pages: PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf, 21
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 21 | In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding recourse available to tenants if a property falls into disrepair (such as following a repair in an existing apartment), Mr. Brandt advised that would be a violation of the Housing Code. Mr. Alexander noted that many of the fires in recent history were the result of arson, not of electrical problems. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she had difficulty reconciling the complaints of the residents with the statements that the buildings were up to Code. Mr. Brandt advised that there were extensive site visits to the property in November 2004. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior of the building, Mr. Alexander noted that they were in for permit for interior improvements on the project and that they must conform to all Alameda and State codes. Mr. Lynch believed the City was missing a tremendous opportunity to benefit many families in Alameda, and did not believe this was a Measure A issue. He noted that the remodel did not speak to possible physical changes that could provide a more live able environment to families, which he believed was a gross oversight by the City. Vice President Cook appreciated some of the changes made to the design in response to the Board's comments. She expressed concern that the use of architectural elements were not fully utilized to create more individuality in the buildings; some of the structures still looked monolithic. She noted that the use of entry pylons still connoted the gated effect, which she had opposed in the earlier sessions. She was still uncomfortable with the design, and did not believe sufficient changes had been made since December 2004. Ms. McNamara believed some of the wording in the staff report could be improved, and noted that page 4, Items 6 and 7, stated that "The applicant shall coordinate with the Police Department as an effort to try and improve public safety in the facility." She did not believe that wording held the applicant accountable for not complying, and believed that stronger language should be used to ensure compliance. Mr. Auxier noted that he spoke to Officer Hisher, and did not object to the letter; the flexible wording was meant to allow further discussion by the Police Department and the applicant. He noted that they had not yet found a solution to the trash enclosures. Mr. Tai advised that staff and the applicants had been in ongoing coordination with the Police Department with respect to the Police Department's specific recommendations, such as size of addressing, and location of "No Trespassing" signs. Planning Board Minutes Page 21 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |