Planning & Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the new year everyone. I call to order the January 14th, 2026 meeting of the planning and transportation commission. Mr. Dveta, would you call the role? Yes. Uh, Chair Aken here. Vice Chair Chang here. Commissioner Hecman here. Commissioner James here. Commissioner G here. Commissioner Peterson here. Commissioner Templeton here. For the record, we have quorum. All are present. Thank you. Assistant Director Armor. Do we have any agenda changes? No changes. Mr. Tivera, do we have any public comment for items that are not on the agenda?

Uh through the chair, I have received no request to speak on Zoom and no public comment cards have been submitted.

Thank you. May we have the city official reports? Absolutely. [gasps] Welcome. Good happy new year to everybody. Uh we will jump right into the usual uh brief updates from uh planning and development services. So next slide. Upcoming meetings. Um as you may have noticed when we last met in December, there were a couple of items we anticipated to be on this agenda. Those shifted. Uh and some of that is happening as well. It looks like the item that we thought might be going January 28th is also delayed. So at this time uh we do anticipate cancelling the January 28th meeting. Uh in February, we do expect to have a couple of items for the your first meeting on February 11th. The retail revitalization ordinance. We hope to bring that back to you, though that is pending a uh discussion with the retail committee, which I'll mention on the next slide. And then a project at 800 uh and 808 San Antonio Road. We do hope to have that ready for you, but again, it is actually pending some additional information from the applicant. So, with these housing projects, we try and move them forward as quickly as we can, but occasionally that means we have to shift things around when we don't have everything that we need. A few other notes. Uh, recruitment is now open for a number of our boards and commissions, including two seats on the planning and transportation commission and three on our historic resources board. We do ask that you spread the word um to anyone who you think might be uh interested in participating for either of those. The deadline for those applications is February 18th. And then um just a heads up that we may

be looking at a joint sp special special uh oh I put joint there twice sorry a special joint meeting with planning and transportation commission and the architectural review board to discuss the coverly community center. They've asked for a date in Feb, late February or early March. And so we're looking at some potent some potential dates and we'll send out a survey to see what availability um you all have. And then next slide. So as previously mentioned, we do we will be staff will be attending the retail committee on January 22nd to discuss um the retail revitalization ordinance. Uh they have also asked to um hear about the El Camino Rial retail node map. We hope that once they have done that review, we'll be able to provide that to council very soon thereafter for um consideration and adoption on their consent calendar. Then February 2nd, we have a discussion of the work plans including planning and transportation commission but also architectural review board and historic resources board. and we are targeting that meeting for a pre-screening for a potential project adjacent to Town and Country at 44 and 88 and Cena Avenue. I also wanted to remind you of a training that you received an email about that is occurring on the 21st of January. This is a virtual training um and it is a training session on Islamophobia, anti-semitism and anti-Palestine hate. Um you are all invited um to join. It is um remote and if you are not able to find the email with the registration link, please just let me know. I'm happy to forward it to you again. And with that, it completes

my presentation. But we do also have representation from office of transportation to update you. Senior transportation planner RC.

Uh good afternoon, good evening I should say PTC and happy new year. Happy first meeting. My name is Azie Arcles, senior transportation planner here with the OOT updates, office of transportation updates for January 14th. Uh next slide please. Uh just starting off with some good news. In mid December, an OOT staff member, Sylvia Starlac, who's the transportation planning manager for the city, was honored at the Western Wheelers Club meeting for the Lift Coitz award uh for work benefiting the city's cycling community. This includes her work uh supporting the bike to work day uh leading the safety action plan and supporting the city's bike and pet plan update as well as the safe route to school program. So, congratulations, Sylvia. Next slide, please. on uh rail grids rail grade separation project in mid December the council had a meeting where they approved advancing the rail grade separation project to the next phase 15% design and they provide a decision on the preferred alternatives for each location uh specific to Charleston Road uh they provided direction to move forward with an underpass alternative with direct access ramp on Meadow Drive they uh moved they provided ction for staff to move forward with a hybrid alternative. And for Churchill, uh they uh decided with a partial underpass without landscaping at Churchill plus the uh complimentary uh pet and bike underpass at Seal. Um, given the cost considerations, just letting you all know, council also requested a study of the implications of implementing only the Charleston underpass as the current traffic analysis assumes all three get construct constructed. So, the short here is that council uh advanced the project to the 15% design phase. Next

slide, please. Quiet zone updates related to rail. Uh a quick short update on the implementation of the quiet zone specifically to the Alma Street and the Palo Alto Avenue train crossing. Uh uh uh this just a reminder that this is a multi-jurisdictional project to implement these quiet zones led by the city's OOT department but in in collaboration with the city of Menllo Park. Uh the construction of the medians as you can see in that photo on the right has uh took place at the end of last year. Uh and with these this infrastructure installed, the city is now eligible to apply for a quiet zone implementation specifically at this location. And OOT staff plans to go to council in late February um as part of this eligibility for quiet zone implementation. So moving along uh at this location. Uh next slide, please. Uh and just some uh announcements on a Lunar New Year celebration coming up. uh two that I want to call out. Locally, the city's uh library is hosting an event with performers, crafts, and uh friends from the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo on Sunday, January 25th from 2:30 to 4:30 at Mitchell Park. And the second event is on Sunday, February 22nd, where OOT staff will be tableabling in partnership with safe routes to school parent volunteers to host anformational table. Uh tableabling provides our local Asian community with an opportunity to direct transportation related questions to staff, access bike and pet safety related educational resources, and participate in child-friendly activities. In the past, we've also welcomed Chinese speaking volunteer interpreters to provide assistance when needed. And so we're very grateful to the Palo Alto Asian-American Connection and related co-sponsors pro for providing us with this opportunity to be there. And again,

both events are at Mitchell Park Community Center. Uh, last slide, please. Um, and just more on the regional news level exciting news and maybe you caught wind of it, but public transit riders are now able to pay for their fairs tapping uh credit or debit cards as well as well as their mobile uh the mobile version of their cards. Um, this includes over two dozen Bay Area transit agencies including Cal Train, BART, VTA, and SAM Trans. Um, this is in addition to the classic blue plastic clipper cards that we are familiar with. Um, but very much uh an advancement that was very needed to be able to accept mobile payments. Uh, so just wanted to announce that as a good news as well. And that concludes my presentation for uh, January 14th. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. RSA. All right. I see Commissioner Templeton and then rapidly following Commissioner Peterson, Vice Chair Chang, and then Commissioner G have questions. Uh I just wanted to say um thank you for the sharing the good news. We don't often we haven't gotten much of that uh as part of the presentation, but it's very much appreciated. Um, and I just uh appreciate the training that's being offered against all of the things you listed. [laughter] You said it was a training on I'm like, well, it's not we're not uh just to be clear for for other people who might not have the context. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Peterson. Thank you, Chair. Okay, for the uh transportation director, a quick question. Um, I use public transportation all the time and I did notice the the change over with the uh the blue cards and being able to use the phone. So, one of the things that they discontinued was the the Cal Train app. You could pay without tagging in and tagging off cuz I always forget. And uh it was really nice. Is there any way can you put your ear out and hear if you hear any discussion that they're going to bring the app back so you don't have to actually tap on and tap off or if that's just the new the new way it's going.

