.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

items will be taken in the order they're listed on the agenda.

Before we get started, 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,

matters of commission interest and items not on the agenda

will be taken during item number two on this evening's agenda.

Comments on the agenda items will be taken only when the item is called.

We are continuing to offer in-person and remote options for planning commission meetings.

However, due to continued recent disruptions during public comments at open meetings throughout

our region and state, we have modified our public comment procedures.

The City welcomes public comments on topics within the City's subject matter jurisdiction

and this can be provided in-person during the meeting or by email ahead of the time.

At this time, we are temporarily suspending public comment provided by Zoom.

Our public comment procedures are as follows.

comments will be taken in person during the meeting or in advance via email at

pc at redwoodcity.org. In-person speakers must turn in their speaker card to an

admin or staff liaison at a dais to be recognized to speak. Be sure to indicate

each end item. Comments that were emailed to pc at redwoodcity.org by 5 p.m.

today may be read into the record by the staff liaison and will be made part of

the final meeting record. Both in-person and email comments are subject to three

minute time limit. I will now turn it over to staff to call the roll. Thank you. Commissioner

Bott? Present. Commissioner Cornejo? Here. Commissioner Finch is absent. Commissioner

Hunter? Here. Commissioner Robinson is absent. Vice Chair Koch? Here. And Chair Suna-Gorwatz?

Here. I'm Sue Exline, the Assistant Community Development Director and Staff Liaison.

on to the Commission, other City staff in attendance this evening, Rick Jarvis,

consultant City Attorney, Jeff Schwab, our Community Development Director, Ryan

Kuchnig, Senior Planner, and Christina Mateo, Administrative Secretary and

meeting host. Great, thank you, Ms. Exline. Item number two, public comments on the

approval of minutes, consent items and matters of the Commission interest and

items not on the agenda. We will take public comment for those joining us in

person only if you join in person please fill out speaker's card and

staff seeing none do we have any public comments received via email no all right

there's no objection I will now close the public comment moving on to item

number three approval of minutes we have November 4th 2025 special planning

Commission meeting is there a motion to approve the draft minutes of November

4th, 2025. Also

move. Moved by Commissioner

Hunter. Second. Second by Commissioner

Bott. Commissioner Bott.

Yes.

Commissioner Cornejo. Yes.

Commissioner Hunter. Yes.

Vice Chair

Koch. Yes.

And Chair Sona-Goratz. Yes.

The

motion passes 5 to 0.

All right. The next item on the agenda

is the consent calendar. There are no

items on tonight's consent calendar.

We'll move on to Agenda No. 5, which is a public hearing for location 1548 Maple Street.

It's a request for Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council to approve

Fourth Amendment to development agreement for the 1548 Maple Street residential townhome project, etc.

I think Ryan Kuchenig, our senior planner, will give a presentation on this item.

Yes, good evening, Planning Commissioners.

Ryan Kuchenig, senior planner.

I'm also joined by Jeff Schwab, Community Development Director, to assist with any questions you may have this evening.

I do have a brief presentation.

So tonight we are here to consider a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council to approve a Fourth Amendment to the Development Agreement for the 1548 Maple Street Project.

And so here are some details of the project.

It was approved by City Council on May 7, 2018.

It included 131 townhomes and associated site and landscape improvements.

It also involved the construction of a new bay trail in connection to the waterfront.

Construction of the Bloomquist Street extension from Maple Street to Redwood Creek.

It included an environmental impact report and mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

It also involved a development agreement, which we're here to talk about this evening,

That was approved along with the project.

So first, what is a development agreement?

So I think some of you are familiar with what they are,

but I just have a few notes to provide for you to give you an overview.

It is a voluntarily negotiated contract authorized by state law

and entered into between a local jurisdiction and an applicant

detailing the obligations of both parties

and specifying the standards and conditions

that will govern development of a project.

A development agreement will generally lock the development requirements

and fees at the time of approval during the term of the agreement.

And in exchange of these benefits, the city obtains a community benefit.

So a few items here.

The DA must be consistent with city general plan and zoning.

and also the agreement is approved as a legislative action by the City Council.

And some details of this particular DA.

Among other things, it provides for the development or construction of the Bay Trail and waterfront improvements.

The developer is to relocate and restore the water tank located on the property, which has been completed.

