Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Meeting of the Brisbane Planning Commission will now come to order. Staff, please call the role. Yes. Commissioner Funka. Commissioner Laauo. Commissioner Gooding here and Chair Seasan here. And no further record that Commissioner Patel is absent tonight.

Thank you. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda, please? Those in favor? I I motion is unanimous. Consent calendar. There are none for tonight. So, we will move on to oral communications. If anyone wishes to address the commission concerning items not on tonight's agenda, you may do so now. I see no one in the audience. So, staff, can you um please display the call information and set a timer for one minute? And while we're waiting, does anyone want to remove an item from the consent calendar? No. Okay. All right, 60 seconds has passed. I have no raised hands. Okay, thank you. Um, see, may I have a um motion? Oh, no. Well, yeah. May I have a motion to adopt the consent calendar? I mean, may motion to adopt the um through the chair. You do not need a motion for That's right. Okay. I'm getting confused. Thank you. Okay. And we're now moving to written communications. We received one correspondence from uh Brisbane resident Michelle Salmon

regarding item C concerning a northeast ridge. Um next is new business. Tonight we have a public hearing concerning 2000 Sar Point Parkway sign review 2025-SR-02 and variance 2025-V01 is the SP-CRO district. David Ford is the applicant. HCP Life Science R Inc. REIT Inc. is the owner. Staff, may we have the presentation? Yes. Thank you. Good evening, chair and commission. Uh the applicant is requesting approval of sign review and variance to the sign standards of the Cole Center Sierra Point building mounted signage standards. I will refer to those as the sign program in this presentation. The request is required to allow a building mounted internal internally illuminated sign that exceeds the maximum vertical dimension sign area and limit on lines of text in the sign program. So the excuse me um the sign would be mounted to the mechanical penthouse screen at the southeasterly side of the building at 2000 Sierra Point Parkway replacing the existing biomarin sign. Uh the business name Vera Therapeutics would be shown in two lines of text. The sign height would be 9 ft. The length would be just under 35 feet, resulting in a sign area of just over 312 square feet. The inter internally illuminated sign uh would consist of 5- in aluminum channel letters with white acrylic facing overlaid with two shades of blue perforated vinyl. So the sign program establishes standards for sign size vertical and horizontal dimensions um for three zones in Sierra Point. This is um to ensure that signs are roughly

uniform in appearance from highway 101 regardless of how close the building is to the highway. Uh 2000 SR point is in zone 2 of this uh program. Um so the SR point sign program requires variances for any deviation from its requirements. There is an exception to that. Um it allows exceptions for hotel uses to allow two lines of text and to exceed the maximum sign size and vertical dimensions. That was an amendment to the sign program um that was processed over 10 years ago. But again, it only applies to hotel uses. Any other uses are limited to um a variance request in order to allow the deviations. So um in terms of the um compliance with findings for approval, um the application would comply for the variance. The commission must find that the approval would be subject to conditions to asssure that they're not issuing a grant of special privilege that's inconsistent with the limits on other properties in the neighborhood. Uh the commission must also find that there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property um such that strict application of the sign programs requirements would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Um, in this case, the property's distance from the highway combined with the two-line company logo warrants special circumstances to justify granting the variance. Strict application of the maximum vertical dimension and total sign area in the sign program would deprive the subject property the privilege of having tenant signs that are clearly legible from view corridors on Highway 101 as other properties in the vicinity enjoy. Um, the business Vera Therapeutics has not provided evidence that its logo is trademarked. Uh however, the two lines of text are clearly integral to its corporate identity and appear in all its all of its public facing materials. Redesigning the sign to contain a single

line of text would require letter sizes to be significantly reduced in order to comply with the maximum horizontal dimension in the sign program and this would impede legibility from the highway. Um, it would also result in a sign that was visibly out of scale um with other signs on surrounding properties and that would contradict the purpose of the sign program to ensure that signs are uniformly um um of scale when viewed from the highway regardless of how close they are. And finally, because the variance would be subject to the recommended conditions of approval in the draft resolution, uh approving the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. Uh the commission has approved some um similar requests in the past. We listed those in the staff report for reference. And then in terms of the applicable sign review findings, um the application would be all of them that are applicable to this application. The design of the sign would complement the building and um and that of the Sier Point neighborhood. The blue sign colors would be consistent with the color palette permitted by the sign program and would contrast attractively with the white building finish. Uh the letter sizing is also appropriate app appropriately scaled to the size of the mechanical penthouse it would be mounted to. Uh the sign would be internally illuminated and would not produce glare or uh otherwise constitute a public nuisance. Uh and I'll note the conditions of approval require that the building permit plans show compliance with the dark sky ordinance which regulates outdoor lighting including illuminated signs. Um, with that, staff is recommending conditional approval of the application um, subject to the findings and conditions in the draft resolution. And I'm happy to take any questions at this time. Okay. Thank you. Um, any questions for staff? I just had a a question. How um, you know, for these variances, for these signs, how did the company come up with the

