Letters from the Public - 3 of 4 — San Jose City Council, October 18, 2022

[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

CC 10-18-22 Item 8.3 for posting
martha O'Connell
Tue 10/18/2022 7:26 AM
To:Taber, Toni >;Agendadesk < >;City Clerk
;martha O'Connell < >
1 attachments (10 MB)
Letters from the Public 3-10-20.pdf;

Attached find letters that were written more than two years ago on this same subject. 196 pages.

Get it done so we don't have to keep writing letters.

Please post so that the public can see how this has dragged on and on and on.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. – Desmond Tutu

From: Carol Bennett
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 3:01 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo, District2 <[email protected]>, District3 <[email protected]>, District1 <[email protected]>, District4 <[email protected]>, District5 <[email protected]>, District 6 <[email protected]>, District7 <[email protected]>, District8 <[email protected]>, District9 <[email protected]>, District 10 <[email protected]>
Subject: MobilehomePark designation

My name is Carol J Bennett. I live in support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose , not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in San Jose General Plan. Please protect this portion of affordable housing in San Jose.

Thank You

From: Reneé Ingold
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 11:30 PM
To: Reneé Ingold
Subject: Mobilehome Park designation for ALL PARKS!

My name is Renee' Ingold and I am a resident at in San Jose. My neighbors and I support that ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mountain Springs and Westwinds, get the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Thank you,

Renee' Ingold

February 19, 2020

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Working Partnerships USA

RE: Apply MH Designation to All Parks

Working Partnerships USA urges San Jose City Council to vote in support of creating a new General Plan Mobilehome Park designation and applying the designation to all mobile home parks in San Jose. Amidst a sometimes confusing patchwork of existing land use designations, this measure woul
d simplify critical preservation efforts for
mobile home parks, an important source of affordable housing.

Mobile home parks represent one of the remaining sources of truly affordable housing in San Jose. Protecting these sources of affordable housing translates directly to the ability of working class residents, people of color, and elderly individuals on fixed incomes to stay in this city – a place
that many have called home for decades. For these individuals, even the possibility of a park closure can represent significant psychological hardship – not to mention the financial and social challenges unhinged by an actual park closure.

This land use designation would promote much-needed stability for these vulnerable populations and advance the preservation of these critical sources of affordabl e
housing. Perhaps most importantly, it would send the message that the City of San Jose stands behind the well-being of mobile home park residents. Working Partnerships USA is proud to join other affordable housing advocates in supporting this much-needed measure.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Buchanan
Director of Public Policy
2102 Almaden Rd Suite 112, San Jose, CA 95125 wpusa.org

From: Joanne Curtis
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 4:37 PM
Subject:

To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,

My name is Joanne I live in

I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome
Park designation in the General Plan.

Joanne Curtis

From: elizabeth silva
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 5:03 PM
Subject: I support

I am a resident of asking that the City Council apply the new “Mobilehome Park designation” in the General Plan to ALL PARKS not just Westwinds and Mountain Springs.

Thank you
Elizabeth Silva

GOLDEN STATE MANUFACTURED-HOME OWNERS
LEAGUE
.SMOL GSMOLRegionManagerRegion 1 ZoneA-1
March 2, 2020
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Martha O'Connell
GSMOL Regional Manager
RE: 10.2 20-219- City Council meeting 3-10-20
GSMOL strongly supports the application of the new designation, Mobilehome Park, in the General Plan to all Parl{S in San Jose. As the oldest and largest state wide organization representing the residents in Mobilehome Parks, the Golden State Manufactured Home-Owners League (GSMOL) urges the City to end the inconsistent and confusing patchwork ofGP land uses for Mobilehome Parks.

The recommendation to give all Parks a MH designation in the General Plan has been made for years. The City of San Jose cannot continue to lurch from one Park to the other as rumors or realities of closure arise. Mobilehome Park residents need consistent and clear support from the City Council now.

GSMOL is proud to stand with
• Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
• The Planning Commission, City of San Jose
• Housing and Community Development Commission, City of San Jose • Affordable Housing Network
• Working Pminerships
• The hundreds and hundreds ofMH owners who have signed petitions and sent emails The cmTent inconsistent and confusing patchwork of GP land uses for Mobilehome Parks must be ended. The City Council needs to send a strong message that it values Mobilehome Parks, the last bastion of affordable home ownership, and that it is taking all measures available to ensure their preservation.

WORKING PARTNERSHIPS USA
February 19, 2020
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Working Partnerships USA
RE: Apply MH Designation to All Parks
Working Partnerships USA urges San Jose City Council to vote in support of creating a new General Plan Mobilehome Park designation and applying the designation to all . mobile home parks .in San Jose. Amidst a sometimes confusing patchwork of existing land use designations, this measure would simplify critical preservation efforts for mobile home parks, an important source of affordable housing.

Mobile home parks represent one of the remaining sources oftruly affordable housing in San Jose. Protecting these sources of affordable housing translates directly to the ability of working class residents, people of color, and elderly individuals on fixed incomes to stay in this city- a place that many have called home for decades. For these individuals, even the possibility of a park closure can represent significant psychological hardship not to mention the financial and social challenges unhinged by an actual park closure.

This land use designation would promote much-needed stability for these vulnerable populations and advance the preservation of these critical sources of affordable housing. Perhaps most importantly, it would send the message that the City of San Jose stands behind the well-being of mobile home park residents. Working Partnerships USA is proud to join other affordable housing advocates in supporting this much-needed measure.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Buchanan
Director of Public Policy

General Plan - Mobilehome Park designation for ALL mobile home parks 1 message
Lee Ellak Tue, Feb 18,2020 at 12:12 PM
To: "Vice Mayor Charles \"Chappie\" Jones" <District1 @sanjoseca.gov>, Sergio Jimenez · <[email protected]>, Raul Peralez <[email protected]>, Lan Diep <[email protected]>, Magdalena Carrasco <[email protected]>, "Devora \"Dev\" Davis" <[email protected]>, Maya Esparza <[email protected]>, Sylvia Arenas <[email protected]>, Pam Foley <[email protected]>, Johnny Khamis <[email protected]>, " Mayor Liccardo <[email protected]>
February 16, 2020
TO:

Mayor and San Jose City Council
FROM:

Lee Ellak

Former HCDC Commissioner
RE:

HCDC vote- Apply MH Designation to All Parks
On 1-23-2020, I attended the Housing and Community Development Commission . (HCDC) and I cheered when they voted 8-0-2 to recommend to the City Council that it create a new General Plan Mobilehome Park designation and apply the new designation to all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose.

Rather than just granting the designation to two parks, do it for all parks in San Jose.

My neighbors are in fear of our park closing or any park closing because we could be next.

To even suggest a park closing has everyone on edge. Panic, fear, desperation, and uncertainty surface their ugly heads. We look to city leaders to help mitigate residents' feelings of hopelessness and to protect and preserve one of its last bastions of affordable housing in San Jose--Mobilehome Parks

Eliminate the current inconsistent and confusing patchwork of GP land uses for Mobilehome Parks; apply new General Plan Mobilehome Park designation and apply the new designation to all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose. Please.

Sincerely,
Lee Ellak
================

Liccardo calls for new landuse designation
1 message
martha O'Connell Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:33AM
To: martha O'Connell , [email protected],
District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]>, Louis Hansen
On 5-18-17 the San Jose Mercury News reported on page 82 "Council declines to enact mobile home park policy." The vote was 10-1 with Khamis dissenting.

The vote was to reject the flawed "closure policy" and to stick with the original conversion ordinance.

Mobilehome residents rejoiced.

As part of that 2017 article, the Mercury reported "Mayor Sam Liccardo recommended exploring creating a new land use designation just for the Parks."
It is three years later. Get it done now on March 10, 2020.

I support the MH designation for ALL Parks in the General Plan. No more delays as residents worry about displacement and lack of consistent, clear, and strong support for this last bastion of affordable housing in San Jose.

MobileHome Designation -General Plan
1 message
Shar Jones Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:19 AM
Reply-To:

To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected] Honorable Public Servants,
I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the "Mobilehome Designation" in the General Plan.

Where is the equity? If two parks have it, why not the rest of us? No discrimination PLEASE!
We deserve protection by having this designation under the General Plan.

Please protect the thousands of us living in Manufactured/Mobile Home Communities.

Thank you,
Sharon and Jim Jones

G. . '-nfl¢.11 . - . ---~'{

SJ mobile homes
1 message
Cynthia Stewart
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Cc:

Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 12:00 PM
I'm Cynthia Stewart and I live in mobilecommunity and I support ALL Mobile home parks in San Jose getting the mobile home designation in the General Plan Sent from my iPhone

Mobil home designation
1 message

George Van Buskirk Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 5:28 PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected], martha O'Connell

I support ALL Mobile home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

George Van Buskirk~

MH GP designation for all Parks
1 message

martha O'Connell Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 5:02 PM
To: martha O'Connell , JoAnn Hiebert ,
[email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District1 0 San Jose <District1 [email protected]>
My name is JoAnn Hiebert.

I live in , a low to moderate income Senior Park in D9
I am not very good at emails so I am asking Martha O'Connell to forward this to you all I support all mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting a Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

We need protection now. It has just been announced that a low income Park composed of mainly Hispanics in Redwood City is closing. San Jose must protect its Parks Thank you.

~~ .... , IE'::;I' \,;llrnal
MHP Designation
1 message
Lisa Bail
To:

Fri. Feb 14, 2020 at4:19 PM
I am a homeowner in and I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the MobilehomeDesignation in the General Plan.

Thank you,
Lisa Bail

Mobilehome Designation
2 messages

barbara labuszewski Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 6:44 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 @sanjoseca.gov" <District1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "District2@san joseca. gov" <[email protected]>, ''[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District6@sanjoseca .gov" <[email protected]>, "District? @san joseca.gov" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 [email protected]" <[email protected]>,
My name is Barbara Labuszewski, and I live in Mobile Home Park in San Jose. I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Barbara Labuszewski
barbara labuszewski Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 6:45PM
To: martha O'Connell
[Quoted text hidden]

Mobile homes
1 message

Caroline Thomas Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:49PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

My name is Caroline Thomas. I live in Mobile Home Park, and I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Thank you!
Caroline

Mobilehome Parks in San Jose
1 message

Michelle Vuong Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 12:12 AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], . District8@sanjoseca. gov, [email protected], District1 O@sanjoseca. gov,

My name is TRAM VUONG
I live in
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan, but ALL parks.

Thank you,
Tram

Mobilehome Designation

1.message

Ladies & Gentlemen:

My name is Janice E Ewers, and I live in the Mobilehome Commuity on Santa Teresa Blvd in San Jose.

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Sincerely,
Janie Ewers'
I've always felt that a person's intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic. -Abigail Adams
********************************************************************* If you forward this email, PLEASE REMOVE all email addresses BEFORE you send it on. Also, use BCC when addressing your outgoing message.

Consider our friends, protect their privacy, and say "NO" to spammers. · *********************************************************************

~~m~.fl ·~~:r~.;J_ ~i! - _y[
Mobile homes
1 message

Barbara Mcconnell Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:40PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

Cc: Martha
My name is barbara mcconnell and I live in mobile home I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

MH in GP - Laura Bryant
1 message

martha O'Connell Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:24 PM
To: martha O'Connell , LAURA BRYANT ,
[email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]>
Ms Bryant does not know how to send an email to multiple addresses so she asked me to forward this to you.

Laura Bryant

I support all Parks in San Jose getting the mobilehome designation in the General Plan.

~G .... ~ .. ~nr~n ·~=-J __ , 11 11 ~~
Support Mobile Home Parks
1 message

Marsha Hovey Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:16PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

Please support ALL mobile home parks in San Jose getting the Mobiiehome Designation in the General Pian.

Thank you!
Marsha Hovey

Fwd: Mobilehome Designation
1 message
Kenneth Snowden
To: martha O'Connell
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kenneth Snowden
Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:12PM
Subject: Mobilehome Designation
To: <[email protected]>
Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:13PM
I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose receiving the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Kenneth Snowden

Please support
1 message

Norma Brannon Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:08PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, District2@sanjoseca. gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected] We are Carl and Norma Brannon and we live at Mobile Home Park. A Senior Citizen Community. We support ALL Mobile Home parks in San Jose getting the Mobile Home Designation in the General Plan. We are asking that you support it too.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPad

Mobilehome Park designation for ALL PARKS!
Renee Ingold
To: Renee Ingold
Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:29 PM
My name is Renee' Ingold and I am a resident at Mobilehome Park in San Jose. My neighbors and I support that ALL Mobile home Parks in San Jose, not just Mountain Springs and Westwinds, get the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Thank you,
Renee' Ingold

MGmall
Re: Mobilehome Park Designation in the General Plan
1 message
Mathew Rabong Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 6:27AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Thank you,
Mathew Rabong
Project Manager

Waterproofing Associates Inc.
975 Terra Bella Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
www.roofwa.com

SJ mobile home Parks
2 messages
viet pham
To: [email protected]

Man, Feb 17,2020 at4:03 PM
Cc: Martha O'Connell
Hi Mayor,
I'm a resident of MHP. I would like to say" I support All Mobile home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan". I hope that you listen to and respond to the resident's aspirations in all mobilehome in this city.

Sincerely,
Viet Pham
martha O'Connell Mon, Feb 17,2020 at4:53 PM
To: Mayoremai/@sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, District5@sanjoseca:gov, [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]>, martha. O'Connell ·
Forwarding to you from this man
IOuoted text hidden]

~Gmail
Fwd: Mobilehome Park solution
1 message
Jim Garvey
To: martha O'Connell < >
Done?
-------- Forwarded Message -------
Subject:Mobilehome Park solution
Date:Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:41:49-0800
From:Jim Garvey
To: [email protected], District? @sanjoseca.gov
Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:42 PM
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose receiving Mobilehome designation in the General Plan.

James Garvey,

Designation for Mobile home Parks in San Jose
1 message
Michael Zaplitny Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:42PM
To: martha O'Connell >
Cc: District1 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected] I support ALL Mobile Home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobile Home Designation in the General Plan.

Thank you, Michael Zaplitny (

Fwd: I support the Mobilehome Park Designation in the General Plan 1 message
Ivan Erdos
To: martha O'Connell <
----------Forwarded message---------
From: Ivan Erdos >
Date: Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:39AM
Subject: I support the Mobilehome Park Designation in the General Plan Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:43PM
To: <[email protected]>, <District1 @sanjoseca.gov>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <District? @sanjoseca.gov>, < Districl8@sanjoseca. gov>, <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]> My name is Ivan Erdos and I live in the Mobile Home Park for 5 years.

I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Ivan Erdos

March 10 City Council Meeting vote on the new Mobilehome Park Designation ·
1 message
Marc Pupkin > Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:22 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "District1 @sanjoseca.gov" <District1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District? @sanjoseca.gov" <District? @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <District9@sanjoseca. gov>, "District1 [email protected]" <District1 [email protected]>, "

We are Ruth and Marc Pupkin, and we live in the
Mobile Home Community.

We support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not
just Mt. Springs and Westwinds, getting the new
Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

MGman
RE: Mobilehome Parks Designation
2 messages
>
Allen S. Nassau < Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 9:13AM
Reply-To: "Allen S. Nassau" >
To: "[email protected]" <mayoremail@sanjoseca. gov>, "District1 @sanjoseca. gov" <district1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "District2@san joseca. gov" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 [email protected]" <district1 [email protected]>,

HI
My name is Allen S. Nassau
I live in Mobile Home Park at
San Jose,
California
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose,
not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting
the new Mobilehome Park designation in the
General Plan.

Thank you,
Allen S. Nassau

Request for application of "Mobile Home" designation to be applied to my park
1 message
Marg Cimafranca > Thu, Feb 13,2020 at 1:54AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "district1 @sanjoseca.gov" <district1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <district2@sanjoseca. gov>, "district3@sanjoseca. gov" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <district5@sanjoseca. gov>, "district6@sanjoseca. gov" <district6@sanjoseca. gov>, "district? @sanjoseca.gov" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
My name is Margaret Cimafranca. I live in the
Mobile home park, located at
San Jose,
I am in support of both the Mountain Springs, and West
Winds parks receiving the new designation of "Mobile
Home" in the General Plan. However, I also feel it is
imperative that not only these two, but all Mobile Home parks in San Jose be included and also receive this same designation. As a mobile home resident, I fully support this.

~Gmail
Fwd: Request for application of "Mobile Home" designation to be applied to my park
i message
Marg Cimafranca Thu, Feb 13,2020 at 12:11 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> My name is Margaret Cimafranca. I live in the
Mobile home park, located at
.

I am in support of both the Mountain Springs, and
West Winds parks receiving the new designation of
"Mobile Home" in the General Plan. However, I also
feel it is imperative that not only these two, but all
Mobile Home parks in San Jose be included and also
receive this same designation. As a mobile home
resident, I fully support this.

Hello,
My name is Irina Kozachek. My husband - Aleksandr Kozachek and I are residents of asking that the City Council apply the new "Mobilehome Park designation" in the General Plan to ALL PARKS not just Westwinds and Mountain Springs.

We support ALL Mobile Home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Thank you,
Irina Kozachek
Aleksandr Kozachek

"I support ALL Mobile Home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.
2 messages
Gail Ayres <
Reply-To: Gail Ayres >
To:

Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:02 PM
martha O'Connell Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:38 PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <Distri<;:[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District1 0 San Jose <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell
Forwarding for this woman
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gail Ayres
Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:02 PM
Subject: "I support ALL Mobile Home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

To:

Re: Automatic reply: Support for all Mobile homes
1 message
Judy Lara Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 5:45PM
Reply-To: Judy Lara
To: District9 <[email protected]>
Cc: Marge Lundberg >, Saul ,

I and many .of my neighbors will be watching very closely how the council member votes at the March meeting
I know many many people who would expect the council members support on this vote and we will vote in the council members next November election accordingly Judy Lara
On February 19, 2020 at 12:13 PM District9 <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for contacting our office.

We will review your email and get back to you soon. Should this matter be urgent, please call our office at {408) 535-4909.

If you would like to submit a City service request, I encourage you to use My San Jose, our city's website and mobile app that provides you a quick and easy way to file and track city service requests or reach one of our customer representatives.

I invite you to connect, engage, and be informed by signing up for my e-newsletter, and following me on Facebook I Twitter I lnstagram to receive the latest information, updates, and events in District 9 and across the City of San Jose.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
Councilmember Pam Foley, District 9

~ G.··'5tm: , ~~·1 -~~~~:_:J ~- . -- -~it
Mobile Home Millpond
·1 message

John Krepick Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:17AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected], martha O'Connell

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan."
Thank you for helping your senior citizens ! !
Sincerely
John H. Krepick
Susan H. Hainilton

Support for all Mobile homes
1 message

Judy Lara Wed; Feb 19,2020 at 12:13 PM
Reply-To: Judy Lara
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District? @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected], h
I, Judy Lara, support ALL Mobile Home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan."

Supporting all San Jose mobile homes designation in the general plan 1 message
Debra Snyder Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:05AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], martha O'Connell "I Debra Snyder from mobile home park support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting tbe Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan." I am also sending this email for other residents of who do not have email Lana Wink-
Sharon Flanery-
Christine Velasquez -
Kind Regards,
Debra Snyder

Urgent -Mobile Home Park Zoning Designation
1 message
Kathi Peterson > Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 9:43AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 @sanjoseca.gov" <District1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "district3@sanjoseca. gov'' <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <District8@sanjoseca. gov>, "[email protected]" <District9@sanjoseca. gov>, "District1 [email protected]" <District1 [email protected]>, Martha. O'Connell , "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
I am a 72 year old resident of Mobile Home Park and am worried about the future of my home as well as all homes in mobile home parks in San Jose.

I urge you to change the zoning designation of all mobile home parks in San Jose to "Mobile Home Park" to protect our homes.

Kathi Peterson

Mobile Home Park Zoning Designation
2 messages
Kathi Peterson
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 2:49AM
am a senior resident of Mobile Home Park and am asking the City Council apply the new "Mobilehome Park designation" in the General Plan to Mountain Mountain Springs and Westwinds as soon as possible.

Also please consider applying this same designation to all San Jose Mobile Home Parks.

Kathi Peterson

martha O'Connell Sun, Feb 16,2020 at 6:10AM
To: District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell <[email protected]> [Quoted text hidden]

re-zoning mobilehome parks in San Jose
1 message
Marjorie Lundberg Sat, Feb 15,2020 at4:49 PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District? @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

Dear Mayor and Council members,
I support ALL Mobile home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan. I live in Mobile Home Park. The City Council has the ability to make our parks harder to develop with this re-zoning. Thank you for supporting this.

Marge Lundberg

Gm.··ca··· .. ~,, , ._ - -: . - I ---~ '- '-·' -- :_
"Mobilehome Park designation"
4 messages

SaulS Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:00PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 @sanjoseca.gov" <District1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "District2@sanjoseca. gov" < District2@san joseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]'' <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " " <
Cc: SaulS , Marge Lundberg
I am a resident of asking that the City Council apply the new "Mobilehome Park designation" in the General Plan to ALL PARKS not just Westwinds and Mt Springs.

Saul Srour
Marjorie Lundberg < Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 9:26 PM
To: Mayoremai/@sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

Cc: SaulS < >, Marge Lundberg
I am a resident of asking that the City Council apply the new "Mobilehome Park designation" in the General Plan to ALL PARKS not just Westwinds and Mountain Springs.

Marge Lundberg
martha O'Connell Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 6:14AM
To: District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <District1 [email protected]>, martha O'Connell
[Quoted text hidden]
martha O'Connell < > Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 6:15AM
To: District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell >,
[email protected]

change our land designation
1 message

Debbie Sayre < Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:22 PM
To: "Mayoremai/@sanjoseca.gov" <mayoremai/@sanjoseca.gov>, "District1 @sanjoseca.gov" <district1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 [email protected]" <district1 [email protected]>, "
I am a resident of asking that the City Council apply the new "Mobilehome Park designation" in the General Plan to ALL PARKS not just Westwinds and Mountain Springs.

Thank you, Debbie Sayre

RE: Save Mobile Home parks
1 message

Judi Garcia > Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:21 PM
To: [email protected], District1 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

I am a resident of, and highly support all mobile home parks in San Jose getting the Mobile Home Designation in the General Plan. Please continue to support affordable housing for all of us.

Thank yciu for your consideration.

Judi Garcia

Mobile Homes
1 message

Jan Chargin t> Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:22 AM
To: "Mayoremail@sanjoseca. gov" <mayoremai/@sanjoseca.gov>, "District1 @sanjoseca. gov" <district1 @san joseca.gov>, "District2 @sanjoseca.gov" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]'' <district9@san joseca.gov>, "District1 O@san joseca.gov" <district1 O@san joseca.gov>, >
I am a resident of .
"I support ALL Mobile home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan."
Jm1 Chargin

Mobilehome Park Designation
2 messages
Kelly & Charlene Carter
To:

Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 1:24 PM
I support ALL Mobile home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Kelly and Charlene Carter

martha O'Connell > Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 2:24 PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell < >
Forwarding to you all
[Quoted text hidden]

· .. Pepper Tree Petition - MH in General Plan for all
1 message
martha O'Connell Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 2:05 PM
To: "Esparza, Maya" <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell <[email protected]> Cc: Glenna Howcroft > ·
Maya,
I got a copy of the Pepper Tree petition that Glenna emailed to your district office. I wanted you to have a copy at your personal email. It is attached.

As the Councilperson with the most Parks in her district, I urge you to support the application of the Mobifehome Designation in the General Plan to all Parks. This could be done on a triage basis and not all at once.

Sam called for this in 2017 and it has been delayed and delayed. It was also called for in 2015.

The residents need clear and consistent support on this issue.

GSMOL joins with
-The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
-Affordable Housing Network
-Housing Commission, City of San Jose
-Planning Commission, City of San Jose
-Working Partnerships
-and others to come
I look forward to discussing this with you - hopefully on March 5.

Regards,
Martha
~ Pepper Tree petition .pdf
590K

copy of what I sent to all
1 message
Daniel Brennan
To:

Dear Sir,

Mon. Feb 24, 2020 at 10:46 AM
I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan. If there is any questions feel free to contact me at Thank you for any consideration you may afford.

Sincerely,
Dan Brennan
Resident of

~ G.··"".m· , ~:n t;I::{I . -... U
MH GP email campaign alert
1 message

Lyn <l Tue, Feb 11,2020 at 3:29PM
Reply-To: Lyn
To: "[email protected]'' <[email protected]> Cc: "District1 @sanjoseca.gov" <district1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, ''[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]'' <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District? @sanjoseca.gov" <district? @sanjoseca .gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 [email protected]" <district1 O@san joseca.gov> My name is Lyn Romano
I live in Mobilehome Park.

I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just
Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new
Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Thank you.

Re: MH GP email campaign alert
1 message
Lyn
Reply-To: Lyn
To: District4 <[email protected]>
Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 4:45 PM
Thanks for the response Lauren. I have lived in since 1996, and being a retired 'city employee' , if it weren't for my mobile home, I would not be here in the city I was born and raised in, I would not be able to afford it.

Its very important all mobilehome parks get this designation - its the last affordable housing here. I hope all council members take this seriously.

Again, thanks for your time.

Lyn
On Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 2:54:02 PM PST, District4 <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon Lyn,
Thanks for sharing this message with our office. I have shared your support for the Mobile Home Park Designation with Councilmember Diep for his consideration. We appreciate your advocacy and encourage you to continue such work in the future.

Please don't hesitate to reach out with any further questions or concerns.

All the best,
Lauren DeCarlo
Council Assistant
Office of Council member Lan Diep, District 4
City of San Jose 1200 East Santa Clara Street, Tower 181h fioor

Mobile home
2 messages
Sasan

Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:29 PM
I am a resident of asking that the City Council apply the new "Mobilehome Park designation" in the General Plan to ALL PARKS not just Westwinds and Mountain Springs.

Sasan shams
Sent from my iPhone
martha O'Connell Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 6:13AM
To: District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <District1 [email protected]>, martha O'Connell
[email protected]
[Quoted text hidden)

Mobilehome park designation
2 messages

Armando Velez Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at11: 16 PM
To: " >
i am a resident of asking that the City Council apply the new "Mobilehome Park designation" in the General Plan to ALL PARKS not just Westwinds and Mountain Springs.

My name Jose Armando Velez.

Sent from my iPhone
martha O'Connell < Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at6:12 AM
To: District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District1 0 San Jose <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell
[email protected]
[Quoted text hidden]

Fwd: Mobilehome Park solution
1 message

Jim Garvey Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 4:28PM
To: District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], · District1 O@san joseca.gov
Cc: martha O'Connell
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Mobilehome Park solution
Date:Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:41:49-0800
From:Jim Garvey
To:[email protected], [email protected]
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose receiving Mobilehome designation in the General Plan.

James Garvey,

Mobilehome Park Designation in the General Plan
1 message
Nancy Stevens > Wed, Feb 12,2020 at 10:10 PM
Reply-To: Nancy Stevens >
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 @sanjoseca.gov" <district1 @sanjoseca. gov>, "[email protected]" <district2@san joseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]'' <district4@san joseca.gov>, ''[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <district9@sanjoseca. gov>, "District1 [email protected]" <district1 [email protected]> Cc: Martha O'Connell >, Gary Smith
My name is Nancy Stevens
I live in the .

I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just
Mt Springs and Westwind's, getting the new
Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Thank you.

~Gm'-...... , li':c_l ... .c· ·. ; ltlil
We Support
1 message

Peter Hilton Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:39PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], Distric1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected] Our names is:
'
Peter R Hilton and Kenneth P Dura
we live at : San Jose, CA

we support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not
just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new
Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Cc:

[email protected]
District1 @sanjoseca.gov
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
District? @sanjoseca.gov

Mobilehome Parks in San Jose
1 message

Nancy L Wed, Feb 12,2020 at 12:18 PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, District2@sanjoseca. gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

Hi,
My name is Nancy Perry. I am a resident in and am very concerned about our future here. I purchased my home here about 7 years ago. I grew up in Palo Alto, I raised my two children in Mountain View, however due to the high rents, I finally moved to San Jose. I have been happy here and thought I would live the rest of my life here, but now I am worried. We need help to save our homes. We need a new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan to give us some protection.

All mobilehome parks should have this. Please help us.

Thank You

Mobile Home Designation
1 message

Nicole Decker Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:37PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

My name is Nicole and I am a resident . I support ALL
Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobile Home Designation in the General Plan.

Thank you,
Nicole

SJ mobile home parks!
1 message

Lisa Franklin Fri, Feb 21,2020 at 9:36AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected], martha O'Connell

I support ALL mobile home parks in San Jose getting the Mobile Home Designation in the General Plan.

I live at

Thank you for your attention,
Graciously,
Lisa Franklin
GSMOL member

Westwinds mobile home park
2 messages

My name is Carol Todd.

I live in .

Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:05AM
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan, but ALL parks. martha O'Connell Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:39AM
To: District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <District1 [email protected]>, martha O'Connell
Forwarding to you all
[Quoted text hidden]

Westwinds mobile home park
2 messages
Jack Todd

My name is Jack Todd
I live in

Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:02 PM
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan, but ALL parks. martha O'Connell Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 6:39AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District1 0 San Jose <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell
Forwarding to you
[Quoted text hidden}

RE: MH GP email campaign alert
1 message

Martin Nogueda Wed, Feb 12,2020 at 1:15PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 @sanjoseca.gov" <District1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "District2@sanjoseca. gov" <District2@sanjoseca. gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" • <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <District5@sanjoseca. gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Distric!9@san joseca .gov" <[email protected]>, "District1 [email protected]" <Dis!rict1 [email protected]>
Cc: martha O'Connell < >
My name is MARTIN ---NOGUEDA ______________ _
I live in _________ (fill in
the name of your park)
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just
Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new
Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Mayoremail@sanjo$eca.gov
District1 @sanjoseca.gov
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
District6@sanjoseca. gov

MH GP email campaign***Mobilehome Park Designation
1 message
William Peponis Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:31 AM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] My name is William Peponis
I live in
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just
Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new
Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

This measure would provide security for senior
citizens and low income families. Please vote to
approve this measure.

This email has been scanned by BuiiGuard antivirus protection.

For more info visit www.bullguard.com
This email has been scanned by BuiiGuard antivirus protection.

For more info visit www.bullguard.com

Mobile home
2 messages
Sasan

Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:29 PM
I am a resident of asking that the City Council apply the new "Mobilehome Park designation" in the General Plan to ALL PARKS not just Westwinds and Mountain Springs.

Sasan shams
Sent from my iPhone
martha O'Connell Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 6:13AM
To: District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell ,
[email protected]
[Quoted text hidden]

Mobilehome park designation
2 messages

Armando Velez > Sat, Feb 15,2020 at 11:16 PM

I am a resident of asking that the City Council apply the new "Mobilehome Park designation" in the General Plan to ALL PARKS not just Westwinds and Mountain Springs.

My name Jose Armando Velez.

Sent from my iPhone
martha O'Connell Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 6:12AM
To: District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <District1 [email protected]>, martha O'Connell ,
[email protected]
[Quoted text hidden]

MGmail
Fwd: Mobilehome Park solution
1 message

Jim Garvey Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 4:28PM
To: District1 @sanjoseca.gov, District2@sanjoseca. gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], · District1 [email protected]
Cc: martha O'Connell
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Mobilehome Park solution
Date:Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:41:49-0800
From:Jim Garvey
To:[email protected], [email protected]
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose receiving Mobilehome designation in the General Plan.

James Garvey,

MH for all Parks
1 message

martha O'Connell Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:18PM
To: Adela Corrales < , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <District1 [email protected]>, martha O'Connell
I am forwarding this email for this lady
My name is Adela Corrales. I live at .

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt. Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park Designation in the General Plan.

Mobilehome Park Designation
1 message

Thomas Crane > Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:49 PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

My name is Thomas A Crane. I live in . I support all Mobile Home Parks in San Jose, not just Mt.Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Mobilehome Park Designation
1 message

sandra crane > Man, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:30PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected], martha O'Connell

My name is Sandra Joy Crane. I live in . 1. support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

MHP Designation
1 message
Glenna Howcroft Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:52AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, District1 <district1 @sanjoseca.gov>, Councilmember Sergio Jimenez <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "district5@sanjoseca. gov" <[email protected]>, District 6 <[email protected]>, Maya Esparza <district? @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, District9 <[email protected]>, Johnny Khamis <[email protected]>, Martha O'Connell
My name is Glenna Howcroft.

I live at
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just
Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new
Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

(no subject)
1 message

[email protected] Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 7:15 PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

My name is Rafael lopez
I live in
(fill in the name of
your park)
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose,
not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the
new Mobilehome Park designation in the
General Plan.

My name is Debra Castro
I Jive in .

I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobile home Park designation in the General Plan.

Sincerely,
Debra Castro

Mobile Home equity
1 message

Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 7:23AM
I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Salle Hayden

Salle Hayden
Upstart Services

~Gmail
March 10 Meeting Mobilehome Park Designation in the General Plan 1 message ·
Meg Williams Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 5:06 PM
Reply-To: Meg Williams
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 @sanjoseca.gov" <District1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" "[email protected]" <District1 [email protected]>
My name is Margaret L. Williams and my husband is Charles L. Williams We live in
Both my husband and I are registered voters. We have lived at for close to two years now. We are senior citizens on fixed income. We support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt. Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,
Margaret L. Williams

Mobilehome Park Designation
1 message

Diane Matuzek > Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:47PM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

My name is Diane Matuzek and I live at the
in San Jose.

I support all Mobile Home Parks in San Jose, not just
Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobile
Home Park designation in the General Plan.

Thank you.

Mobliehome General Plan for All
1 message

Carlene Valenti Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:19PM
Reply-To: Carlene Valenti
To: [email protected], District1 @sa njoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected] Dear Mayor Liccardo and City Council Members,
My name is Carlene Valenti,
I live in The .

I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just
Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new
Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Support Mobile Home Owners
i message

Carmen Delio Buono Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:24 AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected], martha O'Connell

Hello.

My name is Carmen Joseph Delio Buono. I live
with my son and daughter in

We support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose- not just
Mt Springs and Westwinds - getting the new Mobilehome
Park designation in the General Plan!

Mobile Home. Parks
1 message

Donna Sanchez Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:50 AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected] Cc:

My name is Donna Sanchez
!live in
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Sent from Donna's iPhone

Fwd: MH GP email campaign
1 message

Joan Brose Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:12 AM
To: [email protected], District1 [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca. gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "[email protected]." <[email protected]> Cc:

My name is Joan Brose
I Jive in
I support all mobilehome parks in San Jose, not just Mt. Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation
in the General Plan.

Mobilehome Park Designation Plan
2 messages
Teresa C.- Nunez

Tue, Feb 11,2020 at 12:22 PM
To: martha O'Connell
My name is Teresa Chavez Nunez. Since 2003 I live in San Jose I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds.

I strongly support getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Very Sincerely,
Ms. Teresa Chavez Nunez
martha O'Connell Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:43 PM
To: [email protected], District10 San Jose <[email protected]>, [email protected], District? <District? @sanjoseca.gov>, District1 @san joseca. gov, District2@san joseca.gov, [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell

this woman sent this to me.
she wants the mayor and council to see it
[Quoted text hidden]

03/10/2020 Mobilehome Park Designation in the General Plan. 1 message
Dex Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:33 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "District1 @sanjoseca.gov" <District1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" < District2 @san joseca. gov>, "[email protected]'' <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <D istrict9@sanjoseca. gov>, "District1 [email protected]" <District1 [email protected]>,
My name is Dexter Goody
I live in
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

When voting on the New Mobile Home Park Designation in the General Plan 1 message
Karen Carpenter Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:19AM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], martha O'Connell My name is Karen Carpenter
I live in the
Community.

I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting
the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General
Plan not just Mt. Springs and Westwinds.
~Karen Carpenter

Mobilehome Park Zoning Designation
1 message
Mitchell Blank Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:18AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca. gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected], martha O'Connell

My name is Mitchell Blank
I live in
I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park desiguatiou in the General Plan.

Sincerely,
Mitchell Blank

Mobilehome Park Designation in the General Plan
1 message
Mathew Rabong Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:10AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

My name is Mathew Rabong.

I live in
I support ail Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Thank you,
Mathew Rabong

General plan
1 message

I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Best Regards
Xueyu Lu

MobileHome General Plan
1 message

Monte Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:15AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District1 [email protected],

I support all in San Jose,
not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the
new Mobilehome Park designation in the
General Plan.·
I am Armando Chavez. I live in .

We always vote.

Thank you!
Armando Chavez

Letter
1 message
Marilyn Veitenhei Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 4:50PM
To: "district1 @sanjoseca.gov" <district1 @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "district? @san joseca.gov" <district? @sanjoseca.gov>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Councilmember Pam Foley <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Martha O'Connell

My name is Marilyn Rios.

I live in .

I support all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds, getting the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan.

Petitions : Mobile Home Designation In General Plan
1 message
Glenna Howcroft Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 9:07PM
To: "[email protected]'' <[email protected]> Cc: District1 <[email protected]>, Councilmember Sergio Jimenez <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, District4 <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, District 6 <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, District9 <[email protected]>, Johnny Khamis <[email protected]>, Martha O'Connell >, Glenna Howcroft >
Attached are eight pages of a petition from Pepper Tree Mobile Home Park urging the City Council to vote to give all Mobile Home Parks a Mobile Home Park designation in the General Plan.

This action has been delayed twice since 2015.

Even though SB 50 recently failed, it is coming back and will continue to come back.

Mobile Home Parks near transit corridors need the protection of a Mobile Home Park designation in the General Plan. ·
We need protection now. This has been delayed long enough. f!l Designation Petition.pdf
.· 590K

.1"7
Petition
We, the undetsigned:residents ofPepper TJW.Bstates Moblle :liorne Parlr.lliiP.[lOrt the appll<lllti.on ofd:lenew Mobile Home Pmk ilesignalionin the Oeueral plan roAU patksin San1QW, Jiotjnst M~&W~ . . .
~Ngh! .
. .. ~
~tai. cJ d!Qulq sinh~ fiilbdfobilc HI»®~ T~ a&ig~'Dgift8n du'Oi mo/ UiJg ~diL "Galmd plu eo .AJI plllVIil 8u lose"(!/; triioh bi ttuc xuiltnlntbai kh.u M Springs &Westwinds • , t\ A-1~ ·c:>rt ~~~.. ,
IJUiA'-1-e., 1\-,.L
'/1/Nfi 4 .'t
::;~n-... (!)._,_
A-Iilllrtlr t:'!n<o~ ln
.DMk r0~ ,._u-:e"-' :A
f4·han 4-f,} 1:=
t( ~ lr->N' ~ -+-------t=;i.#.pif jr-t-~--f 5J1 ~tp Tm fJ 1 l
•

. PETITION
We, the undersigned residents of Pepper Tree Estates Mobifehome: Park , support the application of the new Mobilehome Park designation In the General Plan to ALL parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwlnds.

.. ....:

I -
.l_ /
·Petition
Wo, ll»nndmigoed:resi!brts oflepper'l'rce Bslates Mobile Homel"alt. lli'IJ,'IPOtt 11» applitalion .ofihe:newMoblle ~ ParkdesignatiortintheGene:ral plan to Ali }llllb in San Jose. not just Mt Springs & Westwinda .
· KilfNghj
Gh~t!\i. eJdldt~ sinh ~tpi khuMobileH'oole~Tree, ~)008 k.Yt&tm»f ~ Wg ~ dOO ~pJu to: AI. plll'bia Saa,Joee"o:;tridl bi tNc xuiitnhdhai khu Mt Springs & Westwinds . • ' ,
>;,"'In'""' ~tr=.J.,.;;;..;"...: -~-- 'II Sfj;JP' PA!!W..

Cue '""'· · ·~
.4. -t: r, JUl
-itt UP
k; hA I. Avn I {)0
1!SivVa If
:irt !D.£,;, lb.flr I F
., HJOl ?hrJ<>;'

•
1 /
Petition
We, the IJlllfemignedmddems ofi>eppllr Tree~ Mobile Home Padr. support the application of1hD new Mobile HQDll! l'm designation in 1he Gtmetalplan to .All }'l!ll'b in San Jose, Jlllljust MtSprinss& W~
. · Ki~Nglt! ,.
~tai,did&hd'ang s.inh~fjlildwMobileHome~Tree. ~~k§18nd00f&'t ung If dOO. "Gmonnl pia to Anparb ilt SaaZ010:"-at(trilnh bi ttooxuiit nlnt:lud klmMt Springs & Westwiuds ' '
P~>,._rr.s:-r- NAN~ ~~~J\\A'IJL>1" : ~ '0·
-= I?~ I
•lhtLJ. I ~ •/1.1.'
/(."/ (.£ " ;U
~ J, '
V :m, IP»>I. I 1
l • ~
f-.1 fl W-. (/b
1>...._. c.,_,. ' "' .1/~ N..,
'rArn'El ('r.JJ'ki //,, """'
.1 A'#'[

Petition
We, the undersigned ft<sidents of Pepper Tree Est!ltes Mobilt< :S:orot;< Park, \ltlpport the application of the new Mobile Hon~e P~trk designation in the General plan to All parks in San Jose, not just Mt Spr)ngs & Westwinds
Ki~Nghi " ~mfug tiii, cu dah dang sinh so;g t~i kh~t.Mobile Home P~.-eJ3l"er ~:ree, it~g )ong-k~ tSn doo{ dey ung ht\ Mn "~eneral plan to All parks 1n San. Jose"~ tranh ln true xu~ nhU liax khu Mt - . . Springs & Westl-vinds Name Space Phone ~~1 \._ ~:r~:,c~
7 tJ(i;{J'd&i! ~
1 -rur~ ~ em
--;;.? •.• ~ ;i;.. /

'1JL<.•'f!. Mtr.QJI-~ t- ~/
'
~; ril,nh:,}

~ .....
:s;,i. .. iJ.: tl .. -11
---
~--

77.w. 71-~ !
- - --
~
Ut. C. Tr--;;;;;r;; • '.
"-~
77/,,;/ .-"II ~~n 'lrlt
~.
-~--
J..:.~tll~t... l~ffp ____
,l\ ~~;If~~ ;: ~I 'U _I ----
I ri»..· \9-t' • • .-.~ .. !f -· -
(

~'h\A...,.r . I
4M . ;-*--'--=·
f
-......,......_ ____ ---1~"-t.:k" • q,. '&. \ I}
......,.-
f
' vi~ .. n ,_-;;f~\ M "'
•Trrt/ A. inn . ,,
l !< c """' T 1<1/0 ~"-
/0 11fl H1 V () 1111"-
,IMJ ,,. ·, A
L:V·"' •"' I r- :,a b
~ ?~,~~ ,-;.;
A lj f"i.J It: • 4 d
-,:;. ~~~AA-1-f'h .
r&,::;::""'-\j,-." , ... :-r "'""'~ . 1',
f?.,A.J.u (k.v-..,...,Yl "
~'I rr..n . .

L:-,' • A I U .-r ,: },_,, ~· r .
r.:;·r;:, l ~- + ..:;-. ~
I'~> ~1 . '"'-t- Ai/'"' ;....
.
' 'I
-~·
-

.I
/
Petition
We, the undersigned residents ofPepper Tree Estates Mobile Home Park, support the application of the new Mobile Home Park designation in the General plan to All parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs & WC~J.twbtds
. - I
. Ki~Ngh! . ..
~h~ tal, ell' dah dang sinh s()~ ~ khu Mobile Home P,_ep~ Tree, aa;;g Jo'ng kt t0n doof day ung h~ dli'n "General plan to AD parks ill San Jose"$ triuili bi f,ruC xuSt nhd hai khu Mt Spr.injss & Westwinds • ' .
,-~ t ~ It\ 1r()
7;16<,. LL ""
'/., ./~ Ufl.IL~
' ~------·---+--~--
1---------+----+-' r-·---+-------·----1-----+----!

/ Petltioa.

W#,11lo.....,....,."''lJ!IIkbilot~Ti11o~M'oWJDHome-.,lilllpliii(t1bciJI}lPIInatfm ottlllulriW MOWiolloalo Pm: ikr'g hin6&1 0: · •.P~m»Aift*bin S..Toe, notjult Mtllpiap. W.nriadl
~Ngh!
/ ~ # ;
CJ~q._afd6.4'q'lli!lh~1fiiba~liomo~Ttee,.aa;;,~~~difli4a;:
liDalfdiL "C,il ......... Aa )!IIIIIU .. s. .J'Me""flfiM w trtJc:ll:lllk :ohdhd 1W Mt ~A WCillWiuila . " • .

Petici6n
Nosob!oslos Resldentes •te P~JJI>er Tne Estates Mobile Home PAl'k, apl>yamos Ia appJieaclon deJa n~revo Mobile Home dmgwulos plangenel"al de tottos los parbenSan.Jose,no~Mt.SpringyWestwinds.

NAME SIGNATURE EMAIL PHONE f SPACE# .
fAr>~. · G.U' v
c.. kl1 .
t;;\ NR" !f,
{lt;i-1' \lO)\\
.;::. e..l>'-.& 0-\\!e.> •
/AI :~,f< niJ_,_
iffi < It v.J u'
L(l .4-t? ~ J.C,
· LnM '\/€)
t:"r..md--r«

t nA. ,· <:Y·~ • .?
.r.·-k~l ;'
1 i'CH Uhrt7C.1'1eJUY 1-.Y - - · ,
trt

MAll SIGNATURE EMAil. PHONE ~ACE#
MHJ,, nu LCUW .
. Uf.d.MI
11 "' "
'' II
4 ()
. \.

Petitions
1 message
Glenna Howcroft >
To: Maya Esparza <[email protected]>
Cc: Martha O'Connell
Maya,
Man, Feb 24, 2020 at 2:13PM
I sent this to the Dis! office last night but wanted you to get a personal copy.

Please vote to give MH in General Plan to all parks.

P.S. 3 more pages of petition just came in today.
2 attachments
., Designation Petition.pdf
~ 590K '
'1i!:] Designation Petition #2.pdf
240K

.r
Petition
•.

We, the undersigned residents of Pepper Tree Estates Mobile Home Par.k. support the appliCation of the new Mobile Home Park designation in the General plan to All parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs & Westwinds
ma:'Ngbi· ·
I / " . I
Chung tai, cJ rufu dang sinh oong 1J1.i khu Mobile Home P~ Tree, il(\~g JOiig kY teh du'Oi &'j UUg h~ dli'n "General phm to All parks in Sao Jose"cfettranh ~~ tr?C xu1it nhd hai khu Mt Springs & Westwinds · ·
----·- ----TI~:c=':"~~~-:=r=c:'=r=·-· =r=~==-'-----==;;;;~=r=R'F""""==r=:::::::::::- f---Lr"'-''< w:I'I~"-'·T _· ---'-"'-'-'1\+l"'""'t:.=-· --+-"_,_a·'~"'-'0--k fflv fi.t: c:,....,.,-< l _____ !~" J:t Phc.''" ··· __J"fL \.)\! \! U ,.
0or-{(-l I Nu J 'It:! IV

I .
., I
. /
Petition
We, the underSigned residents of Pepper Tree Estallls Mobile Home Park, support 1he application of the new Mobile Home Park designation in 1he General plan to AU parks in Swi1ose, not just Mt Springs & Westwinds
.. 1\i~ r. ••
1/ftMffi -IIM.On-ct
,_,R""-lJ'-~L1L4~n__.'it'-"'nlO~''=d&f(o}'-+--

··.t /
hJ LL, I b";, I )'; '
.:...r-fL t/J/1. I -r

MH - PG Millpond and Westwin
1 message

petition pages
martha O'Connell Tue, Feb 18,2020 at 6:58AM
To: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell
Some petition pages urging that all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose get the new Mobilehome designation in the General Plan.

NO MORE DELAYS
tJ Petition .pdf
952K

Millpond
We, the undersigned residents of Millpond Mobilehome Park, support the application of the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan to ALL parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds.

NAME
/Zule-~ (,AlleE I)Rn-f)
/f! ~ S /l)asvtUc
..J/f>lm,·e IJ#!01? -ul;'IGoN
/ft;Lt:.M STDN .C.ft UF-

SPACE NUMBER

(3 CJ t3 By Gf!v-f BVi4l)f2-R
I<'_ c__,;J1v ( U-~-v te. J3 a. ke_I'- I:Jfflavon1J~J] oAar/.enL-- taf"ft/'
~~ U:·ft*
C/IK.t s-1/'.V <:::E- 3 qc.Jc:.JI ""c056
/1c&ry --;Cui~
KQ/e s~w/e-r
\1 a..l e.-11 e..- 13 row VI
1/irl5o._ 1\.teli . i
e5-~-~t a.--r- K= /ce.-r-
l I Nl? k \-\:A-f,K'l s
C y I] +A I !9 5-f:r;2.cu oJ(.T
Qii:~ ,6 o () ~ ~ ·nz~
IJ f!1/(J.G(!J ;f!lr-;s:tr:~
7/lcr./5'/l ~/re t9"
, -s; 1.-\ rn rn (S' ,s

--- .j
I
-----+--··-
i
~------r-···-------- ------ ---- I
---- ~- ---- ---- - ____,
1 ---!--- - ~ ~- ----- -~-- --- ----- ---- -- -- ~
i -·-----, ---- --- --·-- --- . . --------------------------------- ----- ------j - -t ----------------
~---i_- _-__ --- --- ------ --~--- --- - - ------ I 1 ---------- -- ----- - ~--j .. - - --~ ... --- -----·-- --.-- - .. - -- ·-- ----- ---- ·- -- --------·-----· --·-----~- ... -- ----------- ; I --· ~==-r--= ---=----~ __ -_.-----
---~--------------- - --- -- -------~-------- --- - -· -- ----------------- ---j- --_ -------------
--~ ~-t=~-------~~-=----~---------- ------=-~-------~-------=---~ ~--_--~--=~--- 1 Millpond
We, ~he undersigned residents ofWestwinds Mobilehome Park, supportthe application of the new W
Mobile~ome Park designation in the General Plan to ALL parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and estwmds.

NAME
/}&11hY
J::ymrQ 2>(\'-1c4r ·
Ftjli~\ Ahb&\J .
l{o6ff2T LA w/)_eN Lc
/V.CVLi'--CU'---- lctv.~ (&v1lt_.
bcxlt£ G ooa '1
Bz.tlu'. k- ih~
1Jn~t£01 .1-LoL<£:7
;· I ' . l t.i- "' t·~u J, J,-. I .. ..;
--:tJ0~ ~()-vl--.
f\} cj' uk· A
1 b b c>")
'\::) \ 0... '0 ~e. w "'"'\-s;\ e....\ d
\
\.,. \1]1\l L
r-. ) )\•

SPACE NUMBER

~ G.~""';l lt':i'l ""~ ~ ~!.'iil!t
MH for All - CMM Park in D 9
1 message

martha O'Connell Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 9:20AM
To: martha O'Connell <homeownersforequity@gmail. com>
Cc: [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San . Jose <District1 [email protected]>
Attached are ten pages of a petition from Colonial Mobile · Manor Senior Park urging the City Council to vote to give all Mobilehome Parks a Mobilehome Home Park
designation in the General Plan.

We are more at risk now than we were in 2015 when this
action was delayed.

We are more at risk now than we were in 2017 when this
action was again delayed.

Colonial Mobile Manor, along with Mt Shadows, are 09
Parks near transit corridors. Even though SB 50 recently failed, it is coming back again and will continue to come back.

Mobilehome Parks·near transit corridors need the
protection of a Mobilehome Park designation in the
General Plan.

We need protection now. We have been waiting in the
back of the Housing bus for too long.
~ Colonial Mobile Manor Petition .pdf
3216K .

We, the undersigned residents of Colonial Mobile Manor, a low to moderate income Senior Park in 09, urge the City Council to vote to give all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose a MH designation in the General Plan. 'SPACE NAME
U/A'/f/V/71. ~ Mk
/..---/------_\ Jt~ t(~
O~cJ~v
·~f{~~ 7
-/f)v)1/l
fVL(/IMM
0 ~ w~~
fi/l J<-t! }Lt/~
rJ!;vvVf-0 Cfo-yu/l o
A~~
~vl!jpr
{::~ K f2oh-
. /OrJh {c<:fv (?;;fJlF4
fV2~-+ rO-cr--- N+ f~

We, the undersigned residents of Colonial Mobile Manor, a low to moderate i income Senior Park in 09, urge the City Council to vote to give all Mobilehomb Parks in San Jose a MH designation in the General Plan. ( ,-,

NAME SPACE
~~1--\Ao<S d, Dt.\Vt~
Jvi,~Jr;1~
/f5 ~
I
'
~aA/i
I
rj~ flr-CVvad-u
J4Jw ~~
~f~ d:? -
v2~?fc ~7
. '
. ~--· ~
;!LL/12__ctm
JA-1 1t t)z(_['1rl
// (@( e ( [/;/lew ~~ J
~~~
/Jr~~ . %1/;.m~
...

We, the undersigned residents of Colonial Manor Mobilehome Pari<, support the application of the new Mobilehome Park designation in the General Plan to ALL parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds.

NAME J/)..$/~ ~ ~
riJ/f&-1:?1 L-, LJ,~C-
Lilhd~ (;. ~Jccd'S
.c~1~~

SPACE NUMBER

We, the undersigned residents of Colonial Mobile Manor, a low to moderate income Senior Park in 09, urge the City Council to vote to give all Mobilehome Parks Jn San Jose a M H designation in the General Plan. ~0fi/~J:z&~
(\1\ eN~
~,.--------~~
•1.>"---.:t:::=r
SPACE

We, the undersigned residents of Colonial Mobile Manor, a low to moderate income Senior Park in D9, urge the City Council to vote to give all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose a MH designation in the General Plan.

NAME
f~ l \) ku\zo,c/
l)uV\~ J?hKh
T \+0 N 6r N G.-U 'jt:-N
1't \-\-A P \-+-A-N
~v -\WAY<t
. ~ Ci\J q-\-J\- J
U6N
j) v"-/-
8~'-'~~~ )JNY) (JAb
(\ ~ .
~- IV! It r
r~f\£iSCG I I 1-n
j;&r:J -!< he< rtJU ~ Cll-ft/1 AM!/:! 7
.--5~ Y/o""~
.l<~ #C1~
B..._/~
~)~,
SPACE
1 -;l

NAME SPACE
'

We, th~ undersigned residents of Colonial Mobile Manor, a low to moderate income Senior Park in D9, urge the City Council to vote to give all Mobilehome Parks in San Jose a MH designation in the General Plan. '
SPACE
\dA}Jclft-Vc/ \J)v(j-rvLAx:! '
X)!~ F>Ar<-A-0
w~u:::tv pJ1 fl_y'.u »t d/)1v
0 o/A G- '' -rw( [("
111 (;tjyrJ ·itt~
6§an/&w/wt
-
;

NAME SPACE

We, the undersigned residents of Colonial Manor Mobilehome Park, support the application of the new Mobile home Park designation in the General Plan to All parks in San Jose, not just Mt Springs and Westwinds.

NAME SPACE NUMBER
6AVUj ~(S
~ !Vli> 1 [;; __ ,tt(/-r$;:; .
rw-&1/~d;r)
1i;::~~Jv-~ ~JZ
fJ~;I~i{)~
. ~-~~~1+
~~. /:Jzk
it""!f~~~
__.._ ~41'/Vlf!~
l1·11~1W .
( )~, ~ ~ fJ) .~~ }--
~~~
~ tJiP

N'EXT PAGE NEXT PAGE
-"

·'

PT 3-3-20 Final Petition Pages
2 messages
Glenna Howcroft
To: Martha O'Connell
Cc: Glenna Howcroft <
Here are the final petition pages for Pepper Tree Estates 'li!j PT 3-3-20 Final Petition Pages.pdf
421K
Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 7:21 AM
martha O'Connell < Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 7:33AM
To: martha O'Connell >, "Taber, Toni" <[email protected]>, [email protected], District1 @sanjoseca.gov, [email protected], [email protected], District4 <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], District? <[email protected]>, [email protected], District9 <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]>, "Esparza, Maya" <[email protected]> Forwarding six more pages of a petition from Pepper Tree, 09. Subject : MH designation in the GP for all Parks in San Jose.
for item 10.2 council meeting 3-10-20
[Quoted text hidden]
'lZ:l PT 3-3-20 Final Petition Pages. pdf
- 421K

.1/
l<twi hlra, o~
\JictYIC! •r'Jrl\ipJ_{Ct
\u'ltifVI {),.;/ocio<
--rr=>.A- A } 74}

.. .

