Before we begin, I want to remind the Planning Commission members and the members of the

public to follow our code of conduct at meetings.

This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only and addressing the full body.

Public speakers will not engage in conversation with the commissioners or staff.

All members of the Planning Commission, staff, and public are expected to refrain from abusive

language.

Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede

the orderly conduct of this meeting, may result in removal from the meeting.

This meeting of the Planning Commission will now come to order.

Summary of Hearing Procedures.

If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located on the table

near the AV technician.

There are also speaker cards in the back of the chambers and at the side entrance.

The procedure of this meeting is as follows.

After staff's presentation, applicants or appellants may make up to a five-minute presentation.

During the public comment period, the chair will call out names on the submitted speaker

cards in the order they will receive for those members of the public who attend in person.

As your name is called, line up in front of the microphone at the front of the chamber.

Generally, each speaker will be given up to two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes.

At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted for each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, number of speakers, and other factors.

Speakers using a translator will have double the time allotted.

After public testimony, the applicant or appellant may make closing remarks for up to an additional five minutes.

Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers.

Response to commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

The public hearing will then be closed and the Planning Commission will take action on

the item.

The Planning Commission may request staff to respond to public testimony, ask staff questions,

and discuss the item.

If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only

those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence

delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing.

The Planning Commission's action on rezonings, prezonings, general plan amendments, and code

amendments is only advisory to the City Council. The City Council will hold public hearings on

these items. Section 20.120.400 of the Municipal Code provides the procedures for legal protests

to the City Council on rezonings and prezonings. The Planning Commission's action on conditional

use permits is appealable to the City Council in accordance with Section 20.100.220 of the

Municipal Code. Agendas and staff reports for this meeting may be accessed on the City website.

Moving on to public comment.

This is the time for public comment to the Planning Commission on non-agendized items.

Please fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician.

Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to two minutes.

The Commission cannot take any formal action without the item being properly noticed and

placed on an agenda.

In response to public comment, the Planning Commission is limited to the following options.

Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public.

staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting or directing staff to place the item

on a future agenda.

Staff, do we have any speakers for public comment on items tonight that are not on the

agenda?

No speakers, Chair.

Thank you very much.

We are moving to deferrals and removals from the calendar.

Any items scheduled for the hearing this evening for which deferral is being requested will

be taken out of order to be heard first on the matter of deferral or removal.

Staff, do we have any items to defer today?

No items. Thank you.

Since we do not have any items for which deferrals or removals are being requested,

we will move on to Agenda Item 5, the Consent Calendar.

Yes.

Thank you. I'd like to pull Item 5B, CP24-15.

All right. Thank you in advance.

Let me first read the consent calendar script and then move on to that.

So consent calendar.

There will be no separate discussion of individual items on the consent calendar as they are considered to be routine and will be adopted in one motion.

Unless a member of the commission requests debate, a separate vote, or recusal on a particular item, in this case 5B, for example,

that item may be removed from the consent calendar and considered separately.

The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed from the consent calendar by the chair.

Staff will provide an update on the consent calendar.

If you wish to speak on one of these items individually, please come to the podium at this time.

On the consent calendar, we have one item now, which is reviewing and approving the action minutes from December 10, 2025.

Are there any public speakers for items currently on the consent calendar?

the minutes. Seeing none, we will turn to the Commission. Do we have a motion to

approve the consent calendar absent item B? Motion made by Commissioner Cantrell

with the second by Commissioner Bickford. We will move on to a roll call vote.

Commissioner sorry Vice Chair Bickford yes Commissioner Borossio yes

Commissioner Bondall Commissioner Cantrell yes Commissioner cow yes

Commissioner Casey yes Commissioner Olivario here

Commissioner Young here or yes sorry Commissioner Escobar yes

Commissioner Nguyen yes and myself is a yes and the motion carries is that ten

with one absent all right see we will now move on to item well I guess we would

move to the public hearing okay so generally public hearing items are

considered by the Planning Commission in the order in which they appear on the

agenda however please be advised that the Commission may take items out of

order to facilitate the agenda such as to accommodate significant public

testimony or may defer discussions of items to later agendas for public hearing

time management purposes. So we have no items on the public hearing agenda

tonight however one item was removed from the consent calendar item let's see

that would be CP 24-015 and ER 24-139 a conditional use permit to allow the

installation of a 100 megawatt battery energy storage facility on San Ignacio Avenue.

