Laserfiche WebLink
18. Did the City Attorney review the notice before it was sent out? <br /> Response: No, but there was nothing unusual about the notice itself that would have <br /> warranted such review. <br /> 19. Could the Planning Commission or City Council hold a special meeting on this <br /> topic at the Park? <br /> Response: So long as the meeting was properly noticed, the Commission or Council <br /> could hold a special meeting on this topic at the Park, rather than at the Council <br /> Chambers. Our experience has been, however, that residents in the mobile home <br /> parks do not have any difficulty in attending meetings at City Hall when the issue is of <br /> importance to them. In addition, planning staff and the City Attorney attended an all <br /> park meeting in January 2009 to discuss this application and answer questions. <br /> 20. Why is the City Council not the final decision making body on this application? <br /> Response: Under the State Subdivision Map Act, the planning commission may <br /> approve a tentative map and, unless that decision were appealed, that decision is final. <br /> The application here is for a vesting tentative map and therefore the Commission's <br /> action on the application is final unless appealed to City Council. <br /> 21. What were the grounds for the City Council to meet in closed session (on <br /> February 17) on this application? <br /> Response: The Brown Act allows the City Council to meet in closed session with its <br /> attorney when there are facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person <br /> to believe that there is a credible threat of litigation against the City. The City received a <br /> letter from the law firm representing the park owner that it would file a claim against the <br /> City for millions of dollars if the City unreasonably denied or denied this application. <br /> Under those circumstances, the City Attorney felt it was appropriate to meet with <br /> Council in closed session to discuss the item. <br /> 22. Why was there a delay from the time the application was submitted in July 2007 <br /> until the matter was placed on the Commission's agenda in January 2009? <br /> Response: There were a number of items that the park owner had to complete before <br /> the application was complete. These included the survey that was not sent out until <br /> March 2008. Thereafter, staff and the applicant's attorney had disagreements about <br /> whether other items, such as whether the owner was required to prepare an appraisal of <br /> the lots at this time, were required before the application was complete. In October <br /> 2008, the application was deemed complete. Due to the Commission's other agenda <br /> items and the desire of staff to hold an all park meeting before the item was placed on <br /> the Commission's agenda, the matter was scheduled in January 2009. <br /> 4 <br />