Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The November 13, 2025 meeting of the Brisbane Planning Commission will now come to order. And we have a roll call, please. Commissioner Funka here. Commissioner Gooding here. Commissioner Laauo. The record reflect Commissioners Patel and Saiasan are absent. All right. Next in order. Uh, may I have a motion, please, to adopt the agenda? Second. All [clears throat] in favor?

The motion passes with three eyes. Uh, next is the consent calendar. Um, we will start a uh time clock to ask if any members of the public would like to pull any item from the consent calendar. Staff, can you please post the Zoom call number on screen and start a timer? While we're waiting for that, are there any commissioners who would like to remove any item from the consent calendar? No. Seeing none, we'll wait for the timer.

Okay, 30 seconds has passed. There are no requests.

Thank you. Um, are there any oral communications? Are is there anyone who wishes to address the commission uh regarding any items that are not on tonight's agenda? Uh and the uh staff can post the teleconference number which is already on screen. I see. Um and we'll set a timer for one minute to see if there are any members of the public who wish to do so. Participants can raise their hand by pressing the raise hand button or pressing star 9 on their phone. to indicate to staff they would like to address the commission for any items not on the agenda. And the uh column number is displayed on the screen. 15 seconds.

All right, one minute has passed and I have no requests to address the commission. Thank you. Um, written communications is the next item on the agenda. I did not note any written communications online. Are there any that that have come in since I last checked? Thank you very much. Then come to old and new business. I believe the only item uh business on the calendar today is uh workshop on two issues. one the Brisbane acres density transfer provisions and then um zoning penalty fees. Um staff, may we please have two presentations?

Yes, thank you. Oh, sorry. Give me a moment while I share screen here. There we go. The purpose of tonight's workshop is to discuss a potential amendment to the zoning ordinance that would change the density transfer provisions for the Brisbane acres. This uh study session is consistent with housing element program 2G1 which called for a study session in 2025. For this workshop, I'll briefly provide um bear with me here. I'll provide some background on the existing provisions and the housing program. Then I'll talk about the potential density um transfer standards. There are three main questions to address tonight. The first is what districts might the commission want to include as uh potential density transfer receiving sites. I'll get more into receiving sites in in a moment if any. Um and note that the city did not commit in the housing element to a specific amendment. It's only to study it, which we're doing with this workshop. But we do want to give this fair consideration and and bring this back probably for another workshop in 2026 to to uh get deeper into it. But

this is a I would call it a first pass, but depends on um the consensus of the planning commission. So the second question is for any districts to include as potential receiving sites. What standards seem reasonable to you or what additional information might be needed to further consider this? Um finally, would the commission have an interest in expanding the sending sites beyond the upper acres to also include the lower acres to allow for expansion of parklands that aren't necessarily in habitat areas? So those are the key questions uh that we'll talk about as we get a little further in here and then we'll we'll get into next steps. Briefly by way of background density transfer provisions allow for housing development potential to be transferred from one site to another site. In 2003, city council adopted provisions in the Brisbane acres, that's the RBA, residential district, that were aimed at pre preserving sites that have high have significant environmental resources. And that would be in exchange for higher density housing on other sites that do not have those same resources all within the Brisbane acres. These were generally referred to as upper acres. those those resource areas um for the sending sites and the lower acres for the receiving sites. The upper acres are those that have been identified in the 2001 open space implementation plan as most likely having significant environmental resources and especially endangered butterfly habitat or or adjacent to such habitat. Another term that generally generally covers the upper acres is

priority preservation area. So density transfer provisions were adopted with the aim of the city acquiring lands in those sensitive areas or significant areas for open space and that would be an exchange for allowing higher density of development on parcels in the Brisbane acres without those resources. The standard density allowed in the Brisbane acres is one unit to 20,000 square feet of land area. So a sending site of 6,000 or excuse me 60,000 square feet could potentially send development potential to a receiving site of 20,000 square feet which would result it's a combined total land area of 80,000 square feet. So with density uh standard for the district of one unit per 20,000 square feet. That would be four units for the 80,000 square foot area. And through density transfer, all four units would be developed on the 20,000 square foot site in my example. And um that that would be once that's split into separate parcels since these are all single family homes. For the sending site, the ownership would be transferred to the city for open space dedication. A few things to note. 50,000 or 5,000 square feet is the smallest lot that could be allowed through density transfer. Density transfer is subject to use permit and design permit for receiving sites. Under the current provisions, both the sending and receiving sites must be within the Brisbane acres as I mentioned. And the housing element program, the city committed to studying the possibility um for receiving sites to be outside the

