pages: PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf, 22
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 22 | Ms. McNamara wanted to ensure that the relationship between the Police Department and the applicant did benefit the citizens of Alameda, and would rebuild the credibility for public safety in that area. Mr. Tai advised that that condition stated that it would be to the "satisfaction to the Chief of Police and the Planning and Building Director," and there would be sufficient flexibility to require compliance on these recommendations. Mr. Lynch believed that Ms. McNamara referred to the property management aspects of this project. Ms. McNamara believed that staff's condition of approval requiring a landscape and common area maintenance agreement between the property owners and the City to ensure diligent maintenance should be an ongoing effort. She believed the ongoing maintenance of the property was critical to the success of the project and the surrounding area. President Cunningham suggested the addition of a maintenance agreement for the swimming pool, and believed that was central to the development. Mr. Tai advised that page 5 contained a condition relating to the landscape and common area maintenance agreement, which is recorded with the property at the County Recorder's office. The applicants would be required to maintain the property; if that did not happen, the City would have the right to make the improvements at the applicants' cost. The common area included the swimming pool, the proposed tot lots and other play areas, and all the other open space. Ms. Mariani noted that she was not prepared to approve this project. Ms. Kohlstrand believed that changing the approach towards trash containment was generally a good change, but that it was unfortunate to see the huge trash container at the end of the walkway near Fifth Street. She would like to see that container relocated to a less visible area. She believes that the project sponsor had made some compromises, and added that there were still residents in the complex. She believed it was extremely important to ensure the buildings were not in disrepair. Mr. Tai advised that he had spoken with the Code Compliance Division earlier in the day; they advised that a complaint had been filed on February 18, 2005. The complaint was vague, and it was not logged and registered as a specific complaint. Technically, there were no outstanding violations. Mr. David Blackwell, representing the applicant, wished to give credit to City staff for their tireless work on this application, as well as the Planning Board. He had discussed the conditions of approval with staff, and believed that they were now in accordance. He emphasized that the interior improvements had nothing to do with the application before the Board at this time. He requested that Condition 25 (Public Art fee) be removed, and added that Mr. McFann estimated it would come to approximately $6,000. He believed that this project did not fall within 30-65 because it was not a Planning Board Minutes Page 22 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |