13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

23. May the Commission receive those portions of the monthly reports that the City Attorney provides to City Council where the Council has been advised of the progress on this application? Response: The City Attorney considers these memos to be privileged. 24. How many letters were sent to the residents from the law firm representing the park owner? Response: Staff does not know. 25. Were the residents surveyed twice concerning their interest in converting the park? Response: No, only one survey was sent to the residents, in March 2008. 26. Would staff confirm the results of the surveys it received? Response: Residents were sent the surveys on March 17 and were asked to mail the survey to the City by March 29 (self addressed, stamped envelopes were included). The City counted surveys received through April 14: 41 of those that responded were in support; 39 were opposed; and 38 declined to respond. (This varies slightly from what is in the staff report that states 41 in support, 38 opposed and 39 declining to respond.) 27. Did staff review the cover letter prepared by the law firm that sent the survey out? Response: Staff did not review the cover letter before it was sent out but did see it when it was sent. A copy is attached. 28. In order for a resident in the mobile home park as owner to sell his /her unit, why is the Park Owner's permission required? Response: Because the person who will be buying a resident's unit will be obligated to pay rent to the Park Owner, the Park Owner has an understandable interest in having assurances that the person moving into the park will be able to pay the rent. 29. Was there a reason that comments made by some residents on the surveys were not included in the staff report? Response: The purpose of the survey was to gauge the level of support for conversion but the residents' reasons were not solicited. To provide some residents' comments when everyone was not asked to provide comments did not seem relevant or fair. 5