My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
081809
>
13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2010 2:02:26 PM
Creation date
8/13/2009 1:02:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/18/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION <br /> The background and discussion of this item, through the Council's May 5, 2009 <br /> meeting, are set forth in great detail in the attached (a) May 5, 2009 City Council <br /> Agenda Report and its various attachments, (b) supplemental agenda report with <br /> attachments, and (c) City Council minutes of May 5, 2009. <br /> At the Council's May 5, 2009 meeting, Council expressed concern that residents <br /> needed more information about the proposed conversion and directed staff to <br /> coordinate with the Park owner to conduct additional outreach to the residents and <br /> provide them with additional information. <br /> Thereafter, staff sent all the residents a six page document entitled "Common Questions <br /> and Answers about Conversion" (copy attached) that set forth a number of questions <br /> that residents and Council had asked concerning conversion and answering those <br /> questions in lay terms. In addition, staff arranged for two meetings with residents, held <br /> at the Park Clubhouse, one during the day and one during the evening. (About 40 <br /> persons attended the afternoon meeting, 25 the evening meeting.) At those meetings, <br /> residents were provided with an overview of conversion, the "Questions and Answers" <br /> document was discussed and residents were given as much time as they needed to <br /> express their concerns and ask their questions. <br /> Following those meetings, as requested by Council, all residents were sent a survey <br /> asking whether they were or were not in support of the conversion. The residents were <br /> also encouraged to provide a reason or two for their position. A copy of the survey is <br /> attached. The City received 139 responses (out of 208 spaces). The overwhelming <br /> majority 118 —did not support conversion. <br /> Although the survey informed residents that supporting conversion did not mean that <br /> the resident intended to purchase a lot, a common thread expressed as to the reasons <br /> for not supporting the conversion was that many residents were not interested in <br /> purchasing a lot, either because they did not know what the cost would be (the owner <br /> has refused to provide this information because sales would not begin for at least 10 <br /> years) or because they were not interested in obtaining a loan at this stage of their <br /> lives. Some also expressed a concern that converting the Park would result in their <br /> rents being raised and forcing them to leave. (For a one person lower income <br /> household —a person earning less than $46,350 —upon conversion, rents could only be <br /> raised essentially by cost of living increases. For a person who would not qualify as <br /> lower income, rents could be raised to "market currently that amount is undefined <br /> but over a five year period.) <br /> EXPLANATION FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION <br /> The Council's options here are to uphold the appeal, thereby approving the application, <br /> to deny the appeal, thereby denying the application or, if Council believes the input of <br /> the Housing Commission concerning the conversion would be helpful to its decision <br /> making process, to refer the application to that Commission for a recommendation. <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.