Nltla
w._.,. 1r ,..,,..,.....,.of~Thi&BallaliDWllllbler.t.ii4PJ.*ttllotft11"!!!1W .. ofdltiii:IWIIOWJellciMPalk a, 1a1 rs. .. a&to..:.a.-toADpalbkS.J'olo.:nut.fult · Mt&pfl,.&Weiii.Wiaia
..4NPj .
~ .......... ~fjiifa~Boale~-n..~~if·'*"flf
\i!J.lfA"'G ..... ..,AJl .... IIIIS..,iitflilihljtn:~!!XIIIltJIIII\Wtdlu:r.ft l\Wfi-& W'OiillWW!I •
PeficiOn
NO!IlOboo$lo8Jiesldentes de Pepper'l'rre Estates Mobile Home Park. apoyamllS laappHcadondelan~MlwMoblle llome~phul~ detod~~Slos
)Mil'ks $San Jose. no so)4) Mt. Slft'lu«y Westwlnds.

NAME /SIGNATURE
/ ,,
If< f iJWJ~ 0J-J !
-rr JJ £1-1 1 t~-
.l , Ft-1 LP
·-rrE._u m 'A
~ ..-.-,·1-/:b.-N ,J.Ju'!.-
Q '
EMAIL PHONE SPACE#
If
, ..
..

Petitioa
We, lh& """"ralll""" ftllldcrD ofFe.!Jpct Thiel Hsillleil Mobllct H'ooJe I'Jat. ~ lh& IJ'.P'!Cidim oflh&now!rfoll& Hoole Padt cbianatinninlh&Gcii:IMdplantoAU pmbin Sanbo, not,iult MtSpdnp~W.-wfnck I
· Ki'NJJh!
/ ~ • I
~·al~&ugllimi&afJi&MobiloHM!o~Tmc.a&il~kf~dOOi~·
~~dill. ......... ,.. ........... ~as..IW'~ftillhbi trocxuitmmMi kW Mt Sprb!,p & WCIItwiucJa • , . l)eti<--ion
Nosoil'os los Residentes de Pepper'~ Estates Mobile Home Pal'k. npoylllUos lu Rllplieacion de ll!t nuevo Moblle Home tlesign#dos p.lnn geneTal de todos los }Jnrb en San Jose, no solo .Mt. Springy Westw.lntls,
NAME SIGNATURE EMAIL PHONE SPACE#
..

•
.I /
Petition
Wo, the ~n:sidents ofPepper T~ Estate$ Mobile Home Pad'. support the application of the new Mobile Home Park designation in the General plan to All patb in San Jose, not just MtSprlngs&W~ . . I ,
Ki'Nghj . .

Ch~ ~ell dJ!t dang sinh~ la!i kbnMobile Home P~Tree, ~Ions 1lY tBn ddb( aalr Jus ~dM "Gamaa pip ro All parb m Slut JO!Hl"~1rimh bi ttuc xuit~dllai khu Mt Springs & Westwinds . • '
boy·~~~:;({ N ,,t . p U11 AI 6f-
--~····~ ..
"
-·~:~1
I~. v a_ r
¥itiF~~lt~
}\(k 0Y1ZAA~ff1?--S: t>:l 0 ~
r ,0'/ w U.~H'V'<16f
~!fi~d{IJ~~1~
~~~~~--+--
f ~ .. J.7
~~~
, ~~~-9;i<it/i. >'.ut..JI"""' A JWIAA,·
f\'~ci5J.
~~·
l

I
Petition
We,tflc~res.idelltl!ofl'epperTn:e~Mobill:lllolncPad;,supportthcappllcation of the new ;Mobile Home Park Mt.ignaficninlheGmual plan 1o AU pmb in San Jose, not just Mt Springs&; Westwinds
· . Ki'Ngb! .
~ti\i. ctfdlfudang sinh~fj!ikhuMobilcl~~Tree.~~ltfl&I!OOi'~ .Q'ng~ 11M "Gaaer.al pluto All parb ill s..~-"atttanh hi true xuSt nhdhai khuMt Sprln&s& We.<d:windl! • •
l)eti<~iou
.Xosotl'os l~s llt>sidl'nte.~ dt> Pl'Jl}ll'l' 'ri.<t•t> Estntl'S Mobill' ilonw Park, n}wytunos Ia nJ•JJli<'nf'iou dt> la uut>vo ;\fobilt> Uouw dt•si;QUtdos 11lnn 1/:l'IU'l'ru dt> todos los }larks <'ll ~an Josl', no solo Mt. S}ll'inJI; y \Y..-.stwinds.

NAME -- SiGNATURE EMAil PHONE
Ll~\£-.1..<
(11\\-!-~1'
·1 flO.!· 11 { d •
-<VA Q ,_.q ~AlA

1..--l·f'-1 Lukul
lc.-.11>" CI~C/.k/, L
Fv~'j}J? 1.);,
!ft.LJi'd I: ;:;,_en

77.,. rL, M ~ t10" ..
. ·i I •
.. ., • .,
\- • • ~t. . .t: I . "
i
j~4" i.ly
F~~- '"'Y'-·'V\f ~ft.
r.L .rl•nn~
1-\0/1.1\ H4 vf1.!
e.fl.rrt a£;· we
IQw'(
"17/li lt·
•tt t1MI a:.

TH-EN I r:
l---1 uo,;& fJG·U'ff(IJ
rH NG-t\'fGI~
tJ-;)1\if-,.--J.. \(.!NFI l\
• I /Jh,.j hi?. -
_::t:1.1.~ K- \'l LC
-; o:t"' l>h It•· --14-
LC\ Dh.A,,
Til( ...iJ_i\v'
"lYA+l·\;t\-J~\1 ,,,_
J,.dJ'- t-1 I e . .\ 1-1 .

1-------e.---------1---_;_------1----------l----1

From: Sandy Perry
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2020 3:50 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County

Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara
County

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,

The Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County strongly supports the adoption of a “mobile home park designation” to cover ALL mobile home parks in San Jose. After years of anxiety and stress about park closures and displacement, mobile home park residents need the peace of mind that a special designation would provide. It would send a signal to mobile home park residents that City Council has heard their cries and is prepared to defend them in their hour of need.

The city is already in the midst of a serious displacement crisis, and the numerous planned commercial development projects are expected to make it considerably worse.

Now is the time for City Council to take action to demonstrate its commitment to protecting some of its residents most at risk of displacement. On March 10, please listen to the testimony of the mobilhome residents and grant them the protections that they are asking for.

Sincerely,

Sandy Perry, President
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County

From: John C
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 8:15 AM
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Mobil Home Parks

We need to have all Parks In the Zoneing
John Croll

[External Email]
From: Irina Kozachek
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 11:29 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Agendadesk <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: We support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Hello,

My name is Irina Kozachek. My husband - Aleksandr Kozachek and I are residents of Mountain Springs asking that the City Council apply the new “Mobilehome Park designation” in the General Plan to ALL PARKS not just Westwinds and Mountain Springs.

We support ALL Mobile Home Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Thank you,

Irina Kozachek
Aleksandr Kozachek

[External Email]
From: Shelley Macallister
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 11:58 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Agendadesk <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

MOUNTAIN SPRINGS PARK

SHELLEY MACALLISTER

“I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan."
Shelley MacAllister

From: Ori M-S
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 12:05 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Agendadesk <[email protected]>; Marge Lundberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Mobile home designation to San Jose mobilehome parks

Dear Council Member,

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

I'd appreciate if you work with Martha O’Connell and vote YES on this measure, which is item 10.2 on the March 10th agenda.

Thanks you very much!

Ori and Barbara Mizrahi-Shalom
Mountain Springs Mobilehome Park

[External Email]
From: SANDY
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 3:09 PM
To: Martha O'Connell ; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; Agendadesk
Subject: MOBILE HOME DESIGNATION

Sandra Barrett
Mill Pond Mobile Home Community

I support All Mobile home parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan

[External Email]
From: van pham
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 3:22 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; martha O'Connell ; Agendadesk Subject: Extend GENENRAL PLAN to ALL MOBLE HOME PARTK IN SANJOSE

Hi Madam and Sir,

I am Van Pham. I am living in San Jose Verde Park at 555 Umbarger Rd, San Jose, CA 95111

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Please support us. Thank you very much

Sincerely,
Van

From: Tracey Patrick
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 3:57 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; Martha O'Connell ; Agendadesk Subject: Mobilehome designation

To whom it may concern,

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Tracey Patrick

[External Email]
From: Donna Sanchez
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 4:23 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Agendadesk Subject: Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

my name is Donna Sanchez and I live at Quail Hollow Mobile Home Park. I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Sent from Donna's iPhone

[External Email]
From: Armando Velez
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 4:43 PM
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Mobilehome Parks

[External Email]

Hi! My name is Jose Armando Velez from Mountain Springs Park and I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan

Sent from my iPhone

From: M Sullivan
Date: Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 1:55 PM
Subject: mobile home designation for all parks
To: Mayor <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Please vote in favor of all designating all parks as mobile home land use Thank you,
Rev. and Mrs. Matthew Sullivan

From: Armando Velez
Date: Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 4:43 PM
Subject: Mobilehome Parks
To: <homeownersforequity

Hi! My name is Jose Armando Velez from Mountain Springs Park and I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan

Sent from my iPhone

From: martha O'Connell
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 10:41 AM
To: martha O'Connell ; Agendadesk ; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]> Subject: Item 10.2 Bella Rosa, Foothills, Summerset

Bella Rosa, Foothills, and Summerset at risk?
Bella Rosa D5
Foothills D 5
Summerset D4
On 6-13-19 the Housing Commission (HCDC) considered a report on “Tenant preference to prevent displacement.” Housing Director Morales-Ferrand wrote on page 6 that the “Housing Department staff identified 21 tracts that both are experiencing ‘on-going’ displacement…and that are located in areas where resident growth is expected to occur.”
On page 8 of that same letter it was written, “In response to a question from the HCDC, staff analyzed how many mobilehome parks have residents who may be eligible for this (displacement) preference as proposed. Staff found that residents in three of the City’s 59 (sic, 58) mobilehome parks are located in eligible census tracts…The three parks are Bella Rosa, Foothills, and Summerset.”
So – staff has already done the work to identify three more Parks.

Give those three Parks , and all Parks, the MH designation in the General Plan. Prevent displacement.

From: Sasan
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 12:08 PM
To: Agendadesk; Marjorie Lundberg; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]> Subject: Mobilehome

I Sara shams, live in Mountain Springs Mobilehome community support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan."

Thank you and please help us to save our homes

Sara Shams

From: Patty Shook
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 12:27 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; homeownersforequity; Agendadesk Cc: Patty Shook
Subject: All Mobilehome Parks in San Jose

Lamplighter Mobile Home Park
Dorothy Arndt (Senior Citizen)
Patty Shook (niece & caregiver)

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan."

From: Michael Patterson
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 6:05 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; homeownersforequity; Agendadesk Subject: ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Sincerely,

Michael Patterson & Thomas Davis

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: GARY SMITH
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 7:27 PM
Subject: Mobilehome Designation/General Plan
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <homeownersforequity>

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Gary Smith

From: Nadine Sabanovich
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 9:48 AM
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Mobilehomes

I Nadine Sabanovich live at Villa Teresa MHP.

I support All mobile home parks in San Jose getting the mobile home designation in the general plan.

From: xoxomona
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 10:37 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; Agendadesk
Cc: homeownersforequity
Subject: “Mobilehome” designation in the General Plan

My name is Mona Soldier Boy. I live at Peppertree Mobile Home Estates Spc 24 and I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

From: Bonnie Dalton
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 11:18 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; martha O'Connell ; Agendadesk Subject: Mobilehome Parks Designation in the General Plan In San Jose

“I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan."

