body,date,page,text,path
OpenGovernmentCommission,2020-12-14,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY
DECEMBER 14, 2020
-
-
7:00 P.M.
Chair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Little, Pauling, Shabazz, Schwartz and
Chair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via
Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Michael Roush,
Assistant City Attorney John Le; and City Clerk Lara Weisiger]
Oral Communications
None.
Regular Agenda Items
3-A. Minutes of the November 16, 2020 Meeting
Commissioner Schwartz stated he noted some changes in the minutes.
The City Clerk acknowledged and confirmed the edits.
Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Little seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Schwartz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
3-B. Consider the Subcommittee Proposal Regarding Potential Amendments to Article
VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code
to Replace the Null and Void Remedy and Consider Sending the Proposal to the City
Council as the Commission's Recommendation
Commissioner Schwartz expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Pauling, the City
Clerk, and the Chief Assistant City Attorney for working with him on the proposal; stated
the proposal captures all the issues discussed at the June 2020 meeting; thanked former
Commissioner Paul Foreman for his ideas which lead to drafting the amendments; stated
that he did additional research into the argument that the Commission could not
implement a requirement of a supermajority vote via an ordinance; he researched the
issue extensively and found it is incorrect; the Charter actually states: ""the vote of three
members of the Council, except as otherwise provided, shall be necessary for any act of
or by the Council;"" the phrase is very important because it does not create a sacred
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 14, 2020
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2020-12-14,2,"requirement of three votes for all matters that cannot be changed without a Charter
amendment; the proposal lays out a host of other examples requiring a supermajority;
things as basic as the Council suspending Rosenburg's Rules of Order, which governs
proceedings, needing a four-fifths vote; there are other instances in the Charter that
specifically include the phrase ""except as otherwise provided;"" discussed the sparse
authorities that were presented against the proposals; stated the case authorities do not
suggest that the Commission cannot make such a proposal; in fact, in some ways the
arguments support the proposal.
Chair Tilos stated that he appreciates all the examples provided to defend the
subcommittee's proposal; it gives the Council a lot to support the recommendation.
In response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry regarding the proper meeting process, Chair
Tilos stated since it is more cumbersome with Zoom, he prefers to chair the meetings
more informally and will not require Commissioners to raise hands or to be called to
speak; he will open up the discussion for Commissioners to make opening comments;
then, after the presentations, will allow Commissioners to jump into discussion.
Commissioner Shabazz stated that he is interested in asserting directly what the
Commission is attempting to do with the proposal rather than getting into the details.
Commissioner Little stated she appreciates how clear and concise the proposal is;
thanked the subcommittee for finding another legislative statute for the Commission to
proceed with teeth in the ordinance; stated that she fully supports the proposal.
Commissioner Pauling acknowledged Commissioner Schwartz for his efforts in the legal
aspects of the proposal and the City Clerk for clarifying the timeline; stated that she is
thrilled with the final product and fully supports it.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the proposal accomplishes what Commissioner Shabazz
wanted by presenting the basics before getting into the weeds.
Commissioner Shabazz clarified his comment about starting with basic information was
in reference to making sure viewers are up to speed on the background of the issue,
especially if they have not read the staff report or proposal; gave an example: someone
watching the meeting may not know what the conversation is about if they did not read
the report; providing the background at the start is helpful.
Commissioner Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Shabazz and summarized the
issue; stated the Commission nullified an ordinance which was voted upon by the City
Council and determined there was not proper notification to the public; then, the ""null and
void"" authority of the Commission was removed from the Sunshine Ordinance; the
Council agreed it was inappropriate for the Commission to have said authority because it
usurps the legislative power of the Council; the Commission did not agree with the
determination; Council sent the ordinance back to the Commission to find a new remedy
to provide teeth to the ordinance in the absence of ""null and void;"" the proposal which will
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 14, 2020
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2020-12-14,3,"be voted on tonight would have the Commission refer back to the Council a matter which
was not properly noticed to cure and correct the improper notice and for the City Council
to reject the Commission's recommendation to cure and correct, it would require a four-
fifths supermajority.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioner Schwartz's synopsis sums up what the Commission has
been dealing with for two years.
