Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/15/2008, PH4 - REVIEW OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RE
council N«tiag Da.11,1151- 6s", // l 6� j acEnoA RepoRt ` �y CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE AND THREE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4), (1292 FOOTHILL; ER/GP/R/U 109-05). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation for the site from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density Residential and approving a use permit to allow a fraternity, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 2. Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to High-Density Residential (R-4) for the project site and three surrounding properties. Situation The applicant is proposing a new fraternity building that includes many environmental friendly and sustainable features and is designed to qualify for LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). The new proposed fraternity building would be on the same site as the existingr__ fraternity and would increase the number of potential residents from 10 ll to 29. The project requires a rezone to �? High-Density Residential (R-4) to allow the number of proposed a residents on the site. On February 13, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project including entitlements for a use -` permit to allow the fraternity use, general plan amendment, rezoning and environmental review, finding it consistent with General Plan policy to locate student housing projects such as fraternities and sororities in close proximity to the Cal Poly campus. Council Agenda Report 0 U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lambda Chi Alpha) Page 2 The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5) provides a detailed analysis of the project's consistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines and the Zoning Regulations. Data Summary Address: 1290-1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue Applicant: Kevin Hauber, Phi Sigma Zeta Housing Corp. Representative: John Knight, RRM Design Group Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential Zone) General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was recommended by the Planning Commission on February 13, 2008 (Attachment 6). Site Description The properties that are site of the proposed fraternity redevelopment project are 1292 Foothill Boulevard and 123 Crandall Avenue. The 1292 Foothill portion of the property is currently developed with two structures (six bedrooms total). On March 17, 1998, the City Council approved a use permit allowing the fraternity use at the site with a maximum occupancy of 13. Because of constraints in providing required parking, the occupancy has been limited to 10. Site improvements include a small driveway and on-site parking for nine vehicles. The property at , 123 Crandall Avenue is about 6,000 square feet in area and is developed with a single-family residence with no special approvals for group housing uses. If approved, the rezone would have left just two properties on the block zoned R-3. In staff's preliminary analysis, the same general plan policies applicable to the applicant's proposal also applied to the other properties so staff initiated a modification to the application to include the remaining properties zoned R-3. There are three other properties included as part of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning request with no changes to site development currently proposed. The property at 1290 Foothill is 26,520 square feet in size and is currently developed with a sorority. 135 Crandall Avenue is developed with a 3-bedroom residence. The property at 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue developed with a twenty unit apartment complex (see Figure 1, below and vicinity map, Attachment 1). With the inclusion of these three properties as part of the rezoning request, there would be continuous R-4 zoning between Foothill Blvd and the Cal Poly campus extending from California Blvd. to Crandall Avenue. All property owners of the affected properties are in support of the rezoning. For the other properties included in the rezone but not currently proposed for redevelopment, future plans will be evaluated for consistency with City property development policies, standards, and neighborhood compatibility. y-2 Council Agenda Report U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lambda Chi Alpha) Page 3 Cal Poli ti wA w .� Area ojReane i `�•s 1 r Proka Srte 10 It Figure 1. Proiect.cite and area of rezone. Proiect Description At 1292 Foothill Blvd and 123 Crandall Avenue, the applicant is proposing to demolish existing buildings and improvements on the project site to construct a new approximately 8,800 square- foot, 29-bed fraternity house on the 0.54 acre site. The three story building includes 16- bedrooms and has an apartment for fraternity house parents, kitchen and dining facilities, an office, and library. Site improvements include a 23 space parking lot accessed from Foothill Boulevard and a patio area with pergola (see Attachment 2, project plans). There are three other properties included as part of the general plan amendment and rezoning request with no changes to site development currently proposed. The property at 1290 Foothill is 26,520 square feet in size and is currently developed with a sorority. 135 Crandall Avenue is 6,300 square feet and developed with a 3-bedroom residence. The property at 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue is a 1.4 acre site with a twenty unit apartment complex. The proposed rezone to R-4 would affect the density/development potential of these properties in the following way: 1) 1290 Foothill (existing sorority): the existing maximum number of persons/acre allowed on the site is 24. With R-4 zoning there would be a possible 33 persons allowed on the site under group housing standards. 2) 135 Crandall Ave. (existing 3-bedroom SFR) has a development potential of 2.60 density units (ex. three (1)-bedroom units + studio) With R-4 zoning there would be 3.47 density units (four (1)-bedroom units + studio). 3) 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue (twenty unit apartment complex) could currently be developed with 25 two-bedroom units and with R-4 zoning 33 two-bedroom units would be possible. ARC Review The project was reviewed on a conceptual basis by the ARC on December 17, 2007. The ARC was supportive of the project based mainly on its efforts for LEED certification to be at the Z/1 Council Agenda Report U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lambda Chi Alpha) Page 4 forefront in terms of energy conservation and sustainability. The ARC also appreciated the applicant's efforts to design the building to be lower in profile to address neighborhood compatibility concerns and requested additional information at final architectural review to include more details on site improvements such as the fence and wall details, gate design, and trash enclosure. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the project on February 13, 2008, to make a recommendation to the City Council on the project. The Planning Commission found the fraternity use and rezoning to High-Density Residential (R-4) appropriate with the location's close proximity to Cal Poly. The Public Works Department had recommended a condition of approval that the applicant contribute a "fair share" of the traffic improvements at the Foothill and California Blvd. intersection. The "fair share" fees would have been in addition to standard traffic impact fees for additional vehicle trips generated from the project. Planning Commission's motion to approve the use permit was to not include the Public Works recommended condition for intersection improvements since the project would allow additional residents that could walk or bicycle to Cal Poly. The Public Works Department has subsequently eliminated the recommended condition of approval based on calculations that the increase in trips is minimal and standard traffic impact fees are sufficient for the applicant to participate in planned improvements. The Planning Commission adopted the resolution recommending approval of the rezone, general plan amendment, and Negative Declaration to the City Council. The Planning Commission also adopted a resolution recommending approval of the use permit with elimination of the intersection improvement condition and requiring that the bathroom near the dining room and one of the units be designed as handicap accessible (Attachment 3, PC minutes). Summary The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the project site and surrounding properties was supported by the Planning Commission at this location because it would allow for increased opportunities for affordable housing and group housing uses in very close proximity to Cal Poly, consistent with General Plan policy. The Lambda Chi fraternity sets a desirable design precedent in the area since the project's design is the first of its kind in the City based entirely on meeting the high "Gold Standard" of LEED certification. For the other properties included in the rezone but not currently proposed for redevelopment, future plans will be evaluated for consistency with City property development policies, standards, and neighborhood compatibility. CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Fire Department have reviewed the project and found the proposed project and driveway access to be acceptable. The grading and drainage plan has been conceptually approved by the Public Works Department. The Utilities Department also finds the proposed project acceptable and approves of the location and design of the trash and recycling enclosure. Council Agenda Report U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lambda Chi Alpha) Page 5 FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the General Plan amendment, rezoning, and use permit, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan or other policies. 2. Continue the project if additional information is needed, with specific direction given to staff. Attachments: 1: Vicinity map 2: Reduced scale project plans 3: February 13, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes 4: February 13, 2008, Planning Commission follow-up letter with draft resolutions 5: February 13, 2008, Planning Commission staff report 6: Draft initial study of environmental review (w/o attachments) 7: Ordinance approving the GP/R 8: Resolution approving use permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration Council reading file: Full size project plans GACD-PLAMbleveille\Lambda Chi Frat(1292 Foothill),ARC,GP,RZ,U,ER 109-05\City Council Report(109-05)Lambda Chi.doc y- s moi► � . CD • Attachment 2 itt1*0 G L Lfl , ' t � Y 5 c n � �«xo♦ve 3 Q�gu mEm c �a d �O �QS a $ ' ►D w Cn v � _ 4► �aaa« < g « « m ►D CL m 3 �S° ^ vBz K f1l ss s� 3 ap" g g lo w Dr ' ° PPf Y �' Y y Y * 9s Me Y = l s �a N J 1 Attachment 2 H� Iry ti a o � TM : F r P o'fif �n7 z a ,r.r 0\Avo is CD I CD f , 0fH O1 a� : 3 ?3333 � n $� s ry� ?�5 ���5 aana ananana o o L ' Za f film Attachment 2 if O mn O 22 Cc Za ,all r)-n It NJ 1. 1'1II'I'1'1111'� 1111111._ ;i;i isle z ill��I;IE�4v 11�I�IIIIIIl��� a- 5 cn 'iCgngEm �'° I i1 i IY1 II (. 1111 I eS55 (}g[G l'.II"i,IE I,I(� `* I-I' I I 11i p�1i 1 11_ Ii�t 1411111�I 11 11(I 31:A 1 1111 O 1i 1111 . ........... 11i!•I IiOffZ 5 -.i 3G'- tia E..- I;7 liiililf.l ! 1 - tIII% IIIIIIIGII III;III�� G Ir 111 III;II�I lilll 11!1111 i� �i!4 1L11mtlll!1�11W1LLIii)i. �n�/. I�� IYnIY I'I ilili'ilir / ` I_� II Jilr �� 5= t 1111111 �� nil 00 , I I Epi a _ � ��• � Ildilll ISI II - 1 'Iii 10 , ' _ '��•I� � 111�1)(•;� 0A ,! s5! ii�!i3 10 IIIIIIII�I�I�� I = 't 1111 4 �0 III II I i G 5 111 I 1 II fitl i r m 111431 IlfI I�.I III'I II tl,l✓ I 1 �' �� 55` C ..IIU1�) I - II12 L4lI I R��u L (114 'i'i'if 'i'i'i't'IIII I III I I I II 111 Illlli 111?!1 I� 111111�II I Y _I �I� f l ��1111 1111111 �pll�1 I li � •• 1111 ©� I:In 1lilhllll�llllllll9l., "',1, 1'1'''�lli�lll�l�llllll������1 — ��11z 1,1 , Illlllllllp S 1111111! Attachment 2CD ri if �1 , i i a � a ; a I ; P , , I I I ; , , / a $ , i I a , I q / , I I , I I / � I I / I / I I / I N � or , O I I v mQ ' —n a 3 • Attachment 2 s �_— N65°06'2 *E 86.20' I X , i I i I I �S' m ' I Im �4 I g , } I ,L N65"06'21" E 84.3=- m I a N I C n y , 2 N r , �4d p MM oto ,.._. .. � �`Bti p. ' I -0..�. M x I ti m 6,;ZL O5� Un '90 yoo- 0 Pu 0 O , /y`0zy2 V Z t ' O � CLO z3 r i� _ a m 5 � m O 0 g m !y � £ m m w�DO a sg �^' ZG D ' m g� a Attachment 2 .r o • elm x � .11,10 X M1 j — \ ry � g � o .a l.. 0 I � o z -- V� � O \ �hn \ Qm A) D II 1+1 j m r)� eF �IggTI"T �r ea yrs s�5�t� �.� Zo N y-/3 • IaF t .1 CL CD T wit OQ ,1 Hu O D m + Z r ' r C Z a a; m zt i' r �., tom,• 0 _., �.- . .. ; •awe. ,a�,. f� J A m d"r:y A y ate^" CJ,•l .,; m .,o �"'" a � "*a S� xs _ s O V ; /'\ M O Al N r ti'�,' m m of fl�i WlAR A N Al f r m O (DO rpr Z r r � m 5 I11 III III m m �0 3 a 4 z �P n EE �z f o yg ge R.49 a tqo 0 n :�4 A �� m �.�� 6�g e } j �65 O 1E�E��p� p i m �3� g�# � � 2 D� g ¢_ i 4i S 9 F i = o nl nS O m m n 3 p p p m m 0 1 i�ap �p z i++ Zo S yS 2( y9n FB gl N F5'4 ig :i ? s � FFF FFR aFFFF FFq F-s„FM°F6F FFi S.F F-F � dd# ttd tad'^ad6°. t:oet="ttt -aa ILA a s N t tR } ttd tt ttt dtt ttt ma I— J t. r I _ Ih ! 111 filly 1 Im1vtVG9maG®ema�. z�a �� ®8 ._ : -�rl Go-i�Ei��Rzn� - it Ulf - !� � � it1•;��ri� ew�Nw6 of;W�� I�q� i�IJ nm�ah �� If(IN1.7 CUM �►— ��� Wii,i 111111 " • may.