Thank you for the question. I can certainly connect with our folks at Cal Train. Um I did ride I think it was yesterday uh and I believe someone did show the app on their phone to the uh attendant. So, okay. It may still be an an option, but I will I will look into it. Okay. Thank you. I'm glad I asked. If we find out any information, I'll be sure to circle back with the with a group with the committee commission. Thanks. Thank you, Vice Chair Jane.

Uh, quick question for Assistant Director Armor about the potentially canceled meeting or likely canceled meeting. When will we know? Was it at the time the agenda would normally be published or um if we are able to get through today's discussion item and with a recommendation to council then we will be cancelling the meeting on the 28th. Thank you. The only reason it is not yet canceled is if you needed further time for discussion of this item. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you vice chair commissioner G.

Thank you chair. Um my question is directed to Mr. Arce. Um, I noticed that in the December meeting of the PTC last year that the BPTP update was scheduled for this meeting and I didn't see it on the calendar that uh, assistant director Armor presented. Um, I'll jump in. I believe it was the connectivity South Palivity. Yeah, it was a bike related clarify. Yes, sorry about that.

I was like, wow. I'm happy to bring the plan back again. um with if there's budget um uh I don't have an answer for you on the on the connectivity project uh but I can circle back on on the reason why it was uh pushed. Uh I will say council did uh at their last meeting provide uh uh direction uh to move forward with Elorado Avenue. Uh and so that may have caused them to reschedu or re restrategize the approach to the engagement now that they have a pretty definitive decision from council. Um that's my assumption, but I will definitely circle back with the group. All right. Thank you.

Seeing no other lights, I have a couple of items. Um, for Miss Armor, the Islamophobia training, is that intended as a follow-on to the previous training or is it u essentially the same um purpose?

My understanding is the anti-Islamophobia training uh is intended to be in addition to what was provided previously. I don't believe it is. I believe it is with a a different group who's providing the training. Um I'd have to confirm though, but that was my understanding. It was an addition. It was not a makeup training.

Yeah, we did have several sessions last time around. Um and I thought it was well worthwhile, but I haven't signed up for the latest edition because I wasn't sure it would be new material. So perhaps that would be good to know. Um, couple of questions for Mr. RCA. Um, I'm a little confused about SEAL. I thought I'd heard some discussion that perhaps the SEAL underpass would not happen. Am I just out of date there? My notes here do note that they they did tack tack on the pet and bike underpass at Seal as part of that decision, but I can certainly confirm that with you. I know there has been some

Yeah, it's quite possible. I'm just out of date, but Right. And I can I will add that to my questions to circle back with the commission.

Okay. Thank you. And uh one of my kids has already used the new uh tap and ride payment system and gives it a big thumbs up. So I'm glad that's working. Any other questions, commissioners? All right, I guess that concludes um city reports. We'll move on to agenda item number two. Oh, just ad armor. Before we do, I did get confirmation that it is actually the same training as last year. Um, it just has been retitled, which is why I thought it was something new. So, thank you for asking that question.

Great. Thank you. All right. Agenda item number two, uh, concerning a recommendation to the council regarding, uh, dimminimous exceptions in non-complying residential facilities. So, Miss Armor, would you please give the presentation?

I would be happy to. So, thank you, uh, Chair Aken. [snorts] So, this, uh, is a minor code change to create a new section of the code. Next slide. For non-complying facilities. So, in September, on September 15th, the council directed staff to prepare a text amendment. This is the actual wording of their motion. Um, specifically for the director of planning and development services to consider or approve dimminimous exceptions from non-complying facilities, uh, regulations, smaller minor adjustments that are not impactful to adjacent properties or public realm for residential properties. So, this was a result of a series of of other um actions. First, we had uh someone who was applying for a building permit of an on renovation of an existing non-conforming house. It exceeded its maximum allowed floor area, but that's because it was built before it was annexed into the city. So, it was built under different rules. um because the code was found not to allow them to demolish some floor area and rebuild it somewhere else because then that would be non non-conforming. It'd be reinstating that non-conformance. Uh the there was a director's interpretation to lay out the reason for um not approving that building permit. the applicant for that building permit appealed the director's interpretation, which is the process, and it then went to council. They decided to pull it from consent for consideration. And as a result, while they upheld the director's interpretation under agreeing that the

code does not currently allow that sort of thing, that uh there was an interest to do so. So, as a result, next slide, staff prepared a text to modify the current code, the current zoning code to um address the following goals. First, the six-month turnaround for the code amendment as specified by council. Aligning the the revisions to the meaning of dimminimus, so keeping it as trivial or minor. So, keeping it well defined for that. avoid additional process delays or appeals for this sort of application. Preventing impacts to neighboring properties. Aligning with other floor area thresholds in existing code, which is something we do try to do when we are creating something new so that there is consistency and a basis um if that is a threshold that's been used elsewhere rather than creating something new um without specific justification. and six allow flexibility for projects similar in scale to the one proposed by the appellant. Next slide. And so this is the language. It's also in your printed packet that we are proposing to be included um in the code. It lays out that this exception would be allowed um for up to 250 square ft of floor area that um is non-complying. That's intended to be um if it exceeds the floor area, maximum allowed floor area that up to 250 square ft could be relocated. We're giving that uh quantity based on that's also a threshold that's used in association with our home improvement exception in the code and it

is large enough to accommodate the project that kind of started all of this um and therefore aligns with the direction from council to allow similar projects. We also uh placed the limitation that this be non-complying facility that houses a single family residential use in a lowdensity residential zone to try and and really focus where this would apply. And then stating that if the project is uh is moving floor area above the ground floor that it needs to comply with the processes that are laid out elsewhere in the card code. So it need would need to go through the individual review process if it is a larger amount on the second story. So that's consistent with existing code. And then finally, if the project is less than 150 square feet, which doesn't on the second story doesn't generally um require an individual review process, we did reference the objective standards that we have for new single family homes, uh two-story single family homes that do not go through the individual review process. Um, so that lays out what is proposed and what that is based on, but I am happy to discuss, go through the details, um, and answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Armor. Commissioners, any clarifying questions before we ask for public comment? [sighs and gasps] I see. Oh, Commissioner Peterson. Thank you. So, Mr. Sure. The one question is um so I looked into the ADUs for PaloAlto and you can have an ADU as small as 150 square ft. Does this allow ADUs in yards or does that fall under the impact on adjacent properties?