Bonnie Dalton

From: mars
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 12:51 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; homeownersforequity; Agendadesk Subject: Please include the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan!!!

We support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Sincerely,

Marnie Regen and Chris Erlinger

From: Lorraine Gilmore
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 4:48 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; homeownersforequity; Agendadesk Subject: Mobile Home General Plan Designation

Dear Mayor Liccardo and honorable council members:

As you no doubt know, housing prices in the Bay Area are astronomical, and far, far out of the reach of a very large number of residents, some of whom have called San Jose home for decades. Mobile home parks are the last bastion of relatively affordable housing in the area, and if even one is eliminated, it would be absolutely devastating to so many of us who love the city but would be so quickly displaced by that sort of action.

For this and so many other reasons, I wholeheartedly support ALL mobile home parks in San Jose getting the Mobile Home Designation in the General Plan.

Lorraine Gilmore

March 9, 2020

San José City Council
San José City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113

Re: Agenda Item 10.2, GPT19-003/GP19-005/GP19-006

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:

The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley writes in strong support of the memos by Councilmembers Jimenez, Peralez, Esparaza, and Foley to not only protect Westwinds and Mountain Springs mobile home park, but to protect all mobile home parks through changing the mobile home designation for all Parks in San Jose. Additionally, we strongly support the memo’s direction to prioritize mobile homes as part of the City’s anti-displacement plan.

For years, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley has been advocating for that City take the strongest and most protective steps to protect the over 35,000 residents who live in mobile homes (see attached letters.) While we applaud the efforts and work to change the general plan designation for Westwinds and Mountain Springs Mobile Home Parks, these are not the only parks at risk of redevelopment. Mobile home parks throughout San Jose are at risk of closure, and the over 35,000 residents are at risk of displacement, and over 10,000 units of naturally occurring affordable housing disappear.

While we acknowledge the burdens on staff, these concerns must be outweighed by the very serious consequences to San Jose. Let us not wait until yet again another park is at risk of closure before City Council must again weigh taking another further action to protect a certain Park. Let us take the most protective steps to protect all mobile home parks now.

Sincerely,

Nadia Aziz,
Directing Attorney

Fair Housing Law Project
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San José, California 95112
Fax (408) 293-0106 • Telephone (408) 280-2435 • TDD (408) 294-5667

By Electronic Mail

March 8, 2018

San José City Council
San José City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113

Re: City Council Meeting, March 13, 2018
Opt-In/Stay-in-Business Proposal (Item 4.1) and Proposed General Plan Land Use Overlays and Amendments (Item 10.3)

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members:

The Law Foundation appreciates this opportunity to provide input on the Mobilehome Opt-In/Stay-In-Business proposal and proposed General Plan land use overlays and amendments.

Following is a summary of the actions that we ask the City Council to take at Tuesday’s Council meeting:

I. Opt-in/Stay-in-Business Proposal - Direct staff to cease working on it.

II. Land Use General Plan Designation –Direct staff to immediately begin the following now, since mobilehome preservation is currently prioritized:
a. Create a General Plan Mobilehome Park designation that is exclusively reserved for mobilehome park use;
b. Engage in the necessary analysis and evaluation and apply this mobilehome park designation to vulnerable parks, including at the two identified in staff’s March 2, 2018, memo; and
c. Track their time and costs and analyze how to streamline their processes for future applications of this land use designation.

III. General Plan Text Revisions – Direct staff to bring minor revisions to the following four planning and housing policies (as underlined on pages 5 and 6 of this letter) before the next General Plan hearing cycle for the Council’s consideration:
a. Urban Village Planning Policy IP- 5;
b. Urban Village Planning Policy IP-5.2;
c. Housing – Social Equity and Diversity Policy H-1.3; and d. Housing – Social Equity and Diversity Policy H-1.9.

These recommendations are discussed in more detail below.

Letter to San José City Council
Re: City Council Meeting, March 13, 2018
Opt-In/Stay-in-Business Proposal (Item 4.1) and Proposed General Plan Land Use Overlays and Amendments (Item 10.3)
March 8, 2018

Page 2 ends

I. Opt-In/Stay-in-Business Proposal (Item 4.1)

We urge the Council to follow the Housing and Community Development Commission’s (HCDC)’s recommendations1 that the Council direct staff to cease working on the Opt-In/Stay-in-Business proposal (Opt-In Proposal). Over the last two-plus years, based on Council direction, staff has engaged the public through various meetings, met with panels of park and mobilehome owner stakeholders, and worked to improve the proposal. Staff has diligently carried out these duties, and, in the process, expended significant resources.

Despite their years of effort, staff has been unable to make the Opt-In Proposal a workable solution for park owners or park residents. For example, after years of work, the Opt- In Proposal does not reconcile conflicts that its adoption would create with the City’s other existing ordinances, like the City’s Mobilehome Park Conversion to Resident Ownership or to any Other Use Ordinance (Conversion Ordinance). All park conversions, including a slow one under the Opt-In Proposal, must be processed through the Conversion Ordinance. Through the Conversion Ordinance, the City evaluates the mitigation measures proposed to address adverse impacts that such a project creates. Here, no mitigation measures have been proposed to address the significant loss in equity residents will suffer when they cannot sell their homes in a park that is slowing converting. If, after two-plus years of analysis, we have been unable to propose a solution to this significant but basic issue, we must come to the conclusion that the Opt-In Proposal is unworkable and does not align with our exiting mobilehome-related ordinances. As such, we urge the Council to direct staff to cease working on the Opt-In Proposal.

II. Proposed General Plan Land Use Overlays and Amendments (Item 10.3)

We urge Council to direct staff to immediately begin the following activities, since mobilehome preservation is currently prioritized:

a) Create a General Plan land use designation that is exclusively reserved for mobilehome parks;
b) Engage in the necessary analysis and evaluation and apply this mobilehome park designation to vulnerable parks, including at the two identified in staff’s March 2, 2018, memo, and
c) Track their time and costs and analyze how to streamline their processes for future applications of this land use designation.

San José relies on a patchwork of General Plan land use designations, like lower density and higher density residential, industrial, and commercial uses, to discourage the conversion of mobilehome parks to other uses. Creating and applying a General Plan Mobilehome Park land use designation will provide our community with important tools to help preserve parks and

1 We are informed and believe that HCDC has, on at least three occasions, recommended that the Council direct staff to cease working on the Opt-In Proposal.

Page 3 ends

prevent displacement of low-income and senior mobilehome park residents and will not be an insurmountable bar for developers. Cost, which includes staff time, is described as a major barrier to taking the requested actions. But, these costs are minimal as compared to the costs that park closures and losing low-income families and seniors from San José will create. Therefore, we must act now, and, for all of the following reasons, urge the Council to do so.

San José’s General Plan must include a land use designation that is exclusively reserved for mobilehome parks so that it is clear that our mobilehome parks and park residents are part of our City’s future. San José’s General Plan is the City’s vision and road map for continued growth through 2040. (Envision San José 2040, General Plan, Adopted November 1, 2011, p. 2.) Allowable future uses on mobilehome parks are defined by their General Plan land use designation as well as their applicable zoning districts. 2 (Memorandum
from Rosalynn Hughey to the Honorable Mayor and Council, Analysis of Proposed General Plan Land Use Overlay Amendments for Mobilehome Parks, March 2, 2018, p. 6.) If our City’s vision and road map do not include a General Plan land use designation that is specific to mobilehome parks, then we invite park owners and developers to envision a different future for them. Daily, our local newspaper describes development projects that are changing our City. Over time, this development pressure will magnify and impact our mobilehome parks.

We must be clear, and not depend on other land use designations, to preserve our mobilehome parks. We must signal that we intend to preserve our parks by creating and applying a General Plan land use designation that is exclusively reserved for mobilehome parks.

The Council should direct staff to conduct this General Plan land use designation work, now, instead of referring it to a future Priority Setting Session, since mobilehome preservation work was already prioritized by the Council. The Council prioritized mobilehome preservation work in 2015, and it subsequently adopted a moratorium to allow staff and our community to explore strategies to preserve our parks. During the course of the moratorium, some important work was accomplished, and we are grateful to the Council and staff for it. But, the Council also approved study of proposals that did not contribute to mobilehome preservation, and this work consumed significant amounts of precious time during the moratorium.
3 The moratorium has expired, and we cannot depend on the adoption of another to preserve our parks. Staff’s March 2, 2018, memo to Council acknowledges that City- initiated General Plan amendments to change the land use designations of mobilehome parks could strengthen the protection of mobilehome park residents by creating an

2 Since 2014, the Law Foundation has urged the City to zone all mobilehome parks as R-MH to reserve parks for mobilehome uses. The Law Foundation continues to advocate for use and application of this zoning at all parks, since some parks have other types of zoning. The Council did not direct staff to conduct this work. As such, apart from this footnote, we do not address this issue in the body of our letter and focus on requesting that the City adopt and apply a General Plan Mobilehome Park land use designation. 3 For example, the Council authorized study of the Opt-In Proposal, which utilized significant amounts of staff time and resources, which did nothing to preserve parks. Similarly, the Council authorized and directed staff to develop a mobilehome closure ordinance, which also did nothing to preserve our parks. Both of these proposals were authorized and consumer valuable time during the moratorium.

Page 4 ends

additional land use entitlement process to redevelop the sites. (Id., p. 11.) As such, we urge Council to direct staff to conduct this work now, and not while we are scrambling to prevent the conversion of a park that is home to thousands of people.

The Council should direct staff to engage in the necessary analysis and evaluation and apply this General Plan land use designation to vulnerable parks, including the two that staff identified in their March 2, 2018, memo. The two mobilehome parks identified by staff, one in Council District 4 and the other in Council District 7, contain 867 homes. Creating and applying a General Plan Mobilehome Park land use designation to these parks could help the City or mobilehome park residents’ associations preserve them. A park’s General Plan land use designation is a key factor in estimating its value. A General Plan land use designation that specifies a higher future density use than its existing mobilehome park use will make the cost to purchase and preserve the park prohibitively high. Specifying that the park’s General Plan land use designation is restricted to mobilehome park use may help the community preserve the park, since its valuation will be in line with what its existing use is. As such, the City should direct staff to engage in work, now, to help preserve vulnerable parks, including the two that staff identified.

If the Council directs staff to engage in this General Plan land use designation work, the Council should also direct staff to track their time and costs and analyze how to streamline their processes for future applications of this land use designation. We appreciate staff’s analyses and identification of two vulnerable parks in our City. But, San José has more than two parks that are vulnerable to conversion pressures. If directed to track their time and costs and conduct analyses, this could help San José understand how we can streamline Planning’s processes in the event that we apply this mobilehome designation in the future. As such, we urge the Council to direct staff to track their time and costs and analyze how to streamline their processes for future application.

b. Incorporate the Law Foundation’s General Plan Text Amendment Recommendations into the General Plan

We also urge the Council to direct staff to bring four minor revisions to the General Plan text that the Law Foundation requested for their consideration at the next General Plan hearing cycle. Although the Law Foundation continues to urge support all of the text amendments we identified in our May 11, 2017, letter to Council, staff has identified three minor amendments to existing General Plan text they would be willing to support and bring before Council for possible incorporation at a future General Plan hearing. These three minor changes would be to the following policies: Urban Village Planning Policy IP-5.2, Housing – Social Equity and Diversity Policy H-1.3, and Housing – Social Equity and Diversity Policy H-1.9.

