My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
15 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
040709
>
15 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2009 1:08:32 PM
Creation date
4/1/2009 12:52:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/7/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
15 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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
23. May the Commission receive those portions of the monthly reports that the City <br />Attorney provides to City Council where the Council has been advised of the <br />progress on this application? <br />Response: The City Attorney considers these memos to be privileged. <br />24. How many letters were sent to the residents from the law firm representing the <br />park owner? <br />Response: Staff does not know. <br />25. Were the residents surveyed twice concerning their interest in converting the <br />park? <br />Response: No, only one survey was sent to the residents, in March 2008. <br />26. Would staff confirm the results of the surveys it received? <br />Response: Residents were sent the surveys on March 17 and were asked to mail the <br />survey to the City by March 29 (self addressed, stamped envelopes were included). <br />The City counted surveys received through April 14: 41 of those that responded were in <br />support; 39 were opposed; and 38 declined to respond. (This varies slightly from what <br />is in the staff report that states 41 in support, 38 opposed and 39 declining to respond.) <br />27. Did staff review the cover letter prepared by the law firm that sent the survey <br />out? <br />Response: Staff did not review the cover letter before it was sent out but did see it <br />when it was sent. A copy is attached. <br />28.In order for a resident in the mobile home park as owner to sell his/her unit, why <br />is the Park Owner's permission required? <br />Response: Because the person who will be buying a resident's unit will be obligated to <br />pay rent to the Park Owner, the Park Owner has an understandable interest in having <br />assurances that the person moving into the park will be able to pay the rent. <br />29. Was there a reason that comments made by some residents on the surveys were <br />not included in the staff report? <br />Response: The purpose of the survey was to gauge the level of support for conversion <br />but the residents' reasons were not solicited. To provide some residents' comments <br />when everyone was not asked to provide comments did not seem relevant or fair. <br />s <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.