Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Thank you.

Oh, yes, I think so.

All right. Good evening and thank you for joining our August 18th, 2026. Oh, not special planning commission meeting. Where am I? No, I do not have the script.

No, I think it's this one.

I think the second one is also special.

I guess we're both special. Yes, both meetings were special. So this is a special Planning Commission meeting. As a reminder, items will be taken in order as I listed on the agenda. Before we start, I want to briefly go over public comment procedures for the meeting for those who may be joining us for the first time. Public comments on the approval of minutes, consent items, Planning Commission, chair and vice chair appointments, matters of commission interest and items not on the agenda will be taken during item number three tonight. Comments on other agenda items will be taken only when that item is called. In-person speakers will be called first, followed by virtual attendees. In-person speakers, if there are any, please fill out a speaker's card at the front of the council chambers and bring to staff at the dais. For those joining us virtually, you may raise feature on the Zoom to speak. If you're joining by teleconference, you may raise your hand by dialing star nine and star six to unmute your microphone when prompted. Please only raise your hand at the time that the item on which you are speaking is called. We're allotting three minutes, but time may be adjusted. Lastly, we know that we each bring different perspectives to discussion. We want to be sure everyone has a chance to be heard without interruption. Planning Commission welcomes public comment on the items within our purview. Thank you for your attention and consideration during this process. I will turn it over to staff for the roll call.

Commissioner Cornejo? Here. Commissioner Rusacruz?

Here.

Commissioner Finch?

Here.

Commissioner Hunter?

Here.

Commissioner Robinson?

Here.

Vice Chair Koch? Here. And Chair Senegarets?

Here.

I'm Sue Exine. I'm the assistant community development director and staff liaison to the commission. Other staff attending this evening, Eleanor Ignacio, assistant city attorney. I think this is your first meeting, Eleanor. Excited to have you. Alexander Barnhill, our consultant city attorney, is joining us remotely. Linda Hugh is our principal planner. Justin Chappell is assistant public works director and chief sustainability and resiliency officer. And Christina Mateo, administrative secretary and meeting host.

Thank you. Ms. Exline, the next item on the agenda is notification of meeting participation by teleconference due to just cause. Do we have any remote participation notification or requests from the commission to consider?

We do not.

All right, let's move on to the next item. Item number three. Public comments. At this time, we will take public comments from the joining us in person and through Zoom. As a reminder, public comments should be on topics within our purview. If you have joined in person, we need a speaker's card. Otherwise, if you're logged in through Zoom, you can raise your hand. Or if you're dialed in, please enter star nine and star six to unmute. Do we have any remote speakers and any in-person cards?

We do not.

We do not. Okay. Seeing none, if there's no objection, I will close the public comment and move on to item number four, approval of minutes. We have June 16th, 2026, regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve the draft meeting minutes?

Motion to approve.

Second. All right. Moved by Commissioner Robinson, seconded by Commissioner Hunter.

Commissioner Cornejo?

Yes.

Commissioner Riz Cruz?

Yes.

Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch? Yes. And Chair Senegarets?

Yes.

The motion passes 7-0. Great.

All right, the next item is item number five, consent calendar. There are no items on tonight's consent calendar. We'll move straight to item 6A, which is a public hearing. It's a request for public hearing to receive comments on the draft environmental impact report, or draft EIR, for the recycled water master plan phase two project. Melinda Hugh and Justin Chappell will give presentation on this item.

Thank you and good evening to the members of the Planning Commission. My name is Melinda Hugh, principal planner and CEQA coordinator. I'll be one of the staff presenters tonight. I am joined by Justin Chappell, assistant public works director, who will be doing part of the presentation tonight. We are also joined virtually this evening by Dina Giacomini with LSA, the city's CEQA consultant. So quickly, we're going to go over the agenda for tonight. We'll go over the meeting purpose. We'll go over the project overview. We'll also go over the CEQA process and environmental review. And we'll end with recommendation and contact for the public who wish to provide written comments on the draft EIR. Sorry, next slide. So the meeting purpose, the city published the draft environmental impact report for the recycled water master plan phase two project on August 7th, 2026. So we are holding a public hearing tonight to receive comments on the contents of the draft EIR. And I just want to clarify that no decision will be made at this hearing tonight. And I will hand it over to Justin to walk you through the recycled water master plan itself.

