jurisdiction over potential land use decisions and future development.
The ALUC reviewed the project on August 18, 2021 and determined that development
facilitated under the proposed AASP Amendment and rezone would be consistent with
the ALUP subject to conditions that are now required as part the project approval. The
Page 21 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
proposed circulation modifications do not affect any aspect of the project’s consistency
with the ALUP. In December 2024, ALUC staff confirmed that no ALUP conformity review
would be required for the modified project.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the originally approved
project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and circulated for a 50-
day public review period that began on June 15, 2021 and ended on August 3, 2021. In
addition, a public meeting was held on Wednesday July 14, 2021 at a Planning
Commission meeting to receive public comments on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR, which
addressed public comments received during the public review period, was certified at the
time the project was approved in February 2022. The Final EIR, including responses to
comments on the Draft EIR, maybe be found on the City website in its entirety.
An Addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared to address changes to the approved
project, and is included as Attachment G. Pursuant to Section 15164(b) of the CEQA
Guidelines, an addendum to an adopted Final EIR may be prepared by the Lead Agency
that prepared the original Final EIR if only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred that
require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
An Addendum is appropriate to address the modified project because the proposed
changes to the approved project do not meet the conditions of Section 15162(a) for
preparation of a subsequent EIR.
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including
Planning, Engineering, Transportation, Building, Utilities, and Fire. Any conditions of
approval or informational notes from these departments and divisions have been
incorporated into the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) for recommendation of project
approval.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item. An action to continue the hearing should include a detailed list
of additional information or analysis required.
2. Deny the project. An action recommending that the City Council deny the project
should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference
inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, AASP,
Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. Should the PC want to pursue this
alternative, Staff recommends that the specific findings under Government Code
§ 65915(d)(1)(B) and (d)(3) are adequately addressed.
Page 22 of 214
MOD-0753-2024 600 Tank Farm Item 4b
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
A – Draft PC Resolution Recommending City Council Approve the Modification
B – Previously Approved Site Plan and Roundabout (February 2022)
C – Proposed Project Modification: Tank Farm Road Transportation Improvements
D – Applicant Narrative: Proposed Project Modification
E – Applicant Proposal for Utilities Undergrounding Modification
F – Transportation Impact Study (Access Evaluation for Proposed Design)
G – Addendum to the 600 Tank Farm Final EIR
H – Policy Consistency of Proposed Active Transportation Facilities (Table 1)
Page 23 of 214
Page 24 of 214
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED
CIRCULATION AND CONDITION MODIFICATIONS FOR THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 600 TANK FARM ROAD PROJECT AND
APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS REPRESENTED IN THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS
DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2025 (MOD-0753-2024)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based teleconference hearing on February 1, 2022, pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021, GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020, and
EID-0608-2020, Covelop Inc., applicant, and adopted Resolution 11304 (2022 Series)
approving the 600 Tank Farm Road project and certifying the Final EIR for that project;
and
WHEREAS, as part of project development, the applicant has worked with City
staff to implement required mitigation measures and project conditions, one of which
would require a new roundabout at the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe
Road; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that all reasonable efforts have been made
by the applicant to acquire the land needed for the roundabout, but that the land is
unavailable for acquisition at this time; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a modification to the roundabout
requirement and conditions of approval, proposing an alternate transportation design that
does not require as much land from the adjacent property owner; and
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) (SCH #2020110426) was prepared to address changes to the previously-approved
project, pursuant to Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, since only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary to the certified Final EIR and none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred that require
preparation of a subsequent EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a hearing on January 16, 2025, and provided recommended direction on the
modified circulation design; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
hearing on February 26, 2025, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under MOD-0753-
2024, Covelop Inc., applicant, to consider the modified project and recommendations
from the Active Transportation Committee; and
Page 25 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 2
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo to recommend that the City Council approve the Addendum to the
certified Final EIR and approve the modified circulation design and conditions of approval
for the previously-approved 600 Tank Farm Mixed Use Project. This resolution is based
on the following findings, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, and
conditions:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend
approval of the modified 600 Tank Farm Road project, based on the following findings:
1. The originally approved project (Resolution 11304 – 2022 Series) as conditioned
was found to be consistent with the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan
(AASP). As conditioned, the proposed project modification, together with the
provisions for design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan,
including compatibility with objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs
specified in the General Plan and the AASP because Housing Element Program
6.13 specifically identifies the project site as appropriate for zoning to provide for
higher-density or mixed-use housing as compatible with other projects in the
vicinity.
2. As conditioned, the County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission, on
August 18, 2021, found the originally approved project to be consistent with the
Airport Land Use Plan.
3. The modified project as conditioned is consistent with the land use and circulation
requirements of the General Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan, and Active
Transportation Plan, based on the analysis i ncluded in the Planning Commission
Agenda Report of February 26, 2025.
4. The originally approved project (Resolution 11304 – 2022 Series) as conditioned
was found to be conformance with development review requirements related to
project scale, size, character, or other considerations related to public health,
safety and welfare.
5. The modified project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of
persons living or working at the project site or in the vicinity because the proposed
circulation modification will not introduce design issues detrimental to public health,
since the subdivision will occur on a previously developed site within an urbanized
area and, approval of this subdivision modification does not include variances or
exceptions from applicable design standards set forth in the Subdivision
Regulations, and the project modification has been found in conformance with
development standards and the Airport Area Specific Plan, and the project will be
compatible with site constraints, the scale/character of the site and the surrounding
neighborhood. As a Common Interest Subdivision, the project is subject to
architectural review and enforcement of relevant building and safety codes.
Page 26 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 3
6. The project is consistent with Housing Element Policies 6.1 and 7.4 because the
project supports the development of more housing in accordance with the assigned
Regional Housing Needs Allocation and establishes a new neighborhood, with
pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to
adjacent neighborhoods consistent with the AASP.
7. As conditioned, the applicant has agreed to an indemnification clause to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees
from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or
employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental
review and deferral of construction of the Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout
(“Indemnified Claims”). Upon request of the City, applicant shall execute an
indemnification agreement in a form provided by the City prior to building permit
issuance. The site is physically suited for the type and density allowed in the
Service Commercial zone (C-S-SP) within the Specific Plan overlay, because the
adjacent property at 650 Tank Farm is also zoned C -S-SP and provides for a
similar mixed-use development project.
8. Due to property acquisition, environmental, and permitting constraints, and the
costs and timeframes associated with those constraints, current construction of the
Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout project as originally contemplated is infeasible
at this time. As conditioned, the alternative interim transportation improvements
identified with this project modification are suitable for the density of the
development proposed and will not preclude the construction of future facilities
consistent with the ultimate long-term improvements consistent with the City’s
Active Transportation Plan and the Airport Area Specific Plan.
9. Due to property acquisition, environmental, and permitting constraints, and the
costs associated with those constraints, undergrounding of one single identified
utility pole has been determined to be infeasible at this time. As conditioned, the
utility undergrounding identified with this project modification, including th e single
power pole that would remain in place or be moved slightly offsite, would not
conflict with the proposed interim public improvements or future roundabout
construction, with final location to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
to ensure compatibly, as required by conditions of approval.
SECTION 2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings. Based upon
all the evidence, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve
the Addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearing
House #2020110426), subject to the following CEQA findings in su pport of the modified
circulation improvements as conditioned and as related to the 600 Tank Farm Mixed Use
project:
1. The 600 Tank Farm Mixed Use Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the State CEQA Guidelines, adequately addressing impacts associated with the
project.
Page 27 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 4
2. The previously approved project was found to be consistent with the requirements
of the 600 Tank Farm Mixed Use FEIR as proposed based on the CEQA Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and prepared consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, and this approval incorporates those FEIR
mitigation measures as applicable to the project, as described more fully in the
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution
No.11304, Exhibit A) and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
(Resolution No.11304, Exhibit B).
3. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR,
and reduced to the extent feasible, provided identified mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project and the mitigation monitoring program (refer to
Resolution No.11304, Exhibit B, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program).
4. The proposed circulation modifications would not introduce any new impact nor
increase the severity of any previously-identified impact described in the certified
FEIR, nor would it modify or eliminate any previously -required mitigation
measures, as described in the Addendum to the FEIR prepared pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164.
5. An addendum to the FEIR is the appropriate level of environmental review for the
modified project because neither the proposed project nor the circumstances
under which it is undertaken will result in substantial changes to the original project
which will require major revisions to the FEIR due to new or increased significant
environmental effects, and no new information of substantial importance shows
significant environmental effects not previously examined or newly-feasible
mitigation measures.
SECTION 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend the City Council approve the proposed project modification with incorporation
of the following conditions, which were all part of the original 2022 project approval
(Resolution 11304), except modified as noted in strikethrough and underline to reflect
current 2025 modifications:
The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code
compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional
requirements applicable to the project.
Planning Division
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall
be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning
Commission (ARCH-0406-2021). A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in
working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code
requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be
made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are
Page 28 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 5
addressed. Any change to approved de sign, colors, materials, landscaping, or
other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural
Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall incorporate the design considerations
as described at the ARC hearing on October 4, 2021, the final designs of the
proposed project shall be modified to incorporate the following items, subject to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director:
a. Provide one more color scheme for Building A types.
b. Incorporate balcony railings that provide more privacy; 66%-75% solid
panels to screen views.
c. On the Building B rear elevation provide white garage doors rather than gray
to blend in more.
d. Provide more planting or other visual indicators for pedestrians an d traffic
calming (referencing the red arrow shown on sheet A10 descending from
Santa Fe Road)
e. Use landscaping to reduce massing of Building E.
f. Provide well thought out pedestrian-scale elements.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all
proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall
be consistent with the color and material board submitted with Major Development
(Architectural) Review application. The project shall avoid repetition of design
color schemes, such that adjacent townhomes or buildings of a similar layout use
different color schemes. The applicant shall also note the use of smooth finish
stucco on the building plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details or
equivalent shadow variation, and all other details including but not limited to
awnings and railings. Plans shall indicate the type of materials for the window
frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the
materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related
window features. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all
design features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible
with the neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a revised railing system for the
balconies that provides a design that visually obscures views of storage on the
balconies and provides additional privacy between existing and new residential
units, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
6. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current
parking calculation for the commercial component of the project upon the submittal
of Planning and Building permits for tenant changes or improvements, and/or each
business license, to ensure the site does not become under-parked.
Page 29 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 6
7. All surface parking spaces must be available for common use and not exclusively
assigned to any individual use, required residential parking may be reserved, but
commercial parking must be made available for guests or overflow from
residences.
8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required
short and long-term bicycle parking for all intended uses, plans submitted for
construction permits shall include bicycle lockers or interior space within each
residential unit or parking area for the storage of at least two bicycle per residential
unit. Short-term bicycle racks such as “Peak Racks” shall be installed in close
proximity to, and visible from, the main entry into the buildings (inverted “U” rack
designs shall not be permitted). Sufficient detail shall be provided about the
placement and design of bike racks and lockers to demonstrate compliance with
relevant Engineering Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the
satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors.
9. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan, demonstrating
compliance with maximum light intensity standards not to exceed a maintained
value of 10 foot-candles. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style
landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building
permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building
elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall
complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall
include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut -sheets
on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure
that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night
Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter §17.70.100 of the Zoning
Regulations.
10. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the buildings.
With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of
the buildings, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other
mechanical equipment. If any condensers, transformers, or other mechanical
equipment are to be ground mounted or placed on the roof, plans submitted for a
building permit shall confirm that these features will be adequately screened. A
line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be
adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
11. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall be screened from the public
right-of-way consistent with §17.70.200 of the Zoning Regulatio ns. The subject
property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times; free of
excessive leaves, branches, and other landscape material. The applicant shall be
responsible for the clean-up of any landscape material in the public right-of-way.
12. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The
legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all
Page 30 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 7
groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant
material showing their specific locations on plans. Landscaping plans shall include
the following information, at a minimum:
a. The species, diameter at breast height, location, and condition of all exis ting
trees;
b. Identification of trees that will be retained, removed, or relocated;
c. Location and size of plant and tree species proposed to be planted;
d. The location of proposed utilities, driveways, street tree locations, and the
size and species of proposed street trees; and
e. A reclaimed water irrigation plan.
13. Plans submitted for construction permits shall include elevation and detail
drawings of all walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the
development standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.70.070 –
Fences, Walls, and Hedges), except those identified in the Wall Height Exception
attached to the staff report dated November 17, 2021. Walls and fences should
remain as low as possible, long expanses of fence or wall surfaces shall be offset
and architecturally designed to prevent monotony. Evergreen ivy shall be planted
along the downslope side of all retaining walls that exceed 6 -feet in height, planting
of ivy shall be spaced out at a minimum of every 15 feet along the retaining walls,
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
14. The location of any required backflow preventer and double -check assembly shall
be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the
landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the
equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director,
equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property
line. Where this is not possible, as determined b y the Utilities Director, the back-
flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and
screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed
appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and
configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the
Utilities and Community Development Directors.
15. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit an application and
receive approval for the installation of public art as part of the project or pay the in-
lieu fee (Municipal Code §17.32.030.E.5.b.(ii).(g)). Public art shall be installed prior
to occupancy of the project, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
16. The design of proposed structures will incorporate noise attenuating construction
techniques that reduces noise exposure to acceptable levels. Exposure in outdoor
activity areas must not exceed 60 dB and indoor exposure must not exceed 45 dB
consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Plans submitted for construction
permits must clearly indicate and describe noise attenuation measures,
techniques, and materials, and demonstrates their compliance with noise levels
limits.
Page 31 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 8
17. Prior to building occupancy, the owner of the property shall p rovide a Residential
Noise Notice in writing for residential occupants stating that the property is located
within a commercial zone in an urban-type environment and that noise levels may
be higher than a strictly residential area.
18. Plans submitted for a building permit shall ensure consistency with the Airport Land
Use Commission’s (ALUC) conditions from the August 18, 2021 hearing. Any
increase in the number of dwelling units or commercial square footage shall be
referred to the ALUC for determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use
Plan (ALUP). The project is subject to the following ALUC conditions;
a. The average density/intensity for the site shall not exceed 75 persons per
acre.
b. The densest portion of the site (southwest 1 acre containing the two mixed-
use buildings) shall have an intensity not to exceed 150 persons per acre.
c. The maximum height limit of structures on the Project site shall not exceed
36 feet for any occupied structures, and 46 feet for any non -occupied
architectural features. The construction plans for the proposed dwelling
shall be submitted via FAA Form 7460-1 to the Air Traffic Division of the
FAA regional office having jurisdiction over San Luis Obispo County at least
45 days before proposed construction or application for a bu ilding permit,
to determine compliance with the provisions of FAR Part 77.
d. The Project shall comply with all noise policies as required by the ALUP.
e. No structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary
or permanent in nature shall constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a
hazard to air navigation, as defined by the ALUP.
f. Any use is prohibited that may entail characteristics which would potentially
interfere with the takeoff, landing, or maneuvering of aircraft at the Airport,
including:
• Creation of electrical interference with navigation signals or radio
communication between the aircraft and airport;
• Lighting which is difficult to distinguish from airport lighting;
• Glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport;
• Uses which attract birds and create bird strike hazards;
• Uses which produce visually significant quantities of smoke; and
• Uses which entail a risk of physical injury to operators or passengers of
aircraft (e.g., exterior laser light demonstrations or shows).
g. Avigation easements shall be recorded for each property developed within
the Project site prior to the issuance of any building permit or land use
permit.
h. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters),
and potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall 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.
Page 32 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 9
19. Any new proposed signage in addition to the monument sign shall be reviewed by
the Planning Division to ensure appropriateness for the site and compliance with
the Sign Regulations. Signage shall coordinate with building architecture and the
type of land use. The Director may refer additional signage to the ARC if it seems
excessive or out of character with the project.
Housing Programs – Community Development Department
20. Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the city and the project owners shall
enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, to be recorded in the office of the
county recorder. The agreement shall specify mechanisms or procedures to
assure the continued affordability and availability of 11 units (three studios, six 1-
bedrooms, and two 2-bedroom units) to moderate income households that is of the
same size, appearance and basic quality as the market-rate units, to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development
21. The development project plans shall be in accordance with the approved tentative
map and any mitigation measures or conditions of approval related to Vesting
Common Interest Tentative Parcel Map SLO 21-0015 (SBDV-0407-2021) and as
reflected in the 2025 project modification, and the certified Final EIR and approved
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
22. The public and subdivision improvements related to this development shall be
approved or substantially approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works and
Community Development Departments prior to building permit issuance for the
development project.
23. Construction and/or improvement phasing, if proposed, shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the directors of Community Development, Public Works, and Utility
Departments.
24. Final roadway alignment shall be substantially in conformance with the AASP,
Active Transportation Plan, and City Engineering Standards except where the
applicant has requested and been granted a formal design exception by the Public
Works Director or designee.
25. A separate public improvement/subdivision improvement plan application, review
fee, and inspection fee will be required in accordance with the Engineering fee
schedule in effect at the time of plan submittal. The plans and suppo rting
documents shall be in accordance with the codes and standards in effect at the
time of application.
26. A separate demolition permit will be required for the removal of any existing non -
exempt structures, if applicable.
Page 33 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 10
27. The improvement plans and building plan submittals shall include a complete
topographic survey and/or existing site development plans showing all existing
structures, site improvements, utilities, water wells, private waste disposal
systems, tanks, and trees, if applicable. The plan shall clarify the limits of the
demolitions and improvements to remain.
28. The plans shall include a complete tree summary show the diameter and species
of all trees. The plans shall clarify the trees to remain and the trees to be removed.
Trees to remain may require a tree preservation plan per City Engineering
Standards.
29. Invasive plant species, if discovered along the Acacia Creek corridor or on site
shall be removed or eradicated to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and
Natural Resources Manager.
30. Agency permits required for any work within the creek corridor shall be secured
prior to commencing with any demolitions, grading, and construction within the
jurisdictional areas. Any jurisdictional permits and/or authorizations and/or
authorizations from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish
and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or Regional Water Quality Control
Board required for the drainage, site improvements, street and road improvements
shall be issued prior to plan approval and/or commencing with work within the
respective waterways. Permit conditions shall be reflected on the approved plans
and/or development submittal supporting documents.
31. A SWPPP and Waste Discharger Identification Number (WDID) shall be issued
and referenced on the grading, erosion control, and stormwater control plan sheets
prior to plan approval and permit issuance.
32. The site development plan and grading plan shall show and honor the entitled
design for the pedestrian and emergency vehicle access across Acacia Creek to
650 Tank Farm Road.
33. A reciprocal access agreement with 650 Tank Farm Road shall be recorded to
provide continuity for the pedestrian/bikeway accessways. The agreement shall
be recorded in junction with the parcel map recordation and/or prior to building
permit issuance for the development project.
34. Unless an alternate design is approved by the Planning Division and the Public
Works/Transportation Division, the proposed bike and pedestrian walks and
pathways shall be designed and constructed of Portland Cement Concrete per City
Engineering Standards.
35. The final site and stairway designs shall verify that required handrail extensions
will not project into walkways and the bikeway or required 2’ shoulder areas.
Page 34 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 11
36. The limits of demolitions, culvert removal, rubble removal, and creek
cleaning/restoration in the area of the existing Acacia Creek crossing and access
easement shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Biologist and Natural
Resources Manager.
37. Depending upon project timing through this corridor of Tank Farm Road, off -site
improvements currently proposed with the mixed -use development located at 650
Tank Farm Road may be required to accommodate motor vehicle, bike, and
pedestrian circulation improvements and their transitions to the existing
improvements.
38. The applicant/developer may request that the City support a private
reimbursement agreement for certain off -site improvements or infrastructure
oversizing that are considered to be in excess of those required to support the
proposed development.
39. If applicable for any off-site improvements, the limits of improvements within the
creek corridors required for the Tank Farm Road widening shall be approved by
the Public Works Director in collaboration with the City Biologist and Natural
Resources Manager. Additional silt and debris removal may be required within the
culverts and at their downstream outlets.
40. The development plans, building plans, grading/drainage plans, and public
improvement plans shall show and note com pliance with the City’s Drainage
Design Manual, Floodplain Management Regulations, and Post Construction
Stormwater Regulations (PCRs).
41. The project plans and reports shall show that the new structures will be located
outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and shall be constructed with
finish floors at least 1’ above any established Base Flood Elevation(s). A
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be processed and approved
prior to grading or placement of fill within the SFHA. The final Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) shall be processed within 6 months after the completion of
grading and shall be finally approved prior to building permit issuance for any
structures located within the existing and unamended SFHA.
42. The grading and drainage plan and associate reports shall evaluate the run -on
from the adjoining “flower mound”. The plan and analysis shall evaluate how any
run-on will be collected and conveyed to a non-erosive outlet.
43. The grading and drainage plan shall evaluate the run-off from the development
improvements, including any run-off from the partial/interim development of Santa
Fe, and improvements to Tank Farm Road, and the round-a-bout. The analysis
shall include both water quantity and water quality treatment.
Page 35 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 12
44. This project site shall include the private and public improvements related to this
common plan for evaluation of the PCRs. All off-site altered or replaced impervious
surfaces related to the development of the Santa Fe extension, round-a-bout
improvements, and Tank Farm Road improvements shall be included as Drainage
Management Areas (DMAs) with appropriate water quality treatment and retention
strategies. Temporary basins or Storm Water Control Measures (SCMs) may be
proposed.
45. Any off-site easements or easement agreements required for the proposed
improvements and SCM’s shall be recorded prior to plan approvals. A separate
grading permit and encroachment permits may be required from the County of San
Luis Obispo for work or construction staging that occurs outside the city limits or
within the County public right-of-way.
46. An Operation and Maintenance Manual will be required with the improvement and
building permit application submittals. A separate Private Stormwater Conveyance
Agreement shall be recorded prior to approvals.
47. Unless specifically approved by the Public Works Department all stormwater
control measures (SCMs) shall be located on private property and shall be
maintained by the property owner, a Property Owner Association, or Homeowner
Association.
48. Any SCMs approved for location within an existing or future publ ic right-of-way
may require an encroachment and maintenance agreement with the city and/or
County unless the City or County agree to any maintenance.
49. Walls, fences, and wall-fence combinations shall meet the wall height
requirements in the zoning code and community design guidelines to the
satisfaction of the Planning Division, unless a Fence Height Exception is approved
pursuant to the City Zoning Regulations. Tiered walls and/or off -site grading may
be required to eliminate walls or reduce the wall heig ht in the area of the “flower
mound” along the tract boundary at lots 5 and 7.
50. All site retaining walls shall be evaluated for areas needing fall protection
fencing/guardrails or privacy fencing that would increase the height of the wall-
fence combination.
51. Access controls for the proposed new bridge across Acacia Creek shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and shall be in accordance
with City Engineering Standards. An offsite easement or license agreement may
be required from the property owner at 650 Tank Farm to construct or improve any
required emergency access or proposed construction access across the adjoining
parcel.
Page 36 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 13
52. Unless a phased construction plan is approved by the Community Development
Department, all access roads, required secondary access, fire department access,
and any required fire hydrant installations shall be completed prior to commencing
with combustible construction.
53. Any required or proposed secondary access road(s) shall comply with City
Standards and guidelines, ADA standards, and the California Fire and Building
codes.
54. The developer shall exhaust reasonable efforts to complete the final design and
construction of the off-site improvements to the ultimate plan to limit the amount of
throw away improvements. Phased, partial, or temporary improvements may be
considered and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works and
Community Development Departments. Temporary improvements may include
water quality treatment BMPs.
55. An offsite easement or license agreement may be required from Chevron to
construct the proposed Tank Farm and Santa Fe improvements.
56. Offers of dedication will be required for any Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road
improvements widening, round-a-bout construction, Santa Fe Road construction,
cul-de-sac improvements, including grading, drainage, and slope easements.
Offers of dedication of on-site property shall include the right-of-way needed for
construction of the interim street improvements and ultimate right -of-way needed
to construct the future Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout.
57. The Tank Farm Road improvements shall conform to any existing endorsed and
entitled designs and/or built-out improvements or shall provide for a reasonable
transition to the existing unimproved sections to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department.
58. Except as set forth herein, all public improvements, including any off -site
improvements, shall be designed, and completed to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department, Utilities Department and Fire Department. Public
Improvements shall be in substantial conformance with the Airport Area Specific
Plan (AASP), Active Transportation Plan, and City Standard Specifications and
Engineering Standards, except where the project applicant and/o r the City have
requested and been granted a formal design exception. Where conflicts occur
between the AASP and other adopted City Standards, plans or policies, final
determination shall be provided by the City Engineer.
59. Unless stated otherwise in these conditions, the public improvements related to
this development shall be approved or substantially approved to the satisfaction of
the Public Works and Community Development Departments prior to issuance of
any building permits and improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of first
occupancy permits. Prior to approval of any deferrals, the project applicant shall
demonstrate that the construction of the required improvements is impractical to
the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors.
Page 37 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 14
60. Plans submitted for a building permit should include a phased improvement plan
with alternate designs and transitions, subject to the satisfaction of the Public
Works and Community Development Directors.
61. The project applicant shall be responsible for acquiring any off-site
dedication/acquisition of property for public right-of-way purposes necessary to
facilitate orderly development of the public improvements required to be
constructed by the applicant as described herein. The project applicant shall work
with the City and the landowner(s) to acquire the necessary rights -of-way. In the
event the applicant is unable to acquire said rights-of-way, the City Council may
consider lending the applicant its powers of condemnation to acquire th e off-site
right-of-way dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements.
If condemnation is required, the applicant shall agree to pay all costs associated
with the off-site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney fees and court costs ).
It should be noted that some right-of-way acquisition may require coordination with
and approval by the County of San Luis Obispo.
62. With respect to any off-site improvements, prior to the approval of the development
improvement plans or the filing of the Parcel Map, the developer/subdivider shall
either:
a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing
access to, title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City
Engineer; or,
b. Demonstrate, in writing, that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable
efforts to acquire interest to the subject property and request that the City
assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such
improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with
Government Code Section 66462 .5 to do so, if necessary. Subdivider shall
also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition
including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said
agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City
Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the subdivider shall
submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents
regarding the property to be acquired:
i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a
Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land
surveying in the State of California.
ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee;
iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course
of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an
opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the
property or acknowledge in writing that they knowingly waived the
right to do so;
iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off -site property owners
including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to
purchase at the appraised price.
Page 38 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 15
v. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer
approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of
the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the
condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee
that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be
acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would
have to be followed.
63. All public utilities including water, recycled water, sewer, and public storm drain
systems shall comply with City Engineering Standards. The final line and grade
for all public utilities shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works and
Utilities departments.
64. The improvement plans shall show the water, fire, and recycled water service
connections, meters, and backflow prevention devices designed per Cit y
Engineering Standards. The services shall remain perpendicular to the main/street
rights-of-way until they reach their respective meters or backflow prevention
device. Changes in direction to serve the private on-sight system shall occur on
private property and not within the respective public rights-of-way.
65. The improvement plan submittal shall include a sewer system analysis to establish
the sizing, line, and grade for the public sewer main extension in Santa Fe and
Tank Farm Road, inclusive of associated infrastructure including but not limited to
manhole(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities departments. The
analysis shall consider the proposed sewer depth needed to provide adequate
gravity service to adjoining parcels in accordance with any Specific Plan, Sewer
Master Plan, and previously submitted area tentative map designs as required for
orderly development. The depth design should shall also consider construction
and future maintenance costs by limiting the depth to what is needed to serve a
defined sewer basin.
66. Street naming of the private streets and site addressing shall be established
through the building permit and subdivision mapping and improvement plan review
processes in accordance with City guidelines.
67. The parking and site development shall show and note compliance with the City’s
Parking and Driveway Standards, Community Design Guidelines, and the AASP.
68. Unless otherwise waived by the City, the use of pavers or alternate paving
materials as visual cues for pedestrians should be expanded to include some of
the more extensive parking areas serving the commercial lease spaces, common
area/Club House, the central pedestrian crossroads area, and the northerly shared
parking area on Lots 9 and 11 and the central area.
69. The final property line locations, site development, and building plans shall show
and note compliance with the California Building Code for building setbacks,
exterior wall protection, eave projections, openings, and access/egress. The final
Page 39 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 16
development for the club house building Type F/#10 on Lot 6 shall be evaluated
for the proposed 2’-8” property line setback to the satisfaction of the Fire
Marshal/Building Official.
70. The existing access easements shall be abandoned or quit-claimed, where
necessary, prior to parcel map recordation or approval of the site development
plans.
71. Mailbox unit (MBUs) shall be provided on -site to the satisfaction of the Postal
Service and the City Planning Division. The number and location shall consider
access, convenience, and circulation requirements.
72. Private site lighting shall be provided per City Engineering Standards.
73. The development/improvement plan submittal shall include a complete
construction phasing plan in accordance with the conditions of approval, City
codes, and standards. A truck circulation plan and construction management and
staging plan shall be included with the improvement plan submittal. General truck
routes shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City. The engineer of
record shall provide a summary of the extent of cut and fill with estimates on the
yards of import and export material. The summary shall include rough grading,
utility trench construction, road construction, AC paving, concrete delivery, and
vertical construction loading estimates on the existing public roadways. The
developer shall either; I ) complete roadway deflection testing before and after
construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall complete repairs to
the pre-construction condition, or 2) shall pay a roadway maintenance fee in
accordance with City Engineering Standards and guidelines, or 3) shall propose a
pavement repair/replacement program to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
74. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV
shall be served to each proposed lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department and serving utility companies. All public and private sewer mains shall
be shown on the development/improvement plans and shall be constructed p er the
City’s adopted codes and City Engineering Standards unless a waiver or alternate
standard is otherwise approved by the City. The plans shall clearly delineate and
distinguish the difference between public and private improvements.
75. All new wire utilities shall be placed underground. The underground placement
shall be completed without a net increase in utility poles located within the public
right-of-way unless specifically approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works
and Community Development Departments.
76. The existing overhead wire services and service poles that are located on the
northern portion of this parcel and along the Tank Farm Road frontage shall be
removed with the exception of one existing pole at the southeast corner of the
property. Overhead powerlines from this pole that cross Tank Farm Road to the
south/east may remain as a result. If deemed necessary by the utility purveyor, the
Page 40 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 17
pole may be replaced in the same (or similar) location to ensure it can support any
overhead lines that terminate at its location. A new conduit shall be installed to the
east of the project site crossing Acacia Creek to facilitate future undergrounding of
the one pole that will remain on the property and all overhead lines that connect to
that pole. or services placed underground within the limits and standards of the
supplying utility companies.
77. City recycled water or another non-potable water source, shall be used for
construction water (dust control, soil compaction, etc.). An annual Construction
Water Permit is available from the City's Utilities Department for the use of recycled
water. Recycled water is readily available near the intersection of Tank Farm Road
and Orcutt Road.
78. The proposed tree removals are supported with the com pensatory tree plantings
shown on the plans provided with the Planning Commission Agenda Report on
November 17, 2021, and as reviewed by the Tree Committee. The final tree
species, mix, and specimen size for all street trees and on -site trees shall be
approved by the Planning Division and City Arborist. All street trees shall be
planted per City Engineering Standards. Street trees, including parkway trees and
landscaping shall be irrigated and maintained by the developer, property owner(s),
or HOA.
Engineering Division – Vesting Common Interest Parcel Map Conditions
79. The subdivision, required improvements, conditions, and mitigation measures
shall be in general conformance with the approved development project per
ARCH-0406-2021.
80. Unless otherwise approved for deferral or partial deferral by the City, park land and
park improvement fees shall be paid prior to map recordation or building permit
issuance, whichever occurs first.
81. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private
utilities, access, grading, drainage, open space, slope banks, construction, public
and private streets, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, common driveways, and
maintenance of the same shall be shown on the parcel map and/or shall be
recorded separately prior map recordation. Said easements may be provided for
in part or in total as blanket easements.
82. The parcel map and improvement plans shall show the extent of all existing and
proposed on-site and off-site offers of dedication. Subdivision improvement plans
and or preliminary designs may be required for any deferred improvements so that
dedication limits can be established. These improvements may include but are not
limited to road construction and widening, grading and drainage improvements,
utility easements, utility undergrounding, bridges/culverts, bike bridges, transit
stops, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and intersection improvements.
Page 41 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 18
83. The parcel map and improvement plans shall show and label the separate access
easements to and through the property to the east known as 650 Tank Farm.
84. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and 15’ wide public
utility easement (P.U.E.) across the Tank Farm Road frontage of each parcel. Said
easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines
bordering each parcel. Additional site-specific utility easements may be required
by PG&E or other wire utilities related to the required undergrounding and service
requirements for the development.
85. The preliminary PG&E memo shall be reviewed and endorsed by the City and the
engineer of record prior to final designs. Unless otherwise approved for deferral,
the final PG&E handout package(s) for all undergrounding along the southerly and
northerly map boundaries along with the development specific service
requirements shall be reviewed and approved by both the engineer of record and
the City.
86. Access rights shall be dedicated to the City along the Tank Farm Road and Santa
Fe Road frontages except at approved driveway locations. Said dedications shall
be shown and labeled on the parcel map.
87. The developer shall include any other out-of-tract offers of dedication related to the
need for public utility extensions related to orderly development of the AASP that
are not otherwise located within a public street.
88. All private improvements shall be owned and maintained by the individual property
owners, Homeowners Association, and/or a Property Owner’s Association as
applicable. A common area maintenance agreement or other guiding agreement
shall be provided in conjunction with the parcel map submittal. Private
improvements include but are not limited to streets, drive aisles, parking lot
improvements, sidewalks, private pedestrian/bike paths, private sewer
mains/laterals, water services, fire services, reclaimed water services, drainage
systems, detention basin(s), site lighting, landscape, landscape irrigation, and
common areas.
89. A separate easement-agreement shall be processed in a format approved by the
Utilities Department for any future access and maintenance of on-site public water
meters that are served off of a private mainline system
90. A notice of requirements or other agreement acceptable to the City may need to
be recorded in conjunction with the parcel map to clarify development restrictions,
fee payments, conditions of development, and references to any pertinent
conditions of approval related to this map and/or off -site requirements.
91. Off-site improvements, easements and/or dedications may be required to facilitate
through street construction and transitions to the existing roadway, access, cul -de-
sac, round-a-bout, and public water, recycled water and sewer main extensions
beyond the map boundary and in accordance with the AASP.
Page 42 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 19
92. Unless specifically approved by the City, all public and private subdivision
improvements shall be approved prior to map recordation and/or building permit
issuance, whichever occurs first. Subdivision sureties and a subdivision
agreement shall be provided for all subdivision improvements if the map will record
prior to completion of the improvements.
93. Unless phased or interim improvements are approved by the City, all pertinent
public and private subdivision improvements shall be completed prior to building
permit and building permit final inspection approvals/occupancy, respectively.
94. With respect to any off-site improvements, prior to filing of the Parcel Map, the
subdivider shall either:
a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing
access to, title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City
Engineer; or,
b. Demonstrate, in writing, that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable
efforts to acquire interest to the subject property and request that the City
assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such
improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with
Government Code Section 66462.5 to do so, if necessary. Subdivider shall
also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition
including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said
agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City
Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the subdivider shall
submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents
regarding the property to be acquired:
i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a
Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land
surveying in the State of California;
ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee;
iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course
of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an
opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the
property or acknowledge in writing that they knowingly waived the
right to do so;
iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners
including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to
purchase at the appraised price.
v. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer
approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of
the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the
condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee
that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be
acqu ired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have
to be followed.
Page 43 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 20
95. All public streets shall conform to City Engineering Standards and AASP including
curb, gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, and curb ramps as approved by
the City Engineer. Where conflicts occur between the City Engineering Standards
and concepts identified in the AASP and/or this project approval, a final
determination on design shall be provided by the City Engineer.
96. Final roadway alignment shall be consistent with the AASP, Active Transportation
Plan, Bike Plan, and City Engineering Standards except where the applicant has
requested and been granted a formal design exception.
97. The on-site drive aisles and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and
Driveway Standards and soils engineer recommendations.
98. The improvement plans shall include all final line-of-sight analysis at applicable
intersections to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Fence heights
and plantings in the areas of control shall be reviewed in conjunction with the
analysis. A separate recorded declaration, coven ant, agreement or Notice of
Requirements for private property owner maintenance of sight lines may be
required.
99. Any jurisdictional permits and/or authorizations from the Army Corps of Engineers,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or
Regional Water Quality Control Board required for the drainage, site
improvements, street and road improvements shall be issued prior to plan approval
and/or commencing with work within the respective waterways.
100. The map submittal shall clarify the limits and extent of the private access rights
shown and referenced on the tentative map and preliminary report. The easements
shall be terminated, quit-claimed, or otherwise adjusted prior to map recordation.
101. The subdivider shall install public street lighting and all associated facilities
including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring and luminaires
along all public streets and intersections per City Engineering Standards.
102. Private site lighting shall be provided per Cit y Engineering Standards. Unless
otherwise waived by the City or an alternate method of pathway lighting is
approved, the creek walk/bikeway from the northerly tract boundary to/through the
campus to the adjoining public street(s) shall include pathway lig hting per City
Engineering Standards and the City’s Bike Plan.
103. Improvement plans for the entire subdivision, including any off -site improvements
shall be approved or substantially approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department, Utilities Department, and Fire Department prior to map recordation
and prior to building permit issuance.
Page 44 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 21
104. The improvement plans shall clearly show all existing structures, site
improvements, utilities, water wells, septic tanks, leach fields, gas and wire
services, etc. The plan shall include the proposed disposition of the improvements
and any proposed phasing of the removal and demolition. Any above grade or
buried structures and utilities affected by the proposed lot lines shall be removed
and receive final inspection approvals prior to map recordation.
105. A separate demolition permit is required from the building division for building
demolitions, if applicable. A separate permit is required from SLO County
Environmental Health and a plumbing permit from the City of SLO for the
abandonment of any water wells, if applicable.
106. The improvement plan submittal shall include a complete construction phasing
plan in accordance with the conditions of approval, City codes, and standards. A
truck circulation plan and construction management and staging plan shall be
included with the improvement plan submittal. General truck routes shall be
submitted for review and acceptance by the City. The engineer of record shall
provide a summary of the extent of cut and fill with estimates on the yards of import
and export material. The summary shall include rough grading, utility trench
construction, road construction, AC paving, concrete delivery, and vertical
construction loading estimates on the existing public roadways. The de veloper
shall either; 1) complete roadway deflection testing before and after construction
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall complete repairs to the pre -
construction condition, or 2) shall pay a roadway maintenance fee in accordance
with City Engineering Standards and guidelines, or 3) shall propose a pavement
repair/replacement program to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
acceptance of the subdivision improvements.
107. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV
shall be served to each lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and
serving utility companies. All public and private sewer mains shall be shown on
the public improvement plans and shall be constructed per City Engin eering
Standards unless a waiver or alternate standard is otherwise approved by the City.
The plans shall clearly delineate and distinguish the difference between public and
private improvements. Gas service is not required as a condition of the subdivis ion
if the applicant has documented the limits or absence of buildings proposing
mixed-fuel options.
108. City recycled water or another non-potable water source, shall be used for
construction water (dust control, soil compaction, etc.). An annual Constructi on
Water Permit is available from the City’s Utilities Department. Recycled water is
readily available near the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road.
109. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, sewer and storm
drains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and
Utilities Department. The final location, configuration, and sizing of service laterals
and meters shall be approved in conjunction with the review of the building plans,
fire sprinkler plans, and/or public improvement plans.
Page 45 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 22
110. The improvement plans shall show the location of all domestic and landscape
water meters. The plan shall include service lateral sizes and meter sizes. Sizing
calculations may be required to justify service and meter sizing. Water impact fees
related to the irrigation water meter(s) for any public or private irrigation meter shall
be paid prior to approval of the subdivision improvement plans and
commencement with construction for each construction phase.
111. The final pathway design, location, access controls, and construction shall be
approved by the Planning Division, Public Works Department, and Parks and
Recreation Department. A separate use or license agreement may be required if
not otherwise covered within the property maintenance documentation or CCRs.
112. The public and private improvements are all considered part of the project site and
are subject to the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as a common plan.
Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) shall be located on private property unless
specifically allowed within the public rights -of-way by the Public Works
Department. If allowed, they shall be privately maintained under an encroachment
agreement unless certain and limited SCMs are approved for maintenance by the
City or County of San Luis Obispo.
Transportation Division – Public Works
113. Transportation Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project
applicant shall pay all required transportation impact fees, including participation
in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program and the County’s Highway 227
Impact Fee Program. Payment of Citywide Transportation Impact Fees may be
deferred to issuance of first occupancy permits and total fees due may be reduced
to reflect approved fee credits pursuant to the terms of an approved and revised
Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, based on the 2025 revised transportation
improvements.
The project applicant shall pay additional fair share mitigation fees towards future
implementation of the Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout project for the portion of
estimated roundabout project costs that exceed the amount programmed in the
current Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program. To inform the calculation of
this fair share fee, the applicant shall provide an updated engineer’s estimate of
probable cost for the ultimate roundabout (ultimate buildout of the planned four -
leg, two-lane roundabout), prepared by a qualified civil engineering professional
and approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department, the project applicant
shall also pay a fair share mitigation fee for the future removal and reconstruction
of the portion of the development’s interim frontage improvements that do not
conform with construction of the ultimate Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout
improvements. The project applicant shall provide cost estimates for future
removal and reconstruction of these interim “throwaway improvements”, with costs
escalated to a year of construction 10 years into the future using the latest available
Page 46 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 23
five-year average California Construction Cost Index, published by the California
Department of General Services, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
114. Reimbursement for Public Improvements. Project applicant may be eligible for
reimbursement for costs related to planning, design and construction of eligible
public improvements. A new Public Credit/Reimbursement Agreement must be
obtained to reflect the modified project prior to building permit issuance to maintain
eligibility for financial reimbursement and shall be subject to approval by the City
Council. Interim or “throwaway” public improvements will not be eligible for public
reimbursement. A reimbursement agreement application shall be submitted by the
project applicant prior to the City processing the new reimbursement agreement.
115. Tank Farm Road Frontage Improvements. Project applicant shall reconstruct the
Tank Farm Road project frontage to current City Engineering Standards. Unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, plans submitted for Public
Improvement Plans shall include widening the northern side of Tank Farm to a
cross section that substantially conforms with the Airport Area Specific Plan and
Active Transportation Plan, which includes the following typical cross section
elements, listed from north to south side of the street: 13’ shared-use bicycle and
pedestrian path / 7’ parkway (width may vary) / curb and gutter / 13’ on -street
westbound buffered bicycle land and striped shoulder (width for future second
westbound auto lane) / 11’ westbound auto lane / 5’ raised center media n with
landscaping / 10’ center left turn acceleration lane / 11’ eastbound auto lane / 8’
eastbound buffered bicycle lane. The shared-use bicycle/pedestrian path shall be
constructed in concrete in substantial conformance with City Engineering Standard
7040 (Option 2) and designed to allow flexibility for future conversion to a separate
sidewalk and one-way westbound protected bike lane using strategies that do not
require reconstruction of the path to accomplish this future conversion. on the north
half of the street: 5’ sidewalk / 7’ protected bike lane / 9’ parkway / curb and gutter
/ two westbound 12’-13’ auto lanes / raised median / one existing eastbound auto
lane / existing eastbound bike lane.
Frontage improvements shall be designed to minimize the amount of interim
“throwaway” improvements that do not conform with future roundabout
construction to the maximum extent practicable. Designs shall be developed in
coordination with the frontage improvements currently in development for the
adjacent 650 Tank Farm Road development to ensure that appropriate geometric
transitions are provided. Improvements shall be approved or substantially
approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development
Departments prior to issuance of any buildin g permits and improvements shall be
completed prior to issuance of first occupancy permits.
116. Tank Farm/Santa Fe Road (West) Intersection Roundabout.
Interim Intersection Configuration – Side-Street Stop Control:
Page 47 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 24
Project applicant shall be responsible for constructing a side-street stop-controlled
intersection at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe (west) to serve as an interim
configuration until construction of a future roundabout by others. Unless otherwise
approved by the Public Works Department, the interim intersection design shall
include two southbound approach lanes, an eastbound left-turn lane and through
lane, a shared through/right lane, and a center left-turn acceleration lane to allow
two-stage left turns from southbound Sante Fe to eastbound Tank Farm Road.
Improvements related to this interim intersection configuration, including any off -
site right-of-way acquisition needed for the widening of Tank Farm Road, shall be
the sole responsibility of the project applicant and are ineligible for public
reimbursement.
Ultimate Intersection Configuration – Multilane Roundabout:
Project applicant shall be responsible for constructing a preparing designs for a
future roundabout at the intersection of Tank Farm Road & Santa Fe Road (west).
Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, plans submitted for
Public Improvement Plans shall include both the near-term and ultimate layout for
the roundabout, with the near-term configuration reflecting improvements to be
constructed by the project applicant and the ultimate configuration to reflect
remaining improvements to be constructed at a future date by the City or others.
Near-term roundabout improvements shall include the following geometrics:
a. Landscaped center island with mountable truck apron.
b. Two continuous auto lanes approaching and continuing through the
roundabout in the westbound direction, tapering back down to a single lane
on Tank Farm Road west of the intersection.
c. One continuous lane approaching and continuing through the roundabout
in the eastbound direction.
d. One Two approach lanes and one departure lane at the north leg of the
roundabout.
e. No south leg of the roundabout.
f. Concrete curb/gutter and separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be
constructed as permanent improvements along the northwest and northeast
quadrants of the roundabout, including the north leg within the functional
area of the roundabout.
g. Temporary improvements along the southern extent of the roundabout,
which may include an asphalt berm and asphalt shoulder/bike lane. All ADA
curb ramps at the roundabout shall be constructed in concrete.
h. Consistent with design guidance per the City’s Active Transportation Plan,
installation of Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) shall be
considered at the crosswalks on the east and west all legs of the
intersection.
Ultimate improvements, which shall be included in roundabout design
drawings, but are not required to be constructed by the project applicant
include:
Page 48 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 25
a. Widening to provide two continuous auto lanes approaching and continuing
through the roundabout in the eastbound direction.
b. Permanent construction of separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the
southwest and southeast quadrants of the roundabout.
c. Construction of the south leg of the roundabout.
Roundabout designs shall be developed in coordination with the frontage
improvements currently in development for the adjacent 650 Tank Farm Road
development to ensure that appropriate geometric transitions are provided
approaching/departing the roundabout. Improvements Roundabout plans shall
be approved or substantially approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works
and Community Development Departments prior to issuance of any building
permits and improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of first
occupancy permits.
Applicable costs incurred by the applicant in designing and constructing this
public improvement the future roundabout shall be eligible for reimbursement
pursuant to the terms of an approved Public Credit/Reimbursement
Agreement.
117. Santa Fe Road Extension. Project applicant shall be responsible for constructing
a portion of the Santa Fe Road Extension north of Tank Farm Road, extending
approximately 570 feet north of Tank Farm Road. Unless otherwise approved by
the Public Works Director, plans submitted for Public Improvement Plans shall
include the following typical cross section elements listed from east to west: 5’
sidewalk / 7’ protected bike lane 13’ shared-use bicycle and pedestrian path / 9’ 7’
parkway (width may vary) / curb and gutter / two 12’ auto lanes / shared lane
“sharrow” bikeway markings in southbound auto lane 6.5’ bike lane / 2’ shoulder.
The shared-use bicycle/pedestrian path shall be constructed in concrete in
substantial conformance with City Engineering Standard 7040 (Option 2) and
designed to allow flexibility for future conversion to a separate sidewalk and one -
way northbound protected bike lane using strategies that do not require
reconstruction of the path to accomplish this future conversion.
The northern terminus of the proposed Santa Fe Road Extension may be
constructed as a City Standard street end with barricade. an interim cul-de-sac or
in the ultimate configuration, a single-lane roundabout. If constructed as an interim
cul-de-sac, the project applicant shall provide preliminary design concepts for a
future single-lane roundabout. Cul-de-sac plans should be designed to minimize
potential throw-away work to a reasonable extent, and final project property
boundaries and right-of-way dedications shall honor the anticipated footprint
required to accommodate the future roundabout to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director. Frontage improvements shall be designed to minimize the amount
of interim “throwaway” improvements that do not conform with future roundabout
construction to the maximum extent practicable. Improvements shall be approved
or substantially approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works, Fire, Utilities, and
Community Development Departments prior to issuance of any building pe rmits
Page 49 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 26
and improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of first occupancy permits.
Applicable costs incurred by the applicant in designing and constructing this public
improvement shall be eligible for reimbursement pursuant to the terms of an
approved Public Credit/Reimbursement Agreement.
118. Tank Farm Road Shared-Use Path. The project applicant shall provide planning
and preliminary engineering support for a proposed shared -use bicycle/pedestrian
path along Tank Farm Road, as identified in the City’s Active Transportation Plan,
extending from the new Tank Farm/Santa Fe Road (west) intersection Roundabout
west to either Innovation Way or Old Windmill Lane, with detailed path alignment
and extents to be confirmed in coordination with the City Public Works Department.
Planning and design for the Tank Farm Shared -Use Path are to be developed at
a sufficient level of detail to provide for an accurate determination of construction
quantities, necessary rights-of-way acquisition, and grading to a level sufficient to
conduct a project-level environmental assessment. Such level of detail is
described as a “65% level of detail” and is equivalent to Caltrans specifications
and requirements for a Plans, Specifications and Estimates (“PS&E”) and as
contained and described in Chapter 2, Section 2 -1 through Section 2-2, of
Caltrans’ Plans Preparation Manual, and in accordance with the City’s
Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications.
The project applicant shall provide environmental documentation that summarizes
relevant environmental analysis/concerns provided in previous environmental
reviews conducted to date (including the Project EIR and the Chevron EIR),
describe level of CEQA review anticipated to be required, and provide applicable
technical studies to support the City’s subsequent preparation of a formal CEQA
document.
The engineering design shall provide horizontal and vertical alignments, identify
utility conflicts, drainage strategy, grading needs, storm drainage solutions,
demonstrate compliance with Regional Board and Drainage Design Manual Post
Construction Storm Water regulations, and the approach to creek/stream
crossings. There shall be a rights of way analysis which shall defi ne the right-of-
way needed to construct the path, provide ROW exhibits and legal descriptions to
help guide future negotiations between the City and property owner(s). This level
of design requires a physical survey of the property, environmental studies s uch
as biology, soils, wetlands, cultural resources, and other, and a detailed set of
plans with accurate vertical and horizontal design elements, structural calcs, and
accurate survey data. Finally, the work shall include an engineer’s Opinion of
Probable Cost (OPIC).
Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, notable deliverables
include the following:
Page 50 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 27
a. Up to tThree alternative alignments and approaches for consideration and
review by the City. The City shall participate in the selection of these three
alternatives. These alternatives will be at a “schematic” level of detail with
general horizontal and vertical locations. After City comments (which may
include City Advisory body involvement to be managed by the City), the
three alternatives shall be refined and resubmitted to the City for selection
of one alternative. The relevant technical studies shall be submitted to the
City at this stage to inform City review, and for their comment and approval
by the City.
b. A refined alignment shall be presented to the City which reflects the further
development of the selected alternative. The level of detail shall be sufficient
to estimate construction quantities, structural design elements, rights of way
for the improvement, construction elements, earth work calculations and
balance, and utility locations. An OPIC shall be prepared. This plan set shall
be submitted for City review and comment. City shall provide plan check
comments in a consistent, non-contradictory format for all relevant
departments and reviewers (Planning, Utilities, Engineering, Natural
Resources, etc.).
c. An environmental assessment and initial study shall be prepared based on
the selected alignment. The assessment shall include relevant technical
studies, evaluation of each environment al subject area contained in the
most current version of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, analysis of the
compliance with the City’s VMT regulations for transportation construction
projects, and compliance with city development policies and regulations t hat
have been adopted for the purpose of environmental impact regulation and
mitigation.
d. A final set of plans shall be prepared with the form and content in Section
1.1 of Division 1010 of the Engineering Standards. A final OPIC shall be
prepared. No plan check or final permit is anticipated.
Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, all work required by the
project applicant under this condition shall be completed prior to issuance of 1st
occupancy permits. Applicable costs incurred by the applicant in preparing this
work shall be eligible for reimbursement pursuant to the terms of an approved
Public Credit/Reimbursement Agreement.
119. Acacia Creek Shared-Use Path. The project applicant shall construct the Acacia
Creek Shared-use Path, as identified in the City’s Active Transportation Plan, with
an alignment generally following the west bank of Acacia Creek connecting Santa
Fe Road northeast to the Damon-Garcia Sports Park internal path network,
approximately 200 feet north of the project’s north ern property line. Unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, improvement plans shall include
a 12-foot-wide concrete path section per City Engineering Standard 7040 (Option
2), 2-foot clear shoulders, applicable path signage, striping, high-visibility markings
at driveway crossings, path lighting, and installation of a security gate on City
property at the boundary between the project site and the Damon Garcia Sports
Page 51 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 28
Fields. Details for the security gate shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City
Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments.
The Acacia Creek shared-use path shall be privately maintained by the HOA,
private property owner(s), or property association. The pathway shall remain open
and usable as a site amenity and fo r potential circulation to the Damon Garcia
Sports Fields. The City shall reserve the right to control hours accessing the
Damon Garcia Sports Fields via this path. Temporary closures of the path by the
HOA or others shall be approved at the discretion of the City. The path shall be
included in the maintenance documents related to the proposed subdivision or in
conjunction with the approval of the development permits. A private
easement/agreement or blanket easement will be required to allow for the shar ed
use.
Path improvements shall be approved or substantially approved to the satisfaction
of the Public Works and Community Development Departments prior to issuance
of any building permits and improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of
first occupancy permits. Applicable costs incurred by the applicant in designing
and constructing this public improvement shall be eligible for reimbursement
pursuant to the terms of an approved Public Credit/Reimbursement Agreement.
120. Street Lighting. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director,
improvement plans shall include the installation of public street lighting and all
associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing,
wiring and luminaires along the north side of Tank Farm Road and east side of
Santa Fe Road (along the project frontages) and within the Tank Farm/Santa Fe
Roundabout consistent with City Engineering Standards and best practice design
guidance for roundabout lighting design. Existing street lighting shall be shown on
the improvement plans for reference and will be considered in establishing the
required spacing, location, number, and type of fixtures.
121. Shared-Use Path Lighting. Unless otherwise approved by the Public W orks
Director, improvement plans shall include the installation of shared -use path
lighting along the extent of the Acacia Creek path and at the interface between
project site and pedestrian/bicycle/emergency vehicle only connection to the
adjacent 650 Tank Farm site. Path lighting design shall utilize City Standard path
lighting per Standard Plan 7905 (or City-approved equivalent solar product) and
all associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing,
and wiring. Path lighting shall be oriented in a manner that minimizes potential
light spillover into the Acacia Creek riparian area and may require backlight
shields.
122. Access to 650 Tank Farm Property. Unless otherwise approved by the Public
Works Director, improvement plans shall include adequate access control
measures, such as removable bollards, signage, pavement markings and lighting
per City Engineering Standards at the interface between the project site and the
planned pedestrian/bicycle/emergency access only connec tion to the adjacent 650
Page 52 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 29
Tank Farm site. Access control measures shall be approved to the satisfaction of
the City Public Works and Fire Departments.
123. On-Site Bicycle Parking. Short-term bicycle parking shall consist of Peak “high-low
staggered style” racks or City-approved equivalent. Short-term and long-term
bicycle parking shall comply with applicable design policies per the City’s Active
Transportation Plan. Short-term bike racks shall be located as close as practical
to the commercial business entry doors, club house entry, and the outdoor
recreation areas.
124. On-Site Auto Parking.
a. Plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate that all on -site auto
parking stalls conform with City Engineering Standards 2210-2260,
including addition of wheel stops where parking stalls front pedestrian
walkways to avoid vehicle encroachment into sidewalk space.
b. On-site improvement plans shall demonstrate that all on-site auto parking
located along the site access driveways from Tank Farm Road and Santa
Fe Road are set back a minimum of 36 feet from the adjacent street,
measured from the face of curb, unless otherwise approved by the Public
Works Director.
125. Intersection/Driveway Sight Distance. Improvement plans shall demonstrate that
all landscaping, entry signage/m onuments or other vertical features exceeding 36
inches in height are located clear of applicable sight distance triangles at site
access driveways/intersections per City Engineering Standards. A separate
recorded declaration, covenant, agreement, or Notice of Requirements for private
property owner or HOA maintenance of sight lines may be required.
126. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity East of the Project Site. Unless otherwise
approved by the Public Works Director, the project applicant shall be responsible
for constructing the following pedestrian and bicycle access improvements prior to
issuance of first occupancy permits, unless equivalent improvements are
completed sooner by others (i.e., 650 Tank Farm and/or Northwest Corner
developments):
a. Install pedestrian signal and crosswalk at the east leg of the Tank
Farm/Mindbody signalized intersection.
b. Provide a continuous pedestrian connection along Tank Farm Road
between the 600 Tank Farm site and the intersection of Tank Farm/Broad.
If frontage improvements required by the adjacent 650 Tank Farm Road
development and 660 Tank Farm Road Development (Northwest Corner)
have not yet been constructed, a temporary pedestrian path of travel using
asphalt concrete may be accepted to the satisfaction of the City Engine er.
a) Install a 12’ minimum width shared-use pedestrian/bicycle path on the north
side of Tank Farm Road from the 600 Tank Farm property boundary east
to the Tank Farm/Mindbody signalized intersection. The path may be
constructed in asphalt east of the Acacia Creek Culvert in substantial
Page 53 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 30
conformance with City Engineering Standard 7040 (Option 1), unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Department.
i. The project applicant shall demonstrate a good faith effort to
acquire the off-site right-of-way needed to extend this shared-use
pedestrian/bicycle path all the way east to the Tank Farm/Broad
Street intersection. If right-of-way acquisition can be achieved, the
path shall be constructed all the way east to Broad Street. If right -
of-way acquisition is unsuccessful and applicant has, to the
satisfaction of the City, demonstrated a good faith effort, the
obligation to extend this path east of the Tank Farm/Mindbody
intersection can be waived by the Community Development
Director.
b) Install ADA-compliant curb ramp, pedestrian signal and push buttons, and
high-visibility crosswalk markings to provide a new pedestrian crossing at
the east leg of the Tank Farm/Mindbody signalized intersection.
c) Install bicycle signal head, dedicated bicycle signal phase, and bicycle left
turn boxes to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to facilitate
bicycle crossings to/from the shared-use path at the Tank Farm/Mindbody
intersection.
d) If a shared-use bicycle/pedestrian path cannot be constructed along the
north side of Tank Farm Road east to Broad Street, the project applicant
shall provide a continuous pedestrian sidewalk along the north side of Tank
Farm Road between the Tank Farm/Mindbody intersection and the existing
sidewalk at the northwest corner of the Tank Farm/Broad S treet
intersection. If permanent frontage improvements required by the adjacent
650 Tank Farm Road development and 660 Tank Farm Road development
(Northwest Corner) have not yet been constructed, a temporary pedestrian
sidewalk using asphalt surface and asphalt protective berm/curb may be
accepted to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
127. Transit Stop. Prior to issuance of first building permits, Project applicant shall
provide payment of $25,000 to the City for installation of a future transit s top by
other property owners within the vicinity of the 600 Tank Farm development. The
ultimate location of this transit stop shall be confirmed by SLO Transit and the City
Public Works Department and based on guidance in the City’s Active
Transportation Plan and Short-Range Transit Plan.
