Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-14 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: January 14, 2026 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 p.m. 4 5 6 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 7 8 Chair Akin called the meeting to order. 9 10 Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera called roll and declared there was a quorum. 11 12 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 13 14 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer stated there were no agenda changes. 15 16 PUBLIC COMMENT 17 18 None. 19 20 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 21 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 22 23 Jennifer Armer reported that several items previously anticipated for the January agenda were 24 delayed. As a result, staff expects to cancel the January 28 meeting. The February 11 meeting is 25 expected to include the Retail Revitalization Ordinance, pending discussion with the Retail 26 Committee, and a project at 800 and 808 San Antonio Road, pending receipt of additional 27 information from the applicant. It was noted that while staff works to advance housing projects 28 as quickly as possible, schedules may shift when required materials are not yet available. 29 Jennifer Armer announced that recruitment is open for several boards and commissions, 30 including 2 seats on the PTC and 3 seats on the Historic Resources Board (HRB), and encouraged 31 Commissioners to share these opportunities with interested individuals. It was noted that the 32 application deadline is February 18. Jennifer Armer also advised that staff is exploring a 33 potential special joint meeting of the PTC and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to discuss 34 the Cubberley Community Center, tentatively scheduled for late February or early March. Staff 35 will circulate a survey to determine Commissioner availability. It was shared that staff will 36 attend the Retail Committee meeting on January 22 to discuss the Retail Revitalization 37 Ordinance and the El Camino Real Retail Node Map. Following the Committee’s review, staff 38 hopes to bring these items to City Council shortly thereafter for consideration and adoption on 39 the consent calendar. 40 1 On February 2, there will be a discussion of work plans for the PTC, ARB, and HRB, and staff is 2 targeting that meeting to include a prescreening for a potential project adjacent to Town & 3 Country at 44 and 88 Encina Avenue. Commissioners were reminded of a virtual training 4 scheduled for January 21 on islamophobia, antisemitism, and anti-Palestinian hate and advised 5 to contact staff if they need the registration link re-sent. 6 7 Office of Transportation Senior Planner Ozzy Arce reported that in mid -December, 8 Transportation Planning Manager Sylvia Star-Lack received the Lefkowitz Award from the 9 Western Wheelers Club for contributions to the City’s cycling programs. In mid -December, City 10 Council approved advancing the Rail Grade Separation Project to the 15 percent design phase 11 and selected preferred alternatives: an underpass with direct access ramp at Charleston Road, a 12 hybrid alternative at Meadow Drive, and a partial underpass without landscaping, for Churchill 13 Avenue, including a pedestrian/bicycle underpass at Seale Avenue. City Council additionally 14 requested analysis of constructing only the Charleston Road underpass due to cost 15 considerations. Ozzy Arce stated that the Quiet Zone implementation for the Alma Street and 16 Palo Alto Avenue rail crossing is part of a multijurisdictional project led by the City’s OOT, in 17 coordination with the City of Menlo Park. Construction of the median improvements was 18 completed at the end of last year. With that infrastructure in place, the City is now eligible to 19 apply for Quiet Zone implementation at this location, and OOT plans to bring the item to City 20 Council in late February. 21 22 Ozzy Arce provided updates about upcoming local Lunar New Year celebrations at Mitchell Park 23 Community Center. On January 25, the City library will host an event featuring performers, 24 crafts, and participation from the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. A second event will take 25 place on February 22, where OOT staff will be tabling in partnership with Safe Routes to School 26 to allow opportunities for community members to ask transportation -related questions. 27 Chinese-speaking volunteers will provide assistance, and appreciation was expressed to the 28 Palo Alto Asian-American Connection and co-sponsors for their collaboration. Ozzy Arce 29 reported that public transit riders can now pay fares by tapping credit or debit cards, including 30 mobile wallets, across more than 2 dozen Bay Area transit agencies, including Caltrain, BART, 31 VTA, and SamTrans. This update was described as a significant and long -needed improvement 32 to the regional fare payment system. 33 34 Commissioner Templeton expressed appreciation for the positive updates provided and 35 thanked staff for offering training addressing intolerance issues. 36 37 Commissioner Peterson commented on his frequent use of public transportation and was 38 aware of the recent transition to cards and phone-based fare payment. Commissioner Peterson 39 expressed concern that the Caltrain app was discontinued and requested that staff monitor for 40 any discussion of reinstating the app. Ozzy Arce responded he would follow up with Caltrain 41 regarding the mobile app and noted that recent observations suggest the app may still be in 42 use. 43 44 Vice Chair Chang asked when confirmation would be provided regarding the potentially 1 canceled meeting on January 28. Jennifer Armer answered that if the Commission is able to 2 complete the discussion item and forward a recommendation to City Council at the current 3 meeting, the January 28 meeting will be canceled. 4 5 Commissioner Ji asked about the BPTP update, noting that at the December PTC meeting, it had 6 been scheduled for this meeting but did not appear on the current meeting calendar. Jennifer 7 Armer clarified that the item referenced was South Palo Alto Connectivity. Ozzy Arce responded 8 that staff did not have a definitive explanation for the delay of the Connectivity project but will 9 follow up on the reason the item was postponed. It was noted that City Council recently 10 provided direction to move forward with El Dorado Avenue, which may have prompted a 11 reassessment of the engagement approach. 12 13 Chair Akin asked whether the anti-Islamophobia training is an add-on to the prior training or 14 serves the same purpose. Jennifer Armer clarified that the intolerance training is the same 15 session offered last year and was retitled. Chair Akin expressed uncertainty regarding whether 16 the Seale Avenue underpass would actually proceed and asked if prior information was 17 outdated. Ozzy Arce stated that his current notes indicate the bike/ped underpass at Seale 18 Avenue was included as part of the approved decision and that staff will confirm. Chair Akin 19 shared positive feedback on the new tap-and-ride payment system for public transit. 20 21 ACTION ITEMS 22 2. Recommendation to the City Council on an Ordinance Adding a New Section 23 18.70.105 (Noncomplying facility - De minimis exceptions) to Chapter 18.70 24 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo 25 Alto Municipal Code; CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 26 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). 27 28 Jennifer Armer explained that this item constitutes a minor code change to create a new 29 section addressing noncomplying facilities. On September 15, City Council directed staff to 30 prepare a text amendment authorizing the Director of Planning and Development Services to 31 consider or approve de minimis exceptions for noncomplying facilities involving small or minor 32 adjustments that do not impact adjacent properties or the public realm for residential 33 properties. Jennifer Armer outlined that the amendment stems from a prior building permit 34 application involving renovation of an existing nonconforming residential structure that 35 exceeded maximum floor area because it was constructed prior to annexation into the City. The 36 Code did not allow demolition and reconstruction of floor area in a way that would reinstate 37 the nonconformance, leading to a Director’s interpretation denying the permit. The applicant 38 appealed the interpretation, and City Council, after pulling the item from consent, upheld the 39 interpretation while expressing interest in allowing limited flexibility through a code change. 40 Staff then prepared zoning code text amendment to meet the following goals: 1) Provide a 6 -41 month turnaround for the code amendment, as directed by Council. 2) Align revisions with the 42 definition of de minimis, maintaining a clear focus on trivial or minor adjustments. 3) Avoid 43 additional processes, delays, or appeals for this type of application. 4) Prevent impacts to 1 neighboring properties. 5) Align with existing floor area thresholds in the zoning code. 6) Allow 2 flexibility for projects similar in scale to the project proposed by the appellant. 3 4 Jennifer Armer explained that the proposed code language would allow relocation of up to 250 5 square feet of noncomplying floor area that exceeds the maximum allowed floor area. The 250 6 square feet threshold aligns with the existing home improvement exception in the zoning code 7 and is sized to accommodate the project that prompted the amendment, consistent with City 8 Council direction to allow similarly scaled projects. The exception is limited to noncomplying 9 facilities containing a single-family residential use located in low-density residential zones. 10 Relocation of floor area above the ground floor must comply with existing code requirements, 11 including the individual review process for larger second-story additions. For projects involving 12 less than 150 square feet on the second story, which typically do not require individual review, 13 the proposal references the objective standards applicable to new 2 -story single-family homes. 14 15 Commissioner Peterson asked whether the proposed code amendment would allow accessory 16 dwelling units (ADUs) in yard areas or whether such proposals would be precluded due to 17 potential impacts on adjacent properties. Jennifer Armer clarified that the amendment does 18 not apply to ADUs, which are governed by separate regulations. The provision could apply to 19 junior ADUs, which must be located within the existing residence, but does not apply to 20 detached structures. Jennifer Armer added that the amendment does not pertain to 21 basements, which are not counted as floor area for residential uses. 22 23 Commissioner Templeton asked what factors drove selection of the 250 square feet threshold. 