This would not apply to ADUs. ADUs have their own regulations. Um, this could potentially be used for a junior ADU because that is meant to be is required to be within the existing home um or what's allowed for the home. And so this allows us a little more flexibility there. But this is not talking about detached structures. Uh, also to clarify based on questions I received ahead of time um that this also does not actually have to do with basements. Basements are not counted as floor area for residential uses. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Peterson, uh, Commissioner Templeton, and then Commissioner G.

Um, yeah, I was just wondering um what what is driving the number 250? Is that just a standard thing or? So when we looked at the code, we um looked at a couple different thresholds that are there in terms of floor area for single family residential uses. There are some um areas where we use a threshold of 150 for example um addition to the second floor and uh there is the home improvement exception that does rely on a 250 square foot um [snorts] threshold for um additional allowed square footage. And so um those were the options we looked at when um trying to determine a a threshold to recommend. The reason that we are recommending the 250 is uh based on the size of the project that the council felt was appropriate. It was more than 150 square ft. Therefore, we went for the larger threshold um rather than picking something arbitrary in between.

Just to follow up on that, thank you for explaining that. Um, so if I were to have made a change like that on my home in in Ventura, that would have been 25% of my house. But it at say a larger home that would not be commensurate. Was it better to use the objective number u instead of a percentage? And do you have a can you explain that thought process more? So my recommendation um as staff our recommendation is to have a square footage number um mostly because we're trying to limit this to something that's dimminimous that it's not a significant change. Yes, in relation to a much smaller house, that change might appear more, but we also don't want to overly limit what somebody with a smaller home could do when somebody with a larger home could make that adjustment when it's existing non-conforming size.

Thank you. That's all. I just appreciate the explanation.

Thank you, Commissioner Templeton, Commissioner G. Thank you, chair, and thank you, Assistant Director Armor, for answering my questions from the email. I see it came up again um during this meeting. Um my question is about the language of the the use of the word facility here in section uh A. I know that Mayor Vinker had some questions about that during the actual city council meeting. So, I was wondering if you could just elaborate what a facility is and how that plays into this section. I'm actually going to see if um attorney Yang is available to respond to that question.

Sure. Um so we use non-compliant facility because that is the term that is um otherwise used in this chapter of the code and it uh just refers to a structure or a building. Um that's yeah we're trying to be consistent with the the rest of this chapter.

Thank you Mr. Yang. And then I have a second question which is um Muz Armer in your presentation you listed out six bullets for the different criteria that we're looking at and also I'm looking at council's motion that's provided on packet page 9 that says direct the staff to prepare a text amendment authorizing director of planning services to consider etc etc but my understanding of the way this code works and correct me if I'm wrong and also I guess this is a question for Mr. Yang um is that this just allows like there's no director approval needed because I didn't see a reference to director approval in the section. I just wanted to confirm that I was reading that correctly.

Yeah, thank you for that question. So, anything that is approved through a building permit or planning permit is um done so through the authorization of the director. So, it includes all of those those elements. So just to confirm my understanding, by adding this to the code, the director can then site this section in the approval process. Correct. And so the approval of a building permit could move forward based on this section of the code.

All right. Thank you. Those were my questions. Any other clarifying questions, commissioners? [clears throat] Seeing none, Mr. Ta, do we have any uh requests for public comment? Um through the chair, I have not received any public comment cards. Um and I would invite if there's any members of the public on Zoom that would like to speak to this item to raise their hands. Seeing none through the chair, I've not received any request to speak on Zoom either.

Very good. Thank you. All right. Uh commissioners, it's time for our discussion. Vice Chair Chang.

Um, so I'll just jump in to start this off. I was really pleased with the way staff put this together using reference other, you know, enabling us to reference existing processes in the code. and it seems to me to be done in a way that's pretty clear-cut for anybody trying to do such a project and furthermore doesn't create a whole bunch of um a whole bunch of work for staff as well as ambiguity cuz when I had first heard that this was coming to the PTC, I was concerned that we would have to do findings and and all of that kind of business. And I think this is much more clearcut and I think that staff was I I really like the approach. Thank you, Vice Chair. I have Commissioner Hecman, then Commissioner G.

So, I I I think this is a kind of a common sense um modification of our ordinance scheme. Um, you know, this last applicant that went through the appeal really exposed um um not a um deficiency, but a a a gap, something that legitimately prohibited what really um should be harmless um or dimminimous as as we've using in this uh ordinance. So, so I I'm happy to see this come up. I do think that uh that uh 250 ft is is an appropriate size for uh dimminimists. Again, we're we're only talking about nine non-compliant structures, but you know, if if if we're talking about, you know, a house on a small parcel that's a thousand feet, you know, 250 square feet of that is 25%. If we're talking about a 10,000 foot house, and we have I think some of those in PaloAlto, that's 2500 square f feet of of moving and that's not to mention this. So, I I also um appreciate staff's decision to to focus on a a one-sizefits-all for this limited exception. Um um I did uh think that there are some refinements to this language which I uh provided staff in advance to run them by them uh run them by them. Um I will say that you know um the the bugaboo of sta of ordinance language um is found uh in in lacks of clarity. Uh, so the the the last thing you want is some citizen to read this language, think, "Oh, what I want to do fits that." They go hire an architect and spend $10,000 to have them

draw something up. Then they come to the city and and pay whatever the application fees are for that modification only to be told by the city, "Yeah, that's not what it means." I understand how you could think it might mean that, but really it means this. Um, and so we want to avoid that. And so I, you know, I I I always strive, uh, when we're looking at ordinances to find, uh, ways to, um, you know, protect future future citizens and staff from a debate about what something means by clarifying where, um, I think that we can. And so, um, I have, uh, provided some language for that, but let me, since there are other commissioners who haven't yet, weighed in, um, let's hear from them and then when it's appropriate, I can come back and, uh, display that language. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Hecman. Commissioner G, then Commissioner James. Since I asked some questions, I'll let some other commissioners go first.

Commissioner James, then Commissioner Peterson. Um yeah, I don't have anything uh novel to add here. I will just say that um you know, I generally support the the streamlining uh I mean the the initial um situation. I think um you know revealed where there could be some improvements. I think the reasoning I like the way the staff threaded through that and found that uh I I agree that uh any any ordinance that or regulation that um sort of governs or guides the public I always want it to be in third grade you know readability uh because I think it's it just needs to be super simple. So you know I I also appreciate that. So I I you know I'm just you know generally happy with the simplification um how that was sort of achieved um and this this seems like you know common sense. I even sort of measured out my garage so I had a a clear understanding of what 250 square feet was. So um it all makes sense to me. Thanks.

