Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is Chair David Hton. I'd like to call the regular meeting of the planning commission to order. Please join me now in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation indivisibley and justice for all. Nicely done. Deputy Clerk Sarah Armas, please call the role for us. Commissioners uh Munes Morris, Vice Chair Tali, and Commissioner Jorgensson will not be joining us tonight. Um Commissioner Kulie here. Commissioner Flores here. Commissioner Khan here.

Chair Hton. I am here. Okay. Public comment for items not on the agenda. At this time, we'll hear any public comment that are uh for items that are not on tonight's agenda. These items that if they are raised are generally referred to staff. Action by the commission is necessary that'll be referred or scheduled to a future meeting. And deputy clerk, do we have any public comment scheduled? We do not.

Okay. Hearing that, moving on to the consent agenda, consideration of minutes. And before we vote, do any commissioners have comments on consent? Anything in there? Hearing none. Do I have a motion and second to approve the consent agenda? Move to approve consent. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second.

Anybody opposed? And I will point out I did watch the video fortunately, so I'm able to vote. It's a good thing, huh? Okay, we'll call the role on the consent agenda. And just so you know, chair, um, an abstension is noted as a a yes vote. So even if you do abstain, it will be counted as Oh, that's good to know. Okay. Um, Commissioner Kulie, uh, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Comm or Chair Hton,

yes. Okay. And one thing I wanted to mention for the record before we move into the actual material tonight is I just want to thank U. Vice Chair Tullley for manning the uh gavl the last two meetings. Thank you very much, Eric, if you're out there. Okay, so time for the public hearings. Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city of St. Louis Abyspo at or prior to the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record and please limit your comments to three minutes. The public hearing item before us. First is to review the update to the historic preservation ordinance and historic context statement. So, um let's see. Um it says to ask um principal planner Brian Lavell to present the report and public comment will be after that. Right. Okay. So, we'll let we will hear the staff report at this time.

All right. Thank you, Chair Hton. Um, as you said, I'm my name is Brian Lavell. I'm a principal planner with the community development department. I'm also the staff liazison to the cultural heritage committee. Uh, let me make sure I can get this shared here. Sir, is there a way to not show the Yeah. Yeah.

And uh while that's getting settled, I'd like to make a request of whoever's running the video. I think they're in another room, right? So when there's a presentation like this and I've been watching the videos often the presentation ends and then we have the last slide um on the main screen for 5 10 15 minutes while we're doing the discussion. So just wanted to remind uh the video operators to when the presentation's complete then let's turn off that slide if that makes sense.

All right I'll go ahead and resume. Looks like we're ready to go. I'm also joined this evening by Stacy Kazakavich, our consultant with Paige and Turnbull. I'll go ahead and provide a brief background on the project, just a little bit on the the historic resources inventory, um kind of next steps, where we're going with this project, then I'll hand it off to Stacy to provide a bit more in the way of detail of the project, and then of course, uh we'll both be available to answer any commissioner questions. All right. So, this is overall a a two-phase project. We're currently in phase one um of an update of the historic resources inventory project. This includes updating first the um regulatory guidance uh that goes with determining what properties are historically significant in the cities in order to basically set the stage for the actual update of the historic resources inventory. On September 29th, the CHC recommended the planning commission uh recommend the proposed updates to the city council. Of course, tonight the planning commission is making a recommendation to the city council and the city council will consider adoption of the historic preservation ordinance and historic context statement updates on December 2nd. Assuming that council does uh adopt the proposed updates, we will move into phase two of the project, which is the actual update of the historic resources inventory. And that's anticipated to begin in early 2026. And the priority would be to start with looking at the existing historic resources inventory, making any necessary reclassifications. Uh, and then we'd be moving on to looking at surveys for potentially new candidate properties that might be added to the inventory. And then also potentially looking at the boundaries of our historic districts, which we're going to talk a little bit about that tonight. That's one of the uh items that's under the planning commission's

purview uh in the historic preservation ordinance. So, the city's historic resources inventory goes back to the all the way back to the early 80s. Um, some of the major surveys that were completed for uh properties to be added to the list began in 1983. Um, there was some more major surveys in 1987 and then going on into the into the '9s. Of course, over the years, there's been uh further surveys of certain areas within the city and then there's been a number of indiv individual property determinations. Um over the years, uh in all, we have 760 identified historic resources. There's 560 contributing historic resources, 200 master list properties, and we have five historic districts. Uh we also have 65 properties under a Mills Act contract. The city's historic preservation program um really changed in around 2010 when the city adopted a historic preservation ordinance and then again adopted a historic context statement in 2013. uh basically the adoption of the that ordinance and the statement established really a more I guess you could say a concrete framework about um how property should be uh evaluated for significance um and required um in an ordinance essentially that properties comply with the secretary of interior standards. Uh the issue has been that the city's historic resources inventory is of course very old. It's over 35 years old. the majority of the properties on the city's current inventory were added um well before the city adopted the historic preservation ordinance and the current historic context statement. So essentially that means that we have a historic resources inventory that's really never been comprehensively reviewed and um it's created issues I

would say over the years with um really knowing which properties actually meet the adopted um current criteria. Around 2012, the city also became a certified local government and that really sort of committed the city to to some more um requirements from the office of historic preservation to keep and maintain an updated inventory of historic resources. And then the city also has policies uh in the conservation open space element to identify and maintain a list of historically significant properties in the city. So, this has been kind of a long-standing issue. Uh, the the council's been hearing requests from the CHC at at various budget goal setting sessions asking for the opportunity to work on updating the historic resources inventory. Uh, and then in the this item actually was included. Both phases of the project were budgeted for in the fiscal year 23-25 budget and then continued into the 25 and 27 budget. Uh just for the environmental status, the project is exempt under uh section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act uh and as an action by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment. Uh and again there's the CHC and staff recommendation which is to adopt a resolution recommending the council adopt updates to the historic preservation ordinance and the historic context statement. Okay. And now I'll hand it off to Stacy to provide some more details here of exactly what is changing.

Sure. Thanks, Brian. So, um this is uh just a quick summary of the changes that we've made in the historic preservation ordinance draft uh that we've worked with um with city staff in developing. and um you've been provided with the draft update which you know is is a little bit of a bear to compare it to the previous or to the existing one. Um but just in the kind of brief terms uh we updated a lot of the definitions. You'll see you know some substantial changes in the definitions mostly to reflect the revised content and also to remove um remove items that are simply not mentioned anywhere else in the HO. there's no reason to define something that actually isn't part of the code. And so it's it's kind of a cleanup in a way to really just keep the relevant terms, define them in relation to the revised categories, which I'll get to shortly, and just make sure that that those references are all accurate. Um, one of the big changes that we made uh in in the updated ordinance, as as Brian alluded to, was clarified the resource categories. So the existing ordinance and the existing inventory has master list properties which are kind of the highest level of properties and it has a contributing list properties which may be inside of a historic district or they may not be inside of a historic district. Some of those I mean those are both both categories assume an individual significance to a property. We have aligned these categories a little more with what um what are best practices in many cities that align both with your existing corpus of historic inventory listed properties in the city. So working with what you currently have and then aligning that with a system that that we think is going to be much better aligned with what other um certified local governments do and what um other cities across California are

doing. And so that master list category is is going to be basically now referred to as landmarks. That is a a terminology that is widely recognized to represent um the most significant properties in a city. These properties have the highest threshold for evaluation and they also have the the most stringent would have the most stringent restrictions on alteration on project review. And so that really is the kind of the the the most restrictive status um and and should be one of those statuses that's a conversation and a and a collaboration between the city and the property owner to achieve that status. um individual properties that are locally significant that you know may not may be a good example of a certain kind of architecture that's common in the city that there's interest in keeping intact that represent a certain part of St. Louis Bispo's history, but might not be the most the best example uh of their kind, the earliest, you know, something that's particularly significant for its association with a person or a group. Those would be local register resources. Then there is a separate group called district contributors. And the main reason for trying to change the terminology from contributing list to a local register is that in historic preservation, the term contributor most frequently refers to a property that is inside the boundary of a historic district and contributes to that district's significance. And so a historic district consists of a boundary. It has contributors and it has non-contributors. And the next slide I'll talk a little bit more about that. And so there is a distinction between an individually significant resource that's outside the boundaries of a historic district. It's just on its own great piece of architecture or history, but it's not surrounded by others of its

kind that are as a unit significant. On the other side of that, a contributor to a historic district doesn't necessarily have the qualities that a property would have to be individually significant. It might not have the integrity. So it might not you know be well enough preserved to represent its period or its style. Um it might not by itself have a strong association with a particular pattern. But as a unit properties that contribute together to a district um comprise a meaningful whole which communicates something about the city's history whether it be visually, aesthetically, architecturally or an association with event or people. And so we've clarified the the categories to allow for those different distinctions. Um the designation criteria we also uh simplified quite substantially. Um and this aligns with the uh guidance for certified local governments as well as best practices in historic preservation. The existing um designation criteria for the city are fairly complex and detailed and would require an evaluator to look at 13 to 16 different possible sort of permutations of significance under different categories with different kinds of examples. um and and to so to thoroughly evaluate a property according to the local criteria and you know to check them all off is is a kind of a heavy lift and not necessarily comparable to properties outside of this city. So we're recommending a four category um criteria system with the first category is for association with events that are significant in the city's history. The second category is association with persons or groups significant to the city's history. The third is architecture. So it can be the architectural style or

association with a significant architect or designer or builder. Um and then the fourth is information potential which is I think something that wasn't previously in the um in the criteria. This is mostly applied to archaeological properties because it can be very difficult to evaluate an archaeological site fully. It's below the ground and so you you have to you know with with you know limited testing you know make a um an estimate of whether based on what you have found from the site does it contain enough information still intact within that deposit that we want to preserve that so that future researchers can go and look and probably learn something important. Um, built environment resources can also be eligible under this criteria if they use a building technique or material that's really unique. Um, that's or you know that's rare that's locally specific. Um, those can be also the criteria can also be applied but it's less frequent. Um, we also removed integrity as a designation criteria or as an evaluation criteria because a property should be significant under one or more of the criteria and also have integrity. It's a quality that's required of anything that's going to be designated at the local, state or national level. It needs to have sufficient integrity to convey its significance. So, we've we've made that that clear distinction between significance and integrity. Um, and the the last uh last thing I'll I'll me mention on this slide is that um there's a bit of a difference in how the review process works for a nomination. A landmark requires a higher level of review, requires city council approval. Um a local register resource um requires review by the CHC and can be upon the recommendation of the CHC be designated um by the director. So the next page um I'll just do a little bit more detail about historic

districts because this you know this is something that is going to come across your desks um on on the planning commission because the the current um historic district um designation type is as a planning overlay. So we've changed a little bit the requirements for applying for a historic district. As I mentioned, there are the different categories of resources that every district has a boundary and contributors and non-contributors. And so, it's required that an application for designation includes a list of every parcel and every property that's in that district boundary has to be identified as either a contributor or a non-contributor. So, for planning purposes within that district, any application, any question about a property, it's clear where that fits with respect to that district. um because non-contributors and contributors are going to have different types of review for proposed projects. Um as well, it's required that before a district is um is designated that all property owners within the district or within the proposed district are are notified prior to planning commission review so that they have a chance to make a comment to review the application to consider the implications of it and have their say. Um, a few things we've removed from historic district requirements um are are pretty sort of information generation and and policy development that are good things to have but are not necessary for identifying a district as significant and establishing a historic district as a designated entity. Um, the documentation doesn't in the revised version doesn't need to include preservation goals and concerns. you know, kind of a forecast of what the priorities are for preservation or obstacles or land use policies. Doesn't need to establish design guidelines at the time of designation. Um, and doesn't