Fire Department
128. All access roads less than 26 feet in width, unobstructed, shall be posted as Fire
lane-No Parking”.
129. Buildings containing 2 or less dwelling units shall have NFPA 13D fire sprinkler
systems.
130. Buildings containing 3 or more dwelling units shall have NFPA 13 fire sprinkler
systems and standpipes in the stairwells. Floor control valves shall be collocated
Page 54 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 31
in a fire sprinkler riser room with exterior door access.
Utilities Department – Vesting Common Interest Parcel Map Conditions
131. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design
standards effective at the time the building permit is obtained and shall have
reasonable alignments needed for maintenance of public infrastructu re along
public roads. The applicant shall submit revised Public Improvement Plans
inclusive of sewer, recycled water, water mains and fire service, and associated
infrastructure, to the satisfaction of the City’s Utility Director, to accommodate the
2025 Tank Farm Road project transportation modifications and avoid conflicts
between utilities, landscaping, and transportation improvements.
Unless otherwise approved by the Utilities Director, the project applicant shall also
pay 100% for the future removal and reconstruction of the portion of the
development’s public utility improvements that do not conform with construction of
the ultimate Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout improvements (as applicable, and
as determined by the Utilities Director). The project applicant shall provide cost
estimates for the design and construction of future removal and reconstruction of
these interim improvements, with costs escalated to a year of construction 10
years into the future using the latest available five-year average California
Construction Cost Index, published by the California Department of General
Services, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities Directors.
132. Due to shallow groundwater in this area heat fused HDPE sewer lateral(s) shall be
installed per the engineering design standards and connected into the existing
sewer main.
133. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease
interceptors and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste
enclosure(s) shall be provided with the design. These types of facilities shall also
provide an area to wash floor mats, equipment, and trash cans. The wash area
shall be drained to the sanitary sewer, and an environmental compliance permit
shall be filed prior to issuance of occupancy permit.
134. The project’s commercial and residential uses shall be meter ed separately. All
residential units are to be individually metered with a private meter after the City’s
master public service meter per MC 16.20.020. Privately owned sub -meters may
be provided for residential apartments upon approval of the Utilities Director. The
CC&R’s for the property/homeowner association shall require that the sub -meters
be read by the association (or P/HOA contracted service) and each billed
according to water use.
135. Building permit submittal shall clarify size of existing and proposed water services
and water meters for the project.
136. The project shall install an 8” HDPE sewer main and manholes within Santa Fe
Page 55 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 32
Road approximately 760 feet near the western boundary of the project’s frontage
improvements, consistent with Utilities Department-approved revised Public
Improvement Plans, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director.
137. Any eExisting well(s) shall be destroyed per County Health Requirements and the
California Department of Water Resources Standard Bulletin 74 -81 and 74-90.
138. Water service meter(s) shall be adequately sized to serve the project’s proposed
units. Residential units shall be separately metered from the non -
residential/commercial units, and service lines shall not cross parcel boundaries
per MC 13.04.120
139. The project shall extend the existing 12” public water main within Tank Farm Road
approximately 750 feet near the southern part of the project’s frontage
improvements, consistent with Utilities Department-approved revised Public
Improvement Plans, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director.
140. The project shall install an 8” public water main within Santa Fe Road
approximately 760 feet near the western boundary of the project’s frontage
improvements, consistent with Utilities Department-approved revised Public
Improvement Plans, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director.
141. The project shall install an 8” recycled water main within Tank Farm Road
approximately 750 feet near the southern part of the project’s frontage
improvements, consistent with Utilities Department-approved revised Public
Improvement Plans, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director.
142. The project shall install an 8” recycled water main within Santa Fe Road
approximately 760 feet near the western boundary of the project’s frontage
improvements, consistent with Utilities Department-approved revised Public
Improvement Plans, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director.
143. The subdivision map must include a common interest parcel to include all the
landscape areas under one parcel if the private irrigation currently crosses parcel
boundaries. The blanket easement statement must comply with MC 16.01.010 and
16.10.020.
144. Recycled water shall be used for major construction activities, such as grading and
dust control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the
City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction
Water Permit program.
145. Projects having landscape areas greater than 500 square feet shall provide a
Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation as required by the Water Efficient
Landscape Standards; Chapter 17.87 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Page 56 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 33
146. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB
1826, and local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
147. Commercial and residential refuse services shall be separate unless a letter of
agreement between the tenants and a Conditional Exception Application from the
City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services are provided to the City
with the building permit submittal.
148. The project will be required to provide a plan for the disposal, storage, and
collection of solid waste material for both the residential and commercial
components of the project. The development of the plan shall be coordinated with
San Luis Garbage Company. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's
Solid Waste Coordinator.
149. Trash enclosure(s) shall conform the requirements by the San Luis Garbage
Company and refuse bins shall be sized to provide a reasonable level of ser vice.
Separate refuse bins shall be accommodated within the site for the three (3) waste
streams, trash, recycling, and organics.
150. Driveways and access routes to all refuse receptacles shall be designed to
accommodate the size and weight of the garbage trucks; a written confirmation
from the San Luis Garbage Company shall be included in the building permit plans
for the proposed project.
Indemnification
151. The applicant shall with counsel selected by the City, defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack,
set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions
relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review, (“Indemnified
Claims”) as well as any and all claims arising from or related to the deferral of
construction of the Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout or any alleged dangerous
condition alleged to have been caused by the approval of this interim alternative
project (“Indemnified Claims”). Upon request of the City, applicant shall execute
an indemnification agreement in a form provided by the City prior to building permit
issuance. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim
upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate
in the defense against an Indemnified Claim .
Notice of Opportunity to Protest
152. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the project conditions of approval stated
herein provide adequate and proper notice pursuant to Government Code 66020
of applicant’s right to protest any requirements for fees, dedications, reservations,
and other exactions, and that any protest in compliance with Section 66020 must
be made within ninety (90) days of the date that notice was given.
Page 57 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 34
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 26th day of February, 2025.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 58 of 214
Page 59 of 214
Page 60 of 214
Page 61 of 214
Page 62 of 214
600 Tank Farm – Modification Application #MOD-0753-2024 – Project Description
Applicant, Covelop, Inc., is making a revision to the currently approved 600 TF Project (ARCH-0405-
2021 and SBDV-0407-2021). All aspects of the project remain the same, with the exception of the
following changes:
• Applicant no longer proposes construction of a new roundabout at the Tank Farm Road and
Santa Fe intersection due to infeasibility of acquiring the necessary ROW from private
owners needed to construct the roundabout.
• Replacing the roundabout will be a side-street stop controlled intersection located at the
project driveway at Santa Fe Rd. West.
o Additional traffic calming features proposed with this design include a vehicle
speed feedback sign, speed reduction markings, and traffic signs as demonstrated
on the attached exhibit labeled “Preferred Alternative”
• Previously approved roundabout had 2 travel lanes in each direction that merged back into
existing improvement conditions located west and east of the project
o New plan includes a left turn lane on Tank Farm Rd into Santa Fe Rd West
o A 5’ wide raised median located between Santa Fe Rd. West and East
o A dedicated acceleration/refuge lane for automobiles turning left out of the project
driveway from Santa Fe Rd West onto Tank Farm Rd
o A dedicated acceleration/refuge lane for vehicles turning left from Santa Fe Rd East
onto Tank Farm Rd
o Dedicated left and turn lanes out of Santa Fe Rd. East onto Tank Farm Rd.
• Previously approved roundabout included class IV bike lanes due to assumed additional
ROW area acquisition. Revised design includes the following changes to the existing bike
lane conditions on Tank Farm Rd
o Existing 4’ eastbound bike lane would widen to 6’ with a 2’ buffer between the bike
lane and road. This widens to 8’ with conflict markings at Santa Fe Rd East before
connecting to existing bike lane
o Existing 6.5’ westbound bike lane would change to a 6’ bike lane with a 2’ buffer
between the bike lane and the road. This would increase to an 8’ bike lane with
conflict markings at both project driveways (Santa Fe Rd. West and driveway in
between Santa Fe Rd. West and East)
• Bike and pedestrian trips would be supported by a Class I connection along the project
frontage to the 650 Tank Farm frontage, including the paths, curbing and sidewalk,
consistent with the previously approved project.
• All the aforementioned new design elements noted above are located within the footprint of
the roundabout that was previously approved.
• Below are elements of the project that have expanded past the currently approved
roundabout footprint but are located either within the current ROW or within area applicant
is able to improve due to agreement with 650 Tank Farm owner. These aspects of the project
should also have already been covered by previous CEQA documentation associated with
neighboring project approvals. Previously, it was assumed that neighboring projects would
build out ahead of the project, but it is now assumed that the project builds out first.
o Continuation of Class I 13’ ped/bike path from eastern boundary of 600 Tank Farm
property to Mind Body traffic signal
Page 63 of 214
Path will be an interim improvement until the 650 Tank Farm project
eventually builds its frontage improvements
Path is outside the existing ROW, but applicant has agreement with 650 Tank
Farm owner to complete this aspect of the project
o New 10’ wide ped/bike crossing within Tank Farm Rd. at Mind Body signal with ped
push button and bike signal
Includes new bike conflict markings for crossing bicyclists
o New 6’ ped AC sidewalk on north side of Tank Fark Rd, east from Mind Body signal to
Broad St. intersection
Obtaining additional area from the neighboring project is infeasible at this
location
• All these changes would be included in Phase I of the project.
Page 64 of 214
Page 65 of 214
Page 66 of 214
Page 67 of 214
Page 68 of 214
Land Services Office
4325 S. Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Public
August 31, 2023
Mr. Patrick Arnold
PO Box 12910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Dear Mr. Arnold:
You have requested that PG&E provide overhead/underground electric service to
your property on Tank Farm. In order to do so it will be necessary to acquire an
easements from your neighbors. As the applicant, I am providing the document set
to you for coordination of signature execution.
Please print the document out one sided and at actual size. Then have the property
owner review the document and if it meets with their approval:
Sign as indicated on the signature page.
Have the signature(s) notarized and return the signed document to the
address below.
Note:
Please dont mail back as USPS Certified Mail.
Please dont staple pages. Paperclip is preferred.
Pacific Gas & Electric
Attn: Land Department
4325 S. Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 263-3115 or email me at
m22f@pge.com.
Sincerely,
Matt Millhorn
Matt Millhorn
Land Technician
PM 35428966
Page 69 of 214
Utility Distribution Easement (02/2020)
Public
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
245 Market Street, N10A, Room 1015
P.O. Box 770000
San Francisco, California 94177
Location: City/Uninc______________________
Recording Fee $_____________________________
Document Transfer Tax $ __________
[ ] This is a conveyance where the consideration and
Value is less than $100.00 (R&T 11911).
[ ] Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or
[ ] Computed on Full Value Less Liens
& Encumbrances Remaining at Time of Sale
[ ] Exempt from the fee per GC 27388.1 (a) (2); This
document is subject to Documentary Transfer Tax
Signature of declarant or agent determining tax
(SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY)
LD# 2231-12-10039 EASEMENT DEED
UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST, INC., an Oregon Corporation,
Hereinafter called Grantor, hereby grants to PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a
California corporation, hereinafter called Grantee, the right from time to time to excavate for,
construct, reconstruct, replace (of initial or any other size), remove, maintain, inspect, and use
facilities and associated equipment for public utility purposes, including, but not limited to electric,
gas, and communication facilities, together with a right of way therefor, on, over, and under the
easement area as hereinafter set forth, and also ingress thereto and egress therefrom, over and across
the lands of Grantor situated in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, described as follows:
(APN 053-422-002)
The parcel of land described in the deed from Donald Earnest Madsen and Donna Ruth Madsen to Grantor
dated August 14, 2008 and recorded as Document No. 2008043386, San Luis Obsipo County Records.
The easement area is described as follows:
The strip of land of the uniform width of 15 feet, lying 7.5 feet on each side of the alignment of the
facilities as initially installed hereunder. The approximate locations of said facilities are shown upon
Grantees Drawing No.S-3112178 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Grantee agrees that on receiving a request in writing, it will at Grantors expense, survey, prepare and
record a Notice of Final Description referring to this instrument and setting forth a description of
said strip of land.
Page 70 of 214
Utility Distribution Easement (02/2020)
Public
Grantor further grants to Grantee the right, from time to time, to trim or to cut down, without Grantee
paying compensation, any and all trees and brush now or hereafter within said easement area, and shall
have the further right, from time to time, to trim and cut down trees and brush along each side of said
easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of Grantee may interfere with or be a hazard to
the facilities installed hereunder, or as Grantee deems necessary to comply with applicable state or
federal regulations.
Grantor also grants to Grantee the right to use such portion of said lands contiguous to said easement
area as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the excavation, construction, reconstruction,
replacement, removal, maintenance and inspection of said facilities.
Grantor hereby covenants and agrees not to place or construct, nor allow a third party to place or
construct, any building or other structure, or store flammable substances, or drill or operate any well,
or construct any reservoir or other obstruction within said easement area, or diminish or substantially
add to the ground level within said easement area, or construct any fences that will interfere with the
maintenance and operation of said facilities.
Grantor further grants to Grantee the right to apportion to another public utility (as defined in Section
216 of the California Public Utilities Code) the right to excavate for, construct, reconstruct, replace,
remove, maintain, inspect, and use the communications facilities within said easement area including
ingress thereto and egress therefrom.
Grantor acknowledges that they have read the Grant of Easement Disclosure Statement, Exhibit
A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The legal description herein, or the map attached hereto, defining the location of this utility
distribution easement, was prepared by Grantee pursuant to Section 8730 (c) of the Business and
Professions Code.
This document may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,
but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.
The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective
parties hereto, and all covenants shall apply to and run with the land.
Dated: __________________, _______.
UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST, INC.,
an Oregon Corporation,
_____________________________________________
By:
Print Name:______________________________
Title:____________________________________
Page 71 of 214
Utility Distribution Easement (02/2020)
Public
State of California
County of )
On __________________________, before me, Notary Public,
Insert name
personally appeared
,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true
and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
[ ] Individual(s) signing for oneself/themselves
[ ] Corporate Officer(s) of the above named corporation(s)
[ ] Trustee(s) of the above named Trust(s)
[ ] Partner(s) of the above named Partnership(s)
[ ] Attorney(s)-in-Fact of the above named Principal(s)
[ ] Other
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who
signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of
that document.
Page 72 of 214
Utility Distribution Easement (02/2020)
Public
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
EXHIBIT A
GRANT OF EASEMENT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
This Disclosure Statement will assist you in evaluating the request for granting an easement to Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E) to accommodate a utility service extension to PG&Es applicant. Please read this
disclosure carefully before signing the Grant of Easement.
You are under no obligation or threat of condemnation by PG&E to grant this easement.
The granting of this easement is an accommodation to PG&Es applicant requesting the extension of
PG&E utility facilities to the applicants property or project. Because this easement is an accommodation
for a service extension to a single customer or group of customers, PG&E is not authorized to purchase any
such easement.
By granting this easement to PG&E, the easement area may be used to serve additional customers in the
area and may be used to install additional utility facilities. Installation of any proposed facilities outside
of this easement area will require an additional easement.
Removal and/or pruning of trees or other vegetation on your property may be necessary for the
installation of PG&E facilities. You have the option of having PG&Es contractors perform this work on
your property, if available, or granting permission to PG&Es applicant or the applicants contractor to
perform this work. Additionally, in order to comply with California fire laws and safety orders, PG&E or its
contractors will periodically perform vegetation maintenance activities on your property as provided for in
this grant of easement in order to maintain proper clearances from energized electric lines or other facilities.
The description of the easement location where PG&E utility facilities are to be installed across your
property must be satisfactory to you.
The California Public Utilities Commission has authorized PG&Es applicant to perform the installation
of certain utility facilities for utility service. In addition to granting this easement to PG&E, your consent
may be requested by the applicant, or applicants contractor, to work on your property. Upon completion of
the applicants installation, the utility facilities will be inspected by PG&E. When the facility installation is
determined to be acceptable the facilities will be conveyed to PG&E by its applicant.
By signing the Grant of Easement, you are acknowledging that you have read this disclosure and understand that you
are voluntarily granting the easement to PG&E. Please return the signed and notarized Grant of Easement with this
Disclosure Statement attached to PG&E. The duplicate copy of the Grant of Easement and this Disclosure Statement
is for your records.
Page 73 of 214
Page 74 of 214
Utility Distribution Easement (02/2020)
Public
Attach to LD: 2231-12-10039
Area, Region or Location: 4
Land Service Office: San Luis Obispo
Line of Business: Electric Distribution (43)
Business Doc Type: Easements
MTRSQ: 22.31.12.12.44,
FERC License Number:
PG&E Drawing Number: S-3112178
Plat No.: AZ-138-E02
LD of Affected Documents:
LD of Cross Referenced Documents:
Type of interest: Electric Underground Easements (4), Utility Easement (86), Electric Pole Line Easements (3)
SBE Parcel:
% Being Quitclaimed:
Order or PM: 35428966
JCN:
County: San Luis Obispo
Utility Notice Number:
851 Approval Application No: ;Decision:
Prepared By: m22f
Checked By: edm0
Approved By:
Revised by:
Page 75 of 214
Page 76 of 214
(805) 316-0101
895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6, Morro Bay, CA 93442
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 4, 2025
To: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Joe Fernandez and Michelle Matson, CCTC
Subject: 600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
CCTC prepared a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) for the 600 Tank Farm Road project in March 2021. The
applicant proposes an interim configuration (Attachment A) with the following features:
A new full access side-street-stop controlled intersection is proposed at one of the project driveways
(Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West) and an additional right-in, right-out only driveway is proposed
on Tank Farm Road between Santa Fe Road West and East.
A Class I bicycle/pedestrian path is proposed on the north side of Tank Farm Road from Santa Fe
Road West to MindBody.
A temporary sidewalk is proposed on the north side of Tank Farm Road from MindBody to Broad
Street.
The Acacia Creek culvert under Tank Farm Road would be widened and driveway sight distance
obstructions removed.
The Tank Farm Road/MindBody intersection would be modified to provide a crosswalk on the east
leg with pedestrian crossing indications and a bike signal and bike box to facilitate crossing Tank Farm
Road to connect to the new Class I path.
Center acceleration lanes serving Santa Fe Road West and East to facilitate outbound left turns by
allowing the turns to occur in two stages.
Speed feedback signs and other advance warning features to improve driver awareness of the new
intersection bicycle and pedestrian conflicts.
No on-site land use changes are proposed, and the Santa Fe Road West project frontage would not change
from the previous approvals. The proposed interim configuration changes the lane configurations on multiple
approaches when compared to the previously proposed roundabout layout. This memorandum evaluates if the
proposed changes would substantially change the findings and requirements identified in the prior TIS.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed interim side-street-stop control at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) would provide
acceptable automobile operations under Existing, Near Term, and Cumulative conditions with the addition of
project traffic. Side-street-stop control does not support pedestrian and cyclist crossings of Tank Farm Road
at this location and is inconsistent with the prior recommendations to construct a roundabout. However, there
are no destinations immediately across Tank Farm Road from the project, the roundabout is not needed to
accommodate vehicular volumes without the Prado Road extension, and interim access is proposed which
provides acceptable vehicular operations and pedestrian and cyclist connectivity to the east.
The proposed intersection control and recommendations are shown in Attachment A. The
roundabout is recommended as a future improvement and will be necessary to accommodate traffic levels when
Page 77 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
Santa Fe Road is extended to Prado Road. We recommend that the project be conditioned to make fair share
contributions towards the roundabout and that frontage designs accommodate the facilities planned in the
Active Transportation Plan and Circulation Element.
BACKGROUND
The 2021 TIS identified nine local transportation deficiencies and recommended improvements to address
them. Five of these deficiencies, described in Table 4, were associated with the project frontage or site design,
and would be affected by the currently proposed access changes.
The 2021 TIS identified deficiencies related to automobile, pedestrian, and bike level of service (LOS)
associated with side-street-stop control at the project driveway (Santa Fe Road West) which would be addressed
by construction of a roundabout. Section 0.2.1 of the 2021 TIS noted that stop control at this intersection
would not address pedestrian connectivity deficiencies and was not recommended as an interim measure. This
recommendation was due to high levels of side-street vehicular delay due to a single southbound approach lane,
and poor bicycle and pedestrian LOS due to an uncontrolled crossing. The revised interim design addresses
these concerns by providing median left-turn acceleration lanes, dual southbound approach lanes, and
pedestrian and bicycle connections to the east with a protected crossing at the Mindbody signal.
POLICY CONSISTENCY
Tank Farm Road is classified as a regional route/parkway arterial in t , a street type
described as arterial routes with landscaped medians where the number of cross-streets is limited and direct access from fronting
properties is discouraged. Santa Fe Road West is a proposed commercial collector planned to connect to the future
Prado Road extension to Broad Street. As currently proposed it would only serve the proposed project until
the Santa Fe Road and Prado Road extensions are complete.
should not be allowed within the functional area of adjacent signalized intersections. On 40 mile per hour
roadways, the upstream functional area is 420 feet plus 95th percentile queues, and the downstream functional
area is 300 feet.
Santa Fe Road West is approximately 465 feet from Santa Fe Road East and the proposed eastern project
driveway is approximately 170 feet from Santa Fe Road East. Secondary access to the site is recommended and
the eastern driveway is proposed as right-in, right out which limits conflict points and potential interaction with
nearby intersections.
(ATP) recommend a future
roundabout at the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West intersection. As modified, the project would not
advance that improvement. However, the project would not preclude the roundabout as a future improvement
and should be conditioned to pay fair share costs toward the future roundabout and ensure that the site design
accommodates the planned roundabout footprint.
ATP also calls for future Class IV bikeways on both sides of Santa Fe Road and Tank Farm Road,
with
frontage does not preclude these planned facilities. The Tank Farm Road frontage proposes a Class I path on
the north side of Tank Farm Road to the MindBody signal, and Class II bike lanes on Tank Farm Road, which
differs from the ATP. The proposed two-way Class I path design may require modifications to the one-way
Class IV design already prepared for the adjacent 650 Tank Farm Road development frontage improvements.
The City could consider amending the ATP to evaluate a two-way Class I path on the north side of Tank Farm
Page 78 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
Road between Santa Fe Road and Broad Street as the ultimate design for this location. This would allow
eastbound riders destined north on Broad Street to avoid an extra crossing of Tank Farm Road, or riding on
the sidewalk or contra-flow in the westbound bike lane.
and the project proposes, an interim Class I shared-
use path connecting the project to the MindBody signalized intersection to the east. This will convert to a
separate sidewalk and one-way Class IV bike lane in the future consistent with the ATP.
AUTO OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The project TIS relied on traffic data collected in 2018 and 2019. Segment-level traffic counts on Tank Farm
Road from 2022 are lower than the 2018 data. The 2022 data was used to evaluate conditions at the Santa Fe
Road intersections under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions with side-street-stop control and two-
stage gap acceptance as currently proposed. Turning volumes were assumed to remain the same for Santa Fe
Road East and Mind Body, through volumes on Tank Farm Road were adjusted to 2022 levels, and no volumes
were assumed on the northern intersection legs. The PM peak hour is the critical time period, so the analysis
focuses on this time period. Table 1 shows the auto LOS results under these scenarios. The intersection analysis
worksheets are included as Attachment B.
Table 1: Existing and Existing Plus Project Auto LOS
The analysis assumes all project trips would use Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) and represents the
worst-case operations of LOS C if all project trips used a single driveway. The peak hour signal warrant would
not be met if all project trips used a single driveway. Note that without a center acceleration lane that enables
two-stage gap acceptance, the southbound approach to Santa Fe Road West (#3) would operate at LOS F.
The table also assumes two approach lanes for the northbound approach of Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road
East (#4) consistent with Attachment A. The results show acceptable LOS D or better operations with the
existing intersection lane configurations and a center acceleration lane that enables two-stage gap acceptance.
This reduces delay at the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) intersection compared to the existing
condition. The PM peak hour signal warrant is met at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) under Existing
conditions with and without the project.
The addition of a bicycle signal phase, an eastern pedestrian crosswalk with leading pedestrian intervals (LPI),
and northbound no right turn on red would maintain acceptable operations at Tank Farm Road/Mindbody
(#5). The delay improves with the project due to the longer cycle length. However, the 95th percentile
eastbound and westbound queues on Tank Farm Road would increase to 406 and 692 feet, respectively, under
Existing conditions with the project when the bike phase is actuated. These queues would be reduced with a
Page 79 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
second westbound through lane on Tank Farm Road, which is expected to occur once the parcels between the
project site and Broad Street develop.
Near Term conditions in the 2021 TIS forecast traffic volumes for substantial planned development in the City,
a portion of which is now complete. The 2021 TIS Near Term Plus Project scenario assumed the following
relevant roadway improvements:
The Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) intersection included a second westbound through
lane, an eastbound left turn lane, a shared southbound right/left turn lane, and median storage to
enable two-stage gap acceptance.
The Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) intersection included a second westbound through
lane, closure of the north leg, and median storage to enable two-stage gap acceptance.
The 2021 TIS identifies an auto LOS deficiency under Near Term Plus Project PM conditions at Tank Farm
Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) with the above assumptions in place.
The proposed configuration shown in Attachment A is different from the prior Near Term lane
configurations. Table 2 shows the auto LOS results under Near Term and Near Term Plus Project conditions.
Near Term conditions assume no lane configuration changes from the Existing conditions layout. The
intersection analysis worksheets are included as Attachment B.
Table 2: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Auto LOS
The addition of project traffic and the proposed intersection improvements results in acceptable operations at
the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) intersection with the provision of median storage. The Tank
Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) intersection is forecast to operate unacceptably both with and without
the project, but the delay with the project is reduced due to the provision of median storage.
The peak hour signal warrant would not be met at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3). The peak hour
signal warrant would be met at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) under Near Term conditions.
Cumulative conditions in the 2021 TIS included many planned network and land use changes expected upon
changes were assumed that would shift travel patterns in the study area:
Prado Road extension from Higuera Street to Broad Street with a new intersection south of Capitolio
Way.
A full interchange would be constructed at Prado Road and US 101 along with replacement of the
Prado Road Creek Bridge.
Page 80 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
Bullock Lane extension from Orcutt Road to Tank Farm Road.
Victoria Avenue extension from Woodbridge Street to High Street.
Orcutt Road widening to four-lanes from the railroad tracks to Johnson Avenue.
Tank Farm Road widening to four lanes west of 250 Tank Farm Road.
A multilane roundabout at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3).
Santa Fe Road south of Tank Farm Road would be realigned to the west with a new bridge and Santa
Fe Road would be extended north of Tank Farm Road to the Prado Road extension.
A multilane roundabout at Edna Road (SR 227)/Buckley Road.
The multilane roundabout at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) operated acceptably in the 2021 TIS
under Cumulative conditions with the project with the above assumptions in place.
The timing of the Santa Fe Road realignment and connection to the Prado Road Extension is unknown. Table
3 shows the auto LOS results under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions without the Santa Fe
Road improvements. Cumulative no project conditions assume no lane configuration changes from the Existing
and Near Term conditions, except a right-in, right-out driveway on the north leg of Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe
Road East (#4) based on the recommendations shown on Attachment A. The intersection analysis worksheets
are included as Attachment B.
Table 3: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Auto LOS
The addition of project traffic and the proposed intersection improvements results in acceptable operations at
the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) intersection with the provision of median storage.
The Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) intersection is forecast to operate unacceptably both with and
without the project, but the delay with the project is reduced due to the provision of median storage. The 95th
percentile queues for northbound left and northbound right are 5 and 10 vehicles, respectively, under
Cumulative conditions with the project.
The peak hour signal warrant would not be met at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3). The peak hour
signal warrant would be met at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) under Cumulative conditions. Note
that if Santa Fe Road is extended to Prado Road volumes at this intersection will increase, resulting in
unacceptable operations with side-street-stop control. A roundabout or signal would be triggered when Santa
Fe Road West is extended to Prado Road and/or when Santa Fe Road East is realigned opposite Santa Fe Road
West. The project will
contribution towards the planned roundabout and other area improvements.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ANALYSIS
The 2021 TIS reports multiple pedestrian and bicycle deficiencies and recommends improvements to address
them. The improvements included a new roundabout at the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) to
Page 81 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
provide a controlled crossing location as well as connections to the east to enable non-auto access to shopping,
jobs, transit, and other residences. However, the roundabout is infeasible at this time.
Table 4 summarizes the local transportation deficiencies that were associated with the project frontage or site
design and would be affected by the currently proposed access changes.
Table 4: 2021 TIS Relevant Deficiencies
The applicant proposes a pedestrian and bicycle connection from the project site to Broad Street on the north
side of Tank Farm Road with a signalized crossing at Tank Farm Rd/MindBody (#5) which will address some
of the deficiencies. Pedestrian access will be provided to nearby destinations via the Class I path and signalized
crossing. While the proposed interim configuration does not provide a protected pedestrian crossing of Tank
Farm Road at the project site there are no destinations immediately across from the project, and pedestrian
access is provided to other nearby destinations.
Westbound bicycle access would be provided via the Class I path, while eastbound cyclists preferring a
controlled crossing (riders could use the left turn lane into the site) would pass the project site, cross at the
MindBody signal, and return the project. This additional travel for eastbound cyclists (roughly 2,000 feet) is
Page 82 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
contextually insignificant since these riders would have already traveled at least double this distance to reach
the site from the nearest destination from the west.
The preferred alternative for intersection control and recommendations are shown in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Preferred Alternative and Recommendations
Attachment B: LOS Worksheets
REFERENCES
City of San Luis Obispo. 2005. Airport Area Specific Plan.