Thank you, Melinda. Good evening, Justin Chappell, Assistant Public Works Director. Good evening, Commissioners. So what you see on your screen here is a map showing the current recycled water system. So in the map you see the dark blue rectangle at the top, that's Silicon Valley Clean Water and that's where recycled water is produced for our recycled water system. And then you have all the purple lines which are the existing pipelines to the recycled water system. AND THE PURPLE SHADED AREA IS THE RECYCLE WATER SERVICE AREA. AND THE RECYCLE WATER SERVICE AREA IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND IT'S THE AREA THAT RECYCLE WATER USE, SPECIFIC USES ARE MANDATORY PER THE RECYCLE WATER USE ORDINANCE. This includes irrigation for existing commercial customers and any irrigation and dual plumbing for toilet flushing or other internal uses that are approved for recycled water for new commercial and multifamily customers. Next slide. So the goals of the Recycle Water Master Plan phase two project are three things here. So one is to expand the Recycle Water Service area to include the east market assessment area, and this area is generally south and east of Woodside Road, and you'll see that on the map in the next slide. Also to extend the Recycle Water pipelines in both the central and east service areas, and the central area is for the most part the downtown of Redwood City and the surrounding areas. and then add up backup storage and pumping capacity to the system. Next slide. So this map shows the proposed project, and really what it does is it guides the phased expansion of the city's recycled water system to serve more customers and utilize the available supply of recycled water that we have through our agreement and partnership with Silicon Valley Clean Water. It also includes improvements in strength and service reliability for both current and future customers. And again, existing recycled water pipelines are shown in purple on this map. And then the proposed pipelines are shown in different colors in yellow, blue, red, and green. And the different colors represent the types of pipelines, either distribution or transmission pipelines, and what we're calling loops within the system. And those loops are very important for future reliability of the system to serve our customers. So also on this, you'll see the purple shaded area again, which is the existing recycle water service area. And the orange shaded area is the east market assessment area that's proposed to be added to the recycle water service area. The plan also includes new recycled water and pullable water storage tanks and pumping stations that I'll cover later in more detail. So next slide. So summary of the project includes the installation of 30,000 linear feet or 5.7 miles of pipelines. And this is creating transmission and distribution loops for service reliability. And it will deliver an additional 762 acre feet of recycled water per year. And that equals about 250 million gallons of water per year. Next slide. So first I'm going to talk about the recycled water storage that's included in the plan. And there's two options for new recycled water storage. So there's one 2 million gallon buried concrete recycled water tank or two 1 million gallon above ground steel recycled water tanks. And there will also be a new pump station associated with this, and the location for this recycled water storage and pump stationing facility will be at the vacant lot near the police station at the corner of Bloomquist Street and Maple Street. And then, next slide please. So there's also a potable water storage and pumping facilities included in the plan. And this is really as a backup to the recycled water system in case we're not able to produce recycled water at Silicon Valley Clean Water. So the potable system is two different options, either a one million gallon or three million gallon steel above ground tank. And this would be located at the existing public works yard at 1400 Broadway. And the next slide please. So just to kind of show you on the map where those two facilities are located, you can see the recycle water tanks near the top of the map and then the pullable tank right there next to Woodside Road and Broadway for where Public Works is located. And with that, I'd like to pass it back to Melinda for the rest of the presentation.

Thank you. So I want to kind of start off with what is the purpose of an EIR? It's really to inform decision makers and the public of the project's potential environmental effects, but it's also an opportunity to engage the public and receive comments on the EIR itself. It's also a way to analyze potential effects and figure out how to avoid or reduce potential impacts of the proposed project with alternatives or mitigation measures. Next slide. So here is a slide that lists all of the topics that were analyzed in the draft EIR. Next slide. And here is kind of a visual representation of where we are in the CEQA process. So we've done the environmental analysis. We published the draft EIR. So right now, we are currently in the public comment period for the draft EIR, and that will be 45 days. Next slide. So the 45-day public comment period runs from August 7th, 2026 to September 21st, 2026. So tonight we are holding our public comment meeting. So once the public comment period ends, we will prepare and publish the final EIR. So we will respond to any comments that we received on the draft EIR, and it would include any revisions or additions to the draft EIR. So once we publish the final EIR, The City considers the final EIR and the plan itself at public hearings. So we will come back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the final EIR and the City Council will take final action on the final EIR and the Recycled Water Master Plan. Next slide. So this slide shows a summary of the environmental impacts of the project. So as you can see, there are a few topics that are no impact. There are some topics that are less than significant, and there are a few topics that are less than significant. with mitigation, so I will go through those in more detail in the next set of slides, and we did not have any significant and unavoidable impacts.

