pages: CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2014-06-17 | 14 | Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated tearing down the building will stop fines, crimes, and vermin; there is no guarantee to build a new structure, but the City does not want vacant homes; the Planning Department will work with the owner through the process and come up with an acceptable plan. Ms. Nguyen inquired whether the City would accept a new plan if the owner tears down the house. Councilmember Tam responded the issue still needs to be considered. Ms. Nguyen stated the owner does not understand the $9,750 amount; in April the fee was only $2,000. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Building Official stated the fees are a combination of four citations for vacant building monitoring and vacant building administrative penalty fees; stated the owner agreed to a Notice in Order to demolish the building by August 30, 2014. The City Manager stated the owner plans to come to the Planning Board at the end of July. Councilmember Tam stated part of the dilemma with interpretation is some interpreters speak a different dialect; knowing that the owner plans to tear down the building solves the problems of levying the $9,750 fine; she understands the need for cost recovery but she suggests allowing the owner to use the money to demolish the building. *** (14-268) Councilmember Chen moved approval of considering the delinquent business license and waste bills [paragraph no. 14-269 after 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Councilmember Tam - 1. *** The City Manager stated the issue is not about cost recovery, it is about behavior; there were ample opportunities to address the problems; if the City takes individualized circumstances, it will set a precedent; there is no reason for other tax payers to subsidize this venture. Councilmember Tam stated it is important to protect the financial interest and integrity of the City; Alameda does not have what Oakland has in dealing with similar issues on an ad hoc basis. The City Manager stated the owner indicated that he knew what the problems were. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 June 17, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf |