Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-27 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: May 27, 2026 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:00 p.m. 7 Chair Chang called the May 27, 2026, regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation 8 Commission to order. 9 Clerk Sam Tavera called roll. Chair Chang, Vice Chair Ji, Commissioner Akin, Commissioner 10 Peterson, and Commissioner James were present. Commissioner Hechtman and Commissioner 11 Templeton were absent. 12 Chair Chang announced that Commissioner Templeton and Commissioner Hechtman were 13 running late but would be listening to the meeting. 14 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 15 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer noted that there would not be an update to the parking 16 programs. 17 18 In-Person Public Comments 19 Sam Tavera had not received any public comment cards. 20 21 City Official Reports 22 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 23 24 Jennifer Armer declared that the PTC’s next meeting was scheduled for June 10 to address a 25 special setback on Hansen Way for the property at 3300 El Camino Real. No items were 26 scheduled for June 24, and it was expected that the meeting would be cancelled. It had been 27 requested that instead of verbatim minutes there be summary and action minutes for 28 consistency with Council, other boards, etc. The April meetings would include verbatim 29 minutes, but starting with the May meetings, there would be only summary and action 30 minutes. On May 18, Council approved the Cubberley Conceptual Plan, 1 of the 2 parcels 31 involved in the project at 156 California Avenue was added to the Housing Element housing 32 sites inventory, and the tentative map for the project at 4130 Old Trace Road was approved. 33 34 Jennifer Armer stated that Council was expected to discuss Senate Bill 79 and the Downtown 35 Housing Plan and direct staff to move forward on June 1. Council had been provided with 2 36 draft ordinances – the Urgency Ordinance version and a longer term version, and it was 37 expected that the work would come to the PTC for formal adoption, likely over the summer, 38 but there would be some time with the Urgency Ordinance in place if Council proceeded with 1 that plan. There would be an Economic Development Committee meeting on June 3 to discuss 2 the Retail Ordinance and review the shrink wrap rule item. If there should be a unanimous 3 recommendation from the Economic Development Committee, it would go to Council on 4 consent and only be discussed if pulled. On June 8, Council would discuss the San Antonio Road 5 Area Plan (SARAP) and the additional work staff had done since Council’s study session in April. 6 7 Vice Chair Ji asked when Council would discuss the language of the Cubberley ballot measure 8 and if the parking item was tentatively scheduled for a future meeting. 9 10 Staff answered that Council would discuss the Cubberley ballot measure language on June 8. 11 12 Jennifer Armer replied that a date for the parking item had not been set. 13 14 Office of Transportation Senior Planner Ozzy Arce commented that on May 11 Council 15 continued deliberations on the potential Churchill Avenue temporary grade rail crossing 16 closure, and staff had been directed to work with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) 17 on a cost-sharing agreement to secure long-term crossing guards at all railroad crossings and to 18 bring the Jed Foundation back to the Rail Committee this year with data-driven safety strategies 19 for all 4 crossings. Staff was focused on speeding up the timeline for quiet zone 20 implementation, especially at Churchill Avenue, and working closely with Caltrain to explore 21 extra gate and enclosure options to maximize safety. The official construction kickoff for the 22 Newell Road bridge replacement project was celebrated on May 21, and construction work 23 would officially begin on June 1. The community would be updated on construction progress 24 over the next 1½ years. Ozzy Arce reported on this year's Bike to Wherever Days and Energizer 25 Stations celebrations and thanked the organizers, volunteers, and the Silicon Valley Bicycle 26 Coalition. Ozzy Arce explained why the Parking Programs update and downtown parking 27 modernization initiatives specific to downtown would not be heard at this meeting. The second 28 PTC meeting for June would likely be cancelled, so Ozzy Arce planned to attend the June 10 29 meeting. 30 31 Commission James requested that the Valley Water maintenance of the corridor and easement 32 as it related to the channel be addressed and included in the design with the next phase of 33 Newell Bridge. 34 35 Ozzy Arce would follow up with Public Works and send a note as an item for consideration and 36 let the PTC know if there was more information. 37 38 Commissioner Akin asked what project the pneumatic tubes on the 1100 block of Waverley 39 were associated with. 40 41 Ozzy Arce did not know what project the pneumatic tubes on the 1100 block of Waverley were 42 associated with, but staff would look into it. 43 44 Vice Chair Ji requested information on the Chimalus project. 1 2 Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo responded that the Chimalus project was an easement on 3 3 Stanford-owned properties for Valley Water and had been added to the Bicycle and Pedestrian 4 Transportation Plan (BPTP) and to the CIP in response to Council requests. Ria Lo outlined the 5 location of the project. 6 7 Ozzy Arce explained why it was a priority project. 8 9 Vice Chair Ji queried if prioritization exercises had been performed for other BPTP projects. 10 11 Ria Lo answered that the BPTP had tiers of priorities. Some were moving forward based on 12 grants and opportunities. 13 14 Vice Chair Ji requested that the report provide information about the project. 15 16 Commissioner Peterson was impressed with the visualization model for the 17 building/transportation/bridge information and asked it was useful in the decision-making 18 process and who paid for it. 19 20 Assistant Director of Public Works Holly Boyd replied that the City coordinated with Granite 21 Construction on the rendering and each paid for half. The rendering was used more as a visual 22 aid for the community than for Granite. 23 24 Chair Chang requested the status of the traffic calming for Crescent Park. A member of the 25 public had asked for an update but had not received one. 26 27 Ria Lo responded that the traffic calming for Crescent Park was being pushed to the next fiscal 28 year due to Council schedules and agendas. Council would determine if 100-percent design 29 would move forward. Staff would provide the member of public an update. 30 Action Items 31 2. Review and Recommendation to Finance Committee and the City Council on the 32 Proposed 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Plan 33 Compliance. CEQA Status: Not a Project. 34 35 Jennifer Armer introduced Planner Leslie Velasquez. 36 37 Planner Leslie Velasquez outlined the purpose of the item. There were 217 active capital 38 improvement projects with 189 existing CIPs. The existing CIPs had been reviewed for 39 consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and did not require additional review. There were 28 40 new CIPs, and one was a placeholder/administrative project and did not require review. Leslie 41 Velasquez discussed the 27 new CIPs that required review and detailed what needed to be 42 reviewed. Staff recommended that the PTC recommend the proposed 2027 to 2031 capital 43 improvement projects listed in Attachment A, which were consistent with the Comprehensive 1 Plan and 2030 policies and programs, to the Finance Committee and Council. 2 3 Chair Chang noted that Commissioner Templeton had her hand raised. 4 5 Jennifer Armer got clarification from the Assistant City Attorney that since Commissioner 6 Templeton was running late and would eventually be joining the meeting in person that she 7 could participate upon joining in person. 8 9 Public Comments 10 Sam Tavera declared no comment cards had been received and there were no requests to 11 speak. 12 13 Commissioner Akin mentioned that staff should have received his detailed questions. 14 Commissioner Akin asked how Item WS-20001 on Packet Page 19 was associated with program 15 N-4.13.2. Commissioner Akin had the same issue with WS-27000. Commissioner Akin asked if 16 WS-27001 was consistent with Program N-4.10.1. 17 18 Leslie Velasquez would remove Item WS-20001 from the table as it was related to stormwater, 19 not wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. It did match with the Comp Plan goal and 20 primary policy but was inconsistent with the program. WS-27001 would be removed from the 21 table. 22 23 Commissioner Peterson had sent questions to staff via email asking what was prevailing 24 wage/Public Works and what was not. 25 26 Chair Chang announced that Commissioner Templeton had joined the meeting in person. 27 28 Holly Boyd thought anything over $25K in the Public Works contract had to be prevailing wage. 29 Holly Boyd was not aware of anything under $25K. 30 31 Chair Chang expressed that many of the new CIPs were using the natural environment section 32 of the Comp Plan as rationale, but it might make sense in future versions of the Comp Plan to 33 have a category more directly related to Utilities and providing excellent utilities and 34 maintenance. Chair Chang was excited to see that TR-27000 and TR-27003 were included for 35 CIPs. VR-310000 listed the rationale as clean and healthful air, but those were not the primary 36 reasons for updating the vehicle fleet, and that rationale being provided for N-5.2 did not make 37 sense. A better rational would be C-1 or C-3. Chair Chang inquired if it was important to keep 38 the same rational that had been used in the past. 39 40 Leslie Velasquez answered that improving vehicles and fleets would improve reductions in 41 emissions and improve sustainability outcomes. 42 43 Jennifer Armer would look into changing the rational to see if adjustments could be made. 44 1 Chair Chang remarked that, regardless, 5.2 (idling) should be removed. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton confirmed that she had been at the meeting since before it was 4 called to order but was not promoted to panelist. 5 6 Assistant City Attorney Tim Shimizu stated that under the Brown Act virtual attendance was not 7 ordinarily allowed unless one had an exception. One exception was just cause for virtual 8 participation, which he thought Commissioner Templeton met, but there was a limit to the 9 number of just cause virtual appearances every year. In this case, it might be as few as 2 but 10 that would be confirmed. Commissioner Templeton could be put on the record as doing that if 11 desired. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton queried if the State was limiting whether one could use just cause 14 and dial into meetings. 15 16 Tim Shimizu confirmed that the State was limiting whether one could use just cause and dial 17 into meetings. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton did not think it mattered since votes were not missed but found it 20 highly objectionable and hoped the City was fighting the State about it. 21 22 Commissioner Akin thanked staff for the detailed descriptions of the electrical grid projects. 23 24 Chair Chang noted that the proposed uses of the Electric Fund were about $320M, but the 25 sources were about $184M, and she queried if there would be a funding shortage. 26 27 Director of Utilities Allan Kurotori replied that a lot of the projects would be bonded, which was 28 the outside funding. The City received internal funding from rate payors and from the bonding. 29 Allan Kurotori explained that the projects were being staged over time. 30 31 Chair Chang discussed that the lion’s share of the large budget for natural environment was 32 because of the Utility. When redoing the Comp Plan, it would be important to make it clear and 33 more transparent to the public. 34 35 Motion 36 Vice Chair Ji emailed a motion to staff to move the staff recommendation with the adjustments 37 made by Commissioner Akin on the removal of relevant comprehensive items as discussed and 38 for staff to look into adjustments made by Chair Chang on the vehicle maintenance rational. 39 40 Second 41 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 42 1 Commissioner James asked if something should be added to look into how things were 2 categorized in the natural environment. 3 4 Jennifer Armer answered that it could be considered when next updating the Comp Plan. At this 5 point, it was the appropriate reference because that was where the policies were. 6 7 Vote 8 The motion passed 6-0 by roll call vote. Commissioner Akin, Commissioner James, 9 Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner Templeton, Vice Chair Ji, and Chair Chang voted yes. 10 3. Study Session to Review City of Palo Alto Prohousing Designation Program 11 Application Materials. CEQA Status: Not a Project. 12 13 Senior Program Manager Julia Knight supplied slides and a brief presentation covering the 14 Prohousing Designation Program background, application requirements, Palo Alto's specific 15 policies and self-scoring summary, and opportunities for public engagement. The program was 16 administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 17 The program goal was to acknowledge jurisdictions that had housing policies exceeding State 18 law to accelerate housing production. The benefit of getting the designation was that the City 19 as a jurisdiction would become eligible for additional infrastructure funding and grants, and the 20 City would become more competitive for existing programs. A number of peer jurisdictions in 21 the peninsula had earned the designation, and about 74 jurisdictions statewide had earned it. 22 Julia Knight explained that the program was non-competitive. The designation would be good 23 for 3 years, at which point the City would need to reapply. There was a self-scoring sheet 24 outlining policies that fell into different categories demonstrating the City’s Prohousing 25 programs. The materials were reviewed on a rolling basis, so any jurisdiction could apply at any 26 time. 27 28 Julia Knight stated that Palo Alto was applying now because Council made it a priority for this 29 year. Thirty or more points would be targeted in the different specific policy areas included in 30 the application process, and points could be received for enacted and proposed policies. Julia 31 Knight understood that the proposed policies needed to be documented on the books with key 32 milestones and good intent to execute. Julia Knight discussed what would be done if for some 33 reason such was not enacted. A summary of the scoring was displayed. HCD confirmed that the 34 4 categories were compliant, so it was anticipated that the City would get the designation. The 35 categories were land use, housing production acceleration timelines, reduction in construction 36 development costs, and direct financial subsidies for affordable housing. Examples of different 37 programs in each category were presented. A score of 41 points was being targeted, which was 38 a comfortable threshold above the 30-point minimum required to earn a designation. There 39 was a diligent public participation process as part of this application, which the State required. 40 As of May 18, materials for public review had been posted online, and printed copies were 41 available at the Development Center. There had been a listening and info session last week. 42 43 Julia Knight stated that this meeting would provide another opportunity to gather public input. 1 An online comment form would be available through June 17. Staff would target mid-June for 2 Council to consider a resolution, which would authorize the City Manager to finalize and submit 3 the draft materials being reviewed at this meeting. It was anticipated that the close of the 4 public review period would be June 17, but if there were significant changes to the materials, it 5 would be extended another 7 days. After that period, an application would be submitted if 6 Council authorized the City Manager to do so, and then staff would expect to hear back from 7 HCD on the preliminary review materials by the end of the summer. HCD would then typically 8 work with jurisdictions and staff to finalize and fine tune the materials, so it was expected there 9 would be some discussions with HCD starting in late August. It was expected that the City 10 would receive a positive designation determination in the fall. Julia Knight displayed her contact 11 information. 12 13 Commissioner Akin questioned if the City would present to HCD a snapshot of enacted policies 14 and intent involving numeric targets that would be used until the next review in future years. 15 16 Julia Knight acknowledged that was her understanding. 17 18 Vice Chair Ji asked to what extent the City would make a commitment to implement the 19 proposed projects and what the impact would be to the application if there was a decision to 20 no longer pursue a project. 21 22 Julia Knight stated if there was a decision between now and June 17 to no longer pursue a 23 project, the points requested from HCD would be adjusted. If it should happen after receiving a 24 positive pro-designation status in the fall, it would not impact the designation. The designation 25 would be good for 3 years. It would impact the policies that would be included in the 26 reapplication to renew the designation 3 years out. 27 28 Vice Chair Ji stated the question was less about the impact on the Prohousing Designation but 29 what would happen, for example, if it was decided to do 2,000 units for Item 1L instead of 30 3,800 to 7,400. Vice Chair Ji asked how much buffer should be maintained since 42 points was 31 well over 30 and what specific incentives peer districts received due to the Prohousing 32 Designation. 33 34 Julia Knight replied that it would be clearly framed as a proposed policy, so it could be adjusted 35 later. It would be good to have additional buffer. Most peer jurisdictions were applying with 36 numbers in the 40s. It was believed (but would be confirmed) that HCD looked at it as part of 37 the funding and grant infrastructure competitiveness. Julia Knight did not have specific 38 incentives peer districts received due to the Prohousing Designation but would follow up with 39 those. Since about 2022, the State issued about $56M in Prohousing incentive program grants. 40 It would make the City more competitive for Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities 41 (AHSC) grant, and the Local Housing Trust Fund would be more competitive. Many of the grants 42 through the Prohousing Incentive Program were $500K to $5M. 43 44 Vice Chair Ji queried if there was a $56M pool just for Prohousing Designated jurisdictions, if 1 other grant projects could be boosted by having a Prohousing Designation, and how many 2 jurisdictions there were in California. 3 4 Julia Knight affirmed that there was a $56M pool just for Prohousing designated jurisdictions 5 and that other grant projects could be boosted by having a Prohousing Designation. California 6 had over 400 member cities in the state, and that number increased to about 1,200 if including 7 little townships, etc. 8 9 Commissioner Peterson commended staff on the effort and noted that no category was left 10 unchecked in process. Commissioner Peterson questioned where work needed to be done for 11 the next 3 years or if the City should continue doing what was being done. Commissioner 12 Peterson found the 2024 annual report by the Palo Alto Transportation Management 13 Association (TMA) incredibly helpful in understanding the commutes into Palo Alto and 14 transportation within the city and asked if the TMA had a specific focus on bikes, walking, and 15 public transportation. Commissioner Peterson understood from business owners and 16 employees that the TMA was a critical component if one worked in Palo Alto. The application 17 did not appear to reflect that Palo Alto had one of the single largest contiguous bike areas from 18 the peninsula to Santa Clara, which might constitute more points. 