Next slide.

So for air quality, there were potential impacts related to construction, so a mitigation measure that's included in the draft EIR includes dust control, best management practice to address air quality. Next slide. Another topic that had potential impacts was biological resources related to construction. So we have mitigation measures that require surveys to be done and kind of avoidance and treatment measures, best management practices for construction work. Next slide. Another topic was cultural resources as they related to undiscovered archaeological resources or on human remains and effects on historic buildings. So mitigation measures addressing that includes Worker education, so basically educating construction workers on site if they find something and what to do, but also best management practices in consultation with an archaeologist and or tribal representative in the event that certain resources are found. Next slide. For geology and soils, there was a potential impact on paleontological resources. So there's currently a mitigation measure in the draft EIR that addresses what we would do in case those resources are found in consultation with a qualified paleontologist. Next slide. And then hazards and hazardous materials. We found a potential impact on soils that may be contaminated that we did not know about. So we included a mitigation measure for the implementation of best management practices created in consultation with a qualified environmental professional. Next slide. And then noise, there was a potential impact resulting from construction equipment and vibration impacts. So we included a mitigation measure that required the implementation of restrictions on the use of specific construction equipment and incorporating that into our contract documents for construction.

Next.

And then tribal cultural resources, we identified potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. So some of the mitigation measures we included was the implementation of best management practices created in consultation with an archaeologist and a tribal representative. Next slide. So that brings us to alternatives. So CEQA requires that we look at alternatives. One of them includes the no project alternative. But the other alternatives really we need to look at alternatives that lessen the impacts of the project. So because the project had impacts related to construction, we have two alternatives that address that. So we have the branch transmission alternative. This alternative assumes kind of a shorter transmission pipeline network and only includes the recycled water storage tank. We have the multiple loop alternative. So this assumes a shorter transmission and distribution pipeline. loop compared to both of the proposed project and the branch transmission alternative, but it does include the recycled water storage and the potable water storage. So our analysis identified the branch transmission alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. Next slide. So we will be preparing a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. So we call that the MMRP. So that will be prepared with the final EIR to ensure that mitigation measures will be implemented as part of the project implementation. So the MMRP really identifies who's responsible for enforcing the mitigation and when it would need to be done. Next slide. So with that, I'll end the presentation with a recommendation that we open the public hearing and receive public comments on the content of the draft environmental impact report for the recycled water master plan phase two project. And next slide, I want to leave, THIS SLIDE UP SO ANYONE WHO'S WATCHING KNOWS THAT THEY CAN STILL SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS THROUGH SEPTEMBER 21ST AND THIS IS JUSTIN'S CONTACT INFORMATION FOR WHERE THEY CAN SUBMIT THEIR WRITTEN COMMENTS TOO. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, STAFF, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF AT THIS TIME? Commissioner Hunter, please go ahead.

Just a couple of questions. Are there future phases planned or is this envisioned to be it?

Thank you for the question. So at this time, these are the only phase that we are looking at. As we go through and complete the construction of this, we would consider potentially future expansion depending on what the water supply outlook for the city is at that time.

Okay, thanks, thank you. And then just a quick question on terminology. What's the difference between distribution and transmission pipelines?

Sure, yes. So a transmission pipeline is really kind of considered a larger pipeline that kind of conveys water over a longer distance, whereas distribution is the pipeline that serves individual customers. So usually customers are serviced off of distribution lines and not transmission mains, but that's really kind of the main difference. But for the most part, in this context, it's like the transmission mains will be conveying the water throughout the area more. Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter. Commissioner Koch, please go ahead.