Commissioner Shabazz stated some of the proposed language refers to the City Council,
inquired whether the cure and correct applies to other bodies of the City and what would
be the distinction.
Commissioner Schwartz responded if the Commission finds a violation, steps necessary
to cure and correct can be recommended to the originating body unless it has already
been cured and/or corrected.
In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Commissioner Shabazz stated the focus
has been related to the power of the City Council; he overlooked the language which
stated the ""originating body;"" he is concerned about whether the City Attorney's office
would support the Commissions' recommendation.
Chair Tilos stated the subcommittee drafted a proposal for the full Commission in order
to have more substance than just a recommendation from a subcommittee of two
members; he hopes to have a motion on the proposal after Commission discussion.
Commissioner Shabazz concurred with Chair Tilos; inquired whether the written analysis
will support the recommendation of the Commission or will there be something different
when the proposal goes to the City Council.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded, at a minimum, the Commission's
recommendation will be taken to the Council; the City Attorney's office will do a deep
analysis of what the subcommittee and full Commission proposed; if the Attorney's office
finds a legal way to support it, it will make the recommendation to the Council.
Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the subcommittee recommendation.
Commissioner Shabazz seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Schwartz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
Oral Communications
Chair Tilos re-opened Oral Communications because the speaker was unable to join the
Zoom meeting at the time.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 14, 2020
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2020-12-14,4,"Stated that he is disappointed in the level of transparency throughout City Government;
the OGC is supposed to be about improving transparency; he would like to know if there
is a way the public could communicate in writing and have it considered by the
Commission; he would like clarification on publication of reports, specifically on the police
reform committee report: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Chair Tilos stated the method to provide communications to the Commission is via email.
The City Clerk concurred with Chair Tilos, stated an email can be sent to the Commission
as a non-agenda oral communication item; the problem is the Commission cannot engage
in discussion of a non-agenda item; it would be up to a Commissioner to agendize the
item.
Chair Tilos concurred; explained to Mr. Garfinkle that after receiving communications on
a non-agenda item, a Commissioner could propose to place that item on the agenda to
be discussed.
The City Clerk further clarified that the item would be agendized to a future meeting.
Commissioner Shabazz provided an example of how the process works; stated that he
took Mr. Garfinkle's suggestion about having a flow-chart for the PRA process and tried
to create one; the item would not necessarily be one that needs to be agendized if there
is another method of addressing the issue; another example was that he, as a community
member, would go before various boards or commissions and make specific
recommendations for issues to be agendized; if that process is appropriate for the OGC,
perhaps it is something that can be adopted.
Chair Tilos stated the OGC used to only have two scheduled meetings, and would only
meet if there was a complaint filed; if there are no meetings on the schedule, this is not
the place to be discussing other issues that are not complaints; some of the matters
regarding transparency or reporting should go to Council; the main objective of the OGC
is to determine if something is broken in the Sunshine Ordinance.
The City Clerk stated the next scheduled meeting is in February; if a member of the public
wants to submit a comment to pass on to the Commission before or after the agenda is
published, she would share it as a non-agenda item communications; the Commission
probably should not go too far into discussion on this issue since it is not on tonight's
agenda; she is happy to discuss the issue offline with Mr. Garfinkle and Chair Tilos.
Chair Tilos stated Mr. Garfinkle can send his concerns to the Clerk or Commission to be
addressed further.
Commission Communication
Commissioner Pauling stated she would like to thank and acknowledge everyone; she
had a wonderful learning experience from being on the Commission for the past year; she
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 14, 2020
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2020-12-14,5,"truly appreciates the intelligence and curiousness of the Commissioners and how the
topics were handled.