need to have a separate kind of significance review. Um, separate from, you know, a historic district has to be found significant according to the same criteria that an individual historic resource does. Um, and so it it really just aligns the priorities for significance with those of individual categories. Now, a historic district nomination report still has to have a substantially different type of information in than an individual um designation. And we haven't changed, you know, what's what the basics that are required to demonstrate that a historic district exists are. Um, we've just taken away some of the more ownorous requirements that could frankly be really difficult for, you know, a neighborhood group um or, you know, an individual group of property owners to actually achieve because these are these are products that require a lot of planning expertise that could pretty much only be produced by city staff or consultants. And and you know, we wanted to to keep these keep districts accessible. Um, just a last slide here. Uh we did we made updates to the historic context statement. Um one of the uh one of the biggest changes is just to align the evaluation criteria in the historic context statement with the revised evaluation criteria for the that are in the historic preservation ordinance. One of the purposes of the context statement is for you know researchers you know consultants staff to look at different types of properties and see you know how could this type of property be eligible under criteria for event significance or architecture. So provide some guidance and sort of um you know important dates important types of things to help those decisions be made. So we needed to align that document with the ordinance. Um, we also expanded on some historic themes and property types, um, both in date and expanding the types of communities that

are that are covered, trying to provide a more inclusive history of San Los Abyspo um, overall. Um, so I believe that's the Oh, yes. Yeah, I think those those are the things that I mentioned. I just didn't put it up on the screen yet. And that concludes the uh the presentation. Uh and uh Stacy and myself are available for any questions. Great. Thank you for that. Thank you, Stacy. Okay. So, planning commission members, we have the opportunity to pose questions on this to Stacy and Brian. And uh I'll start over on this side. Cheryl, do you have any?

Not at this time. Actually, I have one. uh we received a few pieces of correspondence and I you know I want to thank those authors. I think they were generally uh pretty thoughtful and worth considering. One question I just wanted to get your take on is there seem to be the suggestion that perhaps with these changes the cultural heritage committee is being minimized in some way. Do you have any thoughts about what their role is and if it's changed under these new rules?

Yeah, I think you're referring to the agenda correspondents that that reviewed the CHC duties portion. Yeah, I think that's more um there's no intent to well I should say there are no substantive changes to that section. It's really more of just a cleanup. So the pre the current ordinance has two different sections that say actions and then CHC duties. It's somewhat repetitive. Um there's some redundancy there and it's a little bit confusing the way it reads. So there's really nothing changing in that section. It's just really more of a cleanup. Yeah. So there's there's no changes in terms of what the um CHC would be reviewing going forward um or the overall review process for historic resources that's associated with this project.

Great. Thank you. That's it. Okay. For now. Okay. Okay. Uh I do have a few questions as usual. So let's see here where to start there. Let's pick up with the correspondence that came in. So what you referred to was from Alan Cooper who's pretty active in this realm and um so he seemed quite concerned that uh the heritage committee would no longer be making recommendations and is that's that was the the bold line from his letter. So is that not the case?

Yeah, that as I just tried to explain that's not the case. There are no changes, no substantive changes occurring there. It's really more of a cleanup just so it reads better. Okay. There's no changes to section.

So, Mr. Cooper, if you're watching, I hope that satisfies you on that. And then uh a larger question that came from uh Mr. Pap that was about the two-tiered system and the Mills Act eligibility therein. And he was arguing that Mills Act should be applicable or um properties on both that are both designated as landmarks and as local register resources should be eligible for Mills Act which allows reduced property taxes in exchange for uh either maintenance or upgrade. So, I don't we could probably talk for a while about all that, but is it possible to summarize where the city stands on that issue and um so yeah, what do we know about that?

Yeah. Um that that's been a a sort of long-standing issue with the city's program. The city requires masterless status in order for properties to be eligible for the Mills Act. Um that's actually a separate action that took place in 2000. the city council adopted the Mills Act program and at that time in that approval the city council essentially stated there' be a maximum of 10 uh Mills Act contracts that could be added yearly and that the properties had to be masterless status. Um so for a long time that has been an issue because contributing historic properties it hasn't been clear essentially whether or not um they are themselves actually resources or whether they actually are district contributors. So, um, there's been quite a bit of effort with historic resource evaluations and applications coming in trying to get properties on the master list so that they would then become eligible for for the Mills Act. Um, essentially what's what's being proposed here is not to make a change to to the current situation. um landmark properties would continue would be eligible for the mills act similar to how master list properties are currently eligible for the mills act. Um the change in the ordinance creates the category local register which will create the opportunity for there to be for the city to recognize individual resources apart from contributing resources. So, um, you know, this this sort of sets up, uh, maybe a future policy discussion where the city council might want to consider in the future whether or not local register resources once we go through and complete this this project and determine whether they they are actually themselves u resources. You know, there's nothing preventing the council from considering making a change to that program in the

future. But for now, it it adding the Mills Act or changing the status or or having that program be applicable to other designated resources just not really within within the scope of this project at this time. Okay. So, the point that was being made by Mr. Pap was yeah, up to 10 were allowed and I imagine that's a financial consideration because if you let open the floodgates, then you're going to lose a lot of property tax, right? So, and his comment was that the average has been about two per year. Is that Can we Is that about right instead of nowhere? Recently, I would say the last few years, it's just been a couple. Yeah. Two or three a year. Correct.

Okay. And I kind of see his point that since we're doing an overhaul of the HBO and this might be the time to consider that, it's coming to us in a fairly um researched and finished form. So, I'm not necessarily proposing that we open that reopen that can. And that's a that's a pretty big change, I would think. And maybe that's a council level kind of a of a change and maybe it happens further down the line. So, um, but I thought he made a pretty good point and the other point was that it's all stick and no carrot for the people that are on the local register resources. They're restricted in in what they can do with their home to some degree, but they don't have the advantage of getting the financial kick from the Mills Act. So, um, I just want to recognize that that that made some sense to me. And then I'm a little confused about the levels. So we have the two main tiers. We got landmark and local register resources. But then you also we also have these contributors. Is that like a level below the local register resources?

Okay. So here's individual resources. And I'm sorry these colors are a little washed out. It's a little hard to kind of see. Um the very top one landmark highest threshold for significance and integrity most stringent project review require city council may not be designated against donor objection eligible for mills act local register. These are locally significant proposed projects should not diminish integrity overall but the um the the kind of the carrot stick side of it. They aren't projects at a contributing or at a local register resource are not reviewed as restrictively as at a landmark. So if they wanted to add an ADU just like anybody else if they wanted to change their window layout

Yeah. has go through HBC depending on which part of the building it's on and um you know as as it is right now that that the CHC has a kind of a matrix of approaches you know what kind of change requires what level of review and and that staff use to try and understand okay so if this is proposed at this property what is our approach and if certain things that are opposed at landmarks that would get looked at pretty closely would might be a a staff level decision at a local register resource. Okay. So it's so it's a little stick. Less stick. Far less stick. Yeah. Twig. Okay.