19 20 Julia Knight stated what the City was doing was great, and she recommended following through 21 on the proposed policies. Julia Knight believed the TMA had a specific focus on bikes, walking, 22 and public transportation and explained why it was attached to the report. Due to the State’s 23 scoring criteria, the City could not receive more points for having one of the largest contiguous 24 bike areas, but staff could continue to highlight it in thinking about future land use planning. 25 26 Chair Chang inquired if there was substantial community feedback from the May 20 meeting. 27 28 Julia Knight responded there was no substantial feedback from the May 20 meeting. It was a 29 very small attendance, but staff promoted this PTC’s study session in hopes of hearing more 30 from the community at this meeting. The discussion was included in last week’s Uplift Local 31 newsletter. 32 33 Public Comments 34 Sam Tavera announced that no comment cards had been received and there were no raised 35 hands on Zoom. 36 37 Commissioner Templeton thought it was fantastic that the City could apply for the designation 38 so the City could get more Affordable Housing grants. It was important to do this to help reach 39 the housing goals. 40 41 Commissioner James echoed Commissioner Templeton’s comments and supported applying for 42 the Prohousing Designation to possibly get more grant money. Commissioner James spoke of 43 the reputational piece to it being important and was eager to do more of Palo Alto’s tradition 1 and to meet the housing challenges to the City’s standards. 2 3 Commissioner Akin Voiced that Category 1-B appeared to refer to the City’s interim and 4 urgency ordinances for implementing SB 79 and inquired how this would constitute a local 5 Prohousing policy given that something for the purpose would be required. 6 7 Julia Knight answered that the SB 79 base zoning from the State would apply unless the 8 jurisdiction passed local zoning laws exceeding what SB 79 required. As of July 1, Palo Alto 9 would proactively choose to provide zoning in excess of what SB 79 would require, so it was 10 hoped that the City would receive those points, but the application would not ride on them. If 11 the HCD determined it was not a great fit, it was felt that the City would still receive the 12 designation. 13 14 Commissioner Akin stated it was not clear that the proposed ordinance exceeded SB 79. The 15 response to Category 3E involved BPTP, but BPTP was awaiting final adoption. Commissioner 16 Akin commented it was not mentioned on the list of proposed policies on Packet Page 53 and 17 queried if it should be. 18 19 Jennifer Armer clarified that the draft ordinance that would be discussed by Council next week 20 met the requirements of SB 79 that all the parcels be zoned to at least 50 percent of what 21 would be allowed. Jennifer Armer understood that at the time of the next Housing Element 22 process, the City would look to update those to do the full capacity. It was forward looking to a 23 time when policy would exceed SB 79. 24 25 Julia Knight hoped 3E it would be enacted by the end of June. Council would look at it in June, 26 and if Council passed it, “enacted” would be removed from the scoring sheet, and it would be 27 listed as proposed. If it did not pass, it would be reworked and included in the prior appendix. 28 29 Vice Chair Ji voiced that the amount of money the City would be getting should be highlighted 30 in a future staff report. Vice Chair Ji was excited about funding coming through and supporting 31 low-income housing. It might be helpful to include the number of points from currently enacted 32 projects in case the proposed were not finished. 33 34 Chair Chang expressed that it would be fantastic to be eligible for funds the City would not 35 otherwise be eligible for. Palo Alto had a history of being an affordable housing leader in the 36 area. Chair Chang referred to 3A and noted that the City had a 100-percent waiver of City 37 development fees for 100-percent affordable developments and questioned if giving that 38 waiver to 100-percent affordable developments that were at 80-percent AMI would change the 39 points or if it would be included in a future update. 40 41 Julia Knight did not think it would affect the points. The wording in a future application might 42 need to be adjusted when reapplying. There were many ways to qualify for those points, and 43 there were categories that had not been included to compete for in this application, which the 1 City could consider competing for. 2 3 Chair Chang voiced that 1L gave her pause because there had not been buy-in on what the San 4 Antonio Housing Plan number range should be. Chair Chang asked if it would matter if it were 5 adjusted lower. 6 7 Julia Knight did not think adjusting the San Antonio Housing Plan range to a lower number 8 would matter. That category was about zoning and showing that the City was actively looking at 9 zoning and trying to adjust it to encourage more housing. The numbers HCD requested were 10 preliminary, and the plan was not expected to be adopted until 2028. It was a demonstration of 11 good intent. The Prohousing Designation was very different from the Housing Element, and the 12 City was not bound by any of this. It was an elective program. The City was not required to 13 provide a Prohousing Designation application. 