San Luis Obispo City Council
May 6, 2025

O- ____
to Section 17.86.080 (“Cannabis”) of Title 17 (“Zoning Regulations”) of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by the law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendations provided by staff, presented at said hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all evidence, the City Council makes the following findings:

1. The proposed amendments to Municipal Code §§§ 17.86.080(E)(4)(e),

17.86.080(E)(10)(b)(iii), and 17.86.080(E)(12)(c)(vii) are consistent with State Law and are declaratory of existing City code, ensuring clarity and regulatory consistency for both pending and future projects. These amendments are declaratory of existing land use requirements for commercial cannabis activities and are consistent with the legislative intent of the currently adopted Zoning Ordinance. These amendments are intended to reflect the City’s interpretation and application of the buffer requirements since their adoption.

2. In adopting Municipal Code § 17.86.080 (formerly Chapter 17.99) on May 15, 2018, this Council found that the regulations balance the City’s competing interests in allowing certain commercial and research-related cannabis activities desired by the majority of voters, with the public health, welfare, and safety concerns of the City. The proposed amendments to Municipal Code §§§ 17.86.080(E)(4)(e),

17.86.080(E)(10)(b)(iii), and 17.86.080(E)(12)(c)(vii), as declaratory of existing code, accomplish the same.

3. The Council Agenda Report dated May 1, 2018, to establish the City’s Cannabis Regulations, including the adoption of specific buffer requirements, clearly indicates that the City Council intended the buffer from residentially zoned areas to apply within the CBZ Overlay Zones only.

4. The Council Agenda Report dated September 4, 2018, to formally establish the CBZ Overlay Zones states that the three-hundred-foot buffer requirement between residentially zoned land and retail storefronts applies from residential zoning that occurs within a CBZ Overlay Zone. Additionally, the CBZ Overlay Zones were designed to incorporate natural physical barriers—such as railroads and major roads—that inherently serve as buffers from sensitive sites, thereby minimizing potential impacts on public

O- ____
health and safety. Applying the 300-foot buffer requirement outside these overlay zones would unnecessarily restrict allowable commercial cannabis sites beyond what is necessary to ensure health and safety, as contemplated by the adoption of the overlay zones.

5. The terms “CAN Overlay” and “CBZ Overlay” have been used interchangeably. The proposed amendment to Municipal Code Section §

17.86.080(E)(5)(b) replaces “CAN Overlay” with “CBZ Overlay” to align with the adopted Zoning Map and Table 1‑ 1 (“Zones Established”) in SLOMC § 17.06.020(D).

6. The proposed amendments to Municipal Code §§ 17.86.080(E)(12)(c)(v)(ix) and 17.86.080(E)(12)(c)(v)(x) are consistent with State Law and the California Department of Cannabis Control (“DCC”) Regulations, specifically with DCC Regulations §§§ 15400, 15403, and 15500, which define regulations for commercial cannabis retail and microbusiness license holders.

7. The proposed amendments to Municipal Code §§ 17.86.080(E)(12)(c)(v)(ix) and 17.86.080(E)(12)(c)(v)(x) are consistent with Municipal Code § 17.86.080(E)(12)(c)(i) which requires microbusinesses authorized to engage in retail sales to comply with the regulations established for retail commercial cannabis activity.

8. The proposed amendment to Municipal Code § 17.86.080(A) does not alter or affect federal law, and it revises the purpose statement to remove the specific CSA classification of cannabis. This change ensures that the regulation remains effective regardless of any future federal scheduling changes.

SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The recommended actions were reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and are determined to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15301(b)(3) (General Rule Exemption), which exempts activities that can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment. Project-specific environmental review will be required for any new commercial cannabis activity.

SECTION 3. Action. The City Council hereby adopts an ordinance amending Section 17.86.080 (“Cannabis”) of Title 17 (“Zoning Regulations”) of the Municipal Code to clarify specific land use and operational requirements for commercial cannabis activity.

Section 17.86.080 (“Cannabis”) of Title 17 (“Zoning Regulations”) of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

17.86.080 Cannabis.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, enact strong and effective regulatory and enforcement controls in compliance

O- ____
with state of California law, protect neighborhood character, and minimize potential for negative impacts on people, communities, and the environment within the city of San Luis Obispo by establishing land use requirements and development standards for cannabis activities. Cannabis activity, as defined in Section 17.156.008 (C Definitions), includes the cultivation, possession, manufacturing, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, delivery, or sale of cannabis or a cannabis product for either personal or commercial use. Therefore, this section recognizes that cannabis activities require land use controls due to state legal constraints on cannabis activity, and the potential environmental and social impacts associated with cannabis activity. Nothing in this section is intended to affect or alter federal law., which identifies marijuana (cannabis) as a Schedule I controlled substance.

B. Applicability. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any conduct or activity relating to the cultivation, distribution, dispensing, sale, or consumption of cannabis that is otherwise illegal under local or state law, statute, rule or regulation. It is neither the intent nor the effect of this chapter to condone or legitimize the illegal use, consumption or cultivation of cannabis under state or local law and nothing herein is intended to interpret, alter, interfere with or in any way affect otherwise applicable federal law.

C. Definitions. See Chapter 17.156, Land Use Definitions (Table 2-1: Uses Allowed by Zone). Terms used in this section that are defined terms under state cannabis statutes or regulations shall have the same meaning as the respective state definition, as now defined or as the definition may be amended by the state in the future, except as otherwise specifically provided in Chapter 17.156, Land Use Definitions (Table 2-1:

Uses Allowed by Zone), or Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations.

D. Personal Cultivation.

1. Indoor Personal Cultivation. Indoor personal cultivation of cannabis does not require a permit and is allowed in all private residences subject to all the following minimum performance standards:
a. All indoor personal cultivation shall occur only inside a private residence or fully enclosed and secure accessory building or structure to a private residence.

Accessory building or structure for indoor personal cultivation of cannabis does not include a greenhouse or hoop structure.
b. Structures and equipment used for indoor cultivation, such as indoor grow lights, shall comply with all applicable building, electrical and fire code regulations as adopted by the city.
c. All accessory buildings and structures used for indoor cultivation shall comply with the city’s zoning regulations and building codes.

O- ____
d. Indoor personal cultivation of cannabis may occur inside a dwelling and/or an accessory building or structure, subject to the following restrictions:
i. The cumulative cultivation for cannabis shall not exceed six cannabis plants per private residence.
ii. All personal cultivation shall be conducted by persons twenty-one years of age or older, and the cumulative total of cannabis plants per private residence, indoor and outdoor, shall not exceed six cannabis plants, regardless of the number of persons residing on the property. e. Personal cultivation of cannabis shall not interfere with the primary occupancy of the building or structure, including regular use of kitchen(s) or bathroom(s).
f. Cannabis cultivation must be concealed from public view at all stages of growth and there shall be no exterior evidence of cannabis cultivation occurring at the property visible with normal unaided vision from any public place, or the public right-of-way. Personal cultivation of cannabis shall be shielded to confine light and glare to the interior of the structure.
g. Nothing in this section is intended, nor shall it be construed, to preclude any landlord from limiting or prohibiting personal cultivation of cannabis by tenants. h. Nothing in this section is intended, nor shall it be construed, to authorize commercial cultivation of cannabis at a private residence. i. Personal cultivation of cannabis shall not create: offensive odors or excessive dust, heat, noise, light, glare, smoke, traffic, or hazards due to the use or storage of materials, processes, products or wastes, or other unreasonable impacts to persons of normal sensitivity who are living, working or lawfully present in the vicinity of the personal cultivation. j. Cannabis cultivation areas in a private residence shall be locked at all times when the cultivator is not present.

2. Outdoor Personal Cultivation. Outdoor personal cultivation of cannabis does not require a permit and is allowable at all private residences, subject to all of the following minimum performance standards:
a. Outdoor personal cultivation of cannabis is not permitted in the front yard between the public right-of-way and the private residence. Outdoor personal cultivation is only permitted in a rear or side yard that is entirely enclosed by a solid, opaque fence that is associated with a private residence used for residential purposes.

O- ____
b. The cannabis plants shall be placed at a minimum setback of five feet from the edge of canopy to the property line.
c. Cannabis cultivation must be concealed from public view at all stages of growth and there shall be no exterior evidence of cannabis cultivation occurring at the property visible by normal unaided vision from a public place or the public right-of-way. Cultivation may occur within a greenhouse or hoop structure (as long as it complies with the performance standards), but mixed light cultivation is prohibited.
d. All outdoor personal cultivation shall be conducted by persons twenty-one years of age or older.
e. The cumulative total of cannabis plants cultivated outdoor shall not exceed six cannabis plants per parcel containing a private residence, regardless of the number of persons residing on the property, and regardless of the number of private residences on the parcel.
f. Nothing in this section is intended, nor shall it be construed, to preclude any landlord from limiting or prohibiting cannabis cultivation by tenants. g. Nothing in this section is intended, nor shall it be construed, to authorize commercial cultivation of cannabis at a private residence outdoors. h. Outdoor personal cultivation of cannabis shall not create: offensive odors or excessive dust, heat, noise, light, glare, smoke, traffic, or hazards due to the use or storage of materials, processes, products or wastes, or other unreasonable impacts to people of normal sensitivity living, working or lawfully present in the vicinity of the personal cultivation.

E. Commercial Cannabis Businesses.

1. Commercial Cannabis Operator Permit.
a. No person or entity shall operate or conduct a commercial cannabis activity or commercial cannabis business without first obtaining both a commercial cannabis operator permit from the city pursuant to Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations, and a use permit from the city pursuant to this chapter to conduct the commercial cannabis activity at a specific location. Any permit authorizing commercial cannabis activity pursuant to this chapter shall be conditioned upon the holder obtaining and maintaining a city commercial cannabis operator permit and the appropriate state license for the activity.

O- ____
b. A commercial cannabis activity pursuant to this chapter may be transferred, assigned, or bequeathed, by operation of law or otherwise as described in Section 9.10.120.
c. The commercial cannabis operator permit must be renewed each year. d. Expiration of the use permit shall be consistent with Section 17.104.070.

2. No Vested Right to Operate. No person shall have any entitlement or vested right to operate a cannabis business solely by virtue of licensing under these regulations. Operation of cannabis activity(ies) requires both the approval of a conditional use permit and a commercial cannabis operator permit under Chapter

9.10, which is a revocable privilege and not a right in the city. The applicant bears the burden of proving that all qualifications for licensure have been satisfied and continuously maintained prior to conducting a cannabis business at an otherwise allowed location within the city.

3. State Application Required. Filing a local application for cannabis activity(ies) with the city does not constitute an application with the state of California. A separate state application and license process must be followed through with the state.

4. Application Requirements. All commercial cannabis activities require qualification through the commercial cannabis operator selection approval process in Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations, a state license and a use permit for a specific location pursuant to this chapter. The application for a use permit shall include the following information:
a. Site plan, floor plans, and a general description of the nature, squarefootage, parking and type of cannabis activity(ies) being requested. b. An operations plan including:
i. A security plan to the approval of the chief of police, pursuant to criteria approved by resolution of the city council, including but not limited to on-site security measures both physical and operational and, if applicable, security measures for the delivery of cannabis associated with the commercial cannabis business and payment of taxes and fees;
ii. Plan for restriction of access by minors;
iii. Employee safety and training plan;
iv. Odor, noise and light management plan;

O- ____
v. Estimated energy usage and energy efficiency plan;
vi. Estimated water usage and water efficiency plans;
vii. Waste management plan; and
viii. For retail sales, provide an educational material dissemination plan. c. Proposed signage:
i. Must comply with city’s sign regulations for size, area and type of sign, no exceptions allowed.
ii. Internal illumination of signs is prohibited.
iii. No portion of the cannabis plant may be used in any sign visible from the public right-of-way.
iv. Provide sign size, height, colors, and design of any proposed signage at the site.
v. Must include a sign inside the premises that states: “Smoking, ingesting, vaping, eating or consuming cannabis or cannabis products on this site or in a public place is prohibited.”
vi. Must include a sign at each entrance of a retail storefront that prohibits persons under twenty-one years of age from entering.
d. An analysis that demonstrates neighborhood compatibility and a plan for addressing potential compatibility issues.
e. Applications for retail storefronts shall include a vicinity map showing at least one thousand feet of surrounding area and the distances to the following uses: 1) one thousand feet from any preschool, elementary school, junior high school, high school, public park or playground, whether located within or outside a CBZ Overlay Zone; 2) six hundred feet from any licensed daycare center, whether located within or outside a CBZ Overlay Zone; and 3) three hundred feet from a residentially zoned areas located within a CBZ Overlay Zone. Youth centers do not require a buffer. Distance shall be measured from the nearest point of the property line of the site that contains the commercial cannabis activity to the nearest point of the property line of the enumerated use using a direct straight-line measurement.
f. Proof of ownership, option to purchase, (or lease agreement or option to lease with landowner’s express written consent to the proposed commercial

O- ____
cannabis activity(ies) to be conducted on the premises) or other proof of right to apply for the permit at the location.
g. A list of all other uses on the property.

5. Commercial Cannabis Development Standards. Each cannabis business is required to meet the following standards:
a. Qualification through the Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations, commercial cannabis operator selection process to apply for a commercial cannabis operator permit. Submittal of a use permit application to conduct the commercial cannabis business within the zones specified for each type of commercial activity listed below.
b. Commercial cannabis facilities shall be allowed in areas demarcated with CAN CBZ overlay zoning and as allowed in the underlying zone for each type of commercial cannabis activity.
c. All commercial cannabis facilities shall be sited and/or operated in a manner that prevents cannabis odors from being detected off site. Commercial cannabis activities shall not create offensive or excessive odors, dust, heat, noise, light, glare, smoke, traffic, or hazards due to the use or storage of materials, processes, products or wastes, or other unreasonable impacts to people of normal sensitivity living, working or lawfully present in the vicinity of the commercial facility.
d. All commercial cannabis operations must be concealed from public view at all times and there shall be no exterior evidence of cannabis or cannabis products occurring at the property visible with normal unaided vision from any public place, or the public right-of-way. Commercial manufacturing of cannabis or cannabis products shall be shielded to confine light and glare to the interior of the structure.
e. All commercial cannabis facilities shall include adequate measures that address enforcement priorities for commercial cannabis activities, including restricting access to the public and to minors and ensuring that cannabis and cannabis products are only obtained from and supplied to other permitted licensed sources within the state and not distributed out of state. f. The use permit to be issued under this chapter shall include, but is not limited to, the following conditions:
i. The obtaining and maintaining of the commercial cannabis operator permit and appropriate state license.

O- ____
ii. Payment of all applicable current and future state and local taxes and all applicable commercial cannabis fees and related penalties established by the city council, including but not limited to application, administrative review, inspection, etc.
iii. The commercial cannabis operator permit or a controlling interest in the permit may not be assigned, transferred or bequeathed, by operation of law or otherwise, unless permitted as described in Chapter 9.10, and the permit shall terminate automatically on such event.
iv. Any commercial cannabis operator permit issued pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 9.10 expires after one year, unless renewed. v. Prohibition of on-site consumption of cannabis at: (A) a commercial cannabis business or commercial cannabis activity location; (B) any other business, club or cooperative or event, regardless if open to the public or only to members; and (C) anywhere an entry or other fee is charged to attendees or the host or thing of value or consideration is received or exchanged.
vi. Prohibition of the possession, storage, sale, distribution or consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, or the holding of license from the State Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the sale of alcoholic beverages, or operating a business that sells alcoholic beverages on or adjacent to the commercial cannabis activity site.
vii. No cannabis products or cannabis accessories may be displayed in windows or visible from the public right-of-way or from places accessible to the general public.
viii. Prohibition of minors and persons under the age of twenty-one on the premises, even if accompanied by a parent or guardian, unless the person is at least eighteen years of age and is also in possession of a valid physician’s recommendation for medical cannabis.
ix. Outdoor storage of cannabis or cannabis products is prohibited.

6. Commercial Cultivation.
a. Commercial Cannabis Cultivation. Commercial cannabis cultivation may be conditionally permitted indoors only, subject to the requirements of this section and the obtaining and maintaining of a commercial cannabis operator permit pursuant to Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations, and appropriate state license, in the following zones:

O- ____
i. Service commercial (C-S);
ii. Manufacturing (M);
iii. Business park (BP).
b. A maximum of seventy thousand square feet of cumulative canopy area (includes total canopy of either horizontal or vertical growing situations) for cultivation and nurseries shall be allowed for indoor commercial cannabis cultivation in the city within the zones identified above, including microbusinesses under subsection (E)(12) of this section. c. Outdoor commercial cannabis cultivation, including but not limited to cultivation in greenhouses, hoop structures, and by mixed light (part daylight/part artificial light), is prohibited. All commercial cannabis cultivation shall be conducted only inside a fully enclosed, legally permitted structure that meets all applicable building and other codes.
d. Commercial cannabis cultivation conditional permits include the following:
i. Specialty Cultivator. A maximum of no more than five thousand square feet of canopy of indoor cultivation (either in horizontal or vertical growing situations) and includes processing.
ii. Small Cultivator. A maximum of no more than ten thousand square feet of canopy of indoor cultivation (either in horizontal or vertical growing situations) and includes processing.
iii. Nursery, Cannabis. A maximum of no more than ten thousand square feet of indoor propagation area (either in horizontal or vertical growing situations).
e. Development Standards.
i. Compliance with subsection (E)(5) of this section, Commercial Cannabis Development Standards.
ii. Canopy areas shall be easily identifiable for inspection and measurement. Each unique area included in the total canopy calculation shall be separated by an identifiable boundary such as an interior wall or by at least ten feet of open space (see “Canopy” definition in Chapter 17.156). iii. All indoor cannabis cultivation shall be designed to accomplish zero net energy use from the start of the operation.

O- ____
iv. Pesticides and fertilizers shall be properly labeled, stored, and applied to avoid and prevent contamination through erosion, leakage, or inadvertent damage from rodents, pests, or wildlife.

7. Manufacturing.
a. Manufacturing (Nonvolatile) Permissible. Nonvolatile cannabis or cannabis products manufacturing may be conditionally permitted indoors only, subject to the requirements of this section and the obtaining and maintaining of a commercial cannabis operator permit pursuant to Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations, and appropriate state license, in the following zones:
i. Service commercial (C-S);
ii. Manufacturing (M);
iii. Business park (BP).
b. Manufacturing (Volatile) Prohibited. Cannabis or cannabis products manufacturing involving volatile solvents, processes, compounds or substances is prohibited.
c. Development Standards.
i. Compliance with subsection (E)(5) of this section, Commercial Cannabis Development Standards.
ii. Outdoor manufacturing of cannabis or cannabis products is prohibited. iii. A complete description of all products used in the manufacturing process including the cannabis supply chain, liquids, solvents, agents, and processes.
iv. Storage protocol and hazard response plan.
v. Employee safety and training equipment plan, plus materials safety data sheet requirements, if any.

