Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Baby. [Music] Hey. [Music]

[Music] 2025 meeting of the Brisbane Planning Commission will now come to order. Staff, please call the role.

Commissioner Funka here. Commissioner Gooding here. Commissioner Laauo here. Thank you. Commissioner Saison here. And let the record reflect Commissioner Patel is absent. Okay. Um adoption of the agenda. May I have a motion to adopt please? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I

motion is unanimous. Next is a consent calendar and we have none. So moving on to oral communications. If anyone wishes to address the commission concerning items not on tonight's agenda, please do so now. Um staff, can you set a timer for let's do 30 seconds? 10 seconds.

All right, 30 seconds has elapsed. No one's raised their hand.

Okay, thank you. Uh, moving on to written communications. Uh, we have none for tonight. So, I'll now turn to new business. Tonight, we have a public hearing concerning 99 South Hill Drive. It's a sign program 2025-SR-01. It's in the TC-1 Crocker Park Trade Commercial District. This is an amendment to an adopted sign program to allow installation of 94.6 6 square foot of new building mounted non-illuminated signage resulting in 286 square foot of advertising signage on the property with a frontage of over 100 linear feet. Stanley McCarthy of S City SF is the applicant and South Hill 99 is the owner. Staff, may we have the presentation?

Yes, thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners. So, the applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to an adopted sign program uh for 99 South Hill Drive to add three new non-illuminated signs to the property and approve um replacement or refacing of existing signs uh for a new tenant at the site. Um the sign proposal uh shown here on the screen summarized in the staff report about 96 square feet of new signs non-illuminated um mounted at various points of the building for tenant unilo. Um this property is a site with multiple tenants and has a frontage of over 800 ft. So, it's eligible for a sign program, which is basically anytime there's signage on a property exceeding 100 square feet. And here's some more details of the proposed signs. And then there are proposals for refacing existing signs, which under the sign program requires only administrative approval by the planning director, but we're grouping it all together with this application. And here um so the staff also wants to note it's in the staff report as well. Um some of the signs have been already replaced or refaced. Um one new sign has already been installed that's proposed before you tonight. Um other signs on the property also been modified. at various times. Um so we do have a condition that we've added to the resolution to impose a penalty um for any signs that were installed without

planning approval required by the sign program. And those fees would be imposed either with a sign review permit that the director reviews or with building permits if the sign requires a building permit um at two times the sign application fee. Um in terms of the findings for approval, uh the application generally meets all required findings uh to adopt or amendign program uh in chapter 17.36 of the code. They're detailed in the staff report and I'll summarize them here. Um so the program does conform to the requirements of chapter 17.36 both in the requirement for a sign program. Um and of course with the sign program the overall size limitations do not apply to individual signs if the sign program prevails. Uh the proposal will comply with all code requirements um including requirements to obtain a building permit um where the sign will be mounted over six feet in height above grade. The proposed signs are consistent with the scale colors and materials of existing development on the site and in the vicinity. Um, you know, this is not a coordinated sign program like what we've started to see out at Sierra Point. Um, but again, for a multi-tenant site, um, the proposed signs are appropriate to the scale of the building and located appropriately to provide wayfinding to the sub the subject business. Um, and finally, the sign program as amended would be consistent with the general plan. There is no specific plan applicable to the property or PD permit, but we do have general plan policies encouraging um supporting our local business economy. Installing business signage is obviously one way to achieve that among others. Um, I'll conclude my staff report there and we are recommending conditional approval subject to the findings and

conditions outlined in the staff report and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. Um, any questions for staff? Commissioner Funko.

Um, I I had read through the uh material before and I I don't find anything objectionable here. I just have one sort of theoretical question here which is um the conditions or the um the basis for the evaluation always does seem to be somewhat subjective. It's like it's consistent with the needs for you know to finding your way around industrial park. I just wonder um what kind of um sign it would have to be for you not to recommend. I agree this one is completely unobjectionable. Well, how big would it have to be exactly or what would the character of it have to be for you to say this is one step too far?

I think it is kind of subjective and obviously it's hard to speculate, but if we're going to speculate, I would say, you know, if a tenant proposed a sign that took off a quarter of the building wall on a multi-tenant site, um, that would seem to be out of scale with the development. This is a two and three story scale building. It's like a reasonable person standard or something, I think. So, yes. Yes.

Um, in design, you know, from a design perspective, like the proposed signs are basically the tenants trademark or, you know, their logo mark. Um, so you know, we don't have a ton of wiggle room with um imposing like changes to, you know, if it's their text, you know, it's their font that they use, it's their logo that they use, that those are things that are not something the city typically can um require to be modified. So yeah, I think like the universe of what is unreasonable or not complimentary um is kind of you know it when you see it.

