Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is Vice Chair Eric Tali filling in for Chair Hton. Um I would like to call this regular meeting of the planning commission to order. Would you please join me and stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation indivisible.

Thank you. Would city clerk Terresa Purrington please call roll? Commissioner Kulie here. Commissioner Khan here. Commissioner Jorgensson here. Commissioner Munos Morris here. Vice Chair Tully here. At this time uh we will hear any public comment for items not on tonight's agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and if action by the commission is necessary may be scheduled for a future meeting. City clerk, do we have any public comment?

Yes, we have three speakers. Um the first one is Louise Justice, then Sharon Roberts, and then Kathy Basil. Good evening. Louise Justice, a resident of 24 years at Judson Harris Homes here in St. Louis Abyspo. My building number four is adjacent to the proposed project at 2932 Augusta. At 86 years old with a variety of health issues such as allergies, breathing, and balance, my concern is the safety and healthy environment in and around this area. If 27 trees are eliminated, the environment will be affected because trees produce oxygen. They absorb carbon dioxide to combat the climate change. They provide habitats for wildlife. they prevent soil erosion etc. And I'm sure you are aware of this. Thus, my concern is not only for myself, other adults as well and residents in the area, but for the children who attend the elementary school located just down the street and who do play in the park and use the public pool. Why then was the project deemed to be exempt from environmental review? Please reconsider your decision and kindly keep the health and safety risks foremost in your review. Thank you for your time. Thank you for listening and please hear.

Oh, not used to this. Good evening. Uh, my name is Sharon Roberts and I live at Judson Terrace Homes, 3000 Augusta Street, apartment 225. And I'm here to ask some questions of the planning commission regarding a proposed development at 2932 Augusta Street that I believe will directly affect my health and well-being and the health and well-being of anyone else that lives in our neighborhood. This would also include children, teachers, and staff at Sinshimer Elementary School. I want to understand what changes the city is looking to make to its environmental review policy. And I also want to understand why the proposed development at 2932 Augusta is exempt from an environmental review. The balcony of my apartment looks right onto this property. I have COPD and numerous allergies, so I continuously use an air purifier. I think it is very important that any development on this property be carefully considered because of air quality issues. What is going to be put into the air if the current buildings are demolished and what will be in the air during a construction project? I also believe the proposed project is too large for the lot. Plus, traffic from the construction and new tenants will disrupt our neighborhood. I understand that our area is zoned R4 for high density, but I believe we have reached a level of density that is often uncomfortable. While Judson Terrace Homes has 105 units, we only have off- streetet parking for 35 of those units. Other tenants must park on the street and that often means they park as far as two to four blocks from their home. This would

be difficult for anyone, but especially tenants that are 60 and over. The city has already approved other projects in our area, including one at 1241 Laurel Lane, that did not require the builder to provide a parking space for each unit. Most of those tenants park in the shopping center lot or on the street, thus creating more parking problems. If you were to come survey our area during evening hours or early morning before people leave for work, you would see that all the street parking is being utilized. Where are these 40 to 30 to 40 additional people from this new project going to park? there is no room left on the street. What is the rationale for allowing a builder to not provide parking just because a few of those units might be affordable? Here's the current parking scenario on Augusta Street and in my parking lot where a few of us have assigned parking spaces. Is that the end of my Okay. So, can I give my comments then to the clerk so that they'll become part of the meeting? Okay,

our next speaker is Kathy Basil and then the final speaker card that I have is R.J. Hi, I'm Kathy Basil and I'm didn't write in very much down like they they did. They did really good talks. Parking is atrocious already. I've come and had to sit in a red zone and wait for a parking spot to come available. And when it didn't, I had to park down the road down the by the park. I'm wondering why the environmental review is exempt. And I am also referring to the building next on 2932 Augusta. The environmental review is exempt. Why is that? And my whole apartment overlooks that area, the new building next door. Our apartments are small. So I'm not talking about just one room. I'm because that's all we have is one room and a bedroom. And it is facing and the balcony. Why is it three stories? Why is it going to be three stories? It's going to be the only three-story building on on Augusta. So I we'd like to have some answers to these questions. Thank you very much for your time.

Our final speaker is R.J.

