{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-JUNE 17,2014- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Councilmember Tam led the Pledge\nof Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(14-249) Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution establishing integrated waste\nrates [paragraph no. 14-263 was continued to July 1, 2014.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(14-250) Proclamation Declaring June 21 and 22, 2014 as Relay for Life Alameda Days.\nCouncilmember Chen left the dais at 7:14 p.m. and returned at 7:16 p.m.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Lisa Leverton, Event Chair.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-251) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, announced the USS Hornet Annual Field Day\nevent would be on June 28th and 29th.\n(14-252) Rion Cassidy, Alameda, stated that he is concerned about the impacts of the\nDel Monte warehouse proposal, specifically noticing and permit parking.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*14-253) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 20,\n2014. Approved.\n(*14-254) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,118,813.90.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 2, "text": "(*14-255) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ended March\n31, 2014. Accepted.\n(*14-256) Recommendation to Award Contract for Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year\n2014-15. Accepted.\n(*14-257) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,885.144.50 and\nAllocate $471,286.13 in Contingencies to MCK Services, Inc. for Repair and\nResurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 33, No. P.W. 02-14-04. Accepted.\n(*14-258) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,299,000 and\nAllocate $195,000 in Contingencies to Dixon Marine Services, Inc., for Alameda South\nShore Lagoon Dredging, No. P. W. 11-13-26. Accepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(14-259) Resolution No. 14932, \"Reappointing Marguerite Malloy as a Member of the\nCivil Service Board.' Adopted;\n(14-259 A) Resolution No. 14933, \"Appointing Elizabeth Kenny as a Member of the\nCommission on Disability Issues.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 B) Resolution No. 14934, \"Reappointing Timothy Scates as a Member of the\nGolf Commission.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 C) Resolution No. 14935, \"Appointing Chee Chan as a Member of the Historical\nAdvisory Board.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 D) Resolution No. 14936, \"Appointing John Piziali as a Member of the Historical\nAdvisory Board.' Adopted;\n(14-259 E) Resolution No. 14937, \"Reappointing Catherine Atkin as a Member of the\nLibrary Board.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 F) Resolution No. 14938, \"Reappointing David Burton as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.' Adopted;\n(14-259 G) Resolution No. 14939, \"Reappointing Kristoffer K\u00f6ster as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.' Adopted;\n(14-259 H) Resolution No. 14940, \"Reappointing William Delaney as a Member of the\nRecreation and Park Commission.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 !) Resolution No. 14941, \"Appointing Mario Mariani as a Member of the\nRecreation and Park Commission.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 J) Resolution No. 14942, \"Appointing Ruben Tilos as a Member of the\nRecreation and Park Commission.\" Adopted.\n(14-259 K) Resolution No. 14943, \"Appointing Audrey Hyman as a Member of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 3, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted; and\n(14-259 L) Resolution No. 14944, \"Reappointing Jennifer Williams as a Member of the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the oath of office and presented certificates of appointment\nto Ms. Kenny, Mr. Scates, Mr. Piziali, Mr. Burton, Mr. K\u00f6ster, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Tilos and\nMs. Hyman.\n(14-260) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with\nPacific Automated, LLC for Five Years with an Additional Five Year Option in a Portion\nof Building 25 Located at 1951 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-261) Recommendation to Authorize the Establishment of a Basic Life Support (BLS)\nAmbulance Transport Program as a Regular Service of the Alameda Fire Department's\n(AFD) Emergency Medical Services Division.\nThe Fire Chief provided a handout and gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether revenue payments lag up to a year, to which the Fire\nChief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the one year payment lag is typical for Advanced\nLife Support (ALS) ambulance service.\nThe Fire Chief responded ALS takes a third less time to collect than BLS; stated BLS\ndeals with MediCal and MediCaid, which are more careful to prevent fraud.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff time to collect payments is programmed\ninto the expenditure, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nThe Fire Chief continued presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired how cost recovery translates to revenue generation,\nspecifically market share and potential.\nThe Fire Chief responded revenues were over estimated at first; stated the goal is\nseven transports per day; adding a second ambulance captures more transports per\nday; transports are run five days per week, 10 hours per day; there is potential to add\nevenings and weekends in the future; based on market share, Alameda has definitely\nhit goals and will establish new goals including obtaining contracts for skilled nursing\nfacilities services; the revenue and cost sharing will be caught up this year; there is\nalways a billing lag.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether 45% of the outstanding collection would be\nreimbursed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated if $100,000 is\nbilled, $45,000 payment is expected.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the Fire Department is recovering cost, to which the\nFire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated fiscal year 2012-13 was a wash; the\ncurrent year will be a net positive, which will grow in the future; the department has\ngood partners and good support.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether prevailing wage applies to private companies.\nThe City Attorney responded that she does not know the prevailing wage situation.\nThe City Manager stated the City is not contracting with other providers, the providers\nare contracting with the City.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether prevailing wage would change the outcome, to\nwhich the City Manager responded that he did not think it would; stated there is an\nexchange; prevailing wage applies when people are hired to do work.\nThe City Attorney stated she will look into the issue and provide an answer later.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether prevailing wage is viewed as a competitive advantage\nor disadvantage.\nCouncilmember Tam responded prevailing wage levels the playing field.\nThe Fire Chief stated there is no law in Alameda County for exclusivity; Alameda\nCounty Emergency Medical Services (EMS) can choose to give exclusive operating\nareas for BLS transport; EMS chooses not to; Alameda's past ALS contract included\nexclusivity for Alameda; however, exclusivity was negotiated out of the current contract.\nCouncilmember Tam stated no exclusivity makes the prevailing wage issue moot;\ninquired whether there would be a change in the reimbursement, or increase in usage,\nas a result of being a participant in the community paramedics program.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 5, "text": "The Fire Chief responded Alameda is one of 11 pilot cities selected for the program; the\nscope issues will be reviewed; there will be more training for paramedics to provide\nrelief for patients with chronic illnesses; patients will not be readmitted because\nparamedics will provide intervention before going to the Emergency Room.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated service calls are\nreceived 24 hours a day, seven days a week.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if additional certifications are provided to the EMTs, to\nwhich the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the Fire Department wants\nEMTs to be successful, graduate, and become full time Fire or Police Officers.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how Alameda decides which independent contractor to\nuse.\nThe Fire Chief responded the process needs to be evaluated; stated Alameda Hospital\nreceives priority; service can be scheduled in advance; as calls come in, independent\ncontractors are used.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the Alameda BLS program would be a\ncollaborative partner or competitor with the County.\nThe Fire Chief responded the County is reviewing contracts for efficiency and\neffectiveness, both of which the City can offer; stated Alameda does not want to over\ntax the current situation and neglect the needs of the community; Alameda needs to\nevaluate the County's expectations; with a clearer understanding of the County's needs,\nthere is opportunity to increase business and assist the County.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the City would be self-sustaining without a\ncontract if it becomes a competitor to the County.\nThe Fire Chief responded hopefully; stated the answer will be known moving forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the community values the service; inquired whether\nthere is enough data to decide to make the pilot program permanent.\nThe Fire Chief responded the pilot program is expiring at the end of the month; stated\nFire would like to make the program a regular part of its services; if the program does\nnot make sense for the City, another decision could be made.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the program is worthwhile; California is ahead of other\nstates with the Affordable Care Act; Alameda has an aging population and the service is\ngeared towards them; inquired whether most of the transports are on the Island.\nThe Fire Chief responded most transports originate on the Island.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the transports tax the two ambulances now,\nto which the Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the program is still in early\nstages and will need monitoring to determine issues.\nProvided background information and outlined the benefits of the service: Debi\nStebbins, Alameda Hospital.\nCommented on the excellence of the service and all it does to get patients to the Wound\nCenter: Beth Brizee and Sophia Telmo, Alameda Hospital Wound Care.\nOutlined his experience as a former employee of the program: Myles McMillian, former\nBLS employee.\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he wished there were more data\npoints for Council to evaluate the program as a business entity and the effect and\nlasting impact of the additional ambulance; he knows the Fire Chief will be vigilant in\nmonitoring and ensuring the success of the program; he supports the program.\nMayor Gilmore suggested that the matter be brought back to Council in one year to\nevaluate the progress and impacts of the program.\nCouncilmember Chen and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft agreed to amend the motion to\ninclude a report back to the Council in one year.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-262) Recommendation to Approve Parking Improvements for Park Street and\nWebster Street Shopping Districts.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:25 p.m. and returned at 8:28 p.m.\nCouncilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.\nThe Public Works Coordinator and Assistant Engineer gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated it appears the parking goal for Webster Street has already been\nmet; Webster Street does not have the same side-street business pattern as Park\nStreet; that she suspects the red indicates inadequate parking for residents rather than\nfor business; she is interested in seeing more data; inquired whether the electronic sign\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 7, "text": "that counts spaces has the capability to say \"Full\", to which the Public Works\nCoordinator responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated the parking sign has a lot of information for drivers to process.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated there is too much\ninformation on the parking sign; that she would like to see Lot C across from Theatre\nreconfigured to be more accommodating and efficient; she likes the electronic sign for\nthe parking garage; inquired why kiosks were not chosen.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded residents did not express a dislike for kiosks,\nbut rather a preference for the smart meter; kiosks are more expensive; Park Street\nBusiness Association (PSBA) and Webster Street Business Association (WABA) prefer\nthe smart meter; smart meters did not exist five years ago and have become more\npopular.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a need for more bike parking, but bike lockers\ntake up lots of space; more bike parking encourages people to use bikes instead of\ncars.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the garage is underutilized; suggested moving the 13\nspaces from the Oak Street and Alameda Avenue gravel lot into the garage, and\nrepurposing the lot; a best and highest use for the lot should be found.\nThe Public Works Coordinator stated that he would definitely look into the suggestion.\nMayor Gilmore complimented staff for an excellent report which provides a lot of\ninformation; inquired whether there was any feedback regarding why the bike rack in\nfront of Lot C is unpopular.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquired what day of the week and time the photo of the\nbike rack in Lot C was taken, to which the Assistant Engineer responded he does not\nrecall.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the Assistant Engineer stated staff had the\nsame thoughts about the unpopularity of the bike rack in Lot C; stated staff will collect\ndata on bike rack parking.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there were any suggestions about how to\ndeter jay walking, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded there were no great\nideas about deterring jay walkers.\nStated PSBA unanimously supports the staff recommendation; signage at Lot C should\ndirect people to the parking garage: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of staff recommendation with the direction to look\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 8, "text": "at repurposing some of the lots to achieve parking goals.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]\nMayor Gilmore requested an off agenda report on additional Webster Street data.\n(14-263) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing Integrated\nWaste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.\nfor Rate Period 13 (July 2014 to June 2015). Continued to July 1, 2014.\n(14-264) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14945, \"Approving the Engineer's\nReport, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments,\nIsland City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones.\" Adopted.\nMayor Gilmore and Councilmember Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.\nThe Public Works Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.\n[Absent: Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Gilmore - 2.]\n(14-265) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14946, \"Approving the Engineer's\nReport, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments,\nMaintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove).' \" Adopted.\nThe Public Works Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the allocation from reserves needed to\ncover expenses is expected to be reduced after there are more homes at Marina Cove.\nThe Public Works Management Analyst responded in the affirmative; stated the\nformation of the Community Facilities District will be presented on July 15th\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(14-266) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14947, \"Confirming the Webster\nStreet Business Improvement Area (BIA) Report for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and Levying\nan Annual Assessment on the Webster Street BIA.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 9, "text": "Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 10, "text": "contribute a fair share; it is a moot point for Mr. Wyszkonski's business because it is\nalready included.\nThe City Attorney stated staff determined Mr. Wyszkonski represents less than half a\npercent of the assessments in the district and does not meet the 50% to challenge.\nMayor Gilmore stated Mr. Wyszkonski is correct, as stated in the notice, he can protest\nthe boundary or assessment at tonight's meeting; in order for protest to have effect, the\nprotestors have to be over 50% of the assessed value; Mr. Wyszkonski does not meet\nthat threshold.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why Council needs to vote if there is not sufficient\nprotests.\nThe City Attorney stated the law requires Council take action to levy the assessment.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the notice quotes a provision of law; it is important to\nremember staff is writing to a lay person audience; correspondence should be easy to\nunderstand.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the issue is substantive; on April 15th, the matter was heard\na second time because outreach was not clear; this is another situation where the\nprotestor is included, read the same letter, but got a different impression; there is a\npattern about the ability to communicate.\nThe City Manager stated the letter is clear; the speaker came to protest boundaries on\nthe inclusion of other business; it happened twice, the letter is merely a function and\nattempt by staff to have as much clarity and transparency as possible.\nMayor Gilmore stated the system worked; that she was confused because no business\nowner has shown up at the meeting when the levy is assessed to protest boundaries;\nshe thought it was not the proper meeting; the City Attorney made it clear tonight's\nmeeting is to have the protest.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.\n[Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]\n(14-267) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation\nFees, Vacant Building Monitoring Fees, Administrative Penalties and Abatement Costs\nVia the Property Tax Bills for the Subject Properties.\nThe Building Official gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 11, "text": "In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Building Official stated the amount of\n$9,750 indicated on the presentation slide is correct for 812 Island Drive.\nThe Building Official continued the presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired why 1617 Concordia Street and 1504 Webster Street are not\nincluded in the presentation, to which the Building Official responded both properties\npaid their fees prior to the meeting.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the property owner of 812 Island Drive attempted\nto pay the prior administrative citations.\nThe Building Official responded the current amount is accrual of new fines and\nassessments.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the $9,750 is the new owner's accrual for last\ntwo years, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the amount\nis primarily for vacant building monitoring fees.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether notices are sent out in the property owner's\nlanguage, to which the Building Official responded in the negative; stated the City offers\ntranslation if needed.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired when the new owner of 812 Island Drive took\npossession, to which the Building Official responded January 2013.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how much was owed prior to the new owner taking\npossession, to which the Building Official responded that he does not have the specific\nbreakdown.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if the new owner has paid any of the new assessment, to\nwhich the Building Official responded in the negative; stated the new owner may have\npaid for prior penalties through escrow.\nMayor Gilmore clarified any prior penalties or fees owed to the City were wiped clean\nwhen the property changed hands and the $9,750 is a new assessment for the new\nowner.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he spoke with the new owner who informed him he\npaid $28,000 through escrow already; that the new owner did not understand the issue\nof non-compliance and missed appeals because he needs a translator.\nThe City Manager inquired when the owner met with a translator in the City, to which\nthe Building Official responded several times.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted one meeting with the translator took place in April\n2013.\nThe City Manager stated it has been 14 months since said meeting.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the owner occupies the premises, to which\nthe Building Official responded in the negative; stated the property is vacant.\nMayor Gilmore stated something was communicated to the new owner during the\ntranslator meeting of April 2013.\nThe Building Official stated Planning staff has had several conversations with the new\nowner about fixing and improving the property.\nNancy Nguyen, translator for property owner, stated there is a big problem with\ncommunication and the owner needs more time to improve the property.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether part of the property is City land.\nCouncilmember Chen responded the property was 9,000 square feet at the time of\npurchase; County records indicate he only owns 7,500 square feet and the City owns\nthe remaining 1500 square feet; the Building Official and City staff are currently looking\ninto the validity of this claim.\nThe City Manager stated the information should have come up during the title transfer.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the property owner knows he can make an\nappointment with Planning and Building staff and request a translator, to which Ms.\nNguyen responded he did not know; stated the owner has been to Planning and there\nwas a translator five times.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the owner understands he needs to pay the fees\nbefore permits can be issued, to which Ms. Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated\nhe is told at every visit.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue is with the house itself, not the land\ndiscrepancy.\nMs. Nguyen stated every time the City informs the owner of issues, he puts in the effort\nto fix the problems but he is not clear about what he needs to do.\nThe City Manager inquired whether the owner was told in April that house had to be\nfixed.\nMs. Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated the owner took action right away and\nput boards on the windows and doors.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Chen stated every time there is an issue, the owner is compliant and\nmakes repairs; all that needs to be done is to not leave the house vacant; the owner did\nnot understand he was accruing a vacant lot assessment; there is sticker shock with a\n$9,750 vacant property monitoring fee.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Chen could ask the property\nowner directly what his understanding of the current situation is and what he wants\ndone.\nCouncilmember Chen asked the owner in Mandarin what his understanding of the\nsituation is and what he would like to do.\nMs. Nguyen responded the owner does not understand why he has the fines and he\nwould like to finish his remodeling plan; he has verification and permission from the City\nto start construction.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City is waiting for the owner to pay the fines\nbefore processing his permit application of his remodeling plan.\nThe Building Official responded in the negative; stated the owner can go through the\npermit process.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired the status of the owner's permit process and whether he\nhas submitted plans.\nThe Building Official responded a plan submitted last year was not approved because of\nthe project size; the owner has a new plan; in the interim, enforcement has been done;\nthe City is asking the owner to repair, tear down, or maintain the property to existing\nstandards.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the owner's new plans include tearing down the\nbuilding, to which Ms. Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated the owner would like\nto build a new house on the property.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City should give the owner a demolition permit so he can\ncontinue to move through the process.\nMs. Nguyen stated the owner is worried the City will not give him permission to build a\nnew house after he tears down the existing one.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she understands the owner's concerns; his options are to\ntear down the structure with no guarantee, or keep the structure and the fines will\ncontinue to accrue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated tearing down the building\nwill stop fines, crimes, and vermin; there is no guarantee to build a new structure, but\nthe City does not want vacant homes; the Planning Department will work with the owner\nthrough the process and come up with an acceptable plan.\nMs. Nguyen inquired whether the City would accept a new plan if the owner tears down\nthe house.\nCouncilmember Tam responded the issue still needs to be considered.\nMs. Nguyen stated the owner does not understand the $9,750 amount; in April the fee\nwas only $2,000.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Building Official stated the fees are\na combination of four citations for vacant building monitoring and vacant building\nadministrative penalty fees; stated the owner agreed to a Notice in Order to demolish\nthe building by August 30, 2014.\nThe City Manager stated the owner plans to come to the Planning Board at the end of\nJuly.\nCouncilmember Tam stated part of the dilemma with interpretation is some interpreters\nspeak a different dialect; knowing that the owner plans to tear down the building solves\nthe problems of levying the $9,750 fine; she understands the need for cost recovery but\nshe suggests allowing the owner to use the money to demolish the building.\n***\n(14-268) Councilmember Chen moved approval of considering the delinquent business\nlicense and waste bills [paragraph no. 14-269 after 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\n***\nThe City Manager stated the issue is not about cost recovery, it is about behavior; there\nwere ample opportunities to address the problems; if the City takes individualized\ncircumstances, it will set a precedent; there is no reason for other tax payers to\nsubsidize this venture.\nCouncilmember Tam stated it is important to protect the financial interest and integrity of\nthe City; Alameda does not have what Oakland has in dealing with similar issues on an\nad hoc basis.\nThe City Manager stated the owner indicated that he knew what the problems were.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 15, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the City Manager; stated the property has\nbeen owned since late 2012; that she does not know how much translation is needed.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how long it takes to issue a demolition permit, to which the\nBuilding Official responded it is a two day process.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how long demolition of the building would take, to which the\nBuilding Official responded the building would not be difficult to tear down.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the demolition can be accomplished in a timely fashion\nafter the Planning Board meeting.\nThe Building Official responded the issue is not whether the owner can build something;\nthe owner has a right to build a structure; the issue is whether what he wants, such as a\n3-unit building or a single family home, can be built; a variance is needed.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he understands not wanting to set a precedent;\nhowever in the owner's defense, it was not his fault original plans were drawn up for\n9,000 square feet versus 7,500 square feet; suggested not issuing additional citations\nuntil the end of August; stated once the City issues a citation, there is still possibility of\nmiscommunication; staff cannot be expected to be legal translators.\nMayor Gilmore requested Ms. Nguyen to communicate to the property owner two main\nactions: 1) the property needs to be demolished by August 30, 2014, otherwise fines will\ncontinue to accrue; 2) the owner submitted plans to the Planning Department, the\nhearing will be July 28, 2014; he will be able to build at least the same size that is on the\nproperty now.\nMs. Nguyen inquired whether the owner would have time to submit plans if he cannot\ndemolish, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Chen stated communicating the issues are lost in translation.\nThe City Manager stated the owner needs to be responsible for securing a translator; it\nis not the City's responsibility; suggested Council places a lien on the property.\nCouncilmember Chen concurred with the City Manager; communicated to the owner in\nMandarin that the assessment cannot be taken back, and that the owner either has to\npay it or a lien will be placed.\nThe owner indicated he understood his options.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 16, "text": "Noes: Councilmember Tam - 1.\n(14-269) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Taxes\nand Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation; noted staff received a request for an\nextension from two people and staff is willing to work with the requestors.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether requests for extension would run until June 30th,\nto which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated flexibility is given to\naccommodate and resolve the matter; there are no protests regarding business license\nitems.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Finance Director stated that he\nwould follow up on obtaining current information for William Godfrey listed on a\nbusiness license lien.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation with the\namendment.\n***\nCouncilmember Chen left the dais at 10:48 p.m. and returned at 10:55 p.m.\n***\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 4. [Absent: Councilmember Chen - 1.]\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-270) The City Manager announced that the Mayor and Darrel Doan from Economic\nDevelopment attended the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)\nConference regarding leasing efforts at Alameda Landing.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 10:53 p.m. and returned at 10:56 p.m.\n***\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(14-271) Irma Garcia, Alameda, expressed concern over customs issues.\n(14-272) Robb Ratto, PSBA, commended the Building Official and his staff for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 17, "text": "addressing health and safety issues in the closed Wienerschnitzel building and parking\nlot.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-273) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Transportation\nCommission. Not heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:01 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-06-17", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-JUNE 17,2014--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Tam arrived at 6:10 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(14-248) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957; Positions Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 17, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf"}