Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-09 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: April 9, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 7 Chair Chang called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 8 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao took roll and declared there was a quorum. 10 11 Chair Chang welcomed Commissioner James to his first meeting. 12 13 Oral Communications 14 15 There were no speakers. 16 17 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 18 19 There were no agenda changes. 20 21 City Official Reports 22 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 23 24 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer stated that there were 2 items scheduled for the April 30 25 meeting, which would include a discussion of the El Camino Real retail nodes. They were 26 working on bringing the application for 660 University to continue that discussion. Tentatively 27 scheduled for May 14 was the South Palo Alto Bike Ped connectivity and review of the CIP plan. 28 The City had transitioned the web address and emails from cityofpaloalto.org to paloalto.gov. 29 Otherwise email addresses for City staff would remain the same in terms of 30 firstname.lastname. They were working on updating handouts and online documents to the 31 new links. Council had discussed the Lighting Ordinance on April 7, which would be continued 32 due to requested changes. Council would consider the PHZ for the project at 70 Encina Avenue 33 next week. 34 35 Commissioner Ji requested that Jennifer Armer speak to the Parking Program update planned 36 for April 30. 37 38 Jennifer Armer replied that she was working with the Transportation Division on how to 1 present and summarize the collected data. It would likely come forward in May. They were also 2 considering there being an annual update. 3 4 Chair Chang did not recall the PTC continuing 660 University Avenue. 5 6 Jennifer Armer voiced that it had been continued to a date uncertain, as additional information 7 had been requested. It would be re-noticed. 8 9 Senior Engineer Rafael Rius commented that there was opportunity to take an online survey 10 related to the South Palo Alto Bike and Ped connectivity, which would be open until April 30, 11 and the link was available on the Transportation projects webpage. The BPTP project page had 12 an online comment form, which would be open until April 30. 13 Action Items 14 2. Review of the Final Concept Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent 15 Park Traffic Calming Project 16 17 Project Engineer Shahla Yazdy displayed a slide outlining the agenda for this meeting. They had 18 updated revised plans per the PTC motion from the June 14 meeting, which she elaborated on. 19 20 Consultant (Fehr & Peers) Steve Davis provided an overview and background of the project. He 21 furnished slides. They were sharing refined designs today. As part of the feedback, they had 22 heard concern about plants, irrigation, and function of movements and visibility for drivers 23 entering the intersection at the traffic circle. There was interest in adding crosswalks. They had 24 adjusted the alignment of the circle, which was different in terms of shape but not too different 25 in terms of size. Additional signage would be added. There would be raised medians on all 5 26 approaches to the intersection and improvements for ADA compliance as it related to ramps 27 and crosswalks. A planting palate had been identified. He furnished a slide showing the final 28 concept design layout. There had been feedback concerning the curb extension and roadway 29 realignment at the intersection of Southwood and East Crescent, which included a desire for 30 appealing design and landscaping. There had been concerns about parking loss and pick-up and 31 drop-off in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. Tied into parking was the enaction of AB 32 413 during the course of the project, which would affect parking availability relative to the curb 33 ramp that currently existed. Also related to feedback received, the curb extension had been 34 adjusted, and the same planting palate had been applied. The plan would install a new curb 35 ramp to establish a new crosswalk at the location of the realigned intersection, but it planned 36 to maintain a concrete path in the location so there would be a connection between the 37 sidewalk and the curbline for street access. The whole approach was to balance accessibility 38 requirements and resident input and needs. He shared a slide with a drawing of the final 39 concept design layout. He outlined where parking would be allowed. The next steps would 40 include completing the final design, preparing construction documents, procuring funding, and 41 moving toward construction. 42 43 Jennifer Armer announced that Commissioner Hechtman had joined the meeting. 1 2 Commissioner Hechtman declared that he was participating remotely from 1 Old Ranch Road in 3 Carmel, Room 317, and that there was 1 adult in the room with him. 4 5 Vice Chair Akin asked how close parking was allowed to the proposed concrete path and if 6 there was sufficient room for a van door to open onto the path. 7 8 Steve Davis answered that it would depend on the location of the van door. 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman inquired if it was within the PTC’s purview to make a 11 recommendation to Council or was limited to review and comment and what the watering 12 method would be for the plantings until they were established. 13 14 Shahla Yazdy responded that Council had directed staff to work with the PTC to refine the 15 concept plans at the oval and at East Crescent and Southwood. The plan was to have the water 16 truck water the landscaping at both locations until they were established and then no watering 17 would be needed. She understood that they were low, slow-growing plants, but trimming 18 would be done as needed. 19 20 Jennifer Armer added that a recommendation would be appreciated. 21 22 Commissioner Ji queried if data had been collected since October 2022, and he asked what the 23 distance was between the existing noncompliant ramp and the end of the no-parking zone and 24 how shy the distance would be from the non-compliant ramp and 15-foot no-parking zone. 25 26 Shahla Yazdy answered that no additional data had been collected since October 2022. 27 Regarding the distance between the existing noncompliant ramp and the end of the no-parking 28 zone, the 15 feet would start approximately where the crosswalk was in the middle of the new 29 crosswalk ramp. She would get information as to how shy the distance would be from the non-30 compliant ramp and 15-foot no-parking zone. 31 32 Commissioner Peterson referenced Packet Page 96 and questioned if it had been designed by 33 City staff or if it had been contracted out. 34 35 Shahla Yazdy replied that the services and Fehr & Peers had been retained to assist with the 36 design of the project, which was being managed by City staff. 37 38 Commissioner James asked if the vertical lane dividers would be eliminated once the polygons 39 separated the lanes; if the directionals could be removed or if there could be plantings behind 40 them to be more appealing to the neighborhood; and if the curbline on Southwood Drive would 41 align with the edge of the bulb-out and how it would be determined what the minimum viable 42 structure would be that would produce the desired change. He wanted to know the least that 1 could be done to still yield the desired outcome. 2 3 Shahla Yazdy responded that the delineators would be removed and replaced with median 4 islands. The sign heights of the directionals were per a requirement. She thought they were 5 placed higher and that they were about 3½ feet. 6 7 Steve Davis added that they could potentially be a little lower. The intent was to change the 8 signs so they would be like the others in town, which would probably be a little lower. The 9 plantings would make the signs seem less prominent. He explained that the least that could be 10 done to produce the desired outcome was iterative in nature. 11 12 [____ 46:24] confirmed that the curbline on Southwood Drive would align with the edge of the 13 bulb-out. 14 15 Associate Engineer Chirag Panchal added that the design included access for emergency 16 vehicles, etc., to turn around. 17 18 Chair Chang requested that the schematic of Southwood Drive be displayed, and she asked 19 what the 2 white stripes along the bulb-out represented. She asked if no bulb-outs or 20 speedbumps and been considered as part of the redesign. She requested context be provided 21 as it related to how the bulb-out and making a T had been decided on as a solution. 22 23 Steve Davis answered that the 2 white stripes along the bulb-out were actually 3 black stripes 24 encompassing what looked like white, which were construction details. The dashed line was 25 where the pavement would have to be sawcut. The line next to it was the edge of the gutter. 26 The second wider white stripe was the gutter pan. The 2 parallel lines close together 27 represented the front and the back of the 6-inch wide curb. He discussed how the bulb-out and 28 making a T had been decided on as a solution. 29 30 Shahla Yazdy replied that she believed the motion from the last PTC was to refine, not redesign. 31 They had looked at a lot of alternatives when the project started. She explained why speed 32 humps had not been considered. They had not considered any further designs since the last 33 PTC meeting. 34 35 Commissioner Peterson inquired which way the water would flow and if the area had storm 36 sewers. 37 38 Steve Davis stated that generally speaking the water would flow right to left. They had done 39 drainage calculations to ensure that there would be positive flow all the way around the curb 40 extension. He did not know if the area had storm sewers. 41 42 Chair Chang asked that Commissioners who had visited the site share any information they had 1 learned. She had visited the site today at about 2:30, and she had seen at least 20 vehicles go 2 through, all but 1 ran the stop signs, motorists picked up speed coming from the roundabout, 3 100 percent of the traffic was cut-through traffic, and most were going onto East Cresent and 4 then toward University. As vehicles were coming from the left and turning left onto East 5 Cresent Drive, 100 percent of the vehicles crossed over what would be the median of the line. It 6 was a difficult turn to negotiate, and people were doing so at high speeds. 7 8 Commissioner James had visited the site on the evening of April 6 and the morning of April 7 9 from 7:30 to 8:30. He had seen certain behaviors, but with it being spring break, he did not 10 know if it was an accurate representation. 11 12 Commissioner Ji stated that he had driven through the 5-way intersection and walked around it. 13 When coming from Center and making a left, it was not obvious that one would have to go 14 around the circle. Concerning the T intersection, he had gone once during non-rush hour and 15 once during evening rush on a Thursday at about 6 p.m., and he noticed what he believed to be 16 cut-through traffic. He thought it was important to emphasize the narrowness of East Crescent 17 Drive and the intersection. If cars should be parked on both sides of the street, it would allow 18 room for only 1 car to pass through. 19 20 Vice Chair Akin voiced that he had spent about an hour observing traffic at both locations and 21 that he had background knowledge of traffic direction and loads on Center. 22 23 Commissioner Peterson expressed that he had not been to the intersection outside of walking 24 around Palo Alto. 25 26 Commissioner Templeton had nothing to disclose, but she noted that it was an abnormal 27 amount of disclosure conversation for something like this. She had been through the 28 neighborhood many times in 20 years, so she had comfortable familiarity with the area, and she 29 had been there recently with the temporary material set up. 30 31 Commissioner Hechtman mentioned that he was familiar with both intersections and that he 32 had passed through them a number of times before the temporary improvements and since 33 then. 34 35 Public Comments 36 37 James Girand stated that he had a disability cutout in front of his house, which was essential to 38 his safety. He stated that there needed to be a solution which would allow him to park in front 39 of his house and a solution to [inaudible 1:07:08] his neighborhood. He remarked that the berm 40 in front of his house forced him to bear the sole brunt of the project. He would appreciate 41 being able to speak 1-on-1 with a representative from the Planning and Transportation 42 Department to work something out. 43 1 Jaunita wanted the PTC to reject the Transportation Department’s calming measure due to it 2 being assumed that the traffic on East Crescent had been reduced, which she explained was 3 misleading; the PTC’s directives from 2 years ago being ignored by the Transportation 4 Department, which she outlined; and her disabled father having struggles in accessing the path 5 to his house since the temporary berm had been in place, as vehicles could not park close to 6 the cutout. She believed installing speedbumps in lieu of the berm would address their 7 concerns and reduce traffic speed. 8 9 John Hanna voiced that Commissioners had previously expressed that the bulb-out was ugly, 10 large, visually distracting, bizarre, not acceptable, needed to be thought through, and needed 11 more work. He noted that this was essentially the same design. He was told by staff that the 12 current design would ensure that the existing walkway to Mr. Girand’s front door would be 13 retained, which he stated was not true. He suggested there be speedbumps, stop signs, and 14 enforcement of law to control speed. He hoped the PTC would be mindful of the PTC’s 15 Procedural Rules under General Requirements Section 1 – Accessibility. 16 17 Greg Welch stated that the majority of the residents supported the project, although he 18 understood the impact it had at the intersection of Southwood and East Crescent, but he did 19 not want those issues to delay permanent implementation of the roundabout design at the 5 20 corners where, he opined, there were dangerous conditions for pedestrians and confusing 21 situations for motorists. He thought the improvements staff had made largely addressed that. 22 He felt the size of the center roundabout should be extended farther to the north. 23 24 Amy stated that the directional signs were over 6 feet, and she had emailed Council a photo 25 showing the height. It did not appear that the plantings planned for the center of the oval 26 would fill the whole oval, and she wanted it to be lush like the one on Fulton, and she had sent 27 a photo regarding that to Council. She asked what the yellow trapezoids on the plan for Center 28 and Hamilton represented and if the line around the traffic circle would be yellow. She felt that 29 stop signs were being run because folks did not expect there to be stop signs in a roundabout. 30 31 Chair Chang declared that now was the time for Commissioners to ask questions of the public 32 commenters. 33 34 Commissioner Templeton asked Mr. Girand if he had voiced his concerns to staff. 35 36 James Girand answered that they had a brief meeting in October (he could not remember the 37 year) where he expressed his concerns and that was the last he had heard from them. 38 39 Shahla Yazdy voiced that they had met with residents who had requested it, and they met with 40 Mr. Girand and a couple of his family members in the field in February 2024 to hear their 41 concerns. There had been a community meeting in October and community meetings prior to 42 that. They had responded to letters and emails. They had no other request to meet in the field 43 other than that in February. 44 1 Commissioner Templeton queried if his feedback had been sufficiently captured, since he was 2 the person whose property was most affected by the design, and if staff was surprised that Mr. 3 Girand was against the current design. 4 5 Shahla Yazdy responded that his feedback had been sufficiently captured. Changes had been 6 made related to comments received, and she believed the new concept designs addressed 7 many of their concerns. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton asked if Mr. Girand had expressed to staff that the new concept 10 designs would address a lot of his concerns. She was concerned that there had not been buy-in 11 from the person who would be primarily affected. She asked Mr. Girand if staff had met with 12 him to discuss the plan being reviewed at this meeting. 13 14 Shahla Yazdy stated that there had been a community meeting in October and the revised plans 15 had been shared. 16 17 Jennifer Armer voiced that staff had heard the concerns and interests from the member of the 18 public. 19 20 James Girand commented that he had told them at the meeting that the berms were ugly and 21 he had not heard from anyone since then. He wanted to discuss it in a constructive manner. He 22 wanted to strive for give and take in a process of discussion and negotiation. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton asked if he requested that directly and if they gave it. 25 26 James Girand responded that he had requested it. The meeting was relatively short. He wanted 27 to reach some type of an agreement. 28 29 Commissioner Peterson asked Mr. Girand if the City was deeding the land to him for the 30 [inaudible 1:29:48] or if there would be a city improvement with somewhat of a small park in 31 front of his house. He wanted to know what Mr. Girand wanted done. 32 33 Chair Chang voiced that staff indicated that the City was not deeding the land to him for the 34 [inaudible 1:29:48]. 35 36 James Girand responded that there would be a city improvement with somewhat of a small 37 park in front of his house. He did not want to be deprived of [inaudible 1:30:44]. 38 39 John Hanna stated that Mr. Girand wanted appropriate, comfortable access to his house. He 40 voiced that the project had not been redesigned in such a way to accommodate his being able 41 to continue the same access. 42 43 Chair Chang stated that in order to be able to park a vehicle there, staff had added a different 1 crosswalk, so the location for the ramp would be 19 or 20 feet, which would at least allow 2 parking close to it. She stated that staff had indicated that the ramp would need to be removed 3 and made into a curb that would allow vehicle parking. She added that staff also suggested 4 using the driveway if going down the curb presented difficulty. She asked if that would meet 5 Mr. Girand’s needs. She questioned if removing the ramp and making it into a curb would 6 present a barrier. She inquired if the side entrance/exit to the house could be used. 7 8 John Hanna stated that there would be difficulty using the driveway. He suggesting shortening 9 the bulb-out a little more, so there would be room for a vehicle, and putting up a handicapped 10 parking sign, which he felt would fulfill the PTC’s mission statement to accommodate the rights 11 of the disabled. The side entrance/exit to the house could be used with a great deal of 12 difficulty. He commented that the curb was cut for wheelchair access, and he asked why it 13 would have to be filled in. 14 15 Commissioner Templeton requested that Mr. Girand and Mr. Hanna describe their interactions 16 with staff. She asked Mr. Girand what he wanted to see. 17 18 John Hannah stated that Mr. Girand had shared his concerns with staff, but he had not been 19 reassured that the problem would be fixed. It seemed that small changes were being made to 20 the same design, which made practically no difference. He did not feel that staff listened to Mr. 21 Girand or the Commissioners who told them it was unacceptable and needed to be changed. 22 Mr. Girand wanted to park where the curb was cut. 23 24 Jennifer Armer pulled up the diagram and stated that the planting to the left of the walkway 25 was getting in the way of a car being able to park so that he could get out at the walkway. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton thanked Mr. Girand and Mr. Hanna. She would see what options 28 could be discussed at this meeting. She would do her best to convey his needs to staff. 29 30 Chair Chang closed public comment and brought the discussion back to the Commission. 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman addressed Mr. Girand’s concerns, and he noted that there appeared 33 to be a solution to the problem on Packet Page 13. He thought staff listened to the concerns 34 and that their effort to find a solution was on Packet Page 13. He wanted clarification if it would 35 be a curb or a concrete path. 36 37 Chair Chang queried what was meant by a concrete path and if a wheelchair or a walker could 38 access it or if a stepdown would have to be negotiated. She asked if there could be a ramp 39 there. 40 41 Shahla Yazdy responded that a concrete path would have a curb, which would be similar to a 42 bus stop. The existing ramp was considered non-ADA. It was considered a pedestrian crossing. 43 Without the bulb-out, there could be no parking 20 feet prior to the intersection. By converting 44 it into a curb, they felt they could manipulate the location of the new pedestrian crossing that 1 would be ADA compliant. With the crosswalk striping, they felt they could get the distance 2 needed for van parking along the edge of the bulb-out. The width of the existing ramp would 3 not change. Planting could be removed from the corner if that was a concern. During design, 4 there could be revisions to provide the needed parking Mr. Girand was requesting. 5 6 Commissioner Hechtman asked what was contemplated for the curb at this location, if it would 7 be smooth, etc., and if staff was trying to solve Mr. Girand’s concern with what was referenced 8 on Packet Page 13. 9 10 Shahla Yazdy answered that they were proposing a square curb. During design, they could 11 investigate to see if a rolled curb would work, but they would have to take drainage into 12 account. Staff was trying to solve Mr. Girand’s concerns with what was referenced on Packet 13 Page 13. 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to know if it would work. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton asked what steps had been taken to make sure that Mr. Girand was 18 on board before bringing the design to the PTC. 19 20 Shahla Yazdy replied that staff received their concerns by meeting with them personally and at 21 community meetings and through emails. The resident did not want any hardscape in front of 22 their house or anything vertical, like a bench, so they complied with that. They proposed 23 drought tolerant-landscaping that fit the aesthetics of the neighborhood. 24 25 Commissioner Templeton understood that the request was more related to physical access. She 26 asked if staff received feedback from the resident about the landscaping. She questioned what 27 the resident had addressed when the design was shared with him. She stated that Mr. Girand 28 would be prevented from getting into his home by the design staff was proposing. She was 29 inclined to send this back and reschedule it after staff had a chance to work it out. Although, 30 she thought that had been done last time, so she was trying to determine where the disconnect 31 was so the PTC could give staff better direction at this meeting. 32 33 Shahla Yazdy answered that the resident did not want any hardscape. They were concerned 34 about the loss of parking and the ramp. Staff felt that converting the existing ramp into a path 35 would allow them to still have their concrete path connection to the sidewalk for drop-offs and 36 pick-ups. The resident had stated it was not aesthetically pleasing, and staff explained that the 37 current condition was temporary. They expressed concern when the black curbing was placed, 38 and they requested that a section of it be removed so they could park, and staff angled the 39 curbing so they could park, back up, and exit. She felt that staff heard their concerns and that 40 the new design reflected their comments. The new refined design did not prevent the resident 41 access to the front walkway or the sidewalk. 42 43 Commissioner Templeton noted that the resident indicated that it did prevent access, so she 1 questioned how it should be addressed. 2 3 Chirag Panchal stated that the AB 413 law came into the picture in 2025 and was where the 4 condition laid. If there was no AB 413 law, then they could park. Staff had to work around the 5 law to provide access to the residence. There had been a meeting with the resident in February 6 and their comments were heard and changes had been made to the design. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton thought that these members of the public were concerned that upon 9 implementation it would be hard to address the needs they expressed. She also found that staff 10 had been trying to address those needs, but it did not seem as though there had been a 11 meeting in the middle, which she considered to be a critical point. She hoped to find a way to 12 get this primarily affected community member on board with the plan, which she could then 13 approve. She wanted Transportation staff to get the community member on board. 14 15 Shahla Yazdy responded that she thought the community member was referring to the 16 landscaping at the circle of East Meadow and Ross, not the engineering. With having the pilot 17 program and the curbing, she was confident that there would not be engineering errors or 18 complications. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton stated it was not about aesthetics, that there had been a problem in 21 getting community buy-in, which was the disaster she wanted to prevent in this neighborhood. 22 She hoped staff wanted to get the support of those affected daily in getting in and out of their 23 home, which she felt they did, but she did not find evidence of it. She wanted to know what the 24 Commission could do to bridge the gap so this could go forward. 25 26 Commissioner Ji referenced the concrete path mentioned on Packet Page 13, and he did not 27 see that AB 413 required filling in the ramp, and he asked why the ramp had to be filled in. 28 29 Shahla Yazdy replied that the existing ramp was acting as a pedestrian crossing, so AB 413 30 restricted parking in front of a pedestrian crossing/ramp. 31 32 Commissioner Ji understood that another crossing had been created, so the path would no 33 longer be the crossing for the intersection. Based on his cursory reading of AB 413, he felt that 34 the crosswalk in the current design shown on screen would be considered the crosswalk and 35 that the other ramp would not be considered a crossing. 36 37 Shahla Yazdy responded that a new pedestrian crossing was being created but the ramp could 38 not stay as it was because it was nonstandard. To address it liability-wise, staff proposed raising 39 it into a concrete curb or a path so the residents would have continued access. 40 41 Chair Chang stated that since there was an actual crosswalk in the plan the other one would not 42 be a crossing. 43 44 Steve Davis explained that part of the challenge was how it was viewed in AB 413 and the ADA 1 laws. There was probably some additional investigation to do, but there were a lot of different 2 pieces. 3 4 Commissioner Ji understood it was complicated, but he did not want to fill in the ramp if it did 5 not need to be done. He asked where the 19 feet would be from the intersection. 6 7 Chair Chang inquired if cutting in the bulb-out a little would solve the problem. 8 9 Steve Davis stated it would be a challenge because several issues were at play, which he 10 detailed. He pointed out where the approximately 19 feet was from the intersection. He 11 detailed a design modification that allowed the 19 feet while leaving the concrete path in the 12 location of the existing ramp. 13 14 Commissioner Ji mentioned that there may be alternatives to pull the crosswalk farther down, 15 which could allow for 20 or more feet so a van could occupy the slot. He was interested in 16 exploring designs that would not impact the current ramp. He inquired why more data was not 17 collected after October 2022 and what the previous date of data collection had been. 18 19 Shahla Yazdy answered that the data collected in 2022 showed improvement in speeds and cut-20 through volume decreasing. They had done a lot of field visits and observations. As they had 21 gotten approval of the concept designs, they focused on design refinement. The initial data was 22 collected in 2019. 23 24 Commissioner Ji discussed why he was surprised to hear that more data was not collected. He 25 was having a hard time parsing out the causal effect of some of the traffic calming procedures 26 that had been put in place. The June 2023 minutes reflected that the PTC had asked for 27 additional data collection before returning to the PTC. He queried if Chirag Panchal cut through 28 the neighborhood on his route to work. He thought there could be additional engineered 29 solutions that could preserve the ramp in its current form, which he was interested in seeing. 30 31 Chirag Panchal replied that he did not cut through it but he had observed it. 32 33 Shahla Yazdy added that they had seen reduction in speeds when data was collected in 2022. 34 35 Commissioner Ji commented that it was unclear that the speed reduction at Southwood and 36 East Cresent was due to the specific traffic calming provided here. He stated it was potentially 37 more about the close-by circle. 38 39 Shahla Yazdy voiced that part of the reason traffic did not collect at the intersection was due to 40 the stop signs. They had seen reduction in speeds on the side streets and she believed on 41 Hamilton and Southwood. 42 43 Commissioner Peterson queried if this was one of the last streets to be upgraded in the 1 neighborhood, if Southwood Drive was a concrete roadway, and if there was a timeline to 2 rebuild the streets. He stated that the concrete was significantly fractured, which could be an 3 indication that the underlying subgrade had failed. He questioned if concrete roads were 4 typically paved over with asphalt or if they were removed and rebuilt. He asked if a low, raised 5 concrete platform, like an apron, was a design option for the corner. He wanted to know what 6 other design options had been considered. 7 8 Shahla Yazdy affirmed that this was one of the last streets to be upgraded in the neighborhood 9 and that Southwood Drive was a concrete roadway. She understood that rebuilding that was 10 not proposed at this time. She outlined where paving would be done as part of the project. 11 Analyzing the roadway was under the purview of Public Works. She did not know if concrete 12 roads were paved over, but she knew a lot of base repair was done. She did not see how an 13 apron design would accommodate the resident. 14 15 Steve Davis stated that a hardscape was not preferred. He explained that there were issues 16 with an apron design. 17 18 Commissioner Peterson was imagining an apron being street parking with the landscaping 19 being almost like an island on the other side of the street parking on the apron. 20 21 Steve Davis was having a hard time imaging that. 22 23 Commissioner James wanted to understand why staff thought the driveway would resolve the 24 problem. 25 26 Shahla Yazdy explained why it was an option. 27 28 Jennifer Armer spoke of having a curb that would allow exit from a vehicle, although if that was 29 not sufficient, the driveway may be an alternative. 30 31 Chair Chang was disappointed that the PTC’s message seemed to have gotten lost because the 32 PTC was interested in exploring large changes to the bulb-out, a stop sign-only version, and 33 speedbumps. She wondered why the explicit direction was not addressed. She was concerned 34 about access and she did not know if filling in the ramp would cause a problem, and without 35 being able to ask the public, she did not feel comfortable voting for this. She found that 36 motorists had trouble maneuvering the bulb-out. She did not know if widening it 4½ feet would 37 address that, but she thought it would help. 38 39 Jennifer Armer stated that public comment could be opened to answer a discrete yes/no-type 40 question. 41 42 Chair Chang asked if filling the ramp in and allowing vehicle parking in front of the path would 43 be acceptable. 44 1 Jennifer Armer stated that the resident was having difficulty understanding what that would 2 mean and what it would look like. They still envisioned needing to roll up over the curb to make 3 use of the path, which would be difficult. 4 5 Shahla Yazdy commented that staff could look into the rolled curb at the concrete path during 6 design. 7 8 Chair Chang asked if a rolled curb would help. 9 10 Jennifer Armer stated that the resident answered that it would depend on the sharpness of the 11 curb. 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman requested that the diagram with the yellow line be displayed and that 14 staff draw a picture of a parked car in the vicinity of the yellow line. He did not know if being 15 able to park 15 feet from the crosswalk would accommodate Mr. Girand, which he thought was 16 the concept staff was proposing. 17 18 Chair Chang suggested the motions be split for each intersection so that nothing would be lost 19 in translation. She also suggested that the discussion on this intersection be concluded and that 20 the other be discussed. 21 22 Commissioner Peterson asked if a flat curb would be a feasible design solution. 23 24 Steve Davis did not know if a flat curb would be a feasible design solution. It could be 25 investigated. He defined a normal vertical curb, a rolled curb, and a flat curb. He added that 26 rolled curbs could be challenging for wheelchair access. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton stated that there had not been agreement between the affected 29 parties before coming to the PTC, so she felt the PTC had been put in a tough position. She 30 could not get on board with this being injurious to a resident. She wanted staff to address the 31 issue further. She suggested that the public speaker meet with staff, and she hoped staff would 32 take seriously his need to acces his home. She did not want to make a recommendation that 33 would prevent someone access to their home. She was not inclined to make the staff 34 recommendation. She suggested saying no, keeping stop signs and being done or giving staff 35 time to meet with the resident and negotiate before returning to the PTC. 36 37 Commissioner Ji expressed that in the future it might be helpful to show the different 38 iterations. 39 40 Commissioner Templeton was struck by the emotional weight of not being able to access one’s 41 home but also making a street safer, which she considered important aspects of the item. She 42 stated that if she created a motion, it would be that staff return at a time certain after having a 43 substantial meeting with and coming to an agreement with the homeowner. 44 1 Shahla Yazdy would be happy to meet with the homeowner. 2 3 Chirag Panchal added that that staff had had a field meeting with the homeowner in February. 4 The homeowner wanted to kill the project in the beginning. Staff had heard many comments, 5 and he had a list of the comments and what had been done to address them. Staff met with 6 them again in October and tried to explain what they were trying to do to help them. He noted 7 that there had been a little shift due to AB 413. Staff would be happy to meet and work with 8 the resident again. Staff had extensively worked on this. 9 10 Commissioner Templeton asked if staff was surprised that the resident did not support the 11 proposal. 12 13 Chirag Panchal did not have an answer. 14 15 Jennifer Armer stated that staff would be happy to meet with the resident to fully understand 16 their needs and to try to help them understand the proposal. She would be cautious about 17 committing to coming to an agreement. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton would not support anything that would prevent an elderly, disabled 20 resident from accessing their home. If an agreement could not be reached, then she would not 21 support moving the project forward. 22 23 Jennifer Armer understood that concern. She suggested it be continued to the April 30 meeting. 24 If that meeting did not occur, staff could provide an update. If the meeting occurred but there 25 was no agreement, staff could provide a brief update of what had occurred and a 26 recommendation in the Staff Report for continuance to a future date. 27 28 Vice Chair Akin stated that the use cases were not clear. He voiced that staff needed to be 29 physically at the site with the vehicle(s) to see what Mr. Girand was trying to do. He had 30 complete trust that staff could engineer a solution that would be workable and legal. 31 32 Commissioner Templeton wanted to come to an agreement on the use case. Perhaps staff and 33 the homeowner could agree on what accessing their house safely meant to them, and on 34 coming back to the PTC, staff could describe the requirements that had been met. She wanted 35 it to be in writing and clear. Upon returning, she wanted there to be an agreed-upon list, how 36 much of it had been met, and the accommodations for the ones that had not been met in the 37 proposal. 38 39 Shahla Yazdy responded that there might be a disconnect in understanding the problems at the 40 location. The ramp had become a legal issue with AB 413. As it existed, cars were not allowed 41 to park there. 42 43 Commissioner Templeton inquired if it would be a problem if the prototype was not installed. 1 She wanted staff to meet with the resident and resolve the issue so the staff recommendation 2 could move forward. 3 4 Shahla Yazdy answered that there would still be a problem if the prototype was not installed, as 5 the ramp was nonstandard and it was considered a pedestrian crossing and AB 413 prohibited 6 parking or stopping within 20 feet of a pedestrian crossing. Staff would be happy to meet with 7 the resident, but staff could not assimilate future conditions of the concrete path, which might 8 be challenging, but staff would listen to the resident and do their best to explain how things 9 would change. 10 11 MOTION #1 12 13 Commissioner Templeton moved to continue the item to April 30 so staff would have an 14 opportunity to negotiate the needs of the adjacent property owner being able to access their 15 house safely and for staff to return to the PTC for approval. 16 17 Commissioner Ji asked if there should be wording to consider design changes. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton assumed if design changes were needed that staff would understand 20 from the motion that that would be expected. 21 22 Jennifer Armer understood that the PTC was asking staff to meet with the resident to explain 23 the current design further and to listen to the resident’s concerns and needs for access to their 24 house, and if the current design did not fully meet those needs, then there should be 25 identification of the needs not being met and consideration as to whether there would be 26 modifications to the design to meet them as much as possible. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton expected design changes to incorporate outstanding issues, if any. 29 30 SECOND 31 32 Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. He suggested a friendly amendment. He was 33 fairly certain the design marked out on the street with the bollards/curbs would not be 34 supported. He suggested the prototype be removed and that staff put up a no-parking sign, if 35 needed. 36 37 Commissioner Templeton was not sure if it should be in the motion because the PTC did not 38 provide direction for such, but she thought the point had been made, and she agreed with 39 Commissioner Peterson. 40 41 Commissioner Hechtman supported the motion because he thought there should be an onsite 42 meeting with staff and the property owner. He did not think any member of the public should 43 have veto power over whether something would return to the PTC. His impression was that the 44 neighbor did not understand the design. Upon meeting, he hoped staff would be able to help 1 the neighbor understand it and that the neighbor would be able to confirm that it would work 2 for him. He was not looking for staff to negotiate but rather to report back to the PTC. If there 3 was not agreement, he expected to hear why there was not agreement but that staff believed it 4 would solve the problem even if the neighbor did not agree. He thought the solution would 5 provide a parking space in front of the ramp/curb, but maybe not in the right place, which he 6 thought needed to be explored. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton did not want to assume a lack of understanding. She added that 9 there may be misunderstanding on both sides, which is what she wanted to resolve. 10 11 Jennifer Armer voiced that if on April 30 there was not an update on additional information it 12 could be continued to a date ASAP. 13 14 Commissioner Templeton asked if the delay implied that the prototype needed to be 15 addressed. 16 17 Jennifer Armer understood that removing the prototype would be a Council decision. 18 19 VOTE MOTION #1 20 21 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 22 23 MOTION #1 PASSED 7-0 (Templeton, Peterson, Hechtman, Akin, Chang, Ji, James) 24 25 [The Commission took a 10-minute break] 26 27 Chair Chang addressed the 5-way intersection in the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project. 28 29 Commissioner Hechtman requested that a diagram of the intersection be provided and asked 30 staff to explain the dimensions of the planted area and the drive-over necessity outside of that 31 area. 32 33 Shahla Yazdy explained that the dark gray part on the diagram was the part of the apron and 34 that the size was related to the truck-turning templates used for the design. 35 36 Steve Davis added that the exaggerated aprons were to accommodate truck turns. Maybe 37 planted areas could be enlarged, but it may result in an unusual shape, which he explained 38 could be a concern. 39 40 Commissioner Hechtman felt the planted area was maximized, and he supported the staff 41 recommendation on this intersection. 42 43 Commissioner Ji wanted to understand the diagram and the reality on the ground as he 1 understood that it had been moved northward. He asked if enlarging the oval to help prevent 2 certain turns from occurring had been considered. 3 4 Steve Davis stated that it had been moved northward probably a handful of feet. They had 5 considered enlarging the oval, but it was challenging. 6 7 Vice Chair Akin stated that there may be less confusion once the final lane markings were put in 8 place, and he inquired what staff had in mind for the lane markings, particularly in the case of 9 southbound on Center so as not to make a left onto Southwood. 10 11 Steve Davis answered that the oval would have dashed yellow markings for guidance, and they 12 planned to use additional signage. 13 14 MOTION #2 15 16 Commissioner Ji motioned to move the staff recommendation on the 5-way intersection as 17 depicted. 18 19 SECOND 20 21 Vice Chair Akin seconded the motion. 22 23 VOTE MOTION #2 24 25 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 26 27 MOTION #2 PASSED 7-0 (James, Ji, Hechtman, Chang, Akin, Peterson, Templeton) 28 29 3. Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code 30 Chapters in Title 16 and 18 due to Direction from the California Department of 31 Housing and Community Development (HCD) Regarding State Accessory and Junior 32 Accessory Dwelling Unit Law. CEQA Status - Exempt From the Provisions of the 33 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Public Resources Code 34 Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 35 36 Planning & Community Environment Department Planner Garrett Sauls provided some 37 background information. The City received a letter from HCD in October 2024, which noted a 38 number of items the City’s Ordinance did not comply with as it related to State law. The Staff 39 Report contained discussion of the specific items, and staff’s responses were provided as an 40 attachment. Specific items for this discussion related to HCD’s comments numbered 3, 10, 12, 41 17, and 20, which he detailed. Additional information concerning tree protection measures was 42 not included in the Staff Report, and the draft ordinance included a new subsection in 43 18.09.040(m), which he outlined. Staff recommended approving the draft ordinance. If the item 1 should be recommended, it would be tentatively scheduled for May 12 for Council to consider a 2 potential ordinance. 3 4 Public Comments 5 6 Sven Thesen requested that the deck he submitted be displayed. He discussed impact fees for 7 ADUs above 800 square feet and asked that a streamlined process be considered for 8 deferment. 9 10 Chair Chang requested that the letter from HCD should be addressed. 11 12 Commissioner Peterson asked if something could be done to address Sven Thesen’s concern. 13 He asked Sven Thesen to describe his experience with the planning and construction of his 14 home. 15 16 Sven Thesen explained that his experience with the planning and construction of his home was 17 not bad. He wanted to meet with staff for a better solution as it related to impact fees. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton asked if impact fees would be discussed at this meeting. 20 21 Jennifer Armer stated that deferment of impact fees was allowed, and if requested when first 22 submitting the building permit, there would not be a delay. If requested near the end, it could 23 cause delay. If the PTC desired, staff could look into impact fees under a certain amount for 24 ADUs, which could be discussed further in the future. 25 26 Vice Chair Akin supported nearly everything, although he was not comfortable with a JADU 27 bonus possibly being applied to the primary residence. He stated that in premeeting there had 28 been discussion about the bonus being limited to the JADU itself and, although he had not 29 considered all the implications, it seemed like a good idea. 30 31 Garrett Sauls stated that after that conversation staff considered some language in that 32 context. He displayed on the screen some options for discussing Item 10 and potential 33 modification of the language. 34 35 Chair Chang referenced Packet Page 26 and asked if there would be a change to the staff 36 recommendation. 37 38 Garrett Sauls stated that the 3 options would not change but there would a change to the 39 suggested language in the draft ordinance as Attachment B, he believed. 40 41 Jennifer Armer stated that the motion could recommend adoption of the ordinance with the 42 additional modification to the language. 43 1 Commissioner Hechtman liked the alternative language on the screen and supported that 2 modification to the staff recommendation. Regarding deferred payment of impact fees, he 3 supported continuing to require recording of the lien. He wanted to lock in the obligation and 4 make a public record of it. He had received a call from John Kelly, the author of Attachment E, 5 who supported staff’s responses to most of the HCD issues, except Mr. Kelly did not agree with 6 the approach on the kitchens or liens and he questioned the legality of the impact fees and the 7 other items on the spreadsheet he had turned in, which M. Kelly viewed as a potential meeting 8 with staff and staff returning at the end of the year to report on those items. He referenced 9 Packet Pages 62 and 63 and noted that there was a relationship between sub-subparts 2 and 3, 10 and he thought subpart 2 had to start with “Except as provided in Section 18.09.040 (m)(3).” He 11 thought “described” in Part 3 should read “prohibited.” In subpart 4, the term was “will not 12 delay,” he felt should read “shall not delay.” He addressed Packet Page 65, Section 4, and he 13 could not determine how the reference to the Palo Alto Local Historic Inventory and National 14 Register of Historic Resources was consistent with the changed language on Packet Page 58, 15 where it had been replaced with the California Register. He otherwise supported the staff 16 recommendation. 17 18 Commissioner Peterson asked Sven Thesen what his question was. 19 20 Sven Thesen explained why he had objected and that he was locked out from deferring impact 21 fees. 22 23 Commissioner Peterson asked if there was a way to start without the final document. 24 25 Jennifer Armer replied that generally the recording process would start upon looking at a 26 building permit and the time lines ran in parallel so it would not cause delay to the issuance but 27 the requirement from State law was that the recordation occur before issuance of a building 28 permit. The City issued building permits. 29 30 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang stated that deferring impact fees was a relatively new 31 development. It was stated in the Municipal Code that an agreement would need to be signed 32 and recorded. The PTC could provide direction to amend the code and to not require it for 33 some projects. 34 35 Chair Chang asked if there had been a process issue because it happened for the first time and 36 if the process required many signatures. 37 38 Jennifer Armer affirmed that there had a process issue because it was the first time they had 39 received a request for an ADU. 40 41 Albert Yang expected the signatures to be that of the homeowner and the City Manager and 42 perhaps the Planning Director. 43 44 Chair Chang asked if the City Manager’s time was the bottleneck. 1 2 Albert Yang replied that the City Manager could probably delegate it to the Planning Director or 3 another staff member, but it was not usually a bottleneck. He added that what occurred was 4 growing pains of going through the process for the first time. 5 6 Chair Chang agreed with Commissioner Hechtman’s comments. She liked the new language 7 suggestion. 8 9 MOTION #1 10 11 Vice Chair Akin moved the staff recommendation with the clarifications requested by 12 Commissioner Hechtman and with the alternate JADU bonus language described by Garrett 13 Sauls. 14 15 SECOND 16 17 Chair Chang seconded the motion. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton asked what the difference in the language was. She inquired if the 20 PTC could return to discuss the problems the public brought up, etc., without it being part of 21 the motion. 22 23 Garrett Sauls read the current language and the proposed language. 24 25 Jennifer Armer added that the proposed language would limit [the bonus 4:03:29] to the size of 26 the JADU. If the PTC wanted staff to move forward with topics the public brought up, it would 27 need to be in the motion/subsequent motion to request additional discussion or a 28 recommendation to Council to be considered in the code change. 29 30 Commissioner Templeton was interested in addressing impact fees, the utility engaging with 31 ADUs versus the property itself, etc., in the future. 32 33 Chair Chang suggested amending the motion so that the PTC would direct staff to look at 34 efficacy improvements and removing barriers in the lien process. 35 36 Vice Chair Akin accepted the amendment. 37 38 Jennifer Armer noted that staff would make the process of getting a lien as efficient as possible. 39 She asked if the PTC might consider not requiring a lien for some deferred impact fees and, if 40 so, she requested it be a separate motion. 41 42 Vice Chair Akin would not accept that as an amendment to the current motion, but he would 1 entertain it as a separate motion. 2 3 VOTE MOTION #1 4 5 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 6 7 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, James, Ji, Peterson, Templeton) 8 9 Chair Chang asked if there was appetite to make a motion related to not requiring a lien in 10 some subset or all deferments of impact fees for ADUs. 11 12 MOTION #2 13 14 Commissioner Peterson moved to remove the lien per the description of staff and the City 15 Attorney. He wanted to leave it open for discussion as to whether to specify all impact fees or 16 impact fees under a certain amount for certain types of developments. 17 18 Chair Chang asked for a second. She declared that the motion failed for lack of a second. She 19 asked if commissioners wanted to further discuss it. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton asked staff to bring some of the topics back to the PTC for discussion, 22 such as streamlining the ADU process. 23 24 Jennifer Armer replied that she would add it to the list of items to be brought back, but she 25 could not commit to when that would be. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton hoped it would be in the next year or so. 28 29 Commissioner Hechtman stated that he did not second Commissioner Peterson’s motion 30 because it seemed that he was moving to get rid of the lien, but he was open to staff bringing 31 the pros and cons back to the PTC for discussion. 32 33 Jennifer Armer understood that there was general interest in bringing it back to the PTC. 34 35 4. Election of Chair and Vice Chair 36 37 Chair Chang outlined the process for nominations and seconds. She added that a majority vote 38 would be needed for confirmation. 39 40 Public Comments 41 1 There were no requests to speak. 2 3 MOTION #1 4 5 Commissioner Peterson nominated Vice Chair Akin for Chair. 6 7 SECOND 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the nomination. 10 11 Vice Chair Akin accepted the nomination. 12 13 Commissioner Peterson stated that Vice Chair Akin was a pillar of the community and that he 14 had roots and a vested interest in the community. He found that he had different aspects as it 15 related to the socioeconomics of the community. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman was excited by the prospect of Vice Chair Akin leading the PTC, and he 18 thought he would be a terrific chair for the body. 19 20 Vice Chair Akin was humbled to be supported by an experienced commissioner and a new 21 commissioner. If elected, he would enjoy the mentorship of those who had previously been in 22 the position. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton added that Vice Chair Akin was doing great. 25 26 Chair Chang agreed with Commissioner Templeton. 27 28 Commissioner Ji was excited by the possibility of Vice Chair Akin being Chair. 29 30 Chair Chang asked if there were other nominations. There were none. 31 32 VOTE MOTION #1 33 34 Veronica Dao took a roll call vote. 35 36 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Templeton, Peterson, Ji, James, Hechtman, Chang, Akin) 37 38 Commissioner Chang congratulated Chair Akin and turned the meeting over to him. 39 40 Chair Akin thanked Commissioner Chang for her service as Chair and voiced that it had been a 41 privilege to serve with her. He requested nominations for Vice Chair. 42 43 MOTION #2 1 2 Commissioner Ji nominated Commissioner Chang for Vice Chair. 3 4 SECOND 5 6 Commissioner James seconded the nomination. 7 8 Commissioner Chang accepted the nomination. 9 10 MOTION #3 11 12 Commissioner Templeton nominated herself. 13 14 SECOND 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the self-nomination of Commissioner Templeton. 17 18 Chair Akin requested additional nominations. There were none. 19 20 Commissioner Ji stated that Commissioner Chang’s energy was contagious and that she had 21 demonstrated an amazing ability to keep the PTC focused and on track. He added that she was 22 thoughtful, articulate, devoted, effective, asked the right questions, helped the Commission 23 arrive at thoughtful positions, and always centered the public interest. He believed that 24 Commissioner Chang’s experience would be invaluable to Chair Akin. 25 26 Commissioner James remarked that Commissioner Chang had gone out of her way to help him 27 in serving on the PTC. 28 29 Commissioner Templeton stated that she had served as Chair and Vice Chair previously, and 30 she respected the work that went into it. She added that all the comments concerning 31 Commissioner Chang were true. 32 33 Commissioner Hechtman echoed the comments about Commissioner Chang. He remarked that 34 his second was about wanting to share the wealth and the nature of the PTC’s work. He 35 mentioned that Commissioner Templeton had done a good job as Chair in the past. He thought 36 the dynamic of change kept the PTC’s work refreshing. He felt Commissioner Templeton being 37 Vice Chair would be an opportunity for Chair Akin to work with a different commissioner in 38 organizing and running the meetings. 39 40 Commissioner Peterson supported Commissioner Templeton. He saw her interest in the 1 community, and he considered her a mentor. He appreciated her work with bike safety, and he 2 wanted the PTC to focus on finishing that work. 3 4 Jennifer Armer recommended conducting the vote by written ballot, which would be public. 5 6 Commissioner Chang stated that she would be happy to serve again. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton remarked that since she had been on the Commission the role had 9 been rotated, and she requested that be taken into consideration. 10 11 [VOTE MOTIONS #1 AND #2] 12 13 Commissioners submitted written/emailed votes. 14 15 [VOTE RESULTS] 16 17 Veronica Dao declared that Chair Akin and Commissioners James, Ji, and Chang voted for 18 Commissioner Chang and that Commissioners Peterson, Templeton, and Hechtman voted for 19 Commissioner Templeton. Commissioner Chang received 4 votes and Commissioner Templeton 20 3. Commissioner Chang was named Vice Chair. 21 22 Chair Akin congratulated Vice Chair Chang. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton congratulated Vice Chair Chang. 25 26 Approval of Minutes 27 28 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 29 Minutes of March 12, 2025 30 31 MOTION 32 33 Commissioner Hechtman moved for approval as revised. 34 35 SECOND 36 37 Vice Chair Chang seconded the motion. 38 39 VOTE MOTION 40 41 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 1 2 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Ji, Peterson, Templeton) (James abstained) 3 4 Commissioner Comments 5 6 Commissioner Ji addressed Packet Page 8 and asked why the PTC would not take a spring break. 7 8 Jennifer Armer explained why the PTC would not take a spring break. 9 10 Commissioner Templeton added that there would not be a PTC meeting if there was not a 11 quorum. 12 13 Vice Chair Chang stated that the PTC could decide to cancel a meeting. 14 15 Jennifer Armer discussed why commissioners should let staff know ASAP if they were planning 16 to be absent. 17 18 Commissioner Hechtman was open to not meeting the last meeting of July or the first meeting 19 of August, which had been done in the past. He apologized for not attending in person and for 20 being late. He welcomed Commissioner James whom he was looking forward to working with. 21 22 Vice Chair Chang inquired if there was information on the poll/vote taken for a potential 23 retreat. 24 25 Jennifer Armer responded that staff had received preliminary responses in terms of which days 26 of the week would work best. There seemed to be a fair amount of flexibility from 27 commissioners as to when that could occur. She planned to provide some tentative dates as a 28 follow-up survey. 29 30 Commissioner Ji explained how in July/August there could be a span of 5 weeks with no PTC 31 meeting. 32 Adjournment 33 34 Chair Akin adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. 35