Thank you. Great presentation. Just a couple of questions for you. My first question is, The bulk of the draft EIR and the potential issues, those are all connected to construction, correct? Not issues that could possibly arise after construction is finished.

That's correct. So all the impacts we identified are related to construction.

And then what is the deciding factor between a three million gallon tank and three separate one million gallon tanks for storage?

So what we incorporate into the Recycle Water Master Plan is really kind of a bookends to what we might build in the future. So that's really just kind of showing the minimum and the maximum of what we want to build. So that way we have more ability to choose what's the most economically feasible and right for the system at the time we actually get to construction.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Koch. Commissioner Finch.

Yes, it says that it would expand the city's recycled water system to areas which would then be subject to the recycled water use ordinance, which would require new commercial and multifamily developments to be dual plumbed. So I just want to make sure the buildings are only required to have that dual plumbing once the recycled water becomes available on a specific street or close enough to hook into it?

So for dual plumbing, it's really something that needs to happen at the initial construction of the building. So when the building is constructed, it would be dual plumbed for future recycled water use. And then when recycled water becomes available, it would then get connected to the recycled water system. But prior to that, it would be connected to the potable water system.

Is it is it required for all buildings like within the purple area on the on the map like all of those are required to have a dual plumbing for when the recycled water comes in the future.

Right, so anything that, if a planning application is submitted now for a new project, new residential multifamily or commercial or governmental building, those all would be subject to the recycled water ordinance, which requires them to be dual plumbed for current or future internal use of recycled water.

Okay, I see. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Finch. Commissioner Koch?

Thank you. One more question I just thought of when Commissioner Finch was talking. Do you foresee or can you forecast would the construction of low and very low income buildings, having them have to be dual plumbed, would this have any effect on rent? And because I would assume it's going to be more expensive from a construction standpoint. So I don't know if anyone has been able to forecast that or guesstimate that or if it doesn't make a difference at all.

Yeah, maybe, Melinda.

Just to provide some context. So we did a little bit of research in terms of recent 100% affordable housing projects that we've approved. And I've spoken to the planners who worked on it and they have said that none of the affordable housing developers that they've worked with have expressed any concerns regarding cost of dual plumbing.

Thank you. I do have two questions of my own. One is just clarification on the location of the recycled water tank east of Highway 101. You said the corner of Bloomquist and Maple. My geography, I thought it was good, but we have a project for affordable housing at 1580 Maple Street. So is this on the lot, I guess, towards the Granite Factory, or is it behind the Navigation Center, just so I know where it would be potentially sited?

Yeah, so this is the lot that's adjacent to Granite Rock and their railroad spur right there.

Got it. Okay, thank you. The next question is that you mentioned that this expansion would add 762 acre feet of usage per year. Do you know, is this like a, what is the percentage of expansion of the current recycled water use in the city? Are we like doubling it? Are we adding 50% like approximately?

Yeah. So currently, we're utilizing about 500 acre feet per year of recycled water. And in the past, we've used up to 800 acre feet per year. So it's on the margins of doubling, at least.

Great, and then the overall city's usage of recycled water compared to the general portable water use, is recycled water meaning like 10% of our demand, 30% of demand? What are we currently at?

So currently it's around 7% to 8% of our overall demand.

Okay, got it. Excellent. And then on your map, you show that the Silicon Valley clean water, which is at the end of Redwood Shores, is Redwood City the only jurisdiction that's being served by this part, and it's using recycled water, or are there other jurisdictions that have purple pipe coming through them and using this resource?

So currently, Redwood City is the only jurisdiction receiving recycled water from Silicon Valley Clean Water. Any other jurisdiction that would want to use it would have to connect through our system. And we do have points where we could connect to neighboring agencies if they were to approach us in the future.

But at this time, we're the only user. Right. Great. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? I think we're good. Thank you so much. I think we are moving on to the public hearing, and we'll probably have further questions down the road. All right, now I'll open the public hearing, and thank you, staff, again for your presentations. At this time, in order to see how many speakers we have, I ask everyone who wishes to speak on the item to please raise your hand in Zoom, and if you're in person, please fill out the speaker's card and give it to staff. All right, it looks like we have no in-person speakers, and are there any speakers online?