8. Distribution.
a. Commercial cannabis distribution may be conditionally permitted, subject to the requirements of this section and the obtaining and maintaining of a commercial cannabis operator permit pursuant to Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations, and appropriate state license, in the following zones:
i. Service commercial (C-S);

O- ____
ii. Manufacturing (M);
iii. Business park (BP);
b. Development Standards.
i. Compliance with subsection (E)(5) of this section, Commercial Cannabis Development Standards.

9. Testing Laboratory.
a. Commercial cannabis testing may be conditionally permitted, subject to the requirements of this section and the obtaining and maintaining of a commercial cannabis operator permit pursuant to Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations, and appropriate state license, in the following zones:
i. Service commercial (C-S);
ii. Manufacturing (M);
iii. Business park (BP);
iv. Office (O).
b. Development Standards.
i. Compliance with subsection (E)(5) of this section, Commercial Cannabis Development Standards.
ii. The cannabis testing laboratory, as proposed, will comply with all the requirements of the state for the testing of cannabis, including dual licensure and participation in an authorized track-and-trace program. iii. The owners, investors, permittees, operators, and employees of the cannabis testing laboratory will not be associated with, nor have any financial interest in, any other form of commercial cannabis activity. iv. The cannabis testing laboratory is accredited by an appropriate accrediting agency as approved by the state and further described in Health and Safety Code Section 5238 and as it may be amended.
v. The cannabis testing laboratory operating plan demonstrates proper protocols and procedures for statistically valid sampling methods and accurate certification of cannabis and cannabis products for potency, purity, pesticide residual levels, mold, and other contaminants according to adopted industry standards.

O- ____

10. Retail—Storefront.
a. Commercial cannabis storefront retail may be conditionally permitted, subject to the requirements of this section and the obtaining and maintaining of a commercial cannabis operator permit, and the appropriate state license, in the following zones:
i. Retail commercial (C-R);
ii. Service commercial (C-S).
b. Development Standards.
i. Compliance with subsection (E)(5) of this section, Commercial Cannabis Development Standards.
ii. Only three retail storefronts, which must front arterial streets, will be allowed within the city. Selection of the retail commercial cannabis operator will be selected from qualified commercial cannabis operators as set forth in Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations. One of the retail storefronts shall have a medicinal license and may also have an adult use license. iii. Retail storefronts shall be located at least: 1) one thousand feet from any preschool, elementary school, junior high school, high school, public park or playground, whether located within or outside a CBZ Overlay Zone; 2) six hundred feet from any licensed day care center, whether located within or outside a CBZ Overlay Zone; and 3) three hundred feet from any residentially zoned area located within a CBZ Overlay Zone. Youth centers do not require a buffer. Distance shall be measured from the nearest point of the property line to the nearest point of the property line of the enumerated use using a direct straight-line measurement. A subsequently established use described herein shall not affect the continuation of a retail storefront in possession of a Use Permit issued under the standards of this Section and Chapter 9.10. iv. Retail storefronts must be separated from each other by at least one thousand feet.
v. Hours of operation shall be limited between seven a.m. and nine p.m. vi. Retail storefronts that possess a valid state of California cannabis retailer license with an A-designation must include a sign at each entrance of a retail storefront that prohibits persons under twenty-one years of age from entering. Retail storefronts that possess a valid state of California cannabis retailer license with an M-designation or both an A-designation and an M-designation must include a sign at each entrance of the retail

O- ____
storefront that prohibits persons under twenty-one years of age from entering unless the person is at least eighteen years of age and is also in possession of a valid physician’s recommendation for medical cannabis.

11. Retail—Non-Storefront (Delivery Services).
a. Commercial cannabis non-storefront retail may be conditionally permitted, subject to the requirements of this section and the obtaining and maintaining of a commercial cannabis operator permit pursuant to Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations, and the appropriate state license, in the following zones:
i. Service commercial (C-S);
ii. Manufacturing (M);
iii. Business park (BP).
b. Development Standards.
i. Compliance with subsection (E)(5) of this section, Commercial Cannabis Development Standards.
ii. Hours of delivery shall be limited between six a.m. to ten p.m.

12. Microbusiness.
a. Microbusinesses fall into two groups as described below and may be conditionally permitted, subject to the requirements of this section and the obtaining and maintaining of a commercial cannabis operator permit pursuant to Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations, and the appropriate state license, in the following zones:
i. Microbusinesses with no more than fifty percent of the gross receipts being from cultivation, distribution and manufacturing are allowed in the following zones:
(a) Retail commercial (C-R).
ii. Microbusinesses with no more than fifty percent of the gross receipts being from storefront retail sales are allowed in the following zones:
(a) Manufacturing (M);
(b) Business park (BP).

O- ____
iii. Microbusinesses located in the service commercial (C-S) zone are not limited by gross sales receipts from cultivation, distribution, manufacturing or retail sales.
b. Microbusinesses are subject to the seventy thousand square feet of canopy cultivation citywide limitation (either in horizontal or vertical growing situations) and the limit of three retail storefronts fronting arterial streets citywide set forth in subsection (E)(10) of this section.
c. Development Standards.
i. Compliance with subsection (E)(5) of this section, Commercial Cannabis Development Standards.
ii. A maximum of seventy thousand square feet of cumulative canopy for cultivation and nurseries shall be allowed for indoor cultivation in the city within the allowed land use zones.
iii. All indoor cannabis cultivation shall be designed to accomplish zero net energy use from the start of the operation.
iv. Pesticides and fertilizers shall be properly labeled, stored, and applied to avoid and prevent contamination through erosion, leakage, or inadvertent damage from rodents, pests, or wildlife.
v. Only three retail storefronts, which must front arterial streets, will be allowed within the city. Selection of the retail commercial cannabis operator will be selected from qualified commercial cannabis operators as set forth in Chapter 9.10, Cannabis Regulations. One of the retail storefronts shall have a medicinal license and may also have an adult use license. vi. Any microbusiness with a retail storefront shall require a planning commission use permit.
vii. Retail storefronts shall be located at least: 1) one thousand feet from any preschool, elementary school, junior high school, high school, public park or playground, whether located within or outside a CBZ Overlay Zone; 2) six hundred feet from any licensed day care center, whether located within or outside a CBZ Overlay Zone; and 3) three hundred feet from any residentially zoned area located within a CBZ Overlay Zone. Youth centers do not require a buffer. Distance shall be measured from the nearest point of the property line to the nearest point of the property line of the enumerated use using a direct straight-line measurement. A subsequently established use described herein shall not affect the continuation of a retail storefront in possession of a Use Permit issued under the standards of this Section and Chapter 9.10.

O- ____
viii. Retail storefronts must be separated from each other by at least one thousand feet.
ix. Hours of retail shall be limited to between nine seven a.m. to eight nine p.m. and delivery shall be limited to between six a.m. to ten p.m. x. Retail storefronts that possess a valid state of California cannabis retailer license with an A-designation must include a sign at each entrance of a retail storefront that prohibits persons under twenty-one years of age from entering.

Retail storefronts that possess a valid state of California cannabis retailer license with an M-designation or both an A-designation and an M-designation must include a sign at each entrance of the retail storefront that prohibits persons under twenty-one years of age from entering unless the person is at least eighteen years of age and is also in possession of a valid physician’s recommendation for medical cannabis.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalid or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance, or any other provisions of the City’s rules and regulations. It is the City’s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unenforceable.

O- ____
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The New Times, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.

INTRODUCED on the 6th day of May 2025, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2025, on the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: May 6, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Rachel Cohen, Principal Planner
VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM # 7b - INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 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
Staff received the following questions regarding the proposed amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan. The questions are below with staff’s response shown in italics:
1) The consultant identified “minimum commercial requirements for residential projects” as an option for addressing the fiscal impacts of the zoning change.

Is this a viable option that staff is supporting? Would this be determined on a project-by-project basis? Would it require an economic study at the time of the CUP application?
Yes, the Kosmont Study identified that minimum commercial requirements for proposed mixed-use projects could achieve fiscal neutrality. However, Kosmont also highlighted the disadvantages of a prescriptive minimum amount, since there are other options to achieve fiscal neutrality and a prescriptive approach could limit any new development (residential and/or commercial) in the AASP area, as a required amount of commercial space may render new development projects financially infeasible, and thus unable to proceed at all (Attachment E, Page 11). Based on these disadvantages, the proposed amendment does not require a minimum commercial square footage as part of the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Rather, staff is recommending that each project be evaluated on a project-by-project basis, allowing flexibility and the ability for the applicant to determine the right mix of uses that best suits the project’s goals and feasibility. For example, there are currently parcels within the AASP that contain existing commercial development that have capacity to add a certain number of residential units to the site (e.g. horizontal mixed-use) and meet the fiscal neutrality requirement. The CUP would require the applicant to provide an economic analysis that demonstrates how the project achieves fiscal neutrality whether that is through providing enough commercial space to offset the residential units or a mechanism where fees are collected from homeowners to provide public services (e.g. Community Facilities District (CFD)).

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: May 6, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Rachel Cohen, Principal Planner
VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM # 7b - INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 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
Staff received comments from the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce regarding the proposed amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan. Staff’s response to one of the comments is shown in italics below:
1) We would also recommend that the Conditional Use Permit process for the Airport Area Specific Plan follows the citywide threshold of 50 residential units or more. We would recommend that all projects under the 50-unit threshold should be subject to a Director's Approval.

A Use Permit is necessary to evaluate a proposed mixed-use project in the Airport Area Specific Plan as discussed in detail in the Council Agenda Report (packet page 288). However, alignment of the level of Use Permit review could be paired consistent with the City’s existing levels of Development Review provided in SLOMC Section 17.106.030. Therefore, instead of requiring a Conditional Use Permit (review required by the Planning Commission) for all mixed-use projects, an ordinance amendment could be made that requires mixed-use projects that contain 49 or fewer residential units and 10,000 square feet or less commercial space be processed through a Minor Use Permit. A Minor Use Permit is reviewed by a Hearing Officer at an Administrative Hearing, and is not required to go before the Planning Commission. This change would reduce the processing time and application cost for the applicant. A Conditional Use Permit would still be required for projects that contain 50 or more residential units and more than 10,000 square feet of commercial consistent with the level of Development Review required for this type of project.

ITEM # 7b - INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 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 Page 2
The proposed amendments could look like the following:

Land Use
Zoning District

PF C-S M BP
MIXED-USE (also see Footnote 9 & 10) D/PC D/PC
Footnote:

9. Per the Zoning Regulations, a Minor (Administrative) Use Permit (noted as D in Table 4-3) shall be applied to projects that qualify as a minor or moderate development review and a Conditional Use Permit (noted as PC in Table 4-3) shall be applied to projects that qualify as a major development review. In order to approve a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use development in the C-S and M zones, the Community Development Director or 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 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 consistent with the Climate Adaptation and Safety Element (CASE).

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 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 the subject property or properties.

Item 7b
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4006
For Agenda of: 5/6/2025
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner and Rachel Cohen, Principal Planner SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 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

RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce a Draft Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow mixed-use development in the Service Commercial (CS) and Manufacturing (M) zones subject to a conditional use permit where appropriate and consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan, including adoption of an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Area specific plans and related facilities master plans.”

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In 2005, the City adopted the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) in the southern part of the City surrounding the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The specific plan only included commercial and industrial type uses and development standards based on the regulations outlined in the 2002 San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport’s Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). In 2021, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) updated the ALUP and removed restrictions to residential development in specific airport safety zones. This update has provided the City an opportunity to consider mixed-use residential projects within the AASP.

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 Airport Land Use Plan.” In September 2023, the City received an application from a developer to initiate and implement this task and staff proceeded to evaluate how to allow mixed-use residential development within the AASP.

Item 7b
The most efficient way to allow for new residential development as part of a mixed-use project in the AASP was to process a specific plan amendment and require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on a case-by-case project basis. As such, staff is proposing to amend the AASP to allow mixed-use development within parcels that are currently zoned either Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M) and located within ALUP Safety Zone 6, subject to a CUP. As part of the CUP process, a project will be required to demonstrate that it has access to sufficient water and sewer capacity and infrastructure, is fiscally neutral, compatible with nearby uses, consistent with the ALUP, and that there is adequate emergency response. Each project would be subject to environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as applicable.

POLICY CONTEXT
The proposed amendments are intended to expand housing opportunities in the City by allowing mixed-use development in areas zoned Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M) within the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) consistent with the City’s General Plan, specifically the Housing and Land Use Elements, and the City’s Major City Goal of Housing and Homelessness. Table 1 below outlines the goals, policies, and programs that support the proposed amendments.

Table 1: Major City Goals and General Plan Policy Consistency 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 nonprofit 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. The proposed amendments
allowing mixed-use in the AASP directly
addresses this major city goal by creating
an additional area of the City that can
accommodate 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 amendments
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.

Item 7b
Goal/Policy/Program Consistency Analysis
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. Program 5.5 has already
been implemented in C-S and M zones
throughout the City, with the exception of
several specific plan areas, such as the
AASP. With the recent update of the
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), there is
now an opportunity to implement this
program in the AASP. However, a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be
required subject to specific findings due
to existing conditions in the AASP.

Program 6.13. Consider General Plan
amendments, as projects are proposed,
to rezone commercial, manufacturing, or
public facility zoned areas for higherdensity, infill or mixed-use housing, where compatible with surrounding
development…
Consistent. While Program 6.13
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 mixeduse 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.

DISCUSSION
Background and Project Description
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 outlines 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 the ALUP is to promote compatibility between airports and land uses that surround them. The 2002 ALUP included several safety zones and noise contours that

Item 7b
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 and 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 2 and Attachment C), and noise contour areas were narrowed and located closer to the runways (see Attachment D). 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 Figure 1: Map outlining the boundaries of the Airport Area Specific Plan

Item 7b
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will be required to evaluate existing conditions in the AASP such as water and sewer capacity and infrastructure, fiscal neutrality, compatibility with existing uses, consistency with the ALUP, and emergency response.

Project Location and Affected Parcels
The Project Area includes all property within ALUP Safety Zone 6 (the least restrictive Safety Zone) and designated as Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M) within the 1,200-acre AASP planning area. Figure 2 shows the location of C-S and M zoned areas within the AASP and their relationship with all the ALUP safety zones. Safety zones near the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport are designated areas with land use restrictions to minimize risks from potential aircraft accidents. They include six zones:

Runway Protection Zone (Zone 1), Inner and Outer Approach/Departure Zones (Zone 2 & 4), Inner Turning Zone (Zone 3), Sideline Zone (Zone 5), and Traffic Pattern Zone (Zone 6), each defined by proximity to the runway and typical aircraft operations. Safety Zone 6 is the area that is in pink on the map. Figure 3 highlights the C-S and M zoned areas that fall specifically within ALUP Safety Zone 6. It should be noted that C-S and M zoned areas that fall within Safety Zone 6, but outside the Airport Area Specific Plan, are already allowed by right to include housing within a mixed-use development per the Zoning Regulations.

A land use inventory was prepared to determine the amount of C-S or M zoned lands within the AASP. Table 2 below summarizes the total acreage of vacant and developed parcels in these two land use designations.

Table 2: 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, residential portions of a mixed-use development could be considered on the portion of any parcel wholly within Safety Zone 6, even if the remainder of the parcel is within a more restrictive safety zone.

Item 7b
Figure 3: This map shows the Airport Safety Zones overlaid on the parcels zoned C-S and M within the AASP. The pink colored areas indicate Safety Zone 6; red is Safety Zone 1; orange is Safety Zone 2; yellow is Safety Zone 3; light blue is Safety Zone 4; and light purple is Safety Zone 5. A larger map is provided as Attachment C.

Figure 2: Outlined in black are the areas of the AASP that are zoned C-S and M and fall within ALUP Safety Zone 6.

Item 7b
Fiscal Impacts Related to Future Development Under the Specific Plan Amendment When the AASP was annexed into the City, a tax sharing agreement between the City and County specified a formula for tax sharing that was determined by the zoning designations in effect at the time of annexation. As discussed above, 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. As a result, allowing housing in this area of town, has a different fiscal impact on the City than it does in other areas.

As part of this work program effort, the City hired consultant Kosmont to prepare a fiscal impact analysis to examine the effects of allowing mixed-use residential development within the C-S and M zones in the AASP based on this agreement (see Attachment E).

The analysis evaluated two development scenarios within the AASP to estimate net fiscal impacts from potential future development. The 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 mixeduse 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.

Development Scenarios, Assumptions, 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 (this is additionally evidenced in the lack of non-residential development over the last 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.

Item 7b
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.

Kosmont’s Recommendations
In order to support long-term fiscal solvency for the City General Fund while not overprescribing 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 Kosmont’s report recommends that the most feasible approach of the four is to implement a CFD. However, without a CFD, fiscal neutrality can also be achieved on a project-byproject basis, through the implementation of Homeowners Associations or similar mechanism where fees are collected from homeowners to provide public services or by providing sufficient commercial development to off-set the residential development. The proposed specific plan amendment responds to this analysis by conditioning approval of the CUP for any individual project on the requirement that the applicant offset any fiscal impact of the project to the City in order to ensure fiscal neutrality.

Conditional Use Permit Requirements
It is important to understand why a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will be required for mixed-use development within the AASP when one is not required for similar development in other areas of the City. As discussed previously, in 2020 the City updated the Zoning Regulations to allow mixed-use within Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones without a use permit (as directed by Housing Element Program

5.5), however the AASP was not considered as a part of this update. When the ALUP was updated, the City identified an opportunity for expanding residential mixed-use developments within the AASP. The most efficient way to unlock the potential for new residential development in this area of the City is to process this broad specific plan amendment, and require a CUP on a case-by-case basis as projects are proposed. The alternative would be to complete an extensive evaluation of the entire specific plan area that could take years and additional funding to complete.

In addition, the CUP allows for site-by-site analysis and the ability to condition a project based on that analysis. The AASP contains a mix of unique uses (e.g. industrial, airport operations, large business parks, etc.) that may or may not be compatible with residential development. Through the CUP process, the City can consider these adjacent uses and

Item 7b
condition future projects to ensure compatibility. In addition, because this area was annexed into the City from the County, the City has a tax sharing agreement with the County that is not the same as other areas of the City, which results in unique fiscal concerns (see fiscal analysis discussion above). Further, as this area was not previously envisioned for housing, public services and infrastructure must be studied to ensure that proposed developments can be supported. The CUP provides a mechanism to evaluate whether a proposed mixed-use development provides all the necessary elements for a compatible, fiscally neutral infrastructure, and City service supported development.

Lastly, the CUP process allows for flexibility in the design of future proposed projects to address the unique aspects of this area. For example, the City zoning regulations do not currently include a minimum amount of commercial area for a property to be considered mixed use. Instead of prescribing one-size-fits-all standards that may or may not work for property owners, the City is retaining flexibility, with an understanding that there are unique fiscal challenges in this area that would require a careful balance of housing and commercial development in projects as they are proposed. This balance can be ensured through review and approval of a CUP.