Do we have a staff presentation?

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners.

Yes, my name is Cora McNaughton.

I am the Planning Project Manager for this request.

This is a request for a conditional use permit to allow, as mentioned, the installation of

a battery energy storage facility.

It will consist of battery modules and inverters and a collector substation, with extended construction hours to include Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The project site is approximately 5.5 gross acres in area.

The project does not include any demolition or tree removals.

And as mentioned, the site is located at 6150 San Ignacio Avenue, and this is approximately 700 feet southeast of Great Oaks Boulevard.

The site does not have any permanent structures and is currently being used for vehicle storage,

which will be discontinued to allow for the installation of the battery storage facility.

Adjacent uses include a shopping center to the east, hotels to the north across San Ignacio Avenue,

industrial buildings to the west, and a church located within an industrial park to the south across Via Del Oro.

The project is consistent with the combined industrial commercial general plan land use designation and the IP industrial park zoning district.

Staff followed council policy 630, the public outreach policy to inform the public of the project, which included on-site signs on the site frontages on San Ignacio Avenue and Via Del Oro.

So a notice of the public hearing was distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 500 feet of the project site and also posted on the city website.

Staff has also been available to respond to any questions from the public.

To date, no questions have been received regarding this project.

Under the provisions of Section 15183 of the state guidelines for CEQA implementation,

the project has been found to be exempt from the environmental review requirements of Title 21 of the San Jose Municipal Code,

which implements CEQA.

This exemption applies to projects that are consistent with existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR has been certified.

The project has been found to be consistent with the analysis performed for the City's Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, which was certified in November 2011.

Therefore, staff recommends that the commissioners consider the CEQA exemption and approve the conditional use permit.

This concludes staff's presentation, and we are available here for questions.

Thank you, staff.

is there an applicant for this project?

Yes, we do have Max Christian here representing New Leaf Energy.

This time we have five minutes for a presentation from the applicant, if you would like.

All right.

All right.

Do we have any public comment for this item?

All right.

Seeing none, then we will turn it over to the commission, Commissioner Young.

Thank you, Chair.

Sir, since you're the applicant for the project, perhaps you can come up to the podium and tell us what your experience is in designing and perhaps operating these type of facilities.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners.

Thank you for the question, Commissioner Young.

My name is Max Christian. I'm the senior project developer for New Leaf Energy, responsible for our TOKE energy storage project proposed for San Ignacio Road.

New Leaf Energy is a developer of renewable energy projects and energy storage batteries.

We were spun out of a company called Borrego Energy. It has a 20-plus year history here in California.

Borrego developed, constructed, and operated and maintained projects.

New Leaf Energy was spun out of that company

and we are just a developer.

And the context is important because we develop projects,

meaning we get all of the entitlements for the projects.

We go through an interconnection process with the CAISO,

the grid operator, to get an interconnection agreement.

And typically we'll have a power purchase agreement

for the power contract that's going to, the battery will produce.

And then we sell that.

It's very typical in our industry.

developers, our sources of capital are a different kind of money. We typically sell that project to

the long-term owner and operator who will construct the project, build it, commission it,

and then operate it for the long term. The projected term of these kinds of projects is on the order of

20 years. PG&E would be an example of an entity that would buy, build, and own this for the long

term. We stay connected to the project directly, financially incentivized through commissioning.

And so we sell the project, but then through construction and commissioning, we are directly

tied to that project. In this case, this project is one of seven that we have developed in California.

We're developing one in Santa Cruz County, 12 miles from the Moss Landing facility that experienced a

fire one year ago. I've been going to detail about the fundamental differences between this design

and what we call the first generation battery facilities like what was that Moss Landing.

