Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I don't know. Recording in progress. Tell me.

It seems Okay, it's six o'clock and showtime. So, this is Dave Hen. I'll call this regular meeting of the St. Louis Bespo City Planning Commission to order. And now you can join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisibley for all.

Would city clerk deputy city clerk Sarah Armis please call the role? Commissioner Kulie here. Commissioner Flores here. Commissioner Jorgensson here. Commissioner Khan here. Commissioner Munoz Morris here. Vice Chair Tolley here. Chair Hton, I'm here. So, at this time, we'll hear any public comment for items that are not on tonight's agenda. These items are generally referred to staff. And if action by the commission is necessary, it will usually be scheduled for a future meeting. And deputy clerk, do we have any such public comment for non-aggenda items?

I have not received any speaker slips for non-aggenda public comment. Doesn't look like we have any. Okay, there's a stack of yellow cards over here and if you are seeking to make a public comment on something on the agenda, then you can grab one of those. But we'll uh we'll let you know about that as well. It's time for the consent agenda. And before we vote on this, do we have any comments on the consent agenda? Seeing none, do we have a motion for approval of the consent agenda? A motion. Mr. Munoz Morris. Second. Okay. Commissioner Tolley is second and all in favor say I. I. I.

Any hearing? None. Moving on. We're now in the public hearing time and any court challenge to the actions taken on public hearing items. And this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues that are 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 when you come up and your comments will be limited to 3 minutes. And we'll have a nice little timer here for you to remind you. So, the public hearing item before us right now is to review an appeal of the community development's direct uh director's approval of a project located at 920930 Rachel Court. So, I'm going to ask the commissioners to disclose any exparte communications that they may have had regarding this item. I'm looking off to my left and to my right. Seeing none. Oh, yes.

I have no exparte, but I'm going to recuse myself because I own property within the distance of this property.

Okay. Thank you for that. And um I have no exparte communications. Uh but I did go by to the site as uh most of us tend to do and take a look at what's going on over there. Okay. So would assistant planner Ethan Estrada please present the staff report on this item. Okay. Thank you. Uh good evening Chair Hton and planning commissioners. My name is Ethan Estrada and I am an assistant planner for the community development department. Tonight, we'll be reviewing an appeal of the community development director's decision to approve a minor development review application with an exception to a hillside development standard at 9:20 and 9:30 Rachel Court. Staff's recommendation for this item this evening is for the commission to adopt the draft resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the community development director approving the application ARCH05292024 with an exception to a hillside development standard. The project site is located at 920 and 930 Rachel Court and zoned R2. The site itself consists of approximately 0.26 acres of land or a little over 11,300 square feet and is predominantly surrounded by residential uses. The minor development review application ARCH0529 2024 proposes the construction of two multi-story duplexes, one on each property and where the two properties essentially merit one another. In addition to the duplexes, the applicant plans to submit building permit applications for four ADUs, two on each property as allowed by the state for new multif family projects. I do want to note here, although included on the site plan, ADUs are not subject to discretionary review when compliant with applicable standards. These ADUs were included to provide a comprehensive picture for the proposed development,

but are ultimately not included in this approval. This application also included a request for a tree removal with the compensatory planting plan of five trees with three along the street frontage explored thoroughly in the staff report. This project has gone through some significant design changes. I won't speak to this in much detail in this presentation uh for the purpose of saving time as the applicant may speak to this later. Upon staff review, it was determined that this site has an average cross parial slope greater than 16%, rendering this project subject to the hillside development standards provided in chapter 17.70090 of the zoning regulations. In these regulations is subsection C3, which provides a standard that limits retaining walls to a height of 4 feet above grade if longer than 20 ft. Included in the project design are 11 proposed retaining walls with the majority located within the interior of the development. Retaining walls are standard to facilitate construction on sloped sites in this area. Of the 11 walls, five of them would exceed this 4ft height limit. Of the five walls, one would exceed this limit by a foot and 4 in for a portion of the retaining wall and the other four walls would have portions exceeding this limit anywhere from 2 in to 8 in. Subsection D of the same chapter allows for exceptions to these hillside development standards provided certain findings are made. In the decision letter included in the staff report as attachment F, the director was able to make the necessary findings to grant this exception as part of the project approval provided on January 15th, 2026. On January 20th, 2026, the appellent, Mr. McCormack, a resident to the north of the project site, filed an appeal of this decision to approve the project. The basis of the appellance appeal is not all the is that not all the findings required for project approval can be made. Specifically contesting two of the findings as provided in the appeal form submitted. The first finding contested by Mr. McCormack is that the exception granted

is necessary for the full development of the site. This is not a specific finding required for exceptions to hillside development standards. Nor is it a required finding for approval of a minor development review application. Regardless, these retaining walls are a necessary aspect of the project design. Our engineering team, who can speak a little more uh to this, are present tonight for any questions that you may have on this topic, but the walls play an integral role in providing an architectural design that is consistent with the surrounding development pattern and that allow the development to remain compliant with other applicable development standards. The second finding contested by the appellant is that the development and exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the adjacent properties. This is a finding required for both the exception and the development itself. Mr. McCormick's claim here mostly focuses on the proposed retaining wall located along the property line at the southwest corner of 920 Rachel Court, asserting that it is too close to the existing non-conforming residence at 2098 Rachel Street, a property west adjacent to the project site. The zoning regulations do not establish minimum distances between structures and in fact allow structures like retaining walls to be located up to the property line within the side and rear yard setbacks. This practice can be seen on other properties surrounding this project such as the residences depicted in the images on the right hand side. City staff including engineering and building staff reviewed the submitted design and did not identify any safety or structural concerns affecting the adjacent structure. But to a larger point here, the development, if approved, would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and state construction standards, which is thoroughly assessed during the building permit plan check process. This includes the submitt of structural plans, grading plans, and more. If items of concern are are identified during this plan check review, the applicant will be required to comply with these standards, even if it means modifying this application as a standard for all development projects of

this nature. Overall, this project, except for the exception requested, is compliant with all other development standards, including those provided in the Hillside development standards. City staff has reviewed the submitted plan set to confirm this fact. Did not identify any safety concerns based on the minor development review. Considering the information provided by the appellent, city staff did not find that this information warrants a redesign of the project as presented in the current plan set, nor re-evaluation of the findings in the director's decision to approve the project. I'll reiterate staff's recommendation that the commission adopt the draft resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the community development director approving the minor development review application ARCH0529 2024 with an exception to a hillside development standard. That concludes this presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Estrada. Very good. So, uh at this time we can ask questions of staff and I'll start to my right here, Mr. Menoz Morris. Yeah. Um I just have a quick question. We received a a letter through public comment from I think one of the neighbors to the proposed site. Uh and I forget if it was a was it a property line dispute or an easement about the driveway, right? And I was wondering if city staff had any other additional comments on that or any thoughts the letter received.

Uh that is uh not within the scope of this review. uh the property line according to staff is a legal lot. Uh to me that is a civil dispute to be uh resolved between both property owners. Thank you Mr. Kley. And I just had a question and this is probably directed to you too about our discretion in this matter. Are we simply considering the question of the exception to the retaining walls or is this a broaderbased review?

Yeah, this would be a a broader based review. It is a full review of the project. So, um all the aspects of the project and standards are under your peer review tonight, but the the focus is of the actual appeal related to the retaining walls and um you know, staff's provided our our recommendation based on that that issue and and the information submitted on the appeal over on this side. Commissioner Tully. Yeah. Um question. Did you um can you explain further how the first contested finding is not a finding or it is a finding or

Yeah, the uh zoning regulations especially for hillside development standards provide specific findings that have to be made uh in order to approve the exception. Uh the finding that was cited in the letter we received with the appeal um is not included in that list of required findings. Anything else on this side? Mr. Khan, Mr. Jordansson. Okay, I have a few questions. So, I wanted to ask about this business of constructing a retaining wall right up into the property line. So, if you have to do that, and what measures do you have to take to protect your neighbor's property? I imagine shoring may be involved or how does that work? Um I think for that question we could defer either to the applicant or our engineering team who is present. They may be able to

so we have presentations by both the appellant and the applicant. So maybe we'll get that addressed in that discussion. Okay. This might be more up your alley. So the zoning there is R2S. S means special. What's special about this location? This particular site is zone R2. So across the street is R2S. That's the slow terrace development. Uh it's a special overlay zone, but this property is just uh zoned R2. Okay, I withdraw my question about specialness. Um

yeah, it I mean we're all special, right? Um and then 2098 Rachel, that is a nonconforming uh property, right? And so how does that get addressed when there is construction that is going to potentially impede or impinge or be to the detriment of a neighborhood isn't in keeping with the setbacks and isn't with in keeping with the modern standards of which we are building things.

Again for this particular project site uh staff did not identify that the proposed structures would impact this building. Um, historically, non-conforming structures have not really played a role uh in the the review of a of a de development project. Um, again, in the building plan, check process. Uh, things like fire code, building code would be reviewed for. Um, and that's where you might find standards that relate to that. Uh, but again, staff reviewed the project, did not find anything of note uh at this point in the process.

Okay. So, if I have a non-conforming structure, do I essentially wave any kind of rights to um other structures that might h cause me harm because I'm non-conforming? Does that make sense? Do I do I still get to complain if I'm that close to the property line and somebody else wants to build within the the current standards? Well, I mean, as I think Ethan mentioned, there's no required separation, a minimum separation between structures, but there is construction standards that have to be met. So, those would apply depending on how close, you know, the structure on the subject property would come to the non-conforming building on the adjacent property.

Okay. So, do you think the downhill neighbor has reasonable expectation of not getting uh damaged by this construction and that the uphill neighbor will take whatever measures are necessary to to prevent that? So, that that process that um you're mentioning is um is the building permit review process. And so, there's much more detail that's going to be provided to staff, grading plans, drainage plans. So those uh engineering plans that level of review happens in a different process. Um and so yes staff will be verifying that standards are met that the existing structures and properties will not be affected by uh adversely affected by the development.

Okay. And uh and one of the uh contentions by the downhill neighbor as I recall was that they will not be able they'll be so so tight to get between the new retaining wall and their property that they would not be able to like wash their windows or get be able to get there. But is that essentially not not the uphill neighbor's problem because the downhill neighbor is non-conforming? I mean that's kind of the way I would look at it at first blush. Yeah, that's the that's correct.

Okay, thank you. And then last question. This business of a 20 foot w tall 20 foot long retaining wall and that's where this height business kicks in. Why 20 feet? 20 feet for the retain like why the retaining wall is Yeah. Why does that height thing get triggered only for walls longer than 20 feet? Yeah. Yeah, I mean that that's a I mean that's a specific hillside development standard. I think his for properties that have extensive slope like that, retaining walls are necessary and that limit is to prevent excessive wall height that impacts the scenic resource of the hill. So that's the hillside development standards are meant to protect

just keep it from being too massive. Yeah, exactly. Fair enough. So it's a a scale.

Okay, great. Uh any has this spurred any other questions from any of us? Okay. So with that, I'll now open the public hearing on this item and we'll begin by giving 10 minutes to the appellent. And so as a reminder, the appellent is entitled up to 10 minutes of public testimony. And you may reserve any portion of that 10 minutes for response to the applicant presentation which will go after you. So with that, uh let's see, let me I have a couple more things to see. Oh yeah, if you do wish to reserve time, just let the deputy clerk know before you begin and uh they'll reset the clock for you. Um and I think that's it. So after the appellent, then we'll hear from the applicant. So with that, we'll hear from the appellent.

Thank you. And I I won't take the 10 minutes. So if I can just go ahead and say that I'll reserve the rights. Um my name is Mike McCormack, and I want to thank you all for hearing this. I'm uh I've been in your shoes before and so I I I really appreciate the time that you're taking. Um couple of couple of quick uh introduction items so that you understand where I'm coming from. I I'm the the vice president for facilities management and development and university housing at Kpali. I'm personally in charge of delivering 6,000 student beds. That's equivalent to 3,000 housing units and a thousand housing units for faculty and staff in this county. I don't think there are very many people that are more aware of the housing crisis that we have or are doing anything or doing as much about it. I say that because this is not a nimi argument about not wanting housing next to me. And I just want to be super clear about that. That's not why we're here. The other thing that I wanted to by way of background is I spent almost 20 years in your shoes. I spent close to 20 years as the city uh the planning board chairman in Providence, Rhode Island. I wrote lots of zoning ordinances. I thoroughly understand those the the state enabling acts and I understand the intent behind those. I also know that no matter how good the zoning ordinance is, and you know, I've written a lot of these and these are really good ones too. It's really easy to get tangled up in the words like is is necessary in the actual ordinance. No, it's not. The the actual words is strict adherence to the zoning ordinance would proh would would eliminate the would would deprive the developer of the rights to develop their property. I I use necessary instead. So, it's, you know, I want to make sure that we all don't collectively get caught up

in the words and totally miss the point. So, why are we here? What is the point? I'm concerned about permanent physical damage to our neighbors property because of this development. This is not a this is not a maybe. This is not a conjecture. This this will happen if the development proceeds as we have have seen it. There's two decisions really that I think you need to know that le led to this that the the planning staff made. One of them is three years ago they approved a lot subdivision. This is only three years ago they approved a lot subdivision and certified that it's in conformance with the state subdivision act and it's not right. There are there are topographical surveys that really clearly indicate that the new property line is one foot away from one of the properties, one of the buildings, and it cuts through the back porch of the other. This development will require the removal of part of the adjacent house for it to proceed. I know this is not an appealable part of the decision. We can't appeal that. That's not why we're here. But I think it's important to understand that's the root of why we're here. And there's some legal risks the city has taken on because of this. And I I I I worry that that risk is tainting some of the way that the the decisions are being made around the development. So the second decision which is appealable is approval of this project and the uh the granting of exceptions around the retain retaining wall heights. My focus 100% focus of this this appeal is the 20 foot long retaining wall at the southwest corner of the property. That retaining wall is a little short of 5t. It's about this tall.