Per Chapter 17.106 of the City’s Zoning Regulations, new mixed-use projects will be subject to development review. In addition, most of the potential parcels are over five acres in size and would not be eligible for categorical exemption from CEQA. The CUP would be processed concurrently with the required development review and environmental review required for a new mixed-use project.

Overview of Proposed Amendment to the AASP
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, the residential portion of a mixed-use development would only be considered within ALUP Safety Zone 6, and none of the other Safety Zones.

No development would occur directly because 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 Regulations1 as they currently apply to C-S and M designated lands in the rest of the City.

Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-1098-2025 (Attachment B) includes the legislative draft of the proposed amendments to the AASP. The crucial aspect of these changes relates to the findings that would need to be made for the Planning Commission to approve a CUP for a mixed-use residential project within the AASP. These findings include:

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;

1 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.70.170.

Item 7b

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 consistent with the Climate Adaptation and Safety Element (CASE).

Future individual project applications would be reviewed by the City through its normal development and conditional use permit review processes and would be subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as applicable. Note, the magnitude and timing of mixed-use development on the AASP 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.

Previous Action and Public Engagement
Airport Land Use Commission – January 15 and February 19, 2025 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 the airport 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 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 (Attachment F).

A key ALUC condition limits 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 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 will not be required to be reviewed by the ALUC.

Planning Commission – February 26, 2025
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed specific plan amendments on February 26, 2025, which incorporated the recommendations of the ALUC. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments with a minor edit to the amendment to add the language “consistent with the Climate Adaptation and Safety Element (CASE)” to the end of the CUP Finding #5 for clarification (Attachment B). Public notice was provided for the Planning Commission meeting and the opportunity for public comment was provided during that meeting. No one commented at the Planning Commission meeting.

Item 7b
SLO Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee – April 3, 2025 City staff provided a presentation to the Economic Development Committee on the proposed amendments to the AASP and answered questions the committee had about the proposed changes.

Public notice of the City Council meeting has been published in a widely circulated local newspaper, and hearing agendas for this meeting have been posted at City Hall and online, consistent with adopted notification procedures.

CONCURRENCE
Planning Division Staff, as well as the City Attorney’s office, have reviewed the proposed amendments to the AASP and any feedback has been incorporated in the draft ordinance.

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 G. Pursuant to Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to an adopted Final EIR may be prepared by the Lead Agency that prepared the original Final EIR if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. An Addendum is appropriate to address the modified project because the proposed changes to the approved project do not meet the conditions of Section 15162(a) for preparation of a subsequent EIR.

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). That environmental document was used in part to inform some of the conclusions contained in the Addendum prepared for the proposed AASP amendment.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: 2024-25
Funding Identified: N/A

Item 7b
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $N/A $0 $0 $0
There are no fiscal impacts directly related to approval of the specific plan amendments.

No previously unanticipated fiscal impacts would occur as a result of this action. Please see the discussion above regarding fiscal impacts related to future development under the specific plan amendment.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt the proposed Ordinance with modifications. The City Council could propose modifications to the proposed ordinance including modifications to any of the findings or amendments.

2. Continue consideration of the proposed amendments. An action continuing the project should include direction for staff on pertinent issues that should be further studied or analyzed for future presentation to the Council, with consideration that the Council has provided direction to staff via Work Program Item #3.1.c. to “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.”

3. Deny the project. The City Council could decide not to adopt the attached Ordinance.

Amendments to the AASP are required to be made per Work Program Item #3.1.c. which supports Major City Goals and the City’s General Plan. Denying the proposed amendments would also provide a barrier to future housing production that will be required by the state. If Council pursues this option, they should provide findings that cite the basis for denial, which should reference inconsistency with Major City Goals, General Plan, or other relevant policy documents.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Ordinance adopting amendments to the AASP
B - Planning Commission Resolution PC-1098-2025
C - ALUP Safety Zones Overlaying the AASP
D - ALUP Noise Contours Overlaying the AASP
E - Fiscal Impact Analysis
F - Notice of Airport Land Use Commission Action
G -Addendum to Final EIR

O ______
ORDINANCE NO. ____ (2025 SERIES)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC

PLAN TO ALLOW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN 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, INCLUDING

ADOPTION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT FOR THE AIRPORT AREA AND MARGARITA

AREA SPECIFIC PLANS AND RELATED FACILITIES MASTER

PLANS, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 6, 2025 (SPEC-0457-
2023)
WHEREAS, it is a Major City Goal to address housing and homelessness by supporting the expansion of housing options for all, and continue to facilitate the production of housing; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements include numerous policies that support the development of additional housing to meet ongoing demand; and WHEREAS, the City has allowed for mixed-use development in Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones throughout the City except in 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 C-S and M zones in the AASP because of density and land use restrictions set forth in the 2002 San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) in effect at the time of the adoption of the AASP in 2005; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission updated the ALUP in 2021 in such a way that provides an opportunity for mixed-use residential development in the C-S and M zones 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 amendments to the AASP are consistent with the ALUP subject to findings and conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on February 26, 2025, and recommended adoption of amendments to the AASP to allow mixed-use development within specified areas of the Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones subject to a conditional use permit where appropriate and consistent with the ALUP; and

Ordinance No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 2
O ______
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on May 6, 2025, for the purpose of approving amendments to the AASP to allow mixeduse development within specified areas of 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
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence in the record, the Council 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.

The project is consistent with the certified Final Environmental 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

Ordinance No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 3
O ______
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 Airport Area Specific Plan is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 1—Introduction

the page.

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 2025, which allowed mixed-use development in Service Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit 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 3—Conservation and Resource Management

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.

Chapter 4—Land Use

The land use plan was developed to ensure compatibility with airport operations. The designated AASP land uses 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.

Ordinance No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 4
O ______

Use Program and Development Capacities) and all references to Table 4-1 in the entire text of the Specific Plan.

at the end of the table that refers to the development standards and findings for mixeduse development within the C-S and M zones as written below.

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 mixeduse 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 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 consistent with the Climate Adaptation and Safety Element (CASE).

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 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 the subject property or properties.

Ordinance No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 5
O ______

indicate a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5 for the C-S and M zones for mixeduse development as shown below.

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: mixeduse developmentn/a 1.5 1.5

(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

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.

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.

Residential landscape design standards also apply to mixed-use projects within the Service Commercial and Manufacturing land use categories.

Chapter 8—Public Facilities Financing

Ordinance No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 6
O ______

8.6.4 Fiscal Neutrality
In order to support long-term fiscal solvency for the City General Fund while not overprescribing 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

Consistent with required citywide procedures, commercial, industrial, institutional, mixeduse and residential developments will be subject to architectural review.

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).

SECTION 4. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any other provisions of the City’s rules and regulations. It is the City's express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unenforceable.

Ordinance No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 7
O ______
SECTION 5. Publication. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The New Times, a newspaper published and circulated in this City.

This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.

INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ______ 2025, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ___ day of ___, 2025, on the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on _______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. PC-1098- 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 created 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

Resolution No. PC-1098- 25
SPEC- 0457- 2023 ( Citywide)

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

Resolution No. PC-1098- 25
SPEC- 0457- 2023 ( Citywide)

Guidelines have occurred that require preparation of a subsequent EIR.

The project is consistent with the certified Final Environmental 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 mixeduse 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.

On motion by Vice Chair Houghton, seconded by Commissioner Munoz- Morris, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioners Munoz- Morris, Flores, Jorgensen, Vice Chair Houghton and Chair Cooley
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Kahn and Tolle
RECUSED: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 26th day of February 2025.

Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission

Resolution No. PC-1098- 25
SPEC- 0457- 2023 ( Citywide)

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

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 2025, which allowed mixed- use development in Service Commercial ( C-S) and Manufacturing M) zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit within the AASP.

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

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.

Resolution No. PC-1098- 25
SPEC- 0457- 2023 ( Citywide)

Chapter 4—Land Use

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.

Use Program and Development Capacities) as shown below and all references to Table 4-1 in the text of the Specific Plan.

9) at the end of the table that refers to the development standards and findings for

Resolution No. PC-1098- 25
SPEC- 0457- 2023 ( Citywide)

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 mixeduse 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 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 consistent with the Climate Adaptation and Safety Element ( CASE).

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 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 the subject property or properties.

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

Resolution No. PC-1098- 25
SPEC- 0457- 2023 ( Citywide)

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: mixeduse developmentn/a 1.5 1.5

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

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.

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.

Residential landscape design standards also apply to mixed- use projects within the Service Commercial and Manufacturing land use categories.

Chapter 6—Circulation & Transportation

Resolution No. PC-1098- 25
SPEC- 0457- 2023 ( Citywide)

No changes proposed.

Chapter 7—Utilities & Services
No changes proposed.

Chapter 8—Public Facilities Financing

8.6.4 Fiscal Neutrality
In order to support long-term fiscal solvency for the City General Fund while not overprescribing 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

Consistent with required citywide procedures, commercial, industrial, institutional, mixeduse 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.

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).

Tank Farm
South Higuera
Tank Farm
Industrial
Hoover
Fiero
Aero
Long
Granada
Suburban
Vachell
Buckley Buckley
Santa Fe
Aerovista
Poinsetti a
Clarion
M M
M
M
M

C-S C-S
C-S
C-S
M
M
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S

C-S C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S

C-S C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S

C-S C-S
C-S
M
M
C-S
C-S
C-S

C-S C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP)
Airport Safety Zones
µ
0 0.25 0.5 1 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

Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP)
Airport Noise Contours
SLOGIS
January 2025
Tank Farm
South Higuera
Tank Farm
Industrial
Hoover
Fiero
Aero
Long
Granada
Suburban
Vachell
Buckley Buckley
Santa Fe
Aerovista
Poinsetti a
Clarion
M M
M
M
M

C-S C-S C-S
C-S
M
M
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S

C-S C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S

C-S C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S

C-S C-S
C-S
M
M
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
C-S
0 0.5 1 2 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

2301 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4140
El Segundo, CA 90245TEL: 424-297-1070 | URL: www.kosmont.com

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (AASP)FISCAL IMPACT SCENARIO ANALYSIS AUGUST 2024

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 DUAffordable Housing 0 DU 230 DUHotel 0 rooms 218 roomsOffice 900,000 SF 30,000 SFCommercial / Retail 616,983 SF 158,976 SFIndustrial 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)

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 7

FISCAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES
• In order to support long-term fiscal solvency for the City General Fund while not over-prescribing nonresidential uses beyond market and financial feasibility, and while not relying solely on future nonresidential 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 County3. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

KOSMONT COMPANIES | 13
APPENDIX:

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SCENARIO DETAIL

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 $5,558,400Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $2,146,800 $7,273,200Estimated 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 DUAffordable Housing 0 DU 230 DUHotel 0 rooms 218 rooms Office 900,000 SF 30,000 SFCommercial / Retail 616,983 SF 158,976 SF Industrial 747,642 SF 95,000 SF
Notes:

Impacts at buildoutAssumes installation of necessary public infrastructureValues in 2024 dollars 8/13/2024 Page 1 of 13

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 $0Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $359,300 $785,800Property Transfer Tax $18,500 $40,500Sales Tax - General - Direct $1,388,200 $357,700Sales Tax - Measure G20 - Direct $2,082,300 $536,500Use Tax as % of Sales Tax - Direct $200,600 $51,700Sales Tax - Prop 172 as % of Sales Tax - Direct $30,500 $7,900Sales Tax - General - Indirect $128,700 $425,800Sales Tax - Measure G20 - Indirect $193,100 $638,700Use Tax as % of Sales Tax - Indirect $18,600 $61,500Sales Tax - Prop 172 as % of Sales Tax - Indirect $2,800 $9,400Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $946,900Utility Users Tax $184,000 $559,600Franchise Fees $59,700 $181,700Business Tax $473,500 $81,500Cannabis Tax $45,400 $138,000Police Revenue $19,100 $58,200Fire Revenue $49,400 $150,100Parks & Rec Revenue $0 $260,600Business Licenses $66,800 $11,500Other Revenue $31,600 $96,100SB1 Road Repair $0 $158,700Estimated Total Revenues $5,352,100 $5,558,400 City of San Luis Obispo General Fund Expenditures
Administration and IT $137,700 $418,800City Attorney $18,700 $57,000Finance & Non-Departmental $65,300 $198,500Human Resources $28,100 $85,500Fire $486,600 $1,480,100Police $707,200 $2,151,100Community Services Group Admin $12,200 $37,000Community Development $60,200 $183,100Parks and Recreation $0 $743,300Public Works $573,400 $1,744,000Solid Waste $10,900 $33,300Transfers Out $46,500 $141,500Estimated Total Expenditures $2,146,800 $7,273,200Estimated Annual Net Fiscal Impact $3,205,300 ($1,714,800) Revenue / Cost Ratio 2.49 0.76
Notes:Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructureValues in 2024 dollars 8/13/2024 Page 2 of 13

Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Project Description
Project Component LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Residential - Market Rate 2,650 DUAffordable Housing 230 DU Hotel 218 roomsOffice 900,000 SF 30,000 SFCommercial / 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 $76,300,000Estimated 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 $1,472,043,600Notes:

Values in 2024 dollars
8/13/2024 Page 3 of 13

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 DUAffordable Housing 0 DU 230 DUHotel 0 Rooms 218 RoomsOffice 900,000 SF 30,000 SFCommercial / 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 05
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 739Occupied 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 229Employees 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 sizeValues in 2024 dollars 8/13/2024 Page 4 of 13

Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Property Tax
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated Assessed Value - Residential $0 $1,311,552,000Estimated Assessed Value - Non-Residential $672,996,030 $160,491,600Total Estimated Assessed Value $672,996,030 $1,472,043,600Total Secured Property Tax General Levy 1.00% $6,729,960 $14,720,436Estimated Unsecured Property Tax as % of Secured Non-Residential Value 10.00% $672,996 $160,492Total Estimated Secured + Unsecured Property Tax $7,402,956 $14,880,928Distributions to Taxing EntitiesProperty Tax - City of San Luis Obispo (based on Property Tax Sharing Agreement) 0.00% $0 $0Net 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 levyValues in 2024 dollarsSource: San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller (2024) 8/13/2024 Page 5 of 13

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 $6,283,397Prop Tax In-Lieu of MVLF per $1M of AV $534 LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated Project Assessed Value $672,996,030 $1,472,043,600Net Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to City $359,300 $785,800 Notes:Values in 2024 dollarsSource: San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller, City Online Budget Portal (2024) 8/13/2024 Page 6 of 13

Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Property Transfer Tax
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated Assessed Value - For-Sale Residential $0 $0Estimated Property Turnover Rate 15.0% 15.0%Estimated Value of Property Transferred $0 $0Estimated Assessed Value - Other Land Uses $672,996,030 $1,472,043,600Estimated 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 $73,602,180Total 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 dollarsSource: San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller (2024) 8/13/2024 Page 7 of 13

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 SFPortion 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 $51,700Sales 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 percentagesValues in 2024 dollars. 8/13/2024 Page 8 of 13

Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Sales Tax - Indirect / Off-Site
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated # Employees 4,291 739Estimated Annual Taxable Retail Spending / Empl. Near Work $6,000 $6,000 Estimated Employee Taxable Retail Spending Within City $25,745,313 $4,432,240Estimated # 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 $82,970,125Estimated Capture within City 50.0% $0 $41,485,063 Estimated # Occupied Hotel Rooms 0 rooms 153 roomsEstimated Annual Taxable Retail Spending / Room $18,250 $18,250 Estimated Resident Taxable Retail Spending $0 $2,784,950Estimated Capture within City 50.0% $0 $1,392,475 Total Estimated Indirect Taxable Sales $25,745,313 $47,309,778Estimated 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 $638,700Use Tax as % of Sales Tax - Indirect 14.45% $18,600 $61,500Sales 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

Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT")
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated # Hotel Rooms 0 rooms 218 roomsAverage Daily Room Rate (ADR) $170 $170Average Occupancy Rate 70% 70%Annual Hotel Room Receipts $0 $9,468,830TOT to City 10.0% $0 $946,900 Notes:Values in 2024 dollars.
8/13/2024 Page 10 of 13

Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
City Service Population
City Population 48,684
City Employee Population 30,061Employee Weighting for Service Population 0.5Weighted # Employees 15,031Visitor 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

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% $226.80Police $22,607,072 Service Population 68,583 0% $329.63Community 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% $5.10Debt 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

Airport Area Specific Plan - Fiscal Impact Analysis
City Multipler Revenues and Expenditures
LUCE 2014
Market-Based
Blended Use
Estimated # Residents 0 6,134Estimated # Employees 4,291 739 Estimated # Visitors 0 229
Total Project Service Population 2,145 6,526Budget Category LUCE 2014 Market-Based
Blended Use
General Fund Revenues
Utility Users Tax $184,000 $559,600Franchise Fees $59,700 $181,700 Business Tax $473,500 $81,500Cannabis Tax $45,400 $138,000 Police Revenue $19,100 $58,200Fire Revenue $49,400 $150,100 Development Review N/A N/AParks & Rec Revenue $0 $260,600Business Licenses $66,800 $11,500Cannabis Fee Revenue N/A N/AOther Revenue $31,600 $96,100SB1 Road Repair $0 $158,700Grants and Subventions N/A N/AStorm Reimbursement N/A N/A Total Multiplier Revenues $929,500 $1,696,000
General Fund Expenditures
Administration and IT $137,700 $418,800City Attorney $18,700 $57,000Finance & Non-Departmental $65,300 $198,500 Human Resources $28,100 $85,500Fire $486,600 $1,480,100Police $707,200 $2,151,100Community Services Group Admin $12,200 $37,000Community Development $60,200 $183,100 Parks and Recreation $0 $743,300Public Works $573,400 $1,744,000Solid Waste $10,900 $33,300Debt Service N/A N/ACapital N/A N/ATransfers 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 taxValues in 2024 dollars.Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2023-2025 Financial Plan (2024-2025 Budget) 8/13/2024 Page 13 of 13

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Michael Cripe
Tim O’Keffee
Xandrea Fowler
Adam Verdin
Allen Settle
Erich Schaefer
Marc Dart
County of San Luis Obispo ▪ 976 Osos St., Rm 300 ▪ San Luis Obispo California 93408 ▪ (805) 781-5600 Email: [email protected] ▪ Fax (805) 781-1242 ▪ Website: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Planning February 24, 2025

NOTICE OF AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACTION
HEARING DATE: February 19, 2025
RECOMMENDATION TO: City of San Luis Obispo
1) SUBJECT: Hearing to consider a mandatory referral by the City of San Luis Obispo (CITY) for a determination of consistency 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).

Agency: City of San Luis Obispo
Project Manager: John Rickenbach
Recommendation: Consistent with the ALUP subject to conditions of consistency On February 19, 2025, the Airport Land Use Commission determined the above referenced project Consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, Airport Land Use Plan and referred it back to the City of San Luis Obispo, subject to the attached conditions of consistency.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 781-1006 or [email protected]
Sincerely,
Ysabel Eighmy
Ysabel Eighmy, Secretary
Airport Land Use Commission

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 N5 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 A4 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;

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.

