CC_Minutes_2015_0406 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 6,2015 Page 9 City Attorney Gaughan noted that the Board had some flexibility assuming there was suf- ficient evidence to support their conclusion as the validity of the grading and specific rea- sons for that particular grade. Mr. Gaughan noted that another way to make a conclusion was by determining if the evidence supported the grade and whether staff's process and rationale in determining that grade was accurate or inaccurate based on their calculations. Mr. Gaughan advised that the Board could ask staff to recalculate if they found inaccura- cies or discrepancies. However, at the end of the day, no matter what the Board conclud- ed, Mr. Gaughan noted that even though the Board had flexibility on its conclusion as long as their findings were supported by evidence and clearly announced, and articulated as the basis for their conclusion. If the Board chose that level of minute detail for every alleged violation, Mr. Gaughan advised that they could do so, as long as they could justi- fy their conclusion with specific reasons. Chair Roe invited the Appealing Party to present their case at this time. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Off-Site Manager and Ms. Nidhi Joshi, On-Site Manager of G & G Management represented the property owner. Citing his 35 years of experience, since 1978, as a mechanical engineer by trade with those years based in the construction industry, building facilities and their maintenance, Mr. Gupta noted his world-wide familiarity with building codes and their requirements. Mr. Gupta stated that G & G Management had always respected and supported staff com- ing into their properties to advise of any infractions, and thanked staff for their attention to those details that their staff was not aware of or had not observed themselves in their daily routine. Mr. Gupta thanked the Board for this opportunity to provide their point of view, and expressed appreciation for Mr. Munson and Mr. Englund's time and work; and even though they disagreed with all of their findings, stated that staff had been encourag- ing in working with them. Mr. Gupta distributed booklets as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consisting of their written Letter of Appeal dated February 9, 2015 and listed vio- lations for each of the twelve properties and included in the RCA as Attachment B. Mr. Gupta asked the Board's understanding of any language difficulties during his presenta- tion and noted their properties include over 500 residents, and over 200 children, with the majority of their tenants recently immigrated to the United States and also having diffi- culty communicating in English (e.g. Karen residents), often using their young children as translators. Mr. Gupta referenced the list of common violations provided before the actual inspection by staff, noting that the list did not provide an inclusive list of some of the items brought up at the inspection, thereby creating some confusion and the inability of the property owner to be in compliance. Due to the culture of many of the immigrants renting property from G & G Management, Mr. Gupta noted that they found it difficult to adjust to and understand the U. S. way of living from how to operate appliance, how to use toilets, and other daily routine things