°, En ww • II��I ty�,e y ��� }, • 193' Ri f .. h qq Y� Attachment 2 RIM Jill 8 fHIM si P I. 11111H '1m z �e 7z it'll@ ¢ Qm gill I? < r) C, >11 p� �� � o SAN LUIS OBISPO Affachment 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 2008 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Amanda Brodie, John Ashbaugh, Michael Multari, Dan Carpenter, Vice-Chair Charles Stevenson, and Chairperson Carlyn Christianson Absent: Diana Gould-Wells Staff: Associate Planner Tyler Corey, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, City Utilities Conservation Coordinator Ron Munds, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, and Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: The minutes of January 23, 2008 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 7HiII Street. 187-07: Request to add executive suite us to the allowable use stabusheU d for the site and extend hours of oper on for the use from 7 a.m. to 7 . to 24 hours a day for up to 4 employees r office/phone work; R-1 zone; Robin Ro ' applicant. (Tyler Corey) This item was continued to ate uncertain to all the project to be properly noticed with a 1,000 foot radius from th ite, and allo he applicant and staff additional time to clarify existing and proposed uses. On motion by Commr Multari to conti to a to uncertain. Seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh. AYES: ;iXanso hbaugh, Carpente Brodie, Stevenson, and NOES:RECUSEABSENTr. Gould-WellsThe mo ' on a 6:0 vote. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on G -17 this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm 7 Street, during normal business hours. �Planning Commission Minutes • Attachment 3 2/13/08 Page 2 2. 730 & 748 Foothill Blvd. TR/ER 108-07: Tentative tract map and environmen iew for six airspace condo units with requests to allow the trash enclosure w' in stre yard setback, fence height exception, and building setback reductions long Foothi Ivd; R-4 zone; Foothill Courtyard LLC, applicant. (Brian Le ille) Associate Planne rian Leveille presented the staff report, recomme ing that the Planning Commissio adopt a resolution recommending approval of t condominium tract map and Negative eclaration to the City Council. Commr. Stevenson questi ed the setback exception and if a design would be affected. He also was conce ed that the tree wells provided a quate back-up space. He wondered if the applicants h d considered additional area f pervious pavers. Commr. Ashbaugh recognized the ie constraints and ap eciated the R-4 density. He asked if an addition street tree (palm) ould be provided. Commr. Multari asked about the entry o the rear nits and the justification for the setback exception. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Richard Rengel, applicant, supported s ffs commendation. He discussed the Commission's concerns regarding the b -up sp a and setback exception. Commr. Multari asked the applicant t confirm the en and open space of the units. Commr. Stevenson asked about a trash bins and whe they would be stored. Ron Munds, City Utilities nservation Coordinator, a lained the reason for the enclosure instead of individ al bins. There were no further c mments made from the public. COMMISSIONER MMENTS: Commr. Stever/ion said he does not support the setback exceptio and desires more permeable suplace in the driveway. He was also concerned about t e maneuvering of vehicles on e, particularly spaces #11 and #12. Commr. shbaugh agreed with the exception concerns. Com r. Carpenter supported the density and scale of the project but does of support th street yard exception or the fence height exception. He did say he could pport an ception to the open space standards. ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. l�l/y 2/13/08 Attac Planning Commission Minutes hment 3 Page 3 Com . Multari said he appreciated the density, but the project is too tight t e able to function equately. He agrees with Commissioner Carpenter in no upporting the street yard a fence height exception. Commr. Brodie agree ith'the other CommissZt could be reduced in size to meet City standa On motion b Commr. Stevenson ontinue t2008 to allow time to address the Commission's conce er setbacks fence height, open space, parking spaces/surfaces and other devOo-Onient standards. Seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh. AYES: Commrs. S enson, Ashbaugh, Multari, reenter, Brodie, and Christian n NOES: Non RECUSED: ne ABSENT- Commr. Gould-Wells T e motion carried on a 6:0 vote. 3. 1290-1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123. 125. 137, & 175 Crandall Avenue. U/GP- R/ER 109-05; General Plan amendment and rezone from Medium High Density Residential (R-3) to High Density Residential (R-4), use permit to allow fraternity, and environmental review; R-3 zone; Kevin Hauber, applicant. (Brian Leveille) Associate Planner Brian Leveille presented the staff report, recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the use permit, general plan amendment and rezone, and Negative Declaration to the City Council. He highlighted the project's sustainable design features and noted the addition of a condition from the Public Works Department to contribute a fair share of the traffic improvements at Foothill and California Streets. Commr. Multari questioned the access from the handicap space to the second floor and if the unit's bathrooms were designed for handicap accessibility. He further stated that he does not support the recommended condition from the Public Works Department. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Kevin Hauber, representative of the fraternity, supported the staff recommendation and introduced the project team. John Knight, RRM, discussed the project including the history of its design. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and ® activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. ��/9 Planning Commission Minutes Attac 2/13/08 hment 3 Page 4 Steve Gordon, President of the Fraternity, stated that the project meets the fraternity's needs and respects the surrounding neighborhood. They have established a neighborhood outreach plan. Jan Howell Marx, neighbor, supports the fraternity and the re-zone to R-4. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commr. Multari supported the land use in this location with its proximity to Cal Poly. He also supported keeping the limit of the number of people. He also believed that the first floor bathroom next to the dining room and at least one unit should be designed as handicap accessible even if it's not required by City standards. He does not support the recommended condition from the Public Works Department because the residents of the fraternity house would reduce the impact on the intersection by walking and bicycling to Cal Poly. On motion by Commr. Multari to adopt a resolution recommending approval. of the rezone, general plan amendment. and Negative Declaration to the City Council. Seconded by Commr. Carpenter. AYES: Commrs. Multari, Carpenter, Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Brodie, and Christianson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Gould-Wells The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. On motion by Commr. Stevenson to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the use permit and not include the Public Works Department recommended condition of traffic improvements but to require that the bathroom..near the dinning room and one of the units be designed as handicap accessible. Seconded by Commr. Brodie AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Brodie, Multari, Carpenter, Stevenson, and Christianson NOES: Ashbaugh RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Gould-Wells The motion carried on a 5:1 vote. Commr. Ashbaugh voted against the motion and felt that the Public Works Department condition of traffic improvements should be a condition of the project. ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities: Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. y-ago Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3 2/13/08 Page 5 Commr. Stevenson said the project was noteworthy because of its Green Building principles used in its design. 4. 11980 Los Osos Valley Road. ANNX/ARC/GP-R/ER 7-07; Discussion o the scope of the EIR for a project to annex and develop vacant agricultural Ian along os Osos Valley Road with a new retail center; Irish Hills Plaza East LLC, pplicant. ( 'I Dunsmore) Associate lanner Phil Dunsmore presented an overview of t e project and environmenta ' sues identified in the EIR work scope. Commr. Multari as d if archaeology is a potentially significant ' pact. He also asked how does the wideni of the flood plain address downstre impacts and if it was possible fora by-pass c nnel. Commr. Ashbaugh question the vehicular access to ceanaire from Froom Ranch. He also asked about the off-site itigation for open sp ce. Commr. Brodie asked about the fu t a bridge a oss the creek and if there are bike trails and connections in the area.. Neil Havlik, City Natural Resources Manag answered the Commission's questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carol Florence, representative of a applicant, introduced the project team and encouraged the Commission to A ' the site. Linda Seeley, San Luis O ' po, expressed concerns over the greenhouse gas emissions and conversion of griculture land. Rosemary Wilvert, Presi ent of Citizens for Planning Responsib' ity (CPR), referenced her letter submitted to he Commission. She disagreed with the ff-site mitigation for open space. Michael Sullivan an Luis Obispo, agreed with the points of the CPR etter, including the 50% open pace requirement. He believed that the project's impac on biological resources ar significant. Jan Ma , San Luis Obispo, supported the 50% open space requirement on e h of the three i dividual sites as referenced in the General Plan. Steven Marx, San Luis Obispo, agreed with the previous speakers and questions he impacts of a large regional center on agriculture land. ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 2/13/08 Page 6 Jerry Smith, San Luis Obispo, confirmed the flooding constraints of the property and the wildlife habitat. OMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Com . Multari recommended the revised staff report contain serioualtematives. He also re ested the work scope explore housing possibilities, an al�pmative site plan to open up t he creek, agriculture versus wildlife habitat, green house gas emissions and a look at all levant General Plan and zoning policies. Commr. Ashbau would like to see creative solutions o the flooding problems, protection of the cre , and respect to the adjacent neighbors. Commr. Carpenter appre ' ted the public comments nd the importance of the General Plan policies, the proposed 'dge over the creek arl any traffic impacts to the area. Commr. Christianson was conce d about the/project's impacts on view shed and was concerned about a project not prop o ing 50% f open space on-site. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 5. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Deputy Director Doug Davids gave the agenda for ast of upcoming projects. 6. Commission ADJOURNMENT: T meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Approved by t Planning Commission on February 27, 2008. Ryan . Betz Sup ising Administrative Assistant Presenting Planner(s): Tyler Corey, Brian Leveille, & Phil Dunsmore ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. s Attachment 4 �Illllllllllllllllllhllll Ihllllllll �`-�\ city osAn luis ' oaspo , Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 March 6, 2008 Kevin Hauber 1131 Monterrey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: 1290 — 1292 Foothill Boulevard - U/GP-R/ER 109-05 General Plan amendment and rezone from a Medium High Density Residential (R-3) to High Density Residential (R-4), use permit to allow fraternity, and environmental review. Dear Mr. Hauber: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 13, 2008, recommended approval of your request, based on the findings and subject to the conditions, as noted in the attached resolution. The Resolution recommends approval of the use permit, general plan amendment/rezone and negative declaration. Due to the City Water allocation regulations, the Planning Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request the Community Development Director may grant renewals for successive periods of not more than one year each. If you have any questions, please contact Brian Leveille at 781-7166. Sincerely, Doug Davidson Deputy Director of Community Development Attachment: Resolution #5499-08 Resolution #5500-08 cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office FIRM Design Group —John Knight Phi Sigma Zeta House Corp 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 P.O. Box 5141 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-5141 �� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. 5499-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-4),FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1290, 1292 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 1239 1257 137, 175 CRANDALL AVENUE; GP/R/ER 109-05 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 13, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/U/ER 109-05, Kevin Hauber, applicant; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the General Plan Amendment, rezoning, use permit; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as prepared by staff for the related use permit application #U 109-05; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies to locate student housing projects, fraternities and sororities, and generally more affordable housing in close proximity to the campus. 2. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to High-Density Residential (R-4) will allow for density required for the proposed fraternity use, and will provide for more viable future redevelopment of other properties to be consistent with the above General Plan Policies and Land Use Element policy stating that housing likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly, to reduce commute travel. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since it will not allow incompatible land uses. The area of the proposed GP/R and project site is already Resolution No. 5499-08 ® Attachment 4 Page 2 adjacent to other High-Density Zoned properties and is bordered by the Cal Poly campus to the north. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the related application involving potential development impacts,#U 109-05. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone, based on the above findings: On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Multari, Carpenter, Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Brodie, and Christianson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Gould-Wells The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of February, 2008. Doug Davi on, Secretary Planning Commission y-mss Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. 5500-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF USE PERMIT APPLICATION#U 109-05, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY HOUSE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON 1292 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 123 CRANDALL AVENUE 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 13, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/U/ER 109-05, Kevin Hauber, applicant; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the General Plan Amendment, rezoning, use permit; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as prepared by staff(ER 109-05); and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. 1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area, because limits on hours for events and numbers of persons allowed on site will restrict activities and limit disturbances to neighbors. 2. The subject use is appropriate at the proposed location, and will be compatible with surrounding land uses provided that the fraternity complies with all conditions at all times. 3. The proposed use conforms to the General Plan because it is a group housing use, which the General Plan designates as potentially appropriate for Medium-High Density (R-3) and High- Density (R-4) Residential areas. 4. The proposed use meets Zoning Ordinance requirements because it is a fraternity in a Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) zone and proposed to be rezoned to High-Density Residential (R-4), where fraternities are allowed with approval of a Planning Commission use permit. �_�� Resolution No.5500-08 Attachment 4 Page 2 Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application #U 109-05, and adopted of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 109-05, as shown on attached Exhibit A with incorporation of the following mitigation measures and conditions of approval: Mitigation Measures 1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities and vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated: a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours. Conditions 1. The use permit shall not be effective until after the associated site development has been completed consistent with the related Architectural Review Commission application #ARC 109-05, and given final occupancy. 2. Project plans submitted for Building Division review shall reflect handicap accessibility for the bathroom near the dining room and one of the residential bedroom units. 3. No more than twenty nine (29) persons shall reside at the house at any time. Additions to structures or additional occupancy shall require a use permit amendment. The applicant shall allow the city to verify occupancy of the house by allowing an inspection of the records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable time and shall be preceded by a 24-hour notice to the residents. 4. On site parking consistent with ARC approved plans shall be provided and maintained at all times for the intended use. 7 Resolution No.5500-08 tJ Attachment 4 Page 3 5. The property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary. 6. The maximum number of persons allowed on the site for routine meetings and gatherings is 44, except as specifically approved by the Community Development Director for special events. For such special events, the applicant shall also submit a parking and transportation plan. 7. No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities that would violate City Noise Ordinances or other City regulations, or that would exceed the maximum 44 persons . provisions noted in the above condition may take place between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as approved by the Community Development Director. 8. The applicant shall institute and maintain a neighborhood relations program. The neighborhood relations program shall be submitted and found complete to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. This plan shall include at least the following elements: * Annual training of all members in community relations. * A program to inform neighbors of upcoming events at the house. * Submission of names and telephone numbers of responsible persons, including the alumni president and chief financial officer, to the Community Development Department and to the neighbors within two blocks of the house. Responsible persons shall be available during all events and at reasonable hours otherwise, to receive and handle complaints. 9. Evidence of implementation of said plan shall be submitted to the director for review each year. Failure to exercise reasonable efforts to implement said plan may be grounds for revocation of this permit. 10. Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a meeting and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director in the fall of each year. Exceptions to this schedule must be approved by the Community Development Director. If the Director determines the change is significant and may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, then it will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. 11. Only signs permitted by the City and consistent with Sign Regulations may be displayed on the premises unless approved by the Community Development Director for temporary events. 12. The use permit shall be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire Department complaints are received by the City. In review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit. The Planning Commission may consider adding a condition requiring fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the neighborhood. Resolution No.5500-08 • Attachment 4 Page 4 13. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for revocation of this permit. On motion by Commissioner. Stevenson, seconded by Commissioner Brodie, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Brodie, Multari, Carpenter, Stevenson, and Christianson NOES: Ashbaugh RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Gould-Wells The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of February, 2008. Doug Davi on, Secretary Planning Commission Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM # 3 BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner(781-7166)0 MEETING DATE: February 13, 2008 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development b FILE NUMBER: U/GP-R/ER 109-05 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1290-1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123, 125, 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue SUBJECT: Review of use permit to allow a fraternity, environmental review, and General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the designation of the project site and three surrounding properties from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to High-Density Residential (R-4). RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the use permit, general plan amendment and rezone, and negative declaration to the City Council. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing fraternity building and associated site improvements on the approximately half-acre lot to construct a r T *1. new 8,800 square foot 16-bedroom29- bed) fraternity house. The project requests a rezone from R-3 to R-4 to allow additional density under group housing standards. Under the current R-3 zoning there is 40 persons/acre allowed, or 22 persons/acre for the .54 acre .� project site. With the property rezoned to R-4, the applicants design for 29 persons on the site could be allowed since 55 persons/acre are allowed for the R-4 zone under group housing standards. The application was originally submitted to include the project site and the adjacent property to the west which is the Alpha Phi sorority. If approved, the rezone would have left just two properties on the block zoned R-3. In staff's preliminary analysis, the same general plan policies applicable to the applicant's proposal also applied to the other properties so staff initiated a modification to the application to include the remaining properties zoned R-3. The applicant's plans were reviewed on a conceptual basis by the ARC on December 17, 2007. Provided the use permit and rezone is approved, the project will be brought back to the ARC for y'-3 6 C, Attachment U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha) Page 2 final approval with project modifications that may be required from Planning Commission and City Council review and/or previous ARC direction. Data Summary Address: 1290-1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123, 125, 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue Applicant: Kevin Hauber, Phi Sigma Zeta Housing Corp. Representative: John Knight, RRM Design Group Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential Zone) General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was recommended by the Director of Community Development on February 1, 2008 (Attachment 7). Site Description The 1292 Foothill portion of the property is currently developed with two structures (six bedrooms total). On March 17, 1998, the City Council approved a use permit allowing the fraternity use at the site with a maximum occupancy of 13. Because of constraints in providing required parking, the occupancy has been limited to 10. Site improvements include a small driveway and on-site parking for nine vehicles. The property at 123 Crandall Avenue is a single- family residence with no special approvals for group housing uses. There are three other properties included as part of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning request with no changes to site development currently proposed. The property at 1290 Foothill is 26,520 square feet in size and is currently developed with a sorority. 135 Crandall Avenue is 6,300 square feet and developed with a 3-bedroom residence. The property at 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue is a 1.4 acre site with a twenty unit apartment complex (see Figure 1,below and vicinity map, Attachment 1). t, y, v v Area of Rezone ' �4 f Protectsife� w� r Figure 1. Proiect site and area of rezone y�.3/ i Attachment 5 U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha) Page 3 Proiect Description At 1292 Foothill Blvd and 123 Crandall Avenue, the applicant is proposing to demolish existing buildings and improvements on the project site to construct a new approximately 8,800 square- foot, 29-bed fraternity house on the 0.54 acre site. The three story building includes 16- bedrooms and has an apartment for house parents, kitchen and dining facilities, an office, and library. Site improvements include a 23 space parking lot accessed from Foothill Boulevard and a patio area with pergola(see Attachment 2,project plans). There are three other properties included as part of the general plan amendment and rezoning request with no changes to site development currently proposed. The property at 1290 Foothill is 26,520 square feet in size and is currently developed with a sorority. 135 Crandall Avenue is 6,300 square feet and developed with a 3-bedroom residence. The property at 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue is a 1.4 acre site with a twenty unit apartment complex. The proposed rezone to R-4 would affect the density/development potential of these properties in the following way: 1) 1290 Foothill (existing.sorority): the existing maximum number of persons/acre allowed on the site is 24. With R-4 zoning there would be a possible 33 persons allowed on the site under group housing standards. 2) 135 Crandall Ave. (existing 3-bedroom SFR) has a development potential of 2.60 density units (ex. three (1)-bedroom units + studio) With R-4 zoning there would be 3.47 density units (four (1)-bedroom units + studio). 