Chair Tilos thanked Commissioner Pauling for stepping in during an eventful time and for
all her help serving on the subcommittee.
Commissioner Little thanked the Commission and stated she is excited to see who will
be replacing her and Commissioner Pauling; offered her assistance if ever needed, which
would no longer be a violation since she is no longer on the Commission; she will be
sworn in on the School Board tomorrow night; invited anyone who would like to attend.
Chair Tilos wished Commissioners Little and Pauling well in their next endeavors and
thanked them for their time on the Commission.
Commissioner Shabazz stated that he would like to have the PRA Annual Report on the
February meeting; he would also like to add crafting some language that could potentially
be in the City Charter or somewhere else to make sure the PRA Annual report is
continually done, especially after the comments from tonight regarding transparency and
the goals of the Sunshine Ordinance.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated both the PRA Annual Report and the Annual
Report on Complaints are already on the February agenda.
In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated
he is retiring but will still be around in January and February.
Adjournment
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 14, 2020
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2020-12-14,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2020
1. CONVENE
President Alan Teague convened the *meeting at 7:01 p.m.
*This meeting was via Zoom.
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Teresa Ruiz led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.
Absent: None.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2020-8552
PLN19-0237 - Variance - 1929 Webster Street - Applicant: Daniel Cukierman. Public
hearing to consider a Variance to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-7 Off-street Parking
and Loading Space Regulations to allow the development of a vacant commercial lot
without off-street parking. The lot is too narrow to physically accommodate parking stalls,
drive aisles, and landscaping per the parking regulations. The project is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations.
David Sablan, Planner III with Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item.
The staff report and attachments can be found at
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4710190&GUID=9EE21EA7-
EDC4-409A-9900-5A1384914044&FullText=1.
Board Member Hanson Hom asked the applicant to elaborate on how they plan on dealing
with the concerns from the manager of The Rodeway Inn about people parking in their lot
and blocking their driveway.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 8
December 14, 2020",PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2020-12-14,2,"Daniel Cukierman, the applicant, said the plan was to post signage about respect for
neighbors and not parking in other businesses' parking spaces.
Board Member Ruiz asked the applicant if they had contacted the manager at Walgreens
about a shared parking lot agreement.
Mr. Cukierman said he had not.
Board Member Ruiz asked the staff if they could maintain where the current curb cut
is
now.
Staff Member Sablan said that during the design review process they would work with
Public Works.
Allen Tai, City Planner, said design review would be coming back to the Planning Board,
and curb cuts would be addressed then.
President Teague opened public comments.
Kiran Patel, Owner and General Manager of The Rodeway Inn, wanted to discuss the
letter he had sent addressing his many concerns about granting a variance. He believed
that buses, delivery trucks, and rideshares dropping off people would cause a bottleneck
on Webster. He was also concerned that surrounding businesses would have to share the
burden of parking even with signage posted not to park there. He urged the board not to
grant the variance and to have the applicant provide parking for their patrons.
Denyse Trepanier, a Board Member of the Bike Walk Alameda Board, urged the board to
grant the variance. She applauded the business for being forward-thinking in
deemphasizing the need for cars. The Bike Walk Alameda Board is so happy that there
will be a social gathering place on the bike trail. This is the direction Alameda needs to go
in.
President Teague closed the public comments and opened board discussion.
Board Member Ruiz believed this application did meet the intent of the variance code
however she was very discouraged that the applicant had not reached out to neighbors to
discuss shared parking.
Board Member Xiomara Cisneros agreed with Board Member Ruiz and thought the
applicant should have reached out to their neighbors about a shared parking lot. She also
understood the need to deemphasize cars and believed the variance was appropriate.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 8
December 14, 2020",PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2020-12-14,3,"Board Member Rona Rothenberg agreed with comments concerning the curb cuts being
addressed in the design review and that the applicant should have communicated with
their neighbors, with all the terms and conditions of being a good neighbor. She did support
the variance on the merits that were outlined.
Vice President Asheshh Saheba thought that this site would not be viable if they had to
put any cars on it, it's a challenge site. He wanted to applaud the applicant for seeing the
opportunities with deemphasizing cars, emphasizing bikes, and for bringing activity to the
Cross Alameda Trail. He wanted the applicant to think thoughtfully about where bike
parking would be and encouraged further discussions with neighbors.
Board Member Curtis encouraged discussions with neighbors not only as a good neighbor
but using shared parking (Starbucks and Walgreens after hours) added flexibility to the
applicant's business plan. He was in support of the variance.
Board Member Hom agreed with all the comments that had been mentioned and could
make the findings for the variance. He also encouraged the applicant to aggressively
practice the good neighbor policies and stay in contact with the Rodeway Inn to ensure
parking doesn't become an issue. He was in support of the variance and believed this
would be beneficial to the area.
President Teague was supportive of the project but was very interested to hear from Public
Works during the design review to make sure the loading area will not impede traffic or
block buses.
Board Member Curtis made the motion to approve the variance as submitted. Board
Member Ruiz seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion
passed 7-0.
7-B 2020-8553
General Plan Update - Public Forum #4: Enhancing mobility, accessibility, and life on an
island.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, led the presentation.
The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4710191&GUID=30FB8832
224B-48C4-BE80-0A89586A5CA9&FullText=1.
Amy MacPhee, from Cultivate Group, gave a rundown of the process and how long
everything would take. She said the second draft of the General Plan should be available
by spring or summer of 2021.
Sarah Henry, Public Information Officer, spoke about community engagement and how
residents can share feedback and participate in the forum.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 8
December 14, 2020",PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2020-12-14,4,"Director Thomas gave details about the surveys, what they had learned and ways they
were trying to be inclusive.
Staff Member Henry led everyone through a survey and then read questions submitted by
attendees.
Is equity defined in the plan and then how is it measured and how do we know if we
are meeting the goal?
Director Thomas said this was a great question. The second draft will have a definition of
equity and they are adding a section to the General Plan on how to measure equity and
to ensure we are moving in the right direction.
Has the city done a survey to see how many people use a bike, what distance they
bike, and what routes they use? If so, where can that information be found?
Director Thomas said they have collected that data and it can be found on the city's
website under ""Active Transportation Plan"". They would be introducing these metrics into
the Annual Review.
When the second draft becomes available will there be an opportunity for input from
the community?
Director Thomas said absolutely, this is the community's General Plan. There would be a
series of public meetings with the Planning Board. They would be taking comments on the
second draft the entire time.
President Teague opened public comments.
Denyse Trepanier, a Board Member of Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to discuss preserving
the grid and if this was something that should be included in the General Plan. She wanted
the city to look at other cities that had bicycle boulevards and had diverted cars off these
roads.
Cyndy Johnsen, a Board Member of Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to express her support
for the vision of the mobility element.
Cameron Holland, a Board Member of Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to encourage the staff
and the board to consider the needs of families moving around the island.
Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, wanted to discuss a letter the
society had sent. The major concerns were about information lacking about earthquake
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 8
December 14, 2020",PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2020-12-14,5,"caused fires and water supply failures. The other point they wanted to emphasize was
housing conservation.
Dodi, a resident, also wanted to address the lack of information for natural disasters. She
also addressed Seniors Citizens' needs and concerns in regards to mobility.
President Teague closed public comments and opened board discussions.
Board Member Ruiz addressed the need to differentiate the speed of movement when it
comes to mobility, pedestrians and cyclists are often put together but they are very
different. She understood that equity is one of the goals but she was concerned by ME-6
(congestion pricing) because it punishes those that don't have more flexible working
hours. She then spoke about which projects she thought would be the most beneficial.
