{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY\nDECEMBER 14, 2020\n-\n-\n7:00 P.M.\nChair Tilos convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Little, Pauling, Shabazz, Schwartz and\nChair Tilos - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via\nZoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\n[Staff present: Chief Assistant City Attorney Michael Roush,\nAssistant City Attorney John Le; and City Clerk Lara Weisiger]\nOral Communications\nNone.\nRegular Agenda Items\n3-A. Minutes of the November 16, 2020 Meeting\nCommissioner Schwartz stated he noted some changes in the minutes.\nThe City Clerk acknowledged and confirmed the edits.\nCommissioner Schwartz moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Schwartz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 5.\n3-B. Consider the Subcommittee Proposal Regarding Potential Amendments to Article\nVIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code\nto Replace the Null and Void Remedy and Consider Sending the Proposal to the City\nCouncil as the Commission's Recommendation\nCommissioner Schwartz expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Pauling, the City\nClerk, and the Chief Assistant City Attorney for working with him on the proposal; stated\nthe proposal captures all the issues discussed at the June 2020 meeting; thanked former\nCommissioner Paul Foreman for his ideas which lead to drafting the amendments; stated\nthat he did additional research into the argument that the Commission could not\nimplement a requirement of a supermajority vote via an ordinance; he researched the\nissue extensively and found it is incorrect; the Charter actually states: \"the vote of three\nmembers of the Council, except as otherwise provided, shall be necessary for any act of\nor by the Council;\" the phrase is very important because it does not create a sacred\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nDecember 14, 2020\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 2, "text": "requirement of three votes for all matters that cannot be changed without a Charter\namendment; the proposal lays out a host of other examples requiring a supermajority;\nthings as basic as the Council suspending Rosenburg's Rules of Order, which governs\nproceedings, needing a four-fifths vote; there are other instances in the Charter that\nspecifically include the phrase \"except as otherwise provided;\" discussed the sparse\nauthorities that were presented against the proposals; stated the case authorities do not\nsuggest that the Commission cannot make such a proposal; in fact, in some ways the\narguments support the proposal.\nChair Tilos stated that he appreciates all the examples provided to defend the\nsubcommittee's proposal; it gives the Council a lot to support the recommendation.\nIn response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry regarding the proper meeting process, Chair\nTilos stated since it is more cumbersome with Zoom, he prefers to chair the meetings\nmore informally and will not require Commissioners to raise hands or to be called to\nspeak; he will open up the discussion for Commissioners to make opening comments;\nthen, after the presentations, will allow Commissioners to jump into discussion.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated that he is interested in asserting directly what the\nCommission is attempting to do with the proposal rather than getting into the details.\nCommissioner Little stated she appreciates how clear and concise the proposal is;\nthanked the subcommittee for finding another legislative statute for the Commission to\nproceed with teeth in the ordinance; stated that she fully supports the proposal.\nCommissioner Pauling acknowledged Commissioner Schwartz for his efforts in the legal\naspects of the proposal and the City Clerk for clarifying the timeline; stated that she is\nthrilled with the final product and fully supports it.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated the proposal accomplishes what Commissioner Shabazz\nwanted by presenting the basics before getting into the weeds.\nCommissioner Shabazz clarified his comment about starting with basic information was\nin reference to making sure viewers are up to speed on the background of the issue,\nespecially if they have not read the staff report or proposal; gave an example: someone\nwatching the meeting may not know what the conversation is about if they did not read\nthe report; providing the background at the start is helpful.\nCommissioner Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Shabazz and summarized the\nissue; stated the Commission nullified an ordinance which was voted upon by the City\nCouncil and determined there was not proper notification to the public; then, the \"null and\nvoid\" authority of the Commission was removed from the Sunshine Ordinance; the\nCouncil agreed it was inappropriate for the Commission to have said authority because it\nusurps the legislative power of the Council; the Commission did not agree with the\ndetermination; Council sent the ordinance back to the Commission to find a new remedy\nto provide teeth to the ordinance in the absence of \"null and void;\" the proposal which will\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nDecember 14, 2020\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 3, "text": "be voted on tonight would have the Commission refer back to the Council a matter which\nwas not properly noticed to cure and correct the improper notice and for the City Council\nto reject the Commission's recommendation to cure and correct, it would require a four-\nfifths supermajority.\nChair Tilos stated Commissioner Schwartz's synopsis sums up what the Commission has\nbeen dealing with for two years.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated some of the proposed language refers to the City Council,\ninquired whether the cure and correct applies to other bodies of the City and what would\nbe the distinction.\nCommissioner Schwartz responded if the Commission finds a violation, steps necessary\nto cure and correct can be recommended to the originating body unless it has already\nbeen cured and/or corrected.\nIn response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Commissioner Shabazz stated the focus\nhas been related to the power of the City Council; he overlooked the language which\nstated the \"originating body;\" he is concerned about whether the City Attorney's office\nwould support the Commissions' recommendation.\nChair Tilos stated the subcommittee drafted a proposal for the full Commission in order\nto have more substance than just a recommendation from a subcommittee of two\nmembers; he hopes to have a motion on the proposal after Commission discussion.\nCommissioner Shabazz concurred with Chair Tilos; inquired whether the written analysis\nwill support the recommendation of the Commission or will there be something different\nwhen the proposal goes to the City Council.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded, at a minimum, the Commission's\nrecommendation will be taken to the Council; the City Attorney's office will do a deep\nanalysis of what the subcommittee and full Commission proposed; if the Attorney's office\nfinds a legal way to support it, it will make the recommendation to the Council.\nCommissioner Schwartz moved approval of the subcommittee recommendation.\nCommissioner Shabazz seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioners Little: Aye; Pauling: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Schwartz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.\nAyes: 5.\nOral Communications\nChair Tilos re-opened Oral Communications because the speaker was unable to join the\nZoom meeting at the time.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nDecember 14, 2020\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 4, "text": "Stated that he is disappointed in the level of transparency throughout City Government;\nthe OGC is supposed to be about improving transparency; he would like to know if there\nis a way the public could communicate in writing and have it considered by the\nCommission; he would like clarification on publication of reports, specifically on the police\nreform committee report: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nChair Tilos stated the method to provide communications to the Commission is via email.\nThe City Clerk concurred with Chair Tilos, stated an email can be sent to the Commission\nas a non-agenda oral communication item; the problem is the Commission cannot engage\nin discussion of a non-agenda item; it would be up to a Commissioner to agendize the\nitem.\nChair Tilos concurred; explained to Mr. Garfinkle that after receiving communications on\na non-agenda item, a Commissioner could propose to place that item on the agenda to\nbe discussed.\nThe City Clerk further clarified that the item would be agendized to a future meeting.\nCommissioner Shabazz provided an example of how the process works; stated that he\ntook Mr. Garfinkle's suggestion about having a flow-chart for the PRA process and tried\nto create one; the item would not necessarily be one that needs to be agendized if there\nis another method of addressing the issue; another example was that he, as a community\nmember, would go before various boards or commissions and make specific\nrecommendations for issues to be agendized; if that process is appropriate for the OGC,\nperhaps it is something that can be adopted.\nChair Tilos stated the OGC used to only have two scheduled meetings, and would only\nmeet if there was a complaint filed; if there are no meetings on the schedule, this is not\nthe place to be discussing other issues that are not complaints; some of the matters\nregarding transparency or reporting should go to Council; the main objective of the OGC\nis to determine if something is broken in the Sunshine Ordinance.\nThe City Clerk stated the next scheduled meeting is in February; if a member of the public\nwants to submit a comment to pass on to the Commission before or after the agenda is\npublished, she would share it as a non-agenda item communications; the Commission\nprobably should not go too far into discussion on this issue since it is not on tonight's\nagenda; she is happy to discuss the issue offline with Mr. Garfinkle and Chair Tilos.\nChair Tilos stated Mr. Garfinkle can send his concerns to the Clerk or Commission to be\naddressed further.\nCommission Communication\nCommissioner Pauling stated she would like to thank and acknowledge everyone; she\nhad a wonderful learning experience from being on the Commission for the past year; she\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nDecember 14, 2020\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 5, "text": "truly appreciates the intelligence and curiousness of the Commissioners and how the\ntopics were handled.\nChair Tilos thanked Commissioner Pauling for stepping in during an eventful time and for\nall her help serving on the subcommittee.\nCommissioner Little thanked the Commission and stated she is excited to see who will\nbe replacing her and Commissioner Pauling; offered her assistance if ever needed, which\nwould no longer be a violation since she is no longer on the Commission; she will be\nsworn in on the School Board tomorrow night; invited anyone who would like to attend.\nChair Tilos wished Commissioners Little and Pauling well in their next endeavors and\nthanked them for their time on the Commission.\nCommissioner Shabazz stated that he would like to have the PRA Annual Report on the\nFebruary meeting; he would also like to add crafting some language that could potentially\nbe in the City Charter or somewhere else to make sure the PRA Annual report is\ncontinually done, especially after the comments from tonight regarding transparency and\nthe goals of the Sunshine Ordinance.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated both the PRA Annual Report and the Annual\nReport on Complaints are already on the February agenda.\nIn response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated\nhe is retiring but will still be around in January and February.\nAdjournment\nChair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nDecember 14, 2020\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the *meeting at 7:01 p.m.\n*This meeting was via Zoom.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-8552\nPLN19-0237 - Variance - 1929 Webster Street - Applicant: Daniel Cukierman. Public\nhearing to consider a Variance to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-7 Off-street Parking\nand Loading Space Regulations to allow the development of a vacant commercial lot\nwithout off-street parking. The lot is too narrow to physically accommodate parking stalls,\ndrive aisles, and landscaping per the parking regulations. The project is categorically\nexempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA\nGuidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations.\nDavid Sablan, Planner III with Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4710190&GUID=9EE21EA7-\nEDC4-409A-9900-5A1384914044&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom asked the applicant to elaborate on how they plan on dealing\nwith the concerns from the manager of The Rodeway Inn about people parking in their lot\nand blocking their driveway.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 8\nDecember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 2, "text": "Daniel Cukierman, the applicant, said the plan was to post signage about respect for\nneighbors and not parking in other businesses' parking spaces.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked the applicant if they had contacted the manager at Walgreens\nabout a shared parking lot agreement.\nMr. Cukierman said he had not.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked the staff if they could maintain where the current curb cut\nis\nnow.\nStaff Member Sablan said that during the design review process they would work with\nPublic Works.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, said design review would be coming back to the Planning Board,\nand curb cuts would be addressed then.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nKiran Patel, Owner and General Manager of The Rodeway Inn, wanted to discuss the\nletter he had sent addressing his many concerns about granting a variance. He believed\nthat buses, delivery trucks, and rideshares dropping off people would cause a bottleneck\non Webster. He was also concerned that surrounding businesses would have to share the\nburden of parking even with signage posted not to park there. He urged the board not to\ngrant the variance and to have the applicant provide parking for their patrons.\nDenyse Trepanier, a Board Member of the Bike Walk Alameda Board, urged the board to\ngrant the variance. She applauded the business for being forward-thinking in\ndeemphasizing the need for cars. The Bike Walk Alameda Board is so happy that there\nwill be a social gathering place on the bike trail. This is the direction Alameda needs to go\nin.\nPresident Teague closed the public comments and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Ruiz believed this application did meet the intent of the variance code\nhowever she was very discouraged that the applicant had not reached out to neighbors to\ndiscuss shared parking.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros agreed with Board Member Ruiz and thought the\napplicant should have reached out to their neighbors about a shared parking lot. She also\nunderstood the need to deemphasize cars and believed the variance was appropriate.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 8\nDecember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Rona Rothenberg agreed with comments concerning the curb cuts being\naddressed in the design review and that the applicant should have communicated with\ntheir neighbors, with all the terms and conditions of being a good neighbor. She did support\nthe variance on the merits that were outlined.