Possibly. Yes. Um and uh and then there are not significant properties. These are things that are formally evaluated and found not to be individually significant. And then there's properties that aren't yet evaluated. And so these are all individual resources. On this left hand side on the right hand side you have things inside historic districts. And everything inside of a historic district is either a contributor or not a contributor. Those things also can be landmarks or individual resources. District contributor is as a separate status, not a lower status. It has to do with its location and its relationship to other properties around it, not to a building's individual merits or significance. So, I mean, it's entirely possible to have a landmark inside of a historic district that isn't actually a contributor to that district because every district has its own period of significance. It has a time period for which it is important. And so, let's say we have a downtown street that was developed at the end of the 19th century and all the buildings in it date between 1890 and 1910. And it really has this great kind of commercial character. And let's say that at some point in the 30s, somebody put a really amazing Deco building in the middle of that district. And it's possible that if you designated that district to reflect this earlier time period, it doesn't include that later building that's outside of the district's period of significance. But that building by itself could be a great piece of architecture, be really locally significant. And so this is how these kind of these categories can overlap. You know, this is a purely hypothetical situation. So whether or not something a building is a contributor is really in the context of the district, not of the building itself. Okay?

And if you're in a district, you're not necessarily a contributor. You might be, you might not be. And you might be not anything if you're inside of a district. And so, right, district contributors

have, you know, kind of like the difference in review category between landmark and local register resource. district contributors, it's a little less s, you know, if they aren't otherwise individually significant, a little less stick then as well. And then non-contributors, even less. There is the potential though for a building that's a non-contributor to still have some design review requirements because if you want to build a brand new building on an empty lot inside of a district, in theory, you want that to not disrupt the historic integrity of the district. And so even though what's there now might not contribute, what's the new thing that you're doing might have an impact. So that would go before the the uh CHC, right?

Potentially. Yeah. Okay. Is I'm trying to stay positive here, but is it do we also identify district detractors? as I go around town, like I go up Bushan or or Isle and you'll see buildings that just don't belong. Yeah. Is there any way that we can um provide some kind of incentive to Yeah. and and that doesn't necessarily need to be part of um the ordinance, but there can be, you know, whether at in different kinds of planning documents um either priorities or, you know, goals to try and improve some of these buildings. You guys know what I'm talking about, right? I mean, yeah.

True. Yeah. I mean, what you can do is is offer I mean, you could potentially say, "Hey, you want a tax break? You update your building a little But I wonder if there's a possibility to do like a retroactive. Let's let's talk about that at some work session down the line or something. There are policy approaches to incentivizing people to um you know rehabilitate historic buildings that are in well a lot of them are are highdensity apartments basically that would that was slipped in before the zoning happened or I don't know how they got in there but they're they're big income producers. I'm sure it's going to be a hard thing to change. Um okay. So, and then the actual inventory update, that's going to be part of this phase two. Is that right? Right. Okay.

And that that's kind of where I think one of the things I wanted to address with this distinction between the, you know, a Mills Act out a Mills Act eligible property needing to be a landmark or currently a master list. As part of the inventory update, it's possible that some of the the properties that currently are on the contributing list could get bumped up and recommended to become landmarks. It's also possible for a property owner who's interested in pursuing a Mills Act to nominate their property as a landmark. And you know to have a mills act you do need to have a high level of documentation of the property's existing condition what its character defining features are to support the work that's going to be done because a mills act is supposed to provide you know money for the property owner to rehabilitate their property according to the secretary standards to do a good historic rehabilitation. And so you need to know enough about that property to inform that rehabilitation. So they might have to hire somebody like you

or I mean if they're I mean there's a professional ecosystem around this, right? Possibly. Yes. It depends on the level of documentation. Right now you want to dig into it. The documentation is not great. Um but if something's already been evaluated to a high level, you know, then you know if you have the information that's not too hard. My point being that the current situation of what is a masterless property and what is a contributing list property is not fixed. It's not fossilized. There is potential for movement for people who are interested. I had a question also about the term integrity and um does that mean close to the original or does it mean it's not falling apart or both?

It it means okay so not falling apart isn't actually necessarily part of it. Um and and the whole the structure of integrity is something that you know as preservation professionals we um we take from the guidance of the National Park Service. This is like a nationwide uh approach and so it's definitely not specific to this city. It consists of seven aspects of integrity that you know we look at for a property. Um it's its setting, location, its um design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. basically how does that property reflect what it's significant for in that time period. So a property can actually be you know structurally unsound and still have good historic integrity.

A a property can be wellmaintained and updated have terrible historic integrity because a lot of stuff has been changed. And so it has nothing to do with condition necessarily unless the loss of condition has led to important features just coming off of the building. Okay, fair enough. Yeah, and we've seen some of these come through our commission in the last couple years. I'm thinking of the the adobe on Dana Street. Um, which was that do was that a landmark property? I don't Yes, that's master list.

Yeah. Okay. Um All right. Well, thanks for that. That's that's very helpful. And I Let's see what else did I have? Um calls. So this integrity business is sort of an overlay on all the the four criteria and that's why it's not a criteria unto itself. Fair enough. And then this business about preservation goals which that was formerly in the district criteria, right? But we've taken that out because it doesn't I I guess any property that's going to it applies more to individual properties than to the district or Well, it's also it's preservation goals are kind of more up to the city

to set rather than so kind of a clean up and simplification. Okay. It's assigning responsibility more. And then um the the last thing I have here is about the historical context statement which is quite long but it's wow it's it's I it's really great. I haven't read the whole thing. I'm kind of waiting for a rainy night to curl up and read it but what a great story and I I know a little bit about the history of this place but it's really fascinating. And so my question is um the version that's in our packet is that the updated version because I don't remember seeing strike through. Do you know what's in the packet? Yes, that's the clean copy version we did include um on the

summary of changes, right? Yeah, the red line version of this. So many things moved around it was very difficult to sort of follow and read. So in this case we used the clean version and just if you wanted to dive in and see all the strikethroughs and underlines that was available to you. Right. And that's the version of the HBO that we did get, right? So, okay, fair enough. Uh, that is that does it for for my question. So, uh, anything else? I'll bring it back to us. I mean, I have about a billion hypotheticals now that you've outlined these seven aspects of integrity, but I'll save that for maybe after the meeting.

Uh, Deputy Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item? I have not received any speaker slips unless anyone in the audience would like to speak. This would be the time. Okay. Then um any more questions before we call for a vote on this measure? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve staff's recommendation

and I'll second it with a comment. Um it is an exhaustive uh work. I'm a civil engineer, so I'm not used to looking at these historical documents, but but it has been very interesting. I agree and um I know quite a bit about Senels's history and thought this was a good capture of it and so good work. So we have a motion and a second. Um who I have one last question. Who prepared the contact statement? Is that a staff work? Was it by the consultants? Is it work from by everybody? We we consult history professors at Calpali. How did we come up with all that? I originally it was done by a consultant called historic resources group.

Uh but I have to all the credit for the contact statement update I have to give to Paige and turn right and the the context itself the the 2013 by HRG had great bones and it had a lot of material in it. So they they dug up a lot and provide pro provided structure and then um Paige and Turbull did some additional research into different communities. Um looked at um you know primary and secondary sources to to add to that and restructure it a little bit to make it more user friendly. But we have to give lots of credit to HRG for giving us the okay the initial structure. It's kind of a collaborative effort honestly at this point.

Well it it looks it looks great to me. It's got lots of great imagery as well. And I just um it's a it's an official document as part of the city. Is that right? So, um I just wonder if it gets it. I mean, this is the opportunity for public comment. If somebody were reading that and wanted to take issue with the way that history of this city is presented in there, then this would be their opportunity. And I guess they could go to council as well. So, just wanted to to point that out. So, okay, we have a motion and a second. And if there's no other discussion, then I'll ask for Sarah to call the role. Commissioner Kulie, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Chair Hton,

yes. Motion passes. Okay. Thank you very much.

Great stuff. So, the next public hearing item before us is to review an amendment to the city's water and wastewater element of the general plan. And would special projects manager Shauna Scott please present the report. We'll give you a minute to get settled here for change over All right. Thank you. Um, good evening, planning commissioner, chair Dave Hton, and planning commissioners. Um, thank you for your service on the planning commission. Uh, my name is Shauna Scott. I'm a special projects manager with the city's public utilities department. With me, I have Chris Leman, our deputy director of wastewater. Um and in the audience we have our uh public um public utilities and interim public works director Aaron Floyd.

So tonight before us is an amendment to the water and wastewater element. And it is staff's recommendation to that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve an amendment to the city's water and wastewater element of the general plan and recommend that the council find the action categorically exempt from the California environmental quality act. So a little background our water and wastewater element was adopted in 1987. It is an element that addresses water resources and wastewater services uh because of the vital role of these resources and the far-reaching impacts of water policies on community growth and character. This element translates the land use element's capacity for development into potential demand for water supply and wastewater service. This element outlines how the city plans to provide adequate water and wastewater service for its citizens consistent with the goals and policies of the other general plan elements. In 2018, there was an amendment to the water and wastewater element which included incorporation of the wastewater wastewater capacity constrained area map. So, a little background about the city sewer system. Uh the city has separate public storm water and public sewer systems. Private sewer laterals are that portion of the sewer lines that connect from a residence or commercial structure up to and including the connection the point of connection with the publicly owned sewer main. When it rains the sewer system experiences a significant increase in volume due to storm related flows. So here's a graphic showing uh kind of an example of a private sewer lateral which is the property owner's responsibility and the sanitary sewer main which is the city's public responsibility.

And here's a graphic shows an example of that inflow and infiltration. Um you can see in the black text um those are the inflow sources essentially the waste water coming from the structure and then the infiltration sources which can get into the sewer um the sewer system through a broken lateral faulty connection uh root intrusion from trees uh cracks or other uh broken pipes or deteriorated materials. The city estimates that there are about 13,421 uh private sewer laterals within the city. The 2018 map and figure that's shown currently shown in our water and wastewater element was based on a 2012 wastewater flow study and a 2016 wastewater collection system infrastructure renewal strategy. The parcels that are located within those blue areas shown on the current map and the element are subject to the city's current wastewater flow offset program. The wastewater flow offset program was adopted by our city council in 2019 um and is currently governed through municipal code section 1308396. And that purpose of that offset program is to establish a methodology where new or intensified development in these capacity constraint areas as established by our city council could offset that new wastewater flow to mitigate capacity constraints in the existing collection system to accommodate a project's additional demand. Without a reduction of inflow and infiltration in these areas, a city would not be able to serve new or intensified development until a significant number of laterals are replaced or public sewer mains are upsized. The wastewater flow offset through the private lateral replacement provides a benefit to the wastewater collection system and the community by reducing public and environmental health concerns by reducing potential sanitary sewer

overflows or SSOs. The city also has a sewer lateral inspection program governed by se municipal code section 1308395 in addition to the city's capital improvement program uh which includes capital and maintenance projects to increase capacity in the sewer system and better monitor flows. These three areas currently shown in the map consist of the Lagona area, the downtown area, and the foothill area. The proposed like updated wastewater um capacity constrained area map was based on data collection which is um collected during peak wet weather or rain event flows during December 2023 through March of 24. It also is based on some updated sewer hydraulic modeling software which included a higher degree of accuracy and included significantly more data than the previous model such as additional elevation data um and actual like real like sewer lateral inspection data from the sewer lateral inspection program. It also used improved inspection software and an updated condition rating process that the city implements to evaluate sewer laterals. Um and the map identifies the current capacity constraint areas. Proposed area one shows here retains much of the original boundaries and includes some minor revisions to reflect the current system conditions. You can see that um it's kind of up in that um foothill area. In the proposed area three, um it's shifted the the previously identified capacity constraint area significantly north and the conditions and the capacities of the wastewater collection system have changed over time um due to a number of dynamic factors. Uh collectively the reasons for removal of the downtown capacity constrained area in that shift north um include a

significant replacement of public and private infrastructure in that formally constrained area. Aging private and public infrastructure in the northern area as it has been 10 years since that last assessment. ground set settlement and impacts from drought such as increased root intrusion um into older materials such as vitrified clay pipe and significant differences between the severity of the weather that was monitored compared to the 2012 flow study and current flow study. There was also a multi-year drought um that began in 2012 and extended through 2016. Our consultant who prepared uh the waist the updated study west did they utilize the best practice industry standards to conduct an unbiased and current evaluation of the system using real data to produce an updated model of current and the study also identifies future buildout conditions which ultimately led into the development of those new capacity constraint boundaries. Uh one thing to note that previous uh uh location capacity constrained area out at Laguna Lake is is currently proposed for removal uh from the capacity constraint area map you know based on the current study. So here are some changes that I explained. Um you can see in blue and then actually that upper area in pink are the previous or the or the current capacity constraint areas and those two areas in blue and green are proposed for inclusion in the updated map. uh there's a very small area that area two that was identified in the study but staff has determined and working with our consultant that that area is small enough and can be addressed through capital projects. Here's a closeup of that graphic. And this shows the proposed map um that

is recommended for inclusion in the amendment to the water and wastewater element. A bit of a closeup here. We can always pull this back up. So staff conducted a council study session uh with our city council on August 19th of 2025. staff presented the draft updated capacity constraint area map and our council directed staff to proceed with the amendment process um including the map that shows areas one and three. There were some additional items that you may have seen if you looked at that previous report related to the wastewater flow offset and sewer lateral inspection programs and those items are outside of our purview tonight but will be brought back to council for their consideration at a follow-up study session in 2026. The proposed amendments do not include any changes to goals, policies or programs. Um the you know the biggest change is that updated capacity constrained area map and then there were also some text cleanups uh related to that where we wanted to identify that current study and then also provide some updates to outdated texts including u completion of our water resource recovery facility uh which was just recently completed and we have our ribbon cutting on Friday. So we're we're pretty happy about that and wanted to make sure that the text in the element was updated to reflect completion of that project as it was important to provide the capacity needed to serve out buildout of our general plan. Uh so why update the water and wastewater element? This updated map reflects the best available information and updated modeling. Um it also references the the applicability um of the wastewater flow offset program and the text amendments reflect the current study and existing conditions of the wastewater collection system and water resource recovery facility. So those areas that are identified within

those capacity constraint areas we are subject to programs as approved by our city council related to offsets um and you know and and as they review and consider and maybe amend those over time for general plan consistency. The general plan consists of an integrated internally consistent um set of elements. The water and wastewater element is an optional element. Uh the land use element refers to the water and wastewater element and states that it provides the policies and programs to support adequate water and wastewater services to the community. These proposed amendments provide the updates necessary to reflect currently accurate information. And that element would continue to provide the goals, policies, and programs for adequate wastewater services to our community and pro and provide the policy basis for our city council to consider and adopt wastewater related programs that facilitate and support buildout of our general plan. The proposed SQA exemption consists of two categorical exemptions. Sections 15307 actions by regulatory agencies for protection of natural resources and 15308 actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment. Uh the identification of those capacity constraint areas um in the general plan are needed such that land use planning can occur with these capacity limitations in mind. They provide the basis for in the general plan for programs that result in the protection of natural resources and the environment by reducing contributing flows from groundwater and storm water and reducing the potential for inflow and infiltration and sewer overflows. Again, it is staff's recommendation that the planning commission uh recommend that the city council approve the amendment to the city's water and wastewater element and find the action categorically exempt from SQA. Uh, this concludes my presentation and I'm

available for any questions. Okay, questions from the commission. Miss, uh, Miss Flores, I have two questions. One, what does it mean to a property owner to be in one of the proposed areas? And I'll just ask the second one, you might move into it. And then what has changed in the Lagona area that they will be removed in consideration?

Sure. Um, sure. So that first question, um, so properties that are located within those wastewater cap identified wastewater capacity constraint areas, they're currently subject to our wastewater, the wastewater flow offset program, you know. So what that means is if somebody is proposing a new development um int a new development or intensified development as defined by the code um then they would be required to offset their wastewater flow. So that may include like finding um another a deteriorated or poor failed condition sewer lateral um and then replacing that essentially offsetting um you know that that flow into the system. Uh there's also an option in the ordinance for somebody to um maybe for a larger project we've seen where a staff is able to identify a capital project that they can contribute to or construct that provides that you know that you know proves that same nexus and can provide that that similar offset.

Is it a onetoone offset or what's the ratio? In other words, if they're increasing it a certain amount, do they have to redo do something to reduce it? Because sometimes programs are 2 to1 or four to one or something, right? So it's it's really rel it's related to they determine like the amount of flow like coming from you know coming from that project and there's a calculation for that and so it's really a direct nexus so it's not a um a 2:1 it's essentially I guess in simple terms a one to one and how small of a project adding a bathroom adding ADU or or just

yeah anything yeah as currently defined in our code an example would be like a 10% increase in plumbing fixtures you know on the site um you know increasing um a certain amount of uh non-residential area you know think um you know adding you know adding plumbing fixtures adding an ADU which would add a plumbing fixture

okay and then your second question regarding um Laguna Lake um I I expand on that but really it's just based on modeling and the existing system so part of the model included looking at actual fl you know actual water demand from water meters um you know modeling and then doing um storm actually putting like a lot you know monitors within our manholes within our system to monitor storm flow through those areas and then really it's like we there are so many different dynamic factors over the past 10 years and you know may have affected that or you know recommended removal of that system but capital projects it's replacement of laterals um and Chris maybe I think that like those are the two main main uh factors

you covered it well I mean it's a combination of city capital improvement projects, uh, LA private lateral replacements, and then it's like Shauna mentioned, it's a dynamic system. And so the 10 years later, this is the most current model that is showing that that area is no longer constrained. A lot of reasons that have gone into pulling that area out, but um, a combination of public and private improvements over the past 10 years. Thank you. Commissioner Khan,

thank you. The area um of Freeny Estates up north of Foothill, those houses were built in the 80s. So, I'm just interested in those so that infrastructure was built in the 80s. How could those be constrained? Are because they feed into a constrained system,

I think. So, you're asking like how could this, you know, it's and hopefully this let me know if this doesn't answer your question, but um I think particularly for those older laterals or made with older materials, they may have cracks or other intrusion um that's getting, you know, getting into the system. Um and so like based on inspection of that lateral, it may find it has you these opportunities essentially for storm water flows or groundwater to be entering the lateral and then getting into um our sewer main and causing that capacity constrained system. Well, in the 80s they used plastic pipe. I just find it hard to believe that something that new could be getting infiltration.

