Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-06 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Special Meeting 2 Draft Summary Minutes: September 6, 2025 3 Adobe Room and Hybrid 4 10:00 AM 5 6 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 7 8 Chair Akin called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. It 9 was noted that Commissioner Peterson would be late. 10 11 PUBLIC COMMENT 12 13 No requests to speak. 14 15 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 16 17 None. 18 19 DISCUSSION ITEM 20 1. Planning and Transportation Commission Retreat: The Planning and Transportation 21 Commission will Conduct a Retreat to Discuss Commission Purpose and Other Topics 22 Related to Meeting Management, Administration, and Related Functions 23 24 Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, explained the topic is a discussion of the Commission 25 purpose and other topics related to meeting management, administration, and related 26 functions. A slide presentation was provided including background resources and PTC purpose 27 and meeting management. 28 Chair Akin suggested taking the outline Assistant Director Armer presented and injecting more 29 details during discussion. Commissioner Templeton wanted to pick the top one or two issues 30 and start with the ones with the most common interest. 31 Assistant Director Armer stated there were no members of the public joining the meeting so no 32 need for public comment. 33 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to discuss efficiency. 34 Chair Akin was interested in discussing technology. Commissioner Chang agreed if it could be 35 knocked out in 10 minutes. 36 Commissioner Ji suggested discussing how data is shared amongst one another. 1 Chair Akin observed there was interest in other boards and commissions. The Chair indicated 2 there has been a request from the Architectural Review Board to try and make sure exceptions 3 are dealt with efficiently in projects that are reviewed by both commissions. It makes sense to 4 do all of this through Staff to minimize Brown Act issues. This will take an ad hoc for each of the 5 commissions working with Assistant Director Armer to get as early access as possible to 6 proposals to identify the requested exceptions. The goal would be to make sure the applicants 7 are prepared to justify the exceptions being requested. Staff will be asked to discuss long-term 8 enforceable mitigations for matters that cannot be resolved any other way. The goal is to 9 create a checklist that can be used by Staff to talk to applicants so that the personal 10 involvement of the ad hocs from the two commissions will no longer be needed. The next step 11 would be to have Board Chair Yingxi Chen, Chair Akin and Staff Liaison Jennifer Armer go over 12 this given the discussion and see where it goes. 13 Commissioner Templeton liked the idea of the chairs meeting with Staff and asking what they 14 need. The purpose of ad hocs is not clear. A lot of important discussion happens behind the 15 scenes and is reported poorly and must be repeated. The commissioner agreed with having 16 Staff bringing topics forward to ensure the same information goes to both commissions. Chair 17 Akin explained the suggestion for the ad hoc was driven by making sure the work gets shared 18 and sometimes individual commissioners have expertise the chair does not have. The unknown 19 is how much information flows back to the commission and that is partly a Brown Act issue. 20 Commissioner Templeton observed it is not Brown Acted on a dais. Chair Akin replied the 21 concern was the earlier phase. It cannot be as interactive as needed to solve a problem. There 22 is opportunity to make sure the applicant knows what issues are likely to be of concern to both 23 commissions. Commissioner Templeton questioned if the Commission or Staff should identify 24 that. Chair Akin responded the need is to make sure Staff knows about certain issues. This is 25 before a project comes before the Commission as a whole so it has to be a subset talking only 26 to Staff. 27 Commissioner Templeton observed it is not legal for commissioners to be discussing projects 28 that are agendized or the agendas. Ad hocs should not be created to discuss things that are not 29 allowed to be discussed. Chair Akin stated the issues are the ad hoc versus chair participation. 30 Assistant Director Armer summarized there is interest in sharing from a chair participation 31 perspective a first look at projects when they first come in and going through their first review 32 with Staff to identify issues. That is also a way of compiling a list as something is developed. 