Good evening. Uh my name is R.J. I live at Justin Terrace. Um I'm 77 years old and I've lived uh in slow for about three and a half years and I'm thrilled to be here. Um, I'm referring now to the uh the property next to Jetson Terrace at 2932 Augusta. Uh, this proposed apartment complex includes a total of 30 apartments, but it only provides 14 parking spaces. Assuming two cars per apartment, which is not a lot. Uh, even if it's just a couple, probably both have their own car. Uh, that's approximately 44 additional cars will be need to find parking on the street. 44 cars are the equivalent of two football fields end to end. There is simply not that space on the street. It's just a physical impossibility. Uh this means that as has been mentioned before, many uh current residents, including seniors who live at Judson Terrace, um who are right next door to this proposed apartment, and many other residents, may be forced to walk several blocks or more to get to and from their car to unload their groceries. Many are physically unable to do so. Uh, adding to already crowded conditions, invites accidents, prevents ambulances and fire trucks. Uh, don't take my word for it. Uh, speak to the captain at the fire station who already has a problem navigating Augusta Street. Um, if you want to see an example of what too little parking space looks like, go to the Damon Garcia um, soccer field when they're having a tournament. And cars are parked all over the street. They're parked on Broad Street. They will make their parking space whether it's legal or not. Uh so uh you know imagine if that's your home street and you come home after a day of work and you're faced with that kind of mess. That's what we're looking at. Once it's done it's there forever. Um I want also want to talk about sensitive receptors uh and why this project should not be exempt from environmental review. Uh according to SQA sensitive receptors

are identified uh because they are more susceptible to harm from environmental pollutants than a general population. Examples of sensitive receptors are uh in two categories, people and locations. Uh people include children, the elderly, pregnant women, individuals with respiratory illnesses like asthma, people with pre-existing health conditions, many of whom live at Judson Terrace or being cared for at the um St. Louis uh acute care postacute care uh facility across the road. Uh in terms of locations, it's hospitals, schools, which we have, daycare centers, nursing homes, uh and residential areas, place places where people spend extended periods like in the park. Uh identifying sensitive receptors is crucial for assessing potential health impacts from various sources of pollution and for implementing appropriate mitigation measures. According to the California Air Resources Board, we know hopefully what uh an environmental review uh involves. Its intention is to re is to uh is a review. Anyhow, lots more to say. Uh I will submit the the balance to the court clerk. Thank you very much. Uh, city clerk, can you provide direction of what if staff can respond to these comments?

You can have staff provide a brief um response, but no in-depth analysis or discussion. Staff, are you prepared to address any of these comments?

Sure. Um, thank you, uh, planning commissioners. This is a project that is proposed at the subject address that was identified. Um it is currently on hold and the process for this housing development project would be first a hearing through the architecture review commission and then a recommendation from that body to the director. So that would be the normal review process. It would not come before the planning commission. Um but at this time it's it's on hold um pending a a future hearing date.

Okay. And just to translate that for you folks. So this project is currently not before us today. Uh we're not considering it. It's not on the agenda. It's on hold. It hasn't advanced to that level yet. Um, what I would recommend is to get with city staff, the community development department and work out whatever issues you have with them. It's not, as of right now, it's not going to appear before us when it is ready. It's going to be decided upon by the director of the community development department. Um, that could change, but as of right now, according to uh deputy director, that's that's what's um that's where it's at. Uh so but your concerns have been heard and recorded. So appreciate that and that's all that we have for you today. Thanks. It can we also just note that we cannot discuss this either because it's not on our agenda tonight. So even if we wanted to, we would not be able to discuss this item tonight. Just wanted to point that out. Okay. Um moving on. uh the consideration of the minutes. But before we vote, do we have any commissioners that have comments on consent?

Okay. Do I have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda? Move to approve consent. I'll second.

Commissioner Kulie. I. Commissioner Munoz Morris. Hi. Commissioner Khan. Yes. Commissioner Jorgensson. Yes. Vice Chair Tolley. Yes. Um and just to reiterate, we're moving on with the agenda. So you folks don't have to stay if you don't want to. Just say you can if you'd like. Although you are welcome to stay. You you more than welcome.

Um so on to the public hearings. Uh any court ch Let me make sure I got this right. Yep. Okay. Any uh 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. Uh if you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes. Uh the first item, the public hearing item before us is a review of the amendment of title 17 of the city's municipal code, the zoning regulations to include an applicability subsection.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Rachel Cohen, and I'll be presenting this proposed amendment before you this evening. Staff is recommending that the planning commission recommend that the city council introduce and adopt an ordinance amending title 17 of the municipal code, also known as the zoning regulations, specifically amending section 17.02.020 to include a subsection about applicability. The planning commission's role is to review any proposed text amendments to the zoning regulations for consistency with the city's general plan and state law and provide a recommendation to the city council. So, a little bit of background, the city undertakes various projects every year for the benefit of the community. These projects can range from constructing new city facilities such as a new parking structure to making adaptations or modifications to existing facilities to include safety features such as fencing or new radio tower for a fire station. Currently, the city is required to comply with the city's zoning regulations for new projects or even modifications. However, strict adherence to every requirement can be difficult to impossible to comply with given the unique nature and purpose of the city project. City projects are conducted pursuant to the approval of the city under direct city supervision and for the benefit of the community based on community input and adopted priorities and must consider elements that promote public health, safety, and welfare. Alterations to the city property may be required once it's discovered that there is a public health safety or welfare issue that needs to be addressed. To remedy the issue, modifications to the structure may be required that are not permitted due to the zoning regulations.