Yeah, you wouldn't have known driving by that this required any sort of review or anything. Um and then I wonder uh my second one was uh apparently here also some of the signs had been replaced without asking for permission. Uh, and is this something that someone in that position should have known? It's like, I'm going to do the sign. Oh, there's probably I have probably have to go see. So, what about this? Is that true? Like, they you should have known. They should have known.

So, this is a multi-tenant property. Um, you know, there's a property owner. Obviously, property owners are authorize any planning application. So, you know, certainly the property owner was aware uh in 2012 of the sign program um that applied and its requirements. Um the whether or not those requirements are being reflected in like lease terms. Um, I I would guess I cannot speak for the property owner, but I would guess generally a property owner might say that's up to my tenant um to ensure they're following all code requirements for improving the site. You know, just like they would need to get a building permit to do a tenant improvement and verify what code requirements might apply to that, but that is again kind of speculative. Um, the property owner is made aware and authorizes the application. they're made aware of action on the application and um as is the applicant who is working directly with the tenant.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Lao um my only question out of curiosity kind of standing on um question was just curious was the application for the for the signs. Was that was there a complaint about the you know the sign already brought up and no initiated this uh you know application? No. Um no they contacted the city in this case and said we would like to install new signs. What are the requirements? We directed them to the planning application and proceeded to process it. Okay. Commissioner Gring.

Yeah. Thank you. I I thought I I re I saw something in the materials about penalty being assessed for failure to have originally applied for permission. Is that correct? The penalty would apply to any signs that were not installed with planning approval as required by the sign program.

So, have these signs already been installed? Now, they're just asking for forgiveness. One of the proposed signs was installed. And let me see if I can navigate to that. Sign P2. Sign P2 is currently installed. This is an access gate. Um, going back to the loading docks. Um, these signs were not. And how did this come to to the staff did a site visit as we always do. Okay. and observed the condition. And I think I noted that there is a a penalty being assessed as a condition of approval of this. Is that correct?

Yes. For the yeah assessed on the building permit, it'll be twice the um signed fee. That's twice the usual permit application fee. Correct. Okay. This is one of the bees in my bonnet about permission versus forgiveness. I was glad to see that there was a penalty being assessed because clearly folks in this business know that there's rules about this and um so because that's one of the commission's approval, I will be inclined to to vote yes.

Okay. Thank you. Um I have no questions. So we'll now open the public hearing. Um is the applicant here? The applicant is not here. Okay. So, um well, without the applicant here, shall we still move forward or is this some a situation where we need to continue for their appearance? We're going to confer for a minute. Okay. Okay. Um, we can move forward without the applicant present uh to move on the application if you don't have any questions of the applicant that you feel are necessary to make your motion.

Okay. Um, well, let's uh let's see uh let's give the public an opportunity to speak. So, why don't um we uh set a 30 second timer. 30 seconds has elapsed. No one's raise your hand.

Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Also move. Okay. All in favor? I.

Okay. Motion is unanimous. Okay. Discussions. Um well, I think it's kind of unusual that the applicant is not here. Um, but I I think just based upon staff's report and what has been submitted, I I think we could unless anybody has any um comments, I I would think we can just move forward. Um, any comments? Um just a brief sort of policy addressed comment which is I u I appreciate that the staff does not have the power to enact or to impose any penalty stronger than that is provided in in the code. Um, as one of five, I I would at some point advocate for the council to take up the issue of, you know, when people, it seems like a significant proportion of the permit applications that we get current recently have been people getting caught rather than people coming to ask for something that is reasonable. I don't think these signs are unreasonable. I'm just disturbed by the pattern of not asking for approval but asking for, you know, for forgiveness on the back end. Um, you know, we we enforce the laws that exist and under the laws that exist. I don't see any reason to say no on this one. I'm just had my say and I'm I'm done. Thank you.

And to confirm with staff, so we are imposing the max penalty that we can on this applicant. No, I believe the code allows 10 times. Um, so yes, the code would allow a much higher fee to be imposed. Um, I we can't say when this sign was installed. Um, I I agree it's not

following the code to install a sign before the commission has approved it. But they did initiate this application three months ago or more um and have been diligently pursuing it. We're aware that your approval was required. So that's the background I can provide on it.

And you said that the penalty that staff had earlier said would be double two times. I mean, I would entertain because I think it's it's somewhat um I don't appalling that uh to have done what they did and to not show up tonight. So, I would not mind and if uh entertaining increasing that penalty, would anyone be opposed to five times instead of two? I mean, what's the absolute amount? I don't 10. She said 10 times. Oh, no. But like uh the size of the penalty. The size. What, Julie? What is the size of the penalty?

It would be the sign program application fee, which I'll have to verify, but I believe it's somewhere in the realm of $1,000. If you give me a moment, I can look it up. So, that's the application fee, and you're saying five times? Well, let's see. Let's see her. Uh Julie, can you confirm?

