15 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

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