The developer is also obligated to construct and fund Bloomquist extension from Maple Street to Redwood Creek,

underground certain utilities, also to be given fee credit for certain improvements,

and the developer and city would enter into agreement to exchange real property to effectuate the Bloomquist extension,

which has been completed as well.

So for this project, the DA was first amended in February of 2021,

and then a second time in January of 2022.

These were considered insubstantial amendments,

but we had a third amendment,

which was approved more recently in 2023,

and that was considered a major amendment

and extended the terms of the agreement by three years.

So I'll talk about specifically what the request is

for this development agreement.

It is also a three-year extension

of the initial terms of the agreement.

So it was five, then it was extended three years.

So now it was eight, and now the proposal is to extend it another three years.

And it would expire in September of 2029.

There's also provisions for an additional two-year extension

available under certain terms, and that would expire in 2031.

So there are no changes to the proposed project

or previously approved project.

The goal here is to expedite the completion of the Blomquist extension

and incentivize construction of residential units.

Subject to meeting certain construction milestones,

the applicant impact fees would be adjusted downward

primarily by including credits for work performed

in furtherance of that Bloomquist extension.

So by applying these adjusted fees,

the developer would save an estimated $2 million.

So some reasons to consider the Fourth Amendment.

developer has worked with the city and the county on a tri-party agreement to enable

property exchange to facilitate construction of the extension and these this process did take a

bit longer than expected but given the unpredictable implications caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and

unforeseen complications of this property swap the number of parties involved in the agreement

it has taken some time.

I also want to point out that the extension is critical to the future desired plans

to facilitate development of affordable housing at 1580 Maple

and to allow access along the Redwood Creek.

And so lastly, staff's recommendation is to recommend to City Council

to approve the Fourth Amendment for the 1548 Street Maple Project.

And that concludes my comments, and we are here for questions if you have some.

Thank you, Mr. Kucinic, for your presentation.

Are there any clarifying questions that the Commission would like to ask staff?

Commissioner Hunter.

Yes, thank you, Ryan.

So I'm going to start off with a couple of just general kind of questions.

And one is, I mean, of course, I love the idea of the Bloomquist extension finally may be happening.

but once the extension is completed up to the creek,

who pays for the new bridge over the creek?

And is there a timetable for that?

I think Jeff Schwab has probably the more current information on that.

Perfect.

Thank you, Ryan.

Jeff Schwab, Community Development Director.

The Bloomquist Bridge, if you will,

is a transportation impact fee funded project.

However, it is not in the current

five-year capital improvement program

because there are other higher priority projects

throughout the city.

The main infrastructure project, as you may know,

is the 84-101 project.

But there are a number of mobility projects,

bike projects, and other things

that are also high priority.

So council will consider the timing of this

with their adoption of the capital improvement program

each year, and they usually decide to fund

the first year or two, and then from there,

the other projects sort of are shown

in a horizon of five years.

So far, it's not in that horizon.

Okay, thank you.

I hope it does get on that list there,

because I know that's very important

for all the people who live out there on Barrowland Road.

So, Ryan, one of the things you had in your presentation

was that the water tank, and I just noticed this in the presentation,

you said the water tank was to be relocated and restored.

I was just out there today, and I hadn't been out there for quite a while

and looked at it, and I saw the water tank, and it didn't look very restored.

Has it been?

Because it says completed in the presentation.

That is my understanding.

It has been restored and it is waterproofed.

I don't know the degree of work that has been done,

but it's been relocated and it's been deemed as restored.

There may be some additional work in the future, but I don't have that.

Okay.

Potentially it could be relocated again.

I think that's in the possibility.

Okay. Thank you.

More substantive questions.

Except for the timing, is there any change in this amendment?

Is there any change to the developer's obligation to construct the Bloomquist extension?

Any change from the original development agreement to this amendment?

Because the original development agreement also called for the developer to fully fund or construct the Bloomquist extension.

There's no change.

Other than timing, obviously.

Other than timing, no other.

Okay, okay.

That's how I read it.

and the last thing I have is in the

presentation I think this was in exhibit

B of the

resolution

the column

the second column from the right called alternative fees

and it would probably be good if you could

put that up on the board.

It's page 23 of 25

in our package.

Yes, it's a table.