And we have permitted projects in Central Valley working on Santa Cruz and other parts of the

state. And we have also developed batteries nationally. And we're in seven or eight key

markets where renewables as well as energy storage are incentivized.

And we have happy to provide additional written experience on that project list and projects that we've developed and been put online.

Great. Thank you for that.

So I want to get to Moss Landing in a minute.

But other than that incident, have you had any incidents at any of your facilities, fires or hazardous material releases, anything like that?

None at our facilities, and again, these are projects that we develop that someone else has built that have been online.

We have had no fires, meaning an emergency response that had a fire or smoke.

To be clear, these systems have sub-second monitoring, meaning to the millisecond level,

they are monitored remotely at the module level of the battery for voltage and temperature.

that's monitored at a network operation center that's remote and so whenever a

cell or a module battery module goes out of tolerance for voltage or temperature

an alarm will go off the first notification will be to a vendor or you

know an operations and maintenance person that says this is a big deal this is a

small deal and then there's a protocol for escalation typically we have

respond you know those types of issues come up that's basic maintenance type of

issue that has come up on these batteries. Certainly those have come up on ours, but

not to the level where that protocol of escalation reaches local emergency services. That usually

means you have a thermal runway event. You would pick that up hours and hours, maybe

18 or 25 hours before that module was in a position where typically you would have an

emergency response from first responders.

Okay, great.

You were mentioning that this facility is different.

And I'll let you explain how it's different from the facility at Moss Landing.

For those of you that don't know, there was a major fire there.

So if you could kind of describe that difference, appreciate it.

Yes, sir.

The facility Moss Landing was in energy storage terms.

This is a new technology that 2018-2017 were the very early days of battery storage.

And I'm sure you're all familiar, but the basic idea is that you're taking lithium ion batteries,

that's a predominant chemistry that's used in the technology,

and you're connecting them to the grid, typically at a substation,

and they charge from the grid.

So as opposed to the commercial or residential level where you're paying for retail electricity,

electricity. This is done at the wholesale level, which is operated by the grid operator, in our

case, Kaiso. It's a wholesale market, and so you buy and sell at wholesale. These batteries connect

to the grid. They charge typically in the middle of the day in California when electricity is very

low. So we've got a surplus of solar electricity that is being produced in the desert. These

batteries, the way they operate, they'll charge at very low electricity rates in the middle of the

day predominantly or we can almost say all solar energy and then they dispatch in the evening hours

typically five to nine in California when people come home September, August, October when we've

got heat events turn on the air conditioner and that's where peak demand for electricity happens.

These facilities then discharge typically every night but in those peak periods they discharge

the electricity and help meet that peak demand. So that's their function so going back to the early

days these were essentially EV batteries so the chemistry was nickel manganese cobalt so that is

the EV battery that was used for electric vehicles that's what scaled up first and so when these

systems were first put online onto the grid they used the most commercially available and the most

commercially available and where the cost curve had come to a point that you could deploy these

on the grid that was the battery that was used also in the early days the form factor how you

know what you house these in was kind of wide open there weren't rules in fact I defer to the

to the fire marshal but there weren't there was not necessarily a section in the code that dealt

with battery storage and so they was sort of open in terms of interpretation or in terms of the

the determination of what safety to house these battery modules was fairly wide open.

Moss Landing was an example of that.

It was one of the first batteries to come online in California.

And that facility was a gas generation plant for 50-odd years.

They removed the thermal plant there, and they replaced it with batteries.

And this was a very large warehouse concrete structure that had been, again, repurposed from a plant

from a thermal plant. They put all of the batteries in that open warehouse and then the fire suppression system.

This is what I should be clarified. This is what I understand from dealing with the jurisdiction down there, hearing it secondhand.

But the fire suppression system was essentially overhead water pipes that had been there initially for the original system.

That facility had three different thermal events where first responders came, I think in November 23.

September 23, they closed down Highway 1 for 12 hours, so it was an event that they had previous events.