It's going to be taller than the window sills of the adjacent property. So, we'll partially block the windows and it's 12 in away from this historic property. It's absolutely impossible to maintain that property moving forward. This is a historic property, wood clapboard siding, you know, needs to be painted every eight years. It needs to be maintained and that will be completely impossible if that retaining wall is built. So, not only are we blocking the window, blocking the view, blocking access to light, but we're also we're also prohibiting future maintenance in the project. It's easy to conclude that the outcome of that is going to be if this retaining wall is built, that property will rot in place and it will become an eyesore to the entire neighborhood. This is exactly what our zoning ordinances are there to prevent, right? Probably, you know, we can get lost in all the words, but we're trying not to have these kind of things happen. So, is there a solution to this? Absolutely. This is a super easy solution, which is really what's frustrating to me. That retaining wall is not about mitigating the existing grates. If you look at closely at the at the site and if you've been out to the site, you'll know that this is literally the only flat part of the site. Like literally the only part of the site that is not sloping. Instead, what this retaining wall is doing is it's hiding the fact that the house that's being proposed does not otherwise comply with the hillside development standards. It's too tall. It's been set too high and it's too tall. If you take a really close look at the street elevations, you can see even though it's really small scale, you can see that the height of the garage floor is set much higher relative to the

street than all of the rest of the houses up the street. The driveway being proposed is 18°. So, what we could simply do is drop the floor height of the garage, bring the entire unit A down, shorten the garage a tiny bit. The retaining wall is not necessary. We comply with hillside standards. The developer gets to develop the property as as desired. This is probably two days worth of work, I would say. And I've contracted a lot of these kind of developments. So, it's really tough to to argue that that would deprive the developer of being able to to move forward with a project. There's another solution. And if they don't if if if the floor height is set for whatever reason, they could actually comply with the hillside standards which say which really indicate a 10-ft setback at the second floor. Right there. There's a really great diagram in the zoning ordinance that says that shows 15 feet up, 10 feet horizontal, and then you can go 15 ft again. That could easily be done in this site, too. And again, probably a couple days worth of work. So, I so I really appreciate the clarity in the staff report is they're asking you now to make two findings that that I know if I were in your shoes, I couldn't make. One of them is the site this development is not detrimental to the adjacent neighbors. I don't know how you can say that based on the fact that one of the back porches has to be cut in half and the other is going to not be able to be maintained. The second finding that the staff is asking you to make is that a redesign would deprive the developer of fully developing this lot. And again, I don't know how you can make that finding

because I I just proposed two solutions that I had proposed to the planning staff uh many weeks ago, yet we're still here. So my request is to deny the application, overturn the planning staff's recommendation in their decision, or you can continue this as is as an implied in staff memo and ask the staff and the developer to go do their jobs and resolve this problem. That's all I have. So again, thank you. Okay. So, um, are you are we leaning forward with questions?

I just wonder if I can ask the applicant of a couple questions. The applicant or the appellant? Appellent, excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry. We have a little time. So, I I think that makes sense. Is that okay? Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate it. Couple questions. You mentioned that there was a subdivision. So, this these lots are were subdivided recently. recently in two in three years ago. And they were signed off and certified by the planning department. I understand the process. Yep. So, um there were how many lots before the subdivision? One. And so, they were subdivided into three lots. Yes. Are you the lower lot owner or No, no, we're actually north of this. And so, again, I'm I'm here just looking out for the best interest of our our neighbor, our current neighborhood.

Right. Does the U Well, I guess that won't be appropriate question. Um, first of all, as far as a setback goes from the wall, when you have a property line, as long as the person is building this home doesn't affect that property any way beyond that line, then um, they can do it. And you can't they don't have to set back their improvements in order to from their property line in order to protect your building or or the building. I'm sorry.

Yeah. My my I think where that that breaks down is the exceptions require a finding that says it's not detrimental to the adjacent property and that's particular retaining wall we're talking about is the subject of one exceptions. Yeah. But they have a right to build on their property. They don't automatically have a right to build things that are outside of the the hillside development standards. I want to try to stick to questions for the appellant rather than getting deep into the discussion just yet. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions for the appellant? I have a question. Um, Mr. McCormack, um, the historic property, historic structure you're speaking of, is that that non-conforming structure? Yes.

Copy. Um, and yeah. Okay. Then I'll wait till after the applicant speaks and I think staff should have a chance to respond. Yeah. So it and and again I just want to emphasize that when that property was built, when that house was built, this was not a non-conforming lot. That was a creation three years ago. The house was built 100 years ago. And um I'll ask one question which is just to if you can clarify your interest. You live to the north. Your house is is not the one that is affected. So, you're here speaking on behalf of the neighborhood, but specifically about 2098, uh, Rachel.

Yes, I am. And and the reason for that is because the initial proposal and and the staff member does a really great job of saying the journey that we've been through. The initial proposal was recommended for approval by the staff and it had dozens of zoning violations and exceptions and uh one of which dramatically affected our lot and so that's how we got involved in this is that there was a pretty dramatic impact of the previous design. Okay, I think we're going to move on now to hear from the applicant. And uh so we've got a 10-minute clock for the applicant. And do we have the applicant here? Is that going to happen? Okay,

that's fine. You get to share your 10 minutes. Okay,

I'm Brian. I'm the developer. and uh Will is the the designer so uh or the architect and so we'll share time. I guess uh what I'd like to start by saying is I've been hearing a lot of talk about how this project is not in conformance and there's dozens of zoning violations and I guess you know I hear it spoken in a very charismatic way but I I wonder you know if it's really a specific claim then I'd like to make sure that we have a chance to discuss it. um and specifically the the area in the appeal in terms of the retaining wall. We we'll talk about that later, but I'd like you to bring up any other concerns you might have so that our design team can address it because we've spent a lot of time on this project. Um I also want to clarify that there hasn't been a subdivision in my lifetime on the property. Um, I got some certificates of compliance from the city, but the subdivision that the certificates are based on was prior to my birth, so I don't know when it was done. A long time ago.

Okay. So, not three years ago.

Not three years ago. Um, I want to tell you a little bit of the story of the project. Will and I started on this uh two years ago, the summer of 24. We sub or the spring of 24 actually, and we submitted plans in the summer of 24. Um we went back and forth with the city and ultimately learned in the spring of 25 that our neighborhood was um very articulate, very well organized and very much not in favor of the project. Um and so we met again with the city after this public comment public hearing um and we asked the city, you know, what did you hear? What can we do to make this redesign work? And how do we make this new project, this new redesign project acceptable to both the city and the neighborhood? and we have a list of things that the city asked us to do and we worked really well as a collaborator with with Brian Lavell and with Ethan here and um there was a lot of back and forth in terms of trying to make sure we we adjusted the the architecture to meet um these requirements. Um and now here we are two years later from the start of this project and I I can tell you there's a lot of hours and a lot of listening that's gone on. So just want to point that out. Lastly, I'd like to say like there's a lot of talk about these rules, but I guess there's a feeling of of fairness about these rules applying equally to everybody. And all of the folks in our neighborhood, we all have the same problem. We have a lot of slope from Terrace Hill. And everybody along Rachel Court and um Professor McCormack to the to the north, all of us have these slope blocks. And um the the neighbor to my southwest, they have a a non-conforming 100 foot retaining wall along Rachel Street which is 6 feet tall, not conforming. They have a really good excuse. They built that 100 years ago. So it was before the development guidelines came into effect. Uh Professor McCormack built his house um much more recently after these development guidelines were put into effect. And they have retaining walls at

the street frontage around the house and the house itself that all violate the 15 foot rules on house heights where they have to step back and the retaining wall sections that we're talking about tonight. And then every property up the hill on Rachel Court on my side of the street. Well, they all put property line retaining walls that are 8 to 10 feet tall with a sixoot privacy fence on top. So, I guess from where I sit, there's a sense of like, well, why are we talking about these retaining walls that we've worked really hard on to like try to make them in full compliance as best as we can, and we've got some areas where we're like a foot high maybe. So, so there's a sense of fairness that I'd like us to consider as well.

Oh, yeah. Actually, one more thing I forgot to mention. Uh, we mentioned the the porch that's sticking out over the property line. Um, I met with my neighbor on that and and uh we've designed the project so that the porch eve can stay. I I don't see a problem. Thanks. Could I ask a deputy clerk to change the video screen so we're just seeing the speaker view? Okay. Um, Will, I believe it is.

Yeah, my name is Will Roof, architect on the project. Thanks for your time. Uh I want to run through the history of the project just briefly and then I'll touch on some of the questions Mr. McCormack had. So the history of the project is we've gone through three iterations on this design. If you go to the next slide, you can actually see the first iteration that we had for the project. And on the left hand side there, it's with the dash line. We actually had the buildings pushed back 40 ft from the street. And that actually preserved the front area of the property that we're talking about and not had a retaining wall right up against there. The neighbors requested that we move the buildings closer to the front to conform with the adjacent properties so that all the architecture matches. There were a bunch of other things that we did and you can kind of see on the next slide how we've um go two more. Perfect. So, we've really conformed our architecture to match the architecture of the uphill homes to make sure that we're in compliance with what the neighbors were asking for. So, we're really doing this to make sure that they're happy with it. And we went through the whole process, like Brian was mentioning, of two years of changes and revisions to really accommodate what the neighbors are looking for and hopefully provide a better product for the neighbors and for us. Um, and they're still having issues with small pieces that are really, really minor in nature and not significant. So, if you go to the next slide, here's what Brian was talking about in terms of all of the adjacent walls around our property to the north and to the east that have retaining walls that are higher than 4T. So for them to come and complain about a retaining wall that's 4 foot2, 4 foot8

when they've got 10 foot walls out there seems a little absurd to me. Um but I will move on and talk about the retaining wall that we're talking about in particular. So if you move on to the next slide. One more. Yep. Perfect. So the two there's two retaining walls that you kind of see. One's on the northeast corner and that retaining wall is there because we have Terrace Hill and we have drainage coming off of the site that runs onto our property. Per city code, we're not allowed to have water run through our property onto adjacent properties. We need to capture that water and run it down to the street. So that's the upper right retaining wall that we have up there and that one's not in conformance by 8 in. And then there's the lower retaining wall on the southwest that's also not in conformance. And that's the item that we're discussing today. That one is actually there to stop the water from our site from running onto the neighboring property. So it's actually protecting that neighboring property from having water run onto their site. Um the other thing is that we have two different buildings. We have the ADUs in back which have a 16T height limit. We actually had to dig into the ground slightly to put those in because this this hill is so steep that to get that 16 ft height limit, we had to bury those into the ground a little bit. And then as we move closer towards the street, the hill slopes down. So we had to raise up the front buildings as much as possible so that we didn't have a huge discrepancy between the two elevations um between the ADUs in the back and the front units. So, we're conforming and providing our elevations for the front units and the back units to actually make the whole project work seamlessly. If we were to lower the front units, we would end up with more retaining walls,

more issues and things like that on the back end. So, if you go next slide. Uh oh. Um well, that's not very helpful, but this is um cling on. I'm sorry. um retaining wall issues that we have. And we're talking about two on the front side that are very minimal. And that's because of the height of the garages that we built. And then there's one on the back side that we're talking about that's not in conformance that's helping to stop the water from coming onto our site. Um, in addition to this, we have been looking at that southwestern retaining wall and we'll talk about the construction of that. It's off the face of or it's off the property line by 4 to 6 in. I mean, when we get into the construction documents, we can determine exactly where that is, but like you mentioned, we're going to have to shore that right on our property line and we'll build that wall with an offset footing. So, that footing is only going to be on our property line. won't be interfering with their property line at all. Um, and it is on our property, so we can place that there. But we actually went back to Mr. McCormack and asked him if he would like us to relook at that retaining wall, and he decided that we wanted a full redesign of the property rather than redesigning that wall in particular. So I think that it's becoming apparent that they're here just to delay the project rather than to actually come up with a solution when we've worked through this project for two years working hand inand trying to have meetings with them. We've met with them multiple times to try to come up with a solution. So if you have any questions, I'm sure there's going to be plenty of public comment, but I'm more than happy to answer.

Okay, so that's um we're coming right up on your 10 minutes here, but we will take questions from the commission of the applicant. Seeing none on this side on this side. So, uh, one question about the So, there's a I imagine there's a French drain that brings the that collects the water at the base of the retaining wall. Yep. Daylights it out towards the street to surface water, right? Correct. Okay. And then um I'll just ask you, I mean, you're you're inches away from meeting all the requirements. I imagine you've probably tried to to get there. Yes.

Um so um well I guess there will be discussion on this but um the suggestion that it um uh that it might be easy for you to redesign this to to meet all the requirements for the hillside development. Do you u how do you feel about that? I feel like we've been a dead horse, right? I think that we've gone through this many times to try to figure out the best solution and what we're presenting today is the best that we can do. Okay. Um All right, that's all I have. So, uh that concludes the questioning of you and so now we're going to move on to public comment. So, let me make sure I'm on the right part of my

chance for rebuttal because I save some time. Um Do you have something brief? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Just just two factual things, right? So, one is I'm doing this because you came up a little short on your 10. Thank you. One one is that the the subdivision was recorded in 2023 and it was certified by Mr. Corey. Um and the second one is we met with the applicant or the developer one time and we never talked to them again. We've been working through the planning staff. We gave them all of these suggestions and that and nothing has happened with them. So just those two facts I just want to get.

Okay. Thank you. Deputy clerk, do we have any public comment on this item? We do. Chair, uh we have four speakers. Uh in the spirit of efficiency, I'll call the first three. Um if you could line up behind the person in front of you, uh that would be very helpful. Um, so our first speaker tonight for this item is Cheryl Litster, followed by Lisa Puchini and Kelly McCormack.

Go right ahead. Okay, you have the floor.

My name is Cheryl Litster. I live at 954 Rachel Court. I will describe how duplicity and greed has led to an untenable situation in terms of health and safety on a buildable corner lot in our neighborhood. Three years ago, Mr. Rolf submitted a three parcel subdivision site plan that did not report to existing houses as required in title 21. After receiving questionable approval, Mr. Ralph proceeded with construction proposals for two lots while selling the third non-conforming lot to an unsuspecting buyer who accepted the validity of the lot lines. Mr. Rolf's initial proposal for development of his two parcels involved variances and overbuilding in terms of height and density. Neighbors responded with pleas for compatibility with the neighborhood and the hearing officer referred the project to the planning commission with recommendations for project revisions. We still have serious concerns. Mr. Rolf proposes a 5-ft wall on his erroneous property line located 12 in from the neighboring house. A narrow 12in passageway the entire length of the house would not only preclude maintenance but be impossible for firefighting access stipulated in title 17 of the municipal code. On Monday I spoke with Josh Daniel the fire marshall in slow. He said he will inspect the final revision plan. He was definite that 2098 Rachel Street must have set back to fire code and that wall or no the setback must exist on that property.

There's a canopy attached to the residence at 2080 Rachel Street which extends over the property line of 920 Rachel Court which line was drawn by Mr. Rolf. Community development planners have confirmed that the canopy was not shown on the submitted site plan and they require the applicant to provide an updated site plan depicting the structure. We request that the applicant also be required to depict the other residence that was not shown on the submitted site plan and resubmit a compliant three parcel subdivision site plan that complies with title 21. We believe that 24 garbage bins will adversely affects health and safety. When set out for pickup, they will completely block the tenants to driveways. When left fallen and scattered after pickup, there will be obstacles in the roadway. Slow has already approved hundreds of addition.

I need to ask you to comp wrap up, please. Yes. Hund hundreds of additional housing units. We ask the planning commission not to proceed with this problematic proposal. Two cottages each with an ADU would be fitting and welcome. Okay, you are on. I am Liiso Puchini. Can you bring that microphone down so we can uh get it on the video? Thanks.

There we go. And I'm the owner of 2080 and 2098. Um, I'm not going to repeat a lot of what was already said, but I echo uh full agreement of what they have said. So, I'm just going to comment on a few things that wasn't said. And that is that one thing that needs to be noted is that I did not receive any survey map disclosed to me 3 years ago when I bought it. So, knowing where the property line is and how close was not given to me until I met with Brian on the site or when I called him and he sent it to me before we met. Um, this retaining wall on 2098 literally is going to not only just, you know, have no sunlight coming through, you know, the window. I don't know how my new tenants are going to move in a bed, a couch. Uh, I don't know how we're going to paint the house. I don't know how the fire codes will be maintained. So, I'm very, very concerned about the retaining wall. When I met with Brian, he seemed amendable to removing the retaining wall and I'm hoping that that's something that we can continue to do. The second issue is 2080 as she had just mentioned about the awning coming over where the property line is. We thought

Can I ask a sav 280 is just up the hill to the north?

Up the hill. Okay. Thank you. Exactly. And there is a half retaining wall already where the awning will go and where we walk through. I thought that was the property line. My water main line runs along there and I had plumbing issues. So that's where we kind of figured out fine-tuned where the property line was. When I met with Brian, he had the diagrams and my son was there and my son noticed that the line is not the retaining wall, but the property line is, as she had said, underneath the awning. The response that Brian gave me, which we're he's trying to work, you know, we're trying we know there's going to be a development here. That's not the issue, but I don't want my houses impacted. and he was working with me up until the point where I asked if we could adjust the property line. What he had mentioned was that that half retaining wall and the cement in front of it, he's not building on. He's going to have the ADU unit in front of it. He's going to be long gone with his profit and that property line is still officially not mine. that new owner is going to have a new house with an old cement front yard and a half retaining wall and we'll want to do something with it. So, I have an issue going forward.

Okay. Thank you. We don't formally fix it. After Kelly McCormack will be our final speaker speaker, Amy Bertelli.

Thank you, commissioners. Uh my name is Kelly McCormack and I live next door to the proposed development. I'm here tonight because I'm deeply concerned about how the project has been handled and about the impact on the neighboring property owners. In my experience, Michael and I have developed properties before. We've built houses. We have communicated to our neighbors and offered things like fences and landscaping. Have changed design many times. I mean, that just comes with trying to make the community and the neighbors happy. that has not been the case here. And I'm sad that they feel that we didn't communicate to them, but we have been. And I don't think anybody's hearing us. And that's why we're here. I I'm hoping you all will hear us. Um I think the goal should be to enhance the neighborhood, not create conflict within it. And unfortunately, it's just not the case here. There's a lot of conflict and a lot of unhappiness about this. The developer has met with us only once during a meeting where our concerns were not addressed at all. Yes, they did redesign and I'm grateful. It matches the neighborhood much better. You should have seen what we started with. But it's still it's still just a gouging of a small piece of land to the extreme for profit. And how is that okay? We're I mean, if we're honest about this, Brian bought that land for $1.1 million. He sold a third of it to Liisa for 960. I mean, excuse me. There's no financial hardship here. She almost paid for the entire piece of property for him. Why isn't he grateful? Why doesn't he work with her? Why gouge out her back awning? I this it just doesn't make any sense to me. How do we live in a community

supposed to be one of the happiest places in this state? But we can't come together and and make something reasonable on this land. We're losing a huge big beautiful tree. There's no parking for for all of these units. These are things I know you can't care about, but we get left with that. And I'm just I'm I just hope that you can hear us. And thank you for your time. Okay, we have one more.

One more. My name is Amy Bertoelli and I live at 947 Rachel Court. I'm also vice president of the HOA that represents 19 different homes in that neighborhood. So, I'm speaking for the neighborhood as well as for myself. The question is, what is the purpose of zoning ordinances in a residential neighborhood? I mean that's what you guys really need to think about your one of the purposes is to maintain the neighborhood character and in doing that to make sure the setbacks and the for the neighboring homes are in compliance. You're also supposed to protect the the property values. Predictable land use tends to stabilize property values because homeowners know that disruptive development is less likely to appear next door. We are very concerned about disruptive development. And in this case, you know, we're talking about an architect and a land owner and we're all land owners. But the reality is that if you if you screw up your development, it's going to take some time to get it to build. We are not against him building. We want the building to be in compliance with the neighborhood and not impact negatively all the other people that live there. The other thing is promote health and safety, prevent overcrowded overcrowding and managing traffic flow. I don't know if you noticed that, but there there's only one side of that street you can park on and there's only five parking spaces. And we're talking about potentially 14 more cars when this thing is built and occupied. Think about

that. 14 more cars and there's two garages, but we all know when you build a twocar garage, half of it ends up with storage. So maybe they'll be parking two cars in the two garages and there'll be 14 cars wandering around our neighborhood looking for parking. So that that's really consideration. And then guide long-term community planning. local governments use zoning to shape how a city grows and and this city is a wonderful city. It's been growing very well and and you guys are probably the ones to thank for that. But we ask you to think about our neighborhood as well. And so in short, residential zoning helps create livable neighborhoods by controlling what can be built. And this man is not going to be living in any of this property. Everybody else in the neighborhood is pretty much homeowner living in living where they where they own. That's that's not a problem though in reality. I mean, there's no reason why he shouldn't build even if he's going to rent everything, but it should be in compliance.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any more last minute public comments or is that it? That was our final speaker. Okay. So, um, that's the point at which I will close public comment on this matter. And now we get to deliberate and ask questions. So, I'm going to start. I have my little list, but I'm going to start. Oh, is there a staff? I think Well, um, do you want to make some statements about all this because there were some issues brought up. I have a list of questions that would go come your way, but if you've got some clarifications for us, we'll take it. Yeah, I think staff has a few. um updates and clarifications to some of the public comment that we received.

Go right ahead then. Uh correct. Yeah. So, first uh Mr. Estrada, thank you. Uh first item in regards to the covered porch at the back of the residence. So, the project is designed around that existing condition. Uh but again, that's a condition that intrudes onto another property. I'm confused about this porch situation. And so is it a porch on on one of the existing houses or is it a new porch? It's on 2098. No, the one in uh further up 2090. Yeah. 2080, I think. 28. 28, right? Yeah. Okay. All right. Is it a permanent structure or is it sounds like a uh it's attached to the existing structure there? Yes.

So, we're talking like a little patio roof or something over unenclosed space. Yes. Okay. Okay. Um All right. Carry on then. Uh, regarding the subdivision, um, that was not recorded in 2023. Uh, let's see. When did the subdivision happened? There seems to be a question of fact about this one. Based on our records, it looks like the subdivision occurred in 1887. Um, that created lots 10, 11, and 12. Uh, which is, uh, when the street was called High Street, now called Rachel Court. Uh, Let's see.

That was part of High Street before the train or something. Crazy. Okay. So, okay. So, the subdivision is over 100 years old and the statements that the subdivision was three years ago are just not correct. Let's see. I believe I actually defer to Gabriel uh from engineering who can speak a little bit more to that. Thank you. Can you all hear me? Okay. Yes. Uh yeah, I wanted to provide some additional context around the discussion around the subdivision. And you are?

My name is Gabriel Munos Morris. I'm the supervising civil engineer for the community development engineering review division. One of the things under my purview is subdivision review uh for the city of St. Louis Bispo. Um it it appears there's a little bit of confusion about what happened and when it happened. Um there was a couple references to three years ago, so roughly 2023. Uh two things did happen regarding surveying and lot lines and lots in 2023 but ne neither of them was a subdivision. I think some of the confusion might be coming around the fact that there was a record of survey filed with the county in 2023. A record of survey is a boundary survey around existing properties that establishes legal property lines uh monuments and basically defines where legal lots are. The other thing that happened in uh 2023 was that there was a filing of a certificate of compliance for lot 12. So how I can best describe that is lot 10 is the corner lot. The one that's not part of the project site. That's 2098 and 2880. Rachel lot 11 and 12 immediately adjacent um are the project site. It's two sites. So there was a certificate of compliance for lot 12 in 2023 that I think there was a reference to deputy director Corey signing that. Um that would be the uphill of the two lots.

Correct. The uphill of the two lots. Um that was also uh recorded in 2023. And part of the confusion around that might be coming from the way the city classifies its application cases. It's an SBDV case, a subdivision case, but it's not for a subdivision. We file various different things under SBDV cases. Uh lot line adjustments can go there. A certificate of compliance can go there. an actual subdivision like a parcel map could start off as a subdivision case. It doesn't mean that it is a subdivision. Is it the same or similar to an improvement location certificate?

Um, no. A sub so certificate of compliance in the subdivision map act which is also referenced on the document is effectively a legal document that states this is a legal lot as defined in California and it points back at the generating condition of it. The legal description that is called out in that certificate of compliance is lot 12 of the let me get the name correct the bua vista edition uh subdivision map of the city of St. Louis Bispo which was originally filed in 1887. So that is when the lots 10 the neighboring lot 11 and 12 the two project lots were originally created.

Okay. So, this action that happened a few years ago could be described as perhaps uh certifying or perfecting the um the lot lines as they were already laid out and platted. Correct. I'm seeing the the same applicant's name on some of these documents. I would take that as an applicant preparing to develop a lot doing the legal mechanisms that they need to do to ensure their lot lines are in the right place to develop a lot. Okay. Do we have any other I think you've answered the question about the subdivision. is are there any other questions for the engineer while we got them here? No. Um I'm sorry. The public comment is it's our turn. Yeah. Okay. So, um thank you Mr. Moz Morris. If we need you again, I guess you'll be right over there.

Yeah. Okay. So, uh and then continuing with staff response to the appellent and applicant presentations. Yes. Uh first off there was a statement made that not all the structures are shown on the site plans accurately. Uh all structures are shown on the site plans accurately. Um it was also a statement that the proposal was in excess of density. I think for the first proposal the prop proposal from the very beginning has been within compliance of density. It's an R2 zone. Uh those are guaranteed two density units. Uh both proposals met or reach that two density unit uh limit. Is there an F requirement for that? And if so, they're meeting it. Yeah, but they're also

floor area ratio for those who don't speak that language. Okay. What about this 12 in survey miss there? It was there was some kind of a claim that the survey was 12 in off or something and the lot line was 12 in off. Did that make any sense? I I'm not clear about what that's referencing. Um, you know, as mentioned, it's an 1887 map and people build their improvements over time and sometimes they're not built on completely on their lot line, okay, within their property and some sometimes they extend over property lines. That's kind of normal for construction that's that old and a map that's almost 50 years old.

Okay. I think that was Miss Puchini that had that comment and yeah, so I mean when you buy a property then a survey is usually involved and sometimes some other documentation of what's where and so that's kind of your chance to to figure that stuff out. Um okay, any other u response comments from this from the city? Yeah, there's a mention of parking. Uh both properties would have a twocar garage. Um this site is

Aren't there also parking spaces in the driveway? Uh the driveway there could be if they requested for tandem parking um but that's not part of this request. The the site itself is within a specific distance of our Amtrak train station. Uh so a recent state law I believe assembly bill 2087 or 2097 um does not allow the city to require any parking for a residential project. And so that the site falls within that. Uh but the project is providing two parking spots officially uh for each for each parcel.

For each parcel, right? Yeah. And on issues like that where the state law supersedes the city law and that's like our ADU um allowances and that sort of thing, we really don't have a a leg to stand on there, right? Correct. Okay. Is that it for uh response from the city? Okay. Yes. Uh let's go this way and we'll start with Commissioner Tully. Okay. I have a question for staff. It was alluded um that the proposed SFRs don't comply with the hillside standards. Can you comment on that? Well, based on staff's review, these developments do comply with all hillside development standards other than the exception that is being requested, which is the exception to the retaining wall height,

right? Uh for a portion of the retaining wall. Yep. Got it. Okay. Thanks. Um and the same for and so has uh city fire reviewed the plans already and has that gone through that review? So part of the planning development process city fire did review these plans and they approved them. Okay. Um and I know that this is zoned medium density residential and each lot is allowed to residences. Can you just reiterate because the the one of the concerns was density um how the ADUs are allowed by right by the state.

Yes, ADUs are allowed by by right by the state. Um there we are not allowed to consider those as part of the density calculation for the site. Um there's very little that we really can regulate on the ADUs. Uh mainly lot coverage after a certain extent. Uh 800 square f feet is guaranteed uh per property. After that, we can then begin applying lot coverage requirements, but density uh for area ratio requirements uh not required for ADUs. Got it. Thank you. And that's all I have. Thanks. Going down the line here, comments or questions from the left side.

I have one question who answer it. The um appeal form says that uh part of the appeal is the Terrace Hill Homeowner Association. And I just wondered did the Terrence Hill Home Association vote as the board to uh back the appeal if someone could answer that or is it just I mean how are they related to So the Terrace Hill Homeowners Association uh was initially included as an applicant for this appeal but they requested to be removed. I believe the updated attachment should reflect that. If it doesn't I can provide you with an updated No, I don't need I just was curious. Yeah, they they requested to be removed from that. Okay.

Commissioner Jorgensson, anything? Okay. Commissioner Moz Morris, Commissioner Kulie. Okay. So, there was also a statement that there the the original proposal had dozens of violations and that it was okay. And I that's in the history that was described in the staff report and that seems clear, but then it was further said that it was recommended for approval. Uh that didn't seem right. Um can we confirm or or speak to that?

Um as far as the history goes, so staff did recommend that for approval with exceptions requested. Um multiple exceptions requested. So retain. So approved with conditions. Approved with conditions. Is that the way we describe that? Correct. So fix this, fix that and Okay. Correct. And it did not make it to the planning commission as I recall. I don't remember seeing it.

No. So provided in staff report um the hearing officer recommended it to uh be referred to the planning commission uh with revisions recommended by staff. uh in their resubmitt in July of 2025 um they adjusted the design so that there was no longer a common uh common access driveway which had we don't have to go through all the yeah but it required an administrative use permit which was what required uh the public hearing and that was withdrawn so

okay and the result is the plan that we're seeing now right okay and then uh I have a question about the fire department review did did they have any issues with access to the 2098 RA idual property. Was that part of their review or is that that's really up to them, right? That that is up to them. They did not identify any issues on that. Okay. And is that maybe it's not fair to ask you, but is that something they normally take a look at? Is is it is this going to affect access to neighboring properties? I mean, they would look collectively at at the whole site. Um, so I would imagine yes, but again, uh, a much more thorough review is conducted during the building plan check process. So,

okay. Okay. So, um, no further questions of staff. We've heard the presentations from the appellant and from the applicant. And so, now we get to discuss this and I'll be looking for a motion to do something. So, uh, start with Commissioner Tolley has hit his button there.

Yep. Button pressed. Um, I would say that I mean from all public comment and the appellant, I mean I'm not seeing or hearing how because we're here today for the height exception to that's why it got brought up to us. So, I'm not hearing anything from anyone that says that the height exceeding 1 ft 4 in or 2 to 8 in is going to impact a neighboring property because the retaining wall itself is permitted and necessary. So, all we're talking about is what, this much? Um, and I'm sure that uh if the uh owner of the property could drop it down and avoid all this, they would. I'm al I'm also of the opinion that it's very expensive to build these retaining walls and they wouldn't do it if they didn't couldn't if they didn't have to. Um, so, you know, and I also trust that the California Building Code is going to be uh scrutinized here with they submit their building plans uh for permit review. Um, and I trust that the California Building Code will um be enforced accordingly. Um, so I'm not seeing an impact with height. This is an infill development. Um, and it's zoned accordingly and the the 4 ADUs are permissible. So, I mean, I'm willing to make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the community development director. Thank you, Commissioner Tolley. Um, looking for more discussion from this side. So, we have a motion. Uh, any discussion

items over here before ask for a second? It's kind of quiet. Okay, I'll make my comments here and um you know these things are tough and the laws have changed over the last hundred years and the coded code and development standards and setbacks and so on and it's definitely an impact when you build when somebody builds next to somebody else and I I agree with this the seven height thing is not going to if they could magically reduce the the southwest wall by seven and a half inches the wall would still be there and there would still be this squeezy skinny gap to get to the back wall of 2098. I'm not sure what to do about that, but I'm not I don't I don't really see how the applicant has to redesign because of what what the issue is down the hill with a non-conforming property and non-conforming. Yeah, I know was 100 plus years ago. um we do the best we can to try to update the rules and to be fair in applying them and that's what we do here and so it's this one is tricky. I went up to the Rachel Court and I went up and down the street and I saw the tree and I saw the other houses that are there. I saw the many retaining walls that are there and it's a tough spot to build. I'm a civil engineer and I know what it takes to do these things and there are yeah there's there's a lot of uh walls and drainage issues and and the other problem is that the the this lots 11 and 12 are right where the street is the very steepest and so it's tricky to be able to do this and um you the the appellent is is saying well we could just easily drop the the house down a couple of feet. I've designed and developed properties myself. I know it's not that easy to do and I also know that um kind of like Commissioner Tolley was

saying uh if if it was easy you I I believe you would do it and you are within inches of not even having uh any cause for um an appeal and the the tall walls that are 1 foot4 above the 4ft height limit are actually fully within your property too. It's it's really just this one on the southwest corner that I think is the main sticking point. And um so after staff review and after my review and after hearing everything I've heard here tonight um I'm not in support of the appeal and I'm I'm in support of denying the appeal and and u moving forward. So that's where I stand on this. I have a motion on the floor and I'm looking for a second now. I'll second.

We have a motion, a second. I I just wanted to reinforce one aspect of this and that is infill is terribly tough. It is really tough. It is a bear and u I think u there's been a lot of work to try to squeeze this in and barely it's going to pass. I guess that's the way I'd see it.

Yeah. and our um I'll tag on to that because our larger discuss we're talking about our general plan review tonight later on tonight. I don't know when that'll be, but uh we talk about increasing density. We c we we talk about bringing in more units and more housing and we're doing it and it's actually having an effect and a positive effect and it has some local difficulties too. And this is a spot that is located near the Amtrak and near the the Jennifer Street Bridge and it's got good access and it seems like the kind of place u and it's zoned dark too. So anyway, um okay. So yes, looking for you have a comment.

Well, we already have a motion and a second, but just under discussion briefly, I just wanted to note that I think a lot of my questions for this were answered when staff answered the uh factual disputes. And at the beginning of this, I'd asked staff if this was a narrow appeal just on the issue of the retaining walls or if this was a broad review. And implicit in that, I think, was I was kind of wondering why the appeal focused so heavily on just the exception to the retaining wall. A lot of the public comment we heard here was about how the project was ills suited or it wouldn't fit in in some way. But what they focused on in the appeal was just the exception to the retaining wall. And like Commissioner Tullley said, I think if they could have made it lower, they would have. I think this is necessary and I am I am in support of the motion in the second.

Okay. Uh any further discussion? Otherwise, I'll ask for a roll call. Deputy clerk, would you call the role on this? Vice Chair Tully. Yes. Commissioner. And to be clear, this is the uh the motion is to deny the appeal. Correct. and to therefore let the approval stand. Okay, thank you. Sorry to interrupt. No. Uh, Commissioner Jorgensson, yes. Commissioner Kulie, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Munoz Morris, yes. Chair Hutton, yes. Motion passes.

Okay. Thank you everybody for coming down for that. Okay, let's take a little breath here. Does anybody need to use the restroom or anything?

Okay, we'll take a a short break. Yeah. Nice to see you. You missed a really good show.

Catch it on YouTube later.

Where do you do you live? Right over in that neighborhood, Cheryl. Okay, we're going to continue our meeting here. The public hearing item before us now is to re-review the existing conditional

Hello, we're live. Okay. This next public hearing item is to re-review an existing conditional use permit for a fraternity located at 280 California Boulevard. So first I'm going to ask each commissioner for expartes disclosures of contact with anyone who may have provided information to the commissioners not on the record so that that information may be used as part of the decision-making process. Any such disclosures to be made? None to this side, none to this side. None in the middle either. So uh would assistant planner Mallerie Patino please present the staff report. Yes. I just wanted to be make sure we're on the same page. 4B is for 1264 foothill at all. 46. Did I skip on ahead? I got on the wrong page.

I just want to make sure.

Oh, very sorry. Okay. Take back everything I just said and in take back the address and insert um I'll say the words here. Now, we're going to re-review an existing conditional use permit for a fraternity located at 1264 and 1264 and a half Footville Boulevard. Everything else being the same. No exparte communications for this one either. Okay. And so noted and now you can please present the staff report. Thanks for catching that. Hello, my name is Mallerie Patino. I'm an assistant planner. I will be presenting uh fraternity conditional use permit re-review application mod 0029 2026 um for 1264 and 1264 and a half East Foothill Boulevard and 1241 1243 1249 and 1251 Monavista Place collectively I'll just call these 1264 Foothill Boulevard moving forward beginning with staff's recommendation it is to for council to adopt a resolution revoking the existing conditional use permit for operation of fraternity located at 1264 foothill. The project site is located in the highdensity residential R4 zone. It's a developed property multifamily residence with a total of 12 bed bedrooms across the six units. The access to the property is from either Foothill or Monav Vista Place. It's walking distance from Calpali and other near other single and multif family properties. A little bit of background. Use permit uh use 0331 2023 was approved by the planning commission in June 2024 allowing Lambda Kai Alpha to establish a fraternity at 1264 Foothill. The permit limited residents to a maximum of 24

individuals and set a maximum gathering capacity of 48 people for regular meetings, special events, and required additional permits for events exceeding 48 attendees. C. City Council heard and denied an appeal upheld planning commission's decision in October of 2024 under APL 0365 2024. Council modified the conditions of approval adding conditions related to re-reviews if conduct on the premises resulted in three citations within a 12-month period and grounds for revocation based on non-compliance with conditions, code requirements, or applicable laws. Uh, a bit of background and history of police actions. The police have issued 10 citations since appeal was approved um or appeal was denied and decision was upheld in October 15th, 2024. Nine of these were for noise violations. One was from an from an unruly gathering and there's three on the slide with asterisks which are they were issued after the staff report was written. So the staff report says seven, it's it's now 10. for history of code enforcement. Code enforcement issued a notice of violation in January 2025 relating to confirmed administrative citations and noise violations. That notice included warning that code enforcement would recommend the use permit for re-review to the community development director. Code enforcement later issued an administrative citation in December of 2025 with a fine of $50 for violation of the use permit related to the unruly gathering citation from October. staff notified the fraternity that the use permit would be re-reviewed by the planning commission today on January 29th, 2026. The incidents that result the incidents resulted in violations of conditions 5,4 15 16 and 17 that relate to maximum gathering capacity requirement for special event permitting, transportation plans, compliance with the noise ordinance, zoning regulations, the use

permit, and applicable laws. Due to these violations, the use permit was brought before the planning commission for re-review documented as mod 0029 2026 and in accordance with condition three, which requires re-review if they if conduct results in three citations within 12 months that are uncontested or upheld and that resulted in adverse impacts. Condition condition three includes that the re-review shall be accompanied with a modification fee. Staff would note that the organization has outstanding unpaid completion fees from the original use permit application use 0331 2023 and the organization has not paid for the modification fees under this review and unpaid fees total approximately $7,750. The planning commission's role is to consider these discussed violations and the requirements of the municipal code to determine what modifications, if any, to the use permit are necessary to make the required findings for continued use of the property as a fraternity or if they cannot make the required findings to revoke the permit. If the planning commission cannot make one or more findings from section 1711070A or section 1786130B um one for conditional use permits, one for fraternity and sororities, uh planning commission may revoke the permit. The use is not consistent with municipal codes section for conditional use permits and for fraternities and sororities because the applicant has been repeatedly cited for violations of the noise ordinance unruly gathering regulations and their use permit. As mentioned, 10 citations have been issued since the use permit was approved in October 2024, with at least three issued within multiple overlapping 12-month periods since the use permits issuing issuance repeatedly meeting and exceeding the three citation threshold established in condition 3.

The fraternity has not applied for special event permits or provided transportation plans as required by condition five despite evidence that events exceeded the gathering limit capacity. Based on inconsistencies with the municipal code and the use permit, staff recommends planning commission adopt a resolution to revoke the use permit. This concludes staff presentation. I'm available for questions as is John Mezipza from our code enforcement team. Questions from the commission of staff. We'll start on this side. Mr. Munoz Morris.

Yes. Thank you. Couple hopefully quick questions. Uh, first one, condition 16 talks about I think live entertainment and I'm guessing the unruly gathering was the condition 16 violation. The other ones are noise violations, but unruly it stood out to me. I'm I'm guessing bringing a ban on site or something.

Yeah. Uh, the notes don't have that much information. Um, essentially, and maybe John would like to speak a little more to this, but our definition for unruly gathering in those regulations, if um, responding officers can make the findings that an event or an incident meets those thresholds, they can issue that citation and that's what they decided on that afternoon that the event merited that citation.

Okay. Yeah. No, but I mean it's it's just more out of curiosity than anything. Uh the second and I guess last question for me is in the staff report there were seven uh instances noted and it was also noted that uh the fraternity never provided notice to the planning department or the is it a transportation plan that goes with it? Right. Um was that also the case for these additional three that there were no contact with the correct uh no special event permits or uh transportation management plans were okay provided for those last three. Right. Thank you. That was all. Any questions from the side, Mr. Kley?

Just one more. Um, and I think we did this the last time we were reviewing a fraternity. Uh, we asked staff to define kind of that line between a noise violation and an unruly gathering. So, I don't know if someone here is qualified to do that. Well, we don't have a police department's the one that would make that decision. and it's a discretionary decision if it meets kind of certain I think thresholds and and kind of the events at the time that they're witnessing. I don't know if our code enforcement officer has anything to add beyond that, but um that's my understanding of how those those are.

Hi John Mipeza, code for supervisor. Um I kind of looked at the code a little bit. It's not really our purview to decide what an unruly gathering is in community development, but um essentially a noise citation where there is a gathering of 20 or more people can be considered an unruly gathering. And like uh Tyler said, it's going to be up to the discretion the responding officer if that if it meets that criteria. There's a whole list of other criteria that are involved. Litter, uh I think um I can't even remember all the lists, but there's a whole list of things that can be terminally gathering. But if it's noise, um, the officer has the discretion to decide if it meets that level. Is it fair to say that the unruly gathering is a bigger deal than the noise violation?

Uh, it holds a heavier fine on the initial on the initial issuance of that citation. Yeah. Yeah. So, without with acknowledging that it's the police discretion, it sounds like it's noise plus, right? Yeah. Okay.

May I just chime in real quick? um as defined in our municipal code, like John said, it includes um so it needs to be 20 or more persons on private property um with conduct that results um in a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property. And then um for purposes of the chap the chapter it defines what includes a substantial disturbance for things such as a noise disturbance obstruction of public streets of rideaway public drunkenness alcohol um minors drinking alcohol fights disturbances of the peace. So I don't know what the officers observe but those are typically the type of conduct they might see and then issue the unruly gathering citation. Okay.

So, those are the ingredients, not all of which are required, but correct. Some combination could result in the Okay, thank you. Uh, questions of staff. That's okay. Um, very quick. Am I I'm maybe looking more this way for this one. For the outstanding fees that were mentioned for the original and the re-review, is what happens there? They're outstanding. Is there like a collections process or is there like does the property like is there like a a lean that's placed on the property or like what and how much money are we talking about too? Well, they say 7750, right? Something like that.

But like for how how long is there a timeline on that? What is that? What generally speaking, is there a process there?

Um the city has different options to enforce basically the collection. We don't always exercise though or do them in a uniform way. But yes, there have been instances in which we have um sent the outstanding invoices to um collections. Um there have also been instances not for this exact situation but where the city could initiate like legal action um to recover the money civily. Um, so there are different tools available to us that um, if and when it got to a point that we felt it was necessary for the city attorney's office to step in to help with recovery of those fees, there are different tools available to us.

Okay. And so is there any language in our cup language that would address good financial standing in order to maintain the CUP? Is there anything like that of the sort? There is no language in the conditions now, but I will say that um an unpaid fee can be marked as a hold on a property and generally entitlement planning permitting um that that would get looked at if they requested it. Um in the instance of this fraternity, they did reach out to pursue um special event permitting one time in 2025 and we told them that their completion fees needed to be paid before we would take on a new entitlement application. Um and they uh did not pursue finishing applying for a special event permit. And

just to be clear though, failure to pay these fees is not in and of itself caused to revoke, right? That's correct. And we're talking about $77, $7,750. Okay. Thank you. All right. That makes a little more sense. Okay. Uh do we have questions of staff from the side? Okay. Seeing none. And um there was you mentioned a $50 fine that seemed pretty lightweight. Uh that was the administrative citation from code enforcement. I don't know if John wants to speak more to that.

That's okay. Let's move on. Okay. So, um, thank you, Miss Patino. Um, all right. So, it's time for the applicant presentation, and you guys have 10 minutes. And so, we'll set the clock for that. Um, and so it's your time to say what you will. I have not been contacted by the applicant, so Okay.

I don't believe they're here. Oh okay. So um is there no one to speak from Lambda? Hearing none. Okay. Uh questions of applicant that seems to be um obiated by their nonpresence here. And do we have public comment on this item? Uh deputy clerk. Uh I do not have any speaker cards and doesn't appear to have anyone. Um any other additional questions? Miss Flores,

my concern is I think we asked in a prior similar instance that if the conditional use permit is revoked, the tenants still get to stay. Um, and of course, they can't be throwing large events without a permit, so they can't even have their chapter meetings or whatever. But what is to say? What's to actually keep them from if they've been violating this repeatedly, what's to keep them from continuing to be meeting and things like that?

I think anybody and any residents can gather in some capacity. They'll still be beholden as residents of the city to follow the municipal code and any applicable laws and regulations. So any of those violations will continue to be processed in the manner that they would be processed. Um operating as a fraternity without a conditional use permit is also then uh subject to land use violations and code enforcement action. So should they continue operating as a fraternity, if the permit were to be revoked, they would be subject to further actions from code enforcement for those types of violations on top of anything else like citations for noise violations or unruly gatherings.

And I realize it's not for us to resolve today with just this matter, but I feel in a way we're kicking the can down the road. Are we pushing these events further out into the R1 areas? you know, they're going to have events elsewhere. So, we need we have a lot of work to do in this in the future.

Yeah, I'll jump on that. I mean, we've we've struggled with this CUP process for two years or or more. I mean, just in the time that I've been here and it's quite frustrating and I've got my notes here from June of 2024 and these are all the things that were promised and it's it's hasn't been done. And I don't know if you guys are watching on Zoom or uh on on YouTube on the in this meeting, but um this is really poor behavior and uh you know, you're headed you're you're you're about to be revoked and but then the question is what does that mean? And we're we're kind of left we've been saying this and I've been saying it for a while. We need a different process and we need some other kind of structure to be able to to manage this. And uh I'm not going to give the same speech that I've done I don't know how many times at this table and I'm I'm I'm going to look for a motion in a second. I'm going to move to approve staff's recommendation and revoke. Um but I just want to make a comment too. You know again we've seen a few of these in under a year and just to get on the record that I think we're being consistent here. My issue with this is in order to allow the use permit to be retained, that series of findings we need to make. And the one that I am just consistently not able to make is that allowing them to continue would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public and you know specifically the neighborhood. And were the applicants here that would be the question I would have for them is what evidence do we have in order to make that finding? And you know, without them here, there is no evidence of that except for evidence to the contrary, which we saw in spades. So, my motion is to prove staff's recommendation.

I'll look for a second.

I'd like to make a second on that motion. I'd also like to make a comment. Um, you know, you mentioned what tools do we have to solve the problem. I think it's team. You read about the newspaper. You read about it in the grand jury report. It's a team. It's Kalpali. It's the fraternities. It's the planning staff. It's the city. Uh it's it's a big solution and it's a hard solution because uh I was talking with my wife about the staff report today and she said the same thing. She said, "So they lose their fraternity. They still live there. They still can party. They still can make noise. So it's not a solution." But um certainly I totally support the motion. Um that's it. Uh so we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Um I agree with what you just said. There's we've been asking for some kind of a summit on this issue. Uh we have another application that and and it looks like we do have applicants here. Uh so we'll maybe we'll hear the some some have something coming from the fraternity side of this of things here. But um okay. So I'll look for a roll call vote. Deputy clerk.

Commissioner Kulie. Yes. Commissioner Khan. Yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Commissioner Jorgensson, yes. Commissioner Munos Morris, yes. Vice Chair Tolley, yes. Chair Hen, yes. Motion passes.

Okay. Now, we're going to move on to the thing that I said the first time, which is the re-review of the existing conditional use permit for a fraternity located at 280 California Boulevard. Any uh expporte disclosures from the commission for this one? I think I already asked for that before I Okay. All right. So, we have now another staff report from Mandy Mallerie Patino and assistant planner. So, please uh you have the floor now.

Hello again. Um this staff report and this presentation will be very similar to the last one. Um this application is mod 0036 2026. It's a review of fraternity conditional use permit. So, beginning with our recommendation, staff recommends commission adopt a resolution revoking the existing conditional use permit for operation of a fraternity at 280 California Boulevard. The use permit in question is for the property at 280 California Boulevard in the R4 highdensity residential zone. It is a single residence with 10 bedrooms and various site improvements. Uh the access to the property is off of California Boulevard. The property is walkable distance from Calpali near other single and multif family residences and close to a liquor store. A little bit of background. City council approved use permit U 1099 in 1983 which allowed Alphaepsilon PI to establish a fraternity at 280 California. The use permit limited residents to a maximum of 19 individuals and included condition for re-review if complaints were received. Planning commission re-reviewed that use permit in November 2024 and continued the use permit under application use 0625204. At that time, conditions were modified, including new conditions for maximum gathering capacity for regular meeting special events to 25 people and for re-review if conduct on the premises results in three citations within a 12-month period. Some background. Uh, the police department has issued three citations since the use permit was modified in November 2024. All three citations noted that approximately 100 people were on site. Code enforcement uh issued a notice of violation in July 2025 after the two incidents in April resulted in violations of condition number four. The notice included a warning that issuance

of a third citation before April 16th, 2026 would result in a re-review. Staff notified alphaepsilon pi on January 29th that the use permit would be re-reviewed by the planning commission. The incidents resulted in violations of condition 4, 9, and 12, which relate to gathering capacity, special event permit requirements, transportation plan requirements, and compliance with noise ordinance, zoning rags, and other applicable laws. Due to the violations, the use permit has been brought to the planning commission for review and in accordance with in accordance with condition two, which requires re-review if conduct results in three citations within a 12-month period that are uncontested or upheld and incidents resulted in adverse impacts. Uh, additionally, condition two requires that the re-review be accompanied with a modification fee, and staff notes that the organization has not paid the modification fee under mod 0036 2026 for unpaid fees of approximately $2,800. Planning Commission's role is to consider the discussed violations and requirements of the municipal code to determine what modifications, if any, are necessary for you to make the required findings for continued use of the property as a fraternity or if commission cannot make the required findings to revoke the permit. If commission cannot make one or more of the findings listed in municipal code sections 1711070A or 1786130B, uh planning commission may revoke the permit. The use is not consistent with these sections because the applicant has repeatedly cited been cited for violations of the city's noise ordinance and of their use permit. The three citations issued were issued within a 12-month period meeting this threshold established in condition two. The re-review is the second re-review within a two-year period by the planning commission and the fraternity has not applied for special event permits or provided transportation plans as required by their condition number four

despite evidence that events exceeded the gathering capacity. Based on inconsistencies with the municipal code and the use permit, staff recommends the planning commission adopt the resolution to revoke the use permit. I am available for any questions as is John Mazipa from code enforcement. Thank you.

Questions of staff. I'll start on this side over here. No red lights. We'll move right along to an applicant presentation. You guys now have 10 minutes to say your piece. And we do have a representative, it looks like. Good afternoon, members of the planning commission. My name is Joshua Pinsky and I serve as the president of the Sigma Omega chapter of Alpha Epsom Pi located at 280 California Boulevard. Thank you for taking the time to hear us tonight. I want to begin by acknowledging why we are here. Our chapter triggered a review of our conditional use permit after receiving three noise violations within a 12-month period, which constitutes a strike under condition 2 and four. We take full responsibility for that regardless of intent. If our property causes disturbances in neighborhood in the neighborhood, the responsibility ultimately falls on us as a chapter's residents and leaders. We are not here tonight to deny them that mistakes were made in the past. Instead, we are here to show the progress we have made and explain why we believe our chapter can continue operating responsibly under our permit. We understand revocation is a possibility and respect the seriousness of this process, but we still hope our permit can remain in effect. One of the most important things we want the commission to see is the measurable progress our chapter has already made. In the academic year prior to this hearing, our chapter received 13 citations. Since then, that number dropped to two citations the following academic year with a third occurring in October. That represents an 85% reduction in violations over one academic year. While any vi violation is unacceptable, we believe this reduction demonstrates that changes we we implemented are working. Since those earlier incidents, we have strengthened internal monitoring procedures, improved communication with neighbors, and increased accountability within the chapter leadership. We've al we have also focused heavily on education and safety training. Calpolly fraternity and sorority life members are trained in Narcan administration and required to complete training related to sexual assault prevention, sober monitoring,

alcohol poisoning response, and fentinel awareness. These are serious safety topics member members must understand before helping manage social events. Students will inevitably gather in a college town like San Lucabispo. The question is not whether gatherings occur, but whether they happen in environments where people are trained and accountable. Student organizations like fraternities provide structure oversight and safety training, while gatherings in unregulated houses often do not. We also want to acknowledge an important challenge that organizations like ours face, turnover. Like many student organizations, our chapter experiences significant turnover due to graduation and membership cycles. Many current members were not present during the earlier violations. While turnover turnover is not an excuse, it highlights the importance of strong systems and education that continue regardless of leadership changes. Our chapter house is also located in areas specifically zoned for fraternity use. These properties were historically designated for student organizations like ours. Removing permits from houses from houses properly zoned for fraternity use could unintentionally push student activity into surrounding residential neighborhoods that are not designed or regulated for these organizations. In preparation for this hearing, we made a strong effort to listen directly to our neighbors. Our risk manager conducted a survey of residents within a 200t radius of the property and so far spoke with 14 residents. 12 reported experiencing no disturbances from fraternities or sororities. Two reported minor disturbances such as occasional noise or foot traffic, but both acknowledged they could not determine whether the activity came from our house, another house, or simply people walking through the neighborhood. Many residents also noted that fraternities appear to be making genuine efforts to contain events and comply with regulations, including providing neighbors with contact information. This feedback aligns with information we received from the officer who issued one of our April citations. During that interaction, the officer indicated that the noise call did not come from one of our immediate neighboring properties, suggesting some concerns may originate outside the immediate area rather than from neighbors closest to our house. We have also taken steps to better

understand broader community perspectives. Our risk manager, our previous risk manager and I attended a residents for quality neighborhood meeting to hear concerns directly and introduce ourselves. We shared our contact information and expressed our interest in maintaining open communication so concerns could be addressed constructively. While we unfortunately did not receive any follow-up commi communication after that meeting, we remain committed to maintaining that openness and continuing to work collaboratively with neighbors and community organizations moving forward. We also reached out to Remy Salem from code enforcement to coordinate anformational meeting with him and John Mesipaca to educate the chapter about the requirements of our conditional use permit. Remy indicated that he loved the idea and thought it was great. But while we have not we still have not been able to schedule that meeting and we remain very eager to continue that conversation so members can better understand expectations and maintain compliance. We also propose making this an annual meeting moving forward because student organizations experience constant turnover or reoccurringformational session would help ensure new members understand the responsibilities associated with the permit while reinforcing expectations for returning members. We believe this builds on the co cultural shift already seen since fraternities began annual meetings with Christine Wallace. We believe the most productive way forward is collaboration. Our chapter wants to work with the city, the university, and our neighbors to address these issues constructively. More broadly, we want to emphasize that our goal is to engage in a collaborative process with the city to help find a long-term solution to the challenges surrounding fraternities. We've been told that hearings like this are not necessarily the best mechanism for solving these broader issues, and we agree that a more collaborative approach involving the city, the university, and the student community could be more productive. We have also been advised that applying for a completely new permit could be an option. However, the roughly $12,000 application fee makes that extremely difficult for student organization to pursue, and even the $3,000 fee required to request modification represents a significant financial burden for students. In previous hearings, the body has also acknowledged that the current system is not functioning well. Because of that,

we come here today not only to ask for consideration of our permit, but also to ask when the city plans to address this broader issue and how student organizations like ours can be part of that conversation. In prep, one example concerns the current limit of or excuse me, in preparation for this hearing, our chapter also developed proposed modifications to our conditional use permit, which we outlined in a letter submitted prior to the hearing. Our goal is to ensure expectations are clear, realistic, and structured to promote long-term compliance. One example concerns the current limit of 25 people for routine meetings and gatherings. While we understand the intention behind this condition, city officials we have spoken to have acknowledged that strict caps like this can be difficult to enforce, especially in student housing environments. This becomes particularly challenging for philanthropy and community events. Many fundraising events naturally involve more than 25 participants. Yet, the required special event permit must be submitted 90 days in advance and and involves additional costs. In some cases, that the total cost of obtaining the permit could exceed the amount raised for charity, making it difficult for student organizations to host these events while still directing meaningful funds towards the causes they support. In the past, the system included incentives encouraging fraternities with conditional use permit to remain compliant. Before 2022, permanent houses could still register events if they had gone nine months without a noise violation, creating a clear incentive to work proactively with the city and police. The same challenge applies to religious and cultural events that are central to to identity as a Jewish fraternity. Throughout the year, we host gatherings with organizations such as halal and Habad, including monthly Havdala events marking the end of Shabbat and also Passover saders with Kabad. These are quiet, structured gatherings that would naturally bring together more than 25 students. I would also like to briefly mention something that happened recently that highlight why why spaces like ours matter on February 28th after a Habdala event with Hell. Our fraternity was a target of an anti-semitic incident currently being investigated by the St. Louis Spispa Police Department. Individuals drove past our house shouting anti-Semitic slurs enter the property and during a confrontation our vice president was punched in the face before the group

fled. We mentioned this not to dwell on it but to emphasize why having a Jewish fraternity house in St. Louis is important. While Calpolly has important Jewish space spaces such as the Kabad House in Hila, our fraternity house provides another place for Jewish students to gather, support one another, and celebrate their traditions. As we wrap this up, I want to thank many city staff and community members who have spoken with us throughout this process, including Mallerie Patino, Remy Salem, Mayor Stewart, Kathy Walker, Christine Wallace, and so many others. Ultimately, our request tonight is straightforward. We ask that you consider the progress our chapter has made, the outreach we have conducted with neighbors, the internal improvements we have implemented, and our commitment to continued improvement. Our members live here, study here, volunteer here, and want to be positive contributors to St. Louis Abyispo. We understand the seriousness of this hearing, and we respect the commission's responsibility to protect the health and welfare of the community. At the same time, we believe the progress we have demonstrated shows that our chapter is capable of learning from past mistakes and working with the community. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the commission to allow our permits to remain in effect. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pinsky. So, questions of the applicant looking to the left all quiet. Commissioner Kulie. Yeah, thank you for being here. Um I have a question for you that is going to be very similar to one I asked uh last year which was given that 25 person hard cap and as you explained the difficulty of enforcing hard caps like that and with an organization with what over 100 we have 101 members right now.

Have you simply outgrown 280 California? Is this the right place for your organization? I believe for all of the fraternity houses that that are in Cal or at Calpali, I mean, we are one of the few fraternities that actually have a house that was built to be a fraternity house. I believe that for what we offered, I think we're still very comfortable in our current house, and we personally don't think we need any to change it to a new location. Thank you, Commissioner Flores.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you for your presentation and for explaining that you have made some improvements. Going from 13 violations in a year to three violations is definitely an improvement. You um it was mentioned that you have not applied for any event permits. And so my question is why haven't you?

Yeah. Um I believe that these special event permits currently are just the way they're designed is not comfortable for student student run organizations. I believe that we all operate on a quarterly timeline. We all usually design our schedules maybe a couple weeks before the new quarter. So, and with so many changes that can happen in a student run organization, filling out a special events permit just isn't the easiest thing for us to do with with how many schedule changes we go through in a quarter.