dimensions, you know, the 9 feet. Is that was that a proposal or did they ask for some guidance in terms of like determining the height or the just the size? Sure. Like did did staff consult with Yeah. Um I think well yes. I mean staff was consulted early on in this process. They applied for a building permit. Um, so there was back and forth conversation about what the sign program required and what they wanted to achieve with their signage, which again is primarily a legible sign that's of similar scale to others in Sierra Point. And so that that is ultimately what's driving the applicant's proposal and the the vertical dimension they're um requesting approval for. And it's to accommodate their two lines of text um for the business name. So I mean um that nine so there's no calculation or there is probably some calculation of like because the other variances were like 11 ft but is there some you know maximum or just well I suppose the way to frame it would be that you know this is the the height that they feel achieves their goals of having a legible sign um from 101. Yes. other signs approved in the past were much taller. Um, and I can't recall at the moment if that was in a similar zone um to this one. Um, so and the applicant is is here in the Zoom and and he can probably address that a little bit more uh when they make their remarks to you. Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, through the chair. Is your mic on? Sorry. Is your mic on? Um the it makes total sense to me and the artist rendition that you showed of the sign that says yeah it's legible and

it's not offensive compared to the others. It looks pretty normal. Um I guess what they could have done in theory is just shrunk it to a size that does conform, right? And then we would have had to or they would have had to make the argument, well, if we do that because there's two lines, you just can't read it from 101. Something like that. They don't. That's essentially what the staff report the findings that are discussed in the staff report address that you know in order to reduce the in order to have the sign with two lines of text representing the business name um comply with the standards and the sign program. It would have to be the letters would have to be considerably smaller and just Yeah. Okay. Yep. I no no questions. Okay. Commissioner Goodink, any questions? Okay. So, we'll open the public hearing. Um, would the applicant like to speak? Um, yes. We have the applicant, David Ford. I'm going to allow him to address the commission. Okay, David, you should be able to unmute. Okay, that Yes, we can hear you. Okay, great. Uh, hi, my name is David Ford. I'm the applicant. Um, and uh, I don't really have a lot to add. I mean, the staff report was very thorough. Um, we appreciate all the help that Julia has given us on this project. We've had a lot of back and forth. Um, so I'm happy to answer any questions uh, about the sign, but I don't really have anything else to present or to add to it. Okay. Thank you. Uh, do any of the commissioners have a question for Mr. Ford? I don't either. Thank you, Mr. Ford. Okay. Um, Julia, why don't we um set a maybe a 30 second timer to see if anyone wants to call in? Sure. Let me get the slides up with the number.

Okay, great. And I've started a timer as well. And I'm sorry, how long was that for? 30 seconds. 30 seconds. Okay. Okay, 30 seconds has passed. I see no fans or calls. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Also move. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. Okay. Discussion. Um, any comments or discussions from anyone? Okay. Yeah, I I think it's pretty straightforward. Uh everything that's in the staff report that was presented, I think it was done very well, and I'll entertain a motion. I would move to adopt the resolution proposed by staff, including the the findings included in exhibit A to that resolution. Okay. In a second. A second. Okay. All in favor? I. Okay. Motion is unanimous. 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 415-508-2110.

Next on the agenda is review of the general plan conformity 2025-GPC-1 concerning the city's proposed acquisition of property within the Brisbane acres. Staff, may we have the presentation? Yes. Uh, thank you. This item is for the planning commission to adopt a general plan conformity resolution declaring that the city's proposed acquisition of five properties within the Brisbane acre sub area which are identified in the agenda report is in conformance with the city's general plan. A general plan conformity resolution is required by the government government code prior to the city's acquisition of land. In this case, all five parcels are located within the Brisbane acre sub area, which has a low density residential designation of zero to two housing units per acre. The general plan land use element also in uh designates a minimum of 40% of the land area to be in open space. That's a minimum for property to be dedicated to open space. Land would have to be publicly owned. Consistent with that general plan goal, the city has been making efforts on an ongoing basis to acquire properties within the Brisbane acres. This is primarily for endangered species butterfly habitat protection, but open space provides other benefits as well. To date, 48 sites have within the Brisbane acres have been acquired for establishment of open space. This is consistent also with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP. The HCP was established in 1982 to address preservation of habitat for protection of endangered butterfly species and that's consistent with the

