My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0406
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0406
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2015 2:55:39 PM
Creation date
5/4/2015 1:24:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/6/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,April 6, 2015 <br /> Page 14 <br /> At the request of Board Member McGehee, Mr. Gupta responded that the litter behind <br /> their 1746 and 1735 buildings was often due to children seeking out the ice cream truck <br /> and accumulation of trash from that. Mr. Gupta advised that his firm had spoken to the <br /> driver of the truck, but he had ignored their requests. <br /> Ms. Joshi advised that their firm had five part-time caretakers and one full-time caretaker <br /> and attempted to keep things cleaned-up, but children were children. <br /> Mr. Gupta agreed that they had a lot of staff, and hired outside contractors as needed. Mr. <br /> Gupta noted that, during the inspection, they hired twenty contractors at one time to com- <br /> plete the work. <br /> At the request of Board Member Willmus, Mr. Gupta stated that, while having done <br /> many courses and holding a real estate broker license requiring 30 hours of annual con- <br /> tinuing education, he not none of his staff had been certified or received accreditation in <br /> property management. <br /> Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Gupta and Ms. Joshi for presenting their case, letting them know <br /> they had done well in expressing themselves, and asked that they remain in case any <br /> questions or need for additional information should arise. <br /> Chair Roe asked staff to return to respond to some of the issues brought up by the appel- <br /> lant. <br /> Inspection timing and repairs made while on site or shortly thereafter, and how staff in- <br /> terpreted that, and whether the inspection represented a snapshot in time, and did not <br /> make a determination if something was or was not fixed immediately <br /> Mr. Munson responded that when staff inspected something, even if a property owner <br /> was fixing the item, it was still listed as a violation. Mr. Munson clarified that the idea <br /> was that property owners were to self-inspect the building and make a correction before <br /> the inspection occurred. <br /> Other instances when repairs were made during inspection and calculated toward the <br /> grade <br /> Mr. Englund responded that every property was inspected using the same criteria, and <br /> many of those violations were not uncommon and were often repetitive among buildings, <br /> and still calculated in the grade. <br /> Listing violations multiple times <br /> Mr. Englund advised that each violation of a certain category type was counted once in <br /> the calculation, but listed multiple times to allow the management to find each violation <br /> and correct them each once they received the inspection notice, meant as a means to edu- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.