33 Alternatively, it could be based on the projects that have been seen by the PTC and ARB 34 members. It may be a future joint retreat discussion. Commissioner Templeton added that Staff 35 interacts and has knowledge and can create a list of issues that need to be addressed. Assistant 36 Director Armer indicated that is part of Staff's role and responsibility. In attending all PTC and 37 ARB meetings, a sense of the hot button issues is being built. Commissioner Templeton stated 38 all members can participate by reading the packet and adding a note at the top to add things to 39 the list. Chair Akin responded that process should go on but the PTC and ARB need to push 1 things initially. 2 Commissioner Hechtman observed that Staff has to explain to applicants when they have to go 3 to more than one commission or board and make clear what each one's role is. Staff time and 4 budget issues have to be considered when adding this to the plate. Assistant Director Armer 5 added that when a suggestion gets made, the justification provided is up to the applicant and 6 the effort being put into it. There are concerns about a single commissioner weighing in early 7 leading them in a direction that is not the full commission's opinion. It is interesting to consider 8 and leads to other ideas like coming up with a checklist of common concerns that could be 9 something the commissions both work on or having joint ARB/PTC meetings in some cases. It 10 would also depend on the type of project. 11 Assistant Director Armer noted that Commissioner Peterson arrived to the meeting. 12 Commissioner Ji was in favor of the checklist but was hoping it would not be additional work 13 involved and it would be developed as a meeting progresses. Commissioner Chang observed 14 that Staff already does that. Commissioner Ji wanted to add an explanation subcolumn. 15 Assistant Director Armer has seen other agencies requesting that the applicant provide the 16 justification, particularly for exceptions. Commissioner Templeton suggested having the 17 applicant send the list to both commissions in order to see what their considerations are. 18 Assistant Director Armer cautioned that would make things a little complicated because of a 19 need to make sure the Commission's discussion is focused on it's own findings. Commissioner 20 Hechtman talked about working for applicants to prepare draft findings for Staff to consider. 21 Chair Akin commented one goal is to minimize work for Staff and for applicants by making sure 22 things are addressed as early as possible and not repetitively. 23 Commissioner Templeton asked what the Commission expects from Staff and how it is dealt 24 with if expectations are not met. Assistant Director Armer framed it as thinking about how Staff 25 and the Commission can work together because Staff's responsibility is to provide the 26 Commission the information needed to make recommendations to Council within the limits of 27 time, technology, and resources. One area of difficulty is when Staff works to provide 28 information based on past experience and technical expertise for the Commission's 29 recommendation and discussion and it is missing something. 30 Commissioner Peterson discussed having spent time as Staff and the process of producing 31 requested data. Commissioner Ji spent time as a Transportation consultant and echoed 32 Commissioner Peterson's comments. Seeing an original iteration, more details, and an impact 33 analysis of an ordinance for comparison would be useful. Assistant Director Armer stated all the 34 staff reports, videos of previous meetings, and meeting minutes are available online. A 35 summary will be provided when possible. 36 Commissioner Hechtman observed the Staff member that prepares an item has spent 20 to 40 37 hours with their professional background to flesh it out. Just because it is not in the staff report 38 does not mean Staff has not already thought about it. When a gap is seen, it is helpful to send 39 an email to the staff member who wrote it with copies to Assistant Director Armer and the 1 chair letting them know the question will be asked at the meeting. Commissioner Templeton 2 agreed the more the commissioners communicate with Assistant Director Armer and the chair, 3 the better the meeting will go. Assistant Director Armer's preference would be to not only 4 provide it to all the members of the Commission but also have something published online so 5 the information is commonly shared. If it is a clarification that is not needed for the whole 6 Commission it can be handled as an individual. Chair Akin opined if those are being published, 7 the commissioners would have to be careful on how questions are posed. 