I don't know, Chris. I I think that's a fair observation. Um the model that we produced is just all the data combined that's showing that area is limited and it's it's a combination of factors. You know part of it city infrastructure right down below down below part of it private and then we have um Shauna started the presentation talking about the drought in 2012 to 2016 biggest drought in California's history. Sure.

And that wasn't initially reflected in the last study. Over the past 10 years, what's happened is the trees have sought sources of of water and the groundwater is has table has dropped. So they're tapping into the sewer looking for a water source and just the current model what the best data is showing and a lot of lot of reasons behind that it's an informed decision. Have you had many protests from residents inside these areas about being included in the areas?

We've done some outreach. Um these maps haven't been adopted. So, we're forecasting that the changes are coming. Outreach to the realtor community, development community. Nobody's obviously happy about the changes that are coming. People are very happy about the areas that are being removed. But, um, the next item that Shauna alluded to, we're bringing back to council in December is to try to soften the blow of impacts. And part of that just has to do with rebate programs. Okay. So, we have money available to offset the cost of replacing laterals and that can help. And then we have some money that we're proposing to do inspection work. Part of the the challenge here is just we have a limited data set. Sure.

Of the private system. And so we're trying to incentivize um our private uh property owners to get their laterals inspected. So they know the condition. Oh, they could prove it. Prove that they're not involved. They're not doing influencing it. Right. So it's a data it's a data game. We're trying to um use the best data that we have, inform the system, and that's going to drive the direction of the program. Um but at this stage in the game, we just want to update the map to reflect the most current conditions and and then we'll we'll pivot based on where the data is showing us to focus our attention.

So like up in the north end of town where the motel end was, we've seen a fairly substantial project that's been proposed for that area. It looks like by this map that they would be Oh, maybe not. They might be in that area. Yeah. So, how would they offset it? I mean, that's a considerable flow they're going to be adding to the system. So, multiple ways to do that. You know, it could be we've had some larger projects that might have you say, "Oh, there's 30 laterals you have to replace." That is potentially a big challenge, right? And so there are some inl options to replace the equivalent of city uh sewer mains that would reduce the same amount of flow. So that could be an option.

Um it's something we haven't done as as often, but it's it's it's another path that we opened up uh with an ordinance update recently. Would the motel in get credit for their because most of the buildings are gone now, but at one point they were they were more substantially large. So they get credit for what their historic use was probably, right? Because years ago they were they were viable motel. They were the first motel in the state of California. And um so now they're not there nobody there right now. But then when the new development comes in, so they'll get credit as far as if you took the flow, you take the flow from what they were at one point.

No, there there would not be a a credit related to the way the way the wastewater offset program is structured now. there wouldn't there would not be a credit for their for any past they paid a tap fee way back when or maybe they did that was before then I don't know okay yeah I'm sorry I asked so many detailed questions you got two civil engineers up here so interesting topic we'll try to I was looking forward to question that's all I have and Mr. Floyd if did you wanted to add to that by you're here so

thank you commissioners yeah Aaron Floyd interim public works director and utilities director more I guess for this item and commissioner con you are correct um in the fini area yeah houses obviously that went in in the 80s or so you're going to see PBC PVC and ABS right I mean so you're going to see that you're going to see a nice tight probably you know hopefully glued perhaps slip lined but it is really the whole area so that does drain down further to where we still have the offsets right there. The vitrius clay in there, some of those where roots have got in cracks, broken pipe, some of the old um definite infrastructure, the cast iron that is eroded in areas. I mean, we have certain spots in the city that while folks don't always want to hear it, we actually have spots where the public main even has now dissolved pretty much and it's just running through bare earth. I mean, those are when we find those, those are the areas we really try to highlight, but those are really the issues. So, yeah, it does drain to it. Um I think the important differentiation on something like historic use like that is what we're really talking about is a lot of this infiltration moving into these water systems are not only from the historic use like that but is just the degradation of the sewer lateral themselves. So what we're really seeing is groundwater dependent infiltration. So when we get higher amounts of rain and the groundwater comes up right there we are seeing that seepage into it. So whether or not that lateral right there in that moment is truly being discharged into or it's just in that wet subsurface right there, it's still going to be a huge civ allowing more water to come in. Further intensification of use coming in just allows more water. So we're adding waste water on top of groundwater compounding the issue. That's why they're in there.

Do you feel like more of the INI is on the laterals as opposed to to the city mains?

You know, it's that's a great question. Um it is a difficult uh thing to totally ascertain right there but we do have some modeling that does point to it. I think deacto how we back into it is we have roughly 50% of the collection system for the city is public and 50% of it is private. Millions of dollars a year gets put into the public system to maintain that amount of infrastructure. This is on a linear basis. Now there is difference in pipe sizes obviously but millions of dollars a year gets put into our CIP programs for the public system as well as a team of wastewater collection professionals out doing pipeline investigations making point repairs putting you know new infrastructure in and the private side is virtually untouched. The reality is is most uh property owners unless it is backing up within their house probably don't really have much care of the condition of their sewer lateral right there. though as long as it's moving away.

Well, and we'll get around here, but I I wanted to give a big thank you to all you people that keep this system going. The one that we don't think about and that we often don't want to think about and but it's really important. So, thank you very much for that. Okay, I I have other questions, too, but let's Did you have any more, Mr. Khan and Mr. Kik? Okay, thank you.

So, um All right, great. Thank you for for uh for that, Mr. Floyd. So, there was a question about um if ho how often somebody who wants to add to their density has to actually go through this business of finding um offsetting wastewater. I have a question if the constrained area has we've seen a bunch of high density stuff come through this commission including the project that's happening up there on Monterey Street in California. Um there's a bunch of high uh four story projects. Have any of those had to deal with this? And because they were in they're in constrained area. So um and I don't remember that that's been an issue as it comes be through us. So I'm just curious how often that actually affects the kinds of projects that we have to review here.

Yeah, I would I would say it would vary. Um, you know, right now the what we're really what we're relying on and what we're bound to is the currently adopted map. So, it would depend on if those projects are within the currently identified capacity constrained area map or not. Um, you know, what we're looking at for projects that are kind of in the middle of the process. They might have an entitlement that we're, you know, that, um, the city is currently reviewing. Um, and then, you know, we're anticipating if this updated map is approved by council, you know, then they would no longer be if they're outside of the area, you know, by the time, you know, they get to their building permit, then it wouldn't, you know, then it would they would not be subject subject to that code requirement. So, we're kind of building in some conditions of a if then um, you know, type type of situation. So, I I I think it depends. I I wouldn't really have it right in front of me like how many of these projects um you know depending on their size would be before you you know a lot of the developments that we are seeing are kind of a bit smaller they're remodels or you know or projects that um are at the level where they are considered by um the community development director unless upon appeal. Um but when but you will see uh when there is an item that comes before you for a project that is within that capacity constrained area you will see that called out and you will see a condition and encode reference um in the resolution.

Okay. So it's just part of the stuff that happens in the background I suppose and we're thinking more about the density and parking and all that kind of stuff right? Yeah it just it depends on the level of review. So any any item that comes before you for a project that is within the council adopted capacity constraint area map you you know you'll see that. And then I had a question about the lateral inspection. So how do you do that? Is that a a video scope thing and is it with permission of the property owner? Uh are you attempting to do that? So when I look at the proposed area one and three, you've got detailed and you've got every it looks like a line. It's either green or red or gray and most of the lines are there's the more gray than anything else and that means you don't know. Right. Correct.

So are you actually trying to go through and scope all those or how does that work? I can take that one. So good that you pointed out the grade lines and that is one of the limitations of the program and and knowing exactly where to focus. We have this big box and there's a bunch of unknown and so the uh two things moving forward. I mean really we need that data set to be make informed decisions. So that that's going to drive the recommendation for a new rebate. And these are uh re inspections performed by a plumber that the property owner would contract with. Um typical prices are around $350. So um in draft form, we haven't made this recommendation yet, but we're proposing to offset most of that cost with a new rebate. Um incentivize people to go out and be proactive. Get the inspection performed before the lateral fails and backs up into your home. And then the other benefit of that is a is an updated map for potential offsets in those areas. So if you need to find a large number of offsets, now you have a bigger data set to pull from.

Great. Yeah, I think that's a good idea to to rebate the cost of the inspection. And I think that is that's that price seems about right. I actually um completely coincidentally just went through all this at my house. I just I I hadn't had a problem, but I when the house when we bought the house uh 12 years ago, we got it scoped and at the time they said it was the Orangeberg, but when but so um I actually just got my lateral replaced and so u being a engineering geek, I was out there with the guys in and the city was out there too. We had we had a company that came and did the burst trenchless. It was really impressive how they were able to do that and um the and the rebate application I think is going through right now. So yeah, it's a great program and um I just again appreciate what you guys do. The so the question I last question I had so when you go through and are updating or replacing mains are you mostly putting in new material? Are you enlarging at the same time? So I think we had a on my street we had a 6 inch main or something like that which So um how's that working? Are we are we up when we have the opportunity to be putting in bigger pipe?

Good question. So so both. We're going to update the materials. All the new sewer mains are going to be plastic. Um and which kind of plastic do you use? U HTPE. Yeah. Okay. Good. typically. So, um and then with what whatever our model is showing with the updated um capacities, we're going to also be enlarging pipes. Um there are instances we're just going to be doing point repairs to fix the the bigger issues that we aren't fully funded. Yeah. Um but yeah, both both enlarging and replacing.

Okay. Uh, and then the last I I have a always have a couple of last things, but uh, Kpali is doing their own they're building their own wastewater treatment plant. Is that right? And when is that supposed to come online? Is it pretty soon?

They're getting close. Uh, construction's underway. Uh, the latest estimate that we've received is is in the summer of next year. So, Juneish. Okay. 2026 that plant should be online. um that the the model is that they're going to take the the wastewater, treat it on site on the campus, and then recycle all of it on site. And so that will pull all the wastewater flows from Calpaly off the city system at least for a period of time. We're estimating uh five or six years at a certain point that the housing development uh buildout will be complete and then some flow might return back to the city and all that's been modeled into the study. Okay, great. So, it's going to provide some relief for a time, but they're building more density up there, but that'll that new density that's on campus will also go through their new plant, right?

Correct. Okay. Interesting. Um, that was all I have. So, um, let's see. Deputy clerk, do we have any public comment on this item? We do not. Yeah. Okay. So, any more questions from staff? I mean, from uh commission of staff. Okay, then we are ready to take a motion.

But I recommend um I move that we approve the motion the um ordinance. What is it? That'd be helpful. Thank you. Yeah, I think you can just say as proposed in the packet. As proposed in the packet. That's very good. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay, we have a motion, a second. Any further comment? And we'll go for a roll call then. Commissioner Flores, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Kulie, yes. Chair Hton. Yes. Motion passes. Great. Thank you. Thank you all very much.

Thank you. Okay, we're getting near the end here and would Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey please provide us an update on what's coming up.

All right. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Looking out to our next regularly scheduled meeting. That would be on November 19th. We just have one meeting for November. Um, currently no items on November 19th scheduled. So, we'll see if that changes, but as of now, we may not have that meeting. And then our last meeting of the calendar year is on December 10th. Um, so on that particular meeting night, I do potentially have one item and this would be um phase four of the Avalor Ranch development. It's the condo kind of town home component. It's 194 units and that also includes 16 accessory dwelling units. So that is um right now tenatively scheduled for uh December 10th and that's what I have.

Okay. You said November 19th. Uh the the second uh Wednesday is the 12th and that's what my calendar tells me of November, right? We combined Okay. Yeah. Due to the holidays, we just did one meeting in November for the county commission on the 19th.

All right, great. Excellent. Okay, then we will see and we'll just be advised um if if that is going to happen or not. Okay, so with that, the next regular meeting of the planning commission is scheduled for November 19th, not the 12th, and that's in 2025 at 6 o'clock p.m. in the council chambers, city hall, 990 Palm Street, St. Louis Bispo. Thank you. We are adjourned. Thank you.