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.

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)

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 (CS) 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

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.

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.

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.

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 mixeduse 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

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.

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 mixeduse 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

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 mixeduse 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.

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

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 longterm 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.

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.

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: May 6, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
PREPARED BY: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager
VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 7C - 7.c DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON TANK FARM

ROAD STRIPING MODIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE 2025 PAVING PROJECT (SPEC. NO. 2000616) FOR

CONSTRUCTION
Staff received the following questions regarding the 2025 Paving Project and Tank Farm Road Striping Modifications. The questions are listed below in bold with staff’s responses shown in italics:
1) Why is no left turn pocket proposed for the Tank Farm driveway entry into the Marigold Center? If the choice is Tank Farm Alternate #1 (Road Diet), could the road be restriped in the future to revert to Alternate #2 (No Road Diet)? Both of the current design concepts for Tank Farm Road retains the existing left turn lane into the Marigold Center driveways – both the primary customer access driveway and the delivery driveway just east of the primary driveway.

Tank Farm Alternative 1 (Road Diet) is currently designed so that conversion back to the existing five-lane road configuration could be done in the future. This would require removal of existing pavement markings, resealing of the roadway, and installation of new striping—costly roadway excavations would not be required. 2) Please address an ATC member’s concern about high vehicle speeds through the roundabout at Tank Farm & Righetti Ranch Road.

The current project designs include several measures to encourage slower speeds entering the roundabout at Tank Farm/Righetti Ranch, including radar speed feedback signs, roundabout warning signs with 15 mph advisory speed plaques and flashing yellow warning beacons on the eastbound/westbound approaches to the roundabout.

The proposed road diet west of Righetti Ranch in Alternative 1 and striping modifications east of Righetti Ranch, which narrow the traffic lane widths, are also intended to reduce vehicle speeds.

Item 7c – 2025 Paving Project and Tank Farm Road Striping Modifications Page 2 Transportation staff explored additional strategies using striping modifications and pavement markers (bots dots) within the roundabout itself to provide further channelization and deflection for vehicles traveling through the roundabout to reduce speeds further. Following staff’s review of these strategies with the City’s engineering design consultant for the striping on Tank Farm Road, it is expected that these measures would have limited effectiveness, and, as a result, they are not shown in detail in the current concept plans. With that said, staff could revisit these strategies again in guiding the final designs for Tank Farm Road and will continue to monitor speeds and driver behavior following the 2025 Paving Project to determine if future speed reduction measures are warranted.
3) Flex posts seem to be identified as optional, so is staff looking for Council direction on whether or not to include them? Does Tank Farm Alternative 1 allow for future potential of barrier-protected bike lanes? The Tank Farm Alternative 1 design does provide the physical space that would be needed to add future on-street protected bike lane barriers. However, the staff recommendation is not to add protected bike lane vertical elements, such as flex posts, at this time based on concerns that this could potentially narrow the roadway width and impede emergency response and evacuation efficiency during a large-scale emergency event. Furthermore, bike lane barriers are not included in the estimated cost of the project and additional funding would likely need to be identified upon award of the project. For example, flex post barriers would add an estimate of $50,000 to $75,000 to the project Base Bid cost. Currently, the estimated cost of the project’s Base Bid, plus soft costs, is equivalent to the available funding identified.

Protected bike lanes may still be feasible in the future; however, alternative design strategies would likely need to be explored that do not require physically narrowing the width of the roadway. For example, an elevated sidewalk-level protected bike lane or shared-use bicycle/pedestrian path could potentially constructed, but it would require removal of the landscaped parkway including street trees, and/or widening the sidewalk area along each side of Tank Farm Road without narrowing the curb-to-curb width. This concept would require further investigation to confirm feasibility and potential costs, and there is currently no budget for this concept included in the FY25/27 Financial Plan.
4) Why was Tank Farm built as a four-lane road on this section? Was there anticipated growth beyond what is currently shown in the land use map? It does appear that previous long-term traffic projections indicated a higher future volume on Tank Farm Road than current projections based on updated forecasts of build-out per the City’s adopted General Plan. For example, studies prepared for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (2007), projected future build-out volumes of approximately 27,000 average daily vehicle trips along Tank Farm Road between Broad Street and the UPRR Rail Bridge, where current projections for future build-out conditions project volumes of less than 20,000 vehicles per day on this road segment.

Item 7c – 2025 Paving Project and Tank Farm Road Striping Modifications Page 3 One potential reason for this change is that many of the large-scale subdivisions that have been approved in recent years (i.e. San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch, Froom Ranch Specific Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan) have seen final development plans that are less traffic-intensive than the land uses previous anticipated for these sites, with a higher concentration of residential and mixed-use development reflected in final land use plans, where larger commercial uses (i.e. big box retail, business park, etc.) were originally anticipated.
5) Several members of the public noted concerns about eastbound left-turns on Tank Farm into the Marigold Shopping Center. Please comment on the issue.

Can a “KEEP CLEAR” zone be established?
There are peak times of day when the westbound left-turn lane queues at the Broad/Tank Farm signalized intersection spill back towards the Marigold Shopping Center driveway within the center turn lane, which can impede the ability of eastbound vehicles attempting to enter the left-turn lane to enter the Marigold Center. During these instances, eastbound vehicles waiting to turn left into the Marigold Center Driveway can sometimes queue within the inside eastbound through traffic lane, requiring eastbound through traffic to merge into the second eastbound lane to bypass these queued vehicles. Some residents have commented that the proposed lane reductions included in Tank Farm Alternative 1 (Road Diet) would impede the ability for eastbound through traffic to continue to bypass queues during these periods.

Transportation staff is currently working on refinements to traffic signal timings at the Broad Street/Tank Farm intersection to reduce the westbound left turn queues from spilling back to the Marigold Center Driveway. These timing refinements will be implemented ahead of the 2025 Paving project, regardless of which design alternative is advanced for Tank Farm Road. As an additional precautionary measure, the proposed striping designs for the road diet alternative preserve sufficient clear width for eastbound vehicles going straight to continue to go around a queued vehicle when attempting to enter the turn lane for the Marigold Center Driveway.

Item 7c – 2025 Paving Project and Tank Farm Road Striping Modifications Page 4 The following alternative measures were evaluated to address this concern, but ultimately not recommended by staff as part of Alternative 1 (Road Diet):
a) Retain 2 Eastbound Lanes on Tank Farm East of Poinsettia: This option would retain two eastbound traffic lanes, as currently exist, east beyond the Marigold Center and Poinsettia intersection before merging down to a single eastbound lane. This option would preserve two eastbound traffic lanes through the Marigold Center Driveway but was not recommended in the current striping plans in order to prioritize pedestrian safety at the Tank Farm/Poinsettia intersection crossing – preserving two traffic lanes through the pedestrian crossing would likely decrease the rates of drivers yielding to pedestrians and may increase the risk or multiple threat collisions1.
b) Retain 2 Eastbound Lanes on Tank Farm, with the Outside Lane Becoming a Right-Turn Only “Trap Lane” at Poinsettia: This option would retain two eastbound traffic lanes past the Marigold Center Driveways, with the outside traffic lane becoming a right-turn only “trap” lane at Poinsettia. This option would preserve two lanes though the Marigold Center Driveways, but was not recommended in the current striping plans for the following reasons:
o Trap right-turn only lanes can be problematic when the vast majority of drivers intend to continue traveling straight through an intersection. This is because some drivers mistakenly realize they are in the right-turn only lane too late and make unsafe lane changes approaching the intersection to continue straight. Similarly, some drivers tend to continue straight from the right-turn only lane illegally in order to pass others. The current percentage of eastbound vehicles turning right at the Tank Farm/Poinsettia intersection is small (10%), with more than 85% continuing straight. Staff believes a right-turn only trap lane would likely result in undesirable driver behaviors.
o Where right-turn only lanes are provided on streets with striped bike lanes, state/federal design standards require that the bike lane either (a) merge to the left of the right-turn only lane, or (b) end ahead of the intersection, requiring cyclists to merge into and share the vehicle traffic lane. Either option is uncomfortable for many cyclists and not recommended with this project.

1 Multiple-threat collisions describe the scenario that can occur where an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing exists on streets with multiple traffic lanes in each direction. In these contexts, there is potential for the driver in one lane to stop to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk, impeding the visibility for drivers in the second traffic lane, who may continue through the intersection without stopping, increasing potential for vehicle vs. pedestrian collisions.

Item 7c – 2025 Paving Project and Tank Farm Road Striping Modifications Page 5 6) Please confirm if existing bike lanes on Sacramento are wider on one side of the street than the other, and if so, is it possible to make these widths the same and is there room for buffers?
Yes, currently, the bike lane on the west side (southbound direction) of Sacramento is generally wider than the bike lane on the east side (northbound direction) of the street. The total width of Sacramento Drive varies--the draft striping plans include the following typical cross section widths:
1) Basil Street south around roadway curve: While not part of the paving area, striping changes to this segment include 6’ bike lane, 1.5’ buffer, 10.5’ travel lane 2) Via Esteban to Capitolio: 6’ bike lanes, 10’ travel lanes. There is no width for bike buffers.
3) Capitolio to 3621 Sacramento: 6’ bike lanes, 10’ travel lanes, 8.5’-9’ parking on the west side only. There is no width for bike buffers.
4) 3621 Sacramento to Industrial Way: 5’ bike lane, 2’ buffer, 10’ travel lane, 10’ parking on west side only.

As noted above, the current plans propose to provide equal bike lane widths on the east and west sides of the street and add striped buffers where street width allows.

Note that staff considered narrowing the on-street parking lane on the west side of Sacramento to increase the available width for the bike lanes, but ultimately opted against this due to the frequency of large trucks using this parking lane and potentially encroaching into the adjacent bike lane.
7) Can you please compare traffic volumes on Tank Farm Road vs. other streets that have had road diets implemented recently?
The following table compares current vehicle traffic volumes on Tank Farm Road to other streets in San Luis Obispo where road diets (4/5-lane to 3-lane conversion) have been implemented.

Street Segment
Average
Daily Traffic
(ADT)
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) by Direction
Tank Farm Rd Broad to UPRR 10,979 EB 5,442; WB 5,537
UPRR to Orcutt 5,578 EB 2,855; WB 2,723
Johnson Ave Sydney to Laurel 11,446 NB 5,496; SB 5,950
Laurel Ln Southwood to Orcutt 11,116 NB 5,362; SB 5,754 South St Higuera to Broad 17,508 EB 8,948; WB 8560

Item 7c – 2025 Paving Project and Tank Farm Road Striping Modifications Page 6 8) Can you please provide more information on why the crosswalk at the Tank Farm/Poinsettia intersection is proposed to be relocated from the west side of the intersection to the east side?
There are several reasons behind the recommendation to shift the crosswalk to the east side of the Tank Farm/Poinsettia intersection:

1. There are significantly more northbound left-turns from the south leg of Poinsettia to Tank Farm than southbound left-turns from the north leg of Poinsettia to Tank Farm (10x more). Shifting the crosswalk to the east leg reduces conflicts between left-turning vehicles and pedestrians in the crosswalk. There was a severe injury collision involving a pedestrian in 2014 at this intersection due to a driver making the northbound left turn and failing to yield to a person in the crosswalk.

2. There is existing streetlighting at the southeast corner of the intersection, but none on the west side where the existing crosswalk is located. The current design proposal is to shift the crosswalk to the east leg and add a second streetlight at the northeast corner so that the full crosswalk width is well illuminated.

3. Shifting the crosswalk to the east leg of the intersection provides more distance for eastbound drivers to see the crossing conflict and yield to a pedestrian crossing the street. It is staff’s opinion that this adds value under the road diet alternative, as it allows drivers to first focus on the merge from 2 to 1 eastbound lanes, then focus their attention to the intersection conflicts ahead.

4. With the crossing on the east side, there is greater potential to reserve space for a median refuge than with the crossing on the west side.

Staff understands that this recommendation may add additional distance/exposure crossing Poinsettia Street if a pedestrian happens to be starting from the west side of the intersection. If they are approaching from the east side of Poinsettia (i.e. walking to Tank Farm from French Park), the proposed crossing on the east side may be more convenient or essentially the same as the current crosswalk location on the west side.

Ultimately, staff’s intent was to maximize visibility for pedestrians crossing Tank Farm itself and to try to reduce conflicts with left-turning vehicles turning from Poinsettia to Tank Farm, where previous collisions with pedestrians have occurred.

With all that said, staff can revise the design to retain the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection if that aligns with what the community and Council prefer.

Item 7c
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5010
For Agenda of: 5/6/2025
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager; Hai Nguyen, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON TANK FARM ROAD STRIPING MODIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE 2025
PAVING PROJECT (SPEC. NO. 2000616) FOR CONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive staff presentation, provide input and policy direction regarding roadway striping modifications for Tank Farm Road for implementation with the 2025 Paving Project designs; and

2. Authorize the City Engineer to approve final plans and specifications for the 2025 Paving Project, Specification No. 2000616, including incorporation of designs for Tank Farm Road pursuant to City Council direction, prior to advertising the project for construction; and

3. Authorize staff to advertise for bids for the 2025 Paving Project; and

4. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract for the 2025 Paving Project pursuant to Section 3.24.190 of the Municipal Code for the bid total, if the lowest responsible bid is within the publicly disclosed funding amount of $7,720,000;

5. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Authorizing Appropriation of Capital Projects Reserve Funds to Support the 2025 Paving Project, Specification Number 2000616”; and

6. Authorize the Finance Director to make the following appropriations and funding transfers to the 2025 Paving Project Account (2000616):
a. Appropriate $1,404,530 of Capital Outlay LRM funds from the FY24/25 Capital Reserve of the Capital Outlay Fund; and
b. Transfer $2,100,000 of Capital Outlay LRM funds from the Roadway Sealing 2024 Project Account (No. 2000615); and
c. Transfer $100,000 of Capital Outlay LRM funds from the Arterials 2023 Project Account (No. 2001065); and
d. Transfer $199,200 of Water funds from the Water Valve Cover Adjustments Account (No. 2001005); and
e. Transfer $76,800 of Sewer funds from the Sewer Valve Cover Adjustments Account (No. 2000084); and

7. Authorize the City Engineer to issue Contract Change Orders for the 2025 Paving Project up to and in excess of $200,000 if within available project budget, and up to any amended budget subsequently approved by the City Manager per City Purchasing Policy approval thresholds.

Item 7c

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Staff are requesting City Council authorization to advertise the 2025 Paving Project for construction. In accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Plan, the project includes reconstruction of existing pavement, along with additional improvements such as ADA curb ramp upgrades, replacement of roadway striping, and features that advance the City’s transportation safety and mobility goals.

To maximize potential project benefits while maintaining flexibility within the City’s financial constraints, the 2025 Paving Project will be advertised with a Base Bid and two Bid Additive Alternatives. The bid documents will specify that the City intends to award the Base Bid and as many Bid Additive Alternatives as can be funded within the available project budget. The contract is to be awarded based on the lowest base bid price received.

The project’s Base Bid includes:
 Roadway Reconstruction
a. Tank Farm Road (Broad Street to Wavertree)
b. Sacramento Drive (Industrial Way to Via Esteban)
 Roadway Striping Refresh (no paving work or other improvements) a. Broad Street (Orcutt Road to Tank Farm)
b. Santa Rosa & Mill Street Crosswalks
c. Madonna Road (US 101 Southbound Ramps to Higuera)
d. Prado Road (Higuera to Serra Meadows)
e. Tank Farm Road (Santa Fe to Broad Street)
The project’s Additive Alternatives include Roadway Reconstruction on:

A. Orcutt Road (Tank Farm Road to City/County Line)
B. Calle Joaquin (Motel 6 to City/County Line)
Typically, staff would include a recommendation for the Council to approve the final plans and specifications concurrently with authorization to advertise for construction. However, specific direction from the Council is needed to guide final design for the Tank Farm Road portion of the project. For this reason, staff is requesting that Council provide design direction for Tank Farm Road, and delegate authority to the City Engineer to approve the final project plans and specifications based on Council input, prior to advertising the project for construction.

After reviewing policy recommendations in the City’s General Plan, the ATP, the Draft Vision Zero Action Plan1, input from emergency service providers (including San Luis Obispo Fire Department or “SLO Fire”), and feedback from the City’s Active

1 The Final Vision Zero Action Plan is planned to be presented for City Council approval late summer/early fall of 2025.

Item 7c
Transportation Committee (ATC) and the community, staff is presenting the following design alternatives for Tank Farm Road (Broad Street to Wavertree Road) for Council consideration:
 Tank Farm Alternative 1 (Road Diet) – Proposes a five-lane to three-lane road diet on Tank Farm between Poinsettia Street and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) bridge.
o Benefits: Greater potential to reduce high vehicle speeds, increase separation between bicyclists/pedestrians and vehicles, and more effectively improve pedestrian crossing exposure. Includes the addition of a new enhanced crosswalk at the Tank Farm/Morning Glory/Sunrose intersection.
o Disadvantages: Potential for some increases in driver delay above existing conditions (though not expected to trigger policy or level of service deficiencies), less familiarity for existing road users, and reduced flexibility for future growth or emergency evacuation needs (though not considered a substantive impediment to evacuation by SLO Fire).
 Tank Farm Alternative 2 (No Road Diet) – Maintains the existing five-auto-lane configuration on Tank Farm between Broad Street and the UPRR bridge. o Benefits: No change in road configuration, vehicle delays, or driver experience; retains excess road capacity for future growth and emergency evacuations.
o Disadvantages: Limited potential to reduce high vehicle speeds, less separation between vehicles and bicycles/pedestrians, and minimal improvement to pedestrian crossing safety. A new crosswalk at Tank Farm/Morning Glory/Sunrose would not be recommended under this alternative.

The differences between these alternatives are limited to the western segment of Tank Farm, between Broad Street and the UPRR bridge. To the east of the UPRR Bridge, both designs are identical and include the addition of striped bike lane buffers, radar speed feedback signs, and pedestrian crossing improvements at the Tank Farm/Righetti Ranch Road roundabout but otherwise retain the existing road configuration.

Neither of these alternatives include installation of protected bike lanes on Tank Farm.

While protected bike lanes are recommended in the ATP, were explored in preliminary concept designs for this project, and are supported by the ATC, staff does not recommend installation of protected bike lanes on Tank Farm at this time based on detailed design review between Public Works and SLO Fire staff, with consideration given to emergency vehicle access and potential evacuation needs, as guided by recent updates to the Cal Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. See additional discussion later in this report.

As discussed in the Fiscal Impact section of this report, a portion of the funding needed to construct the 2025 Paving Project is expected to be appropriated in Fiscal Year 2025-

Item 7c

26. This funding will be identified in the forthcoming 2025-27 Financial Plan, with construction initiation contingent on approval of the Financial Plan and availability of the 2025-26 funding after July 1, 2025. In addition, staff is recommending that Council authorize the Finance Director appropriate approximately $1.4 million from the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Projects Reserve Fund to support project construction. A draft resolution supporting this appropriation is provided as Attachment A.