Again, the older chemistry, nickel-manganese-cobalt, which I forgot to mention, is much more volatile,

so it's good for batteries. You've got high energy density in a small space for stationary storage

relative to what the chemistry is now, so much more volatile.

The event that happened on January 16th of last year, of 2025, was a thermal event.

You had a bunch of modules that were not separated by space or by containerized systems,

meaning like physical separation, metal, steel containers.

You didn't have monitoring and you didn't have the suppression that are on the system that I'll go into that we're proposing.

And so you had a thermal runway event that propagated across batteries.

and you had something like, I think, 100,000 batteries total in the facility,

and most of them all got in a thermal runway.

Then there was an emission source, and you had flames.

That all within that old warehouse with a three-inch water pipe.

All of those things led to the catastrophic event that the citizens,

you know, the community there experienced closure, emissions, you know, a huge emergency services response.

And the net of that was that that system was unsafe when it was built.

So that was the termination out of some of the reports that would come out of there.

it took that event I think to taking that event and contrasting it to the battery systems that

have come online since 2022 and I'll move into what our system looks like the reason I point

out that year is in 2022 the codes were updated in the National Fire Protection Code 855 that

deals with energy storage specifically had a number of you know code requirements for battery

storage that regulated it and among those and as a result of those you have the next generation of

battery storage for stationary applications which include some very high level characteristics ours

are our battery system that we proposed matches these matches those which is another way of saying

that a facility like moss landing would not have been permitted would not have been permittable

after 2022 it would not emit any of the codes the next generation systems of which ours apart and

our system will probably not be constructed until 2028 won't be online until 2030.

you know we anticipate additional advances in safety uh to come along but um as the the basic

design of the form factor is that as opposed to a hundred thousand battery modules in an old

warehouse like Vistro was like the sorry Moss Landing was you have about 40 batteries modules

within a container that's 20 feet by eight feet by eight feet that so just in terms of the amount

of fuel you're talking a vast fraction below what what was at Moss Landing each of those modules

are separated by a metal container so you've got five racks eight batteries high that's the 40

batteries each of those sit in a metal container at the cell level you've got

that voltage and thermal monitoring remotely millisecond you have escalating

series of separation to avoid propagation but also mitigation so you've

got the thermal monitoring you can remote shut off so as soon as one of the

cells down to a two inch by two inch goes out of threshold you can remotely

shut off that cell you've got active cooling in the in that container so

So thermal runway is caused when the heat outruns the ability to keep it cool.

And so they have active cooling systems on those all the way up to active fire suppression.

So some of the cells actually do reach thermal runway.

And then you've got active, it's not water, it is a chemical agent that's used that has a fine mist that brings the temperature down,

removes the oxygen and coats everything so that you don't have an ignition source.

All of those are on board this, again, 20-foot container with all these safety systems

and monitoring, remote shot-off, et cetera.

And so that is very compliant, you know, is compliant with the codes that have been established

in the NFPA 55 section, as well as the California Public Utilities Commission

and the California Energy Commission came out with revised rules,

safety regulations, codes regulating battery safety as a result of Moss Landing.

Senator Laird from Santa Cruz also had legislation that has another level of coordination

with local fire agencies to develop an emergency response plan.

And all of that is part of the new standards and regs and regulations that we have to meet for battery fire safety that all came out of as a result of Moss Landing.

So we think we've got a safe system, very different from what was at Moss Landing, with a number of mitigations and safety features, along with code compliance, that would essentially make an event like Moss Landing impossible.

I say that because just the fuel available is just a completely different scale.

Okay, great. Thank you. I noticed we have a chief officer from the fire department here. Chief, if you could talk a little bit about what the fire suppression systems are there and what your confidence is that, you know, this is going to be a safe facility.

Yeah, good evening, Chair and Commission. My name is James Dobson, Deputy Fire Chief and Fire Marshal for the San Jose Fire Department.