The cities tend to possibly plan a little more, act a little slower. I know we charge fees to cover the staff time involved, but I do wonder if it might be possible for a um a fraternity that was in compliance to reduce event fees or or things like that because in the long run it could save the city money by not having to, you know, follow up with code enforcement and police and everything like that. So that's beyond this discussion, but just planning a thought. Thank you. Anything else from this side? I'm quiet. Okay. So, um I don't have any questions for you. While you're standing there, I'll thank you for coming. It's not easy to do what you're doing to take it's not I would call it the hot seat. You're not sitting down. You're standing up. And the previous applicant didn't even bother to show up, which really doesn't uh bode well for for that relationship. So, thank you. I also just say uh I'm sympathetic and sickened by what happened. Uh it's not really the issue that we are discussing tonight. I'm talking about the uh the hate event that that that just went down and we all um I don't know if you all get I get the notices from the police department when things like that happen. So uh uh it's it's difficult times right now. So uh I recognize that and um appreciate your patience and and just getting by. So, um, with that, I think, uh, we'll we'll pivot to, um, discussion here. And, oh, do we have any public comment on this, uh, Deputy Clerk?

We do, actually. Oh, we do. Okay. We do have three speakers. Okay. Potentially four. Um, thank you, Mr. Pinsky. So, I'll call again. I'll call the first three. Um, we are starting out with Micah Heyman, followed by Noxan Margalit and Lauren Bandari after that. And it looks like we just got one more there. So, looks like four total, correct? Okay. And here we go.

Good evening, commissioners. Rabbi Micah Heyman. I'm the Rabbi Beth David Congregation just on Foothill Boulevard. I was with a fine gentleman on February 28th as well, opening our Havdala session. So, uh, Yiddish term mench, it just means to be a human. It means to be a good person. Um, but I want to speak to the reputable character of these individuals at API, but also 5 years ago when we had a similar occurrence. They work so hard to generate positive uh impact to our community, not only uh for Kalpali, not only with Kabad and Hillel, but they really create a uh a zone of influence for St. Louis Abyispo. Uh we're teaching these menes how to be good humans. And uh it's in partnership with these fine individuals that um they learn, they grow and they try to react. That 13-3 is real and it is demonstrable. Um also the intense situation within our Jewish community and our support from our general community is one of fellowship and partnership and we want to continue that as much as possible. I I I just speak to not only these gentlemen uh but in that turnover there's also a positive the generations of students that have been at API at that location. Um the uh long tale of uh generative positive effects for our community. We're proud to have them as members of the Jewish community and members of the Kalpali community. Just one last point on 19 people allowed to be there 25 person capacity. Um, we want to create rules that are reasonable and logical. Now, this one strains credul. Uh, to have 19 people there and only four other people can be there at any one time, that seems really hard. Uh, just thinking about as as a gathering space. Thank you very much.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Non Margolite. Uh, I am the co-president of the JCC here in St. Melissa Bispo and I'm here to speak in support of the Jewish fraternity um and its presence uh right near Calpali. Uh Jewish fraternities serve an important role on college campuses and for students near those college campuses especially uh at schools where the Jewish population is relatively small. Uh they provide students with a place to connect with their heritage, practice their traditions and build a supportive community. For many students who arrive on campus far from home, far from home, organizations like this are not simply social groups. They're also c cultural and communal homes. Across the country, Jewish campus organizations play a vital role in helping students maintain their identity and find belonging. National Jewish organizations such as Hell International and the ADL have documented that Jewish students increasingly rely on strong campus communities for support, connection, and safety. Jewish fraternities help meet that need. At their best, fraternities like the like these fine young gentlemen also develop leadership and service. Members organize philanthropy, volunteer in their communities, and create programming that connects Jewish students with the broader campus and local community. These young men are not only students. They are future civic leaders, professionals, and and contributors to our region. St. Louis Abyspo is strengthened when students feel welcomed and supported here. When we provide space for cultural and religious communities to thrive, we reinforce the values of inclusion and diversity that our community prides itself on. Renewing this conditional use permit is not simply a procedural decision about a property. It is also a decision about whether Jewish students at Calpali will continue to have a visible organized community where they can gather, celebrate their traditions, and support

one another. I respectfully urge the commission to renew the conditional use permit and allow this fraternity to continue serving Jewish students and contributing positively to our campus and our community. Thank you for your time.

After Lauren Bundari, our last speaker is Steve Walker. Good evening. So, I'm going to certainly echo a lot of my colleagues and community members comments in terms of supporting our Jewish spaces and Jewish communities. I want to specifically address since it was even in the staff report of the history of the pie house what the history of Jewish fraternities are in this country. um they emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century as a response to widespread anti-semitic exclusion from Greek fraternities. So there's not just I mean as we've all been saying there's real purpose to having a Jewish fraternity. So, I'm saying this as the Hell director, which as Rabbi Micah also indicated, we had and also Joshua brought up, we had our Havdala ceremony there that evening when the anti-Semitic event happened right afterwards or a few hours afterwards. We are having gatherings and having Jewish rituals happen in a safe space. That doesn't come without some risk, without some thought, without some cost to our community. Um, we don't, it's not easy to find these spaces for us to safely gather. So, 280 California is the place that we know. I also really need to be here as a Jewish mom of three Jewish boys in St. Louis Abyispo who drive by whether it's for baseball, football, going to mom's work office at the hilt or whatever it is we're doing on California Avenue. but they see Judaism loud and proud with the A pie house on California Boulevard. I cannot tell you how much that means to my three budding

boys. Um to see a just strong pride. Bay Pie house means a lot to our community. That's why we're all here tonight and that's why we'll continue to show up for our brothers and our community together. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Uh Steve Walker. I'm a resident. I used to be a resident of the Alterista neighborhood. Um first of all, you know, in in listening to what these people have gone through just of late is absolutely horrendous. No one should go through that. However, um this isn't about religious spaces or gathering. What it's about is the fraternity and them holding their fraternal events and it getting out of control. And um the conditional use permit, you know, in order to live there, they have conditions to conform to the neighborhood. So you know by saying yeah we learn about it we keep going around and around and this comes to that round and round with town gown you know and all of that problem right and where is Kalpali absent from this from this conversation and and the city continues to bend to Kalpali to Kalpali's will they need to have a fraternity situation on campus However, Mayor Koopa, I was the one that called in their party um on in April 16th, 2025. And when the situ when that party was happening, it was so loud I thought it was 3:48 who were the normal

instigators. I went down Frederick's from my house and it just was crazy at their house. And at and and so to say that, you know, I you know I I don't have any words. You know what I mean? I've heard it all and I and I keep hearing all of this year which we're going to change and all this stuff. Never happens and to the point um you know they feel unsafe. I actually moved my family out of that neighborhood and we no longer live in that neighborhood because we were consistently being told by fraternity members, it's the eye of it's fraternities that are the problems that you're not welcome in this neighborhood. You know, you don't belong here. What are you doing here? This is not your neighborhood. This is the mentality of fraternities when no one's looking, unfortunately. But when moms and dads are around, different story. Thank you for your time.

Okay, thank you for the public comment. Uh that concludes our public comment. We'll close the public comment period right now. So now um it's time for us to deliberate ask any of the questions of staff that we may have. And so I'll look for either questions or comments before um we'll probably have a little discussion here. So I'll start this side. No lights are glowing over there. How about this side? Um, Commissioner Kohley,

may I ask a question of any of the representatives from the fraternity? Let me give you a chance to answer the question that I was rhetorically asked in the last uh session. Given that we have to be able to make findings that allowing you to keep your permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare. I'm sorry. Uh, Commissioner Truli and Sheriff, if I may. Um, since the public hearing has been closed, I don't think we get to do that anymore. I apologize. Yeah, I was going to push my button, too.

You know, and what I will say in answer to my own question is I did see more uh evidence from this applicant than we've seen in others and I do appreciate that and again, I appreciate you being here, but that is the the trouble for us is for me it is that that finding that we have to be able to make or that one in particular and that's the trouble for us here or at least for me. Um, that's all I want to say at that point.

Okay. Um, Commissioner Flores, I could ask staff, is it a possibility that rather than totally revoking that we could consider a modification or an extension with strict terms or does that go beyond our U? As noted in the staff report, alternatives do include modifying the conditional use permit or continuing this review um at at your direction. That actually is a fairly wellworn path. It is. No, we've done that many times or several times anyway. So, we can it's an option. Have we done it for this particular fraternity in the past?

Yes. Yes. Okay. If we were to consider something like that, I would think we would want at least a six-month period with zero violations. Just throwing it out there if anyone else is interested. So, um, we have a discussion that's not a motion, but um, uh, Commissioner Munoz Morris, did you have where you were leaning for your button there? I was, and but my question kind of escaped me. So, if I if I can think of it again, I'll Okay, fair enough. Sorry about that. Okay. Anything over here?

I mean, yeah. Uh, for starters, well done presentation, Mr. Pinsky. Um, and unfortunately, we've been hearing this has been a reoccurring thing. uh by no unfortunately back in the day when these conditional use permits was put into effect. Um you know it lacked um adequate enforcement and adequate action to be taken and here we are. Um but I will say I I do like the idea that Commissioner Flores um suggested. I don't know if it's in our purview. I don't know if we have the votes for it but um uh yeah that would be my I hear you. I understand the whole cultural place to practice your traditions and all that and I think that's great. Um but at the end of the day everyone's treated the same and uh you know unfortunately like it was alluded to the Calpali does not have or um you know it does not provide any onampus space for this type of activity and so therefore you're subject to the city laws and ordin ordinances. So, um, that's all I have to say on it. Um, but if Miss Flores wanted to make a motion on that, I would second it.

Okay. We, uh, I remember the question. Okay. 25 people max per gathering, but it sounds like 19 people reside there. I imagine there's a formula for how we get that number. Can we talk about that for a second?

Uh, yes, we can. Um so the maximum gathering capacity formula is kind of standard across these use permits that we've seen um been approved over the years. Um and it's based on the expected population listed in our general plan within given zones multiplied by the size of the site which is actually like um the acreage the the square footage of the property. So, it is uh interesting. Some sites that have a lot more nonstructure space might get bigger amounts because it really is a um like in the R4 it's all the same starting number. I don't have it pulled up. I can if you want, but yeah, but you multiply by the size of the site and then it rounds to the nearest whole number because you're looking at things like parking, getting people on the site appropriately, right? like you may not only have things in your house, you might have things on your site. So that's why it uses the whole property boundary.

Right. Okay. Thank you for that. I imagine there was some sort of calculation that's done. Is that number a binding number or is that a suggested number for the commission to consider? or if like is I don't know if the city or code enforcement says it's 25 and that's what we have to work with or can we say that sounds great but we want to bump it up to I don't know 50 which still doesn't cover the 101 members but do we have discretion I guess there

um it's currently a binding number because it's what's in the condition right the condition is currently written in that way um our recommendation when this was re-reviewed in November of 2024 before their previous permits from the 80s. So, it was to just bring it up to kind of standards and that was the standard that was used. Um, I don't know if there's any um legal implications to change that, but as far as I'm aware, um, you could potentially make a change and set a different precedent.

Sure. I I can add a little to that. It it's it's basically the rational way that we would create kind of a reasonable number on the site based on as mentioned by Mallalerie kind of the size the density of the space. Um it is memorialized in a condition that could be modified into to the planning commission's liking. It's we're not bound by um the the formula that we use but it is consistent from for how we look at these types of uses not just for fraternities and sororities but other similar type uses across the city. But you're not you do have the ability to to look at that on a case- by case basis and make a different um a different uh set a different amount for total number of people.

And am I correct? Oh, sorry.

I just wanted to add um to clarify, it's not like a development standard in our code. Staff's not calculating it based on that. But to Tyler's point, it is staff's practice to calculate the the cap um because it's the most rational basis for determining what's appropriate on site. So, if the planning commission were interested in modifying the condition to increase that number, we should make findings and put in the record how we're getting to that number and also finding a rational basis for it. And really that was the the root of my question last year and this year which was if by our standards the limit is 25 people and they have 103 active members is this site appropriate for an organization of this site size? That was the nature of my question is if that's the standard for the upper limits then is this appropriate right

um my related to that just to make sure I'm clear on an event bye-vent basis they can apply for permits to go over that 25 person cap right yes we can we have um special event permits and intermittent event permits and those are both kind of the pathways they have per their current conditions to pursue. And we've heard that that process is difficult or possibly even inappropriate for a student organization. Can you walk us through what that process is like timelinewise and what's required?

Yes, I can. So, um there are processes director's action applications. Um without going too into the weeds, that encapsulates a lot of different types of permitting. So, um, fence height exceptions, um, I don't know, setback exceptions, retaining walls, permits, retaining walls can be a director's action, uh, homeay permitting for short-term rental. All of that is director's action. So, the fee associated with that encapsulates all of those things. Um, you would apply, your application period starts upon payment of fees. Um, I'll tell you the current fee is $3,51 uh per per event per permit.

Okay. Um, so intermittent use permits um can permit things that reoccur intermittently and the conditions and um basis of the project can be set up in a way that you're accounting for something that happens annually, quarterly along those lines. Uh some examples might be um well it doesn't happen anymore but we used to have the marathon in the city that had an intermittent use permit that kind of had a set standard of like every year you got to do this and 30 days ahead you give us your parking plan and your security plan and whatnot or the um sidewalk sales in downtown slow recently got one so they can have so would fraternity rush be an appropriate

absolutely use for that intermittent use for it could be fraternity rush um however you're having a one-off event you would each one would need the permit just as a special event permit um same fees. Uh you go back and forth during completeness. It is a 30-day completeness period where we make sure all the information provided is enough for us to uh analyze the request and do uh make findings. Um if we don't think we're going to make findings, that's our time when we're communicating that with an applicant. Um I think our standard is what we say 6 to 8 weeks for director's action application processing. Um,

and if I'm hearing you correctly, in theory, an organization that had a schedule or knew they wanted to have a certain number of events throughout the year, they could apply for one permit to cover all those. Yes, within reason, right? You know, we it would be an application. You would have to describe what you're asking to a point that would allow us to actually evaluate and make those findings. Um, but yes, you could have some sort of reoccurring schedule within one intermittent use permit. And suppose you jump through all those hoops and then you have your event and it's still loud and unruly. You're subject to the same enforcement as you would even if you didn't have had done all that, right? Yes.

And the the citation would look very very much like the citation that it would if you had the permit or if you didn't. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Um, I've got things to say, but I'll I'll want to make sure that my um fellow commissioners get their piece in first. Anything over here? Okay. So,

I'll just say one or two things. Basically, um, we're we're equally kind of between a rock and a hard place. there doesn't seem to be a good solution that's kind of fair to everybody and we don't have a process that's uh strong enough to actually u be sure that things would actually be enforced and it's almost like we've got everybody on a on a wheel that just spins around and new group comes in and we go over the same thing again. So it seems like kind of beating our heads against the wall without any workable solution here. I don't know what the best outcome would be. Um it sounds like revoking doesn't seem to trigger very much in its own way. And um yet um we've got some difficulty. It sounds like to get every fraternity to commit to a set of dates and events and everything like that. You can see that would be the cheapest way maybe to do something like this, but it isn't um everything works against that. And so as a long run solution, it doesn't sound like it's getting us anywhere. So I feel really frustrated that I don't see a way through this that where we're adding any value to the to the overall situation.

