[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6564958,"mediaKeyId","3238456-a076af957401141c3359816d02b07dee","parentId",3238456,"title","Council introduces amendment to allow mixed‑use housing in Airport Area Specific Plan; votes 5–0","audioSeconds",821,"startMs",3550000,"endMs",4371000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3238456-a076af957401141c3359816d02b07dee&start=3550&end=4371","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3238456-a076af957401141c3359816d02b07dee/thumbnail_3550000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6564958/San-Luis-Obispo-City/San-Luis-Obispo-County/California/Council-introduces-amendment-to-allow-mixeduse-housing-in-Airport-Area-Specific-Plan-votes-50","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564958-063681c26a6bb67ef58a8926253018f1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199403&Signature=fRUfVwGVQhLM9cc3~PP6CeCmWuGUPxVxc3aM4CwznJYa2TiDG4f2kA5re39LXV8UcLU1GqNryhmiG~H5wZRUTH2gdVo2RBc5ixbg85H2eclElTF4zep5~3sup0RVyC3xY-BR~iHmfzGFhMbTSt5hMRXIeVPxqetB7vLgkW6Jqrd7FbX~FD35ZLv6iqWYJPfY-t6fLkbahKc3mUINEOC2oZ2wsZ~ordQmYzSUJkuMmljDsjorXBx59cYoHi0zP2mQClDKKPj160LwbBT1Soikw5d9MykKXENvs4ulBSFx2wKlYgwRNEbQQOW2I7pMabCSnwdhFdrRn84I~L-6L26VDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-07T04:49:08Z","article","The San Luis Obispo City Council voted 5–0 on May 6 to introduce an ordinance amending the Airport Area Specific Plan to allow mixed‑use residential development within service commercial (CS) and manufacturing (M) zones, subject to a conditional use permit or, for smaller projects, a director‑level minor use permit.

Planner John Rickenbach told council the amendment responds to city housing goals and prior housing element programs (programs 5.5 and 6.13) and land‑use policy encouraging compatible mixed uses. He summarized the history: the Airport Area Specific Plan (adopted 2005) had limited residential uses because of an earlier Airport Land Use Plan. In 2021 the county updated the Airport Land Use Plan and removed the residential density limitation for Safety Zone 6, opening the possibility to consider residential uses in much of the specific plan’s roughly 1,200 acres. Rickenbach said the ordinance language and an addendum to the programmatic Final EIR were prepared to avoid new environmental impacts beyond those already considered.

Fiscal and infrastructure concerns drove the staff recommendation for a conditional use permit (CUP) framework. Rickenbach said the underlying property tax‑sharing agreement established when the area was annexed places the city at a relative disadvantage for property tax revenue. A fiscal‑impact study by consultant COSMOS/Comstomet (as summarized by staff) found mixed‑use development in parts of the specific plan could be fiscally negative for the city unless costs were offset; staff discussed several possible mechanisms to achieve fiscal neutrality, including a community facilities district (CFD), renegotiation of the county‑city tax‑sharing agreement, an infrastructure financing district (IFD), or project‑level requirements to preserve minimum commercial uses. Rickenbach said a project‑level CUP review was the pragmatic first step while a CFD or county negotiations could be pursued in parallel.

How review would work: Staff proposed the CUP (or minor use permit for smaller projects) to enable project‑by‑project review of sewer/water capacity, public‑safety and emergency response, traffic and noise compatibility with aviation, fiscal neutrality, and other site‑specific issues. To expedite smaller projects, staff proposed a threshold consistent with the city’s development review process: projects with 49 or fewer residential units and up to 10,000 square feet of commercial could be processed as a director‑level minor use permit; projects of 50 units or more (or larger commercial footprints) would require a CUP and planning commission review. Rickenbach said future projects will also require their own CEQA review.

Public testimony and business support: The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce testified in favor of the amendment and specifically recommended that the CUP threshold follow the city’s 50‑unit policy so smaller projects could be processed at the director level. The chamber also urged the city to study a CFD in the specific plan area to address infrastructure and maintenance funding. Rickenbach said those options were feasible but would take additional time and negotiation, particularly any tax‑sharing changes with the county. City Manager McDonald told council county work on a tax‑sharing agreement is underway but remains a multi‑party, multi‑year effort beyond the city’s sole control.