No, there are no speakers online either.

All right. Seeing none, if there's no objection, I will close the public hearing. And I will remind the public there is still time to comment online by email or by writing to our staff at Public Works. I will now open the meeting for committee discussion. All right. Who would like to speak first? Commissioner Finch, please go ahead.

Well, yes, I just wanted to say a great question from commissioner cook there. I think there's a great follow up to my question and it's great to know that the affordable affordable housing developers don't have any concerns about the dual plumbing. It's really exciting to hear that we're kind of like a leader on the recycled waterfront and that we already have so many users of it. So yeah, that's all great to hear.

Thank you, Commissioner Finch. Anybody else? I have also other comments. Commissioner Cruz?

Yeah. So I did have a question in terms of the timeline of the project. So we're going to have the public comment period from now until September with the 30-day period. After that... period concludes, is there an estimate on how much time after that we'd be spending finishing the EIR process at this moment, or do we not currently have an estimate?

It really depends on how many comments we receive. So we have a lot of comments. We would need to spend that time responding to the comments and preparing the response to comments. And if we don't receive a lot of comments, it'll go a little bit faster. So I don't have a specific estimate now. Gotcha. Makes sense.

And then looking through the actual impacts, I think Coke already mentioned this, but it did stand out to me that all of the impacts are either impacts of pretty much any construction in general, or I have it in my notes as maybe impacts where we don't really have any strong... interpretation of the wording was that we don't have any strong reason to believe that there would be archaeological, paleontological, tribal, or hazardous material impacts, but we might discover them, and so we note them. Is that an accurate read of the wording?

I would say that's accurate.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think the other comment I have is I'm really excited to see us continue to work on increasing recycled water usage, especially with water. I always like to kind of joke that California is often a desert. So love to see the city moving forward with these projects.

Thank you, Commissioner Cruz. Commissioner Koch.

Thank you. Sorry, it's me again. If this project is approved, guesstimate time from beginning to put the pipes in until the project comes to a finish are we looking at how many years approximately because i think it would be done in sections correct sort of neighborhood by neighborhood or group together certain streets

Yes, the plan has a phasing order of which pipelines to do first, and that's really to build out the redundancy and reliability of the system, and then to meet customers who are already dual plumbed or able to connect right away. So long term, we're looking at maybe a 10 to 20 year project, and it really depends on the amount of funding we can put towards it.

Okay, thank you. And just a comment, follow-up on Commissioner Cruz. I think this is a really great idea. And I think it also, with all of the new laws that State of California is throwing at planning commissioners as far as our need to build a certain number of units per year, obviously our need for water is going to increase. And I think the timing on this is great. And it also helps to be a good steward to the environment. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Koch. I do have questions about project alternatives. I know the staff has identified, of course, no project alternative and two other alternate projects. One's a looped and branched. In your diagram, I don't know if you can go back to that particular slide. I mean, there are multiple colors here. It's kind of a rainbow situation. Do we know what does the branched version look like or loop version look like compared to the proposed? Because both of them seem to entail a pretty significant reduction in length of the recycled water loop.

I think we have a couple extra maps prepared. Maybe we can bring up the, I think maybe the next slide is the, or it might be hidden. So here is a map showing the branched transmission alternative. As you can see, it Rather than looping through the downtown area, it's really just targeting specific customers. So in this map, there's a little more detail. You can see the circles or dots that are green, blue, orange that are different sizes. Those are customers and the sizes they're projected demand. And then the next slide is the multiple loop alternative, if we can get that one. So it's really just a subset of the proposed project.

Got it. Okay. And then if, I guess for the Planning Commission to consider and people in the residence, when they review these in terms of public comment, I guess, If, for example, they wanted to say, I think the proposed project as is gives the allowance, of course, to implement the full phase two of the project. But depending on the funding restrictions, we may end up with a, let's say, multiple dupe alternative or the branch alternative, I guess. Is that how that would go in terms of what are the possible implementations? I guess the reason I'm asking is that the EIR identifies environmentally superior alternative. I think it was named as the branched alternative. I'm curious if staff from the usage or technical point of view has a preferred alternative to this. Because clearly they're very different in terms of what will be considered.

Yeah, just to speak to the CEQA part, an EIR really is to help inform the public of impacts and also identifying these alternatives that could potentially lessen So it's really to inform decision makers when the project is before them. These are the impacts, these are some other possibilities. But the EIR itself in no way advocates for a certain project to be approved. So I'll pass it on to Justin to kind of provide his opinion on what staff prefers.

Thank you, Melinda. Yeah, I think staff's perspective is to hopefully have the proposed project approved. That gives us the most flexibility to ensure that we can fully utilize recycled water and have as reliable a system as possible for the city.

That makes sense. Okay, great. Any other comments from the commission? No. I do have one commission since we are eliciting comment for the EIR and it has to do with biological resources. We talked about the impacts of construction. I think in the case of construction for biological resources, probably not many because we're digging in the middle of the street to put a pipe in. But in terms of overall effects, I want to just raise a flag for existing green infrastructure. So there are parts of the city that will be served now with expanded network and infrastructure. As part of that, they will be bound by the recycled water ordinance, which requires usage for landscaping. And some properties and public sections of the city have green infrastructure that's been in there for a while. Let's say, for example, large mature trees that are part of the heritage trees or other Notable entries that may not be compatible with recycled water use. I think I mentioned this to staff. I'm not sure this is the right forum to break this up, but I think I just want to flag this as something that perhaps we should look into to either have exceptions for existing green infrastructure that serves our residents that may not be, to avoid negative effects that could potentially, you know, or make them die or whichever it may be. So that's as an effect of using the recycled water as part of this particular project.

So that's all the comments I have.

Any other comments for the commissioners? No. All right, seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

It's not a motion, is it?

There's no motion. Oh, great. Okay, we're easy on that. All right. All right. I just want to remind everyone that if they have any further comments, please email or contact the staff, Justin Chappell, or I guess the information is on the screen and also in our packet. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, the next item on the agenda is the Planning Commissioner Chair and Vice Chair appointments. This is item number seven. You know, I did not discuss with the zoo prior to this. I'm not sure what our protocol is for this particular part. I think in the past we have looked at who has been THE MOST SENIOR MEMBER THAT HAS NOT SERVED AS A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ON THE COMMITTEE. MY CALENDARS ARE NOT GOOD, SO I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THIS. I WILL LET SUE LET US KNOW AND WE CAN ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION OR WE CAN DISCUSS.

YEAH, LET'S SEE. I THINK HAVE WE, MY MEMORY WAS THAT WE, THERE WAS SOMEBODY WHO WANTED TO BE THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH.

THEY WOULD PROPOSE.

THEY WOULD PROPOSE, YEAH. GOT IT. AND THEN WE WOULD JUST DO A ROLL CALL ON THOSE NAMES, SO.

GOT IT. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PROPOSE? COMMISSIONER HUNTER?

YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE VICE CHAIR KOCH FOR THE, TO REPLACE OUR ESTEEMED CURRENT CHAIR.

THANK YOU. And then do we have to make a proposal for the vice chair to put them into the same motion? No, I think those are all separate.

I think we could do it separately. Separately is fine, probably. Yeah, should we vote on the first?

I think I'd like to get some comments from Commissioner Finch.

Do we need a second?

Oh, we need to start a motion. Oh, okay, sorry.

Do we need a second? I'm kind of forgetting how we do this one.

Yes, you would need a second. I didn't hear an initial motion. I think I just heard a recommendation and I understood from the chair that he wanted to give the opportunity for discussion before inviting a motion. Am I understanding that right?

Yeah, I think I was trying to follow protocol, which is we have to have a motion and then we discuss the motion and then we can potentially vote on it. Is that right?

Well, you can have discussion before a motion. We can have a discussion before. I thought I just made a motion, but if you want me to do it differently, I'm happy to.

That's okay. I guess we can just discuss maybe perhaps. Anyone would like to make any comments? I think Vice Chair Koch would make a great chair. Commissioner Finch.

I also think she would make a great chair. Thank you.

Okay, excellent. All right, do I hear a motion on this particular item? I will entertain them.