3) 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue (twenty unit apartment complex) could currently be developed with 25 two-bedroom units and with R-4 zoning 33 two-bedroom units would be possible. The applicant has made sustainability a high priority in the project design. An example of this commitment to "green" design is the significant amount of pervious pavers and concrete to reduce runoff impacts. Bioswales have also been incorporated into the design with the intent to capture runoff and reduce sediment and contaminants that may flow into City storm drains. The building form and materials use is reflective of project goals to create sustainable spaces. The applicant's project description states the main building form is designed to accommodate an alternative building system with high recycled content, insulating and sound deadening properties, minimizes the use of wood (insulated concrete forms, structurally insulated panels, or steel panel systems), and provides tall floor to floor heights with operable windows to improve day lighting and passive ventilation. Fenestration and shading devices are designed to maximize daylight, provide protection from high summer sun and accept low winter sun, and allows for passive cross-ventilation. It is notable that the applicant is pursuing what would be the first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building within the City limits. LEED is an internationally recognized program for certifying buildings as to meeting standards for energy efficiency and sustainable design. The applicant has provided a LEED-NC checklist demonstrating the project has been designed to attain LEED Gold Status (Attachment 3). The applicant's project description states: "The building is on course to easily achieve the LEED 4/-3a- • �� ' Attachment U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha) Page 4 Certified rating that is being pursued due to the sensitive design elements that began with the proper siting of the building and have carried through to even the smallest of details such as gutters and downspouts. The building's features all serve a purpose far beyond their outward appearance." ARC ReAew The project was reviewed on a conceptual basis by the ARC on December 17, 2007. The ARC was supportive of the project based mainly on its efforts for LEED certification to be at the forefront in terms of energy conservation and sustainability (ARC minutes, Attachment 4). The ARC requested additional information at final architectural review to include more details on site improvements such as the fence and wall details, gate design, and trash enclosure (ARC meeting actions, Attachment 5). Use Permit There is an existing use permit for the Lambda Chi fraternity at 1292 Foothill Boulevard approved by the City Council in 1998. The use permit allows no more than 10 persons to reside at the house at any time due to parking constraints. Since the current proposal involves redevelopment of the site and now includes the adjacent property to the east (123 Crandall) a new use permit is required. The Zoning Code allows the Planning Commission to take final action on use permits, however in this case a recommendation to Council is appropriate because the proposed fraternity use relies on City Council approval of the general plan amendment and rezone. Staff has included conditions of approval that are generally consistent with the prior use permit except that site development conditions are not necessary to be included in the use permit with final ARC approval being a requirement. Recommended conditions of approval for the use permit include specific hours for meeting times and events, neighborhood relations program, maximum numbers of persons allowed on site, and property maintenance provisions. The resolution also includes a provision that routine meeting and gatherings may not exceed 44 persons. This number is based on a formula developed with review of other fraternity use permits where the maximum number is based on 1.5 x the number of residents allowed (1.5 x 29 = 43.5 or 44). This condition notes that any special events involving more than 44 persons would require approval of the Community Development Director and the submittal of a parking management plan. EVALUATION 1. General Plan The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for consistency with applicable General Plan Policies. General Plan Policy is in italics followed by staffs response. �r23-3 Attachment 5 U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha) Page 5 LU2.2.10. Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development. Staffs Analysis: The proposed structure is consistent with the massing of other larger multi- family structures to the north and south of the project site (see Attachment 6, massing exhibit). The structure has been set below the existing grade to comply with the standard R-4 zone maximum height of 35-feet. Though the architectural character of the proposed structure is a departure from other development in the vicinity, the quality of its design and commitment to include sustainable features sets a high standard for this site and future redevelopment projects in the area. While the proposed structure sets a new standard, it can still be found to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, consistent with the cited LUE policy. L U 2.4.8.High Density Residential High Density Residential development should be primarily attached dwellings in two- or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive and compatible with these dwellings such as group housing, parks, schools, and churches may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities. .._�[..p ..s ? .wt{�`•s+Yr',�l ` X13 r * . Area of Rezone tilt ;,{ •~ t a R-3 1� i t R-3 to R4 rt s �►s!. 'A t Ato Ria. s ' A ` R4 R-4 R-1 t r: t ^ft l r R-4 t v Figure Z Area zoning - i j Attachment 5 U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha) Page 6 Staffs Analysis: The applicant is pursuing High Density Residential Zoning (R-4) to allow the project. The project is consistent with LU 2.4.8 since it proposes group housing in close proximity to Cal Poly. The project also includes a general plan amendment and rezone of three surrounding properties from R-3 to R-4. Staff recommended the project be modified to include these properties since the project site and adjacent properties are adjacent to Cal Poly and in an area of other R-4 zoned properties to the south and west (See figure 2, above). Rezoning these properties would allow future redevelopment proposals to be consistent with General Plan policies to locate student housing projects and fraternities and sororities in close proximity to the campus. Staff has also received an application to rezone the block to the east from R-3 to R-4 in conjunction with the redevelopment of a specific site. This general plan amendment and rezone would be brought to the Planning Commission and City Council in the next cycle of general plan amendments. LU 2.5.Affordable Housing The City will help to conserve and increase residential opportunities for residents with very low, low, or moderate incomes. As explained more fully in the Housing Element, each project should contribute in some way to the conservation or production of affordable housing, considering the opportunities and limitations for the project. Staffs Analysis: The project is consistent with this policy since it provides residential opportunities for students in close proximity to the Cal Poly campus. L U Z 7.3:Amenities Multifamily housing likely to be occupied by students should provide the amenities which students seek in single family areas, to provide an attractive alternative. Staffs Analysis: The project amenities are consistent with this policy since it provides kitchen, laundry, media access,bike parking, and outdoor gathering areas. L U 2.7.4: Location Housing likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly, to reduce commute travel. Staffs Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with the above policy to reduce commute travel with its location approximately 200 yards from the Cal Poly campus. LU2.7.5:Fraternities and Sororities Fraternities and Sororities should be located, in order of preference, (1) on campus; (2) in medium-high and high-density residential areas near the campus. y-3S �1 Attachment 5 U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha) Page 7 Staffs Analysis: The proposed project will allow for the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity to be located in very close proximity to the Cal Poly campus. The project site is currently zoned for medium-high density residential and is proposed for high-density residential zoning. COS 4.3.4: Use of energy efficient, renewable energy sources The City will promote the use of cost effective, renewable, non-depleting energy sources wherever possible, both in new construction projects and in existing buildings and facilities. COS 4.3.6.Energy and efficiency in Green Building and new development The City shall encourage energy-efficient "green buildings" as certified by the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Program or equivalent certification.. " Staffs Anal: The proposed project has been designed with energy efficiency in mind. The project has been designed to meet the LEED "Gold" rating which represents substantial reduction in energy use. The project incorporates renewable energy production in the form of energy producing and hot water heating solar panels. 2. Community Design Guidelines The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for consistency with applicable Community Design Guidelines. Guidelines are in italics followed by a staff's response. L Facade and roof articulation. A structure with three or more attached units should incorporate significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale. Changes in wall planes and roof heights, and the inclusion of elements such as balconies, porches, arcades, dormers, and cross gables can avoid the barracks-like quality of long fat walls and roofs. Secondary hipped or gabled roofs covering the entire mass of a building are preferable to mansard roofs or segments of pitched roof applied at the structure's edge. Staff's Analysis: The project provides significant articulation and changes in roof and wall planes which was primarily designed to achieve energy savings and LEED certification but also creates visual interest and reduces the apparent mass of the structure. The project utilizes a combination of exterior materials and colors with the use of horizontal siding, shingle siding, vertical siding, and split face CMU. The project also incorporates metal roofing and Low-E Windows w/shading devices. A color and materials board with samples of these materials will be provided at the meeting. 5.4 B. Parking and driveways, Individual closeable garages are the preferred method for providing parking for residents in multi family projects. If garages within the residential structures are not provided, dispersed parking courts are acceptable. 1. Long, monotonous parking drives and large, undivided parking lots are discouraged. y-3� i • Attachment s U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha) Page 8 2. The main vehicle access into a multi family site should be through an attractive entry drive. Colored and textured paving treatment is encouraged outside of the public street right-of-way, and within the project. Staffs Analysis: The project does not provide individual closeable garages, but as a group housing project, incorporating individual closeable garages is not necessarily an important or feasible design option. The project does incorporate a significant amount of pervious paving to both reduce runoff generated from the site and to enhance the appearance of the parking lot area. 3. Property Development Standards The project requires two exceptions from development standards: (1) to allow fences and walls to exceed the standard 6-foot maximum height; and (2) the trash and recycling enclosure is designed to be within the Foothill Boulevard street yard setback. The ARC provided direction on these items to minimize visual impacts from the trash enclosure and fence and wall heights that will be reviewed with final ARC approval. Otherwise, the project is in compliance with R-4 property development standards in terms of height, coverage, yards and density. 4. Landscaping The landscape plan is designed with native/drought tolerant plantings. In conformance with LEED standards, the design is intended to require little or no watering after the establishment period, provide shading for the hardscape of the site to decrease the heat island effect, and provides for use of rainwater captured from the roof(see Landscape plan sheet L 1). Summary _. The proposed GP/R for the project site and surrounding properties seems appropriate at this location because it would allow for increased opportunities for affordable housing and group housing uses in very close proximity to Cal Poly, consistent with General Plan policy. The Lambda Chi fraternity sets a desirable design precedent in the area since the project's design is the first of its kind in the City based entirely on meeting the high "Gold Standard" of LEED certification. For the other properties included in the rezone but not currently proposed for redevelopment, future plans will be evaluated for consistency with City property development policies, standards, and neighborhood compatibility. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or project modifications required. 2. Recommend denial of the project to the City Council. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. _ f t 1 Attachment 5 U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha) Page 9 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1:—'Ivl t wrap Cyl.4- Attachment 2: &k o 4- Attachment 3: LEED checklist Attachment 4: ARC minutes Attachment 5: ARC meeting actions Attachment 6: Massing and project scale exhibits Attachment 7: not aa�,,df) Attachment 8: (no+- eo() Attachment 9: I Getmeil (no 4- a+1_4-a On e a() GAIeveille/LambdaChi(1292 Foothill)ARC,G,RZ,ER U,FH/PCReport(LamdaChiAlpha)2,13,08 Att meet LEED for New Construction v2.2 «�o Registered Project Checklist Project Name: Lambda Chi Fraternity House Yas ? No MHE su§tainabiia -, Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required as -0 Credit 1 Site Selection 1 1` L Credit 2 Development Density&Community Connectivity 1 Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 >1 =; Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1 -t'-Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage&Changing Rooms 1 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting&Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 1 ; Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 1 :. :.::z R. Credit s.1 Site Development,Protect or Restore Habitat 1 r 7,--Credit 51 Site Development,Maximize Open Space 1 4 -a Crean 6.1 Storrnwater Design,Quantity Control 1 °''. Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design,Quality Control 1 "1: `•� yx Credit 7.1 Heat island Effect,Non-Roof 1 .51Z:::::=_;G'Crede 7.2 Heat Island Effect,Roof 1 IJi s1;Credit a Light Pollution Reduction 1 Ym t N, ME -• 'V sem: : credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1 ;'g ;Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1 S fit 'z+ Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1 A'-1 :;'�:n-J Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction,20%Reduction 1 fir,,X1.11' CTed t 3.2 Water Use Reduction,30%Reduction 1 8 3 , , Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Required Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management RegLdmd *Note for EAct:All LEED for New Construction prolects registered after Jrure 29P,2007 are required to achieve at least two(2)polnm under EAct. Credit 1 O mite Energy Performance 1 to 10 10.5%New Buildings or 3.5%Existing Building Renovations 1 14%New Buildings or 7%Existing Building Renovations 2 17.5%New Buildings or 10.5%Existing Building Renovations 3 21%New Buildings or 14%Existing Building Renovations a 5 24.5%New Buildings or 17.5%Existing Building Renovations 5 28%New Buildings or 21.%Existing Building Renovations s 31.5%New Buildings or 24.5%Existing Building Renovations 7 35%New Buildings or 28%Existing Building Renovations a 38:5%New Buildings or 31.5%Existing Building Renovations 9 42%New Buildings or 35%Existing Building Renovations 10 Credit z Onsite Renewable Energy 1 to 3 2.5%Renewable Energy 1 7.5%Renewable Energy 2 3 12.5%Renewable Energy 3 Z,A, .fi Credl3 Enhanced Commissioning 1 '. MM Credit a Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1 Credl 5 Measurement&Verification 1 Credits Green Power 1 continued... y-3� • A*tachmer,t Y= 7 No 6 4 Prereq 1 Storage&Collection ofRecyclables Required 5 _ Credit 1.1 Building Reuse,Maintain 75%of Existing Wails,Floors&Roof 1 j:,�Credit 1.2 Building Reuse,Maintain 100%of Existing Walls, Floors&Roof 1 a '7' Credit 1.3 Building Reuse,Maintain 50%of Interior Nonstructural Elements 1 ? :,Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management,Divert 50%from Disposal 1 77 ,;Jr,Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management,Divert 75%from Disposal 1 Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse,5% - 1 .<< Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse,10% 1 r 1-�• " Credit 4.1 Recycled Content,10%(post-consumer+%pre-consumer) 1 r . Credit 4.2 Recycled Content,20%(post-consumer+'A pre-consumer) 1 ."" 'Credit 5.1 Regional Materials, 10%Extracted,Processed&Manufactured Regio 1 p` Credit 5.2 Regional Materials,20%Extracted,Processed&Manufactured Regio 1 J= s•"_'Credit Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 1`m -"Credit 7 Certified Wood 1 Yes 7 No Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance Required Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke(ETS)Control Required I. Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 7y' Credit Increased Ventilation 1 1a :x Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 1 A i .%Credd 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 1 1;Credit4.1 Low-Emitting Materials,Adhesives&Sealants 1 Credit 4.2 LOW-Emitting Materials, Paints&Coatings 1 -kik Credit 4.3 LOW-Emitting Materials,Carpet Systems 1 „ tWi Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials,Composite Wood&Agrifiber Products 1 Credit s Indoor Chemical&Pollutant Source Control 1 c _ Xr Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, lighting 1 .x Credit sz Controllability of Systems,Thermal Comfort t ate 74 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort,Design 1 6r;Credit7.2 Thermal Comfort,Verification 1 l F Credit e.1 Daylight&Views,Daylight 75%of Spaces 1 Credit e.2 Daylight&Views,Views for 90%of Spaces 1 Yes 7 No Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design:Provide Specific Title 1 Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design:Provide Specific Title 1 Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design:Provide Specific Title 1 INCredit Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design:Provide Specific Title 1 2 LEECP Accredited Professional 1 Y•a 7 Np MME Certified: 26-32 points, Silver: 33-38 points, Gold: 39-51 points, Platinum: 52-69 points y-y� Attachment 5 n• n n n: o n v Ul ° •�:$' S $ '�: '� '=' : �' �: 8 Hwy d W: N N .41 N. r w V V w N• A A •- • CL 3 + + N -• m :N: + r N A 41 :N: + ; �T ;......• s o :0 :e 3 m 3 c :m :Z:m :ZiW:3 : c3 c a m m :e: :F : F m 'm : 8: ; °: ;y; ;; .£ .m .m .m . 3 m w : w :<: = c :ao:F :m:F :m:J : m J m m :m : m Fc :a: a ; :c : ;JA A : : m m := m.=.mmo :m: m c oJ S :m : m :a: O J D d } :o ;�:m :J •�c ;m ; 'c o n :m: m m m :n ; °. P .m ho? ':3A.:oN1 '..\3m°.:mNW'::m9':m=m :: O 3N : ° ::m£ ;. n w :- :• -Z ° 0d •'0 0 m :d ;& 0 :p: DO O. ? Nd : M. :m. » dr•� :^: O O :O: O :m : C1 3 :oi Z .o ; n O :p: m o ;n: c 3 J S:C:Q m o o :mi c c : o_ m :m n 3 :w: a. EL :< :oo p J m .0 . o m �_ 'o : n m 3 i a n c P } v r 00 0 0 O o m Sm o x p o - { { { m v n m a 0 3 M O O O Z O NJy F, m m �+ C -f o d D y m �.-4 D m xi a v o 1 d -i m (� c -i -, w -/ a D 9 o m m - u m m m m O m J J n J N m m a s >• J >• O m S J- w , o >• o f Oa m_ 3 e < m- m am a m < m m m m a m c m ffm °. H30 a mm. 3 � wm. mv mnE'm m mo 0o w 9 cm m � m m� 'm m� o' 3o m w J m S J m w S 9 y w 3 a, �. a. N�. J�. m N w g� = =aw •c £ w aE m Fw 3 om. �3 3 mm m v .a •cm m m mm J •< N m n m m m o a 3 m o m y n J 0 o J ^ w o o .n» » o O w v 9 D N S �.=. e o �. _ m m a c m 9 0• w J .g 0 w F <=, 3 m a = m f. �= v _0 m s 3 w m < m F 9 m o c.w m f.c m m v = m m w c m - m m m ^m m £ m w m n 3 - f,£, m is sm w m n_ J o np = w m s S ^• m c m - 5 0 - wm o mom m mm 3m o cm cm mm Xn m J � xo; ''c o co �:m w epi 'o_ 0 J � my n mt c caw 3 °•n £ J v rim m� w _ M $ m me mm 3 m o m aw 3a _,� m v e J.-. m w n c 3 m n a w m n a m J a m v 00 m m >m Jm �m =� m �3 43 = ° m m nm n £ m 3 c o R �'`< _ c < c 3 m m x:: mm S a >•m am <m v c -m' c F_. m io m d 6 n 3 m N m C a a. m m 6 N m U OF O 'a O d 0 N m m m O m V w -mJ S m Q N J G a^ J S m m O y a m m m J 0'J ,'� y 5 M C m . m y m �•m J m 'p m a F v °-' m ^'m �e 3. m n m a w o g O < � A N �°c� a J °. m s o n J m m < 4. n X >'m 3 m. '� a '< o Er m a m m %_.o m m e n J � a NDn m '< m m �. 3 m � mN Ma' m n » � m ma J =m mn 3, m 3 m m < >:� m m m y m m om m'm ao mm m,f m m N a3 .Qm '' mm N.o 1 < mm m a m a o'3. � w o f m_`3 m mQ a £ Nm mn mo m m am b7_ H�TT11 v m m N 0 m N o c J o £ m' N S- m m w u m w 3 o a v D w m O m 6 C m J .< m N G m Q X J 'm N N C O m ^ J J N D S O m w• N a O w m a �' n a c 3 �o m 'o m c - 3 o m ni ni m _.» m E S a o s o m 3 cJt' 0 m � m a m ym m mJ m 3.� J.m a m c 3 3 >: Q m m m m m Um m w nN .Ni ..� x = N < a'O G �» mN SO m ma Jm O F yJD D * o amo M m 0 , = m - = _ m . m 9. Fn m° mFom m nmm a v •c D a c m J.m ^m Vt n J w m _ 0 m m �� m w a$ as 'a oS a o » cv x 'm M _ a m ¢.. o cul £ uci 63ox ° � � m m 35 n N mm 77 m m Q o o m n J a o 3 a n w o w N m c o( c,o J c g m m w a m y f• J m nil N V a 0 dl 6 J S m m 3 w J S w 0 3 a v a s o m v m y o v m o c0i S v, C m J n m• w1D w m m n o m al 0o m m m n aF s " N of o m o c J n - � m m o `5. wa S. m � m •c •< n 7 A:tachme^t n ° :0: n :o; - •� O m N N N A w w N N + + S w N •L• Ll 'N _ s m - a p 11 ---------- . Z1 .�C .'..QCJ : . ... ... ... m 0 :c:c . oN:..1.P. -0::\.-tT.;m :R• JJ ; a ae EL:E: N m m m j j e.e ; : mC .A:.11:'T:Z;e 'Z:' :Z:e 0 :v:m :m ;m :E ::E :M :* D w 2 R. m p .m .o .o ;p:F .m :£ .m :£ .m m 3 3 n 0 :A:z: ;z:z:z: m £ 3 •a: n :� •m •m .m :ca :pe:F :y:F J m m o o •m m m m m m m n m :£ £ J ;c :c c J J :N N J J w of N o », m p � '.p:p �m m.a�m dam S n^ m s m m ;m ;m CIP w+ N - :\:a m m 3 �• >. � d :J :m .m m w :� w :0 w O7 m . :3PL : :5:x5: :5: r 2 � � m m .•J : :6. EL pp:EL a 5 :J :EL : .m : .m :n � a n o o 2 � m: :O '.ZI p :M:oo M 7C x c' 'c c c a :m :8 :mp 5 :`m_ mC. 8 :m w y N • w .:w : 'N . v a :m: A :8 : n 0 M ;m a � 0 0 C > > � d m n e R ar Sm o „ o v w m 0 a 2 O O O O 3os �o F.3 � cn= �' o � 3D3:> m m m » c.m mm m3 m. 3m� 3 '" mm e � 9 3 ?v emi m_m �3v mmm m'^v Nm 30 3J v o v mmv Wo J.y - v —wv`< me m °c o. cncp m o cw cw o o _'o •c o•o £ o v mo mmm mm m m mom awo o3io' s�m io' vm 32r 32r A m 25.o a oc a. om3mm mtD ms » o= Jwm' � m� m'P o.0 ao = = may p m c Amy sv m9• '>• D am m 3 �� maw 0 2m �o �o :E F F 5m 3 J 3 53 m m cv oim v n m o = ,n a m n m o m m o w V Wim - 3mm wo _. mam = mm_ 7v,0 o35c3n�y>vdm8my cc�mp.mosm3—0 35n"°m voo vtoJFv�£acwmm cm wm mm 3ma 9noo o o a w SJ y o aomo5o<0F2°1 o'�mmm<m m mvvo m mom 3Sm mcmoa 3 ' m m oCw d m v° 3 m 0 m , o mmm, ag. 5 ; 3m 1 mamoa £ FF � � , nm—m m @5 m to - �m mUm m3 -o 0mm = omm 3 oS 0S oS °mwcma cp> ' no m 'g 3 o cm ':m •m w 'SC ON 6N d 1rym mm mw mw — OC C � Q•< Nw N m- s 3,o_= m >• ° y J m m J m w w w o,� m m m av ao- ov G' v m Dm o m N o c m m m m m o m 0 m m 3 m o c c 'o m•°< a=. o m' o m = a �' o w Q m 3 m ° ^ 0 m ° =< a�< o J m m 8 m a N o -m m Ja m mm M 0 0 m m m a— °•n m_ 5 c a ,.p an d N � m F, 3 m m � �m m ?o m'mm mm S mm mm mm am am aJ £ c m T3. O = ° N m o n < o .cf m n m p, m Q N m m a .p. O w m y •G m m N'N w m 0 m J_ N w.6 m.6 m e a " m'm �m m d m3 aw m' ° m3 y Nm m°m:, S?.°" aanmm c'»wsm aa3•S'.y°wc m33m' vmom mm °aH TJa F y < m w a m Da° <0'm co jsmd 0m oom >> mao no £ o- o m 3 a 0 3 5 w o m ZNm m j » 3 m ma m c Jomm e w m o J c N Attachment 5 n' •n•n;n;n;n q n• n n n n ; n ;n; n ;n; n ; n n n n n v n fn R V m ° '0 ' 3 :3: 3 3 m o c �� m 7 :a: PC m ° 3 ,7 ,2i3i �' imjmim ai � ! � ipiEiD A_ °o S 0 1 0 tnm^i 3 t31 3 i $ D t D a m v 'cm_. a d :3.:w `n o :m :m .m <: 9 A3E E 0 CD W m W m m y a o 3 3 c: m m o o ° . .y :< :c '< :< o m m .y C7 :C'f: � D m m ? fD n 3 o : :] :m:m:m:m 'O' vt ; o r �... 3 :v' : o m �. n ;n :tf .0 ^: Nw CO o :o g :H S p O o 0 n c. n o � 3 v I c y ? (Q Bio v 3 v r ` o S m o io p O U T T J � J v O M OS.O O O O O O m i m m n Cyc n 8 � (] DK DK yj mj vc Wm �.0EL . t1.N m a a a a a m n 30 —a Ja g'U a N cFm `om"om.n.. To.n'o.' `am `o�' tlmW1romy oa 3� mo vyam aa ?L 3m � pa Opm ; m. m =�_'' m1mO a2 =n a m o o < W nn ° '° A oam =F m_o D x o a9m o 0 0 oomoW y 3 3 �FsW n�eK .o ° m W T O ° Oym ^ A 0 y3<aavam So3F °mjnnm< oacny fpO6 mm D b N N N W N 1 W C O m m m 6 N Q A 9 ^ y a O W O m m �. m 3 j O =- n 5 � c o c y n 3 Q 3 O= m o >• o c 9 0 0 0 0 �, � >• m m a °ai < a� _ °—' o, � -' ^ 3 W y 9 m _ S y 0 W y y N W S c a m m m y ^ C C m 9 n FL, W m W m W y O N W 0 3.G W m C N 6 S Z O m J y O j 8 N 00 a o' 0 3 n a a o m n y m 3 _'F _.F y n.< o m 5. m §. yi H m om 0 n A N m c — -$ m o O �'m m 3 < F m�'< n W = o O m (7 n < 2< m = m mig — `-' O m S 3 s o�3 o o•m m' �° m A o m S m Om ^ W • a W O •< 6 6 n3 m m o o d aa ao m 0 (� cOm xym SJ o ma � m � macm o 3, f 0 m < 3 3 m M c c a m o m n > j c D m m ro a m 5 S S. W m m m ' 4 W W + S v n � m m m o• >.' n v 3 m m o w N s g o m m _ m rn c n>> c` m F m W W _� m m 0 v W v = 2 c io' y 0 m rn o a n a m o m m o w y-y3 Draft ARC Minutes -� ttac n&WIMent J December 17, 2007 Page I c s{afrcpor4" Commission liked the project's site layout and Spanish Revival architectural style and nd it to be consistent with the Railroad District Plan. Chairperson udreau supported the proposed smooth plaster finish findi it to be more attractive a authentic to the selected architecture of the building. a had some concerns about thea ty to find windows with true divided lights. Commr. Wilhelm stated t the project was really attra ' e and would be an improvement to the comer site. Vice Chair Root noted his support for project de "gn and suggested that there be a "graceful" transition between the concr a boardwalk portions of the public sidewalk. Commr. Hopkins agreed with the pre i us comm e s and found that the project was consistent with the design guideline included in the R ' oad District Plan. On motion by Commr. Wilh to grant final aDDroval to the.. oiect based on findings, and subeect to conditions4s recommended by staff. Seconded Commr. Ho kins.. AYES: Co rs. Hopkins, Wilhelm, Root, Boudreau, Palazzo, an ambitsis NOES: one RECUS None ABS T: Commr. Howard The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 2. 1292 Foothill_Boulevard. ARC 109-05; Conceptual review of new fraternity building; R-3 zone; Kevin Hauber, applicant. (Brian Leveille) Associate Planner Brian Leveille presented the staff report. He noted that the project was scheduled for a conceptual review to gather comments on the overall site and building design prior to the Planning Commission's review of the required use permit and request for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. He recommended that the project be continued to a date uncertain with the Commission providing direction on noted issues included in the staff report. Kevin Hauber, applicant, described the project history and noted the acquisition by the fraternity of the adjacent property on Crandall Way. He reinforced the fraternity's long- term commitment to being on the site and to creating a sustainable project. He pointed out that lowering the building into the site would help to attenuate noise impacts. Jim Duffy, applicant's representative, presented a slide show with photos of existing buildings in the vicinity of the site, a building massing model, colors and materials board, project features providing energy efficiency, examples of wall designs, and the proposed designs of the solid waste enclosure and stair tower. He noted that the solid waste enclosure was proposed close to the street for better access and that they y-yam Draft ARC Minutes Attachment J December 17, 2007 Page 3 planned on using drought-tolerant landscaping. He responded to questions regarding the elimination of the accessible ramp in the street yard, noting that the raised front entry feature and plaza would be retained and that there would be terraced landscaping in the street yard. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Neighbors of the project, John & Opal Rich, expressed concerns with construction impacts and the durability of proposed property line walls. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The ARC was very supportive of the attractive, modern building and its efforts to be at the forefront in terms of energy conservation and sustainability. They also appreciated the applicant's efforts to keep the building lower in profile. Most of the remaining concerns with the project design focused on the following: techniques to minimize the height and scale of combined walls and fences along the property lines; provide a screened and functional trash enclosure; and details of the parking lot gate. Commr. Wilhelm liked the project design and applauded the applicant on its energy efficiency. He felt that "in-plane" solar panels would be more aesthetically pleasing and would notsignificantly affect solar gain. Vice Chair Root supported the applicant's goal of becoming LEED-certified. He liked the idea of incorporating battered walls to minimize the scale of the proposed property line walls and suggested that both elevations and sections of the walls return at the time of final review. Commr. Hopkins stated that the project was appropriately located so close to Cal Poly and that it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Commr. Palazzo expressed concems with the proposed location of the trash enclosure so close to the street in terms of unsightliness and potential impacts to the storm drain system. He mentioned that the building architecture appeared a bit too avant-garde for its traditional neighborhood setting. He appreciatedthe authentic quality of the proposed materials. Commr. Kambitsis liked the 21st-century architecture and wanted to see a more appropriate location for the trash enclosure and details of the gate design when the project returned for final approval. Chairperson Boudreau also supported the modem architectural style of the building. He wanted to see the trash enclosure design coordinate with the architecture of the building. He liked the curved patio design expressing that it added nice usable space and provided a softening affect to the project appearance. �-yam Draft ARC Minutes Attachment December 17, 2007 Page 4 On a motion by Commr. Root, the project was continued to a date uncertain with direction. Seconded by Commr. Kambitsis. AYES: Commrs., Root, Boudreau, Palazzo, Hopkins, Wilhelm and Kambitsis NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Howard The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. 4. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects.. 5. Commission: A. Recent Project Review— Lessons Learned ADJOURNMENT: With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. to the regular meeting of the ARC scheduled for January 7, 2008, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Pam Ricci, Recording Secretary y-y� Architectural Review Commission `—ArtaC]i)I'llAhvwnmeru 5 Page 5 "" c -C u; repay + vid fora nominal fee. City staff will revi" iaeo anu uctuw���� ; - whether any repairs are ne es e to the City shall be clearly labeled with the applicant's name, co n ormation, ame and address, and the name of the com performed the video inspection. 2. 1292 Foothill Boulevard. ARC 109-05; Conceptual review of new fraternity building; R-3 zone; Kevin Hauber, applicant..(Brian Leville) The ARC continued action on the project to a date uncertain with the following direction regarding modifications to be included in plans submitted for final architectural review: 1. Fences and Walls: Plans shall include sections and elevations of a revised wall and fence design that softens the walls visually and minimizes their apparent mass with landscaping, battered or stepped walls with planters, and/or different finish materials. 2. Trash and Recycling_ Alternative placement and/or design to ensure the prominent location of the trash and recycling enclosure does not detract from the project. 3. Accessibility Ramp: Remove the long accessibility ramp leading from Crandall Way, and revise landscaping to include terraced planters as noted by the architect at the hearing. 4. Gate Design: Submit more details on the gate design and provide continuity between it and other streetscape design elements such as the railings and trash enclosure. 5. Scale and Context: Provide more information with the submittal of final plans as to the scale and context of the project in its neighborhood setting. ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. mc I • � . 1 1 CD ', r-ep t : 1 I I b 4 03 It Y � r rf y `� • Y II u .� �... F � . ' • i • Y LA t r: ► i +t 'b/��ti`T YVYL 4 I � 1 • � In \ � 1�1/1 ► N n IJt � "r�i F dlilh. 11 AA, �;�e�� n;�L�P •I w l' ,NO III 3I M .r 4 41. Yli J�II fL' AI) t M ft lM O d �, �� � �•o��' .�� V+� Ott t • r� t 3tiYC ' I n t ' si.y.�i4 - T•I�11 i ? rev tau • 14 s 1 �= R� / I ,�1 r - 1 _ I 1+!T 1 y j. . l t t N 4 • i4 � r 44 t 1 ijft µ ' .ur rn Cz f • � � � 'lila:� ILII, .q r , K v Bull! ■ Bill a. -O'er �r♦� W 'uI P l� 1 a � L�1�-. Y ,r '.. µ+a. Yk l��l f r1Er wi� - a f fiv lit Oil - -- --, / g,�-u : ,moi. to V r . 1 ktachmc�,t 5 7 2 m tx D D - r17, - . T t y f r - a',.,� , PA, t � CL CID rte A 7 O v W t k ff Y 1 t i QQ i t ' ' 4 Elm �ii��hI�IIIIIINNIII IIIIII►IIIII �^ • IIIIIIIIIIII � Ia ty of sAn it Attachment 6 Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 109-05 1. Project Title: Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner(805) 781-7166 4. Project Location: 1290, 1292 Foothill Boulevard (APN 052-071-004, 011) and 123, 125, 137, 175 Crandall Avenue (APN: 052-071-024, 031) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Kevin Hauber 1131 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Medium-Density Residential 7. Zoning:R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential) 8. Description of the Project: General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the designation of 1290, 1292 Foothill Boulevard and 123-175 Crandall Avenue from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to High Density Residential (R-4). At 1292 Foothill Blvd and 123 Crandall Avenue, the applicant is proposing to demolish existing buildings and improvements on the project site to construct a new approximately 8,800 square- foot, 29-bed fraternity house on the 0.54 acre site. The three story building includes 16 bedrooms and has an apartment for house parents, kitchen and dining facilities, an office, and library. Site improvements include a 23 space parking lot accessed from Foothill Boulevard and a patio area with pergola (see Attachment 2, project plans). There are three other properties included as part of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning request with no changes to site development currently proposed. The property at 1290 Foothill is 26,520 square feet in size and is currently developed with a sorority. 135 Crandall Avenue is 6,300 square feet and developed with a 3- bedroom residence. The property at 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue is a 1.4 acre site with a twenty unit apartment complex. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2W EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. AttachMent 6 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is 23,576 square feet (.54 acre) in size. Surrounding land uses consist of a sorority to the west (zoned R-3, part of rezone proposal, multi-family apartments to the north (R-3), a fraternity to the east across Crandall Avenue (R-3), and multi-family apartments to the south across Foothill Blvd (R4). The project site appears to be predominantly where students reside and is approximately 200 yards from the Crandall Avenue entrance to Cal Poly. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: • General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone (1290, 1292 Foothill & 123-175 Crandall) • Architectural Review of fraternity development at 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall. • Use Permit for fraternity use(Group housing) • Environmental Review 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. �r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 y-�5s Attachment 6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards _ & Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies fora de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period.shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 ( � Attachment 6 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. IS �O R Signature Date Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For: John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 1-1 ,e- 7 -. 7 Attachment 6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact siniply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than.Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis maybe used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include.a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST POOH y-5� Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than 90 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited X to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a-b)Foothill Blvd east of California Blvd is designated as having moderate scenic value in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element(COSE). The project does not block views of hills to the east as seen from the Foothill Blvd roadway and has been designed to meet standard height requirements for development in the High Density Residential Zone(R4). c-d)The proposed structure is consistent with the massing of other larger multi-family structures to the north and south of the project site. The structure has been set below the existing grade to comply with the R-4 zone maximum height of 35-feet. Though the architectural character of the proposed structure is a departure from other development in the vicinity,the quality of its design and commitment to include sustainable features sets a high standard for this site and future redevelopment projects in the area. While the proposed structure sets a new standard, it can still be found to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The project was conceptually reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission who supported the massing and architectural character of the proposed structure. The project will also receive a final review by the Architectural Review Commission to ensure consistency with General Plan Policy for compatible development and compliance with Community Design Guidelines. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 6, 10 X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a) b) c) The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Development of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to develop similar land outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line.No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. Conclusion:No Impact. �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STuDy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 _ lt h Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia y Potentially Less Than o Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 11, 12 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? Evaluation a) b) c) e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMIo(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter)and Ozone air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Conservation & Open Space Element Program 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. Motor vehicles account for about 40%of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PMIo. Thus,a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The project meets many of the goals stated in the CAP because it will provide infill development of group housing within the City's Urban Reserve Line and the project site is located in the City's urban center with convenient access to commercial services and transit routes, reducing the need for occupants of the project to rely on vehicles for all of their transportation needs.The project is also located within 300 yards of the Crandall Avenue entrance to Cal Poly State University which will reduce or eliminate the need for residents of the project to make motor vehicle trips on a daily basis. According to the APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook," land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter(PM 10), or 50 lbs/per day or more of carbon monoxide (CO) have the potential to affect air quality significantly. Table I-I of this document states that it takes approximately 50 apartment units to generate over 10 pounds of these pollutants. Assuming the site is developed with the 16-bedroom fraternity structure, future development would be of a size that is well below APCD's air quality significance thresholds.Therefore,the project and resulting development will not generate significant operational air quality impacts. In evaluating construction related impacts, the SLO APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states the threshold level of grading activity to generate required mitigation measures is 9,100 cubic yards/day for reactive organic gases (ROG) and 2,000 cubic yards/day for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Projects involving grading of an area greater than 4.0 acres require PM10 mitigations. The proposed project grading scope is well below these thresholds since the project site is less than 1.0 acre and grading will not exceed 2,000 cubic yards/day. The APCD does not require consultation for potential asbestos dust related impacts unless the project site is over 1.0 acre in size. d)No objectionable odors will emanate from the project. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 /l_Zc 0 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than o Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures 1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities and vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated: a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less; b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or 6 X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Evaluation a), b) According to the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. ��� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 8 INITIAL STuoY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentr y Potentially Less Than " IV Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) There are no Heritage trees on the project site and no tree removals are proposed which would conflict with Tree preservation policies. d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed project will not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor. e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. f) The project will have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands. Conclusion:No Impact. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 16-19 X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? Evaluation a)The project site is not a historic resource. b) The project site is not located on or near a known sensitive archeological site. c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site. d) The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 y—le z Inn rQ Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 109-05 Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 6,7 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation a) b) The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner. Future site development must comply with the policies contained in the Energy chapter of the General Plan's Conservation and Open Space Element(COSE). The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through Architectural Review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. The proposed project has been designed to exceed Energy Code standards by meeting Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED)Standards. c) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State. Conclusion: No impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOII.S. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 5, 21, effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 24 I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation a), c) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to t� CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 7-'W'3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sourcesPotentially Potentially Less Than o" Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered"active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic Hazards,"specifically Seismic Zone 4,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. b) Future site development must comply with the standards and requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code(UBC) that address soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Compliance with the UBC will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. c), d)The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction,which is true for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UBC (2001). Recommendations included in a soils report, which is required to be submitted as part of a building permit application for future site development, are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in these areas. In general, the presence of expansive soils requires additional base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 5, 7, X through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous 23 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter toile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, X or death, involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 y-4/Xy Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials. b),d)The project will not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) The project is not located within '/< mile of an existing or proposed school, but is located within a % mile of California Polytechnic State University. The project will not involve hazardous emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances or waste. e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. f) The project site is approximately 2.5 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport,outside the Airport Land Use Plan Area. g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires. Conclusion: No Impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 6, 15, X requirements? 22 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g. The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 y-�s� Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than " Nb'" ' Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation a), b) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources. c) d) h) i) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off. This can be achieved through a combination of detention and use of pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site. Compliance with the requirements of the plan are sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the area of water quality and hydrology. Plans submitted for a building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. e) f), g) The project site is not located within the 100-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of I X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans? Evaluation a) The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would change the land use designation of 1290 & 1292 Foothill Blvd, and 123 Crandall Avenue from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to High-Density Residential (R-4). 1290 Foothill blvd is included in the rezone proposal but there are no current development plans. The proposed rezone from R-3 to R-4 for 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall would allow the proposed 29 residents of the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity house, where only 22 residents would be allowed tinder standard persons-per-acre of the R-3 zone. A similar incremental increase would be allowed for 1290 Foothill (where no development is currently proposed) if the rezone to High-Density Residential (R-4) is approved. The proposed rezone would not conflict with land use plans or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. b)c)The project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Conclusion: No Impact. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" noise 4, 14, X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 23 Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 y—tle & ., Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Les L J Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 109-05 Mitigation Incorporated b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a) The project will not generate unacceptable noise levels or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance. The project site is located outside of any noise contour in the City's Noise Element that would require mitigation. b)Construction of the proposed project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds, the property owner would be subject to possible citations. The proposed fraternity group housing use will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and conditions of approval and performance standards will be required to ensure the expanded fraternity use does not generate excessive noise levels which could be a nuisance to surrounding properties. c)The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration. d) The project site is approximately 2.5 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, outside the Airport Land Use Plan Area. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1 X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation a-b) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is bordered by urban development and the redevelopment of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks.The properties proposed for rezoning from Medium High Density(R-3) to High Density Residential (R-4) are already developed and the rezone would not substantially increase density. As an example,the proposed rezone would allow 29 persons per acre under R-4 zoning for the fraternity group housing use, whereas under the current R-3 zoning there are 22 persons allowed per acre. The largest parcel involved in the current proposal is at 137& 175 Crandall Avenue.This parcel is 1.4 acres in size and is developed with (11) one bedroom units, (8) two bedroom units, and one (3) bedroom unit. The current development adds up to 16.76 density units, and the current R-3 zoning would allow up to 25.2 density units. The proposed R-4 zoning would allow up to 33.6 density units. The proposed rezone to High Density Residential (R-4) would allow 8.4 additional density units on the 1.4 acre site. The project site is presently constructed with structures used by a fraternity,sorority, and multi-family housing.The proposed CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 //-/ 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Cess ,n J Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 109-05 Mitigation Incorporated rezone will minimally add to the numbers of dwelling units and/or residents (for group housing uses); therefore, substantial numbers of housing or people will not be displaced by the project and substantial population growth would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 7 X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X Evaluation a) b) d) e) f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the scale of the project and its location within a developed portion of the City. Future development must comply with all applicable City Codes and State regulations. c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantiall physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given the project only increases the number of residents allowed on the site by 7 persons(where a project is currently proposed),no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of the site. The project site is located in close proximity to California Polytechnic State University, so it is anticipated those recreational facilities would be used. As discussed above under Section 12. Population and Housing, the other properties not currently proposed for redevelopment also will not substantially increase the number of persons allowed per acre(group housing)or the total number of dwelling units allowed. b)The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 y-l4? Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia y Potentially Less $ rj Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 3, 13, X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 23 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a chane in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a) b) Foothill Blvd provides access to the project site. The City's General Plan Circulation Element classifies Foothill Blvd. as a Local Street in the area east of California Blvd. The Element states that Local Streets should have two travel lanes, a maximum Average Daily Traffic(ADT)of 1,500 vehicles,and a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. The proposed project will not result in changes to these criteria. The Public Works Department has reviewed the project and determined that the existing road system has sufficient unused capacity to accommodate the added vehicular traffic. c) The project has been designed to meet City Engineering Standards for driveway access to the site and the applicant has provided an exhibit required by the Public Works Department demonstrating there is adequate site distance for vehicles leaving the site. d)The Fire Marshal has reviewed the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency vehicles in its present design. e) The project provides vehicle access from Foothill Boulevard and proposes a total of 24 vehicle parking spaces, consistent with Zoning Regulation standards. f) The project does not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation. Alternatively, due to the site's location near the City's urban center, it is within reasonable walking distance (V4 mile) to shopping,parks and services, and is located within 300 yards of Cal Poly,which the residents of the proposed fraternity attend. g)The project is not within the County's Airport Land Use Plan area for San Luis Obispo Airport. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 7,20 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 y-44 9 Aftachmen Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Evaluation a), b) The project will allow for development of the site with slightly higher water demands. However, the incremental change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: 'obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a construction permit." Compliance with the City standards and State requirements will assure that impacts to water supplies are less than significant. d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on- site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project. e) f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project,consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehisto Impacts are less than significant since the project site is already developed, is in an urbanized area and is not a historic resource. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST 2008 y-76 , F rZ Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia ly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futureprojects) The impacts identified in this initial study arespecific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? With the incorporation of Air quality Mitigation Measure #1, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,April 2006 2. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element April 2006 3. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,April 2006 4. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 5. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 6. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,Aril 2006 7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 8. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 9. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 10. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dITp/FMMP/ 11. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001 12. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003 13. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition,on file in the Community Development Department 14. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan 16. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 17. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 11- 7/ Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 19. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map 20. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 21. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 22. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C dated July 7 1981 23. San Luis Obispo County ort Land Use Plan 24. 2001 Uniform Building Code Attachments: 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduced scale project plans REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Mitigation Measures:Air Quality 1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated: a) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less; b) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; c) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and f) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a NEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. Monitoring Program: Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are monitored by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), through a complaint based enforcement system. The requirements listed above are noted on the project plans and the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are instructed to contact APCD in the event of a probable violation. Members of the public can also call APCD if they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction site. i� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008 • Attachment 7 ORDINANCE NO. XXXX (2008 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1290, 1292 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 1239 135, 1379 175 CRANDALL AVENUE FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-4); GP/R 109-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 13, 2008, and recommended approval of the project; and 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 April 15, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/U/ER 109-05, Kevin Hauber, applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT ORDAINED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed Rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies to locate student housing projects, fraternities and sororities, and generally more affordable housing in close proximity to the campus. 2. The Rezoning from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to High-Density Residential (R-4) will allow for density required for the proposed fraternity use, and will provide for more viable future redevelopment of other properties to be consistent with the above General Plan Policies and Land Use Element policy stating that housing likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly, to reduce commute travel. 3. The proposed Rezoning will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since it will not allow incompatible land uses. The area of the proposed rezoning request is already adjacent to other High-Density Zoned properties and is bordered by the Cal Poly campus to the north. y- 73 • Attachment 7 SECTION 2. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 109-05) is hereby approved as identified within Exhibit A. SECTION 3. 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 Tribune, 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 , 2008, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 2008, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ci omey Jonathan Lowell G:Uambda Chi Frat(1292 Foothitl)ARC,GP,R,U,FH\CC Ord 109-05(R).doc I- • 1 r � `sem.hri►i�i , _- - �� �- r � 7 Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2008 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3)TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4) FOR PROPERTY AT 12909 1292 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 1239 1359 1379 175 CRANDALL AVENUE; GP/U/ER 109-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 13, 2008, and recommended approval of the project; and 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 April 15, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/U/ER 109-05, Kevin Hauber, applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the Council. The Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration incorporating all of the mitigation measures listed below: Mitigation Measures 1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities and vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated: a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; �� 1 Attachment 8 Resolution No. XXXX(2008 Series) Page 2 c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours. Monitoring Program: Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are monitored by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), through a complaint based enforcement system. The requirements listed above are noted on the project plans and the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are instructed to contact APCD in the event of a probable violation. Members of the public can also call APCD if they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction site. SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment Approval & Findings. The General Plan Amendment included as part of City Application No. GPA 109-05, which amends the Land Use Element Map from Medium-High Density Residential to High Density Residential for the properties located at 1290 and 1292 Foothill Boulevard and 123, 135, and 175 Crandall Avenue as shown on the attached Exhibit A. is hereby approved, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies to locate student housing projects, fraternities and sororities, and generally more affordable housing in close proximity to the campus. 2. The General Plan Amendment from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to High- Density Residential (R-4) will allow for density required for the proposed fraternity use, and will provide for more viable future redevelopment of other properties to be consistent with the above General Plan Policies and Land Use Element policy stating that housing likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly, to reduce commute travel. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since it will not allow incompatible land uses. The area of the proposed GP/R and project site is already adjacent to other High-Density Zoned properties and is bordered by the Cal Poly campus to the north. SECTION 3. General Plan Amendment Adoption. 1. The Land Use Element Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. Attachment 8 Resolution No. XXXX(2008 Series) Page 3 2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in documents, which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and use. SECTION 4. Use Permit Approval Findings and Conditions. The Use Permit Amendment included as part of City Application No. U 109-05, which allows redevelopment of the properties located at 1292 Foothill Boulevard and 123 Crandall Avenue, is hereby approved, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area, because limits on hours for events and numbers of persons allowed on site will restrict activities and limit disturbances to neighbors. 2. The subject use is appropriate at the proposed location, and will be compatible with surrounding land uses provided that the fraternity complies with all conditions at all times. 3. The proposed use conforms to the General Plan because it is a group housing use, which the General Plan designates as potentially appropriate for High-Density (R-4) Residential areas. 4. The proposed use meets Zoning Ordinance requirements because it is a fraternity in a Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) zone and proposed to be rezoned to High- Density Residential (R-4), where fraternities are allowed with approval of a Planning Commission use permit. Conditions 1. The use permit shall not be effective until after the associated site development has been completed consistent with the related Architectural Review Commission application ARC 109-05, and given final occupancy. 2. Project plans submitted for Building Division review shall reflect handicap accessibility for the bathroom near the dining room and one of the residential bedroom units. 3. No more than twenty nine(29) persons shall reside at the house at any time. Additions to structures or additional occupancy shall require a use permit amendment. The applicant shall allow the city to verify occupancy of the house by allowing an inspection of the records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable time and shall be preceded by a 24-hour notice to the residents. • Attachment 8 Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series) Page 4 4. On site parking consistent with ARC approved plans shall be provided and maintained at all times for the intended use. 5. The property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. All plant materials shall be maintained and replaced as necessary. 6. The maximum number of persons allowed on the site for routine meetings and gatherings is 44, except as specifically approved by the Community Development Director for special events. For such special events, the applicant shall also submit a parking and transportation plan. 7. No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities that would violate City Noise Ordinances or other City regulations, or that would exceed the maximum 44 persons provisions noted in the above condition may take place between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as approved by the Community Development Director. 8. The applicant shall institute and maintain a neighborhood relations program. The neighborhood relations program shall be submitted and found complete to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. This plan shall include at least the following elements: °Annual training of all members in community relations. •A program to inform neighbors of upcoming events at the house. •Submission of names and telephone numbers of responsible persons, including the alumni president and chief financial officer, to the Community Development Department and to the neighbors within two blocks of the house. Responsible persons shall be available during all events and at reasonable hours otherwise, to receive and handle complaints. 9. Evidence of implementation of said plan shall be submitted to the director for review each year. Failure to exercise reasonable efforts to implement said plan may be grounds for revocation of this permit. 10. Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a meeting and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director in the fall of each year. Exceptions to this schedule must be approved by the Community Development Director. If the Director determines the change is significant and may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, then it will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. 11. Only signs permitted by the City and consistent with Sign Regulations may be displayed on the premises unless approved by the Community Development Director for temporary events. 7 - Z Attachment 8 Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series) Page 5 12. The use permit shall be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire Department complaints are received by the City. In review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit. The Planning Commission may consider adding a condition requiring fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the neighborhood. 13. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for revocation of this permit. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2008. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: Oomey JonathanLowell GA GACD-PIAN\BLcvcihl\Lunda Chi Ftat(1292 Foothill),ARC,GP,RZ,ER,U,FH\CC Reno 109-05(GP.ER,U).doc