Since the city is required to comply with the zoning regulations, certain safety elements may not be able to be installed and the community and/or city staff remain at risk. Alternately, the city may be required to request an exception and go through a lengthy process from its own regulations. Essentially, the city has to ask the city for permission to build a city project deemed necessary or desirable by the city for the public safety. The proposed amendment is intended to eliminate administrative inefficiencies and support the efficient implementation of common sense public safety features associated with public projects. So I think the best way to understand this situation is to provide a couple of examples where certain safety features do not fit within our current standards of the zoning regulations. One example is the city would like to install safety netting on the top of the city's parking structures. Currently the zoning regulations only allow solar energy systems, chimneys, elevator towers, screening for mechanical equipment, vents, antennas, and steeples. um to extend above the the height of the of the building. Safety netting is not listed as a feature that may extend above the building height and therefore not something that may be installed per code. The zoning regulations also have a section on fences and walls, but the code only addresses fencing built at the ground level and does not provide for the possibility of fencing located elsewhere. Another example is that the city may need to install a new generator for a fire station located adjacent to a residential zone. The zoning regulations require a setback in the public facility zone to be as the the adjacent zone. All residential zones require a 5-ft setback and the new generator necessary to keep the fire station operational has to be

located within the setback due to site constraints. Per the zoning regulations, the generator could not be located in the setback because generators are not listed as an acceptable type of mechanical equipment that is allowed. Currently, the zoning regulations do not provide a clear statement on how they are to be applied to the properties in the city. The city currently operates and has historically interpreted zoning regulations to require both private and public properties um to be subject to the zoning regulations, but the code does not expressly state this. Under this interpretation, the city projects are required to be processed like private development projects, including development review and any other necessary entitlements. Therefore, staff is recommending the zoning regulations be amended to include an applicability section to modify historic practice and clarify how the zoning regulations apply and do not apply apply to private and public development by including provisions that exempt certain safety features associated with city projects that are needed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The text amendment would not exempt city projects um with public safety sorry text amendment would not exempt city projects with public safety features from general plan conformity evaluation or compliance with ZQA or otherwise applicable development review processes. So, this is a lot of text on this slide, but this was also in your staff report, but this is the proposed amendment staff is proposing. Um, the first portion of the amendment outlines who the zoning regulations apply to. The middle part of the text uh specifies exemptions from the zoning regulations per state or federal law or for public fe public public safety features necessary to protect public health and welfare of the

community. And the last part of the text defines what public safety features are. The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan because it provides procedural clarity regarding the application of the zoning regulations to the city property and projects. Additionally, the amendment supports the general plan's goals to enhance public safety and welfare. The proposed amendment also is consistent with the community development d um department's mission statement because it would allow for certain safety features to be included in city projects to protect public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The proposed amendment would clarify how the zoning regulations apply and expressly authorize a city to incorporate necessary public safety features to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. It is important to note that major city projects such as a new fire station, a significant addition to an existing city building, or other project components that are not needed to address specific public health, safety, and welfare issues would still be required to adhere to all requirements within the city's zoning regulations. The proposed text amendment is exempt under the common sense exemption of SQUA. Since the text amendment is a minor revision to the title 17 and intended to provide clarity and expressly authorize exemptions for public safety features of public projects otherwise required to comply with the city policies and regulation. It clearly does not have the potential to cause any significant effect on the environment. The amendment does not authorize any changes in the environment or otherwise allow new land uses or intensify existing land uses. These amendments do