24 Jennifer Armer explained that staff reviewed multiple existing floor area thresholds in the 25 zoning code for single-family residential uses, including the 150 square feet threshold for 26 certain second-story additions and the 250 square feet threshold used for the home 27 improvement exception. The 250 square feet was recommended because it aligns with the 28 scale of the project City Council found appropriate and exceeds 150 square feet, avoiding 29 selection of an arbitrary threshold. Commissioner Templeton asked why staff recommended 30 using a fixed square footage rather than a percentage -based standard. Jennifer Armer 31 explained that staff recommended a square footage standard to limit the allowance to changes 32 that are not significant in absolute terms. While the impact may be proportionally greater for 33 smaller homes, a percentage-based approach could unduly restrict smaller properties while 34 allowing larger changes for larger homes in existing nonconforming conditions. 35 36 Commissioner Ji asked for clarification of the term "facility" in Section A of the packet, 37 referencing prior discussion at City Council about this. Jennifer Armer deferred the question to 38 legal counsel. Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang explained that "noncomplying facility" is the 39 term used consistently within the relevant chapter of the zoning code and refers to a structure 40 or building, noting that the terminology was selected to maintain consistency with existing code 41 language. Commissioner Ji asked whether the proposed code language requires Director 42 approval, noting that City Council’s motion directed authorization of the Director of Planning 43 and Development Services but the draft section did not explicitly reference Director approval. 44 Jennifer Armer explained that approvals issued through building or planning permits are 1 authorized by the Director and that the proposed code section would be applied within that 2 existing approval framework. Commissioner Ji asked for confirmation that adoption of the code 3 amendment would allow the Director to cite the new section as part of the approval process. 4 Jennifer Armer confirmed that approval of a building permit could proceed based on the new 5 code section. 6 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 8 9 Vice Chair Chang expressed support for the proposed amendment, noting that it clearly 10 references existing code processes, minimizes ambiguity, and avoids creating additional 11 workload or new findings requirements. 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman supported the proposed amendment, stating that it addresses a gap 14 in the existing ordinance that previously prohibited minor changes. Commissioner Hechtman 15 agreed that 250 square feet is an appropriate threshold and approved of using a fixed square 16 footage standard, noting that a percentage-based approach could result in disproportionate 17 outcomes for smaller versus larger homes. Commissioner Hechtman noted that refinements to 18 the proposed language may be needed to improve clarity and avoid misinterpretation by 19 applicants, which could lead to unnecessary design costs and application fees. Commissioner 20 Hechtman indicated that his proposed clarifying language had been shared with staff in 21 advance and suggested returning to those refinements after hearing from other 22 Commissioners. 23 24 Commissioner James expressed general support for the streamlined approach, stating that the 25 proposed changes address issues revealed by the recent situation and provide clearer, simpler 26 guidance for the public. Commissioner James described the amendment as a common -sense 27 improvement. 28 29 Commissioner Peterson agreed with concerns about potential misinterpretation of ordinance 30 language, noting that individuals often read regulations from their own perspective, which can 31 lead to differing interpretations. Commissioner Peterson expressed general support for the 32 amendment but raised concerns about increasing ordinance complexity. Commissioner 33 Peterson noted that limited staff discretion can require strict adherence to code language and 34 suggested that added subsections and exceptions may make regulations more convoluted over 35 time. Commissioner Peterson encouraged consideration of staff flexibility when evaluating 36 refinements to the ordinance. 37 38 Chair Akin asked staff to explain the reasoning behind the current approach, noting that a 39 different interpretation had been applied previously. Jennifer Armer explained that staff 40 previously allowed limited relocation of floor area within existing nonconforming structures, 41 but following direction from City Council on an earlier project, staff discontinued that practice. 42 In reviewing the recent application, staff determined that the current code does not allow such 43 relocation, leading to a formal Director’s interpretation for clarity and consistency. City Council 44 agreed the code lacked flexibility but found the request reasonable and therefore directed staff 1 to return promptly with a targeted code amendment. 2 3 Vice Chair Chang asked about the scope and magnitude of prior staff discretion related to 4 nonconforming structures. Jennifer Armer responded that specific details were not available 5 but noted that prior practice generally allowed limited adjustments to existing nonconforming 6 conditions so long as impacts were not worsened. The current proposal is intentionally 7 narrower, focusing on de minimis changes and grounded in the scale of the recent project and 8 existing code thresholds. Vice Chair Chang expressed appreciation for staff’s effort to act 9 quickly in response to an applicant seeking to age in place. Vice Chair Chang noted that existing 10 review processes and objective standards may already provide sufficient guardrails to prevent 11 impacts to neighboring properties, even for changes exceeding 250 square feet. While 12 emphasizing the importance of not delaying the current project, it was suggested that staff 13 could consider presenting additional, more flexible alternatives alongside the de minimis 14 option. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton expressed appreciation for staff’s explanation and stated support for 17 the proposed amendment, describing it as rational and practical. While acknowledging Vice 18 Chair Chang’s comments regarding potential expansion, Commissioner Templeton emphasized 19 the importance of proceeding with the current proposal and cautioned that broader changes 20 would require additional notice and public participation. 21 22 Chair Akin expressed support for delegating project details to individual review and objective 23 standards, stating that this approach provides confidence that neighborhood impacts will be 24 avoided without creating additional process. Chair Akin emphasized the importance of clear 25 ordinance structure, particularly distinguishing conjunctions (“and”) from disjunctions (“or”), 26 and recommended organizing conditions so it is clear which requirements apply together. Chair 27 Akin also questioned whether the requirement in Item B limiting relocation of floor area to the 28 same or lower elevation is necessary, given existing protections, and suggested consideration of 29 omitting that provision. Jennifer Armer stated that staff would be open to removing the first 30 sentence of Item B, noting that the objective standards and individual review process could 31 provide appropriate protections. 32 33 Commissioner Ji asked whether the proposed language could lead to unintended approvals of 34 other projects, referencing the Director's prior concern at the September 15 City Council 35 meeting about creating unintended consequences. Jennifer Armer responded that the language 36 was intentionally drafted narrowly, limiting applicability to single-family residential uses on low-37 density residentially zoned parcels and excluding commercial or other property types. Albert 38 Yang stated he had nothing further to add to this explanation. Commissioner Ji expressed 39 appreciation for staff’s responses and stated support for the proposed ordinance, noting that it 40 is straightforward, timely, and appropriately responsive to an applicant seeking to make home 41 modifications. 42 43 Commissioner Hechtman discussed the general legal principle that nonconforming uses are 1 allowed to remain but typically must comply with current standards when modified. 2 Commissioner Hechtman noted that while the proposed amendment departs from that 3 principle by allowing limited continuation of nonconformity, the change is minor, common -4 sense, and designed to avoid impacts to neighboring properties. Commissioner Hechtman 5 expressed support for the amendment as an appropriate and balanced approach. 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman presented his proposed refinements to the draft ordinance language 8 intended to improve clarity and avoid misinterpretation. To the preamble language, the 9 addition of "provided that the noncompliance is not increased" was suggested to explicitly state 10 that noncompliance may not be increased. It was also recommended revising Item A to include 11 the word “and” to ensure all conditions apply collectively, rather than allowing individual 12 criteria to be read independently. Commissioner Hechtman further described proposed 13 revisions to Item B, including replacing “elevation” with “floor,” but indicated openness to 14 removing the first sentence of Item B entirely based on the earlier suggestion of Chair Akin. 15 Commissioner Hechtman also raised a question regarding the relationship between Items B and 16 C, asking whether they are mutually exclusive or could both apply, and requested staff input on 17 use of “or” to clarify applicability. Jennifer Armer stated that the ordinance could function as 18 drafted but cautioned that use of both “and” and “or” may introduce confusion. It was 19 explained that using “and” consistently would still work, as applicants would comply with all 20 applicable provisions, and if certain sections do not apply (such as thresholds under 150 square 21 feet), the review would appropriately shift to the next provision. Jennifer Armer noted that 22 staff is comfortable proceeding either way from a legal standpoint. Commissioner Hechtman 23 stated that staff should be allowed to consider the ordinance language and determine whether 24 “and” or “or” is most appropriate in Item B and hoped that the motion would provide staff with 25 that flexibility. 26 27 Commissioner Hechtman proposed revising Item C to replace the term “modification” with 28 “relocation” for consistency, noting that differing terminology could create confusion if no 29 distinct meaning is intended. Commissioner Hechtman stated that his suggested wording 30 changes are intended to improve clarity and reduce future disputes or misunderstandings. 31 32 Chair Akin asked whether Item B should be restructured to clarify applicability by stating that 33 one or both conditions apply, with subparts (e.g., B1 and B2) to clearly delineate the relevant 34 criteria. Commissioner Hechtman agreed that restructuring Item B into subparts could improve 35 clarity. 36 37 Commissioner Templeton supported separating conditions to clearly distinguish “and” versus 38 “or,” noting that mixing conditions could create ambiguity. Commissioner Templeton 39 appreciated the willingness of staff and Commissioners to assist with revisions. 40 41 Vice Chair Chang stated that the initially proposed text revisions were confusing but agreed 42 with restructuring Item B into B1 and B2 to improve clarity. Vice Chair Chang also agreed with 43 adding language stating that noncompliance may not be increased and asked whether that 44 standard would be clearly understood given different types of noncompliance (e.g., floor area, 1 setbacks, or height), referencing recent examples involving stream setbacks. Vice Chair Chang 2 requested Commissioner Hechtman’s perspective on how that language would be interpreted 3 and applied. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman explained that the referenced language is drawn from existing code 6 and is intended to prevent any type of noncompliance from being increased, whether related to 7 gross floor area (GFA), setbacks, or multiple conditions. While GFA is straightforward, setback 8 noncompliance can be more complex due to location. Some jurisdictions allow limited 9 continuation of setback encroachments on a de minimis basis, consistent with the intent of the 10 proposed amendment to allow minor, practical adjustments without worsening 11 noncompliance. Jennifer Armer noted that the City’s code already includes provisions allowing 12 limited extension of an existing nonconforming encroachment to avoid irregular building 13 configurations when adding onto a residence. Commissioner Hechtman questioned whether 14 the phrase “provided that the noncompliance is not increased” could conflict with existing code 15 provisions that allow limited extension of a nonconforming encroachment. Jennifer Armer 16 stated that, based on her nonlegal understanding, such extensions would not constitute an 17 increase in nonconformance because they are expressly permitted by the code. Commissioner 18 Hechtman agreed with that interpretation and indicated that staff could further consider the 19 issue prior to the item moving to Council, expressing confidence that the matter would be 20 resolved without requiring a January 28 meeting. 21 22 Commissioner Ji expressed support for restructuring Item B into B1 and B2 and asked how the 23 proposed language would apply in situations involving overlapping noncompliance, such as 24 floor area and setback encroachments. Albert Yang responded that application would depend 25 on the level of flexibility the PTC intends to provide. It was explained that staff’s initial intent 26 was to address situations where excess floor area was the noncompliant feature but noted that 27 the language could be interpreted more broadly to include floor area located within a setback. 28 Albert Yang stated that if broader applicability is intended, additional clarifying language is 29 available to address those scenarios. Jennifer Armer added that relocating floor area that is 30 nonconforming due to a setback encroachment would not be allowed to encroach into another 31 setback and that relocated area would become complying floor area unless it also exceeds 32 maximum GFA. Albert Yang noted that, as drafted, the language clearly allows relocation that 33 reduces a setback encroachment but could be interpreted to allow relocation into a different 34 setback so long as the encroachment is reduced. Jennifer Armer indicated that, if the PTC 35 wishes, clarifying language could be included specifying that noncomplying floor area refers to 36 floor area exceeding GFA limits. Commissioner Ji requested input from other Commissioners on 37 the proposed language, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the ordinance’s simplicity 38 and clarity. 39 40 Commissioner Peterson raised concerns about potential loopholes in the proposed language, 41 including whether repeated use of the 250 square feet allowance could enable incremental 42 expansion. Commissioner Peterson also questioned how the amendment would apply to 43 multiple structures on a property, such as detached garages, and whether floor area could be 44 shifted between buildings or combined properties. Commissioner Peterson requested 1 clarification on timing limits and safeguards to prevent unintended impacts. Jennifer Armer 2 reminded that the amendment applies only to existing nonconforming residences and would 3 not allow shifting floor area between parcels or creating new nonconformities through lot 4 mergers. It was noted that scenarios involving greater complexity could trigger discretionary 5 review. Albert Yang addressed timing, noting that the draft does not prohibit serial permit 6 applications, though such situations are unlikely. Albert Yang stated that, if desired, staff could 7 add a provision limiting use of the allowance to one time per property. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton expressed that while timing is not regulated under the proposal, 10 incremental use of allowed provisions could raise concerns about cumulative impacts or 11 potential exploitation of loopholes. 12 13 Chair Akin expressed support for the phrase “provided that the noncompliance is not 14 increased,” noting that application of the provision would be subject to Director discretion, 15 which would serve as a backstop in atypical cases where noncompliance could be deemed 16 increased. 17 18 Commissioner Hechtman reiterated support for restructuring Item B into subparts B1 and B2, 19 noting initial uncertainty about overlap between Items B and C and whether applicability 20 should be limited to GFA exceedance. Commissioner Hechtman observed that the draft 21 language could extend to other noncompliance types, such as setbacks, which informed his 22 comments. It was emphasized that the amendment would affect a small number of properties 23 and is unlikely to create broad impacts. While expressing a preference for flexibility to address 24 multiple noncompliance types, Commissioner Hechtman stated openness to limiting the 25 amendment to GFA exceedance if that reflects the Commission’s wishes. 26 27 Albert Yang indicated that the proposed amendment is not intended to rely on Director 28 discretion. The ordinance is designed to be applied objectively through the building permit 29 process, so staff can determine applicability without discretion, thereby avoiding the need for 30 an appeal process. Chair Akin acknowledged the clarification and noted that he had used the 31 term “discretion” imprecisely. 32 33 Commissioner Ji asked about the use of “elevation” versus “floor” in Item B, questioning 34 whether a legal definition of “floor” applies. Albert Yang stated that there is no clear definition 35 of “floor,” noted that alternatives such as “elevation” or “height” could be used, and reiterated 36 that staff could also remove the first sentence of Item B. Commissioner Ji expressed agreement 37 with removing the first sentence of Item B. 38 39 Chair Akin agreed with not limiting the ordinance to GFA-related noncompliance, expressing a 40 preference that such a restriction not be included in the code language. 41 42 Commissioner Ji noted an inconsistency in the packet, with the signature line on Packet Page 13 43 referencing "Director of Planning and Community Environment" while other sections refer to 44 "Director of Planning and Development Services." Jennifer Armer explained that the reference 1 reflects a legacy title still used in the code from a prior department name. 2 3 MOTION: Commissioner Hechtman moved, seconded by Vice Chair Chang, the staff 4 recommendation with the following modifications to the language proposed by staff in the 5 ordinance: 6 • In the preamble, the addition at the end of "provided that the noncompliance is not 7 increased." 8 • At the end of Subpart A, the addition of the word "and." 9 • The first sentence in Subpart B to be deleted. 10 • What remains of B and C become B1 and B2, with "or" between B1 and B2. 11 • In B2 (previously C), change the word "modification" to "relocation" in 2 places. 12 13 VOTE: Passed 7-0. 14 15 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 16 3. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 17 Minutes of October 29, 2025 18 19 PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 20 21 MOTION: Commissioner Hechtman moved, seconded by Commissioner Ji, to approve the 22 minutes as revised. 23 24 VOTE: Passed 7-0. 25 26 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE 27 MEETINGS AND AGENDAS 28 29 Vice Chair Chang raised concerns about the timing, format, and accessibility of public 30 comments, noting that recent written comments intended for Commission deliberation were 31 received in batches and not pushed directly to some Commissioners’ email as in the past. The 32 prior system had allowed comments to be searchable and more easily reviewed, which would 33 have been helpful for locating earlier submissions, including comments from the appellant 34 related to the current item. Vice Chair Chang requested that staff clearly state public comment 35 submission deadlines in meeting agendas so the public understands when comments will be 36 received and considered. It was also noted that receiving comments only in PDF form can limit 37 Commissioners’ ability to respond. Jennifer Armer confirmed that the general deadline for 38 public comment submission is noon on the day of the meeting. 39 40 Commissioner Templeton expressed strong concern with the current process for distributing 41 public comments, stating that the explanation provided for discontinuing direct email delivery 42 to Commissioners was not acceptable. Commissioner Templeton suggested further discussion 1 with staff, either through an ad hoc effort or as a future agenda item, and offered to 2 participate. 3 4 Commissioner Ji echoed concerns regarding the public comment process and asked how the 5 Commission could appropriately address the issue at this meeting given that it was not an 6 agendized item. Jennifer Armer invited Commissioners to share input via email, noting that staff 7 is working to establish clear procedures for public comment submission and timing. It was also 8 indicated that staff would review whether an applicant’s request to meet with Commissioners 9 constitutes public comment or general correspondence. Albert Yang added that Commissioners 10 may make brief comments on non-agendized items, generally limited to approximately 1 to 1.5 11 minutes. Commissioner Ji offered to assist staff, based on prior technology consulting 12 experience, in identifying ways to provide public comments to the Commission and the public 13 concurrently. 14 15 Commissioner Peterson stated that he regularly receives public input directly via email and 16 through informal meetings with community members and expressed appreciation for ongoing 17 engagement with the public. 18 19 Chair Akin concurred, noting that when personal email addresses are publicly available, 20 members of the public frequently use them to contact Commissioners directly. 21 22 ADJOURNMENT 23 24 Chair Akin adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m. 25