Council action: Councilmember Francis moved to approve staff recommendations with amended language creating the 50‑unit threshold for streamlined review; Councilmember Boswell seconded. Roll call vote was 5–0 in favor of introducing the ordinance. Councilmembers said they supported the approach to enable housing while preserving project‑level review of fiscal, safety and infrastructure impacts.

What happens next: The ordinance was introduced for further hearings and adoption; staff will return with additional public hearings and project‑level applications will require the findings described in the ordinance (adequate water/sewer, fiscal neutrality or offsets, compatibility with airport safety/noise and emergency response, and CEQA review for each project).

Ending: Council advanced the airport area mixed‑use amendment and asked staff to coordinate with county, airport, and public‑safety partners on implementation details; staff noted a CFD or tax‑sharing negotiations could be pursued in parallel but would require separate multi‑party processes and additional time.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","05/06/2025 - City Council Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The City Council introduced an ordinance on May 6 to allow mixed‑use residential development in the Airport Area Specific Plan’s service commercial and manufacturing zones, subject to conditional use permit review for larger projects and director‑level review for smaller projects.","taxTitle","San Luis Obispo City, San Luis Obispo County, California","taxId",55188,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6564963,"SLO council introduces ordinance to clarify cannabis zoning, delays new storefront applications",695,1663000,2358000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3238456-a076af957401141c3359816d02b07dee&start=1663&end=2358","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3238456-a076af957401141c3359816d02b07dee/thumbnail_1663000.jpg","/articles/6564963/San-Luis-Obispo-City/San-Luis-Obispo-County/California/SLO-council-introduces-ordinance-to-clarify-cannabis-zoning-delays-new-storefront-applications","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564963-9632f6293b602970043e6648b8285f89/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199403&Signature=UJsGpz~DFcXNpC5QjsIhaIDYcWCzLAh8OHI~f4e1tbJ6PONdhvfJa~KYPk3jq2yEZygV4YRTWLEsawNGPoM4dVYvJRyGvQGFRJ0eTdsJ3gmhPlaS3rnyBRVwJbgI-80ZLdsHFTw75hSZh6AT1K566KmkzuT74DP352FuA0-4G3eSPlUWcTel1Ly39yiiIDqmSr5cJXpsReSdwO6F3bPoYb01odQrKxgCLBV8UdZCRGFq7JFNOQyQpv8emFXdrGzok38-4c27BhhhgaP0b--Wh5BVshuOMCTDfH2XSIeUtR8BQ2Ujm1idaspZdeQi6jufcKtZpMXdw3NH1kU12cXx0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Luis Obispo city staff presented the annual commercial cannabis program update on May 6 and introduced an ordinance to amend municipal code section 17.86.80 to clarify land‑use and operational requirements for commercial cannabis activity.

The update, given by Ivana Gomez, the city’s cannabis business coordinator, said the city currently has two active retail storefront operator permits — Megan’s Organic Market (280 Higuera) and SlowCal Roots (3535 South Higuera) — and a third retail permit that is conditionally awarded to Embark in 2024 but is inactive pending an appeal scheduled for council review July 1. Gomez said, “Because there is a 3 retail storefront permit limit in the city, the city cannot accept new retail storefront applications until that appeal is resolved.”

Gomez summarized proposed amendments described by staff as “cleanup” and clarifying changes, not policy shifts. She told council the amendments would (1) clarify how buffer distances apply to retail storefronts and to the city’s cannabis overlay zones (CBZ), (2) remove repetitive or inconsistent terminology such as “can overlay” in favor of the consistent “CBZ overlay,” (3) remove a specific federal Controlled Substances Act scheduling reference from the purpose statement to avoid repeated future code updates if federal classification changes, and (4) align microbusiness operational standards (hours, age access, signage) with retail storefront rules.