______. 2017. Circulation Element of the General Plan.
______. 2020. Engineering Standards and Specifications.
______. 2020. Transportation Impact Study Guidelines.
______. 2021. Active Transportation Plan.
Federal Highway Administration. 2024. Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse.
______. 2020. Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections.
Page 83 of 214
Page 84 of 214
Page 85 of 214
Page 86 of 214
Page 87 of 214
Page 88 of 214
Page 89 of 214
Page 90 of 214
Page 91 of 214
Page 92 of 214
Page 93 of 214
Page 94 of 214
Page 95 of 214
Page 96 of 214
Page 97 of 214
Page 98 of 214
Page 99 of 214
Page 100 of 214
Page 101 of 214
Page 102 of 214
Page 103 of 214
Page 104 of 214
Page 105 of 214
Page 106 of 214
Page 107 of 214
Page 108 of 214
Page 109 of 214
(805) 316-0101
895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6, Morro Bay, CA 93442
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 4, 2025
To: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Joe Fernandez and Michelle Matson, CCTC
Subject: 600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
CCTC prepared a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) for the 600 Tank Farm Road project in March 2021. The
applicant proposes an interim configuration (Attachment A) with the following features:
A new full access side-street-stop controlled intersection is proposed at one of the project driveways
(Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West) and an additional right-in, right-out only driveway is proposed
on Tank Farm Road between Santa Fe Road West and East.
A Class I bicycle/pedestrian path is proposed on the north side of Tank Farm Road from Santa Fe
Road West to MindBody.
A temporary sidewalk is proposed on the north side of Tank Farm Road from MindBody to Broad
Street.
The Acacia Creek culvert under Tank Farm Road would be widened and driveway sight distance
obstructions removed.
The Tank Farm Road/MindBody intersection would be modified to provide a crosswalk on the east
leg with pedestrian crossing indications and a bike signal and bike box to facilitate crossing Tank Farm
Road to connect to the new Class I path.
Center acceleration lanes serving Santa Fe Road West and East to facilitate outbound left turns by
allowing the turns to occur in two stages.
Speed feedback signs and other advance warning features to improve driver awareness of the new
intersection bicycle and pedestrian conflicts.
No on-site land use changes are proposed, and the Santa Fe Road West project frontage would not change
from the previous approvals. The proposed interim configuration changes the lane configurations on multiple
approaches when compared to the previously proposed roundabout layout. This memorandum evaluates if the
proposed changes would substantially change the findings and requirements identified in the prior TIS.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed interim side-street-stop control at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) would provide
acceptable automobile operations under Existing, Near Term, and Cumulative conditions with the addition of
project traffic. Side-street-stop control does not support pedestrian and cyclist crossings of Tank Farm Road
at this location and is inconsistent with the prior recommendations to construct a roundabout. However, there
are no destinations immediately across Tank Farm Road from the project, the roundabout is not needed to
accommodate vehicular volumes without the Prado Road extension, and interim access is proposed which
provides acceptable vehicular operations and pedestrian and cyclist connectivity to the east.
The proposed intersection control and recommendations are shown in Attachment A. The
roundabout is recommended as a future improvement and will be necessary to accommodate traffic levels when
Page 110 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
Santa Fe Road is extended to Prado Road. We recommend that the project be conditioned to make fair share
contributions towards the roundabout and that frontage designs accommodate the facilities planned in the
Active Transportation Plan and Circulation Element.
BACKGROUND
The 2021 TIS identified nine local transportation deficiencies and recommended improvements to address
them. Five of these deficiencies, described in Table 4, were associated with the project frontage or site design,
and would be affected by the currently proposed access changes.
The 2021 TIS identified deficiencies related to automobile, pedestrian, and bike level of service (LOS)
associated with side-street-stop control at the project driveway (Santa Fe Road West) which would be addressed
by construction of a roundabout. Section 0.2.1 of the 2021 TIS noted that stop control at this intersection
would not address pedestrian connectivity deficiencies and was not recommended as an interim measure. This
recommendation was due to high levels of side-street vehicular delay due to a single southbound approach lane,
and poor bicycle and pedestrian LOS due to an uncontrolled crossing. The revised interim design addresses
these concerns by providing median left-turn acceleration lanes, dual southbound approach lanes, and
pedestrian and bicycle connections to the east with a protected crossing at the Mindbody signal.
POLICY CONSISTENCY
Tank Farm Road is classified as a regional route/parkway arterial in t , a street type
described as arterial routes with landscaped medians where the number of cross-streets is limited and direct access from fronting
properties is discouraged. Santa Fe Road West is a proposed commercial collector planned to connect to the future
Prado Road extension to Broad Street. As currently proposed it would only serve the proposed project until
the Santa Fe Road and Prado Road extensions are complete.
should not be allowed within the functional area of adjacent signalized intersections. On 40 mile per hour
roadways, the upstream functional area is 420 feet plus 95th percentile queues, and the downstream functional
area is 300 feet.
Santa Fe Road West is approximately 465 feet from Santa Fe Road East and the proposed eastern project
driveway is approximately 170 feet from Santa Fe Road East. Secondary access to the site is recommended and
the eastern driveway is proposed as right-in, right out which limits conflict points and potential interaction with
nearby intersections.
(ATP) recommend a future
roundabout at the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West intersection. As modified, the project would not
advance that improvement. However, the project would not preclude the roundabout as a future improvement
and should be conditioned to pay fair share costs toward the future roundabout and ensure that the site design
accommodates the planned roundabout footprint.
ATP also calls for future Class IV bikeways on both sides of Santa Fe Road and Tank Farm Road,
with
frontage does not preclude these planned facilities. The Tank Farm Road frontage proposes a Class I path on
the north side of Tank Farm Road to the MindBody signal, and Class II bike lanes on Tank Farm Road, which
differs from the ATP. The proposed two-way Class I path design may require modifications to the one-way
Class IV design already prepared for the adjacent 650 Tank Farm Road development frontage improvements.
The City could consider amending the ATP to evaluate a two-way Class I path on the north side of Tank Farm
Page 111 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
Road between Santa Fe Road and Broad Street as the ultimate design for this location. This would allow
eastbound riders destined north on Broad Street to avoid an extra crossing of Tank Farm Road, or riding on
the sidewalk or contra-flow in the westbound bike lane.
and the project proposes, an interim Class I shared-
use path connecting the project to the MindBody signalized intersection to the east. This will convert to a
separate sidewalk and one-way Class IV bike lane in the future consistent with the ATP.
AUTO OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The project TIS relied on traffic data collected in 2018 and 2019. Segment-level traffic counts on Tank Farm
Road from 2022 are lower than the 2018 data. The 2022 data was used to evaluate conditions at the Santa Fe
Road intersections under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions with side-street-stop control and two-
stage gap acceptance as currently proposed. Turning volumes were assumed to remain the same for Santa Fe
Road East and Mind Body, through volumes on Tank Farm Road were adjusted to 2022 levels, and no volumes
were assumed on the northern intersection legs. The PM peak hour is the critical time period, so the analysis
focuses on this time period. Table 1 shows the auto LOS results under these scenarios. The intersection analysis
worksheets are included as Attachment B.
Table 1: Existing and Existing Plus Project Auto LOS
The analysis assumes all project trips would use Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) and represents the
worst-case operations of LOS C if all project trips used a single driveway. The peak hour signal warrant would
not be met if all project trips used a single driveway. Note that without a center acceleration lane that enables
two-stage gap acceptance, the southbound approach to Santa Fe Road West (#3) would operate at LOS F.
The table also assumes two approach lanes for the northbound approach of Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road
East (#4) consistent with Attachment A. The results show acceptable LOS D or better operations with the
existing intersection lane configurations and a center acceleration lane that enables two-stage gap acceptance.
This reduces delay at the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) intersection compared to the existing
condition. The PM peak hour signal warrant is met at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) under Existing
conditions with and without the project.
The addition of a bicycle signal phase, an eastern pedestrian crosswalk with leading pedestrian intervals (LPI),
and northbound no right turn on red would maintain acceptable operations at Tank Farm Road/Mindbody
(#5). The delay improves with the project due to the longer cycle length. However, the 95th percentile
eastbound and westbound queues on Tank Farm Road would increase to 406 and 692 feet, respectively, under
Existing conditions with the project when the bike phase is actuated. These queues would be reduced with a
Page 112 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
second westbound through lane on Tank Farm Road, which is expected to occur once the parcels between the
project site and Broad Street develop.
Near Term conditions in the 2021 TIS forecast traffic volumes for substantial planned development in the City,
a portion of which is now complete. The 2021 TIS Near Term Plus Project scenario assumed the following
relevant roadway improvements:
The Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) intersection included a second westbound through
lane, an eastbound left turn lane, a shared southbound right/left turn lane, and median storage to
enable two-stage gap acceptance.
The Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) intersection included a second westbound through
lane, closure of the north leg, and median storage to enable two-stage gap acceptance.
The 2021 TIS identifies an auto LOS deficiency under Near Term Plus Project PM conditions at Tank Farm
Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) with the above assumptions in place.
The proposed configuration shown in Attachment A is different from the prior Near Term lane
configurations. Table 2 shows the auto LOS results under Near Term and Near Term Plus Project conditions.
Near Term conditions assume no lane configuration changes from the Existing conditions layout. The
intersection analysis worksheets are included as Attachment B.
Table 2: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Auto LOS
The addition of project traffic and the proposed intersection improvements results in acceptable operations at
the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) intersection with the provision of median storage. The Tank
Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) intersection is forecast to operate unacceptably both with and without
the project, but the delay with the project is reduced due to the provision of median storage.
The peak hour signal warrant would not be met at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3). The peak hour
signal warrant would be met at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) under Near Term conditions.
Cumulative conditions in the 2021 TIS included many planned network and land use changes expected upon
changes were assumed that would shift travel patterns in the study area:
Prado Road extension from Higuera Street to Broad Street with a new intersection south of Capitolio
Way.
A full interchange would be constructed at Prado Road and US 101 along with replacement of the
Prado Road Creek Bridge.
Page 113 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
Bullock Lane extension from Orcutt Road to Tank Farm Road.
Victoria Avenue extension from Woodbridge Street to High Street.
Orcutt Road widening to four-lanes from the railroad tracks to Johnson Avenue.
Tank Farm Road widening to four lanes west of 250 Tank Farm Road.
A multilane roundabout at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3).
Santa Fe Road south of Tank Farm Road would be realigned to the west with a new bridge and Santa
Fe Road would be extended north of Tank Farm Road to the Prado Road extension.
A multilane roundabout at Edna Road (SR 227)/Buckley Road.
The multilane roundabout at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) operated acceptably in the 2021 TIS
under Cumulative conditions with the project with the above assumptions in place.
The timing of the Santa Fe Road realignment and connection to the Prado Road Extension is unknown. Table
3 shows the auto LOS results under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions without the Santa Fe
Road improvements. Cumulative no project conditions assume no lane configuration changes from the Existing
and Near Term conditions, except a right-in, right-out driveway on the north leg of Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe
Road East (#4) based on the recommendations shown on Attachment A. The intersection analysis worksheets
are included as Attachment B.
Table 3: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Auto LOS
The addition of project traffic and the proposed intersection improvements results in acceptable operations at
the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) intersection with the provision of median storage.
The Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) intersection is forecast to operate unacceptably both with and
without the project, but the delay with the project is reduced due to the provision of median storage. The 95th
percentile queues for northbound left and northbound right are 5 and 10 vehicles, respectively, under
Cumulative conditions with the project.
The peak hour signal warrant would not be met at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3). The peak hour
signal warrant would be met at Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road East (#4) under Cumulative conditions. Note
that if Santa Fe Road is extended to Prado Road volumes at this intersection will increase, resulting in
unacceptable operations with side-street-stop control. A roundabout or signal would be triggered when Santa
Fe Road West is extended to Prado Road and/or when Santa Fe Road East is realigned opposite Santa Fe Road
West. The project will
contribution towards the planned roundabout and other area improvements.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ANALYSIS
The 2021 TIS reports multiple pedestrian and bicycle deficiencies and recommends improvements to address
them. The improvements included a new roundabout at the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road West (#3) to
Page 114 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
provide a controlled crossing location as well as connections to the east to enable non-auto access to shopping,
jobs, transit, and other residences. However, the roundabout is infeasible at this time.
Table 4 summarizes the local transportation deficiencies that were associated with the project frontage or site
design and would be affected by the currently proposed access changes.
Table 4: 2021 TIS Relevant Deficiencies
The applicant proposes a pedestrian and bicycle connection from the project site to Broad Street on the north
side of Tank Farm Road with a signalized crossing at Tank Farm Rd/MindBody (#5) which will address some
of the deficiencies. Pedestrian access will be provided to nearby destinations via the Class I path and signalized
crossing. While the proposed interim configuration does not provide a protected pedestrian crossing of Tank
Farm Road at the project site there are no destinations immediately across from the project, and pedestrian
access is provided to other nearby destinations.
Westbound bicycle access would be provided via the Class I path, while eastbound cyclists preferring a
controlled crossing (riders could use the left turn lane into the site) would pass the project site, cross at the
MindBody signal, and return the project. This additional travel for eastbound cyclists (roughly 2,000 feet) is
Page 115 of 214
600 Tank Farm Road Access Evaluation
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 4, 2025
contextually insignificant since these riders would have already traveled at least double this distance to reach
the site from the nearest destination from the west.
The preferred alternative for intersection control and recommendations are shown in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Preferred Alternative and Recommendations
Attachment B: LOS Worksheets
REFERENCES
City of San Luis Obispo. 2005. Airport Area Specific Plan.
______. 2017. Circulation Element of the General Plan.
______. 2020. Engineering Standards and Specifications.
______. 2020. Transportation Impact Study Guidelines.
______. 2021. Active Transportation Plan.
Federal Highway Administration. 2024. Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse.
______. 2020. Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections.
Page 116 of 214
Page 117 of 214
Page 118 of 214
Table 1. Plan/Policy Consistency of Proposed Active Transportation Facilities
Issue/Facility Adopted Plan/Policy Originally Approved
600 Tank Farm Road
Project (2022)
Modified
600 Tank Farm Road Project
(2025)
Tank Farm/Santa Fe
(West) Intersection
Control
Future multi-lane
roundabout
(LUCE, AASP)
Design and construct
north/west/east legs of
multilane roundabout
Construct interim
unsignalized intersection
Prepare designs, dedicate on-
site R/W and pay fair share
fees towards future
roundabout to be constructed
by others.
Nearest Low-Stress
Bike/Ped Crossing of
Tank Farm Rd to 600
Tank Farm Site
Future crossings at Tank
Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout
and at Tank
Farm/Mindbody signal
(ATP, AASP)
Crossings at new Tank
Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout
and at Tank Farm/Mindbody
signal
Designated crossings at Tank
Farm/Mindbody signal only
with initial project
Future crossings at Tank
Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout
when constructed by others
Santa Fe (West) Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Facilities
Future one-way protected
bike lanes & sidewalks on
each side of road (ATP)
Construct elevated one-
way (NB) protected bike
lane and sidewalk on east
side along project frontage.
Future bike lane and
sidewalk on west side by
others.
Construct elevated two-way
shared-use path on east side
along project frontage.
Potential to convert two-way
path to separate one-way
(NB) bike lane and sidewalk
in future.
Tank Farm Rd Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Facilities
Segment 1: West of Santa
Fe
Future two-way shared-use
paths on north and south
sides of street between
Innovation Way and Santa
Fe
(AASP, ATP)
Project applicant to prepare
65%-level designs and
environmental studies for
future path on north side of
street west of Santa Fe
Pay fair share fees towards
future construction of path
by others
Same as 2022 proposal
Segment 2: Santa Fe to
Mindbody
Future one-way protected
bike lanes & sidewalks on
each side of street (ATP)
Construct elevated one-
way (WB) protected bike
lane and sidewalk on north
side along project frontage
Future protected EB bike
lane and sidewalk on south
side by others
Construct elevated two-way
shared-use path on north side
along project frontage
between Santa Fe and
Mindbody.
Potential to convert two-way
path to separate one-way
(WB) bike lane and sidewalk
in future.
Segment 3: Mindbody to
Broad
Future one-way protected
bike lanes & sidewalks on
each side of street (ATP)
Construct temp asphalt
sidewalk on north side from
Mindbody to Broad if
permanent protected bike lane
and sidewalks per ATP have
not yet been constructed by
approved developments at 650
& 660 Tank Farm
Same as 2022 proposal
Plan/Policy Source
LUCE – General Plan Land Use & Circulation Element; AASP – Airport Area Specific Plan; ATP – Active Transportation Plan
Page 119 of 214
Page 120 of 214
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TO
ALLOW MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SERVICE
COMMERCIAL (C-S) AND MANUFACTURING (M) ZONES SUBJECT TO A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHERE APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
PROJECT ADDRESS: Airport Area Specific Plan FILE NUMBER: SPEC-0457-2023
BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
Phone Number: 805-610-1109 Phone Number: 805-781-7169
Email: jfrickenbach@aol.com Email: tcorey@slocity.org
Rachel Cohen, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7574
Email: rcohen@slocity.org
APPLICANT: City of San Luis Obispo
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Draft Resolution (Attachment A) recommending approval to the City Council to
introduce an Ordinance to amend the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow for mixed -use
residential development in the Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones
subject to a conditional use permit, and to approve an Addendum to the Final EIR for the
Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans.
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Zone Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones in the AASP
General Plan
Land Use Services and Manufacturing in the AASP
Site Area About 1,200 acres (AASP Area)
Environmental
Determination Addendum to the Airport and Margarita Area Specific Plan Final EIR
1.0 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
In 2005, the City adopted the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) which provides a
regulatory framework for planning future development on approximately 1,200 acres in
the southern portion of the City near the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The
AASP allowed uses and development standards that were guided by the 2002 San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport’s Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The basic function of
Meeting Date: 2/26/2025
Item Number: 4c
Time Estimate: 30 minutes
Page 121 of 214
Item 4c
SPEC-0457-2023
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
the ALUP is to promote compatibility between airports and land uses that surround them.
The 2002 ALUP included several safety zones and noise contours tha t limited or
prohibited residential and non-residential development. Based on these prohibitions,
when the AASP was adopted, it did not allow mixed-use residential development for
consistency with the ALUP.
In 2020, the City adopted the Housing Element an d included Program 5.5 that called for
updating the Zoning Regulations “to allow mixed -use within Service Commercial (C-S)
and Manufacturing (M) zones without a use permit within one year of the adoption of the
Housing Element.” In 2021, the City Council adopted an update to the Zoning Regulations
that removed the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement and allowed mixed-use by
right in the C-S and M zones. However, updates could not be made to specific plan areas
such as the AASP because of the existing 2002 ALUP safety zone and noise contour
limitations.
As the City was updating the Zoning Regulations in 2021, the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) was updating the ALUP, including revisions to the safety zones and
noise contours. Specifically, the ALUP revisions removed the limitation on residential
density within Safety Zone 6, the General Traffic Pattern Zone (see Figure 1 and
Attachment B), and narrowed noise contour areas closer to the runways (see Attachment
C). The removal of these restrictions to residential development provides an opportunity
to consider mixed-use residential projects within the AASP.
Based on the update to the ALUP and Major City Goal of Housing and Homelessness,
City Council included work program item 3.1.c in the 2023-25 Financial Plan; Initiate an
update to the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow mixed -use residential development,
where appropriate and consistent with the County Airport Land Use Plan . As such, the
City is proposing to amend the AASP to allow mixed-use development within parcels
zoned either Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M) in ALUP Safety Zone 6. A
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will be required to evaluate existing conditions in the AASP
such as water and sewer capacity and infrastructure, fiscal neutrality, potential for
incompatible uses, consistency with the ALUP, and emergency response.
No development would occur directly as a result of this action, which is simply a
modification of existing land use requirements under the AASP. Future development
under the modified land use requirements could occur as a result of individual project
applications that must be approved by the City through its normal development and CUP
review processes.
2.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to review the proposed AASP amendments for
consistency with the City’s General Plan, AASP and applicable Zoning Regulations, and
to make a recommendation to the City Council.
Page 122 of 214
Item 4c
SPEC-0457-2023
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 1: The top map shows the Airport Safety Zones overlaid on the parcels
zoned C-S and M within the AASP.
Outlined in black, the bottom map shows the areas of the AASP that are zoned C-
S and M and fall within ALUP Safety Zone 6.
Page 123 of 214
Item 4c
SPEC-0457-2023
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
3.1 Project Location and Affected Parcels
The Project Area includes all property within ALUP Safety Zone 6 and designated as
Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M) within the 1,200-acre AASP planning
area. Figure 1 (above) shows the location of C-S and M zoned areas within the AASP
and their relationship with all the ALUP safety zones and also shows all the C-S and M
zoned areas that fall specifically within ALUP Safety Zone 6.
A land use inventory was prepared in 2024 to determine the amount of C -S or M zoned
lands within the AASP. Table 1 below summarizes the total acreage of vacant and
developed parcels in these two land use designations.
Table 1. Summary of Land Use Inventory
C-S and M Parcels in the AASP
Land Use Designation
Acreage
Developed
(or entitled) Vacant Total
Service Commercial (C-S) 140.4 85.6 226.0
Manufacturing (M) 94.7 20.4 115.1
Total 235.1 106.0 341.1
Of this total, 236.4 acres are fully within Safety Zone 6, while the remaining 104.7 acres
are at least partially within that safety zone. Consistent with ALUP policies and the AASP
as proposed for amendment, mixed-use residential development could be considered on
the portion of any parcel within Safety Zone 6, even if the remainder of the parcel is within
a more restrictive safety zone. However, as will be discussed further below, the AASP
amendment will propose that any residential portion of a mixed -use residential
development must be located wholly within Safety Zone 6.
3.2 Overview of Proposed Amendment to the AASP
The City Council has prioritized the need for additional housing, including affordable
housing, to meet ongoing demand. With the update to the ALUP and the Major City Goal
of Housing and Homelessness, City Council included work program item 3.1.c in the
2023-25 Financial Plan; Initiate an update to the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow mixed-
use residential development, where appropriate and consistent with the County Airp ort
Land Use Plan.
The City is proposing to amend the AASP to allow mixed -use development within Service
Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M) zoned parcels with the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP). As noted above, mixed-use residential development would only be
considered within ALUP Safety Zone 6. No development would occur directly as a result
of this action. No existing zoning designations are proposed to change. Instead, the
resulting amendment would allow mixed-use residential development, subject to specific
findings, and consistent with the requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations, as they
currently apply to C-S and M designated lands in the rest of the City.
Page 124 of 214
Item 4c
SPEC-0457-2023
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
Attachment A, Exhibit A includes the proposed amendments to the AASP. The crucial
aspect of these changes relates to the findings that would need to be made in order for
the Planning Commission to approve a CUP for a mixed-use residential project within the
AASP. These include the following:
1. There is demonstrable water and sewer capacity to serve the project;
2. Any fiscal impact of the project to the City must be offset to achieve fiscal
neutrality;
3. There are no nearby uses that generate sufficient air emissions, noise, odors or
vibration to create an incompatibility with proposed mixed-use development;
4. Proposed mixed-use residential development is consistent with land use, safety
or noise restrictions set forth in the ALUP, and any residential portion of a mixed-
use development shall be wholly located within Safety Zone 6; and
5. There is adequate emergency response.
Future individual project applications must be reviewed by the City through its normal
development and conditional use permit review processes, and subject to environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the magnitude
and timing of such development is speculative at this time, and would be influenced by a
variety of factors, including market demand, property owner desire to develop,
consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), and potential environmental
constraints that may apply to specific parcels where project development applications are
under consideration.
The other noteworthy aspect of the AASP amendment is the elimination of Table 4 -1
within the AASP, which provided a land use inventory and described buildout potential
within the area. The reasons for its removal are that it is out of date, reflects buildout
potential based on assumptions made when the specific plan was first adopted 20 years
ago, does not aid in implementing the specific plan, and with less interest in purely
commercial development and the ability to pursue mixed-use residential development,
any estimate of potential buildout within the area is likely to be inaccurate.
4.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
On January 15, 2025, the project was informally presented to Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) for preliminary review. Per the ALUP, the ALUC is required to review
certain types of actions that affect land use in the vicinity of airports to ensure that the
action proposed by the referring agency, the City, is consistent with the ALUP. The ALUC
provided comments, which were addressed by City staff and included in ALUC’s staff
report (Attachment D) for a formal conformity determination, which occurred on February
19, 2025. At that meeting, ALUC found the project to be in conformance with the ALUP,
subject to findings and conditions, which have been incorporated into the proposed AASP
amendment (Exhibit A of Attachment A.)
A key ALUC condition would limit the construction of the residential portion of mixed-use
development to Safety Zone 6, and not in any of the more restrictive safety zones (see
Figure 2). However, nearly all the C-S and M zoned parcels are either wholly located or
Page 125 of 214
Item 4c
SPEC-0457-2023
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
mostly located in Safety Zone 6. In all, 117 of the 132 parcels zoned C-S or M are wholly
within Safety Zone 6, encompassing 236 acres. Of the remaining 15 parcels (104 acres),
most include substantial area within Safety Zone 6. As the AASP amendments have been
found to be in conformance with the ALUP, future mixed -use residential development
projects in the AASP would not be required to be reviewed by the ALUC.
5.0 POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
5.1 Consistency with the General Plan and Major City Goals
The AASP was found to be consistent with the General Plan at the time of its adoption in
2005, as have all subsequent amendments to the AASP. The proposed amendment to
the AASP would allow mixed-use residential development within land zoned as Service
Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M), consistent with the Services and
Manufacturing designation under the General Plan. The concept of mixed uses in
appropriate locations within the City is supported in multiple policies within the General
Plan, notably in the Housing and Land Use Elements and implements work program item
3.1.c in the 2023-25 Financial Plan Major City Goal of Housing and Homelessness. Table
2 summarizes the proposed specific plan amendment’s consistency with the Housing and
Homelessness Major City Goal that relates to housing and homelessness, as well as key
General Plan goals, policies and programs.
Table 2. Major City Goals and General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Goal/Policy/Program Consistency Analysis
Major City Goal
Housing and Homelessness. Support the
expansion of housing options for all, and
continue to facilitate the production of
housing, including the necessary supporting
infrastructure, with an emphasis on affordable
and workforce housing as well as accessibly
connected development. Collaborate with
local non-profit partners, non-governmental
agencies, the county, the state, and federal
governments to advocate for increased
funding and implementation of
comprehensive and effective strategies to
prevent and reduce homelessness.
Consistent. By allowing mixed-use in the
AASP, the proposed project directly
addresses this major city goal by creating a
new means of providing additional housing in
the City.
Work Program Item #3.1.c. Initiate an
update to the Airport Area Specific Plan to
allow mixed-use residential development,
where appropriate and consistent with the
County Airport Land Use Plan.
Consistent. The proposed update to the
AASP would fulfill MCG work program item
3.1.c to allow additional residential
development as part of a mixed-use project
consistent with the ALUP.
Page 126 of 214
Item 4c
SPEC-0457-2023
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
General Plan Housing Element
Program 5.5. Update the Zoning
Regulations to allow mixed-use development
within Service Commercial (C-S) and
Manufacturing (M) zones without a use
permit within one year of the adoption of the
Housing Element.
Consistent. This program has already been
implemented in C-S and M zones throughout
the City, with the exception of in the AASP
(and other specific plan areas). Due to the
recent update of the Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP), there is now the opportunity to
implement this policy in the AASP. However,
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be
required subject to specific findings due to
existing conditions in the AASP such as
water and sewer capacity and infrastructure,
fiscal neutrality, potential for incompatible
uses, consistency with the ALUP, and
emergency response.
Program 6.13. Consider General Plan
amendments, as projects are proposed, to
rezone commercial, manufacturing, or public
facility zoned areas for higher-density, infill or
mixed-use housing, where compatible with
surrounding development…
Consistent. While this program encourages
mixed-use residential development through
amendments to the General Plan (and not to
specific plans), its intent is consistent with the
specific plan amendment currently being
proposed, which would allow for mixed-use
residential development in a substantial
portion of the City where it had not been
previously allowed and would have a similar
effect to what would occur through a General
Plan amendment.
General Plan Land Use Element
Policy 3.8.5. Mixed Uses. The City
encourages compatible mixed uses in
commercial districts.
Consistent. By allowing for mixed-use
residential development within the Service
Commercial and Manufacturing zones within
the AASP, the project directly implements this
policy.
5.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
As described in Section 4.1 above, the proposed specific plan amendment would allow
for mixed-use development in the C-S and M zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit
within the AASP. The maximum density of residential development within mixed-use
projects in the AASP would be 24 density units per acre, which is identical to what is
allowed in other mixed-use projects elsewhere in the City within C-S and M zones. The
project is therefore consistent with the Zoning Regulations.
6.0 FISCAL IMPACTS
Kosmont prepared a fiscal impact analysis to examine the effects of allowing mixed -use
residential development within the C-S and M zones in the AASP, which is included as
Attachment E. The analysis evaluated two scenarios of potential land development within
the AASP in order to estimate net fiscal impacts from potential future development. The
Page 127 of 214
Item 4c
SPEC-0457-2023
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
first examined likely development in the AASP under current market conditions based on
the existing General Plan and AASP, which do not allow for mixed -use. The second
scenario reflects the potential for mixed-use residential development in the AASP in the
C-S and M zones. In both cases, the analysis considered current market conditions and
demand, which is generally stronger for residential than the predominantly industrial uses
currently allowed in the AASP.
6.1 Development Scenarios, Assumptions and Conclusions
Existing General Plan and AASP Scenario. While the 2014 LUCE land use scenario
(office, retail, industrial with no residential) would achieve an annual fiscal “surplus” for
the City’s General Fund, Kosmont’s study identifies that the level of office and retail land
uses assumed does not reflect current market and economic conditions (additionally
evidenced in lack of non-residential development over previous 10 years), and is
therefore an unrealistic view of what is likely to be developed in the foreseeable future.