Thank you Commissioner Commissioner Peterson. So, I just wanted to uh comment first on uh Commissioner Hchman's uh comment on misinterpretation. You know, everybody looks at something from their own standpoint that they bring they bring with them when they're reading something. And when you're reading something by yourself, you're you're not guided in that reading by anybody. You're coming up with your own solutions. Words can have different meanings, different traditions. So I did appreciate that that mention that you made that making sure that um that exact scenario you laid out very clearly probably happens a lot which is where suddenly people hire a lawyer and come in there with their own opinion. Uh so the other thing I want to comment on is just uh [cough and clears throat] having been on staff myself and having the job of of following uh ordinances that have been given to you, you know, by an elected body and and you don't have a lot of discretion in how you apply it. Um, I was in charge of the check boxes that everybody saw on every uh business in the county during CO and uh that was an interesting I didn't decide to put check boxes or or how many feet somebody could stand behind somebody else or whether there was a plexiglass shield, but I had a I had a spreadsheet and I was checking them all 60,000. [clears throat] And um so the point is that I'm often not a fan of making legis, you know, an ordinance more complicated, you know, making it less complicated. And I just want to put the idea out there that I'm not opposed to this, you know, and I think it's absolutely necessary, but also to the discretion of staff that if staff could have, you know, just simply had the discretion to say, "Okay, yeah, this looks fine. We'll pass it through." um rather than having to adhere to their interpretation of that. You know, how much flexibility is there in staff because now we have added a new little piece a subsection and then invariably there's going to be another subsection

and then another subsection at some point in the field as there's more and more and it makes the rule less interpretable because it's more convoluted at some point with all these exceptions to it. So, I just think somebody had to speak to that to that idea that um we're evolving into more complex law, which I guess just happens anyways. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. And I'd like to bounce that back to uh Ad Armor because uh the issue was raised that we did have a different interpretation previously.

That is that is correct. So the question is um what was the reasoning that uh got us to this point?

I'd be happy to pro provide a little bit more of the background. So um the allowance for existing non-conforming structures that exceeded the floor area for renovations to relocate that extra floor area from one part of the building to another is something that staff used to allow. And then we had a project that came through um I think it was maybe 10 years ago that um went through the process. It I believe was a commercial project. So a little bit different but um staff got told quite firmly by council that no, you shouldn't be allowing that floor area to be moved around. And so when this so that shifted how we were implementing this section of the code and so then when um we got this push back from this particular project we said well let's let's look at it really closely let's make sure that we are really um tying to the legal definition of this section of the code and uh worked extensively because we were hoping to be able to allow this as we've seen you know it was it was a real minor change. Um, and it was something that that staff also is supportive of having the ability to allow this. uh but legally the code does not allow it and that is why we put together a an interpretation uh so that it was in writing it was clear it was consistent and there was an explanation for why and then having the opportunity to go to council and council agreed that the current code does not provide coun the staff the flexibility to allow this sort of thing but they felt it is reasonable and so that's why they asked us to come back quickly with this additional code.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Miss Armor, Vice Chair Chang, then Commissioner Templeton. Then I'll get a few comments in. Can I just ask um Assistant Director Armor for kind of the magnitude of the changes that were formerly permitted by um by the director um with you know at staff discretion? Was it specifically for residential? What was the magnitude? Um,

I don't know the details uh because I'd be going pretty far back in my memory from the last time I was here as a planner with the city of Palo Alto. But, um, what I can say that was that it was a general philosophy that it's an existing non-conforming situation. As long as you're not making it worse, we can let you adjust things, especially if you're making it better. Um, in this case, we did not recommend something as broad as that because we really wanted to keep within this definition of dimminimous. And so, we used the um, as I said before, the project that that was in front of them as a guide and the existing code references um that we've mentioned.

Yeah.

To try and contain. I appreciate staff's desire to get something done quickly because there's an applicant in that spurred this change and these people want to age in place and so, you know, we don't I don't think we want to I I can see ways that this could be improved. Um, and part of me questions, you know, if it's an existing non-conformance and as long as it's making it better, um, we the as currently written, [gasps] the ordinance has the right guard rails in place that should prevent, um, any any, you know, if if we were to increase the square footage beyond the 250 ft, it seems like the the ordinance is written such that the individual review process and all the other and the objective standards are the guard rails that would keep this um you know that you really shouldn't impact a neighbor. And so part of me says, "Oh, you know, we're we're while we're fiddling around with this, why don't we just make it all the way better?" All that said, I wouldn't want to slow this down in any way because we've got a project that's that's there. Um, but one thought is that if tonight there were agreement on the PTC about an alternative, staff might be able to fairly easily write an alternative A that is the very very much the dimminimous um option as well as an option B that might be a little bit more expansive um that you know allows people to do things with their house that won't affect that just doesn't that won't affect their neighbors. So, it's just a thought I had. Uh, but yeah. All right, I'll leave it at that. Thanks. [clears throat]

Thank you, Vice Chair, Commissioner Templeton.

Thank you. Um, I really appreciate staff going through some of the rationale um with us early on with my questions. Um, very satisfied with the answers I received and I appreciate that. Um I'm familiar with this project as well and I I'm very sympathetic and I don't see any reason to object um to this very rational practical approach. Um I hear uh the comments of um Vice Chair Chang and I am sympathetic with it but I'm not sure how far we can go because we haven't um noticed that kind of discussion. So um you know if that is something that we want to uh include in the motion maybe you would be to to come back with a noticed discussion so people can participate in that um because it's that's important uh part of the public process. So um I'm sympathetic with it but I think you know your first point of let's just get this done is uh the most important. So I'm I'm supportive as well. Thank you.

Thank you commissioner. Um, I'll just jump in with a couple of things in ending this first round and then we'll move on to Commissioner G. Um, I will echo the vice chair's comments that I really like the approach of delegating the details to individual review and to the objective standards. um that gives me good confidence that we won't be creating impacts on the neighbors uh and that we won't have to create additional process in order to guarantee that. Um, should we decide to clarify language, um, one thing that I would like to see is uh, and this perhaps I'm just uh, unfamiliar with the way terminology is used uh, in the code. But um, clarity about and and or matters a lot to me. Uh if a condition if we have uh a bunch of conditions that are in a conjunction, it's nice if those are all at the same level of the ordinance. And then if there are a bunch of conditions that are a disjunction that those have their own level so that we know exactly which set of conditions applies. Um and I can elaborate that if that's not obvious. Um, and finally, uh, the only substantive, um, suggestion I might make is, uh, the proposed paragraph B requires relocating floor area to the same or a lower elevation. And the question I have is, given that we have the protections of individual review and the objective standards, is this even needed?