Endangered Species Act. The area of the HCP includes the entirety of the Brisbane acres and extends beyond the Brisbane city limits into San Bruno Mountain State and County Park and also wraps around the city to the north. The city's acquisition of parcels in the Brit Spain acres in recent years and this proposed acquisition of the subject parcels is consistent with the general plan. It's consistent both with minimum of 40% of the lands to be in open space and with general plan policies 81, 90, and 91 which were outlined in your agenda report. And those essentially call for identifying and acquiring lands for open space. Also, this the housing element has goals, policies, and programs for development of a significant number of homes during this uh housing cycle. None of the five subject parcels were included in that the inventory of anticipated development sites and that's due to their very low low likelihood for possible development. Um they have various constraints including lack of nearby infrastructure, roads, utilities also very steep slopes and the location of these lots within the HCP. Although city council has not made a final determination to acquire these parcels, it has indicated an intent to do so. They have scheduled next Thursday to consider this matter. So in cla closing, staff recommends adoption of the general plan resolution uh 2025 GPC1. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Ken. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Funka? A question for clarification, not I

think it's a great idea. I'm wondering so are these were these acres in private hands and are they just acquired at fair market value or something like that without having no know the value at all. I'm just wondering what the what the background is in that respect. I I don't know details on pricing except I understand I think it was included in the staff report that four of the parcels would be purchased. one of the parcels would be donated to the city and I understand historically that the city has offered essentially fair market value for these types of parcels which would not be comparable to a parcel for instance in central Brisbane that has development potential. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Laauo, just kind of few questions. Um do you know in general do um private sellers or parties you know um just ask the city you know if they're interested in purchasing this or is the city like act you know actively searching for empty lots question this I think it could go both ways but I think the city has actively been pursuing parcels and this has been the case really since the 1994 general plan and that's why we have so many parcels already acquired as we've act actively pursued these kind of parcels and in part of the general plan if they acquire you know certain properties um is there a time frame where you know the city is like uh has to hold those properties before cons like considering selling them because you know there are some properties that are adjacent to these properties that the city sold you know

um to a developer just a few years ago. I'm I'm not sure about a a holding period, but I I think those parcels that you're you're thinking of were or a separate separate matter. Yeah. Um the parcels that you're thinking of up on off of uh San Bruno Avenue were prior uh Brisbane Housing Authority properties and those were acquired from a private owner specifically by the housing authority to potentially develop housing that ended up not being feasible for the housing authority to do and we ended up selling them to um a private developer that those sites were not acquired for open space. So that that wouldn't that couldn't with these because these are sort of whatever in perpetuity like open space or something or habitat conservation, right? They I'm sure they would have deed restrictions and yes, the the intent is really for these to be in open space and uh three of the five are very deep into the Brisbane acres, the upper Brisbane acres. two are a little bit further uh down the mountain, if you will, but but they're still contiguous with other open space parcels that the city has purchased. So, it it really just extends the city's acquisitions of open space with the intent that yes, they would be in open space in per perpetuity and not be sold. And is there a you know mentioned there's a goal or percentage of you know open that the city would like to acquire as part of the general plan. Are we, you know, around 40 something like percent like that? Is there are we is the city close to, you know, um do you know if they're somewhat close to that goal or percent?

This is just eyeballing the map and I'd say we're probably pretty close to that, but I I haven't taken a a measurement of that. And again, the intent is for it to be a minimum. So, so it's good news if we could go over that. All in favor? Thank you, Commissioner Gooding. Okay. Um, I don't have any questions. So, um, let's open it up for uh, public comment. Um, how about we set a timer for one minute. 10 seconds. Sorry, I have no hands. Okay, thank you. Okay. Um, unless we have any further discussions, can I have a motion regarding whether to