Brisbane acres and that would be within either residential or mixeduse districts. Adopting such an ordinance to expand potential receiving sites could provide greater incentive for property owners of parcels in and areas with significant resources to transfer their land to open space while at the same time providing additional housing units in other zone districts that may be closer to city infrastructure services and amenities. staff included a table in your memo for this evening that outlined the various residential and mixeduse districts with some potential standards listed as starting points for your discussion tonight. That included the R2 and R3 multifamily districts, also the Parkside overlay districts and southwest spayore. We'll jump to that slide in a moment. Um so the density standards would be a question to consider again along with with any of the standards any of the districts to include so both the districts and the standards. Another question to consider is whether to expand the sending site sending sites. Um so this is a reference map. Um, it's a a bit busy and I'm not sure if I we go with the cursor. So, the purple that goes all the way up into here is the RBA district and it extends down and around this this edge. It's essentially the lighter yellow, but it was overlaid for this uh workshop to show in green and purple also. So the green shows what the city has already acquired. The purple shows what's vacant but within the

Brisbane acres still. And then what's left in the Whoops. Um okay, here we go. What's left in the light yellow is um is developed Brisbane acres sites. So there's a fair amount in purple still that that could be potential um receiving or sending sites. So generally the sending sites would be what's what's inside this this outline here, the kind of magenta outline. Um receiving sites would be the lower acres which would be out in in this area here. Um then the other districts that were mentioned for potential inclusion would be the SR ST1 which is along Beayshore Boulevard here not including the mobile home park that's separate but along this area. Um R1 is not included. Uh NC2 is not included and that was explained. Um, R2 is here and here, that little pie shape. And then R3 is along the corridor here of San Bruno A and a little bit down in this area close to the park. And then the PAOZ overlays are are these hatched areas at the edge of Crocker Park. And then for reference, you have this table in your your handout. And um essentially it's it's showing the difference between the current housing unit density maximums and what um just a

a preliminary uh possibility for discussion of what you might um increase the density to with a transfer from Brisbane acres to increase the density by one unit for a standard 5,000 foot lot in the R2. two. Similarly for the R2 R3 district it would go for a standard lot that would go from three units to four and same kind of density for the SC1 and the PAOZ districts although there's not a lot size minimum for the PAO. So, with that, I'll um open it up to the commission for any discussion, comments, questions you might have, and I can toggle back and forth between the map and this if if you'd like. Before we open it up to discussion in our group here, can I just some clarification maybe for the public's benefit as well, can you just walk us through what the transaction or process looks like of who transfers what to whom and what if any funds change hands. So the transfer So an owner would have a property in the upper acres also would have a property in the lower acres currently and would go through a use permit process that would go first through the planning commission and in this use permit case it would also go to city council for approval. Um the property would then the sending site would go to the city as a property

transfer but the city would not pay for that. It would be essentially the bonus for the owner would bet be that they could develop more units on a site that is more accessible and readily developable because it's closer in to city services. Um, and so that's that's the transaction. Also, there's a design permit requirement. So once it goes through the um use permit, it would come back essentially. We've had one development that's been done. This is San Diego Court where three housing units were developed this way. Then design permits for the indiv individual homes that were receiving sites went to the planning commission. Those didn't go and to the council, but it was the planning commission.

Thank you. That's helpful as a it's just my curiosity level. Um, how many owners slash properties are we talking about here that are eligible for this? You know, how many people own property up in Brisbane acres that also own property in these proposed receiving areas? I it's just ballpark. I don't have a actual count, but I'm I think we have seemed like about eight or 10 in the upper acres. I've lost my screen up.

And just to clarify, these don't have to be pre-existing ownership. Someone could acquire property in the lower acres. Say they owned a receipt or a donor parcel. They could buy properties in the lower acres and then transfer the density onto those.

Okay. One other point to clarify is there are some what we we term um uh private private street part parcels. These are privatelyowned linear parcels that were intended to become streets in the event of development. And there are still private own roadway street parcels um that that could also serve um ascending sites. Um before we sort of discuss amongst ourselves, are there any other other questions from other commissioners about presentation?

Well, I had a question. Um so like the outbreakers was somewhat defined as um you know had significant um and environmental resources. Correct. I'm sorry. Can you repeat? Upper acres was uh land was kind of defined as having significant environmental resources versus the lower acres of land. Correct.

And that was assessed and evaluated 25 years ago or 24. Um have there been thought of like reassessing you know the environmental resources for all that property you know because a lot has changed in the last two plus decades?

Good, good question. Um, so, so part of the process for for a use permit for a density transfer would be for the owner of the property to do a environmental assessment, a biological assessment really on both the sending and receiving sites to make sure that the receiving sites, what the status of those are. biologically, but also the sending sites. Uh I don't think there's been discussion, not that I know of, of the city undertaking a larger, more uh holistic look at it. Um be I think a fairly significant cost to the city. And that's that's really the idea is that that be borne by the the private property owners. So, it' be on the private owners to provide some environmental report and that would be at their discretion of whom they hire to that report.

I should clarify the cost is on them but but the city actually hires the biologist. we have a a list of approved biologists for for the uh mountain. And so they would pay into a deposit account and then from they being the owner would pay into the deposit account and the city would then hire a consultant so that it's the city's consultant and not not beholden to the property owner.

What would the purpose of this assessment be? Um well if the definition of a upper acre sending is a having significant resources that wasn't qualified as a receiving property that could be developed on just asking if um those significant resources may have changed in the last 25 years since it was last evaluated. Yeah, that makes it Oh, we lost your mic. You might You're muted. I am. Oh, okay.

[laughter]

Um that makes it sound like this sort of transaction would be conditional on it still being true that it's an environmentally I I thought that it was kind of a you know hey the up if you're in the upper acres this is a valid transaction and you don't have to re-establish that it's adjacent to good butterfly habitat. I thought it was already baked into this uh this whole arrangement here. There are a number of findings that are at the back of your report that go to what the um commission must find. And and I should also say that the biological study is a requirement. They're within the habitat conservation plan for San Bruno Mountain and it's already a a requirement for any kind of development um to do a biological study con consistent with the HCP. So it goes to the county for review. It also goes to the state and uh federal fish and wildlife agencies. So the the findings for um for a transfer unit is that it's one or more of the following considerations. First is contiguous with San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. Uh second contains intact native ve vegetation or it contains end endangered butterfly habitat or it contains permanent or semi-permanent wetlands or forms a portion of a significant water course or does not adjoin develop parcels on more than one side.

Okay, makes sense. You know that's significant habitat. Sure that's you know very up for judgment right but I understand that there's there's still some conditions these are the transactions you can do subject to these findings and the approval of the commission um so just for my clarification basis for the discussion right now the only transfer that's possible is from sort of upper to lower is that right it's all within the Brisbane acres and we're considering extending that to the rest okay so that's one questions. The other is right now it sounds to me like the um uh that both partials the sending and the receiving have to be owned by the same person. Is that right? Sort of to make it worthwhile. But that could be arranged like that person could

that could be arranged. So if somebody has a parcel already in the lower acres and they're looking to develop it, they might find a welling seller in the upper acres, purchase that and then make the transaction. Okay, that makes sense. And then one other question I had is all your math is based on these uh you know 20,000 and 60,000 foot parcels but clearly not all I imagine especially once we go into the residential districts they're not going to be $20,000 20,000 square foot parcels. So the math there's sort of a conversion that's contemplated here.

Right? So it's okay it can't exceed those um density standards. So in other words, if somebody had instead of a 60,000 square foot lot for the transfer site, they had a 50,000 square foot lot that could only transfer then two units because you're not going to get to there's no such thing as a half a unit, right? So they'll get two units down. They're giving up another 10,000 square feet. Um but they get a bonus of two units in that case.

Okay. Right. And then I have one last question because I think I've I know almost everything I need to know. Was the original assumption seemed to be that the lower acres had sort of less biological value implicitly than the upper acres? Was that the idea because it's adjacent to the park?

That's that's correct. That was the mapping. And it's it's not really I I've used those terms and the generally that's what we're looking at is upper and lower acres, but it really goes to the findings in the ordinance that I just listed. And then there's a set of findings that's uh related to the receiving sites. That's kind of the flip side of the the same group of findings. So those are really the findings. So I I say generally it's upper to lower, but it doesn't always have to be. Okay, understood. Thank you.