Perhaps it could simply be omitted. So what do you think from a staff perspective? I we would be open to that change if that first sentence of item B were removed. Um we [clears throat] do agree that the objective standards and IR um could provide appropriate protections if that was the will of the commission. All right. Thank you. I will pass it along to my uh fellow commissioners to see if anyone else has uh opinions on that matter. Beginning with Commissioner G.

Thank you, Chair. Uh my I just had a quick question for staff. So, in the city council meeting referenced September 15, one of the reasons why the director decided to um say no on the project based on the current code is that it may open up a series like a Pandora's box of potential other projects that might get approved. I was wondering if staff had any commentary about the language as is if there are what the most egregious cases would be in this regard relative to what it was before or just kind of as a standalone question. Thank you for that question and I'll give an initial answer and then I'll see whether um attorney Yang has anything to add. Uh at the basic level that's why we kept the proposed language so narrow that it is focused just for residential uses in facilities on lowdensity residentially zoned parcels. um so that we aren't then applying this to commercial properties or or other types of um properties where that wasn't the target. Um and so then I don't know um Albert whether you've got anything to add to that.

Um I don't. That's all. Thanks. Okay. Um then I will just echo my fellow commissioners and say um thank you staff for the the answers to all the questions. I felt like it was very straightforward and also the speed at which the ordinance was provided. I think it's very timely. We, as previously mentioned, have an applicant that is um looking into making changes to their house. Um and so I really applaud the speed and the simplicity for this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner G. Commissioner Hecman. So, um, I want to get to my language in a in a minute, but first just listening to the other commissioners. Um, just want to spend a a minute on the sort of the legal philosophy of legal non-conforming uses. So, the the concept is legal non-conform sorry, in this case, legal non-conforming facility. Um so the concept is uh legal non-conforming facility is one that was legal when it was built and then the rules changed and that made it not legal anymore. And the general philosophy of the law is if you want to leave it there it's fine but if you want to start changing things then join the crowd follow the new rules. Um, and and in most circumstances that makes sense and it actually in some I've had situations where it it gives people a choice. You know, do I like if if my house was, you know, built in the county 6 ft from the property line, then it got annexed and the setback is 10 feet. So, I got four feet of encroachment. Um, I I want to do a remodel. That might require me to remove that 4 feet from the setback and join the crowd, follow the rules. Um, but that's a choice I get to make if I want to remodel sort of past a certain point. Um so and I I you know the idea is is the rules have changed because what was is has been deemed less desirable whether it's setback or height and so so as a general matter I I think the idea of of ending nonconformity over time um is a good thing. Um and and

this uh what we're looking at tonight actually swims against that because it allows non-conformity to stay. But as I said in my first remarks, it's kind of a common sense thing here. It's a small thing. Um you know, it's it's designed so it's not going to adversely uh impact neighbors um through the application of the regulations. And so so I think it's the right move. Um, so I did have uh some language and I think uh Ms. Armor may have prepared a slide that shows that and so if she'll pull that up. Um, I'll just walk through the commission uh these few changes. Um, and and then you know get reaction or or not. Um so and and what I've done is I've uh anything I've suggested be added is underline words that I think should be taken out crossed out. So the uh in the preamble uh I added this uh provided that the non-compliance is not increased. Um it's maybe you might think it's implied but uh again my thought here is for clarity we don't want to imply it. We want to state it. So that might just stop people right up front from proposing 350 ft get moved. right which it would increase the non-compliance and that language I can't remember if it's 0.080 080 or 0.090 of the existing code. It's it's drawn straight from that. So it's it's a repetition. Um which hopefully will get people u u realizing that what this limit is. Um my next change is and and this really gets to what the chair was talking about um uh adding the word and. Um, I don't want we don't want somebody to read this uh ordinance in the future and say, "Well, I comply with A because I'm a single family house and

so I don't have to worry about B or C because it's just any one of these gets me in the door." Right? And so I've added and here um to to eliminate that possibility. This is that that's the threshold is are you a single family home in a low density? If so, proceed further. Um, in B, you say, I changed elevation to floor, but I'm actually comfortable with, you know, having heard the chair's question and Miss Armor's response, I'm actually comfortable with eliminating that sentence. Um, and just having B start with any proposal to relocate um, as it does after that sentence. Uh, then we get to the end of B. I've got the word or and I I wasn't positive about this and so maybe um staff can help me. Are there situations where B and C could apply or is it just going to be one or the other or is there a possibility something where neither B nor C will apply? Um

would you like me to jump in? Sure. On that one,

that's a good time. Um, I'll again I will start and then uh if the if attorney Yang would like to add anything I'll I'll invite him to um to speak up as well. I think it can work in the way that you've provided it. Uh I think having the and and the or may provide some confusion. I think that and could be used in both places because if you go in and you say I need to comply with these sections but they don't actually apply to your project then it bumps you down to the next one which is the less than 150 square foot and so you will comply with all of the applicable provisions of those sections um in B uh because if it's smaller than 150 square ft then they don't actually apply.

Okay. So, um but I think we are like legally um okay with either way as proposed or both ands.

Okay. So, as as always, I I like to when we're talking about ordinance, I always like to let staff coitate on it and and make a decision of whether and or should best be there um in B. And that, you know, I hope our motion will give them that flexibility. And then the uh final two changes I had were C. So, this whole new uh ordinance is talking about relocation. Here in C, we've used the word modification. If if that is supposed to mean something different than relocation, then we should really spell it out. My sus I suspected that it didn't it wasn't intended to mean something different and so let's use the same word so that people don't say oh well this says modification which is different from the relocation. Um so I just uh those are my two changes there. So uh those are sort of that was my effort to bring some clarity uh to this so that we have fewer uh disappointments and disputes. Thanks.

Thank you. I have a question for you before we move on um to Commissioner Templeton and comm and Vice Chair Chang. So, um, pedantically, as I'm as I read this, I would look for something like item B, uh, being one or both of the following two conditions apply and then have a B1 and a B2, which um, which covers the material in these items. Is that the sort of thing you're you're looking for? Actually, as as Miss Armor was talking about and and or I was picturing B1 and B2, so yes. Yes. Um I I think that would add some clarity that

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Templeton.

Uh at least three of us up here are itching about the boolean logic you're trying to insert here. [laughter] Um I I guess it might even be more. Um, but I I like the proposed idea of separating um like you can't and and or without parenthesis. [laughter] So, uh you're not laughing, but it's funny for math nerds. Um anyway, so [laughter] um yeah, I think the having a a section where it's really clear that you either it could only be or under this tree and you can and this tree and this tree, but you can't mix and match because otherwise um that lack of clarity will scream at all of us and we'll have to go have hives or something. I don't know. Um [gasps] but yeah, if we're going to do this, I was not anticipating a billion logic exercise, but um I'm here for it. So, if we if we decide to rewrite it uh to do that, we can. [laughter and gasps] Um, but I'm glad it sounds like we have a few people here willing to to help with that. And you're sound like you're on board with that, too. So, cool. Thank you.

That was much more detail than I was prepared to go into, but but I'm glad but I'm glad you did.

All right. Uh, Vice Chair Chang. Thanks, chair. Um, thank you for going into that because my immediate reaction upon Commissioner Hecman's, you know, the the text that's on screen right now was, "Oh, this is not going to work. This is this is confusing." Um, so, thank you, Commissioner Hecman, for all the uh the changes. I also am in favor of something like a B1 and B2. To make it really clear, I did have a question for you. Um so this I I like the addition of um the provided that the the non-compliance is not increased and in specifically in the example that we've been talking about most recently with stream protection where this would enable somebody to choose. you can leave the non-complying floor area that is in say a stream setback but you can't go further into the stream setback by moving your by relocating the 250 square ft. I just wanted to ask you when you say provided the non-compliance is not increased um is that going to be something that we think is clearly understandable to everybody given the appellants you know there's the back and forth between the city and the appellant regarding the type of non-compliance and so there's compli there if it's non-conforming in terms of being too much GFA and as long as it doesn't increase the GFA Okay, that's fine. But there could also be to your point non-compliance into a setback or into height or something. So I would love to hear from you about your thoughts there.

Jeremy, I I think it's appropriate to respond.

Okay. So, so u again I I took this language from either 0.080 080 or 0.90 and I think my read of its intent in those sections is is there are different kinds of non-compliance and we don't want to increase any of them and so so in in one circumstance it might be a GFA is already exceeded in another it's a setback is invaded there there are probably houses with both of those things and I think that that this language would preclude any of them from getting worse, right? Um, so you know, the GFA is kind of simple because I've got 2,000 ft where I'm only supposed to have 18. I'm going to move 200 ft some other place, right? The the um setback's a little more complicated because that's locationational. Um, and so the and and there are some [snorts] jurisdictions actually that have ordinances that say like if your house is already invading the setback, you can and may maybe Miss Armor has seen this. I don't remember if they have in Saratoga, but you can actually extend you you can invade you can follow that line and extend the nonconformity a little bit. Right? there's some dimminimous kind of thing because you know sometimes you wanted to add like five feet to your dining room you know have to like tear the whole thing out. Um and so that's another example that I think is has this kind of the same spirit as this.

The city does have language along those lines that allows an extension of an existing non-conforming encroachment um up to a certain extent so that you don't have weird you know jogging in of a wall kind of thing if you're adding on to the back of your house. So I guess that begs the question of whether this language provided that the non-compliance is not increased would conflict with that existing ordinance which could be argued allows an increase in the non-compliance by adding square footage in the setback. My non-legal uh understanding is that that would not be creating or increasing the non-conformance because the code does allow that sort of extension.

Okay, [clears throat] I like that answer. Sounds right to me. And again, it's something that uh I think we're going to get through this tonight and not have to come back on the 28th. And so that's something that staff can just uh think about on the way to council. Thank you, Commissioner G.

So, actually, thanks Commissioner Templeton and Vice Chair Chang for asking and saying almost all of the comments that I already had. So, great minds think alike. I second the B1 B2 the logic really got to me a little bit also staring at the screen. So, [snorts] that makes three of us. Um, so I would second their thoughts on that. Um, and then, uh, I just wanted to to kind of crisp up and follow up on Vice Chair Cheng's comment. So, uh, what would happen, I guess maybe either Commissioner Hecman or Mr. Yang about this kind of coinciding non-compliance with the setback versus the the floor area like with the statement that uh Commissioner Hecman has added here.

Yeah. So I guess it it really depends on what [clears throat] direction the commission would like to go um in terms of the flexibility that we're providing. Um, so I think staff's initial intention with this ordinance was just to accommodate um, situations where the floor area was the non-complying feature, where you had too much floor area, but um, I think what Commissioner Hecman has pointed out is it's actually it's written in a way that could be interpreted more broadly. So, if you had um a home that was complying for floor area, but part of it was in the setback, you know, you could say, "Oh, um that portion of my home, maybe I have, you know, 400 ft that's in the setback. That's non-complying floor area." Uh because it's in the setback. And you could, if you wanted, you could, you know, have this ordinance allow that portion of the um of the home to be relocated. Um, if that's the intent, I think, you know, we have other language that would clarify that [clears throat] it could apply that, you know, in those situations as well. And if you're taking square footage that is non-conforming because it's within a required setback area and you're moving it elsewhere, it would not be allowed to encroach into another setback. Right? And so then it becomes complying floor area unless it is also exceeding the maximum floor area. So I would not foresee that as being a concern. Well, I

I guess it I think this language raises a question about that. Um, so if you had, for example, you know, 400 square ft that was encroaching 10 ft into a setback. Um, we would, this language would clearly allow it to be moved uh in a way that reduced the encroachment into the setback. I think it could all it could be interpreted to allow it to be moved into a different setback as long as it was not encroaching as much. So, if you wanted, if the commission wanted to avoid that, we could add some language here to specify clearly that when we're talking about non-complying floor area, we are talking about floor area that exceeds the current limits to gross floor area. if that is a concern and an interest in the commission.

Yeah. So, um just to kind of circle back from this little uh interlude we took, um I would like to hear from the rest of the commission their thoughts on this language because again I think all of us here at the beginning agreed that the reason why we like this ordinance is that it's simple and clear. Um, so I just want to make sure that any language that we end up agreeing upon continues to maintain those characteristics. Um, yeah. So I'd love to hear from the rest of the commission about this topic whenever if people have thoughts. Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you, Chair. [sighs] So recently in the news there's a u large compound that one of the Powalta residents has cr constructed. There might be multiple ones, but there's one in the news. And so I'm wondering if something like this gives a loophole where, you know, if somebody is incredibly motivated to look for loopholes and figure out, you know, different stuff, you know, what stops somebody from uh moving say 250 square ft of non-compliance per year or every 6 months and making it, you know, a progression of a stacked project. Um, you know, it's no mystery that people do that. I mean, we have a large neighbor next door that's that's famous for it. Um, and I think there's even maybe even proposed was to add to our planning was that you could only do so many projects, you know, per per time frame. And so, when I'm looking at this, I mean, I'm trying to think through like if I was building something and that would be the first thing I would see with it is I'd be like, "Oh, this is 250 ft per year." The other one I wonder is is if I have multiple out buildings, can I can I swap these between a detached garage over to my main house? What if I own three houses or something? Can I start moving things around between uh where I've amalgamated different properties into now one property? Just what are some answers to timing and moving between detached uh buildings or out buildings, I guess, would be the question? Thank you for that question. I would say that first remembering that this is only for existing nonconforming. So, it's only a situation where a house was built and the the current rules would actually limit it to a smaller size. Um that that that's, you know, what we're looking at. So, you could potentially have a parcel

that's got a house on it that's significantly over the maximum floor area. Um, but significant is significant uh non-conformance is relatively rare. Um, and then when we think about moving from one parcel to another, that is not something that would be included here. If they were allowed to merge the lots, then it's again, it's based on the existing house size and you wouldn't be allowed to do a lot merge that created a non-conforming situation. Um, so if I mean if we were getting into further details like that, um, then I think we're we're bringing this, you know, into an area where it might need to be a a discretionary kind of review. Um, those are my initial thoughts based on your questions.

Um, and I guess I just wanted to address the question about timing. Um there's nothing uh in this right now that would prevent someone from sort of submitting serial permit applications. um if that's as Miss Armor said, it's probably not um practically an issue because I don't think that we have a lot of uh properties that are non-conforming in a significant way where you know someone would be would have you know a thousand square feet that they would want to move in four separate projects. Um, but if that, you know, is a concern, we could add a provision that say that says you can use this once, you know, per property.

Thank you. Appreciate it, Mr. Yang. Just checking the edge cases. All right, Commissioner Templeton. And then I have a question. I think uh that Mr. Yang pretty much covered it. I mean, I don't think that is in scope, but um there's a I'm sure you know this the old saying about boiling a frog, right? So, uh but I don't think that's in scope. It's an interesting question, but I think we we are not regulating timing of doing things that are allowed even though there are opportunities for people to exploit any kind of loopholes. Thank you.

Today, we're not doing that. Sorry. Thank you, Commissioner. Uh, seeing no other lights, quick question for me. Um, I like the, uh, language that Commissioner Hecman has proposed here, provided that the non-compliance is not increased and I find myself feeling fairly sanguin about this because this section would be applied uh, as I understand it only at the director's discretion. So the director might decide in one of these oddball cases that non-compliance has been increased and so this uh provision would not apply. So that gives us a little bit of a backs stop in case something comes up that we haven't anticipated. Commissioner Hecman. So again, just to reiterate, I stand with the four or five of you and possibly Mr. James uh on on the the B1 B2 concept. Um again, I was trying to get at that with andor and struggling with it because coming in here tonight, I I didn't fully understand whether what's in B and what's in C could overlap or not. Um so with that clarification, so anyway, I like that. Um and and when I was first looking at this the like I you know one of the questions I wrote is does does this only apply to uh where gross fl floor area is exceeded and and should and should that be the focus of it? Um but as I thought through it I again I saw that that language well it it doesn't really say that doesn't have that limitation built in. And so that made me start to think about sideyard setbacks, which is really

where I, you know, in my work, that's where I have seen the most um um legal non-conforming facility uh improvements. And and I should mention that this whole notion applies to a very small minority of houses in PaloAlto. Um because the the ordinances in PaloAlto really haven't tightened up over the last 50 years in ways that well we used to allow 45 ft now we only allow 35. It really isn't that way here. Um so I'm I'm know there are examples particularly where uh the city's annexed land. That's where I have historically seen it in in multiple jurisdictions. But but so this is not going to be a floodgate ordinance um no matter what we do with it. Uh because there just aren't that many. Um we can if it's the will of the commission we can limit it to the the one non-compliance of exceedence of GFA. We you know we can we can do that in the first sentence um before this provided that the non-compliance is not increased. So if that's the again I I I like the idea of having more flexibility for more kinds of non-compliance. So so I'm not recommending it. Um but I'm supportive if other council other commissioners feel strongly that you know we really need to clamp this down to just that small topic. I'm kind of ready to make a motion if

when people are ready for it. Thank you. We have a question for Mr. Yank.

Yeah. I I so I just want to clarify um chair, you made the comment that uh this section would be applied, you know, in the discretion of the director. Um and that's actually not our intention. Um we're we we tried to um create this in a way where there was not uh you know the need for discretion on the part of staff um because that that would imply that there were there was you know there would be the need for an appeal process um as well. And so, um, yeah, we we are trying to make this, you know, something that is ministerial, something that you could come to the, um, get a building permit and the, you know, the staff there would be able to tell you whether or not it applied.

Okay, thanks for that clarification. Um, I use the word discretion perhaps when I should not have. Um, but that's a a useful clarification. Uh, let's see. I have Commissioner G. Yeah, I had a question possibly for Mr. Yang about the wording on section B about the usage of elevation versus floor here. So the premise for my question is that when I went to Stanford, Green Library has three different flooring systems, right, across the same building. So I was wondering if there are legal def there's like a legal definition for floor and whether or not like how that applies here.

Yeah, there's there's not uh a clear definition of floor. Um, I think we used the word elevation. You could use height. Um, but again, as um, assistant director Armor said, we could also just get rid of this first sentence and and that would be all right as well. Okay. So, um, with that statement, I am supportive of getting rid of the first statement sentence just so that we just ignore all of the the basically the last 30 seconds of our lives that I just wasted.

Very good. Do we have uh any other comments? Um my last I believe is that I am uh supportive of not restricting this to gross floor area. So um my preference would be that we not bake that into the um into the ordinance. All right then. Any further comments? If not, I suspect we have a motion in the works. [snorts] Commissioner Hecman.

Thank you. Um, I will move the staff recommendation with the following modification to the modifications to the language um proposed by staff uh for the ordinance in our staff packet. Uh in the uh preamble uh the addition at the end of provided that the non-compliance is not increased at the end of subpart a. uh sub part B the first sentence to be deleted and then what remains of B and C become uh B1 and B2 with an or between B1 and B2 and then for what was C what's now B2 um change the word modification in two locations to relocation in those locations.

Second [laughter] modified in that modified in that way. Very good. Uh, Commissioner G. Wait, sorry. I had a very, very small question. On packet page 13, I noticed that the last signature line says director of planning and community environment while the rest of the packet refers to planning and development services. So, just had a quick question about that, Miss Armor. [snorts] That is uh leg legacy because in the code it still refers to that title which is what our department used to be called. Thank you. Good. Any further discussion, commissioners?