Mixed Use Scenario. Kosmont’s study further explores that a more likely future AASP
land use development scenario would include a mix of uses, including both “vertically”
blended uses (e.g., housing over commercial), as well as “horizontally” blended uses
(e.g., commercial or hospitality behind or adjacent to housing). Based on this, Kosmont
in consultation with City staff developed a potential market-based, blended-use land use
scenario, primarily based on a combination of demonstrated developer interest within the
City, Kosmont’s previous market supply and demand analysis in the region, and broader
real estate development trends across the State and nationally. Assumptions also reflect
proposed and approved projects within the AASP, but excludes the remaining residential
units within Avila Ranch, as that project already includes a maintenance Community
Facilities District (CFD) to augment funding for municipal services.
In this scenario, this analysis projects a net negative fiscal impact for the General Fund,
driven largely by the tax sharing agreement that limits the City’s receipt of property tax
revenue from new development in this area.
6.2 Recommendations
In order to support long-term fiscal solvency for the City General Fund while not over-
prescribing non-residential uses beyond market and financial feasibility, and while not
relying solely on future non-residential uses which are difficult to predict, Kosmont
identifies four potential strategic approaches to achieving fiscal neutrality:
1. Maintenance/services Community Facilities District (CFD), similar to the
mechanism utilized for the Avila Ranch development project within the City
(potentially most feasible strategy)
2. Renegotiation of the Property Tax Sharing Agreement with the County
3. Infrastructure Financing District negotiation with the County (as a backup to #2
above)
4. Minimum commercial use requirements for residential projects
Page 128 of 214
Item 4c
SPEC-0457-2023
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
Kosmont’s report recommends that the most feasible approach of the four is to implement
a CFD. However, without a CFD or another mechanism that can apply to the entire AASP,
fiscal neutrality can also be achieved on a project -by-project basis, through the
implementation of Homeowners Associations or similar mechanisms that use fees
collected from homeowners to provide public services. The proposed specific plan
amendment responds to this analysis by requiring that in order to approve a Conditional
Use Permit for any individual project, any fiscal impact of that project to the City must be
offset to achieve fiscal neutrality.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Final Programmatic EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and
Related Facilities Master Plans (“Final EIR”, or “AASP Final EIR”) addressed future
development within the Airport Area Specific Plan. The Final EIR was certified in
September 2003 and has provided the basis for evaluating the impacts of future
development within the AASP area. Subsequent amendments to the AASP were subject
to separate CEQA evaluations to address the potential impacts stemming from those
amendments.
An Addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared to address changes to the approved
project, and is included as Attachment F. Pursuant to Section 15164(b) of the CEQA
Guidelines, an addendum to an adopted Final EIR may be prepared by the Lead Agency
that prepared the original Final EIR if only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred that
require preparation of a subsequent EIR. An Addendum is appropriate to address the
modified project because the proposed changes to the approved project do not meet the
conditions of Section 15162(a) for preparation of a subsequent EIR.
The County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission conducted an Initial S tudy
and prepared a Negative Declaration for the 2021 update of its Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP). That environmental document was used in part to inform some of the conclusions
contained in the Addendum prepared for the proposed AASP amendment.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue project. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of
additional information or analysis required to make a decision.
2. Deny the project. An action recommending the City Council deny the proposed
amendments and should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should
reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or other policy
documents.
Page 129 of 214
Item 4c
SPEC-0457-2023
Planning Commission Report – February 26, 2025
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft PC Resolution
B - ALUP Safety Zones Overlaying the AASP
C - ALUP Noise Contours Overlaying the AASP
D - ALUC Staff Report 2-19-25
E - Fiscal Impact Analysis
F - Addendum to Final EIR
Page 130 of 214
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE AIRPORT
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL (C-S) AND MANUFACTURING
(M) ZONES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHERE
APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE
PLAN; AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE CERTIFIED FINAL EIR FOR AIRPORT AREA AND
MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLANS AND RELATED FACILITIES
MASTER PLANS (FEIR) WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR; AS REPRESENTED IN THE
AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2025
(SPEC-0457-2023)
WHEREAS, the 2014 General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE)
update includes numerous policies that support the development of additional housing,
particularly affordable housing, to meet ongoing demand; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Housing Element Program 5.5, the City in 2021
updated Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) to allow for mixed-use development in Service
Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones by right throughout the City except in
Specific Plan Areas such as the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) in order to help
address ongoing housing demand; and
WHEREAS, the City has not allowed for mixed -use development in Service
Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones in the AASP because the 2002 San Luis
County Regional Airport (SBP) Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) established safety and
noise areas that limited or prohibited noise sensitive residential uses or high-density
residential development in effect at the time of the adoption of the AASP in 2005; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in
2021 amended and restated the ALUP to address new technical information related to
safety and noise, which resulted in a refinement of areas subject to land use restrictions
under the ALUP, including areas within the AASP and as a result, there is now substantial
area within the AASP where the land use restrictions have changed and create d
opportunities for mixed-use developments within the AASP; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of the County of San Luis Obispo,
upon receipt of a formal referral from the City of San Luis Obispo, conducted a hearing
on February 19, 2025, and determined the proposed SPA is consistent with the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan subject to conditions, pursuant to a
proceeding instituted under SPEC-0457-2023, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant; and
Page 131 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25
Page 2
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 February 26, 2025, for the purpose of recommending amendments to the
AASP to allow mixed-use development within the Service Commercial (C-S) and
Manufacturing (M) zones subject to a conditional use permit where appropriate and
consistent with the ALUP; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly
considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all evidence, the Planning Commission makes
the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment to the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) is consistent
with the intent of the General Plan because it will not result in additional impacts
beyond those anticipated in the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans
and Related Facilities Master Plans Final EIR, and because the concept of mixed
uses in appropriate locations within the City is supported in multiple policies within
the General Plan, notably in the Housing and Land Use elements.
2. The proposed AASP amendments are intended to allow for mixed-use
development consistent with the intent of the General Plan and in a manner
generally consistent with how it is considered in C-S and M zones elsewhere in the
City.
3. The proposed AASP amendments do not substantively change the policy
framework or overall land use or circulation pattern envisioned in the originally
adopted Specific Plan.
4. The proposed AASP amendments will not cause serious health problems,
substantial environmental damage, or cause impacts beyond those disclosed in
the certified Final EIR and Addendum for this action.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. An addendum to the certified Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #2000051062) for the Airport Area and
Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans was prepared to
address changes to the previously-approved project, pursuant to Section 15164(b) of the
CEQA Guidelines, since only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to the
certified Final EIR and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines have occurred that require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
Page 132 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25
Page 3
The project is consistent with the certified Final Envi ronmental Impact Report (FEIR) for
Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plan and Related Master Plans under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in conjunction with an Addendum prepared
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164. All mitigation measures adopted as part of the Final
EIR that were included in the Airport Area Specific Plan that are applicable to the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) are carried forward and applied to the
proposed SPA to effectively mitigate the impacts that were previously identified.
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council the introduction and adoption of an ordinance to amend the AASP to allow mixed-
use development within the Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones
subject to a conditional use permit where appropriate and consistent with the ALUP as
set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
Upon motion of Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner ___________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 26th day of February 2025.
____________________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 133 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL (C-S) AND
MANUFACTURING (M) ZONES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHERE
APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
Additions to the Airport Area Specific Plan language is shown in underline text, with
language to be removed shown in strikethrough text.
Chapter 1—Introduction
Page 1-3. Environmental Review. Add the following paragraph following the first
paragraph on the page, which describes the CEQA review that was conducted for this
specific plan amendment.
Pursuant to Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the Final EIR
was prepared to address changes to the Specific Plan Amendment approved in 202 5,
which allowed mixed-use development in Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing
(M) zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit within the AASP.
Page 1-7. The Planning Process. Add a new paragraph at the end of this section related
to allowing mixed-use in the Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones
within the AASP:
In 2025, the AASP was amended to allow mixed-use in the Service Commercial (C-S)
and Manufacturing (M) zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit and findings described
in Table 4-3, consistent with the 2021 amended and restated San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport Land Use Plan.
Chapter 2—The Planning Area
No changes proposed.
Chapter 3—Conservation and Resource Management
Page 3-12. Aircraft Operations. Add the following to the end of this section:
The Airport Land Use Commission adopted a major amendment to the Airport Land Use
Plan on May 26, 2021. The amended and restated ALUP provides for noise contours that
are tied to aircraft and airport activity that are consistent with adopted federal Terminal
Area Forecasts, and on safety zones that are based on and consistent with those
described in the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. These revised safety
areas and noise contours have the general effect of opening certain areas in the AASP
to residential development.
Page 134 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25
Page 5
Chapter 4—Land Use
Page 4-2. Land Use Background. Modify the third complete paragraph on Page 4 -2 as
follows:
The land use plan was developed to ensure compatibility with airport operations. Uses
that have high concentrations of people or are sensitive to airport noise (e.g., low density
residential, schools, hospitals, etc.) are not included in the planning area. The designated
AASP land uses (Figure 4-1) are consistent with the airport safety areas in the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), as amended in 2021. Generally,
the critical areas in line with the runway centerlines will be maintained as open space.
Lower intensity warehousing, manufacturing, service, business park and mixed-use
development are designated for the less sensitive zones to the sides of the runways, and
further out from the ends of the runways.
Page 4-3. Land Use Background. Remove Table 4-1 (Airport Area Specific Plan Land
Use Program and Development Capacities) as shown below and all references to Table
4-1 in the text of the Specific Plan.
Page 4-23. Table 4-3. Allowed Uses. Amend Table 4-3 to include a line item for Mixed-
Use, indicating that it is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Add the following note
(#9) at the end of the table that refers to the development standards and findings for
Page 135 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25
Page 6
mixed-use development within the C-S and M zones. Specific proposed changes to Table
4-3 are shown below as underlined text:
Table 4-3 – Allowed Uses
Key:
A = Allowed
D = Allowed by Administrative Use Permit
PC = Allowed by Planning Commission Use Permit
Land Use
Zoning District
PF C-S M BP
MIXED-USE (also see Footnote 9 & 10) PC PC
Footnote:
9. In order to approve a Conditional Use Permit (noted as PC in Table 4 -3) for a mixed-
use development in the C-S and M zones, the Planning Commission shall find the project
consistent with development standards outlined in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 17.70.130 (Mixed-use development) and make the following findings:
1) There is demonstrable water and sewer capacity to serve t he project;
2) Any fiscal impact of the project to the City must be offset to achieve fiscal
neutrality;
3) There are no nearby uses that generate sufficient air emissions, noise, odors
or vibration to create an incompatibility with proposed mixed-use development;
4) Proposed mixed-use residential development is consistent with land use,
safety or noise restrictions set forth in the ALUP and any residential portion of
a mixed-use development shall be wholly located within Safety Zone 6; and
5) There is adequate emergency response.
10. Avigation easements shall be recorded for each property prior to the issuance of a
building permit. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or
renters), and potential occupants (whether as owners or renter s) shall 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 the subject property or properties.
Page 4-28. Table 4-5. Building Intensity and Coverage Standards. Amend Table 4-5 to
indicate a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5 for the C-S and M zones, including for
mixed use development in those zones, in order to be consistent with the maximum FAR
in C-S and M zones elsewhere in the City. Specific changes are shown below in underline
text.
Page 136 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25
Page 7
Table 4-5
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan
BUILDING INTENSITY AND COVERAGE STANDARDS
Also See Table 4-6. Limitations on employee and customer concentrations due to
airport safety are more restrictive than the standards provided below in most cases
and may reduce maximum potential FAR.
Design Standard
Land Use Designation
Business
Park
Service
Commercial Manufacturing
Maximum floor area ratio: mixed-
use development
n/a 1.5 1.5
Page 4-30. Table 4-8. Parking Standards. Add the following note to Table 4-8:
(b) Parking standards for the residential component of mixed-use projects in the C-S and
M zones must be consistent with the parking standards for residential uses as set forth in
Section 17.72 of the Zoning Regulations.
Chapter 5—Community Design
Page 5-15. Goal 5.4, Guideline I. Modify as follows:
In R-3 and R-4 zones, as well as in the residential portions of mixed-use projects, parking
bays and garages shall be placed adjacent to non-residential uses or adjacent to noise
exposure areas to the extent possible to buffer sound impacts.
Page 5-18. Standard 5.6.2. Modify this standard as follows:
Each commercial, industrial loading, outdoor recycling or waste collection area shall be
located on the side of a building opposite from parcel lines or street frontages of any land
designated for residential use, or for mixed-use projects, separated or screened from the
residential portion of the project to the extent possible.
Page 5-38. Table 5-5. Add a footnote to Table 5-5 as follows:
Residential landscape design standards also apply to mixed -use projects within the
Service Commercial and Manufacturing land use categories.
Chapter 6—Circulation & Transportation
No changes proposed.
Page 137 of 214
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25
Page 8
Chapter 7—Utilities & Services
No changes proposed.
Chapter 8—Public Facilities Financing
Page 8-15. Add a new Section 8.6.4 as follows:
8.6.4 Fiscal Neutrality
In order to support long-term fiscal solvency for the City General Fund while not over-
prescribing non-residential uses beyond market and financial feasibility, and while not
relying solely on future non-residential uses which are difficult to predict, mixed-use
projects will be required to achieve fiscal neutrality. It is recommended that the City
implement a Community Facilities District (CFD), similar to the mechanism used for the
Avila Ranch development project, that could be applied to the AASP. However, without
a CFD or another mechanism that can apply to the entire AASP, fiscal neutrality can also
be achieved on a project-by-project basis, through the implementation of Home Owners
Associations or similar mechanisms that use fees collected from homeowners to provide
public services.
Chapter 9—Implementation
Page 9-2. Section 9.4, Architectural Review. Modify this section as follows:
Consistent with required citywide procedures, commercial, industrial, institutional, mixed-
use and multi-family residential construction developments will be subject to architectural
review. For projects subject to architectural review, the “minor or incidental” procedure
should be used for those projects meeting this Specific Plan’s design standards.
Page 9-3. Section 9.8, Environmental Review. Add the following to the end of this section:
All individual development projects within the AASP that require discretionary approval
are subject to project-specific environmental review as applicable under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Page 138 of 214
Ta n k Farm
South Higuera Tank Farm
I n d u s t r i a l
Hoover
F i e r o
A e r o
Lo
n
g
Granada
Suburban
Va
c
h
e
l
l
Buckley Buckley
S a n ta F e
A e r o v is t a
PoinsettiaClarion
MM
M
M
M
C-SC-S C-S
C-S
M
M
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-SC-SC-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
M
M
C-S C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP)
Airport Safety Zones
µ
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Airport Area Specific Plan
City Limit
Zoning
Service Commercial (C-S)
Manufacturing (M)
Airport Safety Zones
Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone
Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone
Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone
Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone
Zone 5: Sideline Zone
Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone SLOGIS
January 2025Page 139 of 214
Page 140 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP)
Airport Noise Contours
SLOGIS
January 2025
Ta n k Farm
South Higuera Tank Farm
I n d u s t r i a l
Hoover
F i e r o
A e r o
Lon
g
Granada
Suburban
Va
c
h
e
l
l
Buckley Buckley
S a n ta F e
A e r o v is t a
PoinsettiaClarion
MM
M
M
M
C-SC-S C-S
C-S
M
M
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-SC-SC-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
C-S C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
M
M
C-S C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
0 1 20.5 Miles
µ
Airport Area Specific Plan
City Limit
Zoning
Service Commercial (C-S)
Manufacturing (M)
Noise Contour Levels
60 dB CNEL
65 dB CNEL
70 dB CNEL
75 dB CNEL
Page 141 of 214
Page 142 of 214
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2025
TO: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC)
FROM: ERIC TOLLE, STAFF ALUC LIAISON
COUNTY OF SLO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING
REFERRING AGENCY: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PROJECT MANAGER: JOHN RICKENBACH
SUBJECT: A MANDATO R Y REFERRAL BY THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
(CITY) FOR A DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY OR
INCONSI S TENCY WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN (ALUP) FOR
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT (AIRPORT) FOR A
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
(AASP)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the ALUC determine that the proposed AASP Amendment is consistent
with the ALUP based on the findings and subject to the conditions of consistency (Attachment
1).
BACKGROUND
City of San Luis Obispo AASP
In recent years, the demand for housing in general, and affordable housing in particular, has
risen dramatically in San Luis Obispo, as it has elsewhere. In response, the City’s 2014 General
Plan Land Use Element update reflects this increased demand, and includes several large areas
for increased residential development. At the same time, the City has tried to address these
issues by supporting mixed-use development, in Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing
(M) designated land by right outside of specific plan areas.
The AASP provides a regulatory framework for planning future development on about 1,200
acres in the southern portion of the City near the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The
AASP does not currently allow mixed-use development, because when it was adopted in 2005,
it was subject to the 2002 San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport’s ALUP that limited
residential and non-residential development. In 2021, the ALUP was amended to address new
technical information related to safety and noise, which resulted in a refinement of areas
subject to land use restrictions, including areas within the AASP. As a result, there is now
substantial area within the AASP where the land use restrictions have changed creating
opportunities for mixed-use developments.
The proposed action responds to the changes in the ALUP and increased housing demand in
an evolving market by amending the AASP to allow for mixed-use development (as defined in
the City’s Municipal Code) with a conditional use permit (CUP) within parcels zoned either
Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M), subject to making certain findings described
later in this report.
Page 143 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
2
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport ALUP
The ALUP for the Airport was initially adopted by the ALUC in December 1973. The plan was
subsequently amended and restated in June 2002, July 2004, and May 2005. The current ALUP,
amended and reinstated May 26, 2021, was recently updated by the ALUC to reflect current
state law and the guidance of the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
revisions, and to reflect updates since 2004 to the airport layout plan, aviation activity forecasts,
and noise contour maps.
DISCUSSION
County staff received the initial referral packet from the City on December 04, 2024. Under
Public Resources Code Section 21676(d), the ALUC must determine whether the Amendments
are consistent or inconsistent with the ALUP within sixty days after the date on which all
required information was received from the referring agency in order t o avoid a default
consistency determination (absent an extension or waiver of the statutory deadline by the
referring agency). The project and applicant appeared before the ALUC for a conceptual
discussion of the project on January 15, 2025. The City provided the additional information
requested by the ALUC and on January 28, 2025, staff determined that all required information
was included with the ALUP amendment application materials and the project was accepted
for processing by staff.
Figure 1: Existing Land Use Designations in the Airport Area Specific Plan
Page 144 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
3
AASP AMENDMENT COMPONENTS
The Project Area includes all parcels designated as Service Commercial (C -S) or Manufacturing
(M) within the 1,200-acre AASP planning area. Figure 1 above shows the location of C-S and M
designated parcels within the AASP.
A land use inventory was prepared in 2024 to determine the amount of C-S or M designated
lands within the AASP. Table 1 below summarizes the total acreage of vacant and developed
parcels in these two land use designations.
Table 1. Summary of Land Use Inventory
C-S and M Parcels in the AASP
Land Use Designation
Acreage
Developed
(or entitled) Vacant Total
Service Commercial (C-S) 140.4 85.6 226.0
Manufacturing (M) 94.7 20.4 115.1
Total 235.1 106.0 341.1
Attachment 2 provides a complete inventory of all parcels within the AASP that are in either
the C-S or M land use designations. Attachment 3 shows the ALUP safety zones as they overlay
the AASP, and specifically how they relate to the C-S and M zones. Attachment 4 shows how
the ALUP noise contours overlay the AASP.
PROPOSED AASP FINDINGS
The City is proposing to amend the AASP to allow mixed-use development within
Manufacturing (M) or Service Commercial (C-S) zoned parcels with the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP). No development would occur directly as a result of this action. No existing
zoning or land use designations are proposed to change. Instead, the resulting amendment
would allow mixed-use development, subject to specific findings, and consistent with the
requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations, as they currently apply to C-S and M designated
lands in the remainder of the City.
The specific findings necessary for the City of San Luis Obispo’s Planning Commission to make
in order to approve a conditional use permit for an individual mixed-use project in the AASP
would be:
1. There is demonstrable water and sewer capacity to serve the project;
2. Any fiscal impact of the project to the City must be offset to achieve fiscal
neutrality;
3. There are no nearby uses that generate sufficient air emissions, noise, odors or
vibration to create an incompatibility with proposed mixed-use development;
4. Proposed mixed-use development is consistent with land use, safety or noise
restrictions set forth in the ALUP; and
5. There is adequate emergency response.
Page 145 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
4
Future development under the modified land use requirements could occur as a result of
individual project applications that must be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo through
its normal development and conditional use permit review processes, and subject to
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the
magnitude and timing of such development is speculative at this time, and would be influenced
by a variety of issues, including market demand, property owner desire to develop, consistency
with the ALUP, and potential environmental constraints that may apply to specific parcels
where project development applications are under consideration.
PROPOSED AASP TEXT CHANGES
Proposed text modifications to the Airport Area Specific Plan are described below. The existing
AASP is included as Attachment 5 (link only, see Page 14).
Chapter 1—Introduction
Page 1-3. Environmental Review. Add short paragraph following the first paragraph on the
page describing the CEQA review that was conducted for this specific plan amendment.
Page 1-7. The Planning Process. Add a new paragraph at the end of this section that describes
the current planning effort, specifically that residential uses will be permitted as part of mixed
use projects in the Manufacturing (M) and Service Commercial (C-S) Zones subject to the design
and development conditions included in the policy framework of the AASP. The intent is to
recognize the greater extent of developable area and uses that would be allowed under the
updated 2021 Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), subject to design and density requirements in the
ALUP.
Chapter 2—The Planning Area
No changes proposed.
Chapter 3—Conservation and Resource Management
Page 3-12. Aircraft Operations. Add the following to the end of this section:
“The Airport Land Use Commission adopted a major amendment to the Airport Land Use
Plan on May 26, 2021. The amended ALUP provides for noise contours that are tied to
aircraft and airport activity that is based on adopted federal Terminal Area Forecasts, and
on safety zones that are based on and consistent with those described in the Caltrans
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. These revised safety areas and noise contours have the
general effect of opening certain areas to higher density development within portions of the
AASP.”
Page 146 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
5
Chapter 4—Land Use
Page 4-2. Land Use Background. Modify the third complete paragraph on Page 4-2 as follows:
“The land use plan was developed to ensure compatibility with airport operations. Uses that
have high concentrations of people or are sensitive to airport noise (e.g., low density
residential, schools, hospitals, etc.) are not included in the planning area. The designated
AASP land uses (Figure 4-1) are consistent with the airport safety areas in the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), as amended in 2021. Generally, the critical
areas in line with the runway centerlines will be maintained as open space. Lower intensity
warehousing, manufacturing, service, business park and mixed-use development are
designated for the less sensitive zones to the sides of the runways, and further out from the
ends of the runways.”
Pages 4-2 and 4-3. Table 4-1, Airport Area Specific Plan Land Use Program and Development
Capacities. Remove Table 4-1 and all references to Table 4-1 in the text of the Specific Plan, as
it is currently out of date, reflects buildout potential based on assumptions made when the
specific plan was first adopted 20 years ago, does not aid in implementing the specific plan, and
with less interest in purely commercial development and the ability to pursue mixed-use
development, any estimate of potential buildout within the area is likely to be inaccurate.
Instead, add a note in this section that includes the following:
“Market factors, environmental constraints, and parcel size and configuration will ultimately
determine the mixed-use development potential (and timing of that development) within
areas where it is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit.”
Page 147 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
6
Table 4-1 as proposed for removal is shown below:
Page 148 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
7
Page 4-23. Table 4-3. Allowed Uses. Amend Table 4-3 to include a line item for Mixed-Use,
indicating that it is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Add the following note (# 9) at the
end of the table that refers to the development standards and findings for mixed -use
development within the C-S and M zones. Specific proposed changes to Table 4 -3 are shown
below as underlined text:
Table 4-3 – Allowed Uses
Key: A = Allowed D = Allowed by Administrative Use Permit PC = Allowed by Planning Commission
Use Permit
Land Use
Zoning District
PF C-S M BP
MIXED-USE (also see Footnote 9) PC PC
Footnote:
9. In order to approve a Conditional Use Permit (noted as PC in Table 4-3) for a mixed-use development
in the C-S and M zones, the Planning Commission shall find the project consistent with development
standards outlined in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.70.130 (Mixed-use development) and
make the following findings:
1. There is demonstrable water and sewer capacity to serve the project;
2. Any fiscal impact of the project to the City must be offset to achieve fiscal neutrality;
3. There are no nearby uses that generate sufficient air emissions, noise, odors or vibration to
create an incompatibility with proposed mixed-use development;
4. Proposed mixed-use development is consistent with land use, safety or noise restrictions set
forth in the ALUP; and
5. There is adequate emergency response.
Page 4-28. Table 4-5. Building Intensity and Coverage Standards. Amend Table 4-5 to indicate
a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5 for the C-S and M zones for mixed use development
in those zones, in order to be consistent with the maximum FAR in C-S and M zones elsewhere
in the City. Specific changes are shown below in underline text.
Table 4-5
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan
BUILDING INTENSITY AND COVERAGE STANDARDS
Also See Table 4-6. Limitations on employee and customer concentrations due to airport
safety are more restrictive than the standards provided below in most cases and may reduce
maximum potential FAR.
Design Standard Land Use Designation
Business Park Service
Commercial
Manufacturing
Maximum floor area ratio: mixed-use
development
n/a 1.5 1.5
Page 4-29. Table 4-7. Setback Standards. Add note to this table that setback standards for the
residential component of mixed-use projects in the C-S and M zones must be consistent with
the setback standards as set forth in Sections 17.36 or 17.40 of the Zoning Regulations,
depending on whether the site is in the C-S or M zone.
Page 149 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
8
Page 4-30. Table 4-8. Parking Standards. Add note to this table that parking standards for the
residential component of mixed-use projects in the C-S and M zones must be consistent with
the parking standards for residential uses as set forth in Section 17.72 of the Zoning
Regulations.
Page 4-30. Table 4-9. Building Heights. Add note to this table that building height standards
for the residential component of mixed-use projects in the C-S and M zones must be consistent
with the standards as set forth in Sections 17.36 or 17.40 of the Zoning Regulations, depending
on whether the site is in the C-S or M zone.
Chapter 5—Community Design
Page 5-15. Goal 5.4, Guideline I. Modify as follows:
“In R-3 and R-4 zones, as well as in the residential portions of mixed-use projects, parking
bays and garages shall be placed adjacent to non-residential uses or adjacent to noise
exposure areas to the extent possible to buffer sound impacts.”
Page 5-18. Standard 5.6.2. Modify this standard as follows:
“Each commercial, industrial loading, outdoor recycling or waste collection area shall be
located on the side of a building opposite from parcel lines or street frontages of any land
designated for residential use, or for mixed-use projects, separated or screened from the
residential portion of the project to the extent possible.”
Page 5-38. Table 5-5. Modify the second column of the table to indicate that residential
landscape design standards also apply to mixed use projects.
Chapter 6—Circulation & Transportation
No changes proposed.
Chapter 7—Utilities & Services
No changes proposed.
Chapter 8—Public Facilities Financing
Add a section summarizing an areawide Community Facilities District (CFD) as a feasible
approach to achieving fiscal neutrality for future projects within the specific plan area. Note
that absent a CFD or similar mechanism, fiscal neutrality would need to be achieved on a
project-by-project basis.
Page 150 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
9
Chapter 9—Implementation
Page 9-2. Section 9.4, Architectural Review. Modify this section as follows:
“Consistent with required citywide procedures, commercial, industrial, institutional, mixed-
use and multi family residential construction developments will be subject to architectural
review. For projects subject to architectural review, the “minor or incidental” procedure should be
used for those projects meeting this Specific Plan’s design standards.”
Page 9-3. Section 9.8, Environmental Review. Add discussion to the end of this paragraph
that says that all mixed-use projects within the AASP are subject to project-specific
environmental review as applicable under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
AASP AIRPORT COMPATIBLE OPEN SPACE
• Policy 4.3.4 Airport Compatible Open Space: The City will work with property owners to
implement and maintain Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS) within the Airport Area,
consistent with an approved ACOS plan, to ensure ongoing compatibility between Specific
Plan land uses and airport operations. After revision of the AASP, the ACOS shall be amended
to include the open space on Avila Ranch and the Reservation Space.
Analysis: To some extent, the ALUP bases its density standards on whether or not there is an
approved Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS) plan. However, in the case of Safety Zone 6,
there are no differences in these standards for residential density, as described in Table 4-2 of
the ALUP, included on page 4-17 of that document. For population intensity, there is a limit of
1,200 persons per acre without an ACOS, but no limit with an approved ACOS. Notably, if a
project were built at the City’s maximum density of 24 density units per acre (48 total units that
are 500 square feet or less), and assuming 2.5 persons per unit, that suggests a maximum
residential intensity of about 120 persons per acre. It is unlikely that any non -residential
component of a mixed use project would include more than the remainder allowed without an
ACOS, which would be 1,140 persons per acre. The City will work with property owners to
maintain an ACOS as appropriate, which would ensure consistency with the ALUP’s standards
related to this issue.
ALUP POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The following discussion compares relevant aspects of the ALUP to the proposed amendments
of the City’s AASP, for the purpose of evaluating consistency. The analysis included below
responds to questions raised by the Airport Land Use Commission in its preliminary review of
the project in its January 15, 2025 meeting.
As described below, the proposed changes to the AASP are consistent with the ALUP.
Table 2 compares key standards related to development and density from the AASP to those
in the ALUP. As shown in the table, the maximum residential and population densities that
would be allowed as part of mixed use development within the C-S and M zones would be
substantially less intensive than what could be allowed in Safety Zone 6 under the ALUP, which
is the only safety zone where future mixed use development would be considered.
Page 151 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
10
The City recognizes that the density restrictions within the Safety Zones 1 through 5 are such
that residential uses that are a part of mixed-use projects would not be allowed within these
areas. For this reason, Table 2 does not address the requirements of those safety zones.
Table 2. Comparison of Key Standards of the AASP to the ALUP
Zoning Regulations / AASP Regulations 2021 ALUP Safety Zone 6
Service
Commercial (C-S)
Manufacturing
(M)
Residential
Density
(dwelling units
/ acre)
Mixed Use
Intensity
(persons /
gross acre)
ALUP Land
Use
Compatibility
Table
(ALUP Table 4-
5, pg 4-28)
Density
24 density units per
acre = maximum of 48
front doors (500 SF
units) with an
occupancy of 2.5
people per unit that
would be 120 persons
per acre (in housing)
24 density units per
acre = maximum of 48
front doors (500 SF
units) with an
occupancy of 2.5 people
per unit that would be
120 persons per acre
(in housing)
No Limit with or
without
approved ACOS
(see ALUP Table
4-2, pg 4-17)
No limit with an
approved ACOS
(see ALUP Table
4-2, pg 4-17)
Compatible
uses include:
multi-family
dwellings, single
family, ADUs,
retail sales,
offices, bars,
taverns,
restaurants,
hotels, health
services (mixed-
use is not listed
**).
Coverage
(includes
buildings,
driveways
and parking)
90% (AASP Table 4-5) 90% (AASP Table 4-5)
100% (See ALUP
Table 4-5, pg 4-
28)
100%
Height
(occupied
portions of a
building)
36 feet (AASP Table 4-9) 36 feet (AASP Table 4-9)
409 feet mean
sea level (ALUP
pg 4-36)
409 feet mean
sea level (ALUP
pg 4-36)
Height (non-
occupied
architectural
features)
46 feet (AASP Table 4-9) 46 feet (AASP Table 4-9)
409 feet above
mean sea level
(ALUP pg 4-36) *
409 feet above
mean sea level
(ALUP pg 4-36) *
FAR 1.5 is proposed for
mixed use
1.5 is proposed for
mixed use
N/A N/A
* The typical surface elevation in the AASP ranges between 150 and 200 feet above sea level, so these policies would potentially allow
building heights that exceed 200 feet.
** Mixed use is defined on page 4-14 of the ALUP: Mixed-use development/ mixed-use land use – projects which consist of and will result
in establishment of structures intended and used both for commercial purposes, and for human habitation. A project which incl udes both
commercial and residential components will be considered as a mixed-use development or land use regardless of whether the commercial
and residential components are contained within single structures or are separated into individual structures.
Page 152 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
11
ANALYSIS OF KEY RELEVANT ALUP POLICIES
General Land Use Policies
ALUP policies G-1 through G-4 establish the criteria related to land use to evaluate consistency
with the ALUP. This section evaluates the proposed AASP amendment’s consistency with each
policy, which “form the basis from which the ALUC will evaluate proposed land use actions
and airport-related actions.”
• Policy G-1: A proposed project or local action will be determined to be inconsistent with the
ALUP if the information required for review of the proposed action is not provided by the
referring agency.
Analysis: The City has provided all necessary documentation related to the proposed
amendment to the AASP.
• Policy G-2: A proposed project or local action will be determined to be inconsistent with the
ALUP if the ALUC finds that the action would present specific incompatibilities to the
continued economic vitality and efficient operation of the Airport with respect to safety, noise,
overflight or obstacle clearance.
Analysis: As proposed, the amendments to the AASP do not appear to present any
incompatibilities with the continued economic vitality and efficient operation of the
Airport with respect to safety, noise, overflight or obstacle clearance based on the
Airport’s current configuration or forecasts. However, the draft Airport Master Plan
pending FAA review includes a proposal to shift Runway 11-29 endpoints 740 feet to the
northwest. This could create a potential conflict in the future should development be
approved and constructed in the limited areas where a shift in the main runway would
cause a change in allowable density limitations and potential increase in incompatible
development. The ALUC may want to provide direction to City staff regarding whether
courtesy notice is requested for any future development that may be proposed in the
affected areas while the Airport Master Plan remains pending before the FAA. Additional
discussion is also provided below related to noise.
• Policy G-3: Except as provided in Policy G-4, a proposed project or local action will be
determined to be inconsistent with the ALUP if the proposal is not in conformance with all
applicable Specific Land Use Policies. In the event that the site affected by a proposed project
or local action is located in more than one noise exposure area or aviation safety area, the
standards for each such area will be applied separately to the land area lying within each
noise or safety zone.
Analysis: As proposed, the amendment to the AASP conforms with this policy. Crucially,
many affected parcels overlay more than one ALUP Safety Zone (see Attachment 3) or
noise contour (see Attachment 4). As clearly described in Policy G-3, “the standards for
each such area will be applied separately to the land area lying within each noise or safety
zone.” Thus, if part of a given parcel is overlaid by Safety Zone 6, with the remainder in
Safety Zone 4, a mixed-use project would have to apply differing standards to the
different portions of the parcel.
Page 153 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
12
• Policy G-4: When the site affected by a proposed project or legislative action is located in
more than one noise exposure area or aviation safety area, the ALUC may, at its sole
discretion, elect not to apply the requirements of Policy G-3 if:
i. The total gross area(s) within the more restrictive area(s) is two (2) acres or less, and
ii. The land area(s) within the more restrictive area(s) is less than 50% of the total gross
land area affected by the referred project or local action.
In such cases, the ALUC may elect to apply the least-restrictive land use or noise policies to
the entire site affected by the project or local action. The ALUC must adopt specific findings
that the proposed project or location, so considered would not result in the potential
development of land uses incompatible with current or future airport operations.
Analysis: The City is not requesting any deviation from the requirements of Policy G-3,
but instead is intending to abide by those requirements as individual development
projects are proposed. However, if ALUC is open to considering the flexible standards
set forth in Policy G-4 on a project-by-project basis, the City has indicated it would not
object.
Noise Policies
As shown in Attachment 4, the majority of the C-S and M zones where mixed use would be
allowed fall outside of the 60 CNEL noise contour shown in the ALUP Figure 4-1, and nearly all
of the area would be outside the 65 CNEL contour.
• Section 2.10.1: Limitation of the ALUP; Existing Land Use of the ALUP states:
Redevelopment of residential land uses shall not be precluded because of location with
respect to Airport CNEL noise contours, but such redevelopment may not increase the number
of residential units located inside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour and the desig n and
construction of all new dwelling shall be adequate to mitigate noise impacts in accordance
with Section 4.3.3 of this ALUP.
Analysis: ALUP Policies N-1 through N-5 provide the criteria related to noise exposure
for which development projects need to comply in order to be found consistent with the
ALUP. The City intends to comply with these policies in its review of subsequent and
applicable development projects, as they are also part of the City’s regulatory
framework. Any mitigation required to address identified noise impacts would be based
on direction set forth in Section 4.3.3 of the ALUP. In addition, as conditioned, mixed use
development would only be allowed within Safety Zone 6 which would result in all mixed
use development being located outside of the 60 dB CNEL noise contour.
Page 154 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
13
Safety Compatibility, Airspace Protection, and Overflight Protection Policies
The ALUP includes several related policies that address safety compatibility, airspace protection
and overflight protection.
• Section 4.4.5 of the ALUP includes safety-related policies intended to ensure land use
compatibility with ongoing airport operations, minimizing risk to both lives and
property. Policies S-1, S-2 and S-3 collectively set forth criteria for determining land use
compatibility, with specific references to Table 4-2 and 4-5 in the ALUP, which define
maximum densities within various Safety Zones, and type of land uses allowed in those
zones.
As described in Table 2 above, mixed-use development that would be allowed would
conform with ALUP density restrictions. Within Safety Zone 6, maximum allowed
densities far exceed those that would be allowed under the City’s mixed-use zoning
provisions. Within all other safety zones, the ALUP includes density requirements that
are more restrictive than what would be allowed under the City’s mixed -use zoning
policies. However, the City’s intent is to ensure consistency with the ALUP, and for that
reason it would not consider mixed-use development in any safety zone except Safety
Zone 6.
• Section 4.5.4 includes Policies A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, which collectively address specific
land use types or structures that could pose potential airspace incompatibility.
Specifically, these policies refer to new structures, landscaping, landfills, and wetland
creation. As described above, mixed-use development and associated
landscape/hardscape improvements would be consistent with land use requirements
within Safety Zone 6. The City’s proposed change to the AASP would not allow for the
development of landfills, nor does it contemplate wetland creation.
• Section 4.6.3 includes Policies O-1 and O-2, which collectively require that those
owning or living on properties within the airport area are informed of ongoing airport
operations, and that avigation easements be recorded on affected properties. Future
development pursuant to the City’s proposed change to the AASP would be subject to
those policies.
Analysis: The City is not requesting any deviation from the requirements of any safety,
airspace protection of overflight policies in the ALUP. As proposed, the amendments to
the AASP conform with these policies. Future development pursuant to the City’s
proposed change to the AASP would be subject to, and consistent with, those policies.
Page 155 of 214
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
14
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The Final Programmatic EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related
Facilities Master Plans (“Final EIR”, or “AASP Final EIR”) addressed future development within
the Airport Area Specific Plan. The Final EIR was certified in September 2003, and has provided
the basis for evaluating the impacts of future development within the AASP area. Subsequent
amendments to the AASP were subject to separate CEQA evaluations to address the potential
impacts stemming from those amendments.
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a
Final EIR when only “minor technical changes or additions” are necessary to address the effects
of a minor change to the approved project since the Final EIR was certified. An Addendum to
the certified Final EIR has been prepared to address the proposed changes to the AASP, and is
included as Attachment 6. An Addendum need not be circulated for public review (CEQA
Guidelines 15164(c)).
The County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission conducted an Initial Study and
prepared a Negative Declaration for the 2021 update of its Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) (SCH:
2021030474). That environmental document was used to substantively inform the conclusions
contained in the Addendum.
Individual projects that may be proposed under the AASP as amended would be subject to
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as appropriate on a project -by-
project basis.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the ALUC review all materials related to the proposed amendment to
the Airport Area Specific Plan in conjunction with the Airport Land Use Plan and provide a
determination of consistency.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Findings and Conditions of Consistency
Attachment 2: Summary of Parcels Affected
Attachment 3: ALUP Safety Zones Overlaying the AASP
Attachment 4: ALUP Noise Contours Overlaying the AASP
Attachment 5: Airport Area Specific Plan (Existing)
Included by digital link only at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/4294/637493456364330000
Attachment 6: Addendum to the Certified Final EIR
Page 156 of 214
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF CONSISTENCY
CITY OF SLO AASP AMENDMENT
ALUC FEBRUARY 19, 2025
FINDINGS
1. The Amendments are consistent with General Land Use Policies G-1 through G-4
because: all information required for review of the Amendments was provided by the
City; the Amendments (as conditioned) would not result in any incompatibilities to
the continued economic vitality and efficient operation of the Airport with respect to
safety, noise, overflight or obstacle clearance; and since some of the lots affected by
the Amendments are located in more than one noise exposure area or Aviation Safety
Zone, the standards for each such area will be applied separately to the land area
lying within each noise counter or safety area unless the project is specifically
reviewed by the ALUC and it elects at its sole discretion not to apply the requirements
of the more restrictive zone in accordance with Policy G-4 of the ALUP;
2. The Amendments are consistent with the Noise Compatibility Policies N-1 through N-
5 because the area affected by the Amendments is located outside the 60 dB CNEL
contour and development of any extremely or moderately noise-sensitive uses are
allowable and shall meet the requirements of interior noise levels specified in Table
4-1 and Section 4.3.3 of the ALUP;
3. The Amendments are consistent with the Safety Compatibility Policies S-1 through S3
because the Amendments only modify allowable uses within Safety Zone 6 and would
not result in a density greater than that specified in Table 4-2; the Amendments would
not result in a greater building coverage than permitted by Table 4-3; and the
Amendments would not result in land uses other than specified in Table 4-5;
4. The Amendments are consistent with the Airspace Protection Policies A-1 through A-
4 because the Amendments (as conditioned), existing City regulations, and distance
from the Airport will ensure no structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature
will create an obstruction or hazard to air navigation, do not propose new landfill or
other disposal site, will ensure no structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature
will create a wildlife attractant, and does not propose the creation of new or restored
wetlands;
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 3
Page 157 of 214
5. The Amendments are consistent with the Overflight Protection Policies O-1 through
O-2 because the Amendments have been conditioned to require avigation easements
be recorded for each property developed within the Project site prior to the issuance
of any building permit or land use permit; and all owners, potential purchasers,
occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as
owners or renters) to 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;
CONDITIONS
1. The City shall ensure that all applicable ALUP policies and aviation related
development restrictions are enforced.
2. Utilizing the ALUP’s California Building Code (CBC) calculation method (Figure 4-3), the
Amendments shall limit mixed use density/ intensity for applicable property within
the AASP planning area designated C-S and M as follows:
a. The maximum average density/ intensity shall be 300 persons per gross acre
(average across entire site); and
b. The maximum single acre density shall be 1,200 persons per gross acre
(maximum on any single acre).
3. The construction plans for proposed mixed use development that include structures
or other objects that exceed the height standards defined in Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 as applied to the Airport, shall be submitted via FAA
Form 7460-1 to the Air Traffic Division of the FAA regional office having jurisdiction
over San Luis Obispo County at least 45 days before proposed construction or
application for a building permit, to determine compliance with the provisions of FAR
Part 77.
4. All future mixed-use development shall comply with all noise policies as required by
the ALUP.
5. No structure, landscaping, apparatus, or other feature, whether temporary or
permanent in nature shall constitute an obstruction to air navigation or a hazard to
air navigation, as defined by the ALUP.
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 3
Page 158 of 214
6. Any use is prohibited that may entail characteristics which would potentially interfere
with the takeoff, landing, or maneuvering of aircraft at the Airport, including:
• creation of electrical interference with navigation signals or radio communication
between the aircraft and airport;
• lighting which is difficult to distinguish from airport lighting;
• glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport;
• uses which attract birds and create bird strike hazards;
• uses which produce visually significant quantities of smoke; and
• uses which entail a risk of physical injury to operators or passengers of aircraft
(e.g., exterior laser light demonstrations or shows).
7. Avigation easements shall be recorded for each property developed within the Project
site prior to the issuance of any building permit or land use permit.
8. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and
potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall 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.
9. Any residential portion of a mixed-use development within the C-S and M land use
designation within the AASP shall be located wholly within Safety Zone 6.
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 3
Page 159 of 214
Parcels within the C-S or M Designations in the AASP
Site #Parcel Address Total Acres % in SZ 6 Eligible Acres Zoning ALUP Safety Zone Status
1 053-251-068 215 Meissner 10.28 100%10.28 C-S 6/2 vacant
2 053-251-074 237 Vanguard 1.12 100%1.12 C-S 6 vacant
3 053-251-075 229 Vanguard 1.12 100%1.12 C-S 6 vacant
4 053-251-076 250 Tank Farm 1.04 100%1.04 C-S 6 vacant
5 053-251-077 253 Vanguard 1.04 100%1.04 C-S 6 vacant
6 053-251-078 3880 Innovation 1.15 100%1.15 C-S 6 vacant
7 053-251-079 3820 Innovation 1.43 100%1.43 C-S 6 vacant
8 053-251-080 220 Vanguard 0.93 100%0.93 C-S 6/2 vacant
9 053-251-081 260 Vanguard 0.90 100%0.90 C-S 6/2 vacant
10 053-258-025 no address 7.29 100%7.29 M 6 vacant
11 053-258-045 4015 Earthwood 0.26 100%0.26 M 6 vacant
12 053-258-046 4045 Earthwood 0.28 100%0.28 M 6 vacant
13 053-258-049 4120 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
14 053-258-050 4130 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
15 053-258-051 4140 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
16 053-258-052 4150 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
17 053-258-053 4160 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
18 053-258-054 4170 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
19 053-258-055 4180 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
20 053-258-056 4190 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
21 053-258-057 4195 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
22 053-258-058 4185 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
23 053-258-059 4175 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
24 053-258-060 4165 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
25 053-258-061 4155 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
26 053-258-062 4145 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
27 053-258-063 4135 Earthwood 0.21 100%0.21 M 6 vacant
28 053-258-064 4125 Earthwood 0.22 100%0.22 M 6 vacant
29 053-259-013 120 Venture 9.20 100%9.20 M 6 vacant
30 053-412-025 1138 Farmhouse 2.53 100%2.53 C-S 6 vacant
31 053-412-026 1130 Farmhouse 2.10 100%2.10 C-S 6 vacant
32 053-412-029 no address 0.96 100%0.96 C-S 6 vacant
33 053-427-004 1095 Farmhouse 1.13 100%1.13 C-S 6 vacant
34 076-381-021 438 Tank Farm 59.93 20%11.99 C-S 1/2/3/6 undeveloped
35 053-257-024 191 Tank Farm 6.78 100%6.78 C-S 6 developed
36 053-257-037 196 Suburban 4.00 100%4.00 M 6 developed
37 053-258-004 131 Suburban 7.06 100%7.06 M 6 developed
38 053-258-005 no address 2.60 100%2.60 M 6 developed
39 053-258-006 117 Suburban 0.15 100%0.15 M 6 developed
40 053-258-007 1 Suburban 3.50 100%3.50 M 6 developed
41 053-258-009 4150 Vachell 4.46 100%4.46 M 6 developed
42 053-258-010 4180 Vachell 1.00 100%1.00 M 6 developed
43 053-258-012 219 Tank Farm 5.99 100%5.99 C-S, M 6 developed
44 053-258-014 240 Suburban 1.80 100%1.80 M 6 developed
45 053-258-015 260 Suburban 1.87 100%1.87 M 6 developed
46 053-258-017 4080 Horizon 3.28 100%3.28 M, C/OS 6 developed
47 053-258-018 225 Suburban 0.55 100%0.55 M 6 developed
48 053-258-023 4115 Horizon 2.08 100%2.08 M, C/OS 6 developed
49 053-258-027 165 Suburban 2.25 100%2.25 M 6 developed
50 053-264-002 4280 Vachell 10.53 100%10.53 C-S 6 developed
51 053-264-003 4313 S. Higuera 1.00 100%1.00 C-S 6 developed
52 053-264-004 4353 S. Higuera 9.11 100%9.11 C-S 6 developed
53 053-422-001 4027 Santa Fe 6.01 85%5.11 C-S, C/OS 6/3 developed
54 053-259-003 115 Venture 9.33 100%9.33 M 6 developed
55 053-264-008 4115 Vachell 0.45 100%0.45 C-S 6 developed
56 053-264-007 4251 S. Higuera 2.25 100%2.25 C-S 6 developed
57 053-258-008 4025 S. Higuera 2.64 100%2.64 C-S 6 developed
58 053-258-003 141 Suburban 2.06 100%2.06 M 6 developed
59 053-258-033 143 Suburban 2.67 100%2.67 M 6 developed
60 053-258-047 4085 Earthwood 0.26 100%0.26 M 6 developed
61 053-258-040 4070 Earthwood 0.32 100%0.32 M 6 developed
62 053-258-041 4090 Earthwood 0.28 100%0.28 M 6 developed
63 053-258-026 181 Suburban 6.17 100%6.17 M 6 developed
64 053-258-024 203 Suburban 7.29 100%7.29 M 6 developed
65 053-258-023 4125 Horizon 2.08 100%2.08 M 6 developed
66 053-258-017 4080 Horizon 3.28 100%3.28 M 6 developed
67 053-258-019 4096 Horizon 0.68 100%0.68 M 6 developed
68 053-258-020 4110 Horizon 0.56 100%0.56 M 6 developed
69 053-258-021 4120 Horizon 0.53 100%0.53 M 6 developed
70 053-258-022 4130 Horizon 0.51 100%0.51 M 6 developed
71 053-257-030 181 Tank Farm 0.87 100%0.87 C-S 6 developed
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 2
Page 160 of 214
72 053-257-040 179 Cross 1.03 100%1.03 C-S 6 developed
73 053-257-043 3981 Steel 0.47 100%0.47 C-S 6 developed
74 053-257-036 170 Suburban 0.45 100%0.45 C-S 6 developed
75 053-257-031 187 Tank Farm 0.90 100%0.90 C-S 6 developed
76 053-257-033 189 Cross 0.63 100%0.63 C-S 6 developed
77 053-257-041 3976 Steel 0.61 100%0.61 C-S 6 developed
78 053-257-042 3980 Steel 0.55 100%0.55 C-S 6 developed
79 053-257-035 174 Suburban 0.50 100%0.50 C-S 6 developed
80 053-257-034 178 Suburban 0.41 100%0.41 C-S 6 developed
81 053-257-024 191 Tank Farm 6.78 100%6.78 C-S 6 developed
82 053-257-039 211 Tank Farm 3.20 100%3.20 C-S 6 developed
83 053-258-011 200 Suburban 1.21 100%1.21 C-S 6 developed
84 053-258-029 253 Tank Farm 7.12 100%7.12 M 6 developed
85 053-258-030 281 Tank Farm 3.86 100%3.86 M 6 developed
86 053-258-031 305 Tank Farm 0.38 100%0.38 M 6 developed
87 053-251-067 202 Tank Farm 2.93 100%2.93 C-S 6 developed
88 053-251-057 202A Tank Farm 0.15 100%0.15 C-S 6 developed
89 053-251-066 202H Tank Farm 0.29 100%0.29 C-S 6 developed
90 053-251-065 202H Tank Farm 0.16 100%0.16 C-S 6 developed
91 053-251-060 202E Tank Farm 0.09 100%0.09 C-S 6 developed
92 053-251-058 202C Tank Farm 0.08 100%0.08 C-S 6 developed
93 053-251-059 202D Tank Farm 0.12 100%0.12 C-S 6 developed
94 053-251-063 202H Tank Farm 0.10 100%0.10 C-S 6 developed
95 053-251-061 202F Tank Farm 0.13 100%0.13 C-S 6 developed
96 053-251-062 202G Tank Farm 0.13 100%0.13 C-S 6 developed
97 053-251-072 224 Tank Farm 4.28 100%4.28 C-S 6 developed
98 053-421-006 600 Tank Farm 6.37 100%6.37 C-S 6 developed
99 053-421-002 600 Tank Farm 5.32 100%5.32 C-S 6 developed
100 053-421-005 650 Tank Farm 12.72 100%12.72 C-S 6 developed
101 053-422-001 4027 Santa Fe 6.01 80%4.81 C-S 6/3 developed
102 053-422-003 615 Tank Farm 2.64 100%2.64 C-S 6 developed
103 053-422-002 635 Tank Farm 2.65 100%2.65 C-S 6 developed
104 053-426-008 696 Clarion 0.88 100%0.88 C-S 6 developed
105 053-422-004 645 Tank Farm 4.89 100%4.89 C-S 6 developed
106 053-426-007 684 Clarion 0.53 100%0.53 C-S 6 developed
107 053-426-006 no address 0.31 100%0.31 C-S 6 developed
108 053-426-005 660 Clarion 0.28 100%0.28 C-S 6 developed
109 053-426-004 648 Clarion 0.32 100%0.32 C-S 6 developed
110 053-426-003 636 Clarion 0.34 60%0.20 C-S 6/5 developed
111 053-426-012 645 Clarion 0.25 50%0.13 C-S 6/5 developed
112 053-426-013 655 Clarion 0.25 100%0.25 C-S 6 developed
113 053-426-014 675 Clarion 0.25 100%0.25 C-S 6 developed
114 053-426-015 685 Clarion 0.24 100%0.24 C-S 6 developed
115 053-426-016 695 Clarion 0.41 100%0.41 C-S 6 developed
116 053-426-017 648 Clarion 4.40 60%2.64 C-S 6/5 developed
117 053-423-017 4075 Santa Fe 6.70 25%1.68 M 2/3/5/6 developed
118 053-412-024 1146 Farmhouse 5.08 100%5.08 C-S 6 developed
119 053-427-001 1025 Farmhouse 1.18 98%1.16 C-S 6/4 developed
120 053-427-002 1051 Farmhouse 1.07 100%1.07 C-S 6 developed
121 053-427-003 1075 Farmhouse 1.07 100%1.07 C-S 6 developed
122 053-427-005 1133 Farmhouse 1.19 100%1.19 C-S 6 developed
123 053-427-027 1167 Farmhouse 1.12 100%1.12 C-S 6 developed
124 053-427-026 1193 Farmhouse 1.33 100%1.33 C-S 6 developed
125 053-427-028 no address 1.36 50%0.68 C-S 6/4 developed
126 053-427-008 1250 Kendall 2.51 100%2.51 C-S 6 developed
127 053-427-014 1275 Prospect 1.79 100%1.79 C-S 6 developed
128 053-427-015 1251 Prospect 1.49 100%1.49 C-S 6 developed
129 053-427-009 1201 Prospect 2.24 98%2.20 C-S 6/4 developed
130 053-427-018 1255 Kendall 2.53 95%2.40 C-S 6/4 developed
131 053-427-017 1200 Prospect 1.32 90%1.19 C-S 6/4 developed
132 053-427-023 1220 Kendall 1.28 70%0.90 C-S 6/4 developed
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 2
Page 161 of 214
Ta n k Farm
South Higuera Tank Farm
I n d u s t r i a l
Hoover
F i e r o
A e r o
Lo
n
g
Granada
Suburban
Va
c
h
e
l
l
Buckley Buckley
S a n ta F e
A e r o v is t a
PoinsettiaClarion
MM
M
M
M
C-SC-S C-S
C-S
M
M
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-SC-SC-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
M
M
C-S C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP)
Airport Safety Zones
µ
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Airport Area Specific Plan
City Limit
Zoning
Service Commercial (C-S)
Manufacturing (M)
Airport Safety Zones
Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone
Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone
Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone
Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone
Zone 5: Sideline Zone
Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone SLOGIS
January 2025
Attachment 3
Page 162 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP)
Airport Noise Contours
SLOGIS
January 2025
Ta n k Farm
South Higuera Tank Farm
I n d u s t r i a l
Hoover
F i e r o
A e r o
Lon
g
Granada
Suburban
Va
c
h
e
l
l
Buckley Buckley
S a n ta F e
A e r o v is t a
PoinsettiaClarion
MM
M
M
M
C-SC-S C-S
C-S
M
M
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-SC-SC-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
C-S C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
M
M
C-S C-S
C-S
C-SC-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
0 1 20.5 Miles
µ
Airport Area Specific Plan
City Limit
Zoning
Service Commercial (C-S)
Manufacturing (M)
Noise Contour Levels
60 dB CNEL
65 dB CNEL
70 dB CNEL
75 dB CNEL
Attachment 4
Page 163 of 214
1
Addendum to the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the
Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities
Master Plans
1. Project Title:
Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment to Allow Mixed-Use Development in the Service
Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones subject to the approval of a conditional
use permit
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rachel Cohen, Principal Planner
805-781-7574
4. Project Location:
Airport Area Specific Plan area, generally bounded by South Higuera Street to the west,
Meissner Lane to the north, Broad Street to the east, and Buckley Road to the south, in
San Luis Obispo, CA
5. Project Applicant and Representative Name and address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Services & Manufacturing
7. Zoning:
Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M)
Attachment 6
Page 164 of 214
2
8. Description of the Project:
The Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) is a land use program with policies, goals,
guidelines and infrastructure financing strategies to guide future development to ensure
land use compatibility within the AASP planning area. The AASP was adopted in 2005
and has been amended several times since then in response to changing conditions or
opportunities unforeseen at the time of its adoption. The proposed project would amend
the AASP to allow for mixed-use development (as defined in the City’s Municipal Code)
with a conditional use permit within parcels designated as either Service Commercial (C-
S) or Manufacturing (M).
The AASP does not currently allow mixed-use development. The underlying reason for
this was because of the area’s proximity to the San Luis Obispo County Airport, and the
established safety and noise areas that limited or prohibited noise sensitive residential
uses or high density residential development. The southern portion of the City at that time
was also viewed as the area most appropriate for industrial uses. In 2021, the San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) amended and restated the Airport
Land Use Plan (ALUP) to address new technical information related to safety and noise,
which resulted in a refinement of areas subject to land use restrictions under the ALUP,
including areas within the AASP. As a result, there is now substantial area within the AASP
where the land use restrictions have changed related to airport safety and noise, and
creates opportunities for mixed-use developments.
No development would occur directly as a result of this action, which is simply a
modification of existing land use requirements under the AASP. Future development
under the modified land use requirements could occur as a result of individual project
applications that must be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo through its normal
development and conditional use permit review processes. However, the magnitude and
timing of such development is speculative at this time, and would be influenced by a
variety of issues, including market demand, property owner desire to develop,
consistency with the ALUP, and potential environmental constraints that may apply to
specific parcels where project development applications are under consideration.
The Project Area includes all parcels designated as Service Commercial (C-S) or
Manufacturing (M) within the 1,200-acre AASP planning area. Figure 1 shows the location
of C-S and M designated parcels within the AASP.
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
No project-level entitlements are requested or would occur as a result of this action.
Instead, the resulting amendment would allow mixed-use development, subject to specific
findings, with a conditional use permit in portions of the Airport Area Specific Plan
currently designated as Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M), consistent with
the requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations, as they currently apply to C-S and M
Attachment 6
Page 165 of 214
3
designated lands in the remainder of the City. The reason this amendment is necessary
is because as currently written, the AASP does not allow mixed-use development.
Figure 1: Existing Land Use Designations in the Airport Area Specific Plan
Development under the modified land use requirements would result from individual
project applications that must be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo through its
normal development and conditional use permit review processes. Proposed
modifications to the Airport Area Specific Plan are described below in detail under the
heading “New Information and Updated Project Elements.”
10. Previous Environmental Review:
The Final Programmatic EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and
Related Facilities Master Plans (“Final EIR”, or “AASP Final EIR”) addressed future
development within the Airport Area Specific Plan. The Final EIR was certified in
September 2003, and has provided the basis for evaluating the impacts of future
development within the AASP area. Subsequent amendments to the AASP were subject
to separate CEQA evaluations to address the potential impacts stemming from those
amendments. In a similar manner, the analysis in this Addendum tiers from the original
Final EIR.