Table 6.1, Alternative Fees.

Sorry, I'm following now.

I was just wondering if it might be put up so that everyone could see it.

It looks like everybody has it.

Okay.

So there's a $2 million difference here, which I will ask about later in our comments.

But could you explain the numbers in this column of alternative fees that add up to $5.8 million?

You know, two of the impact fees go back to the original 2018 fees with credits included.

The parks fee goes, you know, is not changed.

And then the housing impact fee goes back to the older number.

and then transportation impact fee

and the 101.84 are both zero

and I didn't really understand

the whole footnote here

where it says TIF, transportation impact fee

and 101.84 credited

given these fees are now combined

within the new TIF

and Blomquist is a TIF eligible project.

I don't understand what that means.

I'll give it a try.

The prior to the current transportation impact fee overhaul in 2023-24,

the city had some additional fees, the 84-101 fee,

and there were a number of other independent fees.

Those were all consolidated into the transportation impact fee in the most recent update.

And so since the Blomquist extension and the Blomquist bridge are all included in the transportation impact fee program,

we decided those were the appropriate areas to give the credit in since they're actually making transportation improvements.

Okay.

And then the other impact fees and the first four lines there,

why is this reverting back to 2018 fees

without an escalation

so at this point in time

the development agreement provides the incentives

for this project to get built

it is the city's opinion that it would cost the city

a lot more to build this project than

the developer, the developer is mobilizing to make site improvements

and other infrastructure improvements

so there's cost efficiencies in them doing the work and building it.

And so that's why we roll back the fees for certain fees

in order to come up with this approximate $2 million credit,

which is the differential that they felt necessary in order to make the project go.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Commissioner Butt, your clarifying questions.

Can you just help me understand, I guess, the same sort of fee structure that Commissioner Hunter was just talking about?

So as I understand it, one of the goals of this development extension, I mean, the Fourth Amendment to this,

is to expedite the construction of the BloomQuest extension.

So what is the difference in fees?

Like, what is the total incentive being given here?

if they were completed within a certain amount of time

versus not completed within a certain amount of time?

About $2 million.

$2 million.

So that's the $2 million down in the bottom right of this.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Butt.

My questions are more pedestrian in nature.

We mentioned the aforementioned water tank.

When we look at it in a particular position,

it may be moved again.

I kind of did not get quite the full gist.

Is it going to be a functioning water tank or is it just for historical value because this was part of you know Dr.

Almond arena some time ago believe it be the historical value and it is likely that it'll need to be relocated

Again, I think the the vision is that the city owns land in this area for future park

And that it potentially could be incorporated there the idea is that it needs to be along the waterfront somewhere

so

That'll be done in a planning phase that the Parks Department will undertake for the park.

And we'll have to work with the developer on phasing because they're obligated to make certain waterfront improvements that are actually in the area where the tank sits currently.

But it is on city property right now.

Got it.

Okay.

It's going to be just like a tank.

It will be converted into a museum that you can enter inside or something fun like that.

I don't know.

All right.

We'll see.

The other question is about the current status of the Bay Trail.

I know it's an important link for people who are using bikes to commute from up the peninsula down to large employer sites.

Is it currently open?

I actually don't know what the current status of the Bay Trail is.

And is the goal of this development agreement to have it accessible throughout the construction period?

I believe that currently you can traverse through Bloomquist to the bridge to nowhere to the other side.

One marina, I believe it is.

And I think we've been working with the developer

to ensure that as construction occurs

that they can hopefully maintain access.

There may be some very limited periods

while work is being done right at the creek area

that it may be challenging.

Great, glad to hear that, thank you.

All right, if there are no clarifying questions,

the applicant will not be presenting this evening.

Are they there?

They're not present, okay.

Okay.

They might.

No worries.

And I think then we will just move on and open the public hearing.

At this time, we will take public comments for those joining us in person only.

If you have joined in person, please fill out the speaker's card and bring it to the

staff.

Seeing none, are there any public comments received by email in this next line?

No, there are not.

All right.

If there's no objection, I will now close the public hearing.

And I will open the meeting for committee discussion.

um commissioner hunter okay um so following up on some of my my one clarifying questions about

these uh impact fees here um i have an issue with the the two million dollars um the the

The presentation and the staff report points out that this is going to save the developer $2 million, which is true enough.