Why it matters: Gomez explained the buffer regime adopted in 2018 remains in force: retail storefronts must be 1,000 feet from schools and public parks, 600 feet from licensed day‑care centers, and 300 feet from residentially zoned areas only when those residential zones occur inside a CBZ overlay. Gomez said the CBZ overlay zones were intended to concentrate cannabis uses in areas already separated from sensitive uses by major barriers such as Broad Street or the railroad.

Retail operators in the audience asked the council to go further. Megan Souza, owner of Megan’s Organic Market, asked council to “direct staff to explore opportunities for cannabis events in the city of SLO,” citing examples such as educational or infused‑dinner events and noting such events would also require state temporary event permits from the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). Austin Canela, of SlowCal Roots, asked council to study both temporary cannabis event rules and the possibility of on‑site consumption areas at licensed retailers, saying on‑site consumption would “open the door for tourism innovation from educational sessions to curated tasting experiences.”

Staff response and next steps: Gomez told council the requested changes are primarily clarifications and that staff did not recommend opening a new retail application period while the third permit remains under appeal. She also noted the city’s current fee and tax structure: cannabis tax revenue is collected monthly and is budgeted at about $1.1 million annually; permit fee revenue (renewals and transfer fees) is intended to cover program administration. Gomez said a new transfer‑of‑ownership fee adopted in October 2024 is approximately $14,000 and covers staff time for processing transfers. Councilmember Susan Francis asked how the city would proceed if it wanted to explore temporary events or on‑site consumption; Gomez and Director Timmy Tway said staff could prepare a high‑level memo describing other jurisdictions’ approaches and the work and resources a code change would require, and that a more extensive outreach and work‑plan commitment would be needed for program overhauls.

Council action: Councilmember Candy Marks moved to receive the update and introduce an ordinance amending section 17.86.80 to clarify land‑use and operational requirements for commercial cannabis activity; Councilmember Boswell seconded. The motion passed 5–0.

What remains open: Councilmembers and staff acknowledged retailers’ requests to explore events and on‑site consumption but said those would require further study and likely a future work‑plan item. Gomez said microbusiness retail sales had not been updated in a 2023 ordinance change and staff proposed aligning microbusiness retail hours and medical‑access rules with retail storefront requirements.

Ending: The council introduced the ordinance and directed staff to return with the ordinance language for subsequent public hearing and adoption steps; staff also agreed to prepare high‑level information on how other jurisdictions manage temporary cannabis events and on‑site consumption if the council wants to pursue that topic further.","City staff briefed council on the annual cannabis program update and introduced an ordinance to clarify land‑use and operational rules in municipal code section 17.86.80. Council agreed to introduce the ordinance and asked staff to further study event and on‑site consumption requests raised by retailers.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6564953,"Council approves Tank Farm Road paving project; selects road‑diet alternative and directs safety refinements",714,3886000,4600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3238456-a076af957401141c3359816d02b07dee&start=3886&end=4600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3238456-a076af957401141c3359816d02b07dee/thumbnail_3886000.jpg","/articles/6564953/San-Luis-Obispo-City/San-Luis-Obispo-County/California/Council-approves-Tank-Farm-Road-paving-project-selects-roaddiet-alternative-and-directs-safety-refinements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564953-c6c7745073561d646374d557e57b9d61/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199403&Signature=PKIkODwRqNEJ1TzqUjJO83GY5s9csUeekQJXXDfwRh2zjGBKdw5OapXz4vJmKS3HAW9uYv02NSnS1AGYrQ5q9IovBDXE9l2eduK05eLUyLvEJo7h-VyL4rDbeOD~uIcBbNS5I2Gjjdo4WSLygYXYTagm98qVwkvgXH3-3NoHy55H35CsjZrscmJS7UQxNiZp0StPcRfb~CXcuCoTN3VJ~q8Z4l0iLAzuIHt5PPRI~Uuyu0YEjuxmD0SBpE8NZDh8xas2TZa~BvbOXZrvhGwp69re2rOvqPK8xh4lo-PGKQR~dCJ4hvoG34s9PDvfVh2GZgoH-VOZFJuUW93esdnDDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council authorized staff May 6 to advertise and pursue construction of the city’s 2025 paving project, including Tank Farm Road (Broad Street to the Orchid roundabout) and a Sacramento Drive repaving segment. Council gave staff clear direction to pursue a “road‑diet” striping alternative on Tank Farm Road between the Marigold Center and the Union Pacific railroad bridge (Alternative 1) and to explore additional safety enhancements such as pedestrian refuges and flex‑post buffers where feasible.