Oh, did I not make a motion? Okay, I'm making a motion that Vice Chair Koch be our next chair. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, Commissioner Hunter, second.

Commissioner Conejo?

Yes.

Commissioner Rusacruz?

Yes.

Commissioner Finch?

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter?

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch? Okay. And Chair Senegarets?

Yes.

The motion passes 7-0. Congratulations. Great. Congratulations.

And I think what we've done in the past is that Now you guys switch seats and you conduct the.

I'm glad we have your memory, Rick, because I'm totally forgot what we do.

How fun?

OK, so now are we?

We're just going to do what we just did, basically, correct? Yes, for the vice chair. I would like to suggest at this point, Commissioner Finch for vice chair.

If that was a motion, I second it.

If it wasn't a motion, then I say I agree. Do we have a discussion about this?

SUPPOSED TO AFTER A MOTION AND A SECOND. OKAY. BEFORE A VOTE IS CALLED, ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO SAY ANY FOLD OF DISCUSSION?

ME? OH, WOULD ANYONE WANT TO DO THIS? OKAY, AM I SUPPOSED TO DO THIS?

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. USUALLY WE HAVEN'T HAD DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE EVERYBODY KIND OF IS IN AGREEMENT, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY GOOD.

CAN I NOMINATE SOMEBODY ELSE OR HOW DOES THAT WORK?

SO I THINK THERE'S A MOTION. And you want to go ahead?

Yes, I'd clarify that I understood the chair was not making a motion. She was making a suggestion. So you're free to. Oh, you can. Yes. And then I can. Yeah. Okay.

I make a motion that we nominate Commissioner Finch for our new vice chair.

And I will second that if that was a motion.

Okay. We have a motion on the floor, but I would like to hear Commissioner Cornejo's suggestion for vice chair.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE MYSELF. OKAY. SO THEN I THINK WE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE TALK ABOUT IT OR IF WE VOTE.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION, BUT BEFORE WE WOULD TAKE UP ANOTHER VOTE ON A MOTION RELATED TO YOU, COMMISSIONER, WE WOULD NEED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR.

GOT IT. OKAY.

All right. I mean, before we continue to the voting part, I guess I'm curious in terms of seniority, who has been on the commission the longest? I know Commissioner Hunter has already served as chair. I have served as chair as well. And Vice Chair, currently Chair Koch, has already served as Vice Chair. Ms. Exline, you have all the numbers and dates. I'm just curious as a piece of information.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK IT UP. MY MEMORY IS THAT YOU CAME AT THE SAME TIME. OKAY.

YES, THROUGH THE CHAIR, I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE APPOINTED AT THE SAME TIME. SO THERE'S, YEAH.

SO SHOULD WE TAKE A VOTE THEN ON THE FIRST MOTION WHICH WAS COMMISSIONER FINCH AND THEN We can roll it over to Commissioner Cornejo.

Do you have a motion? Yes, if the- Seconded, and we have discussion, and when discussion concludes, you vote.

Right. Agree.

Okay, so roll call is Commissioner Cornejo.

I'm unclear of what I'm voting on.

You're voting on the motion to have Commissioner Finch be vice chair.

No.

Commissioner Arruza-Cruz.

Yes.

Commissioner Finch.

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter.

Yes.

Commissioner Robinson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Koch.

Abstain.

And, oh, sorry, I did that the wrong way. Vice Chair Sunagarath?

Abstain.

Thank you. And Chair Koch? Yes. Okay. So the motion passes by five. We have one abstaining and one no. So congratulations, Commissioner Finch.

DO I ALSO?

SWITCH SEATS.

IT'S OKAY.