Yeah, I kind of brought up that question, you know, about the deathman and, you know, when it was done at that time and um only because like, you know, being living in the lower acres and being um aware of adjacent propert property that is, you know, going to be developed. But, um, I'm surprised that at on this property when there's like heavy rainfall, like, you know, we had even like a couple years ago or maybe even like from this weekend, there is a when you said that, you know, they were assessed for like significant water course, there is a river, you know, flowing in through that area. And if when it was assessed if it was during the summer or spring or, you know, on rainy times they probably be unaware of you know any significant water course. So that's why you know my question is on you know when you know when it's re-evaluated by whatever party because it would be I have video of this river

which is significant and it's like it surprises me that you know any housing you know development could be you know developed right there. Right. Right. Just can I through the chair I also just want to clarify that at least from my knowledge that a comprehensive biological resources assessment was not prepared to support the open space plan. Correct.

Right. So what the open space plan does is on a broad you know 30,000 foot level look at you know characteristics that are documented of you know generally these sub areas. Um, but I just want to make sure that's really clear that the city to my knowledge again did not embark on a really specific um, biological resources assessment like the ones that are required for sight specific development. Um, and I also want to note that the lower acres, you know, as a whole, just because they are designated as being able to receive more density, it doesn't necessarily mean that individual sites within the lower acres don't have habitat resources or value. um you know and again that's why we do the sight specific biological resources assessment for any development. Um yeah so I just want to make those points clear.

So the the purpose of this workshop is to is for staff to propose some suggested modifications the existing plan to increase density from say three units to four units per lot and so forth. Is that correct? Well, um, going back to the questions, it was it's really about, um, if I could share screen, but, uh, so it's one of them is is the question of could you envision the density transfer receiving sites being in other districts besides besides just the Brisbane acres. If so, then we can bore down a little bit deeper into what what those uh transfer units might look like because it's it's a it's a different kind of animal. In one case, you're sending um units, potential development units within the same district, within the same standards. In another case, you're you'd be sending it to say a multi-family residential district to increase, you know, perhaps what they might do on a multifamily lot. Um the other part is whether the findings might be relaxed on the on the um sending sites essentially to allow for more acquisition by the city through density transfer for other purposes

besides just uh significant environmental resources. but maybe for for parklands, you know, that maybe a perhaps a trail where people could go up and enjoy vistas, but it's not on a property that that was um uh sensitive. And that's that piece, that question is really an aside. It was not part of that housing element program. the housing element simply said that we'll study other districts to look at whether you want to uh use those as receiving sites. So, so you have again the R2 district, the R3 district, um the Parkside PAOZ one and two um in the southwest uh bayshore and they're they're different. They're they're different um settings for each. So So Parkside, of course, is developed already with warehouses. So, these would be redevelopment sites um uh up to 35 units an acre and in my example, but that's not necessarily what one would have to stick with. Um ST1 is along Beayshore Boulevard. It's also part of the HCP area, but it's not part of the density transfer program. It has larger sites generally speaking than the R2 or R3 zones. So, so what what would you folks want to hear from us tonight about our preferences or wishes or desires? One,

whether we want to expand the density transfer program below the Brisbane acres to R2, R3, STRO and partite. any of those or all of those. Yeah. And then beyond that, whether we will also support your proposal of increasing the density in those district as well. Right. And if you're not sure about the density that staff suggested at this time, um that's something that could always come back to you if if um

and whatever we express tonight by way of our inclinations or preferences or likes still goes to the council for approval of the ultimate plan. Correct. If if your desire is not to expand it out outside um the RBA district, um we we will essentially let the state know that we've studied it and and leave it there. If if council wants to um bring this back up again, um it it could direct the planning commission to to reconsider and reopen this. But no, if if if your desire is not for to expand this um outside the RBA, then I would say this this would be the last workshop unless something else changes.

Thanks. But if we do, if we are inclined to want to expand it to these other other districts, is that within our purview to make the final decision or does it go to council?

It would go to council. I would envision next steps in that case would um there's there'd be there's a fair amount to unpack. I I think and so it would be which districts and then um if you have a sense that that what staff put in the report makes sense then we would bring it back and and have it a little bit more fleshed out with that guidance. If if um if there's some other kind of guidance then then we we take it how it comes. But yes, I I'd envision we'd come back for another workshop in 2026 if if you want to expand this out.

Any thoughts? Yeah, I I was wondering um I can think of several reasons myself why this might be an interesting thing to explore, but I'm wondering what your uh reasons were for bringing it forward like what was the motivation or the guidance you got that said, hey, we ought to consider expanding this program to the uh residential districts. Is it to increase housing can comply with the um you know the demands from you know the housing element things like that? Right. It it really was to increase the potential housing stock in in Brisbane as part of the housing element. So, it was to to help address the state's um housing concerns and specific specifically HCD. Um, but I I don't recall um that they had a specific mandate for the Brisbane acres, but we were we were casting a broad net at the time to to show the state that we were doing everything that we could to to accommodate housing. And we didn't with that in mind, we didn't commit to specifically changing the ordinance, but but said we would study it and we would look at whether whether this might be a viable way to increase housing stock.

And do you think one final one because I think you're waiting as well. Do you think that this that there would be more takers in a way because the receiving sites would be in areas that already have infrastructure, surface roads, things like that? Is that the idea?

I that's that's the idea. And it's it's so it's both. It's both potentially more more sending sites that we could get into open space and that's a good thing. Um if for instance on the PAOZ if if we can increase our density perhaps we might see uh redevelopment to housing on on some of those PAOZ sites. Okay.

Yeah. My my question was actually on similar lines is if it was appropriate to ask staff what the pros and cons are would be to you know expansion at least that that first part which I think you partly answered but um you know other pros or other cons yeah

um potential cons I I would see um maybe in the R2 and R3 it's it's you tend to have smaller lots. It's it's largely built out already. Um and so I I don't know how much it would move the needle on on those in those districts. Um the ST1 is uh it has a lot of number of vacant sites. You know there are some developed sites but um uh some I guess pros and cons on on that is it's uh it's easy access to beayshore. a con on the same kind of flip side as of that is that you you have more driveways coming in and off of Beayshore. Um the Parkside sites um are close in to infrastructure here. Um would uh 28 units per acre density versus 35 units an acre density be all that significant in the the big picture? probably less so than than some of the other sites, but I don't know if yeah, there's a lot to chime in on that.

Um, yeah, I think there are other tools that are at the disposal of developers in the multi-density zones that are probably more coste effective for them to pursue than this particular route. Um, so I think what it's really doing is giving everybody flexibility for something that circumstances we don't necessarily foresee today, but having that in your toolbox in the future if things change in whatever manner. But I wouldn't expect this to be any it's not going to move the needle in these other districts very significantly to be frank with you. that the idea that the city is there's value of having policies that when we go back to HCD for housing element updates that you know we've done steps to promote these sort of measures and creative ways to stimulate housing development and increase yield is not a bad thing to have in our you know to sort of demonstrate our willingness to do these things. So, so I mean there is some value even if we can't demonstrate you know number of units that would actually result from it. So that's something for you to consider versus you know but it is staff time and effort and your your time and effort to go through this exercise. So

you know the idea of putting you through something that is going to be a paper tiger isn't I I understand some of the tradeoff of that as well. So, one one way we could approach this would sort of the the compromise or the the middle ground might be to uh support or or express our going along with expanding to these lower neighborhoods but without the the changes in density um that are currently in in effect. Correct. I don't think you were proposing to increase the density within the RBA, were you? That wasn't part of the proposal.

That's That's correct. There was no change for the RBA, but the the R1 or the R2, the R3, and the SRO. You're increasing the density from one unit per 2500 to one unit per 1500 and so on.

Right. That's not not the R1, but the R2, right? And up. Yeah. Um, well, you're not going to increase the yield. I'm not sure what the value is for somebody then to pursue that. What is the value for someone to they're not going to be able to develop a 5,000 square foot lot in the these lowered zoning districts, which is the current standard, right? So, you're going to have to change the standards and lot size doesn't make sense as I think as Commissioner WA brought up earlier the idea we're we're rescaling this. It was different to say, well, you had a 20,000 square foot and we're going to donate it and you can shrink your lot size to 5,000 square feet. That doesn't make sense in these lower zoning districts because you're not going to be creating more 5,000 square foot lots. That's not going to that's not going to help anybody who's a receiving site. There's there's no value. If that's your limitation, I would not recommend you pursue this then. If that's your if if you're not willing to sort of consider a density increase, then then it's probably not worth anybody's time. Yeah. Yeah. It makes it makes sense to me. I my my uh gut says that it's an interesting thing to pursue and I think mainly for the reasons you said conditions could change. you're just kind of creating more potential that if conditions do change, things might become more attractive. And in principle, I think I like the idea of increasing density in areas that are already dense. That's one thing. There could actually be, if I understand it correctly, a net conservation, right? Because you're sending not from one undeveloped lot to another undeveloped lot. You're sending from one undeveloped lot to an area that's