Help me out. Okay. Thank you. Could I could I maybe ask one more quick question? Yes. Okay. So, for an event, three grand to for the permit fee. What's the fine for just having the party? Like for a noise violation, let's say. I'm going to ask John to answer that question. I hope you're not going to say $50.

No. uh for a noise violation, you know, those are issued by the police department when they respond. I think it's a $350 uh first citation can escalate up to $1,000, I believe, uh for the second and third. Um if you're having an event and um it's associated with a fraternity, but you do not have a use permit, so it's a land use violation, uh we have a fine schedule of 100, 500, and then $1,000 for the first, second, and third occurrence. The $50 fine is if you have a use permit, uh, then it's a $50, $100, $200 fine. Um, but really the mechanism for addressing issues with the use permit is this, right? So, is this this revocation hearing or hearing for modification? So, the $50 fine is really just kind of a, hey, you violated your use permit. If you do it again, the conditions can be violated and and you can end up here. So, it sounds like the only thing that the permit would solve for us is getting us over the 25 person cap, right? But everything else would still be in play. So, I I I agree with what you're saying. I was just trying to explore the tools we seem to have in front of us.

It also doesn't seem to make a lot of economic sense for fraternities to apply for this if it's going to they're going to be charged $3,000.

I do want to just mention um one caveat. So, um I'm not 100% sure if this fraternity is a 501c3, but a lot of fraternities are um u filed as 501c3s. And we do have special event permits for nonprofits for nonprofit events. So, philanthropic events associated with a nonprofit has a separate fee. The last time I processed one of those is about $295. I couldn't pull that up, but that is for for filed 501c3s for philanthropic events. So, that is a big sense to me. Um, but not every event uh would fit our requirement for that.

Yeah. Yeah. Know, I understand. I'm just I I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around a $3,000 fee for one party or the $50 $300 fine. I mean, these guys take econ 101. I mean, the math the math checks out, right? I mean, sorry. Please. No. No. If it's for, as as Marilyn mentions, if if it's for like a nonprofit event, it the fee is $212.28. Okay. That's pretty that it's a nonprofit event, but it's by a 501c3, right? So, it has to be a 51c3 organization. Special event. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Wow.

I just Yeah. I was just curious about the fees. It would it would seem like for the chapter meetings they could apply for a permit then to meet every week, every whatever and only pay one fee too and that would help them be in compliance. 501c3. Yeah. So the qu your question then is can you get a permit for a weekly meeting that would be ongoing or regular intermittent whatever

you could get a intermittent uh permit for um for an ongoing event. There's a max of I believe 90 days in any calendar year that you could actually hold the event. Um but yes, you would only need to submit it once. staff would obviously review that, apply any appropriate conditions to ensure that it's compatible with the neighborhood. Um, and every time that event would occur, they would be subject to those same conditions. Sorry, max 90 days being the event cannot last longer than 90 days or one per 90 days. One event per 90. It's no more than I believe 90 days in a calendar year. Oh, you could have the 90 days of Gotcha. I see. So, it can't be daily.

Yeah. So, 90 of the 365. I see. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions of staff or comments? Uh, we have the notion of a motion uh over here. I have some things to say, I think. Do would do would would you like to actually make a motion? One more question first. Um, now I'm losing it. We talked before another group where we were going to revoke and did revoke their permit, but they were going to be able to reapply I think without a fee and meet certain conditions. So is that something that we could provide that was with and without prejudice I believe. Yeah, something like that.

Yes. So in the previous reviews by planning commission um there was uh discussion of with or without prejudice and whether that meant they could apply like they could turn around and apply tomorrow um and whatnot. Um there was an appeal that moved forward on one of those revocations and they did make an interesting decision about um using a modification for an application. Um that would have we can pull up that appeal if that's something you guys wanted to see more of. Um, but that was a interesting different decision that they made to allow reapplication with the modification fee, but for a new permit.

So, um, I'd like to have a few words here. I appreciate the discussion. I appreciate that we're trying to cast about for something that would be effective and realistic and humane for this situation. And right now, what we have is really none of those. Uh well, yeah. So, the conditional use permit process, which is what that's the tool we have to work with. It's not exactly a Swiss Army knife. It's like a hammer and it's all we have. And it's seems to me it's neither a carrot nor a stick. Uh because if we revoke, you guys can still have your house. You're still going to you can still meet. You can still be a Jewish community uh house of some sort. You can't officially call yourself a fraternity, but you will join the other fraternities that no longer hold a conditional use permit and yet continue to operate as fraternities. And they have their letters up still. And these are we revoked three of these last year and we did one about an hour ago. And it's not the end of the fraternity, it's the end of the conditional use permit to operate as a fraternity. And so that doesn't seem to be um I mean I appreciate that you came and and and um made your case to retain this thing, but it doesn't seem to me like it's going to um I'm not in favor. I'm not in favor of of trying to find another set of conditions of six months or no more parties or no more noise things for any some period of time. I am weary of that and I think we all are and that's that's that's why we're all kind of struggling and frustrated up here and you guys are probably weary of it too. And you know I'll point out that the problem isn't the 19 or the 25 people. If you guys were to have like moderate gatherings and and the problem is the noise and the party and falling into the street. I've

been up there. I've done ride alongs with the cops. I've been and I've heard the stories and I've watched the videos and I've and I physically have been up there just to see what happens in Alta Vista and I get it. It's like it's crazy. Um so um and I'm not even talking about just St. Friday's Day which is coming up in a week or so here. So yeah, it's a real thing. That's the problem. Okay. It's if if you want to have your gatherings and and keep it keep it mellow and your and not disturb the neighbors, you can kind of get away with whatever you want. But when they can hear it way up the hill, um then it's going to be a problem. And whether we approve or revoke, it doesn't seem to make any real difference. And the speech that you gave was was great. Um, we've heard a lot of those and that it doesn't seem to change. Yeah, you reduce from 13 to three. Okay, that is progress. Um, I really appreciate the Jewish community aspect of this and that's an overlay on top of this whole fraternity thing and that makes me somewhat sympathetic. But we have to apply these rules with a pretty even hand to all the fraternities whatever their religious or non-religious affiliations may be. And so I don't see how we can just uh have revoked the last four fraternities that have come before us and make an exception for you uh on the I mean it it's yeah got three three more strikes here. And so I'm I'm going to be making a motion to either well either we'll see what happens here. I don't I don't know what what's going to happen actually now. Um, I'm in favor of of revocation just in and out of fairness to the way that we're dealing with all the fraternities

and this is we need a better solution and uh we have talked to council about this. Uh I did talk to Calpali finally today I talked with Courtney Keenow who is the person the coordinator up there the um what's her title? Uh community relations I think. Is Amy from Calpaly actually are you here? Oh there you are. Nice to meet you. Okay, so um yeah, we all need to get together. Greek, Calpaly, city cops, um uh you know, the walkers even. I mean, this has been going on for so long and we just keep like like Commissioner Jorgensson was saying, we just keep kind of it's like Groundhog Day up here. So, um anyway, uh that's I'll I'll stop talking for let's do I have anything else on here? Oh yeah. Yeah. I really do appreciate the um everything you said about safety at parties and um about sexual assault and about drugs and fentanyl and nar Narcan or whatever it's called and being aware of all that stuff. And I know I hear what the good stuff that the fraternities do and we're not anti-raternity. we're pro, you know, everybody getting along and it's not working. So, that's that's my sermon and uh with that, I'll look for a motion in any direction that we might have here. I'm ready to make a motion and I just want to offer a prelude here that I am sympathetic to your organization and I think you are making progress but like chair Hton said we have an obligation to apply rules consistently and I think that my motion here to approve staff's recommendation to revoke the license excuse me the permit is

mostly evidence of frustration with the tools and the framework we have in front of And I think that everything you say I would agree with. This does have to be a group discussion going forward and I hope that happens. But yeah, I'm going to move to uh revoke the license. We have a motion. Uh do we have a second or further discussion?

Um I wanted to ask the motion or I've been anticipating that this motion was coming. Um, which I understand in the in the spirit of consistency is I I I would be supportive, but keeping in mind that if I mean, if we tally up 13 violations that would be that were recorded between the two fraternities in front of us, that would have been close to $40,000 in application fees for them to have those by the book, let's say. That seems like that seems excessive to me. So, I think there's two things. Could we include some language in the motion talking about either a reduce reapplication fee or some sort of format? Are we even allowed to include that as a condition? We are not.

Okay. Now, fees are set by council. Yeah. And I'll just say, let's be real, the permit thing does not work for these guys. They they're not doing it. And it's it's expens Yeah. and and making it cheaper and but the the going through the whole process, it just seems inconsistent with the way that that life happens up there. Um I I mean I meant for the CUP if if it were to be denied today through this motion being passed if they wanted to reapply to reestablish themselves. I miss I thought you were talking about special event permits.

No, I think they mentioned it was something like 12 grand to reapply or resubmit something like that. So is there a discussion to be had there as a kind of as a some sort of olive branch to extend here? So if you revoke the permit, they would need to reapply for a new cup, which would be the full fee. And there's no way for us to there's no way for you to reduce that number. That's just what it is. Okay. And keep in mind, there's still an outstanding fee of $2,800 or so that we haven't been paid for being here tonight. Oh, so they also have an outstanding Yes. I see. Okay. All right. Well, then I guess I'll I'll remove all of that because we don't really have any place. But I just want to say I agree with you in spirit, but I know that the tools in front of us are very limited and we just don't have the ability to do that.

But I just I I think I'm seeing what you're saying there like the application fee process that fee it seems to be useless because why would you? So I just think we need to have a serious discussion that maybe that is step one to the cup process is a broken down car in the wheel with in the ditch missing a wheel. I mean, it's we need something else. So, okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I I I will second. Oh, you did? Okay. I had I had, but Okay, we have a motion and a second. Um, any further discussion? Otherwise, I'm going to call for a roll vote. Deputy city clerk, would you please call the role on this motion and second?

Commissioner Kulie, yes. Commissioner Munos Morris, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Commissioner Jorgensson, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Vice Chair Tolley, yes. Chair Hton, yes. Motion passes.

Okay. Thank you for coming everybody. Thank you for your patience. We're taking a two or three minute break here for hydration and dehydration. Yes, I see.

I have Somebody. All right.

I'm sorry. Are you Okay. All right, everybody. Let's get through the rest of this here. And the next public heating hearing item before us is to receive the two the 2025 general plan annual report. So we've got uh assistant planner Ethan Estrada is back and we're going to have you present the staff report. Looks like you have help.

Yes. Thank you. Uh today I'll be joined by my colleague David Amini uh senior planner for the housing division. Well, let me see if this will There we go. Um and yeah, together uh we will be presenting the 2025 general plan annual report. Uh staff's recommendation tonight is for the commission to receive and file the 2025 general plan annual report for final review and acceptance by the city council. The city of St. Louis Abyspo's general plan consists of eight elements covering a range of topics such as land use, housing, climate adaptation, and safety and more. Overall, the general plan is a comprehensive statement of the city's goals and it guides the use and protection of various resources to achieve them. It is a living document that is periodically amended by the city council who consider recommendations made by citizens, appointed advisory bodies, other agencies, and city staff. California government code section 65400 and the city's land use element require an annual report be made on the status of the general plan. This report provides an opportunity for the city to review the results of its efforts to implement the general plan and its programs. Staff received public comment that stated the GPAR is to summarize and assess general plan policies and recommend changes. Uh per the general plan, this annual report is to provide an overview of its programs, not policies. for the in-depth review of general plan policies regarding neighborhood wellness related topics that this correspondence has asked for. Staff suggests that anyone interested in this attend the city council study session on this topic scheduled for May of this year. With that, let's go over some highlights from the report. In 2025, a total of 222 planning applications were received. This includes use permits, development reviews, subdivisions, and more. Uh compared to 2024, the city saw a 16% decrease in the number of planning applications submitted. Total of 525 building permits were

issued which included permits for a net total of 192 residential units accounting for demolitions that occurred. Uh the 192 units consisted of 83 single family units, 104 ADUs, and 11 multifamily units. Uh the notable discrepancy between the total permits issued and the number of new residential units associated is due to 257 of these permits being for residential alterations or additions. Uh this includes interior remodels and additions to existing residential structures. I think one of those is mine. I put on a porch. There you go. Try on 234. Should be 23 24. Oh,

nice catch.

There you go. All right, I'll get into our residential growth figures. So, the general plan provides that the city's housing supply shall grow no faster than 1% per year on average. Uh, and that's based on the estimated population growth outlined in table three of our land use element. Um, this calculation excludes affordable units. New units within our downtown core ADUs are exempt from this calculation. Um so excluding those exempted units in 2025 we added 174 units uh to the city's housing stock with this addition uh a total of 23,292 units are subject to this growth management policy and so when we account for this addition we've now reached an average annual growth rate between 2015 and 2025 of exactly 1%.

How do you do that? That's amazing. Make the big bucks.

Okay. The general plan requires the city to evaluate increases to non-residential floor area over a period of 5 years. Um, if the net growth rate exceeds 5%, council may have to consider uh shall consider implementing limits on new non-residential floor area. In 2025, we added 176,000 a little bit over 176,000 ft of new non-residential floor area. Uh, this placed our annual growth rate of for 2025 at 1.47% and the 5-year net growth rate at 3.15%. This was a bit of an unusual increase and that's attributed to the Marriott Spring Hill Suites uh residents in combined hotel project in St. Louis Ranch specific plan and that consisted of over 120,000 square feet of area. The city's six cycle housing a month period began in January 2019. Last housing element was adopted by council in November 2020, then certified by the state in September 2021. And with this update, we got our arena allocation. It's not an obligation of resources, but rather a target for the city to work towards. And the state gave us 3,354 housing units to plan for. Um, in 2025, the city permitted uh 53 new housing units that count towards the city's quantified objectives. Um, we've already reached our um total allocation of above moderate unit. So now we have units left to meet in low, very low, moderate, extremely low categories. Um so we um made a little bit of progress there and we just had a total of 198 dwelling units that were permitted in 2025. Uh the city does have some active uh below market rate housing projects in the pipeline to address uh the allocation that's remaining in the housing element cycle. There's a total of a little bit over 350 357 units in the development process. The majority of these developments are either under construction now or going to begin construction soon within the next one to two years.

And of those the it looks like the Waterman and Monterey mixed use came before us I I believe. Yeah, that's correct. Okay, thanks. Yeah, Avalon Ranch 2. Oh yeah. Yeah, thanks.

Uh moving on to our homelessness um efforts. In 2025, the city responded to 104 encampment fires, 941 medical incidents involving people experiencing homelessness. Additionally, uh, city staff removed 47 tons of trash and cleaned up over 247 illegal encampments. The city continues to support its partnerships with organizations such as Capso. We awarded over 400,000 to Capso for its programs and operations of 40 Praau, their safe parking program. They have a hotel and motel voucher program. They operate a warming center and a cooling center and then also the um recent community safe parking pilot program which did appear before you guys. Um there's additional financial support from us to other nonprofits that promote the economic and social well-being of our community through our human services grant. And so the city requested for funding requests in excess of 419,000 and that was 269,000 more than was was actually available. Our city's community action team and mobile crisis unit housed within our police and fire departments continue to respond to homelessness related issues, engaging within individuals in need of services and also working on facilitating reunions with family members. Uh moving on to our specific plan development, uh city staff continued to oversee the development of numerous area and specific plans. We've got our Margarita area specific plan. Um there were projects within that including the 301 Praau business park as well as a mixeduse project at 365 Praau that's got about 222 units and that's in the planning entitlement review stage. Uh moving on to our

I'm sorry. Can you where's that PRA? Which side of Hagera is that on? It's on the east side of Hagera. South side of Praau. So across from the um

Great. There's new homes there. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Mhm. So, moving on to our orchid area. Um, you know, by and large mostly um reaching um completion um construction kind of occurring um in the um Enclave and Jones area. Um Pratt property mostly done and then Bulock Ranch is the last remaining portion of that orchid area and we're awaiting um building permits in middle and moving that project along as well. Uh going on to our airport area. So, we've got a couple different projects that are in different stages. Um, we've got some large mixeduse projects under review. Also, slow airport hotel. Um, in 2025, council also approved amendments to the airport area specific plan to allow mixeduse development in the CS and M zones with a minor or conditional use permit where it's appropriate. Uh, moving on to Avalor Ranch, the single family residences and construction phases one, two, and three still moving forward. Um and then the remaining units in phase three, four and five awaiting our build building permit submitt review. So moving along um development at Froom Ranch that was on hold um for the majority of 2025. However, the applicant team did submit a new application to initiate a specific plan amendment um with city council consideration of this application expected to take place um sometime later this year. Uh moving on to St. Louis Ranch. Um the majority of the developments that were under construction 2024 were completed in 2025. Um you know we're just looking at the uh Marriott project that I mentioned earlier. They completed the um a Heritage and Learning Center, also known as Lower Farms Market. Uh and then in 2024, city council authorized the submitt of general and specific plan amendments for lot 7 uh which contains approximately 11 acres of commercially zoned land. Um the proposal was to uh develop residential units on that site

and we haven't yet received um permanent applications for that. All right, I'll take over from here. Let me get a question in about housing while we're still there. Uh back to the um Regetti Ranch. Um the Bulock Pro, was it the Bulock? I can't remember the name of that street, but Bulock Ranch. Yeah. So, is that the one that needs to get done before we ever get a bike path all the way through? I believe that that is there are some associated public improvements of that project to to move. It's just uh waiting to happen for years and years and years. So, it's all in that project where we'll see that. Huh. Yeah. That project is fronting that last end of Bulock and that connectivity there.

In my lifetime, I hope. And um I'll just make a comment too to the extent that I'm allowed to do so. I'm happy to have if if you got qu you're rocking through this thing and so if we've got questions let's do it rather than have to wait and but we're also it's kind of late so but we'll move along but I I think that's fine to kind of ask as we go if you guys are okay with that. Thanks.

All right. Okay. So, looking at our water supply availability from the city's four water sources equal 10,246 acre feet, uh, which meets the projected primary water supply need of 7,496 acre feet plus an additional 1,298 acre feet for a reliability reserve and a secondary water supply of,452 acre feet. Uh, additional information is available in the city's annual water supply and demand assessment if you are interested. uh looking at transportation and circulation. So in accordance with the circulation element of the general plan, 2025 saw a lot of activity in all aspects of transportation and circulation. Uh some highlights for vehicular transportation and bicycle and pedestrian uh transportation include the city's first vision zero action plan. Uh this will assist staff with determining priorities in areas of engineering, enforcement, and education to improve traffic safety citywide. And this was released in draft form for public review in 2025 and is expected to be finalized uh early this year. And

the vision zero means no deaths from pedestrian or bicycles, right? Correct. When's the last one that we had? I'm not aware of that. Uh we can probably defer that to police department. It's been a while though, right? Yeah. Yeah. So that's great. I haven't seen any new ghost bikes out there. Was there? Oh, last week. Right outside. Okay. Well, I applaud. So, very important. Going for zero. Yeah, definitely.

Uh, the 2024 paving project was completed in 2025, featuring numerous improvements made along Grand Avenue, Johnson Avenue, and numerous neighborhood streets. Uh the city also continued its transportation, safety, education efforts with the development of its roll and stroll, bike and pedestrian resource hub. Uh this provides a centralized hub containing maps, videos, and other materials for the public to access at their discretion. There you go. Looking at slow transit, uh some 2025 highlights include the addition of six new electric buses to the city's fleet. Uh replacing older diesel-powered buses. Uh this enhancement of the fleet placed the city ahead of the state's zero emission mandates. Uh staff also reported nearly 660,000 passenger trips in 2025, which is a 17% increase from the previous fiscal year. Additionally, slow transit's short-range transit plan update was adopted in 2025. Uh this plan recommends a host of service, fair, and program changes for the next 5 years to meet the community's transportation needs.

So is that six new or six total? Six new. So, and how many total electric buses do we have? I'm not aware of the total. Uh, we can definitely defer that question to to How many total buses do we have? Do we know? Dozens, hundreds? I don't know. I don't know. But I've definitely seen these these out and about quite a bit. So, they're very quiet. Very nice.

Let's see. There you go. Okay. Looking at safety services, the fire department responded to 7,344 incidents in 2025. Outside of these standard responses, the fire department continued operations with its urban search and rescue team, responding to 13 technical rescues and medical emergencies in open space areas in and around the city. The fire department also continued operations with its mobile crisis unit, as mentioned earlier, uh primarily responding to behavioral health incidents. The MCU team responded to 143 calls for service and engaged in 2234 field contacts. In March of 2025, the state released updated fire hazard severity zone maps which greatly increased the number of parcels in the city subject to a fire hazard severity zone. Uh following the maps, the 2025 wildland urban interface code was released for adoption and implementation by cities. Uh a study session was held to discuss these updates and the maps, WOOI code and new fire code were all adopted in 2025. Uh, the police department completed its second year of its 5-year strategic plan, which included a departmentwide staffing study, implementation of datadriven policing tools, establishment of an online recruitment portal, and more. Uh, the police department also continued its operations with its community action team who engaged with 798 individuals and issued 164 treatment referrals to mental health and substance abuse services. The police department also continued operations with its community service officer program offering personalized services to residents, the business community, and visitors. Looking at conservation, open space, the general plan provides for open space protection that applies to sensitive lands within the city's urban reserve as well as land in the St. Louis Abyspo Green Belt area protected for its biological, agricultural, aesthetic, and watershed protection value. City staff continue to implement these programs through a variety of efforts including the opening of the regetti hill open space and invasive species control along

the fur profumo and San Louis Abyispo creeks. Looking at parks and recreation in alignment with the parks and recreation element of the general plan staff continued to provide programs and services with a focus on youth senior and family programming. Uh this included continuation of the recreational youth and adult sports and other community events. Park and recreation activities also included open space maintenance, such as the opening of the new Laguna Lake Dog Park, featuring three acres of fenced areas providing separate spaces for large and small dogs that also contain agility structures for their enjoyment. That thing's pretty awesome. I don't even have a dog and I thought it was really cool.

It's it's pretty great. It's it's a great place. Uh, additionally, the the multi park system to be part of the Orca area specific plan was approved for construction, including funding authorization for the first three phases of five in late 2025. So, in conclusion, this report has shown that the city continues to make substantial progress in implementing programs outlined in the general plan. Additionally, the data in various reports provided by city staff indicate that the city has been successful in continuing to promote and achieve development and economic growth, community safety and well-being, climate adaptation, and more. Staff's recommendation tonight is for your commission to receive and file the 2025 general plan and report for final review and acceptance by the city council. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Estrada. Very good. Uh, do we have any public comment notices for this deputy city clerk? I think we may. We do. We do have one speaker, uh, Kathy Walker. Miss Walker, good evening.

Oh, there we go. Okay, perfect. It's lonely here, but I watch every time you have a meeting from home. So, even if it seems like no one's watching, they are. Um, as far as the general plan, I wanted just to bring a couple of things to your attention. Um, they talked about the neighborhood officer program and that wasn't covered here in the presentation, but it is in the plan. And I want to say that that has not been active for at least 10 to 15 years. Um, I really never called the police until 2021 when we started to be impacted by a lot of the noise that was going on. And in those five years or so, uh, I've never met any of the officers that were listed on the report as my neighborhood representative officer. I've maybe talked to 10 different officers and I've been recycled through different people and then someone left and I was told to talk to someone else. And so that has not been an active program. And in fact, at the RQN meeting last month, we asked Deputy Chief Schaefer about it and he said, "Oh yeah, that's not a thing anymore." So, I'm not sure why it's in the general plan that's being presented.

And this is the neighborhood. Say it again. Under the neighborhood, the neighborhood officer program. Okay. They highlight it. It's not active. Okay.

The other thing that's um interesting is on page 47 or 48 of the report, there's a bar chart that shows noise calls and it breaks it down on a monthly basis and it's highlighting the party registration program. The ironic thing about that is that if you register a party, it's coded if someone calls to complain, it's not registered, it is not coded as a noisy party. It's coded as citizen assist. So last year there were 434 registered parties. I mean applications. There were 353 I believe um registered parties. There were 50 complaints made by people who were disturbed called said hey there's a noisy party. Those aren't in the statistics. If you look at the bar chart that they have, none of those 50 complaints are included because they're coded as citizen assist even though they were made for noisy parties. So, I think that's a little misleading for them to say, "Hey, there's this neighborhood, you know, this party registration program and it's successful." It's successful because the complaints aren't counted if you register your party. It's only counted if the person calls back after 20 minutes and the party is still going on and a citation is issued. So, I think those are two discrepancies that should probably be fixed in that report.

And thank you. And you made that point in some of your written correspondence uh for this for this evening, right? Yeah. So, anybody wants to check out the numbers and the fairly impressive data that Miss Walker has gathered, it's all there. All right. Uh, is that it for public comment? Yes, that's okay. Very well. So, questions of staff. Questions of staff. I have a question for staff. Um, did Miss Walker um approach staff with those complaints or questions or criticisms? Just curious.

Uh, we received them as part of the public correspondence. I feel like that would have been a better avenue to express that. So, I just wanted to make sure that staff was aware of that. Thanks.

So, this neighborhood officer program, do I have that right? Um, is that in in fact defunct or is it still active or what do we know if anything about that? Um, I'm going to chime in as just an individual, not in my legal capacity, but um, uh, in 2023 or 24, I know as a resident of slow in the neighborhood I was living in at the time, we did make contact with, um, the police department to request our neighborhood officer come out to our neighborhood and talk about, you know, kind of the program and what they might be able to offer. I to Miss Walker's point, I don't know how consistently that is done, but and and I did have to reach out to PD staff to make that contact. So, um it is not completely defunct, but I don't know that it is a, you know, consistent avenue available or broadcasted to the public.

Okay. So, maybe if we had a a police department representative here, we'd get a little more detail on that. Maybe we'll hear something about that in the future. I haven't I wasn't aware of it and I haven't I don't know who my neighborhood officer would be, but it seems like a nice idea. It's it's on the website and you can uh there's five or six or seven uh the city's broken down into neighborhoods and the offices are listed. You know, they're there and you can go right after them in theory. Okay. But I don't think in practice.

Okay. Interesting. All right. Uh, other questions of staff hearing? None. Do we have any discussion on this measure? And I'm a little confused because my script says no formal action required for receiving and file. Oh, if we we if we continue the item, then we need to vote. But if we're just going to receive it, we don't need to do a vote or anything. Right. No motion. Do I have that right?

Yeah, there would be no motion. um unless there was uh I mean this will be presented to city council. So if there was majority consensus on feedback and or considerations for the council as they review this, there could be a motion along those lines, but there's no motion needed to receive and file the report. Okay, great. Yeah. Um you know, we all Oh, do we have a uh Yeah, please.

And that is Partly it's uh Miss Walker's work and and others as well that we I I don't want to leave with the impression that the city hasn't been starting to move on these issues around more data around uh fraternity issues. And in some ways I'd like to say I think our revocations have sped that up a bit. Now speeding up in a city process doesn't mean going fast but I think we've taken some steps so that if and when we're able to have discussions with Kalpali about this we're better armed and I think we understand better. So it's a kind of a step before the first step I guess I'd say. But I do think um you know we've made some progress. I feel like gee, I'm looking at numbers and now we're actually seeing, you know, the uh enforcement folks are going out, they're doing things that feel like two years ago it just seemed like the wild west. There was just we weren't able to even, you know, we didn't have a sheriff in town kind of thing. So, I do think things actually have gotten they're they're on the right track, but it's a long track the way we're going.

Fair enough. Yeah. And um as for the revocations, you know, I think when we did we had a slew of them last year and I the message we're we're kind of trying to send a message that this is broken and I hopefully that message is echoing around somewhere. So okay. Uh any other comments,

please? I wanted to I guess maybe bring it up for discussion for the deis if uh we wanted to include comments around what Miss Walker brought up about the inconsistency with the numbers and whether when this moves forward to council that can be more expressly stated or clarified if if it in fact checks out the way that uh it was stated tonight. just because I I I did think it was an important point that she made that although the numbers might show they're going down, there's they're they're being coded differently if I understood correctly, right? Some of those calls.

So, I think that our options are to either receive this as it is or to um to try to amend it or direct staff to go fix something. Uh is that kind of our options? Sure. I think uh we were going to verify what we heard tonight and in control about the citizen assist thing. Sure. We're going to we're going to look into that. We'll look into the coding. I mean, we want to do that and make sure that those are current and relevant. So, planning commission doesn't need to make a specific motion for to tell us to do that. We're going to do that. Okay. Okay. So, that was my comment.

So, that comment has been heard. And Miss Walker, thank you for your diligent uh work and cataloging all this stuff. We should hire you at least apparently. Okay. So, uh anything else that uh anybody would like to say before we begin our spring break? Peace out. Peace out. Okay. Um thank you very much uh Mr. Amini and Mr. Estrada. So, no motion, no roll call, none of that. And so, we're ready for a staff update. And so, a deputy community development director Tyler Corey, please provide us with the update.

All right. Thank you, chair. Real quickly, um we don't have anything on the calendar for the March 25th meeting, so that will likely be cancelled. Puts us into April. Um next regular meeting is April 8th, and we have the um annual update to the zoning regulations, which will include a variety of cleanup items including housing and ADU law. So, that'll be coming forward, and you'll be looking at that with a recommendation to move on to city council from there.

Excellent. Thank you. Okay. So, likely cancellation of the uh second March meeting. And I was just mentioning I'm I will be out of town for that. So, if it does somehow bubble up, then I'll tap the vice chair, Mr. Tully, over here. So, uh with that, uh the next regular meeting of the planning commission is scheduled for March 25th, although it's likely to be cancelled. It's not officially canceled yet. And that'll be in the council chambers at city hall, 990 Palm Street, St. Louis Abyispo. And we are adjourned.