adopt the general plan conformity resolution? Should we close the public? It's not a public hearing. We can just um we allow for public comment but since there isn't any um we can just unless we want to have further discussions you know we could um take a motion. I'll move to adopt the uh general plan resolution as framed by staff including the findings therein. A second all in favor I Okay. Thank you. Next is items initiated by staff. Um there are none tonight. Okay. Thank you. And moving on to items initiated by the commission. So we have two items. The first is minor modifications of single family homes at the northeast ridge. And before we begin, in the interest of transparency, I want to disclose that I live at Landmark at the rich and staff advises that they consulted with the city attorney and my recusal is not required since this is an agenda item that isformational only. Okay. Staff, can you give us an overview of your report? Yes, thank you. The planning commission initiated item was agendaized to in response to a Brisbane resident raising concern about the zoning administrator's approval of minor modifications for single family homes at the Northeast Ridge. The Northeast Ridge is a planned development and is located within the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan area. It was approved for development through the city's approval of planned development, design, and vesting tenative map permits and consists of 499 housing units. Those

were developed from the 1990s up to about 2015. There are three areas of the northeast ridge. Each is a common interest development with HOAs responsible for enforcing the CCNRs. The final phase of development was a single family homes at Landmark at the ridge in the area where the applications for minor modifications have been filed. The concerns that were raised appear to stem from the zoning administrator's approvals of applications for certain U-shaped homes to enclose that interior courtyard, the inside of the U, resulting in approximately 200 square feet being added to those homes. The assertions have been made that the the CCNRs do not allow for expansion of the homes. also that such additions alter storm water flow creating hazardous soil conditions and the resident also indicated concern about the potential impacts to the butterfly species in the area as indicated in staff's memo minor modification approvals to design permits and plan developments by the zoning administrator are permitted in the municipal code also the authority to approve approved minor modifications is further provided in the conditions of approval for the north northeast ridge development. With that vested authority, the zoning administrator has heard four applications for minor mods. Um, and these date back to the first was in 2007. Three of them were for expansion of the floor area for those U-shaped homes, essentially identical um applications. And then one was for covering part of a

patio. And the first was uh at Huckleberry Court and it was appealed to the planning commission back in 2007 and the commission upheld the zoning administrator's decision to approve the application. Um there was no no appeals filed for the other three applications. A copy of that 2007 report to the planning commission for 10 huckleberry court was provided for this commission along with the minutes from that time. Um as I mentioned the commission upheld the zoning administrator's decision in 2007 seven. The details are provided in your memo, but um essentially the conclusions to come away with are that minor modifications are permitted at the northeast ridge. The CCNARS do not prohibit the expansion of floor area. Uh regarding storm water flow, the applications were reviewed by the city engineer, the public works director, and no no exceptions were raised. Um all four of the modifications are already on de developed sites and um not within the conserved habitat areas. So there's no impacts there. So if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them or you can have discussion among yourselves. Thank you. Thank you Ken. So yes uh and we did as I mentioned earlier received a written uh communication from Brisbane resident Michelle Sam and uh it was her concern um regarding the definition of what constitutes minor modifications you know which which allows the zoning administrator to make these uh uh decisions um rather than it coming before the planning commission first. So

that was her concern and you know it it I do have concerns as well but first I' I'd like to ask my fellow commissioners if they have any questions first. Commissioner Gidding and one for clarification um and I think I I read it and I just want to make it clear for the record. Did this applicant run this proposal through the HOA for that project and get the approval from that HOA? Yes. All all four of those applications got HOA approval and we require those letters to be provided to the city. Thank you. I I I should also disclose along with u my fellow uh commissioner that I live at Viewpoint at the ridge which is not the same development and but is subject to some of the same strictures as as Landmark and Altimar. Um it's a different different animal in terms of how how they're set up but we all should know that. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Funka, any questions? Um, by only one, but the history seems very clear. Um, I wonder if there is uh there does seem to be some discretion in the definition of minor and I wonder if there is um, you know, to to what Michelle Simon asked, is there an increase in floor area that would exceed like oh well this is no longer minor? Is that an objective thing? Because every it does seem to be subjective in some ways, right? Like what what min are objective, right? So the municipal code this is uh chapter or section 175690 provides that a minor modification means up to 20% reduction in yard area which essentially and this was brought up at the planning commission in ' 07. Um the director addressed that at that time

that reduction in yard area essentially is is the same as expansion of the house. And so actually that confused me a little bit up to 20% reduction that is reduction in the open space on the lot or something. It seems to me it reads seems a little counter it it reads a little backwards I I think but is um reduction in the yard area essentially you're increasing the size of the house to reduce the yard so it's it's specific to that to that okay so there is basically I think what you're saying now that I understand it there is an objective definition of what constitutes minor correct and this satisfied that right okay it well under that. It's uh these are large lots. Um the the one in question on the um appeal was over 12,000 square foot lot and with a 200 square foot addition. I understand. Thank you, Commissioner Laauo. Okay. So my question is um I I think Miss Salmon did bring up some good points as to the definition of what constitutes minor modifications um you know and she gave some definitions as to what is considered minor in terms of in you know construction in California and um and it usually doesn't deal with structural changes like significant ificant because I and and and I think if you looked at an individual property and you looked at, you know, the request to enclose their outdoor deck or patio, if you look at it, you know, and it's debatable, but I think,

okay, let's say one applicant, they're asking to enclose their outdoor space, and whether that could be deemed minor or not, structural or not, that's that's one issue for me. But then I think the other question becomes and and I was looking at the um the staff report from 2007 when this was first brought up. uh the commissioners raised the same concerns that well what if in the future we get more applications like this and you know this is a planned development and they had a certain vision for it and um what if all the homeowners there I think it's 88 homes wanted to enclose their deck or patios and you know so far we've granted three applications so at what point then does minor modification if you look at it cumitively becomes major because, you know, it's possible we could get to a point where a third of the homes want to enclose their outdoor space and then we're going to get to a point where um do we ever tell an applicant? No. Because then we have set a precedent. Well, we've granted a third of your neighbors the right to enclose their space, so how can we do that to you? But then what if are we going to grant it to all of them where it changes the nature of that neighborhood where these huge homes without any outdoor space? They're like these huge blocks. I mean, we're where essentially and and that wasn't this is a planned development and that wasn't the the intent at the time. and and and while you know I I'm I'm all for I think addressing each applicant's um proposal individually, I am not sure if this is something that

should go to the zoning administrator versus coming before the commission which would allow people I think more opportunity um for notice for discussion to give time you know time for people and neighbors to absorb what's going on because you know I mean when the zoning administrator approved these three uh applications and I remember getting a notice of that and I think the planning commission gets is it seven or 10 days to review whether you know they want to appeal that and um and I don't know if that's enough time for us to really you know to have to consider that and also for the public. So that's my only concern is is one the definition of minor because I I I I do have a concern whether this is a minor modification and two you know I think something like this should should come before the commission rather than you know um to go first to the zone administrator. I I did some really quick math about this. It's a 200 square foot enclosure of sort of U-shaped space. Um on a 20 12,000 foot lot, it's a 1.6% change or reduction in the yard space. Um I I would venture to say that if every building, every structure in the development wanted a ask for a 1.6% 6% reduction in their yard space. I'm hardressed to say that that rises above the definition of a minor modification. U that seems to me almost the definition of a minor modification. Um I I think we're we're stuck with stuck

with we are faced with whatever that the ordinance defines as that the um discretion and scope of the zoning administrator to make certain decisions. That's what the law is. Um but um I'm hardressed in this instance to say that that's um not a minor modification. Okay. under the circumstance of this particular case. And even if you apply to the the entire development, it's 1.6 of the entire development. Um, and if every structure, every lot is subject to the same um criteria of what is minor or not based on this 20% issue, um, they're way below that level. I I think um, sorry. Okay. One one more paragraph. when they're asking for variances, I think, you know, we we do on a case- by case basis. But I think our responsibility is say, well, what if this became, you know, rampant, what if it got, you know, if it went projectwide for this particular kind of change, this particular kind of modification. Um, my my two cents worth is as one of five, one of four. And I um it doesn't just doesn't rise to the level that that really, you know, sets off warning bells or or red flags to me. Um and I guess if if you put it that way, 1.6 percentage, it seems small, but I guess I I guess I would like to see a visual. I would like to see the home, you know, and um I would like to see that once it's enclosed, how would it look? And I would like to see maybe a rendition of let's see if a third of the homes how they appear now if they were all enclosed to that extent what it would look like you know so it's that's why it's I I'm not saying I would be posted or or not but I just think it's something that maybe should come before

the commission so that we could really take time to reflect and um and and I don't know I mean you know I would like to hear from an expert I mean if if a certain amount of homes were to enclose their outdoor space, would it affect uh would it affect water flow in that neighborhood? I don't know. I would love to hear, you know, someone comment on that. So, that was my concern. Um, anyone else? Um just prompted by uh by uh Commissioner Saison's comments, I'm wondering um let's say that the approval of uh of things like this minor modifications falls in the purview um uh of the uh you know the person who could approve it without coming in front of the commission. But we there is a concern that it changes the character of the development which I think is your concern. If everyone did it, does it change the character? Who's um whose concern is that? Is that the HOA's concern? Like who who's in charge of the overall appearance of a planned community? Isn't that the people who live there? Does that is the planning commission concern? I'm just wondering about that. What is our interest in the character of plan development like the rich? Well, I think I think with a lot of things, you know, sure the HOA would have to approve it, but I think practically speaking, um, when we all get notices about things like this, who really looks at it or who really has time? So that's why I think if they were given a form a notice and a form a form to come before the commission I think that's just a little bit more opportunity rather than I don't know um if they get mailed letters or emails about what's being proposed and I don't

know who really looks at those. So you know it's it's just more about just I think notice and opportunity was was the issue for me. May I add one more point? I it's a good point that that that rule made I think is is what you know what interest does the city or this commission have in this particular decision process and I I think I I would suggest that the interest of the city or this commission and planning department um as respect to these developments which were you know controversial in their day and and had a lot of public debate around them was not solely but largely the environmental impact of of these developments on the surrounding habitat on San Bruno Mountain on the HCP program. Um, and so I I would suggest that that's probably what should be the focus of this commission um when we choose or or debate whether or not to um uh in intrude on the decision-making process of the voting administrator. Um you know, when and why and how do we do we do that? And is this one of those cases? Um, there are pictures, by the way, there are renderings, by the way, in the in the file of what the change would look like. Um, very broadly, it's like a U-shaped structure. And they're taking the little inside of the U and enclosing that. Um, and as I understood it, it makes no impact on the slab because it's the front, the entrance to the place is slab anyway, and it's just basically putting windows and walls around that slab. So, I I suspect that there's no water issues or it would have been pointed at. Um, and I'm I'm not advocating for the homeowner here. I'm just trying to to apply whether this kind of application triggers the kinds of concerns

that the city has above and beyond what the HOA would have um in terms of of the strictures that were put on these developments in the first place, which were largely primarily not solely, but primarily about environmental impacts. Um and that seems that seems objective to me. It's like not so much the character as like you could demonstrate that if everyone did this, it would have a significant impact on something that you could model that that would make sense. Can I ask staff? So, um throughout the city, um if any home in the city were to request the same modifications, it would go directly to the zoning administrator. No, this this this procedure applies to design permits and planned developments, but most homes can make an addition of various sizes as long as they fit within the the development regulations. So, if you had a 2,000 square foot home, um, say a 5,000 square foot lot, you can, and this is in the R1, you have a 772 F, you can increase that to 3600 square feet. I I see. So because this is this is only an issue because this was a plan development and they were there was a certain vision in place and now subsequently certain applicants want to change. Okay, understood. Okay. Um well um any other comments? Okay, then let's open it up to see uh if uh anybody uh would like to call in and comment on this issue.

Um, how much time would you like to give? Uh, let's do a minute. Okay. Just FYI, I don't have any attendees um in the meeting right now. So, anyone watching on YouTube or on TV can call the number on the screen 10 seconds. Okay. Okay. Um, a minute has passed. No one is wishing to address the commission. Okay. Well, thank you. Um Okay. So, there's no more discussion on this issue, then um we will just move on to the next one. Okay. The next item on the agenda is uh Brisbane Municipal Municipal Code Violations and Code Enforcement. Um staff, can we have an overview of your report? Uh yes. Good evening, commissioners. Um the commission previously requested a u update on how the city processes code violations in terms of binding and penalty opportunities and what can be levied. Uh the little memo we put together outlines those particular

penalties. Um I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have regarding the memo. Okay. Um anyone want to start? Commissioner Funka. Any questions? Commissioner Lao. Um so there's one there's one member that I mean one one person that um checks these violations right and does followup I take it is that yes we have a code enforcement officer. Yes. And um so like if somebody reported you know a violation anonymously or whatever the website or in person and that officer goes out and you know inspects um you know that whatever is occurring. Um is there usually what's what's the process like afterwards? Like they usually do some followup you know depending on what the infraction was if there was a violation and um you know those parties have to go to city hall to submit a permit or you know or is there some followup like you know officer go you know return after a few months to see you know if anything's you know changed uh yes there is followup typically if it's I mean it's going to depend whether it's ephemeral whether it's an activity that is like an immediate nuisance will be treated differently than something that's illegal construction or an illegal use that occupies property over time. But for those which are primarily building and zoning, which is the ones we see most often, typically um the property owner and potentially business operator operator are given a notice to correct. They're given 10 days to take action to to abate the um violation. Um, assuming the code enforcement officer has identified a violation has