Project construction is slated to begin in late summer/early fall 2025. If the above-listed staff recommendations are approved, the anticipated schedule moving forward would be as follows:
i. Council Direction on Tank Farm Road & Authorization to Advertise – May 6, 2025 ii. Project Advertisement (following City Engineer Approval of Plans) – June 2025 iii. Project Bid Opening & Contract Award – July 2025
iv. Start of Construction – Late August/Early September 2025 v. Construction Completion – December 2025

POLICY CONTEXT
The 2025 Paving Project directly supports several key City plans, policies, and goals. The project supports the ongoing maintenance of City streets outlined in the Pavement Management Plan. Proposed improvements on Tank Farm Road and Sacramento Drive support several of the recommendations of the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and the City’s adopted Vision Zero Goal to eliminate severe injury and fatal traffic collisions (Resolution No. 10746 (2016 Series)). The active transportation components of the project also support efforts to achieve the General Plan mode share targets, recommendations of the City’s Climate Action Plan, the current Sustainable Transportation and Climate Action Major City Goal, and the FY 2025-2027 Infrastructure and Sustainable Transportation Major City Goal.

General Plan Circulation Element Policy 8.1.4(b) and Safety Element Program OP-7.15 are also relevant to this item, as these policies require that the City ensure traffic management projects accommodate emergency response needs and that the City evaluate emergency response and evacuation needs in high-risk hazard areas, including areas near Fire Very High Hazard Severity Zones.

In June 2021, the City Council established the Fund Balance and Reserve Policy (Resolution No 11250, 2021 Series). This policy established the Capital Projects Reserve Fund and committed a reserve of 20% of capital improvement plan budget from the Local Revenue Measure for the purposes of offsetting unanticipated cost increases, unforeseen conditions, and urgent unanticipated projects to provide continued investment in infrastructure maintenance and enhancement. The Capital Projects Reserve funding is requested to fund the project’s construction costs.

DISCUSSION

Item 7c
Background
Per the City’s Pavement Maintenance Plan, roadway pavement maintenance projects are implemented each year, generally alternating each year between work within local neighborhood areas and pavement repairs on major arterial streets. Pavement maintenance projects often involve complete removal and replacement of roadway striping and pavement markings, which provides ideal opportunities to incorporate planned safety and complete street2improvements as part of these larger roadway maintenance efforts.
2025 Paving Project
The 2025 Paving Project is structured with a Base Bid and two Additive Alternatives, A and B, to maximize the scope of work within available funding. The project plans and Special Provisions are provided as Attachment B and C of this report. The project’s Base Bid includes pavement maintenance work, striping, curb ramp improvements and complete street features on Tank Farm Road and Sacramento Drive, as well as refreshment of roadway markings on several streets where existing markings are badly faded and beyond what City maintenance staff can restore. Base Bid components include:
 Roadway Reconstruction
a. Tank Farm Road (Broad Street to Wavertree)
b. Sacramento Drive (Industrial Way to Via Esteban)
 Roadway Striping Refresh (no paving work or other improvements) a. Broad Street (Orcutt Road to Tank Farm)
b. Santa Rosa & Mill Street Crosswalks
c. Madonna Road (US 101 Southbound Ramps to Higuera)
d. Prado Road (Higuera to Serra Meadows)
e. Tank Farm Road (Santa Fe to Broad Street)
The project’s Additive Alternatives include Roadway Reconstruction on:
 Additive Alternate A - Orcutt Road (Tank Farm Road to City/County Line)  Additive Alternate B - Calle Joaquin (Motel 6 to City/County Line) Figure 1 below shows the locations identifies in the 2025 Paving Project for roadway reconstruction. Areas identified to receive striping refresh only are not shown.

2 A complete street is a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, trucks, and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility. In California, per the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly Bill 1358), all cities and counties are required to include complete streets policies as part of the circulation element of general plans.

Item 7c
Figure 1: 2025 Paving Project Map
Pavement Reconstruction and Maintenance Methodology
A pavement analysis conducted in December 2024 confirmed that existing pavement surfaces on Tank Farm, Orcutt, Sacramento, and Calle Joaquin are all structurally deficient and unable to support the current and projected traffic loads. Many sections of these roadways exhibit moderate to severe cracking, rutting in the wheel paths, and potholes, indicating they are nearing the end of their useful life. The pavement management treatments that are proposed to be implemented with this project are Full Depth Hot Mix Asphalt Reconstruction and Full Depth Reclamation.

Item 7c
Full Depth Hot Mix Asphalt Reconstruction
Full-depth Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) reconstruction is recommended for Orcutt, Sacramento, and Calle Joaquin to restore the roadway to a like-new condition. This process involves milling or grinding the existing pavement to a depth that matches the new asphalt section, creating a smooth and even base for repaving. In some areas, both the surface and base layers may be removed to reach the necessary depth for the new pavement. The reconstructed section is designed to provide long-term durability and support expected traffic loads. Once milling is complete, a fresh layer of asphalt will be placed, resulting in a smooth roadway surface.

Full Depth Reclamation
Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) is a more comprehensive pavement rehabilitation method that addresses both the surface and base layers of a roadway. This process involves grinding up the existing pavement and mixing it with the underlying base soil to create a stronger, more stable foundation. By recycling the existing materials in place, FDR not only corrects structural deficiencies but also offers significant cost and environmental benefits by reducing the need to haul away old pavement.

One of the key advantages of FDR is the improved strength of the reconstructed base, which allows for a thinner layer of new, high-quality asphalt on the surface. This can result in substantial cost savings—up to $1 million—by reducing the asphalt section from 14 inches (as required with Full Depth HMA reconstruction) to 8.5 inches.

FDR is recommended for Tank Farm Road due to its wider roadway width, which allows for phased construction that helps minimize traffic disruptions. In preparation, staff completed subsurface investigations and confirmed that there are no shallow utilities that would interfere with the pulverization depth.

However, FDR is not suitable for all roadway conditions. It is not being considered for Orcutt, Sacramento, and Calle Joaquin due to site-specific constraints. On Sacramento, for example, the roadway is too narrow to accommodate phased construction, and the shallow depth of utility laterals conflicts with the required pulverization depth. In these cases, mill and fill is the more practical and cost-effective approach.

Construction Phase Impacts and Mitigations
While Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) is a highly effective and cost-efficient method for rehabilitating pavements, it is important to recognize the potential challenges that can arise. The most notable concern is the curing time needed for the treated base layer before installing new asphalt, which can extend the project timeline and increase inconveniences during construction. The length of this curing time can vary based on the stabilizing agent used, environmental conditions, and the mix design. For instance, cement stabilization typically requires anywhere from 7 to 28 days to achieve full strength, depending on factors such as moisture, temperature, and the mix proportions. In colder conditions, this curing process may take even longer, further extending project timelines.

This project is expected to be constructed in late summer / early fall, and the warmer temperatures are expected to help reduce curing timeframes.

Item 7c
To mitigate the impact on road users during construction, the FDR paving on Tank Farm is proposed to be completed in two phases. During Phase 1, half of the roadway will remain open to traffic on the existing asphalt pavement, allowing for uninterrupted twoway traffic flow, while the other half undergoes FDR treatment. In Phase 2, work will shift to the other half of the roadway, where the asphalt will be pulverized, treated, and paved, with traffic shifting to the side that received the FDR treatment in Phase 1. This phased approach ensures that two-way traffic can continue on at least one side while necessary pavement rehabilitation is carried out on the other side. However, temporary disruptions or lane reductions may occur during the reclamation and curing process. Construction will be phased so that traffic is limited on the treated FDR base to the maximum extent possible, with the goal of ensuring that traffic only drives on either the existing HMA or the new HMA.

Another factor to be aware of with FDR paving is that a greater amount of dust is often produced during pavement reconstruction during the curing phase of the treated base, especially when lime or other stabilization agents are applied, which can pose concerns for the public. To mitigate these concerns, the City will ensure that the paving contractor implements effective dust control measures during this period to reduce impacts to the community and preserve environmental quality and safety within the vicinity of the construction site. Contractors will be required to submit a Construction Phasing Plan and a Dust Control Plan prior to the start of construction. These plans will outline specific strategies for dust suppression, such as regular watering, the use of dust suppressants, and the installation of physical barriers. By carefully planning and implementing these mitigation measures, the potential impact of dust exposure can be minimized, ensuring the safety and success of the project while minimizing disruptions to the surrounding community.

Complete Street Design Elements
The 2025 Paving Project includes complete street enhancements for several streets, which are intended to improve mobility and safety for all road users, as guided by the City’s ATP and Draft Vision Zero Action Plan.

In addition to roadway maintenance and striping improvements, this project will include pedestrian curb ramp upgrades at 19 locations on Tank Farm Road, eight (8) locations on Sacramento, and one (1) curb ramp on Orcutt Road to improve accessibility and comply with current ADA requirements.

Calle Joaquin (Motel 6 to City/County Line)
There are no relevant recommendations in the ATP or notable safety concerns for the segment of Calle Joaquin. Improvements primarily include pavement rehabilitation, restriping, and replacing faded traffic signs and object markers. The only notable change from existing conditions is the addition of striped edge lines for added visibility at night, as there is little streetlighting on this segment of Calle Joaquin.

Item 7c
Example of Increased Nighttime Visibility with Addition of Edge Lines Sacramento Drive (Industrial Way to Via Esteban)
Sacramento Drive is designated as a commercial collector and serves both residential and light industrial uses, including a high level of commercial delivery trucks. The City’s ATP calls for retaining the existing striped bike lanes on Sacramento, and exploring potential for a future pedestrian crossing improvement, such as addition of an all-way stop at Sacramento/Capitolio, which is identified as a Tier 3 (lowest priority) project per the ATP. Public comments received regarding Sacramento Drive in recent years include the following:

1. Concerns with poor pavement condition, particularly within the bike lanes.

2. General complaints regarding high speeds and illegal speeding, including from larger commercial trucks that frequent Sacramento Drive.

3. Concerns with large, parked vehicles/trucks encroaching into southbound bike lane.

4. Concerns with high vehicle speeds and encroachment into the bike lane along the curve in the road north of the paving project limits (note that two community members traveling on foot were tragically killed by a reckless driver along this curve in November 2022).

To address these concerns, the following design elements are proposed as part of the 2025 Paving project for Sacramento Drive in addition to pavement reconstruction and ADA curb ramp upgrades:

1. While outside of the paving project limits, plans include sign/striping modifications along the roadway curve north of Via Esteban to reduce illegal speeds and vehicle encroachment into the bike lane. Measures include additional curve warning signage with flashing yellow beacons, addition of striped bikeway buffers, centerline and bike lane line hardening (ceramic “bots dots” pavement markers installed along yellow centerline and bike lane edge stripes) to discourage vehicles encroaching into adjacent lanes.

Item 7c

2. Installation of radar speed feedback signs and additional speed limit signs. (Note that the speed limit was recently reduced from 35 to 30 mph from Capitolio to Industrial and is currently posted at 25 mph north of Capitolio).

3. Addition of green bike lane conflict markings at intersections and high-traffic driveways.

4. Striping refinement to narrow auto lane widths (within City Engineering Standards), widen parking lane width next to the southbound bike lane, added width to northbound bike lane, and addition of striped bike lane buffers, where width allows.

5. Moderate expansion of parking restrictions at intersection corners (“daylighting”) to improve sight distance and safety for all road users pursuant to state law and City Engineering Standards.

Example of Ceramic Pavement Markers to Reduce Vehicle Departure from Traffic Lanes Consideration for New Pedestrian Crossing or All-Way Stop at Sacramento/Capitolio Staff evaluated the intersection of Sacramento/Capitolio for addition of all-way stop signs, as suggested in the ATP and requested by some community members. However, based on review of traffic volumes, collision history, and site conditions, the intersection does not currently meet the thresholds or “warrants” that need to be satisfied per state engineering standards to legally install an all-way stop. Staff will continue to monitor potential for this modification in the future at this intersection.

A planning application is currently under review for a potential private school to be located on Sacramento Drive west of the intersection with Via Esteban. Potential for a new pedestrian crossing is being evaluated as part of this private development project, and if warranted, a new pedestrian crossing would be implemented on Sacramento as a condition of approval of the development with proper features to improve pedestrian access and safety.

Further Traffic Calming Considerations on Sacramento
Staff initially considered installing speed cushions on Sacramento Drive as part of the 2025 Paving Project as an additional measure to reduce illegal speeding beyond the other features proposed with the current project designs (radar speed signs and additional

Item 7c
speed limit signage). However, staff is recommending that additional physical traffic calming be considered as part of a planned future speed cushion pilot program instead.

Staff is planning to implement a pilot program to test the effectiveness and ideal configuration of speed cushions on streets with higher frequency of emergency vehicles, buses or heavy truck activity—streets that would otherwise not be candidates for speed humps or other vertical traffic calming options.

Speed cushions are like speed humps, but include cutouts that allow large-axle vehicles, such as fire trucks, ambulances, and buses, to bypass the humps without slowing significantly or risking vehicle damage. The pilot program proposes the use of temporary bolt-down rubber speed cushions to allow staff to test various configurations in coordination with emergency service providers and transit operators to ensure they can be used effectively before installing using permanent materials. The speed cushion pilot program is planned to be implemented during the 2025-27 work program, if sufficient funding is provided to the Neighborhood Traffic Management and/or Vision Zero capital improvement project accounts in the upcoming Financial Plan.

Example of Speed Cushion (Future Consideration for Sacramento Dr) Orcutt Road (Tank Farm Rd to City/County Line)
Proposed improvements for this roadway primarily include pavement rehabilitation, upgrades to one curb ramp, and replacing existing striping. The ATC did comment on a portion of this roadway that has experienced recent issues with flooding and sediment collection within the bike lane. Staff has identified some significant erosion adjacent to the edge of the roadway along Orcutt Road, which will be remedied as part of this project through grading and soil compaction along the roadway shoulder for improved drainage.

Striping Refreshment on Various Streets
There are several roadways not planned for resurfacing in the near term where existing pavement markings have deteriorated significantly and beyond what City maintenance staff can repair. These locations have been added to the 2025 Paving Project to refresh

Item 7c
pavement markings only, taking advantage of improved pricing and efficiency of adding this work to a larger paving project. No pavement repairs or other improvements are proposed for these streets. These locations include:
 Broad Street (Orcutt Road to Tank Farm)
 Santa Rosa & Mill Street Crosswalks
 Madonna Road (US 101 Southbound Ramps to Higuera)
 Prado Road (Higuera to Serra Meadows)
 Tank Farm Road (Santa Fe to Broad Street)
Tank Farm Road - Existing Conditions & Policy Context
Currently, Tank Farm Road has five traffic lanes (two lanes in each direction plus a center median/turn lane) east of Broad Street, before narrowing to three lanes (one lane in each direction plus center median/turn lane) east of the UPRR bridge. Typical street cross sections are illustrated below for reference (note that specific dimensions may vary slightly along these segments compared to illustrative cross section drawings).

Figure 2: Existing Tank Farm Road (Broad to UPRR Bridge) Figure 3: Existing Tank Farm Road (Righetti Ranch to Orcutt) The ATP identifies Tank Farm Road as a Tier 1 (highest priority) active transportation corridor, with recommendations to pursue protected bike lanes and pedestrian crossing improvements. The ATP notes that potential auto lane reductions (a “road diet”) should be evaluated to accommodate these improvements, pending further feasibility study. Note that the ATP also encourages development of lower-stress active transportation routes parallel to high traffic volume/speed arterial streets such as Tank Farm, where feasible; however, there are no viable parallel routes existing or planned along this segment of Tank Farm Road.

Item 7c
Attachment D includes relevant excerpts from the ATP for this segment of Tank Farm Road for reference.

While this segment of Tank Farm Road does not have sufficient collision history to be designated as part of the City’s High Injury Network3, Tank Farm between Broad Street and Righetti Ranch Road is ranked in the Draft Vision Zero Action Plan as having the 11th highest crash rate among city arterial streets, with 15 total collisions and one severe injury collision in the past five years (2019-2023). The most recent severe injury collision involved a pedestrian hit by a vehicle when crossing Tank Farm near the Sunrose/Morning Glory intersection. There was also a severe injury collision involving a pedestrian hit by a vehicle when crossing Tank Farm at Poinsettia in 2014.

City staff receives regular comments from community members regarding the following concerns on Tank Farm Road east of Broad Street:

1. General concerns about unsafe/illegal speeding, including requests to lower posted speed limits and add traffic calming (current speed limits are posted as low as legally allowed per the California Vehicle Code).4

2. Concerns about difficulty making left turns from side street intersections due to high vehicle speeds on Tank Farm.

3. Concerns with vehicles failing to yield to pedestrians at existing marked crosswalks on Tank Farm at Poinsettia and at the Righetti Ranch Road roundabout.

4. Requests for the addition of an enhanced pedestrian crossing on Tank Farm between Poinsettia and Righetti Ranch Road.

Many of these sentiments are echoed in the public comments received in the City’s Online Vision Zero Community Input Map.

Considering the history of public concerns, the policy recommendations of the ATP, and data included in the City’s Draft Vision Zero Action Plan regarding collision risk on highspeed, multi-lane arterial streets, staff is recommending that multimodal improvements be considered along Tank Farm Road as part of the 2025 paving project, where appropriate and as funding allows.

SLO Fire Review and Input on Tank Farm Road Design Options Preliminary striping plans for the 2025 Paving Project were reviewed with the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLO Fire) to ensure that designs are consistent with applicable local and state fire codes and do not present any concerning impediments to emergency response. Tank Farm Road was a primary focus of this review among the streets included

3 The High Injury Network describes the 10% of city road miles where the majority (75%) of fatal and severe injuries occur. See the City’s Traffic Safety webpage and Draft Vision Zero Action Plan for additional details. 4 Posted speed limits on Tank Farm currently range from 35 mph (Broad to Righetti Ranch) to 45 mph (Righetti Ranch to Orcutt), while prevailing speeds range from 42 mph to 45 mph. Where referenced herein, “prevailing speeds” refers to the 85th percentile speed, a commonly used traffic engineering measurement which represents the threshold at which 85 of 100 vehicles are traveling at or below this speed. The California Vehicle Code generally requires speed limits to be set at or near the 85th percentile speed.

Item 7c
in the 2025 Paving Project, as Tank Farm serves as a major east-west arterial, a primary emergency response route, and as a likely evacuation route in the case of a wildfire encroaching from the hills east of the City Limits.

Public Works and SLO Fire staff reviewed potential striping design alternatives for Tank Farm that include features contemplated in the ATP and Draft Vision Zero Action Plan, such as (a) a potential five-lane to three-lane road diet between Poinsettia and the UPRR Bridge, (b) narrower traffic lane widths, (c) addition of protected bike lanes per the ATP, and (d) potential addition of enhanced pedestrian crossing features. SLO Fire provided the following recommendations to guide final designs:

1. Recommend retaining traffic lane widths >10 feet for greater fire truck clearance, with 11’ as a preferred lane width. Where width is constrained, prioritize width in center turn lane, which may be used to bypass other traffic in an emergency event.

2. Recommend omitting any vertical protected bike lane features, providing greater flexibility for vehicles to pull to the curbside to clear space for emergency vehicles or during an evacuation event. If vertical elements are recommended by the City Council, omit vertical objects within 30’ on either side of any fire hydrants and locate features to maximize roadway clearances.

3. Ensure the most restrictive City Fire Truck can navigate turning movements to/from all driveways and intersections with any street design changes.

4. Pedestrian Refuge Medians – While acknowledging the potential safety benefits of adding raised median refuges at pedestrian crossings5, there is concern that adding this vertical obstruction in the roadway could impede emergency response and/or evacuation needs without sufficient clearance on either side of the median.

If two westbound traffic lanes can be retained and a minimum of 20’ clearance can be provided in the eastbound direction, SLO Fire would be supportive of adding potential refuge islands at pedestrian crossings, pending review of the final design details. (More discussion on this later in the report)
Emergency Evacuation Considerations with Potential Road Diet Public Works and City Fire Department staff specifically discussed potential effects that street design changes may pose to evacuation needs in the instance of a large-scale emergency event in the vicinity of Tank Farm Road. The City has not designated formal evacuation routes, as evacuation needs are generally incident-specific. However, evacuation needs are an important consideration when evaluating street design modifications, particularly on arterial streets and primary emergency response routes.

While there is no recent history of evacuations in the vicinity of Tank Farm Road and no properties that directly access Tank Farm are currently located within High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, there are properties in the Moderate Severity Zones and areas east of Orcutt Road outside of the City Limit that are identified in the recently updated Cal Fire Hazard maps as High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (see map below).

5 Per the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), adding a median pedestrian refuge island to an existing uncontrolled marked crosswalk reduces vehicle vs. pedestrian collisions by 46% on average.

Item 7c
Figure 4: Cal Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map (Updated March 2025) Traffic congestion during large-scale evacuations tends to occur in areas that already experience heavy traffic during peak periods. In urban street environments, like Tank Farm Road, this is typically at intersections with traffic signals that also provide access to primary regional routes and highways. In the instance of a potential large-scale evacuation along Tank Farm Road, the primary evacuation direction will likely be westbound on Tank Farm Road, and the signalized intersection at Tank Farm and Broad Street (State Route 227) will likely be the primary bottleneck point. No changes are proposed to this intersection as part of the paving project that would reduce traffic capacity compared to existing conditions.

Based on SLO Fire’s review, neither of the two proposed alternatives to the specific segment of Tank Farm Road where street design changes are contemplated pose significant concerns to the ability of the neighborhood to evacuate.

Whether or not any lane capacity changes are pursued with the 2025 Paving Project, Public Works and SLO Fire staff concur that there is value in developing pre-programmed traffic signal timing plans along city arterial corridors, such as Tank Farm, which could be deployed quickly during an emergency evacuation to prioritize traffic movement away from the incident location. Public Works staff plans to develop these signal timing plans as staffing resources allow.

Tank Farm Road Design Alternatives
Considering the recommendations of the ATP, Draft Vision Zero Action Plan, community input, and feedback from emergency service representatives, two striping design concepts are presented for Tank Farm Road for Council consideration. The alternatives are intended to advance the City’s transportation safety and mobility goals to the extent feasible, while also accommodating the needs of emergency services.

Tank Farm Rd
Tank Farm Striping
Design Focus Area

Item 7c
 Alternative 1 (Road Diet) – Proposes a five-lane to three-lane road diet on Tank Farm between Poinsettia Street and UPRR bridge, with additional striped buffered bike lanes and pedestrian crossing improvements at several intersections.  Alternative 2 (No Road Diet) – Maintains the existing five-auto-lane configuration on Tank Farm between Broad Street and the UPRR bridge. This alternative provides an option that prioritizes retaining the existing roadway configuration and traffic capacity to minimize traffic delays, including in the case of a potential largescale emergency evacuation.

Pavement reconstruction and ADA curb ramp upgrades are included under both alternatives and designs east of the UPRR bridge are the same for both design options.

Note that both alternatives omit any vertical bikeway separation to preserve roadway clearance and efficiency for emergency vehicle access and evacuation needs. See discussion later in this report for consistency with Active Transportation Committee (ATC) recommendations and ATP policy considerations.

Tank Farm Striping Alternative 1 (Road Diet)
Design features include:

1. Five-lane to three-lane road diet between Poinsettia and the UPRR bridge, retaining five auto lanes between Broad and Poinsettia near the Marigold Shopping Center.

2. Installation of radar speed feedback signs and additional speed limits signs to encourage lower auto speeds.

3. Pedestrian safety improvements at Tank Farm/Poinsettia, including relocation of crosswalk and existing rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) to east leg of intersection for improved visibility and reduce conflicts with turning traffic. Highvisibility crosswalk markings, new streetlighting, advanced warning markings/signage, and striped corner bulbouts to reduce pedestrian crossing distance are also proposed.

4. Addition of a new pedestrian crossing at the Tank Farm/Morning Glory/Sunrose intersection, including hi-visibility crosswalks, new streetlighting, RRFBs, advanced warning markings/signage, and striped corner bulbouts to reduce pedestrian crossing distance are also proposed.

5. Addition of RRFB beacons at the Righetti Ranch Roundabout for crosswalks crossing Tank Farm Road, improving visibility for pedestrians. (Note that vegetation trimming is also scheduled prior to the paving project to improve visibility at this intersection)

6. Striping modifications to the westbound approach of the Tank Farm/Broad Street intersection to convert the existing westbound right-turn lane to a combined through/right-turn lane (reduces vehicle congestion/delays and eliminates need for westbound cyclists to merge across high-speed/volume right turn lane).

7. Addition of green bike lane conflict markings at intersections and high-traffic driveways.

Item 7c
Figure 5: Alternative 1 - Tank Farm Road Proposed Road Diet Limits Figure 6: Alternative 1 Proposed Tank Farm Road (Broad to Poinsettia) Example Image of Radar
Speed Feedback Sign
Example Image Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)

Item 7c
Figure 7: Alternative 1 Proposed Tank Farm Road (Poinsettia to UPRR Bridge) Figure 8: Alternative 1 Proposed Tank Farm Road (Righetti Ranch to Orcutt) Attachment E shows preliminary striping plans for Tank Farm Road Alternative 1.

Feasibility of Road Diet Proposed with Alternative 1
A traffic operations study was prepared by an outside transportation engineering firm, Kimley Horn, for the road diet proposed in Alternative 1. The analysis evaluates motor vehicle congestion and delays along the segment of Tank Farm Road where lane reductions are proposed (Poinsettia to UPRR bridge), considering both existing and future (Year 20406) traffic conditions. The conclusions of the traffic analysis report are summarized as follows:
 The existing (2024) and projected future (2040) traffic volumes on Tank Farm Road are well within the volume thresholds suggested for a viable five-lane to three-lane road diet (see Figure 9 below)
 Driver delays/congestion at intersections within the road diet limits would remain within the City’s adopted level of service (LOS) thresholds for existing (2024) conditions with the proposed lane reductions.

6 2040 Conditions traffic forecasts reflect buildout of the City’s General Plan land use growth and transportation circulation improvements, including remaining development within the Orcutt Specific Plan Area and additional growth outside of the city limits pursuant to the SLOCOG Regional Transportation Plan forecasts. Completion of the Prado Road Interchange and Extension to Broad Street are assumed in this scenario, but do not substantively affect future traffic volumes on this segment of Tank Farm Road.

Item 7c
o The most notable change in driver experience would be an increase in delay of 2-6 seconds per vehicle on average turning left from side streets to Tank Farm Road during AM and PM peak hours.
 Under 2040 conditions, all intersections within the road diet limits would operate acceptably, except the Tank Farm/Poinsettia intersection, where the northbound approach would operate at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak. The traffic study recommends monitoring traffic conditions and installing a northbound leftturn acceleration lane before traffic volumes reach 2040 build-out levels. Staff is recommending including this acceleration lane now as part of the 2025 Paving Project as a pre-emptive measure to avoid potential for future congestion and delays. With this acceleration lane, this intersection would be at acceptable LOS C through 2040 conditions, with less projected delay than if the existing five-lane road configuration were to be retained.
 The intersection of Tank Farm/Morning Glory/Sunrose is an appropriate location to add a marked pedestrian crosswalk with the proposed road diet and additional safety features (i.e. bulbouts, warning beacons, safety lighting, etc.).

The figure below shows existing and future volumes on Tank Farm compared to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommended thresholds for three-lane road diets. The largest traffic volumes are anticipated for the 2040 PM peak hour, which remain 37% below the Federal Highway Administration’s recommended road diet volume threshold.

As noted previously, SLO Fire does not anticipate any significant impacts to typical emergency response or evacuation needs with the proposed road diet, as currently proposed.

Figure 9: Tank Farm Rd. Traffic Volumes vs Recommended Road Diet Thresholds

Item 7c
Tank Farm Striping Alternative 2 (No Road Diet)
As discussed in further detail later in this report, staff has received input from some residents expressing opposition to the road diet proposed in Alternative 1, with a preference to retain existing lanes and traffic capacity to minimize potential for vehicle delays or congestion. The Council may also prefer to retain additional traffic capacity beyond what is currently needed to maintain day-to-day traffic operations as a precautionary strategy to accommodate (a) potential future development growth beyond current General Plan build-out forecasts, and/or (b) to reduce potential delays in the case of a future large-scale evacuation incident along Tank Farm Road. Alternative 2 is presented to provide the Council with a design option that prioritizes these considerations.

Design features include:

1. Retains existing number of traffic lanes on Tank Farm.

2. 11-foot-wide traffic lanes are provided where feasible, per SLO Fire’s preference for efficient emergency vehicle clearance.

3. Striped bike lane buffers provided where width allows for 11-foot-wide traffic lanes (east of Righetti Ranch) and omitted elsewhere.

4. No curb extensions (bulbouts) at intersections due to insufficient street width.

5. Pedestrian safety improvements at Tank Farm/Poinsettia, including relocation of the existing crosswalk RRFB system to the east leg of intersection for improved visibility and reduce conflicts with turning traffic. High-visibility crosswalk markings, new streetlighting, and advanced warning markings/signage are also proposed.

6. Advance pedestrian warning signage approaching the Tank Farm/Sunrose/Morning Glory intersection and new streetlight installation, but no addition of a marked crosswalk at this location. (see further discussion on this below).

7. Radar speed feedback signs in each direction.

8. Green bike lanes through intersection conflicts.

Figure 10: Alternative 2 Proposed Tank Farm Road (Broad to UPRR Bridge)

Item 7c
Figure 11: Alternative 2 Proposed Tank Farm Road (Righetti Ranch to Orcutt) For the same reasons discussed previously with Alternative 1, no vertical protected bikeway elements are proposed with Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 Consideration for Pedestrian Crossing at Tank Farm/Morning Glory/Sunrose While some community members have expressed interest in adding a new pedestrian crossing on Tank Farm between Poinsettia and Righetti Ranch Road—most fittingly at the Tank Farm/Sunrose/Morning Glory intersection—staff does not recommend installing a new crosswalk here with Alternative 2. Based on review of engineering design guidance and transportation safety best practices for uncontrolled crosswalks, it is staff’s opinion that adding an unsignalized marked crosswalk is not the best strategy at a crossing location with traffic speeds over 40 mph and five lanes of traffic (64-foot-wide crossing) without more substantial safety elements.

While Alternative 2 could include some safety features, such as high-visibility crosswalk markings, additional lighting, warning signage, and flashing beacons (RRFBs), which could improve the visibility of pedestrians over existing conditions, staff does not recommend adding a marked crosswalk in order to avoid creating a false sense of security for pedestrians, as driver compliance is likely to remain low without further crossing enhancements. For staff to support potential addition of a designated crosswalk at this location, additional safety measures such as a median refuge, raised crosswalks, reducing the number of conflicting traffic lanes, adding bulbouts, or installing a pedestrian hybrid beacon/signal would be needed. Conditions do not currently warrant a pedestrian signal or hybrid beacon installation. See “Alternatives” section of this report for discussion on additional modifications to Alternative 2 that may add potential for a median refuge and crosswalk at this location.

Attachment F shows preliminary striping plans for Tank Farm Road Alternative 2.

Comparison of Tank Farm Alternative 1 and 2
Table 1: Comparison of Design Alternatives
Topic Alternative 1
(Road Diet)
Alternative 2
(No Road Diet)
Traffic Operations
& Emergency
 Lane reductions less
familiar to existing drivers
 More intuitive to existing drivers

Item 7c
Topic Alternative 1
(Road Diet)
Alternative 2
(No Road Diet)
Response
Considerations
 Traffic operates within
adopted thresholds, with
small increase in vehicle
delays above existing
configuration and Alt 2 at
most intersections
 Slight improvement for
NBL driver delays at
Poinsettia w/ acceleration
lane above Alt 2 and
existing conditions.
 Less excess road capacity
preserved for future growth
and emergency evacuation
(capacity could be restored
in future by restriping to
restore existing traffic
lanes if needed)
 Traffic operates within adopted
thresholds with fewer vehicle
delays than with Alt 1 in general
 Preserves extra capacity for
additional growth beyond current
build-out projections and
emergency evacuation
Bicycle Facilities
 Partially consistent with
ATP – wider buffered bike
lanes added with more
separation from vehicles,
but no physical separation
 Slightly higher potential to
attract new cyclists &
increase bike mode share
than Alt 2
 Mostly inconsistent with ATP, with
less improvements to bicycle lane
widths and separation from traffic
and no physical bikeway
separation.
 Less potential to attract new riders
& increase bike mode share than
Alt 1
Pedestrian
Crossings
 Lane reductions reduce
pedestrian exposure &
crossing distance, reduces
number of veh vs.
pedestrian conflict points
 Greater potential for driver
compliance at crossings
 Road diets are proven
countermeasure to reduce
pedestrian crash rates
 Provides new enhanced
pedestrian crossing at
Tank Farm/Morning
Glory/Sunrose
 Does not reduce pedestrian
exposure & crossing distance
 No change in veh. vs. pedestrian
conflict points
 Less potential to increase driver
compliance at crossings
 Does not provide a new enhanced
pedestrian crossing at Tank
Farm/Morning Glory/Sunrose
Potential to
Reduce
 Greater potential to reduce
unsafe/illegal vehicle
 Some potential to reduce unsafe
vehicle speeds by adding radar

Item 7c
Topic Alternative 1
(Road Diet)
Alternative 2
(No Road Diet)
Unsafe/Illegal
Vehicle Speeds
speeds with road diet and
radar speed signs
speed signs, but less potential than
with Alt 1
Costs
 Approximately $50,000
higher costs than
Alternative 2 by including
enhanced pedestrian
crossing at Tank
Farm/Morning Glory
 Approximately $50,000 lower costs
than Alternative 1 by omitting
enhanced pedestrian crossing at
Tank Farm/Morning Glory
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
Preliminary plans for the 2025 Paving Project were presented to the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) on November 21, 2024. The ATC staff report is available for reference on the ATC website.

The committee was supportive of the design proposal for Tank Farm featuring a road diet as shown herein in Alternative 1; however, the ATC majority voted in favor of including vertical protected bike lane elements on Tank Farm, as recommended in the ATP. Vertical bikeway features are omitted from the current design alternatives presented for Council consideration due to a preference from emergency service providers to preserve roadway clearance for efficient emergency response and evacuation potential. The ATC was also supportive of including buffered bike lanes along Tank Farm between Broad and Poinsettia, which are omitted from current plans, as this would require 10’ traffic lane widths, which are discouraged by emergency response providers for this street. The following summarizes key recommendations from the ATC on the 2025 Paving Project designs and staff responses to each recommendation:

Tank Farm Road

1. ATC Recommendation: Include physical bikeway separation, with preference for concrete barriers.
o Staff Response: Current design alternatives for Council consideration do not include vertical bikeway separation to preserve roadway clearance for emergency response priorities. If Council were to direct staff to include physical bikeway separation on Tank Farm, staff is not recommending addition of concrete bikeway features at this time—instead rubber flexible elements would be preferred, such as flex posts only or flex posts supplemented with rubber curb stops. This is due to funding constraints, more flexibility for emergency response needs, and an interest to allow for further monitoring and community adaptation to new street design changes before installing higher-cost, rigid features.

Item 7c

2. ATC Recommendation: Explore feasibility of center median refuges at Poinsettia and Morning Glory pedestrian crossings.
o Staff Response: As discussed previously in section on SLO Fire design coordination, staff is not recommending installation of center median refuges at pedestrian crossings at this time for Alternative 1 or 2. With Alternative 1, there were concerns that addition of a center median may impede the ability of vehicles to use the center turn lane to bypass traffic during an emergency response event or large-scale evacuation westbound on Tank Farm. With Alternative 2, there is no available street width for a median refuge. A potential hybrid design concept is discussed in the “Alternatives” section at the end of this report, which presents a design configuration that could include a median pedestrian refuge that is supportable by SLO Fire.

3. ATC Recommendation: Provide gaps in bikeway separation in final plans to allow for flexible passing and merging out of the bike lane for left turns at driveways and intersections.
o Staff Response: No vertical bikeway separation is currently proposed with Alternative 1 or 2. If Council chooses to direct staff to revisit potential vertical bikeway elements, staff is supportive of incorporating additional gaps in bikeway separation to improve ability for cyclists to merge and pass other cyclists.

Sacramento Drive

4. ATC Recommendation: Consider adding a marked pedestrian crossing at Capitolio intersection or other locations along Sacramento between Orcutt and Industrial.
o Staff Response: As noted above, a new pedestrian crossing on Sacramento is currently being evaluated as part of a development proposal for a private school campus near Via Esteban. Staff is recommending that a new crossing be considered as part of this development proposal outside of the 2025 Paving Project scope.

No specific design recommendations were provided by the ATC for Calle Joaquin or Orcutt Road beyond the features already proposed by staff and reflected in the current plans for those roadway segments.

Design Alternative 2 was not specifically discussed with the ATC in detail but was created subsequently as an additional option for Council consideration in response to feedback from some community members with concerns about potential traffic congestion with a road diet.

Staff provided a project status update to the ATC on March 20, 2025, which included a brief update to convey that Tank Farm alternatives with and without a road diet would be presented to the Council for consideration. The ATC did not take any new action on this

Item 7c
topic at the meeting, but members affirmed the previous committee recommendation supporting the road diet presented in Alternative 1, and a preference for protected bike lane elements as recommended in the ATP.

Public Engagement
Staff solicited community input on the 2025 Paving Project over the past several months.