OKAY. YOU CAN DO IT NEXT TIME. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT ALL THAT CONFUSION. ALL RIGHT. I THINK I CAN JUST GIVE A FEW QUICK UPDATES. WE HAD A BIG HEARING AT CITY COUNCIL IN JULY. IF FOLKS DIDN'T KIND OF FOLLOW ALONG ON THAT, I JUST WANTED TO SEVERAL, TWO OF THE THREE ITEMS CAME HERE TO PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THAT AND THEN THE THIRD ITEM DOES AFFECT THE GREATER DOT TOWN AREA PLAN. SO I WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT UPDATE AS WELL. SO THE FIRST ITEM IS ON, SORRY LET ME SCROLL BACK HERE TO THE FIRST ITEM WHICH WAS I THINK SB 79 WAS OUR FIRST ITEM. SO THAT, I THINK YOU MAY RECALL THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THE SAME AS WHAT WAS APPROVED AT CITY COUNCIL WHICH WAS ALLOW THE BASELINE OBLIGATIONS TO TAKE EFFECT WITHOUT ADOPTING ANY EXCLUSIONS AND CONCURRENTLY DEVELOP THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE. SO THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS WORKING ON NOW. THAT WILL, WE'RE SCHEDULING THAT FOR SPRING TO COME FOR BEFORE BOTH YOU ALL AND COUNCIL. THE SECOND WAS ON THE ZONING CODE AND MUNI CODE AMENDMENTS. THAT PASSED AS WELL. THERE WERE TWO PARCELS THAT WERE PROPOSED TO BE REZONED. THOSE WERE REMOVED FROM THE PACKAGE AND THE IDEA WAS TO SEPARATE THOSE AND DO THOSE KIND OF INDEPENDENTLY FROM THIS ZONING CODE UPDATE.

I understand those are going to come back from the Planning Commission?

Yes, I anticipate that. It would need, the applicant would need to kind of move forward with their proposal, but we do anticipate that that will happen. And the last item, so the vote on that, just so folks know, was six to one with Council Member Padilla opposed on that one. THE LAST ITEM WAS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPANSION TO THE GREATER DOWNTOWN AREA PLANT TO INCLUDE THE AREA BOUND BY WOODSIDE ROAD, 101, DOUGLAS, BAY, AND WILLOW ALONG BROADWAY. recommendation there. I think I might just read it because it's longer. So the recommendation was to expand the boundary. There was an addition to the motion to direct staff to come back with an approved scope and budget and we're proposing to do that in September. Emphasize Broadway as a person-centered street and prioritize the passage of people on foot, bicycles, and transit. And redesign Broadway to be a safe, slow, person-centered street. So that was sort of our big night. We called it planning night on July 13th. Next meeting on September 1st is canceled, so we will see you back on September 15th.

Is there a tentative agenda for what might be discussed on the 15th meeting or not yet?

I can look ahead. I think the objective design standards are coming back. Okay. And that's the proposal right now. We don't, just so you know, we don't typically publish those. Happy to answer questions if things do move around a bit. So I hesitate to go too far out and then with expectations. But right now the objectives for science standards is tentatively scheduled. We'll obviously have the BCC appointments. And there might be another project that had some minor facade work that needed to be done in a historic district. So they needed an architectural permit. So kind of wait and see if that one's progressing as planned. Yeah.

I have a quick question. With the expansion of the downtown T-DAP, forget it, D-TAP.

G-DAP, we call it. G-DAP.

That's a vaccine, T-DAP. Right. Do we have to restart the whole public outreach process? Because I know it's already been a year that we've been both communicating with the public and reviewing plans and scope for that particular planning. Yeah. So do we restart the clock and then start from the beginning or is this just like an add-on or extra to the already existing?

WELL, THE SCOPE AND THE BUDGET ARE BEING PROPOSED. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN APPROVED YET. BUT IT WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL OUTREACH PROCESS. WHEN WE ORIGINALLY WENT TO COUNCIL, WE ESTIMATED IT WOULD TAKE AN INITIAL 12 TO 14 MONTHS TO INCORPORATE THIS AMENDMENT INTO THE PROCESS. IT WOULD LENGTHEN THE ENTIRE PROCESS BY THAT BECAUSE WE WOULD BE DOING THE OUTREACH OF THE WORK TO TO THIS NEW AREA AND THEN TO KIND OF BRING THEM ALL TOGETHER SO AS THE PLAN KIND OF GETS THROUGH THE PROCESS, APPROVAL PROCESS. OKAY.

Okay, that concludes the agenda items for tonight. Next planning commission meeting is tentatively scheduled for September 1st, 2026 at 6 p.m. Meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.