It doesn't really put the other side of that, which is that means the city is going to lose $2 million from what we had originally expected to get from impact fees.

So that concerns me.

And what concerns me is that I don't find a reason for it in the staff report.

You know, Jeff, you did somewhat address that by saying that makes it pencil out better, I guess, for the developer.

But I don't like the idea of the city losing $2 million of revenue that it should be having for impact fees

without really understanding what the negotiations were, making it more clear in here.

It seems like it was, I feel somewhat misled because the whole staff report and presentation is really about the extension of time.

And it's only minimally and vaguely mentioned that, yeah, it's not only that we're giving the developer three to five more years,

but it's that we are foregoing $2 million in impact fees.

in the staff report

the project description says other than

minor phasing related change

related modifications

to the subdivision improvement agreement

and the additional three to five year extension

of the development agreement

there would be no changes to the project as

originally improved and

I respectfully say

that I don't think that's really true maybe there's no

changes to the physical project

but two million dollars

plus coming or going, I think that's a large change to the project.

So I would like to see, well, one, I would like to see if the city can renegotiate that part

and maybe claw back some of that $2 million that we seem to have given up.

and at least in our present

in our materials and in what the city council

is going to see after it comes from us

I would like it to be very clear to the city council

that when they consider this

that they know that part of this is that the city is losing

$2 million from what was originally expected

Let me attempt to clarify

I thought I had, but maybe not completely.

I appreciate that the clarity in the staff report may not be as crystal clear as it should

have been in with that regard.

The first thing is that the original development agreement provided for credits as well for

the park trail expansion and some other work.

What the developer has said that over time, the fees would have escalated in the original

agreement to a point where they would not be able to construct the project, the Blomquist

extension component of the project and their project.

So they indicated to us that the differential was about this $2 million, and so we rejiggered

the fees.

The city's estimate for constructing the project is well in excess of the developer's

thing.

So even if we collected the $2 million, we would have insufficient funds to build the road.

And then we would have to wait longer to build the road.

We would not be able to see the 1580 Maple Street affordable housing project proceed.

And this project would also not proceed.

And we would wait for another developer to come in and propose a development.

So I appreciate that that wasn't completely clear in the report.

And that's something for us to work on before it goes to council.

but I think that backdrop

and being so close to it in the

negotiations probably just did not come

through in the report as clearly as we

should have made it

okay well thank you for that

I think that's my comments right

now I'm not sure

that I will support this right now and I

totally support the project

I am excited about

the Bloomquist extension it's just

I think maybe

I would want to see more

either negotiation or discussion of that,

as you just gave us verbally.

But thank you for that.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Any other comments from the Commission or discussion?

Commissioner Bob.

Yeah, a bit less detailed than Commissioner Hunter's.

But as I understand it, in the initial slide,

it was laid out to us that the purpose of a development agreement was that

we're going into agreement with some developer that for a set time period

they get to lock in certain fees and then they get to

build with those locked in fees in mind and it seems like we are

continually extending the locked in period

which makes it sound like we're getting the crappy end of the deal you know.

So I don't know is this I just

a general question, is this normal

that we extend development

agreements like this until our project's completed?

The circumstances

here are a little different because

as Ryan articulated in

the presentation, it took a long

time. This property exchange

involved the county, the

city, and the developers, and

that took a little while to execute

and to build.

The end product

of that was the navigation center,

and this affordable housing site at 1580 Maple,

and then the development that we're talking about tonight.

So that took a while to execute.

Then the COVID pandemic had an impact on this.

And quite frankly, the economy has also been challenging for financing

to get projects out of the ground.

We have not seen that many projects come out of the ground

since the economy has changed.

There are a few that had circumstances that allowed it to proceed,

but there aren't a lot of projects moving forward.

So this hits the missing middle target.

You know, we've had a couple of affordable projects

that have pulled through,

and we have a couple that, you know,

really started much earlier that had financing in place,

and those are the ones you see under construction today.

Thank you for your comments.

Yeah, I, well, I have read the staff report,

and, you know, I did see the $2 million figure,

in the third page of the staff report.

And the motivation behind it really was to commence the construction of Blomquist extension

within some reasonable time frame to enable much-needed affordable housing to be built in 1580 Maple,

which I think I've seen the proposal already on the website.