Direct mailers were sent to all properties within the vicinity notifying community members of the proposed project, planning process and schedule, project website and opportunities to provide in-person input at forthcoming public meetings. Staff received several comments from community members at the November 21, 2024 ATC meeting, and via subsequent emails to staff and City Council, with roughly half of the comments for Tank Farm Road in support of the proposed road diet and features shown in striping Alternative 1 to reduce speeds, and half in favor of keeping the existing five-lane street configuration and striping-only bike lanes to maintain current traffic capacity and reduce costs. This divide in public sentiment is a primary reason for requesting Council policy direction for Tank Farm Road designs.

Agenda correspondence provided on this item at the November, 2024, ATC meeting is available for review here (see Item 4a correspondence).

Notifications were mailed directly to properties within the vicinity of Tank Farm Road ahead of this public hearing on May 6th, 2025, and additional notifications will be provided to community members as project advances to construction.

CONCURRENCE
Plans for the 2025 Paving Project have been reviewed and refined in coordination with SLO Fire to ensure that these designs are consistent with applicable local and state fire codes and do not present any concerning impediments to emergency response. SLO Fire is supportive of the designs currently presented in Alternative 1 or 2. Following direction from Council from this meeting, staff will provide an additional opportunity for review by SLO Fire Department prior to finalizing the 2025 Paving Project plans for construction.

This staff report was reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office, Finance Director, and City Administration prior to publishing.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The 2025 Paving Project qualifies for an Exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) because the Project consists of the repair and maintenance of existing roadways. In addition, the types of complete street improvements proposed as part of this Project would all be considered categorically exempt from State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(Existing Facilities) and are expected to increase access to sustainable transportation modes and potentially reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, no

Item 7c
additional environmental review is triggered. A Notice of Exemption will be filed through the Community Development Department upon Council approval of the project.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Funding
Availability
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund -
LRM (No.
2000616)
7/1/2025 $3,960,000 $3,960,000 $0 $
SB1 Fund (No.
2000616)
7/1/2025 $1,277,312 $1,277,312 $0
Capital
Reserve Fund
(LRM)
Current $1,735,907 $1,404,530 $331,377
Roadway
Sealing 2024
(Account No.
2000615)
(General Fund
LRM)
Current $2,544,144 $2,100,000 $444,144
Arterials 2023
(Account No.
2001065)
(General Fund
LRM)
Current $169,299 $100,000 $69,299
Water Fund
(No. 2001005)
Current $228,948 $199,200 $29,748
Sewer Fund
(No. 2000084)
Current $128,309 $76,800 $51,509
Total $10,043,919 $9,117,842 $926,077 $

Item 7c
2025 Paving Project, Specification No. 2000616
Street
Reconstruction and
Resurfacing –
Annual Asset
Maintenance
Account (2001001)
Water Valve
Cover
Adjustments
(2001005)
Sewer MH
Cover
Adjustments
(2000084)
Project
Total
Costs
General
Fund
SB1
Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund
Base Bid Construction
Estimate 6,212,688 $1,277,312 $166,000 $64,000 $7,720,000 Contingencies 725,342 $0 $33,200 $12,800 $771,342
Construction Management 450,000 $0 $0 $0 $450,000
Materials Testing 100,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Printing & Advertising 1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500
Public Relations 75,000 $0 $0 $0 $75,000
Base Bid Total Estimate 7,564,530 1,277,312 199,200 76,800 9,117,842 Additive Alt A Estimate 1,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,100,000
Additive Alt B Estimate 550,000 $0 $0 $0 $550,000
Additive Alt A &B
Contingencies 200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Construction Management 100,000 $0 $0 $0 100,000
Materials Testing 50,000 $0 $0 $0 50,000
Printing & Advertising 500 $0 $0 $0 500
Public Relations 25,000 $0 $0 $0 25,000
Additive Alternative Total
Estimate 2,025,500 0 0 0 $2,025,500
Total Construction
Estimate (Base + Add Alts) 9,590,030 1,277,312 199,200 76,800 11,143,342 Available Project Balance 0 $0 $199,200 $76,800 $276,000 FY 2025-26 Additional
Funding on 7/1/2025 $3,960,000 $1,277,312 $0 $0 $5,237,312 Roadway Sealing 2024
(2000615) 2,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,100,000
Arterials 2023 (2001065) 100,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
CIP Reserve 1,404,530 $0 $0 $0 $1,404,530
Total Funding After
7/1/2025 7,564,530 $1,277,312 $199,200 $76,800 $9,117,842

Item 7c
The 2025 Paving Project bid plans and specifications are structured with a Base Bid and two Additive Alternatives, with Additive Alternative A representing work on Orcutt Road east of Tank Farm, and Alternative B representing work on Calle Joaquin. The strategy is to award the contract with the Base Bid and as many of the Additive Alternatives as funding will allow, up to the Publicly Disclosed amount of $7,720,000 in compliance with Public Contract Code Section 20103.8(c).

The total project cost is estimated at $11,143,342, including direct construction costs and contingencies, as well as related soft costs (construction engineering support, materials testing, communications support, etc.). Excluding the Bid Additive Alternatives, the total Base Bid project cost is $9,117,842 (construction, contingency and soft costs). Note that because final designs for Tank Farm Road are pending policy direction from the Council at this hearing, current cost estimates for this component of the project are based on staff’s best approximations and are slightly conservative in nature.

A total of $9,117,842 in funding is recommended to support project construction, sourced from the following:
 The project’s funding plan relies on approval of a funding request to the 2025 Roadway Paving account (2000616) in the amount of $5,237,312 in fiscal year 2025-26 which is included in the draft 2025-27 Financial Plan. This amount includes $3,960,000 from the General Fund and $1,277,312 from the SB1 Fund7.  An additional $2,100,000 is expected to become available within the Streets Reconstruction and Resurfacing account after the completion of the Roadway Sealing 2024 project (2000615), which is 95% complete and under budget.  An additional $100,000 is expected to become available within the Streets Reconstruction and Resurfacing account with the completion of the Arterials 2023 Project (2001065).
 Staff is recommending appropriating $1,404,530 of Local Revenue Measure funds from the Capital Reserve fund to support construction of the Project per the draft Resolution (Attachment A). Approval of this resolution is required to appropriate new undesignated funds from the Capital Projects Reserve Fund.  Where asphalt pavement is replaced, the project will incorporate upgrades to water valve and sewer maintenance hole covers which is funded by the Water Valve Cover Adjustments Account (2001005) in the amount of $199,200 and Sewer Maintenance Hole Cover Adjustments Account (2000084) in the amount of $76,800.

7 Note that the Streets Reconstruction and Resurfacing account (2001001) has a current balance of $17,766. However, it is recommended that this balance remain within the account to support minor pavement failures that may arise throughout the year in lieu of committing 100% of available funds to the 2025 Paving Project.

Item 7c
This 2025 Paving Project is recommended to be awarded prior to the new fiscal year with work not starting until after July 1, 2025, when the Fiscal Year 2025-26 funding is available. If funding is not sufficient to support all of this project’s needs, only portions of the contract would be awarded to reflect the work than can be completed within the available budget. In order to allow for project implementation during the summer and early fall months, and to lessen impacts to the traveling public, staff is recommending this project be approved for advertisement now rather than waiting until start of Fiscal Year 2025-26.

Project construction will not be initiated unless sufficient funding exists as recommended to support the total project costs. Actual costs will be known when the project opens for bid.

Fiscal Analysis of Tank Farm Road Striping Alternatives The estimated construction cost for proposed improvements on Tank Farm Road is approximately $5,500,000. Costs would be substantially equal for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, aside from roughly $50,000 in costs related to pedestrian crossing improvements at the Tank Farm/Morning Glory/Sunset intersection that would be incurred under Alternative 1 only.

While the current alternatives for Tank Farm Road do not include vertical bikeway elements, if Council directs staff to pursue designs that include protected bike lanes, there would be further cost implications. If only flex posts were used for protected bikeway separation, an additional $50,000-$75,000 in construction costs would be expected. If additional hardening, such as rubber or concrete curb stops/medians were pursued, the construction costs would increase by at least another $50,000-$100,000 above the costs for flex posts. Ongoing maintenance costs of roughly $30,000 per year would be incurred if protected bike lane features were to be pursued, including roughly $27,000 per year for contract sweeping expenses and roughly $3,000 per year for replacement of damaged bikeway barriers/flex posts.

Staff are currently assessing maintenance costs and funding resources closely with development of the 2025-27 Financial Plan. If the Council were to direct staff to advance designs for Tank Farm Road that include vertical bikeway separation, there may not be sufficient funds in the forthcoming 2025-27 operating budget to fund ongoing maintenance costs. Under this scenario, staff would likely need to utilize funds from a capital project account to fund these expenses, such as remaining contingency funds from the 2025 Paving Project (once complete), remaining funds from other completed CIP projects, or from one of the ATP Implementation capital project accounts. Under this scenario, staff would communicate a funding plan for these ongoing maintenance costs to the Council prior to completion of the 2025 Paving Project.

Item 7c

ALTERNATIVES
Tank Farm Design Alternatives

1. The Council could direct staff to advance an alternative that includes modifications to Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, or combines features from each alternative, such as:
 Hybrid Alternative – Road Diet in Eastbound Direction Only i. Preserve existing two (2) traffic lanes in westbound direction for emergency evacuation capacity
ii. Road diet to one (1) lane in eastbound direction only from Poinsettia to UPRR bridge (similar to Alternative 1)
iii. Use available width from eastbound lane reduction to add bike lane buffers and pedestrian refuges at Tank Farm/Poinsettia and Tank Farm/Morning Glory/Sunrose intersections
iv. Concept designs for this Hybrid Alternative are included as Attachment G.

Public Works and SLO Fire staff would be supportive of advancing the Hybrid Option (Road Diet Eastbound Only), if preferred by the City Council. Staff’s current recommendation is not to include vertical separation for protected bike lanes on Tank Farm, even with this Hybrid Alternative, to preserve existing roadway clearances for emergency response and evacuation needs and to reduce ongoing maintenance costs. Median refuges at Tank Farm/Poinsettia and Tank Farm/Morning Glory/Sunrose would be feasible and recommended by staff under this alternative and are shown in the design concepts (Attachment G)—medians would not restrict westbound access in the case of an evacuation (two lanes would be retained westbound for evacuation needs).

2. The Council could choose not to recommend a specific design alternative for Tank Farm Road at this time and direct staff to pursue other designs. The Council may ask staff to continue to advance multiple design alternatives or to return with additional alternatives not currently contemplated. This may delay the ability to advance the 2025 Paving Project in time to solicit competitive construction bids.

Bidding roadway paving projects in the late spring or early summer can result in lack of competitive bidding, as many roadway contractors are already scheduled for the peak summer road construction season when many other agencies in the region schedule similar paving work.

3. The Council could choose not to support either striping alternative for Tank Farm, directing staff to do neither and simply repave Tank Farm and restore the existing striping configuration with no added features. The Council may direct staff to focus resources only on essential maintenance elements of the paving project for Tank Farm Road, restoring the road configuration and striping to what is currently in place. Further, Council may direct staff to omit other features proposed in the current

Item 7c
design proposals not related to essential maintenance (pedestrian beacons, new streetlighting, radar speed signs, etc.). This action would not support the recommendations of the adopted ATP or address concerns from residents regarding vehicle speeds and pedestrian crossing safety on Tank Farm Road.

Alternatives to Approving Advertisement of the 2025 Paving Project

1. The Council could direct staff to modify design features for other streets included in the 2025 Paving Project other than Tank Farm Road. The City Council may direct staff to modify design elements for Calle Joaquin, Sacramento Drive or Orcutt Road. Staff invites Council input on these details, as long as the recommended design refinements can be accommodated within available funding resources and comply with applicable engineering design standards.

2. Deny authorization to advertise. The City Council may choose not to authorize project advertisement or direct staff to revise and return to Council with an updated bid package at a later date. This would delay advertisement of the project for construction, potentially shifting the project construction schedule into winter months with higher potential for weather delays.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution Approving Appropriation of Capital Projects Reserve Funds B - 2025 Paving Project Plans (2000616)
C - 2025 Paving Project Specifications (2000616)
D - Active Transportation Plan Excerpts
E - Tank Farm Road Design Alternative 1 (Road Diet)
F - Tank Farm Road Design Alternative 2 (No Road Diet)
G -Tank Farm Road Hybrid Design Alternative (Eastbound Road Diet Only)

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2025 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS RESERVE FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE 2025 PAVING
PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NUMBER 2000616
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council authorized advertisement of the 2025 Paving Project and delegated authority to the City Manager to award the construction contract if the lowest responsive bid was within the publicly disclosed funding limit of $7,720,000; and
WHEREAS, the project includes roadway reconstruction on Tank Farm Road, from Broad Street to Wavertree Street, reconstruction on Sacramento Drive, from Industrial Way to Via Esteban, and striping in various locations throughout the City; and WHEREAS, two bid alternates are included to be awarded if within the available project budget, which include roadway reconstruction on Orcutt Road and Calle Joaquin; and
WHEREAS, proposed improvements on Tank Farm Road, Orcutt Road, and Sacramento Drive support several recommendations in the City’s Active Transportation Plan and the City’s adopted Vision Zero Goal to eliminate severe injury and fatal traffic collisions; and
WHEREAS, a pavement analysis conducted in December of 2024 confirmed that Tank Farm Road, Orcutt Road, Sacramento Drive, and Calle Joaquin Road are all structurally deficient and unable to support the current and projected traffic loads; and WHEREAS, to provide sufficient funding to proceed with the 2025 Paving Project, staff is recommending the City Council approve use of $1,404,530 from the FY24/25 Capital Projects Reserve Fund at the close of the 2024-25 Fiscal Year; and WHEREAS, a balance of approximately $1,735,907 is currently available from the FY24/25 Capital Projects Reserve Fund.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

Resolution No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes the Finance Director to appropriate up to $1,404,530 from the Capital Reserve Fund to the 2025 Paving Project, Specification No. 2000616 at the close of the 2024-25 Fiscal Year.

Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2025. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

SPECIAL PROVISIONS
FOR

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
2025 Paving Project
Specification No. 2000616
April 2025

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7200

2025 Paving Project
Specification No. 2000616
Approval Date: May 06, 2025
Hai Nguyen
May xx, 2025
Brian Nelson
May xx, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE TO BIDDERS ..................................................................................................... I BID SUBMISSION ...................................................................................................................................... I BID DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................................... II PROJECT INFORMATION........................................................................................................................ II QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................................................................... III AWARD ..................................................................................................................................................... V ACCOMMODATION .................................................................................................................................. V BID FORMS .................................................................................................................... A BID ITEM LIST FOR 2025 PAVING PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 2000616 .................................... A LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS ................................................................................................................ G PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10285.1 STATEMENT .............................................................. H PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10162 QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................... H PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10232 STATEMENT ................................................................. H LABOR CODE SECTION 1725.5 STATEMENTS ................................................................................... H NON-COLLUSION DECLARATION .......................................................................................................... J BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... K QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... L ATTACH BIDDER'S BOND TO ACCOMPANY BID ................................................................................. M SPECIAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................................. 1 DIVISION I GENERAL PROVISIONS ....................................................................................................... 1 1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 1 3 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ........................................................................................... 1 4 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................. 2 5 CONTROL OF WORK ........................................................................................................................ 2 7 LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC ....................................................... 2 8 PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS ................................................................................................... 4 DIVISION II GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 5 12 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ................................................................................................ 5 15 EXISTING FACILITIES ..................................................................................................................... 6 DIVISION IV SUBBASES AND BASES .......................................................................... 6 DIVISION V SURFACINGS AND PAVEMENTS ..................................................................................... 20 39 ASPHALT CONCRETE .................................................................................................................. 20 DIVISION VIII MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 21 73 CONCRETE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS ....................................................................................... 21 77 LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................................................................... 22 DIVISION IX TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES......................................................................................... 22

84 MARKINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 22 DIVISION X ELECTRICAL WORK .......................................................................................................... 24 86 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 24 DIVISION XIII APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 24 ADD SECTION 100 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 24 APPENDIX A - FORM OF AGREEMENT ....................................................................... 0 APPENDIX B – SEALMASTER SAFE RIDE DATA SHEET ........................................... 3 APPENDIX C – PAVEMENT EVALUATION REPORT ................................................... 4

NOTICE TO BIDDERS
i

NOTICE TO BIDDERS

BID SUBMISSION
Sealed bids will be received by the City of San Luis Obispo at the Public Works Administration Office located at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo California, 93401 until 11:00 a.m. on June xx, 2025
at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud. Public bid opening may be accessed via Microsoft Teams video conference and conference call. In person attendance will be permitted. Use the following link:
https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetupjoin/19%3ameeting_YWJmZTY5ZjctNjQxOC00ODk3LWFhMjctODkyOGI2NjkzODRi%4 0thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22a78b182d-94e4-4507-a9a9- 330dcb148164%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22eec32d58-d6a8-4d68-8923- 9cce58e6b2a9%22%7d
or join by phone with this number: 1 (209) 645-4165 with Conference ID: 438 062 902# Submit bid in a sealed envelope plainly marked:
2025 Paving Project, Specification No. 2000616
Any bid received after the time and date specified will not be considered and will be returned to the bidder unopened. Bids received by Fax or Email will not be considered.

By submission of bid you agree to comply with all instruction and requirements in this notice and the contract documents.

All bids must be submitted on the Bid Item List form(s) provided and submitted with all other Bid Forms included in these Special Provisions.

Each bid must be accompanied by either a:

1. certified check

2. cashier's check

3. bidder's bond
made payable to the City of San Luis Obispo for an amount equal to ten percent of the bid amount as a guaranty. Guaranty will be forfeited to the City San Luis Obispo if the bidder, to whom the contract is awarded, fails to enter into the contract.

The City of San Luis Obispo reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids or waive any informality in a bid.

All bids are to be compared based on the City Engineer's estimate of the quantities of work to be done, as shown on the Bid Item List.

NOTICE TO BIDDERS

NOTICE TO BIDDERS
ii
Bids will only be accepted from bidders that are licensed in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 9, Division III of Business and Professions Code.

The award of the contract, if awarded, will be to the lowest responsive bid submitted by a responsible contractor whose bid complies with the requirements prescribed. If the contract is awarded, the contract will be awarded within 60 calendar days after the opening of the bids.

Failure to raise defects in the notice to bidders or bid forms prior to bid opening constitute a waiver of those defects.

BID DOCUMENTS
A copy of the plans and special provisions may be downloaded, free of charge, from the City’s website at:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/public-works-bidsproposals No printed copies are available for purchase at the City office.

Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards referenced in the Special Provisions may be downloaded, free of charge, from the City’s website at:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/documentsonline/construction-documents You are responsible to obtain all issued addenda prior to bid opening. Addenda will be available to download at the City’s website listed above or at the office of the City Engineer.

All questions must be submitted through Bidsync and if the City determines that a response is required, the City will post an addendum on Bidsync. Contact the project manager, Hai Nguyen at 805-781-7108 / [email protected] or the Public Works Department at (805) 781-7200 prior to bid opening to verify the number of addenda issued.