Yeah. So, the present fee for sign program amendment which one of the signs installed um or the sign the larger sign that was installed would have triggered that. It's a,000 $1,66. And so currently then staff would be imposing about a $2,000 penalty. Correct. And so if we increase any any thoughts on

is it is it um just you know is it at the discretion of the department to determine the amount of the penalty and can can the commission make suggestions or recommendations on you know such penalty fees? Um, let's pull up the code section so that we can see what the code actually says. Um, and we'll give you guys an update in a moment. Okay, thank you. Um, so we looked at our fee schedule, the city's master fee schedule, and the fee schedule contains a zoning violation penalty of 10 times the original fee.

Yeah. So I would the way we've interpreted it is that's a maximum. Um and you you know a zoning penalty could be assessed anything up to that maximum and we've suggested a two times penalty. Yeah. Um we did have a memo to you guys a month ago perhaps I think. uh some one of the meetings in July that addressed how we impose zoning violation fees. Um if we want to pull that up, may I ask for would you like us to pull that up so we can

that's that's well if you like but I have one other question is how in the the sort of process did this violation come to light and on whom is it being imposed? Is it only on the the tenant or on the owner or both? It would be on the applicant. So, who's representing the tenant? Um, we wouldn't be finding the owner in this situation. Thank you. I think through the chair, if I can expand a little bit, I think in a situation where there's been use violations on a site, there might be a clearer line in that type of situation to involve the property owner. Um but yeah, in this case it would be imposed on the applicant.

Okay. Does anyone have any thoughts on just um one question, was it communicated to the applicant, you know, that it might be a two times fine? Yes, the applicant was provided with a copy of the staff report. Um, so they're aware of it and we received nothing from the applicant contesting that.

Yeah, I would think uh if you would think if they had any concerns about the fine and wanted to plead their case, they would have showed up tonight um or show up regardless. So that doesn't seem to be a concern. Um so I'm I'm inclined to increase it. Um as to how much or you know recommend that that we do um you know if we're going to approve this um we we could through the chair we could continue it.

We could which would also allow the applicant a chance to respond um and you know we could bring back a revised resolution. Um, I think that is an option for you guys.

Well, I I mean I kind of think I mean we're all wasting our time here. I mean it's not like if something came up I would think they would have contacted staff that they couldn't be here for some reason but you know first they went on with their signage without informing the city and now they don't show up for their hearing. So I don't think we should continue it to give them an opport another another opportunity unless you know I don't see any good cause presented. So um I mean I I think we we keep we rather keep the penalty the same as staff is recommended but I think when staff recommended it we thought the applicant would be here. So um you know I'm I'm inclined to propose uh so it's currently double maybe triple maybe more. Um I'm open to thoughts.

I would agree with your initial five times which was half the Okay, Commissioner Funka. What about you?

Um I I don't object to increasing it. There is another part of you that says that since the applicant's already been told 2X, I'm not sure whether this is the one you want to make an example of. I wonder if the size of the penalty like the, you know, the multiple of the application fee that's something that should be kind of run by here depending on the e egregiousness or just by staff. We might we might have said um that it should be more upfront, you know, maybe not for this case, but for the last one. I think this is particularly mild. I could sort of imagine someone saying, "Hey, we need to refresh the signs." I could see it being an oversight that I can't get too excited about. I think last week's or the last meeting

removing 10 times the amount of dirt that seemed I think there was more there. There was more dirt there that might have warranted not just the twofold But a tfold or fivefold, but maybe the size of the penalty should be should be discussed before it's communicated. That's one. But I I I agree with your point. But at least they showed up. They were here trying to explain and plead their case. And you know, um so that that I could, you know, um empathize a little bit. I I I I just think just not showing up or or advising staff at all. I I'm not quite sure what that is about. So, um So, we're kind of So, it's kind of a no-show penalty

in addition to no show, but I think it adds to the initial um flagrance in terms of just ignoring because I think staff said they were aware that they had a duty to advise staff that they wanted to make these changes to the sign, but they went ahead and did it. So, to me, this is two strikes on them. The first strike, they did it without telling anyone. the second strike to not even show up at your own hearing, you know. Um, so I Yeah, good. What What about you?

I I don't have a a hard line about how much it should be. I I just think we should increase some somewhat to just to to begin making the point that that, you know, violations of of the rules have have consequences. Um um if we're going to increase it substantially, it might be appropriate to give them a chance to to appear. Um as a practical business matter, I suspect they saw the penalty and said, "Well, we can live with that, so we're not going to contest it."

Well, let's say if Julia, if we were to, let's say, increase the penalty five times, they I mean, they could appeal it, right? So that would be the natural step that they could do. Correct. They could submit an appeal and go to the city council.