occurred, that means they need to file a permit application. If they do take the proper steps to abate the violation, any sort of enforcement action is stayed until they go through a process. If they fail to to uh respond or take timely action to resolve the violation, then they will move on to a citation phase and they can be cited. And then there's uh in the municipal code there's a graduated scale for citations. If they fail to to act, you know, we can do multiple citations and the fee of each citation increases over time. Thanks. So I assume that since there weren't any citations issued like in the past year or or longer that um any you know violations were met in a timely process. I think that was on in the context of planning. Yeah, I would I wouldn't say there have been no violations or no citations issued. That would be there very few maybe relative to the number of cases that are initiated, but I would not say that all cases are abaded without citation. Thank you, Commissioner Gooding. Okay, so So I understand from staff's report that um even in 2005 we've had some serial violators um you know and they're given I guess warnings and um whatnot and then I guess ultimately they're in compliance but there's been no penalties issued against any of the serial violators this year. Correct.

That's my understanding. Ken, I know you had an applicant, a planning applicant. Maybe you could speak to that particular case from Industrial Way, I believe. Yes. Um, industrial way, you heard that use permit recently, which was essentially what the impetus for this report is. and and following that meeting, staff sent a notice to the property owner to essentially put them on notice that that the city would be um charging an additional fee. We let them know that we could charge up to 10 times and and we won't necessarily start at that, but if they continue in a pattern that it would be accelerated and so it could be a substantial fee that their that their prospective tenants would presumably bear the brunt of that, but it's their you know, we we don't know what tenants are coming in until after the fact, but they can communicate directly with their prospective tenants that they need to make sure they have all applications in in place and and relay that information. So, they have been put on notice. I guess I guess my other question is, you know, when um when applications come before the commission and we put conditions of approval in it and I guess there's an expectation that the applicant will meet those conditions. So, but it seems that unless whatever is being violated is significant enough or impacts health and safety, the approach of the city is to

not really issue um any penalties um you know, even even after multiple violations, I guess. So, I So, I'm having a little problem trying to um to just kind of You're the chair. Could you just clarify? I'm not sure what your what your assertion is right there. Well, I mean, okay. We're violating their conditions of approval routinely or regularly. Yeah. So, so if someone violates a condition of approval, so based upon staff's report, it says unless it's it's affects the health and safety of uh the city or the resident. Um, usually these are, you know, they'll get warnings or if they do a second or third, I think violation. Um, we're not really going to impose penalties. Well, I mean, I guess we're talking about two different things. Penalties are typically related to activities to correct the violation. You have a violation. I'm going to file. I need a permit to correct this violation. The penalty comes to the permit fee. That's where the the the penalty comes in. Instead of charging a regular building permit fee or planning permit fee, you can charge 2x or 3x or up to 10x of the permit. That doesn't absolve them of the need to cure the cure the violation. They still have to have a citation. Maybe they got a warning and if they move forward in due diligence to pursue remediating or correcting the violation, they will not receive a citation. Because again, the point of the city's enforcement program to date has been to

achieve compliance, not necessarily to to collect fines from people. encouraging compliance and that's that's been the city's historic strategy of obtaining compliance. But if people fail to comply, then they're subject to fines, enforcement fees, citations, that's not quite sure. And if we're talking about planning permits, I mean, obviously Google's has its own history as we all recall the Google busyard. That's I think a very unique one project to issues of non-compliance. And I think as we're well aware from processing that permit, there were opportunities to tighten some of the planning procedures to ensure that people can't just wiggle around in terms of what the conditions say versus what they've received approval for. you know, so those procedures have been tightened internally among the department. Okay. In response to what happened at Google. Yeah, I think Yeah, I think that came to my mind because I remember they had to come before us uh a few times because I think they were not complying with the conditions we put in I think for certain route they had to follow or certain operating hours. I mean, I don't recall it all, but I do remember there were repeat violations. So and you know at that time I felt like as a commission you know thinking well what do we do in that situation where you know someone you know continues to violate the conditions you know um well I mean I think the big club the commission always retains on a discretionary permit is that permit can be revoked and they will be required to cease operations and that's that's in any discretionary permit that the