You are responsible to verify your contact information is correct on the plan holders list located on the City’s website at:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/public-works-bidsproposals.

PROJECT INFORMATION
In general, the project consists of applying slurry seal, striping, pavement markings, and signage to various streets as identified in the project plans.

NOTICE TO BIDDERS

NOTICE TO BIDDERS
iii
The project estimated construction cost and contract time established for the project is a follows:

BASE BID: $7,720,000 80 working days
ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE “A”: $1,100,000 10 working days
ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE “B”: $550,000 10 working days
TOTAL PROJECT BID (BASE BID + ADD ALT. “A” + ADD ALT “B”): $9,370,000 The fixed liquidated damages amount is established at $1,000 per day for failure to complete the work within the contract time.

In compliance with section 1773 of the Labor Code, the State of California Department of Industrial Relations has established prevailing hourly wage rates for each type of workman. Current wage rates may be obtained from the Division of Labor at:
https://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/DPreWageDetermination.htm
This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

QUALIFICATIONS
You must possess a valid Class A or C12 Contractor's License at the time of the bid opening.

You and any subcontractors required to pay prevailing wage must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code.

You must have experience constructing projects similar to the work specified for this project. Provide three similar reference projects completed as either the prime or subcontractor. All referenced projects must have been completed within the last five years from this project’s bid opening date.

One of the three referenced projects must have been completed under contract with a city, county, state or federal government agency as the prime contractor.

Two of the three referenced projects must have included ADA concrete curb ramp and sidewalk construction within the public right of way.

All referenced projects must be for roadway construction, including Full Depth Reclamation within the public right of way. If you do not have the necessary Full Depth Reclamation experience, you may elect to subcontract that work. If you elect to subcontract that work, you must provide referenced projects for roadway

NOTICE TO BIDDERS

NOTICE TO BIDDERS
iv
construction as the prime and three additional subcontractor referenced projects for Full Depth Reclamation within the public right of way.

Failure to provide reference projects as specified in this section and as required on the qualification form is cause to reject a bid as being non-responsive.

The City reserves the right to reject any bid based on non-responsiveness if a bidder fails to provide a bid that complies with all bidding instructions.

The City reserves the right to reject a responsive bid based on the non-responsibility of the bidder if the Director of Public Works or Designee finds, after providing notice and a hearing to the bidder, that the bidder lacks the

1. knowledge

2. experience,

3. or is otherwise not responsible
as defined in Section 3.24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to complete the project in the best interest of the City.

Rejected bidders may appeal this determination. Appeal must comply with the requirements in this Notice to Bidders.

It is the City of San Luis Obispo’s intent to award the contract to the lowest responsive bid submitted by a responsible bidder. If in the bidder’s opinion the contract has been or may be improperly awarded, the bidder may protest the contract award.

Protests must be filed no later than five working days after either:

1. bid opening date

2. notification of rejected bid.

Protest must be in writing and received by the project manager located at:
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.

Valid protests must contain the following information:

1. the reasons for the protest

2. any supporting documentation

3. the ruling expected by the City to remedy the protest.

Any protest not containing all required information will be deemed invalid and rejected.

The City will consider additional documentation or other supporting information regarding the protest if submitted in compliance to the specified time limits. Anything submitted after the specified time limit will be rejected and not be considered.

The Director of Public Works or Designee may request additional information to be submitted within three days of the request, unless otherwise specified, and will notify the protester of ruling within ten days of determination.

NOTICE TO BIDDERS

NOTICE TO BIDDERS
v
If the protester is not satisfied with ruling, the protester may appeal the ruling to the City Council in compliance with Chapter 1.20 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.

Pursuant to the Public Records Act (Government Code, § 6250, et seq.), the City will make public records available upon request.

AWARD
The lowest bidder will be determined in compliance with Public Contract Code Section 20103.8(c) with the Publicly Disclosed Funding Amount of $7,720,000 using either:
 TOTAL PROJECT BID, if bid for Base Bid + Add. Alt. “A” + Add Alt. “B” is less than $7,720,000; or
 BASE BID + ADD. ALT. “A”, if bid for Base Bid + Add. Alt. “A” is less than $7,720,000 and Total Project Bid is greater than $7,720,000; or  BASE BID, if Base Bid is less than $7,720,000 and Base Bid + Add. Alt. “A” is greater than $7,720,000.

As a condition to executing a contract with the City, two bonds each equal to one hundred percent of the total contract price are required in compliance with Section 3-1.05 of the Standard Specifications.

You may substitute securities for moneys withheld under the contract in compliance with the provisions of the Public Contract Code, Section 10263.

ACCOMMODATION
If any accommodations are needed to participate in the bid process, please contact Allie Genard at (805) 781-7057 or by Telecommunications Device for the Deaf at (805) 781- 7107. Requests should be made as early as possible in the bidding process to allow time for accommodation.

BID FORMS
A

BID FORMS
All bid forms must be completed and submitted with your bid. Failure to submit these forms and required bid bond is cause to reject the bid as nonresponsive. Staple all bid forms together.

THE UNDERSIGNED, agrees that they have carefully examined:

1. the location of the proposed work

2. the plans and specifications

3. read the accompanying instructions to bidders
and propose to furnish all:

4. materials

5. labor
to complete all the required work satisfactorily in compliance with

6. plans

7. specifications

8. special provisions
for the prices set forth in the bid item list:

BID ITEM LIST FOR 2025 PAVING PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 2000616 Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. SS(1) Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures)

BASE BID ITEMS
1 7, 12

TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN AND
IMPLEMENTATION LS 1 --------------
2 7

COMPLY WITH NIGHT WORK
PERMIT LS 1 --------------
3 20 TREE TRIMMING LS 1 --------------
4 30 POTHOLING ON TANK FARM LS 1 --------------
5 77

WATER SERVICE REPAIR
ALLOWANCE EA 5
6 30

CONSTRUCTION PHASING
PLAN (FDR) LS 1 --------------
7 30 DUST CONTROL PLAN (FDR) LS 1 --------------
8 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
BROAD NE LS 1 --------------
9 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
TETRA TECH SE LS 1 --------------
10 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
MARIGOLD NW LS 1 --------------
11 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
MARIGOLD NE LS 1 --------------
12 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
MARIGOLD ALLEY NW LS 1 --------------
13 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
MARIGOLD ALLEY NE LS 1 --------------
14 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
HOLLYHOCK NW LS 1 --------------

BID FORMS

BID FORMS
B
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. SS(1) Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures) 15 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
HOLLYHOCK NE LS 1 --------------
16 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
POINSETTIA NW LS 1 --------------
17 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
POINSETTIA NE LS 1 --------------
18 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
POINSETTIA SW LS 1 --------------
19 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
POINSETTIA SE LS 1 --------------
20 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
SUNROSE NW LS 1 --------------
21 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
SUNROSE NE LS 1 --------------
22 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
MORNING GLORY SW LS 1 --------------
23 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
MORNING GLORY SE LS 1 --------------
24 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
BROOKPINE SW LS 1 --------------
25 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
BROOKPINE SE LS 1 --------------
26 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
WAVERTREE SW LS 1 --------------
27 15, 73

CURB RAMP TANK FARM AND
WAVERTREE SE LS 1 --------------
28 15, 73

CURB RAMP SACRAMENTO
AND RICARDO NE LS 1 --------------
29 15, 73

CURB RAMP SACRAMENTO
AND INDUSTRIAL NW LS 1 --------------
30 15, 73

CURB RAMP SACRAMENTO
AND INDUSTRIAL NE LS 1 --------------
31 15, 73

CURB RAMP SACRAMENTO
AND VIA ESTEBAN NW LS 1 --------------
32 15, 73

CURB RAMP SACRAMENTO
AND VIA ESTEBAN NE LS 1 --------------
33 15, 73

CURB RAMP SACRAMENTO
AND VIA ESTEBAN SW LS 1 --------------
34 15, 73

CURB RAMP SACRAMENTO
AND CAPITOLIO NW LS 1 --------------
35 15, 73

CURB RAMP SACRAMENTO
AND CAPITOLIO SE LS 1 --------------
36 37 COLD PLANE (13.5 INCHES) SQYD 10,454
37 37 COLD PLANE (8.5 INCHES) SQYD 26,668
38 37 PULVERIZATION (FDR) SQYD 26,668
39 37 LIME TREATMENT (FDR) SQYD 26,668
40 39 3/4 MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT TON 14,953
41 39 1/2 MIX HMA COURSE TON 5,046
42 84

BLUE HYDRANT MARKERS
PER CITY STD 7920 EA 26

BID FORMS

BID FORMS
C
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. SS(1) Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures) 43 15

UPGRADE/ADJUST

COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE
TO FINISHED GRADE EA 4

44 15

UPGRADE/ADJUST

COMMUNICATIONS VAULT TO
FINISHED GRADE EA 3

45 15

UPGRADE/ADJUST GAS
VALVE TO FINISHED GRADE EA 2

46 15

UPGRADE/ADJUST

MONUMENT TO FINISHED
GRADE EA 14

47 15

REPLACE STORM DRAIN
INLET EA 1

48 15

UPGRADE/ADJUST STORM

DRAIN MANHOLE TO
FINISHED GRADE EA 4

49 15

UPGRADE/ADJUST SANITARY

SEWER MANHOLE OR

CLEANOUT TO FINISHED
GRADE EA 4

50 15

REBUILD SANITARY SEWER

MANHOLE FRAME AND
COVER EA 13

51 15

UPGRADE/ADJUST WATER
VALVE TO FINISHED GRADE EA 83

52 86

SOLAR FLASHING YELLOW
BEACON EA 4

53 86

REINSTALL RAPID

RECTANGULAR FLASHING

BEACON SYSTEM W/ NEW

POST AND PUSH BUTTONS -
TANK FARM & POINSETTIA LS 1
--------------
54 86

RAPID RECTANGULAR

FLASHING BEACON SYSTEM -

TANK FARM & MORNING
GLORY LS 1
--------------
55 86

RAPID RECTANGULAR

FLASHING BEACON SYSTEM

TANK FARM & RIGHETTI
RANCH LS 1
--------------
56 86

RAPID RECTANGULAR

FLASHING BEACON SYSTEM
SANTA BARBARA & HIGH LS 1
--------------
57 86

RAPID RECTANGULAR

FLASHING BEACON SYSTEM
MONTEREY & TORO LS 1
--------------
58 84 6" WHITE LF 904
59 84 6" YELLOW LF 227
60 84 8" YELLOW LF 285
61 84 12" WHITE LF 2,629
62 84 12" YELLOW LF 1,914

BID FORMS

BID FORMS
D
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. SS(1) Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures) 63 84 24" WHITE LF 1,311
64 84 DETAIL 2 LF 498
65 84 DETAIL 9 LF 1,506
66 84 DETAIL 22 LF 3,690
67 84 DETAIL 25 LF 1,887
68 84 DETAIL 27B LF 1,884
69 84 DETAIL 29 LF 4,141
70 84 DETAIL 32 LF 1,582
71 84 DETAIL 38 LF 2,335
72 84 DETAIL 39 LF 3,016
73 84 DETAIL 39A LF 3,778
74 84 DETAIL 40 LF 389
75 84 12" WHITE PAINT LF 874
76 84 DETAIL 9 PAINT LF 15,836
77 84 DETAIL 22 PAINT LF 2,662
78 84 DETAIL 24 PAINT LF 1,672
79 84 DETAIL 29 PAINT LF 371
80 84 DETAIL 32 PAINT LF 4,733
81 84 DETAIL 38 PAINT LF 2,112
82 84 DETAIL 39 PAINT LF 12,412
83 84 DETAIL 39A PAINT LF 1,326
84 84 DETAIL 40 PAINT LF 113
85 84 DETAIL 41 PAINT LF 120
86 84 BIKE BUFFER LF 8,262
87 84

BIKE BUFFER WITH
PAVEMENT MARKERS LF 653

88 84 GREEN BIKE LANE CASE 2 LF 2,161
89 84 GREEN BIKE LANE CASE 3 LF 896
90 84 RED CURB LF 292
91 84 BOTS DOTS EA 242
92 82 FLEX POSTS EA 70
93 82 REMOVE (E) POST EA 9
94 82 12' PUNCH POST EA 17
95 82 14' PUNCH POST EA 3
96 86 INSTALL NEW STREETLIGHT EA 2
97 82 R1-1 SIGN EA 3
98 82 R2-1 (35) SIGN EA 1
99 82 R2-1 (35) SIGN EA 1
100 82 R2-1 (35) SIGN EA 1
101 82 R9-3 SIGN EA 9

BID FORMS

BID FORMS
E
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. SS(1) Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures) 102 82 R9-3B(R) SIGN EA 4
103 82 R9-3B(L) SIGN EA 4
104 82 R10-15 SIGN EA 1
105 82 MODIFIED R10-15 SIGN EA 1
106 82 R26 SIGN EA 12
107 82 R81(CA) SIGN EA 2
108 82 R81B(CA) SIGN EA 1
109 82 W1-1a(R)(25) SIGN EA 1
110 82 W1-8(L) SIGN EA 4
111 82 W1-8(R) SIGN EA 4
112 82 W4-2 SIGN SIGN EA 1
113 82 W8-6 SIGN EA 1
114 82 W9-1 SIGN EA 1
115 82 W11-2 SIGN EA 2
116 82 W16-9P SIGN EA 3
117 82

RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK
SIGN EA 6

118 82 STREET NAME SIGNS EA 7
119 84

WHITE PAINT PAVEMENT

MARKINGS/LEGENDS
(ARROWS, WORDS,
SYMBOLS, ETC.) SQFT 1,473

120 84

WHITE PAVEMENT

MARKINGS/LEGENDS
(ARROWS, WORDS,
SYMBOLS, ETC.) SQFT 1,721

Base Bid $

ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE A BID ITEMS
121 7, 12

TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN AND
IMPLEMENTATION LS 1 --------------
122 7

COMPLY WITH NIGHT WORK
PERMIT LS 1 --------------
123 20 TREE TRIMMING LS 1 --------------
124 15, 73

CURB RAMP ORCUTT AND
SPANISH OAKS SW LS 1 --------------
125 37 COLD PLANE (8.5 INCHES) SQYD 8,767
126 39 3/4 MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT TON 2,860
127 39 1/2 MIX HMA COURSE TON 1,192
128 39 HMA DIKE LF 2,815
129 20

REGRADE, RECOMPACT AND
INSTALL JUTE NETTING SQFT 7,108

130 84

BLUE HYDRANT MARKERS
PER CITY STD 7920 EA 1

BID FORMS

BID FORMS
F
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. SS(1) Description Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures) 131
15 UPGRADE/ADJUST

MONUMENT TO FINISHED
GRADE EA 1

132 84 DETAIL 22 LF 1,666
133 84 DETAIL 24 LF 38
134 84 DETAIL 29 LF 181
135 84 DETAIL 38 LF 112
136 84 DETAIL 39 LF 3,702
Additive Alternative A $

ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE B BID ITEMS
137 7, 12

TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN AND
IMPLEMENTATION LS 1 --------------
138 7

COMPLY WITH NIGHT WORK
PERMIT LS 1 --------------
139 20 TREE TRIMMING LS 1 --------------
140 37 COLD PLANE (6 INCHES) SQYD 6,611
141 39 3/4 MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT TON 1,438
142 39 1/2 MIX HMA COURSE TON 719
143 84

BLUE HYDRANT MARKERS
PER CITY STD 7920 EA 1

144 84 DETAIL 22 LF
paint for
CL?

145 84 DETAIL 39 LF 3,822
146 84 DETAIL 22 PAINT LF 1,856
147 82 DELINEATOR CLASS 1 TYPE E EA 8
148 82 R26 SIGN EA 9
149 82 W1-8(L) SIGN EA 6
150 82 W14-1 SIGN EA 1
Additive Alternative B
Base Bid Total $
Additive Alternative “A” Total $
Additive Alternative “B” Total $
Total Project Bid = (Base Bid + Add. Alternative A + Add. Alternative B) $ Company Name:
(1) refers to section in the Standard Specifications, with modifications in the Special Provisions, that describe required work.
* Bid item exempt from Section 9-1.06B and 9-1.06C of the Standard Specifications. The unit price will not be adjusted regardless of the final bid item quantity.
(S) Specialty item per Section 5-1.13A SUBCONTRACTING, General of the Standard Specifications

BID FORMS

BID FORMS
G

LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS
Pursuant to Section 4100 of the Public Contracts Code and section 2-1.33C of the standard specifications, the Bidder is required to furnish the following information for each Subcontractor performing more than 1/2 percent (0.5%) of the total base bid. Do not list alternative subcontractors for the same work. Subcontracting must not total more than fifty percent (50%) of the submitted bid except as allowed in section 5-1.13 of the standard specifications.

For Streets & Highways projects, subcontractors performing less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) worth of work need not be mentioned. Subcontractors required to pay prevailing wage, must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 to be listed.

NOTE: If there are no subcontractors, write “NONE” and submit with bid.

Name Under Which
Subcontractor is Licensed License Number
DIR Public
Works
Registration
Number
Address and Phone
Number of Office, Mill or
Shop
Specific
Description of
Subcontract
% of
Total
Base
Bid

Attach additional sheets as needed.

BID FORMS

BID FORMS
H
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10285.1 STATEMENT
In compliance with Public Contract Code Section 10285.1 (Chapter 376, Stats. 1985), the bidder hereby declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the bidder, or any subcontractor to be engaged by the bidder, has ____, has not ____ been convicted within the preceding three years of any offenses referred to in that section, including any charge of fraud, bribery, collusion, conspiracy, or any other act in violation of any state or federal antitrust law in connection with the bidding upon, award of, or performance of, any public works contract, as defined in Public Contract Code Section 1101, with any public entity, as defined in Public Contract Code Section 1100, including the Regents of the University of California or the Trustees of the California State University. The term "bidder" is understood to include any partner, member, officer, director, responsible managing officer, or responsible managing employee thereof, as referred to in Section 10285.1.

NOTE: The bidder must place a check mark after "has" or "has not" in one of the blank spaces provided. The above Statement is part of the Bid. Signing this Bid on the signature portion constitute signature of this Statement. Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution.

PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10162 QUESTIONNAIRE
In compliance with Public Contract Code Section 10162, the Bidder must complete, under penalty of perjury, the following questionnaire:

Has the bidder, any officer of the bidder, or any employee of the bidder who has a proprietary interest in the bidder, ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation?
Yes No
If the answer is yes, attach a letter explaining the circumstances PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10232 STATEMENT
In compliance with Public Contract Code Section 10232, you hereby state under penalty of perjury, that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against you within the immediately preceding two-year period because of your failure to comply with an order of a federal court which orders you to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board.

LABOR CODE SECTION 1725.5 STATEMENTS
The bidder has delinquent liability to an employee or the state for any assessment of back wages or related damages, interest, fines, or penalties pursuant to any final judgment, order, or determination by a court or any federal, state, or local administrative agency, including a confirmed arbitration award. Any judgment, order, or determination that is