HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/26/2025 Item 4c, Peck
Stephen Peck <
To:Advisory Bodies
Cc:JFRickenbach@aol.com
Subject: Item 4c: AASP Amendments: (SPEC-0457-2023)
Attachments:Letterhead tp PC.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Comments on the AASP Amendment.
1
February 24, 2025
San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
VIA Email: advisorybodies@slocity.org
RE: Agenda Item 4c: AASP Amendments: (SPEC-0457-2023)
Commissioners and Staff:
Thank you for consideration of this matter, and thank you for your continued service. I repre-
sent the owner of a property at 120 Venture that is potentially affected by this amendment. In sum, we
support the amendment which recognizes the recent modifications to the County’s Airport Land Use
Plan (ALUP).
The AASP amendment results in treating non-residential properties in the City in a consistent
manner, with the City’s allowance for mixed-use development on such properties. The AASP amend-
ment does introduce several special conditions of development, including: 1) a finding that there is de-
monstrable water and sewer capacity to serve the project; 2) that there is at least fiscal neutrality; 3)
that there are no adjacent incompatible uses; 4) that the development is in Safety Zone 6 and is con-
sistent with the ALUP; and, 5) that there is adequate emergency response. Items 1, 3 and 4 are some-
what redundant and unnecessary because there are other City regulations that govern these items.
Item 5 is implied by the City Safety Element Policy 9.3; however, it should be clarified that the reference
to “response” is the 4-minute travel time that is identified in the Fire Master Plan. As noted in the Fire
Master Plan, improvements are possible in the “turnout” and “call processing times” that can improve
total response times. The metric for “response” should be clarified.
The requirement for fiscal neutrality is special for parcels within the AASP and other parcels that
were recently annexed to the City. The tax sharing agreement with the county treats properties an-
nexed as residential differently than those annexed as non-residential, with no property taxes allocated
to the City for non-residential properties. A study was prepared that provides an estimate of the differ-
ences between City fiscal revenues and costs under the assumption full development as zoned, and de-
velopment within reasonable market absorption. Each project will be assessed for its particular fiscal
neutrality. Our own assessment is that this added burden is reasonable and manageable.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Peck, AICP