Right. So I mean why if let's say we continued this and then they came what do you envision what what happened at you know at that you know I mean would we I don't know what explanation I think they could offer that I would say okay you know we'll we'll take it back down to two you know I don't because then it would just be kind of wasting all of our time to continue it for I I I can't imagine what the excuse would be. I mean, I think either we either keep it at two times, but if you know, if we're going to increase it, go ahead and increase it. And there's a process for them to appeal. I think that's their opportunity, not another, not a continuence.

Do we um Is there a state of mind thing here? I'm just curious. You said something that the applicant knew that they had a responsibility. Staff said that that they knew what the rules were. it. Yeah, go ahead. Looks like you're about to say something.

Well, sorry. I thought Commissioner Funko was saying one thing, but then Commissioner Saison clarified um in terms of the applicant being aware of the requirement to obtain planning approval and building permit approval in some cases before installing the sign. Um yes, that's accurate. you know, when they reached out to staff and asked what the process was, shared that process, prompted them to submit their application. So, like I said, I'm not sure when I can't say when the sign installation occurred. All we know is that it was there as of a week ago. Um, one of the signs, sign P2.

That's that seems important to me, too, because that's just that seems more willful in a way. I just thought it was someone hanging It's like, oh, I didn't need the permit. Which I know ignorance is not an excuse. Ignorance is law. But in this case, it's like it wasn't even ignorance. It was willful. Like, we knew and we did it anyway. So, that makes me more inclined to go along with what you're

Yeah, that's that's why I was thinking this is their second strike because they also knew they had a hearing tonight and they should appear and they just don't show up without notifying anyone. So I I think to what Commissioner Gooding was saying too, I think, you know, it's at some point we need to kind of let applicants understand that there's consequences to action and I think we need to also when we make our decisions think about a a deterrent effect, right? I mean I think there's a message that needs to be sent that, you know, folks can't keep on thinking that they can violate the code and uh we'll just let it slide. So, so um I think I I suggested five times. I think Commissioner Laauo said he was uh open to that as well. Um how about

I I will I will move that the conditions of approval be amended to provide for a a penalty of five times the normal permit application fee. Um and to otherwise approve the um approve the what is this? Uh I could uh move adoption of the resolution. Yeah. Thank you. With the modification to the conditions. Thank you. And uh second. I'll second. Okay. All in favor? I I

Okay. Um the motion passes. Uh with those conditions stated, I will now read the appeals process. Anyone may appeal the action of the planning commission to the city council except where specified otherwise. Appeal shall be filed with the city clerk not later than 15 calendar days following the commission's decision. Exceptions include appeals for use permits and variances which are six days and tentative maps and advertising sign applications which are 10 days. An application form and fee are required. For assistance, you may contact the city clerk at 415-5082110. Okay. Next is items initiated by staff. All right. Uh thank you. We have an item tonight to introduce our planning intern. Um Daniel has been with us since July. Um he's doing wonderful work helping us with a lot of research data analysis. He also has assisted with staff reports as you may have seen his name on the

um on the author's list for tonight's staff report. So, we did just want to introduce him to you all. Um he will be back at the September 11th commission meeting um to assist and probably present um on a workshop scheduled for that date. So, you will see more of him. Great. We're very happy. Welcome, Daniel. Welcome. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you, commissioners.

Okay. Okay. Anything else, Julia? Um, we did have one question that was perhaps a repeat of conversations we've had before, but we wanted to take another temperature check and see if it's helpful for the commissioners to receive calendar invitations for these meetings. um we don't always send them out and we're trying to gauge if if we really do need to do that uh for every scheduled meeting or if you guys are able to manage the calendar through other means I don't need it. Um I I kind of like it. I look it shows up, you know, so I I certainly don't um doesn't hurt

don't mind receiving them actually. And we didn't get one for tonight, I guess, because it's not here. Yeah. Okay. It would it would never hurt. Okay. Okay. That is helpful. Yeah. Thanks for having Thank you. Yeah. Okay. There's um Oh, I'll say the ADU ordinance is scheduled for next Thursday's council meeting for introduction first reading and I think that's it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next is items initiated by the commission. Um do any commissioners would like to say anything or add anything? Okay. Okay. Well, then um

I just we've sort of every time the last meetings we've been one short, so I I haven't pushed it. It's not that big a deal, but we should at some point revisit the the time of our meetings to see what really is like the most the least inconvenient for everybody. Um but since I think I think at their last meeting, Commissioner Patel said he preferred this time. I think everybody else was okay, but he preferred Yeah. this time. So yeah, because earlier is bad then then never mind.

Okay. Okay. Well, thank you everyone. Then I will adjourn uh our meeting until the next regular meeting of September 11th, 2025. [Music]