14 15 Commissioner James’ was heartbroken because the State felt it had to require standards for 16 homeless encampments but was impressed that the City had aligned resources with where 17 those needs were. Commissioner James praised PATMA for promoting alternative 18 transportation needs. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton thought this was a great step to getting housing grants to address 21 homeless encampments. Commissioner Templeton inquired how different the numbers were in 22 the Housing Element versus the proposed list and if the approval was a snapshot or if the City 23 was operating on not ever going below a certain threshold. 24 25 Julia Knight stated the numbers in the proposed list had been presented in public meetings, and 26 they were early projections in the case of the SARAP to show the State that the City was taking 27 this seriously. The threshold was 30 points, so any year the City applied and confirmed that 30 28 points were earned in all 4 required policy areas, the City would receive the redesignation. 29 30 Jennifer Armer added that it was consistent with the Housing Element. Regarding the approval, 31 if the City received the designation, it would be good for 3 years. 32 33 Commissioner Templeton hoped that in the future it would be made clear that if the City 34 received a designation it would be good for 3 years. 35 36 Vice Chair Ji queried if the City could submit an addendum/new application sooner than 3 years 37 in order to get more points. This was a great collection of the work that the Planning 38 Department had done, and giving the collection of the programs, etc., to new commissioners 39 might be useful. Vice Chair Ji asked if there were programs peer jurisdictions were doing that 40 were not included in Palo Alto’s application. 41 42 Julia Knight believed the City could submit a reapplication (not an addendum) sooner than 3 1 years. It would expire 3 years, on January 1, after applying. Julia Knight could follow up with 2 HCD. 3 4 Jennifer Armer stated this was the first Prohousing Designation she had worked on and had no 5 experience with other organizations, but Planning loved to look at what other jurisdictions were 6 doing and getting ideas. Jennifer Armer anticipated that the first application would look at what 7 was currently being done and what was planned to be done, but staff would continue to look 8 for other opportunities, especially on reapplication in 1 or 1½ years. 9 10 Julia Knight added that the City was applying for certain enhancement factors, but others were 11 not applied for because the City did not have policies aligning with them. A lot of them were 12 tied to environmental and social justice issues, so that was an area for potential growth if the 13 City wanted to add those enhancement factors in a future application. 14 15 Vice Chair Ji suggested focusing on areas with low-hanging fruit when pursuing additional 16 programs. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton thought Vice Chair Ji was requesting a brag sheet, which went nicely 19 with the comments related to reputation. Perhaps Planning staff could relay that to the 20 Communications team – how to talk about the great stuff the City was doing to raise the 21 profile. 22 23 Jennifer Armer noted that staff heard the PTC’s strong support, comments, suggestions, and 24 questions. 25 26 Commissioner Questions, Comments, and Announcements or Future Meetings 27 and Agendas 28 Vice Chair Ji suggested that complex motions be emailed to staff and asked if anyone had any 29 ideas to improve the process. During premeeting, there had been a discussion with Jennifer 30 Armer about making meetings more efficient in terms of questions. If questions were sent 31 before 8 a.m. Monday, staff would possibly have a response before the meeting. If staff should 32 receive the same question from more than one Commissioner ahead of time, it would point to 33 a particular item of interest and help staff provide more detailed information during a meeting. 34 35 Jennifer Armer remarked that it would depend on workload and the character of the questions, 36 but having written answers to some questions in advance of the meeting could be helpful. If 37 staff received questions over the weekend, it might be possible to put together a desk item or 38 an addendum to the original report. 39 40 Commissioner Templeton thought there was brokenness in how staff was communicating with 41 the PTC. The PTC was not getting one-on-one emails that other commissions, etc., were getting. 42 Staff should provide all Commissioners with answers to certain individual Commissioner 43 questions. Commissioner Templeton asked if progress had been made on fixing the 1 communication issue in terms of batched emails with public comments. 2 3 Jennifer Armer answered that staff was working with the clerk’s department to improve the 4 process. Public comments needed to be posted publicly and done at a regular time so the PTC 5 and the public had the same information at the same time. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton asked if it could be presented to the PTC as received and then a batch 8 posted within so many days before the meeting. 9 10 Chair Chang noted that Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang said it was supposed to be 11 immediate, but it appeared that there were technical limitations. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton asked if all boards had the same process. There were benefits to 14 receiving individual emails rather than batches. Commissioner Templeton did not believe there 15 was a technical limitation and wanted to know what the actual limitation was. Commissioner 16 Templeton believed emails could be published as soon as they came in. At the very least, staff 17 should provide all Commissioners with answers to certain individual Commissioner questions. 18 19 Jennifer Armer would check with the other liaisons to see what was being done and double-20 check on the questions the PTC Commissioners raised. Questions would be accepted and 21 shared with the project planner, so they would have an answer prepared for the meetings. 22 Jennifer Armer was open to trying to provide Commissioners with written responses, but if 23 additional information was provided, it should be made available to the public, so it would be 24 prepared as supplemental information on the web, and Commissioners would receive an email. 25 26 Chair Chang voiced that it would be a change in how the PTC operated and believed staff was 27 trying to tighten up the processes to be more in compliance with requirements. 28 29 Commissioner Templeton stated if emails were batched and published every day, staff could 30 reply to Commissioners, and it would be compliant and transparent. 31 32 Commissioner Peterson agreed with Vice Chair Ji regarding emailing motions and improving the 33 process. Commissioner Peterson appreciated the new technology. Commissioner Peterson 34 spoke of a firehose of information trickling in and staff functioning without AI, and AI was a key 35 to quickly processing information. Commissioner Peterson thought it might be necessary to 36 request additional staff or make overtime or working from home available as part of the 37 budget. 38 39 Jennifer Armer responded additional staff, etc., was not being requested at this time. 40 41 Chair Chang asked if there was a technological solution to the instant posting problem. 42 43 Jennifer Armer would check with the IT Department to see if there were programs available for 1 website functionality and requested that Commissioners email any suggestions. 2 3 Vice Chair Ji would speak to staff about programs available for website functionality. Vice Chair 4 Ji discussed the report he and Commissioner James wrote about the AI Conference and 5 welcomed any questions and recommended Commissioners attend the next conference. 6 7 Commissioner Peterson asked what was happening with Antonio’s Nut House on California 8 Avenue. 9 10 Jennifer Armer did not have anything to share about Antonio’s Nut House. 11 Chair Chang noted that staff was nervous about the PTC scheduling a break, as urgent issues 12 could arise. The PTC would have an unscheduled break in June because nothing was scheduled 13 for that meeting. 14 15 Commissioner Templeton stated that taking breaks had never caused a problem. If an urgent 16 issue arose, it could be put back on the calendar or there could be an emergency meeting. If the 17 Commission aligned on time off in August, staff could plan around it, so nothing would be held 18 up. Commissioner Templeton would not attend the August 26 meeting. 19 20 Discussion ensued regarding planned absences, the timeline for cancelling meetings, 21 cancellations and scheduling special meetings, rescheduling urgent matters for the week before 22 or the week after a certain meeting, meeting absences but still having a quorum, unexpected 23 items, and August and September agendas not yet being full so meetings could be balanced so 24 the agendas would not be too full. 25 26 Commissioner James would be traveling on July 8 and possibly in August. 27 28 Vice Chair Ji would likely be traveling on July 8 and did not know if he could attend remotely. 29 30 Chair Chang would be traveling on June 24 and had planned on joining remotely. 31 32 Commissioner Peterson had no plans. 33 34 Commissioner Akin had nothing firmly scheduled, but if his plans changed, it would likely be in 35 the last 2 weeks or July or the first 2 weeks of August. 36 37 Commissioner Templeton stated that no one had firm plans and that the June meeting was not 38 officially cancelled. August was usually busy. Commissioner Templeton suggested scheduling a 39 summer break if it was desired, but it would be okay if no summer break was scheduled. 40 41 Chair Chang noted that the PTC was not lining up. 1 2 Virtual Public Comments 3 Sam Tavera declared that no hands were raised. 4 Adjournment 5 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. 6