8 Assistant Director Armer explained an addendum or desk item is put together. The benefit of 9 that is that questions can be combined or generalized. Chair Akin's takeaway was that 10 questions should be posed early and in such a way that will minimize Staff's effort if the 11 answers are going to be distributed. Assistant Director Armer advised the question should be 12 framed with the idea of how it might be helpful to everybody. Commissioner Templeton added 13 to be transparent with the chair about it. Assistant Director Armer stated the applicants should 14 be alerted to be prepared to answer questions that were sent. 15 Commissioner Hechtman talked about time spent on technical questions and advised the 16 Commission could ask whatever questions they wanted after the public comment. The 17 questions asked should resonate with public comment that has already been received which 18 would shorten meetings. Questions that could qualify as technical but would not impact public 19 comment should be held. The commissioner expressed trusting Staff to carry something 20 forward having been given adequate direction without seeing the next iteration. Not having 21 things come back as often is a way to make the Palo Alto process more efficient. Commissioner 22 Templeton wanted examples of things Staff could not be trusted to do that. Commissioner 23 Chang described a time that resulted in the El Camino retail notes returning to the Commission 24 because it was buried in part of another piece of AHIP. Assistant Director Armer explained it 25 was a solution that balanced the urgency of the one part of the effort with the need to come 26 back and have a further discussion. Commissioner Templeton thought this was an issue worth 27 clarifying. Chair Akin added the concern was that what made it to Council did not capture the 28 sense of the PTC's decision. If it had come back to the Commission, something more explicit 29 might have been generated. It was interpreted to be a judgement call while constructing the 30 staff report for Council. It was not a trust issue as much as a communications failure. 31 Assistant Director Armer thought that tied in well with the other topic of the role of the PTC 32 liaison and how the PTC wants to have that liaison serve. It is a good example of Staff trying to 33 summarize the main topics and final recommendation. There are situations where Staff's 34 recommendation may continue to differ from the PTC recommendation. Commissioner 35 Templeton stated this was the reason the Commission sometimes explicitly asks to have the 36 divide conveyed to Council. Commissioner Templeton said Staff should be a conduit to Council 37 on the Commission's behalf. Assistant Director Armer agreed to ask for clarification when 38 something is not clear. It is helpful when there is an interest in being very explicit about 39 something. There are times it is okay to refer to the list of provisions or things to consider 40 without having to go back and rehash them. 41 Commissioner Ji observed it could be interesting for the PTC liaison to give feedback on the PTC 1 discussion part of the packet. Commissioner Templeton stated adding stuff that was not 2 discussed would require professional training. It needs to be ensured that whatever is included 3 in the packet is transparently something the Commission has all heard and agreed to through 4 either the motion or the discussion. Assistant Director Armer said that is why there is 5 professional staff looking to provide that summary and recommended that the Commission 6 look at what is presented in the staff report and if more needs to be added that is an option for 7 the PTC liaison to join the meeting. Commissioner Hechtman agreed with that solution and 8 stated it needs to be automatic that after the staff report the PTC liaison is asked if there is 9 anything to add. Commissioner Templeton suggested the person who is staffing should contact 10 her before Council and ask if there is anything to add. Commissioner Chang added they should 11 let Council know because they cannot see who is joining by Zoom or might not be aware they 12 are sitting in chambers. It is useful to tell Council the PTC liaison is present if there are any 13 questions. 14 Commissioner Ji supported adding to the process moving on if there are no public comments 15 for an item and having a representative for both PTC and ARB and other potential boards and 16 commissions. Commissioner Templeton did not think it is necessary to be online if there are no 17 questions. Commissioner Hechtman observed there were times a consultant left a meeting 18 then a question came up and there was no one to answer. Commissioner Templeton would 19 show up if that is preferred but could be on call. 20 Assistant Director Armer will work to have a standard statement in the presentation that PTC 21 liaison is available. Before making that statement, regular communication with liaison needs to 22 be ensured. Commissioner Peterson observed the liaison thing goes further than talking to City 23 Council and is how to coordinate where funding comes from. 24 Commissioner Ji wondered what the balance is between questions that would go before and 25 after public comment. Commissioner Templeton answered Staff recognizes that this body is 26 technical now. If that changed in terms of what is presented, the clarifying questions would be 27 minimized. Vice Chair Chang indicated it would be helpful if that was the venue to ask 28 questions. Knowing there would be a second round of questions would shift how the 29 Commission asks questions. Commissioner Ji asked if the setup of questions, public comment, 30 then discussion is required. Assistant Director Armer answered the core of the structure for the 31 meeting is having a defined space when members of the public are speaking. It is the applicant, 32 members of the public speaking individually, then the applicant's closing statement. Any 33 questions of the applicant should occur during that defined time. The structure of meetings 34 does have clarifying questions upfront. Clarification that will help everyone hear public 35 comment in context is helpful upfront. There is capacity for questions throughout the 36 discussion part though those should be focused on the consultants. Commissioner Chang 37 observed if there are questions for the applicant, they need to be asked during that section. 38 Assistant Director Armer explained in the official structure of a meeting, the applicant is a 39 member of the public but it is advised that the questions of the applicant occur after their 40 closing statement leading into the discussion. Focused questions for the applicant after public 1 comment has closed can be asked through the chair. The goal is to not open it up for a whole 2 discussion with the applicant during a time that is intended for the Commission to discuss the 3 project. Commissioner Templeton stated the public should be able to respond to the 4 presentation. Everything that is part of the presentation should include Staff, the applicant, and 5 all the responses from other presenters and then should be the public then commission 6 members. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, added the purpose of having clarifying 7 questions before public comment is to get all relevant information out before the public speaks. 8 That is why that round of questions is invited. There is nothing stopping the Commission 9 directing further questions to the applicant later. Commissioner Ji supported questions and 10 answers from the applicant keeping questions tight and focused. Assistant Director Armer 11 indicated it is the chair's responsibility to step in when there is a need to refocus. 12 Chair Akin directed the conversation to technology and wanted to have the ability to freely 13 display information in the course of a discussion and to circle items on a diagram. The chair 14 asked if it is possible to log in to a webinar and have the moderator share a screen. Assistant 15 Director Armer explained how it is possible to log in to a webinar and draw on the screen. It 16 was encouraged to share with Staff in advance any other materials individual commissioners 17 want to share. Holding a test Zoom meeting to practice was offered. Commissioner Templeton 18 opined that Staff needs to be ready to do that rather than being the chair's responsibility. 19 Commissioner Ji said a drawing exercise could be done five minutes before a meeting. It is too 20 much for each person or the chair to be managing screen sharing but learning the tools before 21 a meeting is agreeable. 22 Commissioner Templeton asked if there are norms to establish about what kinds of things the 23 commission members can ask to share. Commissioner James wanted to address limitations in 24 technology that feed into richer data or mapping implementations. Assistant Director Armer 25 said answered Staff has certain resources and a GIS program available online. Commissioner 26 Templeton suggested having any still picture that would be in a document on hand. When 27 preparing a list for the clerk to show, share it with the Commission, as well. Commissioner 28 James indicated that resolution is an issue in the ability to view visuals successfully. 29 Commissioner Templeton advised that printing resolution is two or four times higher than the 30 screen. Commissioner Ji stated including a bigger version of a visual in appendix is helpful. 31 Chair Akin shared there have been issues getting packets to everyone because of email size. 32 Commissioner Templeton suggested linking to a drive or a storage folder and sending an email 33 with a link in order to download the file. Assistant Director Armer asked if the Commission is 34 comfortable receiving a link rather than an attached document. The commission members were 35 agreeable. Assistant Director Armer will ensure the resolution and quality of images are high 36 enough. Commissioner James indicated that GIS capability should be available. Assistant 37 Director Armer requested to be made aware of online resources. Commissioner Peterson 38 agreed to provide those resources. Chair Akin suggested exploring the use of other mapping 39 services. 40 ADJOURNMENT 1