commission has control over that would be the nuclear option if a project is a habitual violator create any sort of unacceptable health safety violations. That would be that would be the commission's club to deal with those sort of operations and and the staff feels that this is this is the preferred approach. I guess I I mean I'm assuming um we have to hire people to uh check for code violations and this and that and the city has to you know spend money doing this. So um is there any thought to well we should try to recoup some of that you know expense from people who are violating and start you know implementing these fines. But I mean that's probably a council polic policy decision if they want to take a different code enforcement tact. Um you know obviously that could have implications that they are not been thought through in terms of what you do to um because you have issues of people who make innocent mistakes. They're unfamiliar with city rules and regulations and you know so there's always going to be that issue of the city wants to come down really hard on everybody all the time. Well, that's certainly the council's policy and prerogative. Um, what are they really what is the city's end goal with the compliance and code enforcement program? Is it to achieve compliance or is it a revenue stream? And I don't certainly so to date the city's taken the position that it's to encourage and get people to comply with regulations, not punish them necessarily. Okay. Thank you, John. Any other questions?

I can just This is more of a comment than a question, I guess. Um, I take your point, John, that that it's a complicated process and the innocent folks who just, you know, mess up and don't don't get it fully and make a mistake should be probably given the opportunity to get inside the tent and and and comply with the process. That's fine. But I I do really get of a different mind entirely about serial violators. Um and u um know if it's feasible or what we want to do is just simply to send a message to the council that this is an issue they might want to look at. Um, it's not within our purview to to change the the fee structure of I don't think it is change the fee structure the the penalty structure of of Brazilian code about violations of of permit rules but perhaps simply to flag an issue of serial violations. That's my two cents. Anyone else? again would like to point out that we do already I've seen that as building official we have seen that imposed on serial violators of the building code uh other than the project Ken identified previously that has not been an ongoing um planning applicant issue and you know certainly my peers there who are in the in the chambers can correct me or let me know if there are other projects they're aware of habitual serial planning violators because you frankly planning by planning sites typically one-offs. They're not you don't have a lot of planning applications that span multiple properties like you do a contractor who works on many buildings for example or people who do building work across multiple sites. That's much more common

the issue of a serial violation is more a building problem than a planning problem. Understood that that's a valid distinction. I I I see what you're saying. Thank you. Um I had one uh one question triggered by that. I I think the philosophy is fine. You know, just say your goal is compliance and not revenue. Um in the case of the industrial uh a industrial avenue, right? That that was an someone who was operating a business and they came themselves. They came forward, right? and said, "Oops, we were operating without a permit." I think that was a circumstance. I don't think it was a case of them being caught, but I'm wondering if there is, first of all, maybe you can confirm that. And second of all, I'm wondering if there is a systematic how do we make uh does a city in general, what's your procedure for making sure that people are up to code, that they're operating under code? I'm I'm sure you have permits on file. Is there a way that people go around and say, "Oh, this is what we have on file. This is what's actually happening." And is that done on a regular basis? I'll defer to Ken on the specifics of the industrial way property, but typically 80% of planning permits, let's say 80% 90% of the conditions are associated with activities that can be verified through a building permit issuance. That prior to building permit issuance or prior to occupancy of a structure for a particular use, these conditions need to be met. So that's how we verify 80 you know 85% of the condition. If there are operational conditions that say you know you can't operate past 4 p.m. or you know you can't do this or that those are typically um enforced like all city code enforcement occurs on a complaint driven

basis. city doesn't have the manpower or the staffing to just routinely u monitor, you know, the hundreds of permits, planning permits that are actively being implemented over, you know, 40 years, 50 years. It's just not really a practical use of city planning resources at this time. Okay. And just to confirm, your recollection of the industrial way site is correct. they they came forward. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Um well, let's uh open it up for uh public comment. And why don't we um I don't know, one minute, Julia, to see if anyone wants to call in. Okay, I'll put one minute on our timer. 10 seconds.

No, he wishes to address the commission. Thank you. Okay. So, are we done with this discussion? Commissioner Gooding, did you want to follow through with the city council on anything or should we just leave it as is? No, I'm I'm fine. Okay. Okay. Well, then um is there anything any commissioner would like to uh address on any other topic? Okay. Well then, um I will consider this meeting adjourned until the next regular meeting of July 24th through the chair. Yes. Um we're actually going to cancel that meeting. Oh, you're cancel. So you can cancel that and adjourn to the August 14th meeting. Okay. We will cancel the July 24th meeting and the next one will be August 4th. You said August 14th. August 14th, 2025. Okay. Thank you. [Music] Hey, [Music] bam. [Music]