All right. Do we have a motion on the table? May we have a vote? Yeah. Um Commissioner G. Yes. Uh Commissioner Peterson, yes. Uh, Commissioner James, yes. Commissioner Templeton, yes. Uh, Commissioner Hecman, yes. Uh, Vice Chair Chang, yes. Uh, Chair Aken, yes. Motion carry 70. Very good. Thank you all. I think that's a good outcome and hopefully council will be able to move this forward as quickly as possible. On to agenda item number three. That's the approval of minutes for the meeting of October 29th, 2025. Mr. Deta, do we have any public comment?

Um, through the chair, I've not received any public comment cards submitted in person. And again, I would welcome if there's anyone on Zoom that would like to speak to this item to raise their hand to let me know. I see no raise hands on Zoom. Very good. Then, um, may we have a motion? Move approval as revised. Second. Um, Commissioner James. Um, yes. Uh, Commissioner Templeton, yes. Commissioner G, yes. Commissioner Hecman, yes. Commissioner Peterson, yes. Vice Chair Chang, yes. Uh, Chair Aken, yes. Motion carry 70.

Thank you all. It's time for commissioner questions, comments, and announcements. Uh, does anyone have anything to offer? Vice Chair Chang,

so sorry to keep us all here. Um, I just wanted to flag for my fellow commissioners that I noticed um both this for the for this meeting as well as the prior meeting that the public comments that we receive in batches so kindly batched by Mr. Vera um are like particularly for this time almost all of them all but one were actually written by folks who intended for us to receive those comments in time for our deliberations on the 10th. And um so I just wanted to I I already raised this with um Assistant Director Armor and uh Councelor Yang today, but uh we're looking at a way to well, first of all, let me back up and say that formerly uh Commissioner Templeton, Commissioner Suma and I were receive all the public comments pushed directly to our email. um that stopped on October 25th. Um and I liked that former system for me. I I often just funneled them away and didn't read them, but if I needed to read them, I could. And most importantly, they were searchable for me, which was nice. And that would have been really relevant for today because I believe in one of the former batches of public comments that we received from um Mr. Diver or his predecessors, we actually had received a a public comment from the appellant um that kind of started this whole uh legislation that we re we reviewed today, but I couldn't find it. Um and was hoping to find it and so that was kind of what spurred me to look at it. Um so I know that staff is so so just additional information for the commission. Um, there is a California law that requires that when

we commissioners receive a public comment, the public does pretty much concurrently. And [snorts] so that's one of the limitations. Furthermore, um, many I think council might have a limitation. I don't know if m Miss Armor has information on like the deadline for public comment submission. Generally that is noon on the day of the meeting.

Right? So um my request to staff was just that if there is a cut off that we make that very clear um in our agendas so that the public isn't operating on the assumption that we have received public comments that we actually can't that we won't receive and cannot act on. Um, the other example that I had was when uh the applicant for the Gang Road project that we heard on December 10th wrote us a public comment asking if we wanted to meet with them and had suggested several times. By the time I opened Mr. Divera's PDF. Um I because it wasn't coming into my inbox and like right in front of my eyes, I no longer personally had the availability to meet with that applicant. And as you all know, we're all volunteers. So when we're available, we're available. And um while many times we might not be able to respond to somebody, it would be nice if we could respond to somebody, assuming that, you know, we had had the time to read that public comment in time. And then finally, I had wanted to follow up with that applicant to say, "Hey, I'm sorry I didn't read this until now, which is why I haven't responded." But because it was received in PDF form, I didn't have his email address and couldn't respond to him. And so for all those reasons, I, you know, I've raised these issues. I want to us to be able to be responsive to the public. Um, and so I just wanted to, you know, kind of share all that thinking with my fellow commissioners. Thanks.

Thank you, Vice Chair. That triggered a lot of other comments here. [laughter] Commissioner Templeton, then Commissioner G, then Commissioner Peterson.

Uh, yes. I'm going to make a comment. Uh the primary purpose of my comment is perhaps we should discuss this with staff if we're not allowed to discuss it tonight. But whatever reasons were provided to the vice chair are absolutely not credible. There is no reason that you can't provide us those emails and the public at the same time. Literally the world operates on this kind of technology. Like this is unacceptable. So if that is the reason it's not happening then we need to have a serious talk with with whatever department staff is liazing with that is blocking us from getting this information in a timely manner. So I would offer myself up for participating in a ad hoc or if we agendaize this for a future meeting. Um, I would love to be able to get to the bottom of this, but technology like being able to share an email [gasps] with a few individuals and the public is not a mystery. It is not difficult, is unacceptable to be blocked from that. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner G. Um, I echo my fellow commissioner's comments, but I had a question, which is what what can I even say given that's not an agenda item. I I'm not super familiar with that. So, I was wondering if staff could comment on how we can comment on this.

I would welcome your thoughts, input, and um requests via email if you would like. um as we do try to establish some clear procedures and information for the public on when and how they can provide public comment. Um I'm also based on this discussion considering um whether there could be a discussion of whether for example an offer from an applicant to meet with commissioners is actually public comment or whether it's just correspondence. You know I I'll need to look into the legal components of that. So, um, what I would say is, you know, thank you for this input. Thank you for these comments, and I would welcome any additional thoughts the commissioners have via email as I look into it further.

And I I guess I'll just add that the the general guideline is that uh you can make brief comments, you know, maybe in the range of a minute or 90 seconds um on items that aren't on the agenda. That's fine.

Thank you. Um then I will take my minute to 90 seconds to say that um I concur. And if uh I I suspect that the law probably did not change on October 25th um of last year, but if staff needs help uh providing some kind of email support as someone who's previously done um technology consulting for other agencies, I'd be happy to work with staff on a way to um make the information provided to the commission and the public at the same time. That's all. Commissioner Peterson,

I just wanted to say the public apparently has been more than happy to email my email that was posted on the website. I get a lot of emails, invitations to go out and meet. Uh I don't even know how many coffees I've had with people. It's been continuous. Um so I I hadn't even considered the the public comment in there because it seems like I get the public comment. It comes to me and um so but then I heard your comment as well, Mr. more about the um yeah is are those emails that come directly to us? Are those public comment? I don't it's a no. Okay. I didn't I didn't want to say that then. Okay, I'll leave. You didn't do anything wrong. There you go.

So, I just wanted to say the public apparently has been very free to be contacting me and I appreciate it. I really enjoy all the all the time I spend with the public. Thank you, Commissioner. And I'll second that. If you do have a personal email address published, people do take advantage of it. All right. Any further uh questions, comments or announcements? If not, then we are ajourned.