I don't know specifically on their system because it hasn't come to us yet, but I can tell you that all energy storage systems that come through San Jose, we require rigorous testing as well as analysis of their plans.

San Jose is one of the leaders in providing energy storage system safety.

We are participants of Work Group 4 dealing with energy systems for ICC.

We also sit, I sit on the NFPA 855 Work Group Committee as far as the development, and we work with FEMA.

We require large-scale fire testing that will, that in that testing they have to have their suppression system that is installed as well as adjacent racks.

And they have to send that unit into a full thermal destructive runaway test with the goal that there is no propagation from unit to unit.

So that you do not have the ability to have that kind of incident that you saw in a Moss Landing.

And that's something that we've been extremely aggressive on in San Jose and really are a leader across the nation in the type of rigorous requirements that we have according to the codes.

Great. Thank you.

So just my final question to you, Chief, is you're confident that the safety of this facility will be, you're confident it'll be safe considering we have a church and shopping center and other things close by?

I'm confident to tell you that we will not have unit-to-unit propagation, which will cause a catastrophic failure of the entire, you know, building.

To tell you that there would never be a fire in an ESS unit, I can't tell you that.

There's too many things that can play into that, but I can tell you that the fire would be controlled and contained to that unit of origin, and it would not propagate from there.

Great. Thank you. That's all I have, Chair. Thanks.

Commissioner Bickford.

Thank you, Chair.

Along those lines, I have two questions, and maybe the fire chief will know.

How many battery plants of this size do we have in the city of San Jose today?

So energy storage systems have a different—so we have energy storage systems throughout San Jose.

So understand that these lithium ion battery systems are not just kind of confined to this

type of development, but just this type of development that might back up the grid.

We have one currently that's located, but we have more that are proposed.

We are looking at other sites and have even started down the pathway of having conversations

with the manufacturers to let them know what the testing requirements are.

But all of our data centers have extensive use of lithium ion battery technology, and

we apply the same rigorous requirements for all of those facilities as well.

Thank you, and that's exactly where I was going.

So I happen to know there are multiple significantly sized data centers.

100 megawatts is very standard.

I think several of the ones that we're building are slightly above that.

They all have these exact same battery plants with the same isolation requirements and all of those things.

This is somewhat unique, but in the city, this size of battery plant is a known and tested thing with the isolation.

That's what I'm asking.

Yeah, we continue. So all battery manufacturers have to go through this rigorous testing.

Not all of them have gone through it.

And sometimes they submit what they think is a rigorous test, but it doesn't meet our qualifications here in San Jose.

So there's a level of testing that a lot of manufacturers have done called 9540A testing and 9540.

we require actual large-scale fire testing.

And in our ordinance, we actually have a definition for that large-scale fire testing.

And it's based on not only the definitions that are in NFPA 55,

but also include the understanding that is listed in ICC in the code commentary

that it is a destructive test that will prohibit propagation from unit to unit.

Thank you. And a question for the applicant. It's 100 megawatts. It's pretty substantial. And is the entire model pulling low-priced power and pushing back high-priced power? There's not a solar or sustainability aspect to feeding these batteries?

Well, no, there's not a renewable energy facility co-located with it, but I would take issue with the – it's providing a – as I was saying earlier, it is providing – it is charging from – in California, there's data that we can show you that you can't identify the provenance of any electron that gets on the grid at any point in the day.

but in the middle of the day, we have so much solar being produced in the desert

that a lot of it doesn't even get on the grid.

So up to 18% at some times of the year of our solar that we already have in the desert

doesn't get on the grid because there's nowhere to go.

There's not a pull for it for demand.

So that's what makes the electricity low.

That's what the battery charges from in the middle of the day.

It is predominantly, or you could say, almost all solar.

So this battery is charging from solar that's on the grid in the middle of the day, and then it's discharging in the evening.

And, you know, as you pointed out, there are data centers, in fact, within blocks of this.

This battery, because of that arbitrage function, charging low, discharging, discharging when prices are high, it actually has the effect of lowering prices.

So the net result of a battery is located within load as opposed to farther out is that it lowers prices.

So the data centers or prices for everyone because it goes from wholesale to retail will be lower as a result of the battery arbitrage.

What we are out competing just from an economic standpoint are gas peaker plants that sit and hum in the background and then only in those very high arbitrage opportunities.

but they're much more expensive.

And so again, we are bringing prices down.

The last thing I would note is the footprint

of a thousand megawatt solar plant in the desert

is about, I'm sorry, of a 100 megawatt.

So same megawatt size as our battery is about a thousand acres.

About a thousand acres of solar panels

to get a hundred megawatts.

You're getting a hundred megawatts of solar energy

on San Ignacio in a load pocket

to lower prices for all of the users.

as you're probably well aware, data centers with their usage,

regardless of what they have on site,

I mean, they pull from the grid, that raises prices,

so this will have the net effect of lowering prices.

And one final question.

You mentioned a pod configuration.

Can you say anything about how much power is in megawatts in each of the pods?

There are about 5 megawatts per container.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, anything else from commissioners?

Commissioner Young.

So, I appreciate the presentation from the applicant,

and also, Chief, thank you for being here.

It's nice to hear that our city is on the cutting edge of regulating these things.

That's great.

So I feel confident based on the applicant's testimony and the fire marshal testimony,

this can be a safe facility.

And I think the concept of taking excess power during the day and storing it

and using it at night is great.

I think that's a very important sustainable function.

So I'm going to make a motion to approve second.

Who was the second?

Mr. Casey?

All right, on to a roll call vote.

Commissioner, it's Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Borosio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal.

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Since this is the last item, I wanted to say thank you so much, Commissioner Young and Vice Chair Bickford, for your intellect and understanding of this.

I learned much more than I ever thought I would today.

And I appreciate your insight to actually ask those questions.

And yes.

Commissioner Cal?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen?

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio?

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Myself?

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar?

Yes.

All right.

Myself is a yes.

The motion carries, so that's 10 yeses and one absent.

All right, and that's all for the public hearing.

Moving on to referrals from city council, boards, commissions, or other agencies.

No referrals.

Okay, nothing good in welfare, public right?

Yes, I do have a few things to report on good and welfare.

So I just wanted to note that on January 27th, I know it came up earlier as well,

The City Council will be considering several policy items related to the housing implementation,

such as the Multifamily Housing Incentive Program and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

But in addition, a very important item for planning is also scheduled for that meeting,

which will be to look at the Senate Bill 79 that was passed in October by the state and goes into effect July 1st.

the planning department will be presenting all the options to council for their consideration

and direction on how to implement those new requirements.

So just wanted to show that because spinning from that might be ordinance amendments

that will come to the planning commission in the near term.

Also wanted to note that the Tropicana conditional use permit

that was heard by the planning commission and denied on November 19th

was appealed to the City Council and is tentatively scheduled for February 10th.

We also have another appeal that's going through the review process right now

for the PayPal Stadium to expand concert use.

That was heard and approved at the Director's Hearing.

That will be also going to City Council in the next month, month and a half.

There are also a few other appeals, is my understanding,

that are making their way through the review process.

so I'll keep the commission updated as they progress to either this commission or to the council.

Other reports, I do want to check with the commissioners to see if you all have access to your city emails.

I know there were some challenges with getting access for a bit there.

Our team was trying to get everybody access.

I know Commissioner Cantrell still does not have access.

I've made a note of that, but I want to make sure everybody else has access.

just checking going around the room to see if everybody else is good oh

Commissioner Bandal doesn't have access either okay anybody else who does not

have access to emails just a note for everybody just a note for everybody when

you get your new email you might want to double check your 700 filing because I

I had to change my user because I had used the other business email.

So just one other thing to check.

That's a good note.

Okay.

And then also we are looking to plan a joint meeting with the Housing Commission,

either the second meeting in February or the first meeting in March.

That will be a joint study session to discuss the Housing Catalyst Work Plan.

So that is coming up.

we will let you guys know which date is preferred

based on the availability of the Housing Commission

because it will be on one of the regularly scheduled days

for this commission.

If you think you need more than the hour for that topic

because that is also a very important topic,

please let me know and we will try to accommodate

a longer study session for that item.

All right, that concludes my reports.

And I believe we do have a follow-up

from the last Planning Commission meeting

and our Division Manager, John Tu, is here to report on the Downtown West Development Agreement discussion.

Good evening, Chair and Commission.

John Tu, Division Manager, Planning.

This is a follow-up to our December 10th Planning Commission discussion

regarding the annual compliance review of the development agreements.

There was a question about Downtown West, also known as Google's.

Development agreement is related to a $1 million community benefit fund for the Gartner Community Center.

Excuse me, though.

So we had, do we have to recuse ourselves for this discussion?

I don't think there's a discussion.

Yeah, there's no vote, no action being taken.

It's basically just a follow-up to Commissioner Cantrell's question.

Okay, thank you.

That's a good question, though.

At that hearing, staff confirmed that the development agreement compliance for downtown West

did provide the funds to the city and therefore met their obligation under their development agreement.

Staff after the meeting followed up with PARCS, PRNS, on the status of the funding and the funding utilization related to the Garner Community Center.

PRNS Deputy Director Maria Dillon referred to the item that was actually going to go before the City Council on December 16.

In summary, the memo written for that hearing said that originally PRNS had the plans for that fund in their fiscal year 24-25 to activate several programs at the Garner Community Center with P&R staffing for two years.

But after meeting with several neighborhood groups

and additional discussion of their feedback,

they launched a Gardner Community Center grant program

and facility management RFP,

the requested proposal for a three-year program

that provides service by an outside agency.

At the City Council hearing on December 16th,

after reviewing the various proposals,

PRNS recommended awarding the contract to Catholic Charities,

and the City Council accepted and approved the recommendation.

So that's kind of where, as it relates to the development agreement

and that follow-up about the funding.

although it didn't necessarily directly relate it to their compliance of the development agreement.

So I felt like we should still give it an upgrade as that was a question raised at the hearing.

At the what? I didn't hear that last question.

At the hearing when we discussed the development agreement,

they were just wondering how this development agreement compliance relates to,

I think, that issue that some of the commissioners had questions about.

Any other questions?

Actually, just in more specific detail, I was just curious what the question was, by

what authority was PRNS given the right to determine the use of those funds?

That was directly what my question was.

I did try to go through the development agreement and kind of see where it specifically stated

that the authority was the PRNS.

I would say because it's a community facility,

that the PRNS has oversight on it,

it was kind of they were in charge of providing a recommendation

of what the funding was going for,

and ultimately city council taking that funding

and making a decision on how it was to be authorized

after it was provided by the development agreement.

Okay.

Since nobody questioned their authority to do that at that point,

when city council did make a decision about it,

it became cemented, I guess?

Yeah.

The city council ultimately accepted it as part of their budget

to ultimately reward it as a contract

based on the RFP. I believe there were 21

agencies that applied for it and based

on their scoring, Catholic Charities

scored the highest and that was a recommendation

that went to City Council and ultimately adopted.

Thanks for the clarity. I appreciate it.

Alright, we will now open the

Commissioner Bondal.

I have a question from

Munir. Munir, you said that we're going to have a joint

session, a study session

with the Housing Committee?

That is correct. We are looking at scheduling a joint study session at the Housing Commission.

Would that be in the wing room, most likely?

Pardon me?

The wing room?

We will look at the availability for the wing room. That is our hope that we can have it in the wing room.

How many people are on the Housing Committee?

We have 14 commissioners on the Housing Committee, so it will be a big group.

Since 14 plus, I'm thinking 11, you think 25 people, you think we could get a little bit more than an hour?

Absolutely. Yes, I think we will be scheduling that one for a little more time.

Thank you.

We will now open the floor for public comment.

Do we have any public comment?

All right.

If not, we will adjourn at 7.40 p.m.

East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East East