already developed. So I think it could be attractive from that point of view. Um, yeah. And I I guess the one con I was thinking that you could imagine is, well, you know, no one likes more density. Sort of instinctively were kind of against that. And then I started to wonder like, well, what I I have no objective grounds to object to the densities you're proposing because I don't know what that would look like. And I started saying, well, what's the density like in downtown San Francisco or the Hague? And [laughter] I think it's a lot denser than anything we do on the planet as far as I understand. Right. There's really no limit to it. So I don't know what would make the proposed densities sort of unlivable or something. For all I know, they're completely reasonable um for what is already an urban area in a way. So that's that's kind of where where I was going in my mind next. It's like, well, how do I know of these proposed changes which I think are are necessary for the reasons you state to make it economically attractive? Like, how how what sense do I have that they're that's going too far? And I don't I for all I know they're not you know

so any of the changes that you're proposing here do not affect the parking requirements or u well the parking requirements for any of the the developments that would be would be done there. Correct. There's no proposal here to change the parking

because that's one of the sort of red flags and you know hot buttons in this town is is especially in in the areas um you know R2 and three um it's a big issue for folks but this doesn't affect that this just creates more opportunities for a lot to be buildable. Another consideration for the R2 and R3 um our accessory dwelling unit possibilities is another way to to have more units there. So there's already potential there. So, if I were to look at, you know, of the the four districts, the the other two districts seem more ripe for this, but uh Alex, any other thoughts? No, I mean I think I would be in support of, you know, the expansion. Um, and um, but I'm some I'm I feel somewhat similar to, you know, about the density, the the increase in density just because I'm maybe just don't understand it or, you know, not familiar with it. So that's why some hesitancy with it, but That's that's pretty that's it.

So what is our

So what is our action item tonight for us? So if if you would like staff to I if you're interested in in pursuing this a little further but would like more information on density examples in Brisbane staff might bring that back as just a a quick check-in workshop and and see where the commission might want to go from there. We have some examples from from a couple of design permits that came up several years ago or where we put together some um kind of baseline information as I recall that had some densities. So I think the highest density we have in Brisbane and I want to say is 100 100 units an acre. Now, it's on a former hotel site, uh, which is I I think I'm not sure, but I think it's a series of studio units that doesn't actually even have parking on on site, but um, it was converted to a residential. Um, I I for one think it might be helpful to get some examples like that that give us a real, you know, on the street feel for what it looks like.

Um, particularly in things like places like R2 and R3 where it's already already feels kind of dense, right? It would be might it would be helpful like to know what like the current density maybe is you know now versus what it maybe was like 10 years ago or because I don't even know what 100 units per acre really means or you know feels like it looks different depending on the size of the site. Yeah. Yeah, you know, in San Francisco that might be nothing, you know, well, on a large site it might be a very low scale development. On a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot lot, it's, you know,

different. Yeah. And also the size of the units themselves, you know, are they are they 400 square foot uh studios or we talking about thousand square foot two-bedroom units? big difference.

Yeah. Honestly, density while obviously it's a critical tool in planning, it's not always like or ever. Frankly, it's not going to give you an idea of form. Um, so form meaning like what is the actual height, you know, lot coverage, what does the building actually look like built? Because it does vary by the site, vary by all of those other factors. So, but yes, we're very happy to bring back examples of um different built sites in Brisbane and what those density do per acres are and you can see the variety of densities that we have and they may not look the way you think they might look.

It's helpful. It also be nice to to bring this back to a a more densely populated deis. Speaking of density, [laughter] yes. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you. All right. Um, I guess we're on to the next uh issue of the title of it being of the zoning penalty fee.