Attachment 6
Page 166 of 214
4
Individual projects that may be proposed under the AASP as amended would be subject
to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as appropriate on a
project-by-project basis.
The County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission conducted an Initial Study
and prepared a Negative Declaration for the 2021 update of its Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP) (SCH: 2021030474). That environmental document was used to inform the
conclusions contained in this addendum.
11. Purpose of the Addendum:
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an
addendum to a Final EIR when only “minor technical changes or additions” are necessary
to address the effects of a minor change to the approved project since the Final EIR was
certified. In addition, the lead agency is required to explain its decision not to prepare a
subsequent EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which requires
subsequent EIRs when proposed changes would require major revisions to the previous
EIR “due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.”
Subsequent to certification of the AASP Final EIR, additional information has been
identified which provides a more consistent Citywide approach to mixed-use
development, specifically as it is allowed in the C-S and M zones. In 2021, the San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) updated its Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP) to address new technical information related to safety and noise, which resulted
in a refinement of areas subject to land use restrictions under the ALUP and has created
opportunities for mixed-use developments within the AASP. The proposed action requires
an amendment to the AASP to allow for mixed-use in the C-S and M zones subject to a
Conditional Use Permit. This project is described in more detail in subsequent sections of
this EIR Addendum.
The purpose of this Addendum is to document the proposed change to the AASP, and to
confirm that this change would not result in any new or more severe significant
environmental effects not previously analyzed in the Final EIR, and would not modify any
existing mitigation requirements described in that document.
The evaluation below discusses the issue areas that are relevant to this Addendum and
covered by the previously approved Final EIR. The evaluation concludes that no new
environmental effects are created and that there is no increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects.
Attachment 6
Page 167 of 214
5
12. Addendum Requirements:
Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
when a lead agency has adopted an EIR for a project, a subsequent EIR does not need
to be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the
following conditions are met:
1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR
was adopted shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR; or
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
identified in the previous EIR; or
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation
measures or alternatives; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the
mitigation measures or alternatives.
Preparation of an Addendum to an EIR is appropriate when none of the conditions
specified in Section 15162 (above) are present and some minor technical changes to the
previously certified EIR are necessary to address minor changes to an approved project.
Because the new information would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts, an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document.
Attachment 6
Page 168 of 214
6
CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR C-S AND M ZONES
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
Mixed-use development was not originally allowed at the time of the AASP’s adoption in 2005
because of the area’s proximity to the San Luis Obispo County Airport, and the established
safety and noise areas that limited or prohibited noise sensitive residential uses or high density
residential development. The southern portion of the City at that time was also viewed as the
area most appropriate for industrial uses. In 2021, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) updated its Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) to address new technical
information related to safety and noise, which resulted in a refinement of areas subject to land
use restrictions under the ALUP, including areas within the AASP. As a result, there is now
substantial area within the AASP where the land use restrictions have changed related to airport
safety and noise and creates opportunities for mixed-use developments..
Current AASP Requirements
For the reasons described above related to the ALUP, the AASP does not currently allow mixed-
use development in either the Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M) zones. As stated
in Section 4.2.2 of the AASP, “areas designated Service Commercial are generally for storage,
transportation, and wholesaling type uses, as well as certain retail sales and business services
that may be less appropriate in other commercial designations.” Similarly, Section 4.2.3
summarizes the intent of the Manufacturing designation as areas “for assembly, fabrication,
storage and distribution, and sales and service type uses that have little or no direct trade with
local consumers.”
Table 4-3 of the AASP shows the allowed uses within each land use designation. Mixed-use is
not allowed under either designation.
Other Relevant Regulatory Setting
There is an existing regulatory framework for allowing mixed-use in non-residential zones
Citywide. Mixed-use development is allowed in the C-S and M zones in all parts of the City
except within the AASP and other specific plan areas. Within both designations, the Zoning
Regulations allow for residential development up to 24 density units per acre (Municipal Code
Sections 17.36.020 and 17.40.020).
Final Environmental Impact Report
The 2003 Final EIR examined the policy framework and conceptual development under the
AASP at a programmatic level. That document did not include project-specific analysis of the
parcels potentially impacted by the proposed action. The FEIR impact analysis was general,
and any required mitigation for key issue areas was programmatic, in consideration of cumulative
development that might occur under the AASP. Please refer to the section below entitled
“Analysis Of The Proposed Project In The Context Of The Final EIR” for further discussion of
relevant issues and how they relate to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
Attachment 6
Page 169 of 214
7
NEW INFORMATION AND UPDATED PROJECT ELEMENTS
NEWLY DISCOVERED INFORMATION
In recent years, the demand for housing in general, and affordable housing in particular, has
risen dramatically in San Luis Obispo, as it has elsewhere. In response, the City’s 2014 General
Plan Land Use Element update reflects this increased demand, and includes several large areas
for increased residential development, projects that have since been approved and are in the
process of being completed. At the same time, the City has tried to address these issues by
supporting mixed-use development, in areas where demand for non-residential development in
Service Commercial or Manufacturing designated land has declined. The result is that the City
allows mixed-use by right in the C-S and M zones outside the AASP. However, the AASP does
not allow mixed-use development, because of previous safety and noise restrictions included in
the ALUP. As described above, the 2021 update of the ALUP removed those restrictions that
limited or prohibited mixed-use development.
The proposed project responds to the changes in the ALUP and increased housing demand in
an evolving market by allowing for mixed-use development in the C-S and M land use
designations in the AASP with the approval of a conditional use permit.
As discussed previously, the underlying reason why mixed-use development was not allowed in
the AASP is because of the area’s proximity to the San Luis Obispo County Airport, and safety
and noise conflicts that could arise if residential development were allowed. In 2021, the San
Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) updated its Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP) to address new technical information related to safety and noise, which resulted in a
refinement of areas subject to land use restrictions under the ALUP, including areas within the
AASP. As a result, there is substantial area where the land use restrictions have changed related
to airport safety and noise.
CHANGED BASELINE CONDITIONS AND UPDATED PROJECT ELEMENTS
The proposed project would amend the AASP, modifying various aspects of the plan in order to
facilitate mixed-use development with approval of a conditional use permit in the C-S and M land
use designations. It would not change any existing land use designation, nor would it result in
more or less land designated as either C-S or M. Instead, it would modify existing language and
tables in various parts of the existing AASP in order to facilitate mixed-use within these land use
designations.
A detailed land use inventory was prepared in 2024 to verify the amount of C-S or M designated
lands within the planning area. Table 1 below summarizes the results of the 2024 land use
inventory for each designation, showing the total acreage of vacant and developed parcels in
these two land use designations.
Attachment 6
Page 170 of 214
8
Table 1. Summary of 2024 Land Use Inventory
C-S and M Parcels in the AASP
Land Use Designation
Acreage
Developed
(or entitled)
Vacant Total
Service Commercial (C-S) 140.4 85.6 226.0
Manufacturing (M) 94.7 20.4 115.1
Total 235.1 106.0 341.1
Portions of land designated as either C-S or M are constrained from considering mixed-use
development. Some of this constrained area remains within airport land use safety zones under
the ALUP that do not allow for residential uses. Other parcels are too small or configured in such
a way to make development challenging. Depending on the location, a variety of environmental
constraints could present other challenges, including drainage features, steep slopes, or the
potential for sensitive biological or cultural resources. Some parcels are adjacent to existing
industrial land uses that produce odors or noise, which could make them less attractive for mixed-
use development. Finally, many of these parcels are already developed with other uses, or are
entitled for development. It is likely that only a few of these more constrained parcels will
eventually support mixed-use development.
There is no specific mixed-use development project proposed at this time, but the amendment
would allow the City to process and potentially approve applications that propose such
development. However, the magnitude and timing of such development cannot be known at this
time, and would be influenced by a variety of issues, including market demand, property owner
desire to develop, and potential environmental constraints that may apply to specific parcels
where project development applications are under consideration. For these reasons, it is
speculative to determine what the residential buildout potential of this action is at this time, or
how it might alter the non-residential buildout assumptions made in the AASP.
If mixed-use development were to occur, it would be based on the maximum density currently
allowed under the Zoning Regulations, which is 24 density units per acre.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FINAL EIR
The updated project elements described above were not considered in the 2003 Final EIR, and
so are analyzed here. The 2003 Final EIR examined the policy framework and conceptual
development under the AASP at a programmatic level, which is also appropriate for the currently
proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The following analysis examines the proposed project
based on relevant issues from the 2003 Final EIR, with references to FEIR impact statements
as appropriate. Implementation of the proposed project would not change any of the conclusions
in the Final EIR, the level of significance or severity of any previously identified impact, or
introduce any new mitigation measures. No changes to the Final EIR are required.
Attachment 6
Page 171 of 214
9
Land Use
The FEIR identifies the following land use impacts that are relevant to the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment. As discussed in Impact LU-3, the Final EIR found the AASP was consistent
with the ALUP in effect at the time of adoption of the AASP. No significant impacts were
identified, and no mitigation was required. The Specific Plan amendment would allow for mixed-
use development with approval of a conditional use permit, subject to potential constraints
contained in the 2021 ALUP update. The County’s environmental document for the 2021 update
(SCH 2021030474) concluded that there would be no land use impacts or hazards associated
with allowing more intensive development in the AASP, or mixed-use or residential projects in
the ALUP area if development regulations in the ALUP were complied with. Individual
development projects within the AASP would need to be consistent with any land use restrictions
set forth in the ALUP. No new impact would occur.
Impact LU-4 discussed compatibility with surrounding land uses. No conflicts with surrounding
uses were identified in the AASP, so impacts were less than significant, and no mitigation was
required. Individual development projects within the AASP would need to be compatible with
adjacent development, a determination that would be made through development and
conditional use permit review processes and project-specific CEQA analysis for any such future
action. No new programmatic impacts would occur.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact H-5 discussed exposure of people and/or property to flood hazards. The FEIR found that
the conversion of land to urban uses has the potential to increase flooding hazards if new
buildings were constructed within the 100-year flood hazard area. However, the specific plan
includes explicit requirements for flood channel improvements that will avoid flooding impacts by
providing enhanced control of floodwaters. This impact was considered less than significant.
Mixed-use development would be evaluated individually under CEQA, and would be required to
comply with existing regulations related to flood hazards and water quality. No new
programmatic impacts would occur, nor would there be an increase in severity of any existing
impact.
Traffic and Circulation
Since the time the AASP FEIR was prepared, CEQA analysis related to this issue has been
modified considerably. The focus of CEQA review is now based primarily on a study of Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT), which can have potential impacts on regional air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions. These issues were not examined in the Final EIR.
One purpose of mixed-use development is to reduce commute distances between residences
and work places. In some cases, mixed-use development could make it possible for some
residents to walk to work, which would potentially reduce VMT. In those instances, there would
be a net positive effect on greenhouse gas emissions and air quality relative to what would
otherwise happen under the AASP. Future individual development projects within the AASP
would be evaluated on a case by case basis through a project-specific CEQA analysis. No new
programmatic impacts related to these issues would occur.
Attachment 6
Page 172 of 214
10
Other transportation issues that were studied in the FEIR related to roadway Levels of Service
(LOS), which is a metric no longer considered in CEQA documents. Instead, these are issues
that would be appropriately addressed through the development and conditional use permit
review processes, with recommendations for potential roadway improvement made through
engineering studies.
Air Quality
The FEIR identified impacts related to both short-term construction emissions and long-term
operations emissions. Short-term construction emissions were found to be significant but
mitigable at a programmatic level, with mitigation taking the form of following a variety of
standard construction management techniques and following the existing regulatory framework
set forth by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The impacts of specific development
projects would be analyzed and mitigated as needed on a case by case basis.
Similarly, long-term operational impacts were also found to be less than significant with
programmatic mitigation. The FEIR included the following relevant mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure AIR-2.1. Implement Growth-Phasing Schedule. The City will
implement a growth-phasing schedule for the Airport area, to assure that nonresidential
development in the urban area does not exceed the pace of residential development.
The consideration of mixed-use development in the Airport Area is consistent with this mitigation
requirement, as it allows for greater flexibility and opportunities to approve residential
development in balance with non-residential development. Future individual development
projects within the AASP would be evaluated on a case by case basis through a project-specific
CEQA analysis. No new programmatic impacts related to this issue would occur.
Noise
The FEIR examined relevant programmatic impacts related to traffic and aircraft noise, but found
them to be less than significant. For aircraft noise, this was because future development under
the AASP was determined to be consistent with the ALUP. For traffic noise, it was determined
that the City’s General Plan Noise Element included sufficient implementation requirements and
strategies to ensure that noise would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis as appropriate,
through the recommendations of project-specific noise studies. Future individual development
projects within the AASP would be evaluated on a case by case basis through a project-specific
CEQA analysis. The County’s environmental document for the 2021 update (SCH 2021030474)
concluded that there would be no noise impacts or hazards associated with allowing more
intensive development in the AASP, including mixed-use or residential projects in the ALUP
area, if development regulations in the ALUP were complied with. No new programmatic
impacts related to this issue would occur.
Public Services and Utilities
The FEIR examined potential programmatic impacts related to the provision of water and
wastewater services from buildout under the AASP, but concluded these would be less than
significant because projects would be required to follow the regulatory provisions included in the
Attachment 6
Page 173 of 214
11
General Plan, AASP and relevant utilities master plans. Similarly, programmatic impacts related
to storm drainage were considered less than significant because projects would be required to
follow the provisions of the Storm Drain Master Plan. Impacts related to solid waste disposal
were also considered less than significant, as projects would be required to follow regulatory
provisions included in the General Plan and AASP.
Impacts related to law enforcement were considered less than significant, as future staffing and
facilities would be addressed through fiscal studies as needed. Impacts to fire protection
services were also considered less than significant with the following mitigation measure:
PS-1. New Fire Protection Personnel. To mitigate the impacts associated with buildout of
the [AASP], a sufficient number of fire protection personnel should be hired to maintain a
ratio of one firefighter for every 1,000 residents.
Determining the appropriate level of public services staff is typically addressed in the City’s
annual budget cycles, with recommendations resulting from studies to service impacts that are
projected to occur based on reasonably foreseeable cumulative development. The proposed
project does not facilitate any specific development project, so the magnitude of potential long-
term impacts to public services is speculative, and would be addressed on a case-by-case basis
as development projects are proposed. No new programmatic impacts related to this issue
would occur.
Impacts to schools were found to be less than significant. Mitigation is limited to the payment of
statutory fees, and no additional school-related impact fees may be imposed above the limits
established in statute (Government Code Section 65595 et seq). No new programmatic impacts
related to this issue would occur.
Impacts to parks and recreation were found to be less than significant, as buildout of the AASP
would not increase demand over the established park service standard of 10 acres per 1,000
residents. The amount of residential development that might occur under the mixed-use
provisions of the project is speculative, and would be limited by a combination of market factors,
property owner desire, lot configuration, and environmental constraints. Impacts to parks and
recreation would be considered on a case by case basis as individual development projects are
proposed. No new programmatic impacts related to this issue would occur.
Other Issues
The proposed project would not introduce new development into areas that were not already
planned for urban uses. Therefore, for all other issues related to resource protection (biological
resources, cultural resources, agricultural resources, and the exposure to hazardous materials),
the potential impact of new development would not change, so the existing impact analysis for
each issue would also remain unchanged. No new programmatic impacts related to these issues
would occur.
Attachment 6
Page 174 of 214
12
DETERMINATION
In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo
has determined that this Addendum to the certified Final EIR is necessary to document changes
or additions that have occurred since the Final EIR was originally certified. Based on the analysis
of the proposed project, no new changes to the Final EIR are required. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable
diligence at the time the previous Final EIR was adopted has been identified.
The preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not necessary because:
1. None of the circumstances included in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have
occurred which require a subsequent environmental document:
a. The project changes do not result in new or substantially more severe
environmental impacts.
b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major
changes to the IS/MND.
c. The modified project does not require any substantive changes to previously
approved mitigation measures.
2. The changes are consistent with City General Plan goals and polices that promote
provision of additional housing, particularly affordable housing, within the City.
3. The changes are consistent with City goals related to mixed-use that would encourage
alternative forms of transportation and reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which
relates to reducing air emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions.
The City has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Addendum and finds
that the preparation of subsequent CEQA analysis that would require public circulation is not
necessary. This Addendum does not require circulation because it does not provide significant
new information that changes the adopted Final EIR in a way that deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the
project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. The City shall consider this
Addendum with the certified Final EIR as part of the basis for potential approval of the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment.
Attachment 6
Page 175 of 214
Page 176 of 214
2301 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4140
El Segundo, CA 90245
TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (AASP)
FISCAL IMPACT SCENARIO ANALYSIS
AUGUST 2024
Page 177 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 2
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE
•The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) Airport Area Specific Plan (“AASP” or “Specific Plan”) was originally
established to exclude housing development, due to Airport Safety Zone issues.
•In recent years, the County of San Luis Obispo (“County”) has redefined the Safety Zones, resulting in
almost 90% of the Commercial / Services / Manufacturing (“CSM”) zoning area in the AASP to be
considered safe for housing development.
•As a result, property owners have requested City approval for mixed-use housing at densities in the range
of 24 units per acre with nominal commercial development.
•The existing City/County tax sharing agreement specifies a formula for tax sharing within the AASP that is
determined by the zoning at the time of annexation. Importantly, most of the property in the AASP was
annexed as commercial and industrial. The agreement specifies that there will be no or limited property tax
sharing in favor of the City, in consideration of sales tax revenues that were previously shifted to the City
upon annexation, and in anticipation of future sales tax generation by future hypothetical commercial uses.
Page 178 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 3
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE (CONTINUED)
•The recently certified Housing Element modified City zoning restrictions to encourage more housing and
the City has expressed interest in understanding how a large portion of the future industrial / commercial
business base will be impacted by more housing in the future, and how this would impact the City’s
General Fund.
•It is important to note that prior zoning (e.g., 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element, or “LUCE”)
reflected assumptions about commercial and industrial land use development that may not reflect current
market and economic conditions.
Page 179 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
•Kosmont has evaluated several different scenarios of land use development within the AASP, including
scenarios that reflect the original 2014 LUCE vision, and scenarios that reflect recent developer interest,
in order to estimate General Fund net fiscal impacts from potential future development.
•While the 2014 LUCE land use scenario (office, retail, industrial with no residential) would achieve an
annual fiscal “surplus” for the City’s General Fund, it is Kosmont’s opinion that the level of office and retail
land uses assumed does not reflect feasibility in consideration of current market and economic conditions
(additionally evidenced in lack of non-residential development over previous 10 years)
•On the other hand, if the remainder of developable land within the AASP is developed entirely consistent
with recent developer interest (higher-density residential with limited commercial components), this
analysis estimated a negative net fiscal impact for the General Fund, driven largely by the tax sharing
agreement that limits the City’s receipt of property tax revenue from new development in this area.
Page 180 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (CONTINUED)
•Kosmont estimates that a likely future AASP land use development scenario would include a mix of uses,
including both “vertically” blended uses (e.g., housing over commercial), as well as “horizontally” blended
uses (e.g., commercial or hospitality behind or adjacent to housing).
•Kosmont’s estimation of a potential market-based, blended-use land use scenario was primarily based on a
combination of demonstrated developer interest within the City, Kosmont previous market supply and
demand analysis in the region, and broader real estate development trends across the State and nationally.
•Assumptions also reflect proposed and approved projects within the AASP, such as approved hotels (~218
rooms) and remaining residential units within Avila Ranch.
Page 181 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 6
EXAMPLE AASP LAND USE
AND FISCAL IMPACT SCENARIOS
Land Use Assumptions
LUCE 2014
Land Use
Market-Based
Blended Use
Residential - Market Rate 0 DU 2,650 DU
Affordable Housing 0 DU 230 DU
Hotel 0 rooms 218 rooms
Office 900,000 SF 30,000 SF
Commercial / Retail 616,983 SF 158,976 SF
Industrial 747,642 SF 95,000 SF
City of San Luis Obispo Fiscal Impacts
LUCE 2014
Land Use
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated Fiscal Revenues $5,352,100 $5,558,400
Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $2,146,800 $7,273,200
Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to City $3,205,300 ($1,714,800)
Page 182 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 7
FISCAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES
•In order to support long-term fiscal solvency for the City General Fund while not over-prescribing non-
residential uses beyond market and financial feasibility, and while not relying solely on future non-
residential uses which are difficult to predict, Kosmont suggests a fiscal mitigation strategy, including one
or more of the following components:
1.Maintenance / services Community Facilities District (“CFD”), similar to the mechanism utilized for
the Avila Ranch development project within the City (potentially most feasible strategy)
2.Renegotiation of the Property Tax Sharing Agreement with the County
3.Infrastructure Financing District negotiation with the County (as a backup to #2 above)
4.Minimum commercial use requirements for residential projects
•While Strategy #1 above (maintenance CFD) may be the most feasible to implement, advantages and
disadvantages of each strategy listed above are discussed on the following pages.
Page 183 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 8
1) MAINTENANCE / SERVICES CFD
•A CFD could be employed instead or in addition to other fiscal mitigation options, such as renegotiation
of the Property Tax Sharing Agreement or imposing commercial use requirements.
•Kosmont estimates that the range of CFD special tax required to achieve “fiscal neutrality” within a likely
future AASP land use development scenario ($600-$1,000 per residential unit per year) is within
acceptable ranges for the residential real estate market, consistent with CFD implementation elsewhere in
the State, and generally consistent with the existing Avila Ranch CFD within the City.
•Maintenance CFDs require 2/3 voter approval, and are sometimes arranged to be “annexable” in nature,
such that certain types of projects (e.g., residential or blended use) are conditioned to approve annexation
into the maintenance CFD.
Page 184 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 9
2) RENEGOTIATION OF THE PROPERTY TAX SHARING
AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY
•The City may be able to renegotiate the property tax sharing agreement with the County as it pertains to
certain types of development (e.g., residential), given the local, regional, and statewide policy pressures to
produce more housing.
•Approval of a revised sharing agreement would of course require approval by both the City and County,
hence a lessened certainty of implementation compared to a maintenance CFD. The County would need
to be motivated to renegotiate the existing agreement, which is anticipated to be difficult.
•Renegotiation of the tax sharing agreement could be done instead or in addition to a maintenance CFD
and/or minimum commercial use requirement.
Page 185 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 10
3) INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT NEGOTIATION
WITH THE COUNTY
•Suggested only as a backup alternative to strategy #2 (renegotiation of tax sharing agreement), the City
and County may both consider formation of a tax increment financing (TIF) district such as an Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD).
•An EIFD would not create a new tax to property owners, but would entail the County allocating some
portion of its future property tax within the AASP area for a prescribed period of time (e.g., 10 to 50
years), with a restriction for certain eligible uses, such as infrastructure and affordable housing.
•An EIFD would not require voter approval, although property owners and residents within the financing
district boundary (e.g., AASP area) would have an opportunity to protest formation of the EIFD.
•EIFD formation could be done instead or in addition to a maintenance CFD and/or minimum commercial
use requirement.
Page 186 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 11
4) MINIMUM COMMERCIAL USE REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
•Instead or in addition to other fiscal mitigation options listed herein, the City could adopt a minimum
commercial use requirement for residential projects within the AASP, such as a certain amount of
commercial square footage.
•Advantages of this approach include direct promotion of land use mixes that include greater proportions
of non-residential uses. This approach would more directly reserve a greater amount of developable land
in the AASP area for commercial and manufacturing uses and promote jobs/housing balance.
•Disadvantages of this approach include the potential to limit any new development in the AASP area, as
the required amount of non-residential components may render new development projects financially
infeasible, and thus unable to proceed at all.
•This approach does not fully acknowledge current trends of “horizontal” blending of land uses versus
“vertical” blending of land uses. While each individual residential development may not contain a significant
non-residential component, the production of new “rooftops” within an area is still critical to support
development of new non-residential uses (and retention of existing non-residential uses) on other parcels.
Page 187 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 12
POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS
•Subject to City staff and City Council discussion and direction regarding land use and economic
development objectives for the AASP area, the City may proceed with one or more of the fiscal mitigation
strategies suggested herein.
•Kosmont is suggesting that Strategy #1 (maintenance CFD) may make sense to be prioritized based on
realistic implementation feasibility. Kosmont suggests that Strategy #2 (renegotiation of sharing agreement)
is worth at least an initial inquiry with County stakeholders.
•Ultimately, certain strategies may be implemented on a targeted basis, such as within the AASP area alone,
or Citywide (e.g., Citywide maintenance CFD), as has been implemented elsewhere within the State.
•Kosmont suggests transparent communication with both public sector and private sector stakeholders in
any scenario.
Page 188 of 214
KOSMONT COMPANIES | 13
APPENDIX:
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SCENARIO DETAIL
Page 189 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Overview of Fiscal Impacts
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
City of San Luis Obispo
Estimated Fiscal Revenues $5,352,100 $5,558,400
Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $2,146,800 $7,273,200
Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to City $3,205,300 ($1,714,800)
Land Use Assumptions for Reference LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Residential - Market Rate 0 DU 2,650 DU
Affordable Housing 0 DU 230 DU
Hotel 0 rooms 218 rooms
Office 900,000 SF 30,000 SF
Commercial / Retail 616,983 SF 158,976 SF
Industrial 747,642 SF 95,000 SF
Notes:
Impacts at buildout
Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure
Values in 2024 dollars
8/13/2024 Page 1 of 13
Page 190 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Summary of Estimated Fiscal Impacts to City
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
City of San Luis Obispo General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $0 $0
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $359,300 $785,800
Property Transfer Tax $18,500 $40,500
Sales Tax - General - Direct $1,388,200 $357,700
Sales Tax - Measure G20 - Direct $2,082,300 $536,500
Use Tax as % of Sales Tax - Direct $200,600 $51,700
Sales Tax - Prop 172 as % of Sales Tax - Direct $30,500 $7,900
Sales Tax - General - Indirect $128,700 $425,800
Sales Tax - Measure G20 - Indirect $193,100 $638,700
Use Tax as % of Sales Tax - Indirect $18,600 $61,500
Sales Tax - Prop 172 as % of Sales Tax - Indirect $2,800 $9,400
Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $946,900
Utility Users Tax $184,000 $559,600
Franchise Fees $59,700 $181,700
Business Tax $473,500 $81,500
Cannabis Tax $45,400 $138,000
Police Revenue $19,100 $58,200
Fire Revenue $49,400 $150,100
Parks & Rec Revenue $0 $260,600
Business Licenses $66,800 $11,500
Other Revenue $31,600 $96,100
SB1 Road Repair $0 $158,700
Estimated Total Revenues $5,352,100 $5,558,400
City of San Luis Obispo General Fund Expenditures
Administration and IT $137,700 $418,800
City Attorney $18,700 $57,000
Finance & Non-Departmental $65,300 $198,500
Human Resources $28,100 $85,500
Fire $486,600 $1,480,100
Police $707,200 $2,151,100
Community Services Group Admin $12,200 $37,000
Community Development $60,200 $183,100
Parks and Recreation $0 $743,300
Public Works $573,400 $1,744,000
Solid Waste $10,900 $33,300
Transfers Out $46,500 $141,500
Estimated Total Expenditures $2,146,800 $7,273,200
Estimated Annual Net Fiscal Impact $3,205,300 ($1,714,800)
Revenue / Cost Ratio 2.49 0.76
Notes:
Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure
Values in 2024 dollars
8/13/2024 Page 2 of 13
Page 191 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Project Description
Project Component LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Residential - Market Rate 2,650 DU
Affordable Housing 230 DU
Hotel 218 rooms
Office 900,000 SF 30,000 SF
Commercial / Retail 616,983 SF 158,976 SF
Industrial 747,642 SF 95,000 SF
Annual Escalation Factor 1.00 1.00
Estimated A/V - Residential $495K Per Unit $0 $1,311,552,000
Estimated A/V - Affordable Housing $0K Per Unit $0 $0
Estimated A/V - Hotel $350K Per Room $0 $76,300,000
Estimated A/V - Office $350 PSF $315,000,000 $10,500,000
Estimated A/V - Commercial / Retail $350 PSF $215,944,050 $55,641,600
Estimated A/V - Industrial $190 PSF $142,051,980 $18,050,000
Total Estimated Assessed Value $672,996,030 $1,472,043,600
Notes:
Values in 2024 dollars
8/13/2024 Page 3 of 13
Page 192 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Project Employment and Occupants
Project Component LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Residential - Market Rate 0 DU 2,650 DU
Affordable Housing 0 DU 230 DU
Hotel 0 Rooms 218 Rooms
Office 900,000 SF 30,000 SF
Commercial / Retail 616,983 SF 158,976 SF
Industrial 747,642 SF 95,000 SF
Estimated # Employees (FTE)
Residential - Market Rate 50 DU / emp 0 53
Affordable Housing 50 DU / emp 0 5
Hotel 1.5 room / emp 0 145
Office 400 SF / emp 2,250 75
Commercial / Retail 400 SF / emp 1,542 397
Industrial 1,500 SF / emp 498 63
Total Estimated # Employees (FTE)4,291 739
Occupied Dwelling Units 93%0 DU 2,678 DU
Residents 2.29 per DU 0 6,134
Occupied Hotel Rooms 70%0 rooms 153 rooms
Hotel Guests 1.5 per room 0 229
Employees Weighted at 50%50%2,145 369
Hotel Guests Weighted at 10%10%0 23
Total Service Population (Residents / Empl / Visitors)2,145 6,526
Notes:
Average household size reflects City average household size
Values in 2024 dollars
8/13/2024 Page 4 of 13
Page 193 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Property Tax
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated Assessed Value - Residential $0 $1,311,552,000
Estimated Assessed Value - Non-Residential $672,996,030 $160,491,600
Total Estimated Assessed Value $672,996,030 $1,472,043,600
Total Secured Property Tax General Levy 1.00%$6,729,960 $14,720,436
Estimated Unsecured Property Tax as % of Secured Non-Residential Value 10.00%$672,996 $160,492
Total Estimated Secured + Unsecured Property Tax $7,402,956 $14,880,928
Distributions to Taxing Entities
Property Tax - City of San Luis Obispo (based on Property Tax Sharing Agreement)0.00%$0 $0
Net Property Tax to City 0.00%$0 $0
Notes:
When the proposed project site was annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo, it carried a nonresidential land use designation (M - Manufacturing). Under the terms of the
tax sharing agreement between the City and the County of San Luis Obispo, the County continues to receive all base year taxes plus any future incremental increase in property
taxes for property designated for nonresidential development. Therefore, under the agreement, the City will not receive a share of general levy property taxes from the AASP area.
Does not include property tax overrides above 1% general levy
Values in 2024 dollars
Source: San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller (2024)
8/13/2024 Page 5 of 13
Page 194 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF)
Total AV within CITY $11,770,822,169
Current Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $6,283,397
Prop Tax In-Lieu of MVLF per $1M of AV $534
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated Project Assessed Value $672,996,030 $1,472,043,600
Net Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to City $359,300 $785,800
Notes:
Values in 2024 dollars
Source: San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller, City Online Budget Portal (2024)
8/13/2024 Page 6 of 13
Page 195 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Property Transfer Tax
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated Assessed Value - For-Sale Residential $0 $0
Estimated Property Turnover Rate 15.0%15.0%
Estimated Value of Property Transferred $0 $0
Estimated Assessed Value - Other Land Uses $672,996,030 $1,472,043,600
Estimated Property Turnover Rate 5.0%5.0%
Estimated Value of Property Transferred $33,649,802 $73,602,180
Estimated Total Value of Property Transferred $33,649,802 $73,602,180
Total Transfer Tax $1.10 per $1,000 $37,000 $81,000
Transfer Tax to City $0.55 per $1,000 $18,500 $40,500
Notes:
Values in 2024 dollars
Source: San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller (2024)
8/13/2024 Page 7 of 13
Page 196 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Sales Tax - Direct / On-Site
Project Component LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Commercial / Retail 616,983 SF 158,976 SF
Portion of Comm / Retail Generating Local Taxable Sales 75%462,737 SF 119,232 SF
Estimated Taxable Sales $300 PSF $138,821,175 $35,769,600
Sales Tax - General - Direct 1.00%$1,388,200 $357,700
Sales Tax - Measure G20 - Direct 1.50%$2,082,300 $536,500
Use Tax as % of Sales Tax - Direct 14.45%$200,600 $51,700
Sales Tax - Prop 172 as % of Sales Tax - Direct 2.20%$30,500 $7,900
Notes:
Use tax and Prop 172 sales tax percentages based on historical average percentages
Values in 2024 dollars.
8/13/2024 Page 8 of 13
Page 197 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Sales Tax - Indirect / Off-Site
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated # Employees 4,291 739
Estimated Annual Taxable Retail Spending / Empl. Near Work $6,000 $6,000
Estimated Employee Taxable Retail Spending Within City $25,745,313 $4,432,240
Estimated # Occupied Dwelling Units 0 DU 2,678 DU
Estimated Avg Annual Taxable Retail Spending / HH $30,977 $30,977
Estimated Resident Taxable Retail Spending $0 $82,970,125
Estimated Capture within City 50.0%$0 $41,485,063
Estimated # Occupied Hotel Rooms 0 rooms 153 rooms
Estimated Annual Taxable Retail Spending / Room $18,250 $18,250
Estimated Resident Taxable Retail Spending $0 $2,784,950
Estimated Capture within City 50.0%$0 $1,392,475
Total Estimated Indirect Taxable Sales $25,745,313 $47,309,778
Estimated Capture Within AASP Retail - Percentage (50%)(10%)
Estimated Capture Within AASP Retail - Dollar Amount ($12,872,657)($4,730,978)
Net Indirect Taxable Sales $12,872,657 $42,578,800
Sales Tax - General - Indirect 1.00%$128,700 $425,800
Sales Tax - Measure G20 - Indirect 1.50%$193,100 $638,700
Use Tax as % of Sales Tax - Indirect 14.45%$18,600 $61,500
Sales Tax - Prop 172 as % of Sales Tax - Indirect 2.20%$2,800 $9,400
Notes:
Employee spending estimates based on "Office Worker Retail Spending Patterns: A Downtown and Suburban Area Study," ICSC.
Household spending based on average houshold income within City.
Hotel guest spending estimated based on American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA) data.
Values in 2024 dollars.
8/13/2024 Page 9 of 13
Page 198 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT")
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated # Hotel Rooms 0 rooms 218 rooms
Average Daily Room Rate (ADR)$170 $170
Average Occupancy Rate 70%70%
Annual Hotel Room Receipts $0 $9,468,830
TOT to City 10.0%$0 $946,900
Notes:
Values in 2024 dollars.
8/13/2024 Page 10 of 13
Page 199 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
City Service Population
City Population 48,684
City Employee Population 30,061
Employee Weighting for Service Population 0.5
Weighted # Employees 15,031
Visitor Population Equiv - Weighted at 10% of Resident 4,868
Total City Service Population 68,583
Source: CA Department of Finance, U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2023-2024)
8/13/2024 Page 11 of 13
Page 200 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
City Multipler Revenue and Expenditure Factors
Budget Category
Adopted City
Budget Allocation Basis
Relevant City
Population
Percent Fixed
Costs
Per Capita
Factor
General Fund Revenues
Sales Tax - General $23,166,049 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method -----------------------------
Sales Tax - Prop 172 $508,968 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method -----------------------------
Sales Tax - Local Revenue Measure $30,897,602 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method -----------------------------
Property Tax $15,982,628 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method -----------------------------
Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF $6,669,367 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method -----------------------------
Transient Occupancy Tax $10,918,080 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method -----------------------------
Utility Users Tax $5,881,630 Service Population 68,583 0%$85.76
Franchise Fees $1,910,000 Service Population 68,583 0%$27.85
Business Tax $3,317,338 Employment Base 30,061 0%$110.35
Cannabis Tax $1,450,000 Service Population 68,583 0%$21.14
Police Revenue $611,917 Service Population 68,583 0%$8.92
Fire Revenue $1,577,836 Service Population 68,583 0%$23.01
Development Review $6,585,331 N/A - Non-Recurring Revenue ------------------------------------------------------------
Parks & Rec Revenue $2,068,693 Residents 48,684 0%$42.49
Business Licenses $468,000 Employment Base 30,061 0%$15.57
Cannabis Fee Revenue $232,600 N/A - Prior Obligations ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Revenue $1,010,016 Service Population 68,583 0%$14.73
SB1 Road Repair $1,259,276 Residents 48,684 0%$25.87
Grants and Subventions $682,279 N/A - Non-Recurring Revenue ------------------------------------------------------------
Storm Reimbursement $4,208,000 N/A - Non-Recurring Revenue ------------------------------------------------------------
Total General Fund Revenues $119,405,610
General Fund Expenditures
Administration and IT $11,003,659 Service Population 68,583 60%$64.18
City Attorney $1,497,103 Service Population 68,583 60%$8.73
Finance & Non-Departmental $5,216,654 Service Population 68,583 60%$30.43
Human Resources $2,246,535 Service Population 68,583 60%$13.10
Fire $15,554,762 Service Population 68,583 0%$226.80
Police $22,607,072 Service Population 68,583 0%$329.63
Community Services Group Admin $778,730 Service Population 68,583 50%$5.68
Community Development $8,510,146 Service Population 68,583 77%$28.07
Parks and Recreation $5,899,998 Residents 48,684 0%$121.19
Public Works $18,328,375 Service Population 68,583 0%$267.24
Solid Waste $349,657 Service Population 68,583 0%$5.10
Debt Service $1,769,000 N/A - Prior Obligations ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital $27,269,000 N/A - Non-Recurring --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers Out $1,487,000 Service Population 68,583 0%$21.68
Total General Fund Expenditures $122,517,691
Notes:
Community Development adustments based on services paid by Development Review Fees (also deducted from Revenues)
Values in 2024 dollars.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2023-2025 Financial Plan (2024-2025 Budget)
8/13/2024 Page 12 of 13
Page 201 of 214
Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
City Multipler Revenues and Expenditures
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated # Residents 0 6,134
Estimated # Employees 4,291 739
Estimated # Visitors 0 229
Total Project Service Population 2,145 6,526
Budget Category LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
General Fund Revenues
Utility Users Tax $184,000 $559,600
Franchise Fees $59,700 $181,700
Business Tax $473,500 $81,500
Cannabis Tax $45,400 $138,000
Police Revenue $19,100 $58,200
Fire Revenue $49,400 $150,100
Development Review N/A N/A
Parks & Rec Revenue $0 $260,600
Business Licenses $66,800 $11,500
Cannabis Fee Revenue N/A N/A
Other Revenue $31,600 $96,100
SB1 Road Repair $0 $158,700
Grants and Subventions N/A N/A
Storm Reimbursement N/A N/A
Total Multiplier Revenues $929,500 $1,696,000
General Fund Expenditures
Administration and IT $137,700 $418,800
City Attorney $18,700 $57,000
Finance & Non-Departmental $65,300 $198,500
Human Resources $28,100 $85,500
Fire $486,600 $1,480,100
Police $707,200 $2,151,100
Community Services Group Admin $12,200 $37,000
Community Development $60,200 $183,100
Parks and Recreation $0 $743,300
Public Works $573,400 $1,744,000
Solid Waste $10,900 $33,300
Debt Service N/A N/A
Capital N/A N/A
Transfers Out $46,500 $141,500
Total Multiplier Expenditures $2,146,800 $7,273,200
Notes:
Major case study revenues not shown include property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax
Values in 2024 dollars.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2023-2025 Financial Plan (2024-2025 Budget)
8/13/2024 Page 13 of 13
Page 202 of 214
1
Addendum to the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the
Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities
Master Plans
1. Project Title:
Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment to Allow Mixed-Use Development in the Service
Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones subject to the approval of a conditional
use permit
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rachel Cohen, Principal Planner
805-781-7574
4. Project Location:
Airport Area Specific Plan area, generally bounded by South Higuera Street to the west,
Meissner Lane to the north, Broad Street to the east, and Buckley Road to the south, in
San Luis Obispo, CA
5. Project Applicant and Representative Name and address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Services & Manufacturing
7. Zoning:
Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M)
Page 203 of 214
2
8. Description of the Project:
The Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) is a land use program with policies, goals,
guidelines and infrastructure financing strategies to guide future development to ensure
land use compatibility within the AASP planning area. The AASP was adopted in 2005
and has been amended several times since then in response to changing conditions or
opportunities unforeseen at the time of its adoption. The proposed project would amend
the AASP to allow for mixed-use development (as defined in the City’s Municipal Code)
with a conditional use permit within parcels designated as either Service Commercial (C-
S) or Manufacturing (M).
The AASP does not currently allow mixed-use development. The underlying reason for
this was because of the area’s proximity to the San Luis Obispo County Airport, and the
established safety and noise areas that limited or prohibited noise sensitive reside ntial
uses or high density residential development. The southern portion of the City at that time
was also viewed as the area most appropriate for industrial uses. In 2021, the San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) amended and restated the Airport
Land Use Plan (ALUP) to address new technical information related to safety and noise,
which resulted in a refinement of areas subject to land use restrictions under the ALUP,
including areas within the AASP. As a result, there is now substantial area within the AASP
where the land use restrictions have changed related to airport safety and noise, and
creates opportunities for mixed-use developments.
No development would occur directly as a result of this action, which is simply a
modification of existing land use requirements under the AASP. Future development
under the modified land use requirements could occur as a result of individual project
applications that must be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo through its normal
development and conditional use permit review processes. However, the magnitude and
timing of such development is speculative at this time, and would be influenced by a
variety of issues, including market demand, property owner desire to develop,
consistency with the ALUP, and potential environmental constraints that may apply to
specific parcels where project development applications are under consideration.
The Project Area includes all parcels designated as Service Commercial (C-S) or
Manufacturing (M) within the 1,200-acre AASP planning area. Figure 1 shows the location
of C-S and M designated parcels within the AASP.
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
No project-level entitlements are requested or would occur as a result of this action.
Instead, the resulting amendment would allow mixed-use development, subject to specific
findings, with a conditional use permit in portions of the Airport Area Specific Plan
currently designated as Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M), consistent with
the requirements of the City’s Zoning Regulations, as they currently apply to C-S and M
Page 204 of 214
3
designated lands in the remainder of the City. The reason this amendment is necessary
is because as currently written, the AASP does not allow mixed-use development.
Figure 1: Existing Land Use Designations in the Airport Area Specific Plan
Development under the modified land use requirements would result from individual
project applications that must be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo through its
normal development and conditional use permit review processes. Proposed
modifications to the Airport Area Specific Plan are described below in detail under the
heading “New Information and Updated Project Elements.”
10. Previous Environmental Review:
The Final Programmatic EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and
Related Facilities Master Plans (“Final EIR”, or “AASP Final EIR”) addressed future
development within the Airport Area Specific Plan. The Final EIR was certified in
September 2003, and has provided the basis for evaluating the impacts of future
development within the AASP area. Subsequent amendments to the AASP were subject
to separate CEQA evaluations to address the potential impacts stemming from those
amendments. In a similar manner, the analysis in this Addendum tiers from the original
Final EIR.
Page 205 of 214
4
Individual projects that may be proposed under the AASP as amended would be subject
to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as appropriate on a
project-by-project basis.
The County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission conducted an Initial Study
and prepared a Negative Declaration for the 2021 update of its Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP) (SCH: 2021030474). That environmental document was used to inform the
conclusions contained in this addendum.
11. Purpose of the Addendum:
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an
addendum to a Final EIR when only “minor technical changes or additions” are necessary
to address the effects of a minor change to the approved project since the Final EIR was
certified. In addition, the lead agency is required to explain its decision not to prepare a
subsequent EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which requires
subsequent EIRs when proposed changes would require major revisions to the previous
EIR “due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.”
Subsequent to certification of the AASP Final EIR, additional information has been
identified which provides a more consistent Citywide approach to mixed -use
development, specifically as it is allowed in the C-S and M zones. In 2021, the San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) updated its Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP) to address new technical information related to safety and noise, which resulted
in a refinement of areas subject to land use restrictions under the ALUP and has created
opportunities for mixed-use developments within the AASP. The proposed action requires
an amendment to the AASP to allow for mixed-use in the C-S and M zones subject to a
Conditional Use Permit. This project is described in more detail in subsequent sections of
this EIR Addendum.
The purpose of this Addendum is to document the proposed change to the AASP, and to
confirm that this change would not result in any new or more severe significant
environmental effects not previously analyzed in the Final EIR, and would not modify any
existing mitigation requirements described in that document.
The evaluation below discusses the issue areas that are relevant to this Addendum and
covered by the previously approved Final EIR. The evaluation concludes that no new
environmental effects are created and that there is no increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects.
Page 206 of 214
5
12. Addendum Requirements:
Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guideli nes,
when a lead agency has adopted an EIR for a project, a subsequent EIR does not need
to be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the
following conditions are met:
1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR
was adopted shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR; or
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
identified in the previous EIR; or
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation
measures or alternatives; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the
mitigation measures or alternatives.
Preparation of an Addendum to an EIR is appropriate when none of the conditions
specified in Section 15162 (above) are present and some minor technical changes to the
previously certified EIR are necessary to address minor changes to an approved project.
Because the new information would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts, an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document.
Page 207 of 214
6
CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR C-S AND M ZONES
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
Mixed-use development was not originally allowed at the time of the AASP’s adoption in 2005
because of the area’s proximity to the San Luis Obispo County Airport, and the established
safety and noise areas that limited or prohibited noise sensitive residential uses or high density
residential development. The southern portion of the City at that time was also viewed as the
area most appropriate for industrial uses. In 2021, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) updated its Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) to address new technical
information related to safety and noise, which resulted in a refinement of areas subject to land
use restrictions under the ALUP, including areas within the AASP. As a result, there is now
substantial area within the AASP where the land use restrictions have changed related to airport
safety and noise and creates opportunities for mixed -use developments..
Current AASP Requirements
For the reasons described above related to the ALUP, the AASP does not currently allow mixed -
use development in either the Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M) zones. As stated
in Section 4.2.2 of the AASP, “areas designated Service Commercial are generally for storage,
transportation, and wholesaling type uses, as well as certain retail sales and business services
that may be less appropriate in othe r commercial designations.” Similarly, Section 4.2.3
summarizes the intent of the Manufacturing designation as areas “for assembly, fabrication,
storage and distribution, and sales and service type uses that have little or no direct trade with
local consumers.”
Table 4-3 of the AASP shows the allowed uses within each land use designation. Mixed-use is
not allowed under either designation.
Other Relevant Regulatory Setting
There is an existing regulatory framework for allowing mixed-use in non-residential zones
Citywide. Mixed-use development is allowed in the C-S and M zones in all parts of the City
except within the AASP and other specific plan areas. Within both designations, the Zoning
Regulations allow for residential development up to 24 density units per acre (Municipal Code
Sections 17.36.020 and 17.40.020).
Final Environmental Impact Report
The 2003 Final EIR examined the policy framework and conceptual development under the
AASP at a programmatic level. That document did not include project-specific analysis of the
parcels potentially impacted by the proposed action. The FEIR impact analysis was general,
and any required mitigation for key issue areas was programmatic, in consideration of cumulative
development that might occur under the AASP. Please refer to the section below entitled
“Analysis Of The Proposed Project In The Context Of The Final EIR ” for further discussion of
relevant issues and how they relate to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
Page 208 of 214
7
NEW INFORMATION AND UPDATED PROJECT ELEMENTS
NEWLY DISCOVERED INFORMATION
In recent years, the demand for housing in general, and affordable housing in particular, has
risen dramatically in San Luis Obispo, as it has elsewhere. In response, the City’s 2014 General
Plan Land Use Element update reflects this increased demand, and includes several large areas
for increased residential development, projects that have since been approved and are in the
process of being completed. At the same time, the City has tried to address these issues by
supporting mixed-use development, in areas where demand for non-residential development in
Service Commercial or Manufacturing designated land has declined. The result is that the City
allows mixed-use by right in the C-S and M zones outside the AASP. However, the AASP does
not allow mixed-use development, because of previous safety and noise restrictions included in
the ALUP. As described above, the 2021 update of the ALUP removed those restrictions that
limited or prohibited mixed-use development.
The proposed project responds to the changes in the ALUP and increased housing demand in
an evolving market by allowing for mixed-use development in the C-S and M land use
designations in the AASP with the approval of a conditional use permit.
As discussed previously, the underlying reason why mixed-use development was not allowed in
the AASP is because of the area’s proximity to the San Luis Obispo County Airport, and safety
and noise conflicts that could arise if residential development were allowed. In 2021, the San
Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) updated its Airport Land Use Plan
(ALUP) to address new technical information related to safety and noise, which resulted in a
refinement of areas subject to land use restrictions under the ALUP, including areas within the
AASP. As a result, there is substantial area where the land use restrictions have changed related
to airport safety and noise.
CHANGED BASELINE CONDITIONS AND UPDATED PROJECT ELEMENTS
The proposed project would amend the AASP, modifying various aspects of the plan in order to
facilitate mixed-use development with approval of a conditional use permit in the C-S and M land
use designations. It would not change any existing land use designation, nor would it result in
more or less land designated as either C-S or M. Instead, it would modify existing language and
tables in various parts of the existing AASP in order to facilitate mixed-use within these land use
designations.
A detailed land use inventory was prepared in 2024 to verify the amount of C-S or M designated
lands within the planning area. Table 1 below summarizes the results of the 2024 land use
inventory for each designation, showing the total acreage of vacant and developed parcels in
these two land use designations.
Page 209 of 214
8
Table 1. Summary of 2024 Land Use Inventory
C-S and M Parcels in the AASP
Land Use Designation
Acreage
Developed
(or entitled)
Vacant Total
Service Commercial (C-S) 140.4 85.6 226.0
Manufacturing (M) 94.7 20.4 115.1
Total 235.1 106.0 341.1
Portions of land designated as either C-S or M are constrained from considering mixed-use
development. Some of this constrained area remains within airport land use safety zones under
the ALUP that do not allow for residential uses. Other parcels are too small or configured in such
a way to make development challenging. Depending on the location, a variety of environmental
constraints could present other challenges, including drainage features, steep slopes, or the
potential for sensitive biological or cultural resources. Some parcels are adjacent to existing
industrial land uses that produce odors or noise, which could make them less attractive for mixed-
use development. Finally, many of these parcels are already developed with other uses, or are
entitled for development. It is likely that only a few of these more constrained parcels will
eventually support mixed-use development.
There is no specific mixed-use development project proposed at this time, but the amendment
would allow the City to process and potentially approve applications that propose such
development. However, the magnitude and timing of such development cannot be known at this
time, and would be influenced by a variety of issues, including market demand, property owner
desire to develop, and potential environmental constraints that may apply to specific parcels
where project development applications are under consideration. For these reasons, it is
speculative to determine what the residential buildout potential of this action is at this time, or
how it might alter the non-residential buildout assumptions made in the AASP.
If mixed-use development were to occur, it would be based on the maximum density currently
allowed under the Zoning Regulations, which is 24 density units per acre.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FINAL EIR
The updated project elements described above were not considered in the 2003 Final EIR, and
so are analyzed here. The 2003 Final EIR examined the policy framework and conceptual
development under the AASP at a programmatic level, which is also appropriate for the currently
proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The following analysis examines the proposed project
based on relevant issues from the 2003 Final EIR, with references to FEIR impact statements
as appropriate. Implementation of the proposed project would not change any of the conclusions
in the Final EIR, the level of significance or severity of any previously identified impact, or
introduce any new mitigation measures. No changes to the Final EIR are required.
Land Use
Page 210 of 214
9
The FEIR identifies the following land use impacts that are relevant to the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment. As discussed in Impact LU-3, the Final EIR found the AASP was consistent
with the ALUP in effect at the time of adoption of the AASP. No significant impacts were
identified, and no mitigation was required. The Specific Plan amendment would allow for mixed-
use development with approval of a conditional use permit, subject to potential constraints
contained in the 2021 ALUP update. The County’s environmental document for the 2021 update
(SCH 2021030474) concluded that there would be no land use impacts or hazards associated
with allowing more intensive development in the AASP, or mixed-use or residential projects in
the ALUP area if development regulations in the ALUP were complied with. Individual
development projects within the AASP would need to be consistent with any land use restrictions
set forth in the ALUP. No new impact would occur.
Impact LU-4 discussed compatibility with surrounding land uses. No conflicts with surrounding
uses were identified in the AASP, so impacts were less than significant, and no mitigation was
required. Individual development projects within the AASP would need to be compatible with
adjacent development, a determination that would be made through development and
conditional use permit review processes and project-specific CEQA analysis for any such future
action. No new programmatic impacts would occur.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact H-5 discussed exposure of people and/or property to flood hazards. The FEIR found that
the conversion of land to urban uses has the potential to increase flooding hazards if new
buildings were constructed within the 100-year flood hazard area. However, the specific plan
includes explicit requirements for flood channel improvements that will avoid flooding impacts by
providing enhanced control of floodwaters. This impact was considered less than significant.
Mixed-use development would be evaluated individually under CEQA, and would be required to
comply with existing regulations related to flood hazards and water quality. No new
programmatic impacts would occur, nor would there be an increase in severity of a ny existing
impact.
Traffic and Circulation
Since the time the AASP FEIR was prepared, CEQA analysis related to this issue has been
modified considerably. The focus of CEQA review is now based primarily on a study of Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT), which can have potential impacts on regional air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions. These issues were not examined in the Final EIR.
One purpose of mixed-use development is to reduce commute distances between residences
and work places. In some cases, mixed-use development could make it possible for some
residents to walk to work, which would potentially reduce VMT. In those instances, there would
be a net positive effect on greenhouse gas emissions and air quality relative to what would
otherwise happen under the AASP. Future individual development projects within the AASP
would be evaluated on a case by case basis through a project-specific CEQA analysis. No new
programmatic impacts related to these issues would occur.
Page 211 of 214
10
Other transportation issues that were studied in the FEIR related to roadway Levels of Service
(LOS), which is a metric no longer considered in CEQA documents. Instead, these are issues
that would be appropriately addressed through the development and conditiona l use permit
review processes, with recommendations for potential roadway improvement made through
engineering studies.
Air Quality
The FEIR identified impacts related to both short -term construction emissions and long-term
operations emissions. Short-term construction emissions were found to be significant but
mitigable at a programmatic level, with mitigation taking the form of following a variety of
standard construction management techniques and following the existing regulatory framework
set forth by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The impacts of specific development
projects would be analyzed and mitigated as needed on a case by case basis.
Similarly, long-term operational impacts were also found to be less than significant with
programmatic mitigation. The FEIR included the following relevant mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure AIR-2.1. Implement Growth-Phasing Schedule. The City will
implement a growth-phasing schedule for the Airport area, to assure that nonresidential
development in the urban area does not exceed the pace of residential development.
The consideration of mixed-use development in the Airport Area is consistent with this mitigation
requirement, as it allows for greater flexibility and opportunities to approve residen tial
development in balance with non-residential development. Future individual development
projects within the AASP would be evaluated on a case by case basis through a project-specific
CEQA analysis. No new programmatic impacts related to this issue would occur.
Noise
The FEIR examined relevant programmatic impacts related to traffic and aircraft noise, but found
them to be less than significant. For aircraft noise, this was because future development under
the AASP was determined to be consistent with the ALUP. For traffic noise, it was determined
that the City’s General Plan Noise Element included sufficient implementation requirements and
strategies to ensure that noise would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis as appropriate,
through the recommendations of project-specific noise studies. Future individual development
projects within the AASP would be evaluated on a case by case basis through a project-specific
CEQA analysis. The County’s environmental document for the 2021 update (SCH 2021030474)
concluded that there would be no noise impacts or hazards associated with allowing more
intensive development in the AASP, including mixed-use or residential projects in the ALUP
area, if development regulations in the ALUP were complied with . No new programmatic
impacts related to this issue would occur.
Public Services and Utilities
The FEIR examined potential programmatic impacts related to the provision of water and
wastewater services from buildout under the AASP, but concluded these wou ld be less than
significant because projects would be required to follow the regulatory provisions included in the
Page 212 of 214
11
General Plan, AASP and relevant utilities master plans. Similarly, programmatic impacts related
to storm drainage were considered less than significant because projects would be required to
follow the provisions of the Storm Drain Master Plan. Impacts related to solid waste disposal
were also considered less than significant, as projects would be required to follow regulatory
provisions included in the General Plan and AASP.
Impacts related to law enforcement were considered less than significant, as future staffing and
facilities would be addressed through fiscal studies as needed. Impacts to fire protection
services were also considered less than significant with the following mitigation measure:
PS-1. New Fire Protection Personnel. To mitigate the impacts associated with buildout of
the [AASP], a sufficient number of fire protection personnel should be hired to maintain a
ratio of one firefighter for every 1,000 residents.
Determining the appropriate level of public services staff is typically addressed in the City’s
annual budget cycles, with recommendations resulting from studies to service impacts that are
projected to occur based on reasonably foreseeable cumulative development. The proposed
project does not facilitate any specific development project, so the magnitude of potential long-
term impacts to public services is speculative, and would be addressed on a case-by-case basis
as development projects are proposed. No new programmatic impacts related to this issue
would occur.
Impacts to schools were found to be less than significant. Mitigation is limited to the payment of
statutory fees, and no additional school-related impact fees may be imposed above the limits
established in statute (Government Code Section 65595 et seq). No new programmatic impacts
related to this issue would occur.
Impacts to parks and recreation were found to be less than significant, as buildout of the AASP
would not increase demand over the established park service standard of 10 acres per 1,000
residents. The amount of residential development that might occur under the mixed-use
provisions of the project is speculative, and would be limited by a combination of market factors,
property owner desire, lot configuration, and environmental constraints. Impacts to parks and
recreation would be considered on a case by case basis as individual development projects are
proposed. No new programmatic impacts related to this issue would occur.
Other Issues
The proposed project would not introduce new development into areas that were not already
planned for urban uses. Therefore, for all other issues related to resource protection (biological
resources, cultural resources, agricultural resources, and the exposure to hazardous materials),
the potential impact of new development would not change, so the existing impact analysis for
each issue would also remain unchanged. No new programmatic impacts related to these issues
would occur.
Page 213 of 214
12
DETERMINATION
In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo
has determined that this Addendum to the certified Final EIR is necessary to document changes
or additions that have occurred since the Final EIR was originally certified. Based on the analysis
of the proposed project, no new changes to the Final EIR are required. The proposed project
would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial inc rease in the
severity of previously identified significant effects. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable
diligence at the time the previous Final EIR was adopted has been identified.
The preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not necessary because:
1. None of the circumstances included in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have
occurred which require a subsequent environmental document:
a. The project changes do not result in new or substantially more severe
environmental impacts.
b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major
changes to the IS/MND.
c. The modified project does not require any substantive changes to previously
approved mitigation measures.
2. The changes are consistent with City General Plan goals and polices that promote
provision of additional housing, particularly affordable housing, within the City.
3. The changes are consistent with City goals related to mixed-use that would encourage
alternative forms of transportation and reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which
relates to reducing air emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions.
The City has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Addendum and finds
that the preparation of subsequent CEQA analysis that would require public circulation is not
necessary. This Addendum does not require circulation because it does not provide significant
new information that changes the adopted Fi nal EIR in a way that deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the
project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. The City shall consider this
Addendum with the certified Final EIR as part of the basis for potential approval of the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment.
Page 214 of 214