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba thought that this site would not be viable if they had to\nput any cars on it, it's a challenge site. He wanted to applaud the applicant for seeing the\nopportunities with deemphasizing cars, emphasizing bikes, and for bringing activity to the\nCross Alameda Trail. He wanted the applicant to think thoughtfully about where bike\nparking would be and encouraged further discussions with neighbors.\nBoard Member Curtis encouraged discussions with neighbors not only as a good neighbor\nbut using shared parking (Starbucks and Walgreens after hours) added flexibility to the\napplicant's business plan. He was in support of the variance.\nBoard Member Hom agreed with all the comments that had been mentioned and could\nmake the findings for the variance. He also encouraged the applicant to aggressively\npractice the good neighbor policies and stay in contact with the Rodeway Inn to ensure\nparking doesn't become an issue. He was in support of the variance and believed this\nwould be beneficial to the area.\nPresident Teague was supportive of the project but was very interested to hear from Public\nWorks during the design review to make sure the loading area will not impede traffic or\nblock buses.\nBoard Member Curtis made the motion to approve the variance as submitted. Board\nMember Ruiz seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion\npassed 7-0.\n7-B 2020-8553\nGeneral Plan Update - Public Forum #4: Enhancing mobility, accessibility, and life on an\nisland.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, led the presentation.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4710191&GUID=30FB8832\n224B-48C4-BE80-0A89586A5CA9&FullText=1.\nAmy MacPhee, from Cultivate Group, gave a rundown of the process and how long\neverything would take. She said the second draft of the General Plan should be available\nby spring or summer of 2021.\nSarah Henry, Public Information Officer, spoke about community engagement and how\nresidents can share feedback and participate in the forum.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 8\nDecember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 4, "text": "Director Thomas gave details about the surveys, what they had learned and ways they\nwere trying to be inclusive.\nStaff Member Henry led everyone through a survey and then read questions submitted by\nattendees.\nIs equity defined in the plan and then how is it measured and how do we know if we\nare meeting the goal?\nDirector Thomas said this was a great question. The second draft will have a definition of\nequity and they are adding a section to the General Plan on how to measure equity and\nto ensure we are moving in the right direction.\nHas the city done a survey to see how many people use a bike, what distance they\nbike, and what routes they use? If so, where can that information be found?\nDirector Thomas said they have collected that data and it can be found on the city's\nwebsite under \"Active Transportation Plan\". They would be introducing these metrics into\nthe Annual Review.\nWhen the second draft becomes available will there be an opportunity for input from\nthe community?\nDirector Thomas said absolutely, this is the community's General Plan. There would be a\nseries of public meetings with the Planning Board. They would be taking comments on the\nsecond draft the entire time.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nDenyse Trepanier, a Board Member of Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to discuss preserving\nthe grid and if this was something that should be included in the General Plan. She wanted\nthe city to look at other cities that had bicycle boulevards and had diverted cars off these\nroads.\nCyndy Johnsen, a Board Member of Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to express her support\nfor the vision of the mobility element.\nCameron Holland, a Board Member of Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to encourage the staff\nand the board to consider the needs of families moving around the island.\nChris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, wanted to discuss a letter the\nsociety had sent. The major concerns were about information lacking about earthquake\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 8\nDecember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 5, "text": "caused fires and water supply failures. The other point they wanted to emphasize was\nhousing conservation.\nDodi, a resident, also wanted to address the lack of information for natural disasters. She\nalso addressed Seniors Citizens' needs and concerns in regards to mobility.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened board discussions.\nBoard Member Ruiz addressed the need to differentiate the speed of movement when it\ncomes to mobility, pedestrians and cyclists are often put together but they are very\ndifferent. She understood that equity is one of the goals but she was concerned by ME-6\n(congestion pricing) because it punishes those that don't have more flexible working\nhours. She then spoke about which projects she thought would be the most beneficial.\nShe also thought the language needed to be fine-tuned to make it less vague. She also\ngave her thoughts on utilities for open spaces, safety, and noise.\nBoard Member Cisneros thought the theme could be more specific. In ME-13 she wanted\nto remove the language \"in areas with higher pedestrian volume\", wider sidewalks should\nbe encouraged throughout Alameda. In CC-10, she thought it should be the first and the\nlast mile and in ME-12 it should be changed to \"hovercraft\". She also gave her thoughts\non LU-15 and some contradictory language she saw.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said she would provide her comments to Director Thomas and\nsuggested adding bullets to the timeline. She gave examples of how the language could\nbe more inclusive and thought some of the projects would be eligible for grants and other\ntypes of funding. She saw many references to accessibility that could be broadened so\nthat it was inclusive of the diverse population. She pointed out that if codes and regulations\nare cited they need to be broad enough for the document to be a living document.\nVice President Saheba thought there needed to be balance and prioritization of vehicles,\nbicycles, and pedestrians. He saw an opportunity to look at things differently, such as\ndemand management. He suggested that at certain times roadways could become bike\nonly, this way using the same infrastructure and not be overburdened with the expense of\nmultiple infrastructures. He saw that by converting the way the city does business it would\nstart aligning with the way people think movement through the city happens.\nBoard Member Curtis found it to be a bit \"utopian\" in that it addressed everything for\neveryone and he encouraged prioritizing items and adding a budget to items. If the goal\nis to take cars off the road the people of Alameda need to have credibility in the program,\nthat the transit will be on time and get them where they need to be. He stressed the need\nfor education as well, for residents to embrace these changes they need to know what\ntheir alternatives for transportation are.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 8\nDecember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 6, "text": "and not output.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted a correction on her comment on page 2, she was not\nconcerned about the drive-thru specifically but more concerned about the change in\negress and ingress into the site.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board\nMember Ruiz seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The minutes\npassed 4-0, President Teague and Board Members Rothenberg and Cisneros\nabstained.\n8-B 2020-8545\nDraft Meeting Minutes - October 12, 2020\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 8\nDecember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg wanted clarification on her statement on item 7, and she\nprovided a more accurate statement. Then in item 11, she clarified her phone call and\nconversation with Staff Member Patrick O'Day and his intern and she provided the staff\nthe accurate wording.\nVice President Saheba made a motion to approve the minute as amended. Board\nMember Hom seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The minutes\npassed 6-0, Board Member Cisneros abstained.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-8541\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nNo board member wanted to pull any of these items.\n9-B 2020-8542\nCity Council staff report regarding the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG)\nHousing Methodology Committee's Proposed Methodology for Distributing the Regional\nHousing Needs Allocation (RHNA) among Bay Area Cities and Counties.\nDirector Thomas explained more about this item, attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4710186&GUID=7C9AA982\n6A1D-4F7A-8CA6-502755CC3B62.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to know if the City Council could appeal the RHNA\nnumber due to it being such a significant number.\nDirector Thomas answered there will be an appeal period of spring/summer of 2021. The\ncurrent number is an estimate from ABAG, it is not final yet. He then explained how City\nCouncil would go about an appeal and what their argument would be.\n9-C 2020-8543\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai said the next meeting would be in the second week of January, the staff\nhad been working on an update to the Objective Design Review Standards which the\nboard had adopted earlier in the year. Also hopefully the staff would bring forward a draft\nof the Parking Code Amendment for review.\nDirector Thomas wanted to take a moment to thank the Planning Board for their handling\nof this very difficult year.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 8\nDecember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-12-14", "page": 8, "text": "None.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted to tell the staff and her fellow board members about Urban\nLand Institute, which offers three public sector programs. She went into depth about why\nthis program would be beneficial to everyone.\nPresident Teague wanted to know how the board could get revisions to the planning code\nto deal with open space, planning, setbacks, and yards to make the development of\nhousing less restrictive.\nDirector Thomas said they have that direction, it's now just a matter of time and resources.\nHe explained what the staff was working on currently.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 8\nDecember 14, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-12-14.pdf"}