I do understand this is something that one has to give away to make it push forward,

but we have actually voted this very body a couple of meetings ago

about readjusting our affordable housing impact fees

for a very similar reason

because the macroeconomic environment

is such that we can either wait for the perfect

and wait for a decade

or deal with imperfect

and get some results and important housing built.

I'm trying to put in context

how much the 2 million go.

I really am not a person in this trade,

but I do remember small projects

such as where bike improvement,

which is really just median extensions

and curb extensions,

was almost $3 or $4 million,

and it required waiting for county funding to be lined up.

And my concern is that if we do decide to wait for the perfect,

we know the CIP is already way underfunded

compared to all the needs that a city is requested to do.

And I think the construction industry,

or at least the developer,

has the capability to line up the contractor to build this,

as the staff mentioned,

as much, how shall I say, more funds-efficient way and faster.

So I think both of those things hit kind of what I would like to see.

I really want to see that road constructed

and that bridge to nowhere replaced with a real bridge.

If we punt on this and wait for another decade,

I think the people in Bear Island may be even longer

for potential connection to the rest of the city.

So I think the, I guess, I'm not good at idiomatic expressions,

but things that are close by rather than something far away

that's potentially not there is maybe is a little bit of a tough sell for me.

But so I understand that staff was in a difficult situation,

but I think the overall, you know,

macroeconomic situation really dictates that we have to be pragmatic about our choices.

So that's my comment.

Commissioner Koch.

Thank you, Chair Villa.

Thank you for the presentation.

everything that you've been doing on this this has been a long go i remember sitting

at the city council meeting when this was initially proposed and then all of the processes that it

went through and then came covid so as i read through this and read through it on the weekend

and then listening to what you were just speaking about it's sort of like this project was hit by

the perfect storm, unfortunately. And Philip is absolutely right. We have passed so many

construction projects in the last two and a half or three years that still are not shoveled to dirt.

And it's because of the cost of construction right now, the loans, the labor, on and on.

What's going to happen to those? We don't know. We won't know unless we're driving by one day and

then we see, oh great, that's finally come to fruition. Or if the land is sold or they sell

the project to someone else. I also agree that a project of this size, two million, it's a lot,

but with a project this size, I think it's a drop in the bucket. And I think that we have waited a

very long time for this to come to fruition.

And to have Blomquist Extension finished and no more bridge to nowhere,

but a bridge to somewhere, that would be really helpful for a lot of residents.

And then to be able to continue this project and then the other project on

Maple Street and to finally be able to enhance the Bay Trail and really

continue to build up tastefully, not put in a shopping mall or anything, but along the Bay Trail

and for people to finally be able to have proper access, safe access to that whole area.

I think it's a really good idea. And I'm really happy to see this come to us again.

It's been a long time. And hopefully we won't be sitting here in a few years looking at

another extension. Hopefully things turn around and move forward for the best.

and all we can do, same thing as everybody else is doing.

Hopefully it will turn out well at this point in time.

Thank you, Commissioner Koch.

I don't know if the other commissioners think that this variance for the discussion,

but I'm trying to ameliorate concerns by Commissioner Bott and Commissioner Hunter

that were raised earlier.

And I'm wondering whether we can ask the staff to compare, for example,

what the city may potentially receive in terms of property tax revenue from an improved property

compared to the existing land, which is unimproved part over, let's say, a decade period,

which maybe if we scratch this and we start from zero with a new potentially developer

and a new proposal, I mean, it may be a very tough project from the spot,

but are we even talking in order of magnitude?

Is it similar numbers or something different?

feel free not to answer if you should just say i i don't know so i don't want to i was told not to

guess especially with math okay but you know each of these townhomes is going to probably go for

upwards of a million dollars the city's share of that is you know roughly 18 percent so you can

you know can do some rough math there um so obviously it would be an increase in property tax

and I think it's also important to note that this project is also not eligible for the discount

you know affordable housing discount program that was passed by the council the incentive program

because of the development agreement that was one of the exclusions so this is you know each

development agreement has its own set of negotiations and own set of you know agreements

between city and developer.

So this was the way to make this particular project go forward.

On Monday, the council will consider the first another project

to see if it can make some adjustments in that project

in order to make it go forward.

And then it will also then look at the incentive program,

because it doesn't have a development agreement.

So there's different ways to get there.

We're looking at a lot of tools.

Council also made some adjustments in green infrastructure to facilitate certain types of projects.

We're just in a completely different market right now.

And we're even hearing from other approved projects that they don't think they're going to be able to get their projects out of the ground within their allotted time frame.

And they have to come back for renewals.

So you may be seeing some of those, too.

Great.

Thank you for clarification.

Commissioner Hunter, please.

So thank you for all of the comments,

and I have no desire to scuttle this project, clearly,

as hopefully I've made clear.

But I think at the staff report, at the end here,

so the staff recommendation, of course, is to adopt the resolution,

but on the last page they do give some alternatives

that we would be able to do with the commission.

And I think what I would like to do is number two here, which is to continue the item, certainly not to recommend denial, but to continue the item and recommend negotiating different terms for the amendment of the agreement.

And if the negotiation turns out to be just what we have here, well, then that's fine.

But at least we have done that.

So I would like to see that we continue it, recommend negotiating different terms with the developer before providing a recommendation.

And it will come back to us, I guess, and before providing a recommendation to the City Council.

But that's me.

Yeah.

I mean, thank you, Commissioner Hunter, for bringing this option onto the table.

So perhaps maybe we should give, if we were going to go with this particular course of action to continue the item and return it at a future date,

maybe what would be the goal, at least ideally in your mind, in terms of changing the numbers?

That is what has yielded in terms of the amendments to the existing development agreement?

Yes, the goal would be to reduce that $2 million number.

Okay. Commissioner Butt.

Yeah. Also in the same line as Commissioner Hunter,

I very much do not plan on scuttling this project.

I think it's very necessary, and as Commissioner Koch said,

there are very few projects these days that are actually starting to get built.

Just from my own understanding,

just because I'm still a bit hung up on the idea of what is the moral hazard.

The question in my mind is what is the moral hazard

around continually extending a development agreement.

So if a project like this were proposed greenfield today,

would the approximate impact fees that the developer would pay

be more, less, or about the same

as the current $5.8 million proposed here?

Give me one second here.

I think we might actually have that answer in that table.

So today, the alternative fees with parks escalated,

paying Tiffin the 84-101 fee.

It looks like it would have been,

I'm sorry, it's the third to last,

but from the left, I'm not doing this well.

It's the column called 2018 fees and credits escalated

to current using the Engineering News Record Index.

It would be 7.8 million.

So as you can see, it's the $2 million difference.

So it would be about $2 million more.

And that's the reason the developer has approached the city with the request for the extension, because that amount isn't an amount that makes the project go.

So a new project today, I'm not talking about this site, but just pretend we're in an alternate universe where there is the exact same project being proposed on that site today.

They would be presented with a 7.8 million number and potentially negotiate that down with some sort of development agreement.

They could request it and the city could consider it.

Okay, yeah. Thank you.

Yeah, I think what staff was already mentioning is that some of those projects, let's say if it was a green field,

would already qualify for our reduced affordable housing requirements that we passed a couple of meetings or three meetings ago

to make sure that, or at least to ensure that many of these projects do pencil out and do come to fruition.

So I think the City Council having approved that particular piece of legislation is giving a direction to the bodies that we do want to prioritize production of housing as one of the three priorities for the city.

And this is one of the ways that I think we could be able to achieve that.

And I want to remind everyone that this is not just the project at hand, but it also enables an affordable housing project to take place only a lot adjacent to it with another I don't know how many units.

so I

yeah

that's where I'm at

Commissioner Cornejo

sorry I did not

look in this section

oh no it's okay

I was just

listening to everyone's

comments

and I

I think that

my colleagues up here

have really valid

comments and concerns

throughout my experience

just

looking at other cities

like San Jose

or even like

working in the county

these kinds of delays

are

very common

and

And for me specifically, I don't want to hold up the process.

I want it to move forward to the next step, which this being Redwood City Council,

to continue the process and making sure that things move forward

and there's not more delays in affordable housing.

I feel strongly that we need more, not just affordable housing, but just housing in general,

which is why I'll be supporting the item.

Thank you, Commissioner Cornejo.

There was something else I wanted to bring up, but now I forgot.

I'm sorry about that. There's too many things.

The missing middle housing.

Sue, this is categorized as missing middle housing, isn't it?

Yeah, I don't know that there's official definition, just to clarify, but yes, I think this could definitely be called missing middle housing.

Yeah. I think what, at least the gist that I've got from the relationship the city has built with this particular developer,

and I think I'm alluding to the comment by Commissioner Bott as to whether, you know,

if a developer really wanted to lock in a fees in 2018 or 2016 when it was previously approved

and sit on a project for like a decade for it to just age out or, you know.

That is my concern.

Right.

I think this particular applicant has shown good faith in already completing some of the improvements on the site

and working also with Santa Clara for Silicon Valley Water for their infrastructure improvements on that exchange lot,

also allowing the property exchange to even construct the navigation center built by the county.

These are all large, I would say, successes for a community to be able to get us to our housing goals and generally community goals.

So they were really on there on the sidelines making sure that these things come to fruition.

So I don't think there were some out-of-state developer who just parked themselves with a particular proposal

and just waited for better fee structures.

So at least in my view, how I read this is that we have a partner,

and the city is trying to be also a good partner to make sure that things move forward.

Commissioner Hunter.

That actually leads to a question.

Who is the developer?

I always think of this as the Strata project.

but the email we got from the developer who regretted that he couldn't make the meeting,

the company was, I can't remember what it was, but it was a different company than that.

So is it still?

And then they talk in here somewhere about selling this project in 2026.

I think in that email, I think you said that.

But is it still Strata?

No, it was sold to the Carlisle Group in 2021, I believe.

How long ago was it sold recently?

No, it was a few years.

21, I think.

2021.

Okay.

It's been with the Carloff Group.

Thank you.

All right.

I mean, in a very unique fashion for this body,

we always discuss things before there's a motion on the table.

That's not really unique.

It's not?

we just like to you know put stuff out there and then see what what the

temperature of the body is yeah I mean I I want to you know continue discussing

this if there's you know okay before we move forward I would just want to say

that I would probably move with if I were to make a motion with option number

one is to just move the staff recommendation as written with the

modifications to the amendment and which will be you know grant the extension

this is the fourth amendment so we'll grant the extension for another three years extendable to another five

as long as they meet these very critical infrastructure improvement requirements

number one being the bloomberg extension which i think all of the day has agreed as being a critical piece of infrastructure

and yeah so i'm happy to move this forward but i'd like as a chair not to be the mover

so i'm curious if someone else would make this motion or would suggest alternative motion

I'll just comment.

It seems that the majority is in favor of the staff recommendation.

So it appears, and I would welcome legal counsel's advice,

if there's anything different,

it appears that it might be better for one of you who are supporting that

to make a motion.

Great.

I mean, or would it be appropriate to have two motions?

kind of mutually exclusive. Somebody can go forward

and make a motion, but you can read the writing

on the wall and it might

be more efficient for

certain members to make a motion

rather than go through

the process of accepting.

It's up to you. Okay, thank you.

I would like to make

a motion.

And the motion

would be we adopt the resolution

recommending City Council approve the

Fourth Amendment for the 1548

Maple Street project.

Recommending

with the Fourth Amendment to

the Development Agreement.

I already said that.

That's all I have to say?

Okay.

Any seconds?

I will second.

So moved by Commissioner Koch

and seconded by Commissioner Cornejo.

To be formal, I will

reopen, or I guess continue opening

the floor for discussion if someone would like to make a comment prior to

votes being taken. Commissioner Bott.

Yeah, just because we ran into this I feel like a few weeks ago

where we realized we couldn't make comments on an item after we voted on it.

I will say that I will be supporting this

recommendation by staff and just so that my

thoughts are out there publicly. I don't generally support

extensions on agreements of this sort because of the hazard introduced with people taking that as

an opportunity for speculation. But since I got assurances from the rest of the dais that

these developers seem to be acting in good faith, I will support it.

Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

That's a good idea. I think just to clarify, I think I will be voting against it, which is very

rare for me, but

not because I do not support the project.

I do, but I would like

to see

some further negotiation

on the

impact fees.

I think the

developer is already

getting a good benefit from the city

extending this by three to five years.

I just

would like the city council to be

aware of the

loss of expected

revenue. Thank you, Commissioner Hunter.

Yeah, okay. I was going to make

another comment, but let's continue. If there's no further

comments, I guess we're going to move on to the roll call vote.

Commissioner Bott? Yes.

Commissioner Cornejo? Yes.

Commissioner Hunter? No.

Vice Chair Koch? Yes.

and chair

yes

the motion passes four to one

great

thank you

all right let me find my

notes

all right we're moving on to item number

six which is staff reports which is

a request for adoption of the planning commission

2026 regular meeting schedule

sue

will give an overview of the item

Thank you, Chair Srinogaratz.

Sue Axline, just on your screen in front of you

is the proposed draft calendar for Planning Commission meetings

for 2026, and you received it in your packet.

And so I'm here for any questions or comments

or edits to the proposed calendar.

Otherwise, my recommendation is to accept it.

Great.

Thank you.

Are there any clarifying questions the commission would like to ask staff?

Okay.

Seeing none, I will open the public hearing.

At this time, we'll take public comments from those.

Seeing no in-person speakers, are there any online comments for our calendar?

No, there are not.

All right. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and I will open the meeting for committee discussion of our calendar.

Oh, Commissioner Bott.

No, it's not a comment. I just want to follow a proper procedure and actually put the motion on the floor.

I'd like to motion that we adopt a resolution of adopting the Planning Commission 2026 regular meeting schedule.

All right. Thank you. I'm moved by Commissioner Bott.

I'd like to second that and I will be voting yes for once.

Commissioner Hunter is a second.

Are there any other comments from the commission?

Commissioner Cornejo?

No comments?

Yeah.

I actually do have a question.

Maybe it's not related to the schedule per se,

but have all the commissions and committees moved on to a 6 a.m.

6 a.m., 6 p.m. start time?

And is that something that is now, I presume the schedule is these dates,

but at 6 p.m. start time?

The schedule is at 6 p.m.

I can speak to the council's start time of being 6 p.m.

and the HRAC and the AAC start at 6 p.m.

I'm not actually sure what other BCC's start time is.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we can move on to the broco.

I'm seeing no more questions for comments.

Commissioner Bott?

Yes.

Commissioner Cornejo?

Yes.

Commissioner Hunter

Vice Chair Koch

Vice Chair Koch

Vice Chair Koch

Chair Sonegorovits

The motion passes 5-0

Alright

Moving right along to item number 7

which is matters of

commission interest

Planning commission liaison updates

Just wanted to give the

commission a heads up that we

will likely be cancelling

the December 2nd meeting

the item is scheduled for

December 16th

we will send out though an official

cancellation and

otherwise that will

be so that will be our last

meeting for this calendar

year and

that is the only update I have

were there any updates from the city council on the

Eater DeMille's

contracts that we passed or any of the others

those are scheduled for December 8th

Community development has a packed agenda that evening.

So this 1548 Maple is going to council that evening.

The four Mills Act projects are going that evening.

There's an update on the Mills Act.

You may all recall that I think it was February when we had a joint session with the HRAC to discuss some ideas around Mills Act.

So that is now scheduled for city council.

It's had a couple moves because the calendar has been so busy.

but it's scheduled to come.

What else can I update you on from City Council?

There is also an item on the Elko Yards on November 24th as well,

going to City Council.

A minor kind of change in how the project is providing its affordable housing.

So that staff report will come out on Thursday.

And let me know if you have any questions,

but that will be on the calendar on next Monday.

I do have a question about public comment.

I know that City Council has moved for online public comment provided via Zoom,

and it's been now a few months.

And at the time, I think the staff update was that it will be slowly rolling out to the commissions and committees.

I'm curious whether there's any update whether the Planning Commission will be able to receive public comment via Zoom,

if not next meeting, perhaps, in 2026.

Yes, I'm confident that it'll be 2026.

I have heard that it would be in December.

so

I haven't heard

kind of most recently that that date

is sticking. We haven't heard kind of

updated procedures in terms of notices

and stuff like that but

I would feel confident in the

2026 date if not the December meeting.

Great. Thank you. Much

appreciated. Any

other questions or commission updates from the

commissioners? Alright.

Seeing none, that concludes the items for tonight's agenda.

The next planning commission meeting is scheduled

not for 2nd but the 16th of

December 2025.

Thank you.