Yes. Thank you. Good evening. Um, so I'll keep this brief. Uh, as the commission is aware, the master fee schedule has a zoning enforcement penalty. um listed in the schedule in the amount of 10 times the original fee. This fee has been applied in very limited circumstances, notably in the past year is probably the only time I can recall that we've imposed this fee. um for violations of the zoning ordinance um specifically failure to obtain proper planning permits. The city's uh legal council has raised concerns with the authority to impose such a fee as well as some concerns with vagueness and how the present fee um is worded in terms of the original fee and then the reasonleness of the multiplier 10 times. Um, and we go into that a little bit more in the report, but essentially if the city wants to apply such a fee in the future, we're going to have to amend the municipal code to address legal council's concerns. Um, so staff would like to pursue such a amendment. We think it's helpful to have the fee on the books and be able to charge it in prudent circumstances. um we'd like to work with legal counsel um to draft an amendment to give us that authority and to um you know basically say that the fee would be imposed at the discretion of the community development director. [clears throat] Um so we're bringing it to the commission um just looking for some guidance. If the commission is generally in agreement with that course of action, we would work with legal counsel to draft those amendments. Um, if that is the case, they may not ultimately live in title 17. We're not sure yet. Um, even if they don't end up being placed in title 17, we would still bring bring

back um the item to the commission as anformational item. So, I'll stop my report there and just ask for any feedback from you. I I'll go last, but anybody?

I I think you can go first. I think you probably have more informed and have been more exercised about this issue in the past. Uh I've made it clear the past this is, you know, one of my minor zones of interest about this because I I think that, you know, without teeth, um people are inclined not to comply as as carefully as they otherwise would. So I I for one would applaud your moving forward with with uh our general counsel to to get some some comfort level that our um penalty fees are appropriately drafted and appropriately implemented. I'm not sure about leaving it at the sole discretion of the community development director. I don't know. I'll I'll punt the council on on that one, but um my two cents worth would be that that the more discretion there is, the the more challengeable the fee process is, but that's beyond my pay grade. Um, and I would certainly uh defer to to their expertise. Um, but I'm all in favor of of moving forward to to get a better better fee schedule in place. Anybody else?

I would be all in favor of, you know, um, as well. Just curious like is it surprising that legal u council had reservations and can some amendments be drafted where it's more I guess even clearer or more concise that wouldn't even require you know the discretion of a community you know development um officer to you know to oversee a Well, like every other set of regulations, there's always two ends of the spectrum, right? And the question is, does one size always fit all in these kind of sort of violations? In my experience, no. You have people who truly are um ignorant of city procedures and law. It's not their day job. They take actions in what they think are in good faith and they they're not and they're do something unlawful. You have other people who know business, know how to do business and routinely choose as a business decision not to follow regulations. And so to me to treat all parties identical in every case just doesn't you know philosophically we all have our philosophical um approach that doesn't really make sense to me but again that is the council's call they'll if they want to pursue this and they want to make an absolute you know everybody will be treated the same and that's their call but you know to me there is always some some gray involved and intent and um frequency are issues that to me are important. But you know, again, that's if you want to draw whe they want to draw a bright line, a hard line in the sand, that's their prerogative.

Yeah. I I I think the commission is probably very happy to defer to council for their expertise and, you know, I'm sure they'll compare our proposal to other cities and other jurisdictions and how they do it so that we're consistent with with um you know, most other processes. But I I for one I'm you know I I applaud you folks um goal of getting something more more concrete in place.

Yeah. And I I agree. I don't think uh I think a little bit more clarity setting expectations uh and so kind of formalizing the teeth makes total sense. But I agree 100% that you can't take away there's always going to have to be some room for discretion. I think it's like you can't take it out. And I'm sure there's a whole art to writing these schedules that allows for some discretion too, right? You have to build it in.

Okay. Thank you. We will work on that. Does that conclude our agenda? I think it does. Um I think we can then adjourn. Our next month next month, our next meeting is December 11th. Um um before I do have one item from staff um as you noticed all the meetings through the remainder of the year are cancelled.

Uh which means this is my last meeting in front of you. I will be retiring uh about the end of the calendar year. So you'll be in Julia's capable hands starting in January and it's been a pleasure working with all of you and I wish you wish you the best in your continued u efforts and I really support your and applaud your community you know spirit and your efforts you put in on behalf of the community. So thank you for your time.

Well thank you John. I I had no idea. I I I want to express our I'm sure our our joint appreciation for your professionalism and and your wisdom. Um and um totally confident that that Julia can can step in. Um but you'll be missed. Thank you for your many many years of service and congratulations. Did you decide this just now during this meeting or [laughter] when you were going to take away the discretion of the community development director? I think I'm done with it. Yes, that was the final straw, wasn't it? Well, congratulations and and best wishes and

it'll be really great. Thank you. All right. So, um no no 1211 meeting. Okay. In that case, happy new year. Thank you all.