She also thought the language needed to be fine-tuned to make it less vague. She also
gave her thoughts on utilities for open spaces, safety, and noise.
Board Member Cisneros thought the theme could be more specific. In ME-13 she wanted
to remove the language ""in areas with higher pedestrian volume"", wider sidewalks should
be encouraged throughout Alameda. In CC-10, she thought it should be the first and the
last mile and in ME-12 it should be changed to ""hovercraft"". She also gave her thoughts
on LU-15 and some contradictory language she saw.
Board Member Rothenberg said she would provide her comments to Director Thomas and
suggested adding bullets to the timeline. She gave examples of how the language could
be more inclusive and thought some of the projects would be eligible for grants and other
types of funding. She saw many references to accessibility that could be broadened so
that it was inclusive of the diverse population. She pointed out that if codes and regulations
are cited they need to be broad enough for the document to be a living document.
Vice President Saheba thought there needed to be balance and prioritization of vehicles,
bicycles, and pedestrians. He saw an opportunity to look at things differently, such as
demand management. He suggested that at certain times roadways could become bike
only, this way using the same infrastructure and not be overburdened with the expense of
multiple infrastructures. He saw that by converting the way the city does business it would
start aligning with the way people think movement through the city happens.
Board Member Curtis found it to be a bit ""utopian"" in that it addressed everything for
everyone and he encouraged prioritizing items and adding a budget to items. If the goal
is to take cars off the road the people of Alameda need to have credibility in the program,
that the transit will be on time and get them where they need to be. He stressed the need
for education as well, for residents to embrace these changes they need to know what
their alternatives for transportation are.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 8
December 14, 2020",PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2020-12-14,6,"and not output.
Board Member Ruiz wanted a correction on her comment on page 2, she was not
concerned about the drive-thru specifically but more concerned about the change in
egress and ingress into the site.
Board Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board
Member Ruiz seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The minutes
passed 4-0, President Teague and Board Members Rothenberg and Cisneros
abstained.
8-B 2020-8545
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2020
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 8
December 14, 2020",PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2020-12-14,7,"Board Member Rothenberg wanted clarification on her statement on item 7, and she
provided a more accurate statement. Then in item 11, she clarified her phone call and
conversation with Staff Member Patrick O'Day and his intern and she provided the staff
the accurate wording.
Vice President Saheba made a motion to approve the minute as amended. Board
Member Hom seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The minutes
passed 6-0, Board Member Cisneros abstained.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2020-8541
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
No board member wanted to pull any of these items.
9-B 2020-8542
City Council staff report regarding the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG)
Housing Methodology Committee's Proposed Methodology for Distributing the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) among Bay Area Cities and Counties.
Director Thomas explained more about this item, attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4710186&GUID=7C9AA982
6A1D-4F7A-8CA6-502755CC3B62.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted to know if the City Council could appeal the RHNA
number due to it being such a significant number.
Director Thomas answered there will be an appeal period of spring/summer of 2021. The
current number is an estimate from ABAG, it is not final yet. He then explained how City
Council would go about an appeal and what their argument would be.
9-C 2020-8543
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai said the next meeting would be in the second week of January, the staff
had been working on an update to the Objective Design Review Standards which the
board had adopted earlier in the year. Also hopefully the staff would bring forward a draft
of the Parking Code Amendment for review.
Director Thomas wanted to take a moment to thank the Planning Board for their handling
of this very difficult year.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 8
December 14, 2020",PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2020-12-14,8,"None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Ruiz wanted to tell the staff and her fellow board members about Urban
Land Institute, which offers three public sector programs. She went into depth about why
this program would be beneficial to everyone.
President Teague wanted to know how the board could get revisions to the planning code
to deal with open space, planning, setbacks, and yards to make the development of
housing less restrictive.
Director Thomas said they have that direction, it's now just a matter of time and resources.
He explained what the staff was working on currently.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Teague adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 8
December 14, 2020",PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf