The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 4c. Amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan (SPEC-0457-2023) 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 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. AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED EIR HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA February 26, 2025 Planning Commission Review Recommendation Adopt a Draft 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. 2 Background: Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Adopted in 2005 Plans for about 1,200 acres in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo The AASP allowed uses and development standards that were guided by the 2002 ALUP ALUP included several safety zones and noise contours that limited or prohibited residential and non-residential development AASP does not currently allow for mixed-use development 3 Background: Housing Element & Regulations Update 2020: the City adopted the Housing Element and included Program 5.5 to allow mixed-use within C-S and M zones without a use permit. 2021: the City Council adopted an update to the Zoning Regulations removing CUP requirements and allowed mixed- use by right in the C-S and M zones. An update could not be made to the AASP because of the existing 2002 ALUP safety zone and noise contour limitations. 4 Background: ALUP 2021: ALUC updated the ALUP, including revisions to the safety zones and noise contours. The ALUP revisions removed the limitation on residential density within Safety Zone 6, the General Traffic Pattern Zone and narrowed noise contour areas closer to the runways. The removal of these restrictions to residential development provides an opportunity to consider mixed-use residential projects within the AASP. 5 Background: AASP Proposed Amendments Based on the updated ALUP and Major City Goal of Housing and Homelessness, City Council included a work program in the 2023-25 Financial Plan to initiate an update to the AASP to allow mixed-use residential development, where appropriate and consistent with the ALUP. The City is proposing to amend the AASP to allow mixed-use development within parcels zoned either C-S or M in ALUP Safety Zone 6 subject to a CUP. 6 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. 7 Project Description The Project Area includes all property within ALUP Safety Zone 6 and designated as C-S or M within the 1,200-acre AASP planning area. The proposed amendments would allow for mixed-use development in C-S and M zones of the AASP with the approval of a CUP subject to specific findings and development standards outlined in the City’s Zoning Regulations. No new development is proposed with this application. No existing zoning designations are proposed to change. 8 AASP – C-S and M zoned areas that are in Safety Zone 6 9 AASP – Existing C-S and M Zones 10 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. AASP– Proposed Amendment To approve a CUP for a mixed-use development in the C-S and M zones, the PC shall find the project consistent with development standards outlined in SLOMC Section 17.70.130 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 residential development; 4)Proposed residential uses are 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. 11 AASP– Proposed Amendment (Amended) To approve a CUP for a mixed-use development in the C-S and M zones, the PC shall find the project consistent with development standards outlined in SLOMC Section 17.70.130 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 residential development; 4)Proposed residential uses are 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 consistent with the Climate Adaptation and Safety Element (CASE). 12 AASP– Proposed Amendment Eliminate Table 4-1 that shows land use inventory and buildout potential within the AASP. The reasons for its removal are: It is out of date, Reflects buildout potential based on assumptions made when the specific plan was first adopted 20 years ago, and Any estimate of potential buildout within the area is likely to be inaccurate because there is less interest in purely commercial development. 13 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Review January 15, 2025. Preliminary Review of AASP February 19, 2025. ALUC finds the proposed AASP Amendment consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), subject to conditions. Key condition: Residential development to be wholly located within Safety Zone 6. If a parcel is in two safety zones, a mixed-use project would apply different standards to the different portions of the parcel. 14 Policy Consistency Major City Goals Housing and Homelessness. Support additional housing options Work Program 3.1.c. Update AASP to include mixed use Housing Element Program 5.5. Update zoning regs to allow mixed use in C-S and M zones Program 6.13. Consider GPA or rezone to allow more mixed use Land Use Element  Policy 3.8.5. Encourage mixed use in commercial areas 15 Fiscal Impacts – Conclusions Kosmont study examined two scenarios for AASP: Development without mixed use. Fiscal surplus, but there is not the demand for non-residential uses, so unrealistic outcome. Likely development with mixed use. Negative fiscal impact, driven largely by tax sharing agreement with County that limits property tax revenue in this portion of the City. 16 Fiscal Impacts – Recommendations Proposed AASP Amendment requires that any development project must offset its fiscal impacts to be fiscally neutral. Kosmont Recommendations: Community Facilities District (CFD). Similar to the mechanism used for Avila Ranch to offset the cost of services, to be applied AASP-wide. If no CFD in place, development would need to offset fiscal impacts on a project-by-project basis. Other options (not recommended): 1) renegotiate tax sharing agreement with County; 2) Infrastructure Financing District negotiation with County; 3) minimum commercial use requirements in mixed-use projects. 17 CEQA Compliance AASP/MASP Final EIR certified in 2003 Addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared for the proposed AASP amendment Individual developments in the AASP subject to project-specific CEQA review 18 Next Steps May 6, 2025: City Council Review 19 Recommendation Adopt a Draft 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. 20 Questions and Comments 21 Airport Area Specific Plan – ALUP Noise Contours 22 Policy Consistency: 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. 23 Policy Consistency: Major City Goal 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 Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). 24 Policy Consistency: 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. Housing Element 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… Land Use Element Policy 3.8.5. Mixed Uses. The City encourages compatible mixed uses in commercial districts. 25 Policy Consistency: Zoning Regulations Mixed-Use in AASP consistent with what is already allowed in C-S and M zones elsewhere in the City, although a CUP would be required in AASP Maximum density (24 density units/acre) in AASP would be consistent with density allowed in C-S and M zones elsewhere in City 26