not authorize any specific action without otherwise applicable development and and environmental review. Individual projects will still be required to comply with SQA as applicable. staff and the planning commission did receive public comment regarding this item and there was much information regarded in this letter that was inaccurate and also assumed a project would be located in the public right away which is not the intent of the proposed amendments. Any proposed project with safety features would be subject to SQA if it qualifies as a project. As noted in the staff report, any proposed project with safety features would not be exempt from the general plan conformity evaluation or compliance or otherwise applicable development review processes. Do you want to note that chapter 17, our zoning regulations pertains to property outside of the public right ofway. The proposed amendments would not and could not apply to the right ofway or the right-of-way interference interface. Uh, chapter 12 of the city's municipal code includes regulation regarding streets, sidewalks, and public places. And that's where we outline the regulations for the public rightway. The common sense exemption is an appro is appropriate as I mentioned in the previous slide because this is a minor text amendment does not result in physical changes to the environment and individual projects will still need to comply with SQA and otherwise applicable review processes. The city may exempt itself from zoning regulations. As a charter city, it has wide discretion to enact land use ordinances to protect public health, safety, and welfare absent any preempt state or federal law or charter limitations. And there are other cities within the

state of California that exempt themselves from the zoning regulations. This concludes staff presentation and I'm available for any questions that the commissioners may have. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Cohen. Um, any members, uh, planning commissioners have questions for staff? Yes, sir.

Thank you for the presentation. Um, I just want to make sure I'm understanding something correctly. And you mentioned, uh, correspondence we received that had, you know, a lot of assertions in it. Um, and I want to specifically talk about the SQUA question. I want to make sure my understanding is correct that the reason why staff is saying that tonight's proposal is exempt from SQA is because this is merely a textual change to a zoning regulation and does not in and of itself have any environmental impact. Do I have that right? That is correct.

Okay. There were some other um I would say more substantive SQA assertions in that correspondence. Would you care to reply to any of those? I know you said that you think that there's a lot of inaccurate information in there. I don't know how much of that you want to talk about tonight. Is there an item in particular that you have questions about or

Well, I guess what I'm asking is uh does the correspondent did they just misunderstand that point about how this amendment itself doesn't have any environmental impact? That's that's staff's interpretation in in terms of reading through the correspondence is they misunderstood that the city was moving forward with a specific project and at this point in time it's just the amendment an actual text text change to our code. Any project that results as a part of this amendment if it moves forward would have to go through the normal review process in terms of whether it qualifies as a project under SQL and whether it's consistent and conforms with the general plan and as well as other review processes. So um it seems that they were maybe misunderstood what this particular amendment is doing. So no action that we might take tonight would say exempt any future projects from regular review under SQA.

That's correct. Thank you very much. Yes sir.

Yeah. I also quick question about that correspondence because I was reading through it and there was quite a bit and I appreciate you proactively addressing it. Central Coast Concerned Citizens. I was trying to figure out what this organization who this organization is and I can't really find anything on it other than central coast concern mountain bikers which I think is a different organization. Um is is could is this an individual also the email that is address you know corresponds to this letter received seems more like a personal email. Is this an organization? Is there a membership? Is there any have city staff had any interaction with this organization in any formal way?

Uh we've received one other letter from them actually regarding the Augusta project that uh members of the public spoke about this evening but I do not know who they represent. We also did a search. We cannot find any links to it. So, and no one has identified a particular person um that we've only gotten emails through sort of an alias. Okay. Thank you. It's just the letter said on behalf of and I just I was trying to figure out who it's on behalf of, I guess. All right. Thank you, commissioners. Any other questions? Uh Madame Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?

No, we do not. Okay. Do any commissioners have any questions before we call for a vote? I'm assuming nothing has changed in 4 seconds. Okay. Do I have a motion and a second? I'll move to approve this. And I just like to make a comment that I appreciate all the clarifications because I've been reading that and going over it, I was a little confused also. So, thank you for the clarifications. And um I propose we approve the um item to go before the city council for approval. I'll second. Okay. Madame clerk, can you please call roll? Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Jorgensson, yes.

Commissioner Munos Morris, yes. Commissioner Ty, yes. Commissioner Kulie, yes.

Okay. Well, that's all the hearing items we have. would Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey please provide an update.

All right. Thank you members of the planning commission. Um in terms of next meetings in our forecast, uh next regularly scheduled meeting is October 8th. Um currently no items for that meeting uh are on the schedule. So that'll be likely cancelled. The second meeting in October, we have a couple of items. um general plan amendment to the uh water and wastewater element. And this is to update our wastewater collection system capacity map as well as uh our historic um preservation ordinance update and historic context statement. So that'll be coming from uh a recommendation from both the uh culture heritage committee and the architecture review commission to the planning commission on uh on the 22nd. And after that, I don't have anything currently scheduled for November.

Very good. Okay. Well, the next regular meeting of the planning commission scheduled for October 8th. It's likely to be cancelled uh but at 6 pm here in the council chambers at city hall um in St. Louis Abyspo. This concludes our meeting. Thank you.