Project scope and cost: Public works staff described the project as a full pavement reconstruction for several arterial links. The full engineer’s estimate for the advertised base bid and two additive alternates was approximately $11.1 million; available funding at the time of the meeting was about $9.1 million. The base bid (funding‑priority scope) includes Tank Farm Road between Broad Street and the Orchid roundabout (excluding paving inside the roundabouts) and Sacramento Drive segments; additonal alternates could be awarded if bids and funding permit.

Why the road diet was proposed: Transportation staff said Tank Farm Road east of Broad currently functions as five lanes on its western portion (two through lanes each direction plus a center turn lane) and narrows to one lane each way east of the railroad bridge. Staff presented two alternatives: (1) a road diet that reduces the two‑lane section east of the Marigold Center to a single travel lane each direction with a wider center turn lane and striped buffer for bicycle lanes; or (2) retain the existing four‑lane section through the same area and make smaller safety improvements. Staff recommended Alternative 1 based on national research and the city’s Active Transportation Plan, noting the stretch is an ATP Tier‑1 corridor where protected bicycle facilities and improved pedestrian crossings are priorities.

Safety elements and trade‑offs: Staff highlighted collision history that included two severe pedestrian injury collisions in recent years near the corridor and frequent complaints about illegal high speeds. Alternative 1’s advantages include proven crash‑reduction potential, improved pedestrian safety at new marked crossings including a proposed crossing at Morning Glory, and speed feedback signs. Fire and emergency staff raised concerns about fixed vertical features (concrete curbs or large raised refuges) that could impede mass evacuation or emergency access; staff therefore recommended non‑vertical stripe buffers and flexibility to avoid vertical obstructions unless subsequent detailed analysis shows they are safe. Council directed staff to continue to test design options and to coordinate with the Fire Department on emergency access and evacuation timing; Fire Chief Todd Tuggle advised that any vertical obstruction could constrain vehicles attempting to expand traffic lanes during an evacuation.

Sacramento Drive and other items: Before the Tank Farm deliberation the council separately approved the Sacramento Drive paving and safety measures (speed feedback signs, curve warning beacons and targeted pavement markings) as part of the base bid. That Sacramento vote passed 4–0 (Mayor Stewart briefly recused from that portion of the meeting for a locality conflict). Council then returned to the Tank Farm discussion and, after public comment and lengthy council deliberation, directed staff to finalize design for Alternative 1 and to advertise the project for bid.

Next steps and timeline: Staff said the project would be advertised in June, bids opened in July, and, if bids are responsive and within budget, construction could start in August or September with completion expected by January–February 2026. The city engineer was authorized to finalize plans consistent with council direction; the city manager was authorized to award a contract within available funding. Council also authorized staff to use contract change order authority within the approved project budget to address field conditions.

Ending: Council approved staff’s direction to implement the Tank Farm road‑diet striping plan with further work on pedestrian refuges and flexible physical protection for bicycle lanes where feasible, while prioritizing emergency‑response and evacuation planning.","Council authorized advertisement and likely award of the 2025 paving project (base bid includes Tank Farm Road and Sacramento Drive) and gave staff direction to advance a road‑diet option on Tank Farm east of the Marigold Center with additional safety measures. The Sacramento segment was approved earlier in the meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council introduces amendment to allow mixed‑use housing in Airport Area Specific Plan; votes 5–0

SLO council introduces ordinance to clarify cannabis zoning, delays new storefront applications

Council approves Tank Farm Road paving project; selects road‑diet alternative and directs safety refinements