Although staff did not support our recommended amendment for Urban Village Planning Goal IP-5, we ask that the Council direct staff to also bring this amendment to Council for their consideration at a future General Plan hearing.

Page 5 ends

Urban Village Planning goal IP-5 expresses a goal of enhancing established neighborhoods. Although staff did not support bringing this minor change forward, we recommend it to make clear that mobilehome parks and residents are long-standing parts of neighborhoods that are in Urban Villages. All four of our recommended text amendments, including IP-5, set out to make clear that people who rent mobilehome space and housing units, tenants, are valued neighborhood members and who should not be displaced.

Certain Urban Villages have benefitted from active mobilehome park residents, particularly when language and disability were not barriers for them and who worked to ensure that their voices and preferences were heard. San José’s Council District 5 has an urban village, and within it a senior mobilehome park where 108 senior households live. In all of the meetings the Law Foundation has attended related to mobilehome preservation, we have never encountered any residents from this mobilehome park. We are concerned that they, like the 216 tenant households at The Reserve Apartments, will not be aware or have the ability, due to language barrier or disability, to participate in future Urban Village planning processes where their rights and park’s future will be impacted. Our General Plan planning goals should make it clear that for the remaining Urban Villages that established neighborhoods include and value mobilehome parks and the people who live there. As such, we urge the Council to direct staff to bring the four minor amendments, which includes Urban Village Planning Policy IP-5, to the General Plan text (as underlined below) to the next General Plan hearing cycle:

Urban Village Planning Policy IP- 5
Use new proposals for residential, mixed use, or employment development to help create walkable, bicycle-, and transit-friendly “Urban Villages” (also referred to as “Villages” within the Envision General Plan) at stra tegic locations throughout the City, and to enhance established neighborhoods, including existing mobilehome parks. In new Village development, integrate a mix of uses incl uding retail shops, services, employment opportunities, public facilitates and services, housing, places of worship, and other cultural facilities, parks and public gathering places.

Urban Village Planning Policy IP-5.2
Develop and use an Urban Village Planning pr ocess so that each Urban Village Plan can be successfully completed within an approxi mately nine month planning period, followed by completion of environmental review as re quired for adoption of the Plan. Engage Urban Village area property owners and resident s to the fullest extent possible, along with representatives of adjacent neighborhood areas, potential developers and other stakeholders in the Urban Village Planning process.

Housing – Social Equity and Diversity Policy H-1.3
Create, preserve, and rehabilitate housing opportunities and accessible living environments that allow seniors to age in pla ce, either in the same home, assisted living facilities, continuing care facilities, or other housing types within the same community.

Page 6 ends

Housing – Social Equity and Diversity Policy H-1.9
Facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing to meet San José’s fair share of the County’s and region’s housing needs.

Thank you for considering the Law Foundation’s comments. We welcome the opportunity to discuss our letter with members of the Council. I may be reached at [email protected] and 408-280-2448.

Sincerely,

Diana Castillo
Senior Attorney

Fair Housing Law Project
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San José, California 95112
Fax (408) 293-0106 • Telephone (408) 280-2435 • TDD (408) 294-5667

May 11, 2017

Via Electronic Mail

San José City Council
San José City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113

Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection and Closure Ordinance

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members:

The Law Foundation appreciates this opportunity to comment on staff’s recommendations regarding Mobilehome Park Protection and the Closure Ordinance. Although we appreciate staff’s work, their proposed land use policy changes do not go far enough to protect mobilehome park residents and preserve mobilehome parks. We have included recommendations, below, which will help preserve San José’s mobilehome parks and protect residents. San José’s land use policies must be strengthened particularly in light of Council’s upcoming consideration of the Mobilehome Park Closure Projects Ordinance that, unless rejected or substantially amended as we recommend, will threaten to facilitate the displacement of thousands of residents and destruction of thousands of naturally affordable and rent-stabilized homes from San José’s housing stock.

The Law Foundation urges the Council to:

1. Reject the unnecessary proposed Closure Ordinance;

2. If the proposed Closure Ordinance is not rejected entirely, amend it to address crucial flaws;

3. Amend the General Plan text amendments proposed by staff as we have recommended;

4. Uniformly zone all mobilehome parks throughout the City; and

5. Amend the Council Policy to further the intent of and clarify the Conversion Ordinance.

Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 2 ends

Policy Recommendations

1. Reject the Proposed Closure Ordinance.

Although San José originally prioritized study and adoption of policies that would preserve mobilehome parks and protect residents, if adopted, the proposed Closure Ordinance will undermine this duty because it will facilitate the displacement of mobilehome park residents and destruction of affordable homeownership housing units across our city. The proposed Closure Ordinance must be rejected entirely because (1) it is unnecessary under the existing mobilehome Conversion Ordinance, where closure is already covered as a “change of use”; (2) it is unnecessary under state law because mobilehome park owners do not have an unmitigated right to go out of business; and (3) it is harmful to the City and its residents because it prevents the evaluation and mitigation of impacts as authorized and required under state laws.

We agree and hereby incorporate William Constantine’s legal analysis of and objections to the proposed Closure ordinance; Mr. Constantine’s letter of May 9, 2017, explains that the Closure Ordinance is not only not required by state law and inconsistent with Housing Element law—as we explain below—but that it itself violates state law.

A. The proposed Closure Ordinance is unnecessary because San José’s existing Conversion Ordinance encompasses all proposals to change the use of a mobilehome park, including closing it.

The proposed Closure Ordinance is completely unnecessary in light of the existing Conversion Ordinance, which covers closure. The Mobilehome Conversion of Use Ordinance (“Conversion Ordinance”) defines “mobilehome park conversion of use” as a conversion to “any other use, excluding mobilehome park conversion to ownership.” (Conversion Ordinance § 20.18.190, emphasis added.) The Conversion Ordinance was enacted to establish requirements and procedures for the control and approval of the conversion of mobilehome parks to other uses, including non-mobilehome park uses. (Conversion Ordinance § 20.180.010(A).) By the plain language of the Conversion Ordinance, it is applicable all changes of use, including closure. The City Attorney supported this position as recently as last summer.

For 30-plus years, the City has maintained that all applications to convert the use of a mobilehome park, including closing it, were to be processed through the Conversion Ordinance.

As they have purchased mobile homes, rented homes, raised families, and invested in the improvement of their homes and surrounding parcel, the many residents of the City’s 50-some parks have understood their rights with respect to closure in this context.

In August 2015, the City Attorney issued a memo to the Mayor and City Council that stated that mobilehome park owners seeking to change the use of a park, including closing it, must submit an application and comply with the procedures of the City’s Zoning Code, including the Conversion Ordinance. (Rick Doyle, City Attorney, Memorandum to the Honorable Mayor and Council, August 6, 2015, p. 5.) Council Policy 6-33, which was adopted on February 23, 2016, also made clear that the Conversion Ordinance’s definition of “Mobilehome Park Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 3 ends

Conversion of Use” should not be interpreted to exclude projects described as “park closures” and that they are subject to the Conversion Ordinance’s requirements. (Conversion of Mobilehome Parks to Other Uses, Council Policy 6-33, Number 77673, adopted February 23, 2016, 1(e).)

B. Nothing in State law compels San José to adopt a Closure Ordinance in addition to its existing Conversion Ordinance.

There is no provision in State law that requires San José to adopt a Closure Ordinance. In fact, nothing in State law prevents San José from continuing to rely on its Conversion Ordinance for park closure projects. The Ellis Act, which applies to the withdrawal of certain types of non- ownership rental property from the housing market, does not apply to the change of use of mobilehome parks, by its own terms. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 7060.7(f)). The Ellis Act does not apply to mobilehome park change of use projects, including those labeled as park closures, and it should not guide San José’s mobilehome preservation policies.

Despite this, two cases, Levin v. City and County of San Francisco and Coyne v. City and County of San Francisco,1 which interpret the Ellis Act, are frequently cited by park owners to persuade San José that its ability to review and condition applications to close mobilehome parks is limited. Both Levin and Coyne concerned limits on mitigation measures San Francisco could impose on landlords, not mobilehome park owners, who sought to withdraw their residential rental units under their local Ellis Act ordinance. Neither of these cases pertains to mobilehome conversions, and as such, neither control San José’s ability to require mitigation related to impacts from the closure of a mobilehome park.

Park owners claim that Keh v. Walters made clear that park owners have an absolute right to close their parks. In this case, a park owner attempted to close their park by evicting park residents one at a time. (Keh v. Walters (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 1522, 1533.) The park owner argued that they had a “fundamental vested right” to go out of business. (Id.) The court disagreed. (Id.) The court held that the park owner’s practice violated both the letter and the spirit of Civil Code § 798.56, the change of use statute. (Id.)

Although the court did state that, in its opinion, “a park owner is entitled to convert property used as a mobilehome park to another use, or even to hold it as vacant land,” the court did not say that this right was unfettered. (Id.) In fact, the court stated that despite its opinion, or view, its task was limited to interpreting and applying the law. (Id.) The court went on to say that park owners have to comply with both State laws and local ordinances that govern conversion, including “disclos[ing] and describ[ing] in detail the nature of the change of use” at the time they issued a notice pertaining to their proposal to change the use of the park. (Id. at 1533-34, emphasis added.)2

1 Levin, (2014) 71 F.Supp.3d 1072; Coyne, (March 21, 2017, CGC-14-540709, CPF-15-514382), __ Cal.App.4th __ < http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A145044.PDF>. 2 The court also stated that the State Legislature wanted to “protect mobilehome dwellers, not only from arbitrary and capricious conversions but also from the harsh effects of displacement resulting from legitimate conversions,” so this is why it required park owners to [first] provide a detailed description and disclosure about the proposed Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 4 ends

We understand the City Attorney’s office may rely on the unpublished case of Traphagen v. City of Dana Point (2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2650) to justify the need for a closure ordinance. This reliance is misplaced. The case was wrongly decided and it fails to fully recognize the authority granted to local jurisdictions in requiring mitigation of changes of use of mobilehome parks.3 First, the court in that case incorrectly suggested that the Ellis Act permits mobilehome park owners to simply go out of business (see above—the Ellis Act, by its very terms, does not apply to mobilehome parks). Moreover, the court’s statement that mobilehome park closures are “ministerial” in nature, rather than “discretionary” land use decisions was made without analysis, in a different context, and is not citable authority.4

As we have identified above, nothing in State law provides park owners with an unfettered right to go out of business. Instead, Keh v. Walters makes clear that park owners who seek to change the use of their parks, including closing them, must abide by both State and local change of use ordinances. It also emphasized our State Legislature’s intention to protect park residents from arbitrary and capricious conversions. San José’s Conversion Ordinance, not the Closure Ordinance, would protect against capricious conversions, since the Council would be able to analyze the host of impacts that such a project would trigger. Therefore, nothing in State law compels San José to adopt a Closure Ordinance in addition to its existing Conversion Ordinance.

C. The proposed Closure Ordinance should also be rejected because it prevents San José from evaluating and mitigating impacts of park closure as authorized and required under state laws.

Additionally, San José has the authority to evaluate and mitigate adverse impacts that a proposed mobilehome park closure will generate, since these will not be limited only to the terrible prospect of resident displacement from our City. Whether a park owner intends to convert and redevelop a mobilehome park or close it and wait to redevelop it, there are adverse impacts that affect displaced residents, the City’s affordable housing stock, and our environment.

All of these impacts must be evaluated and mitigated, even if a park owner only seeks to close the park. Government Code section 65863.7 allows the study and mitigation of adverse impacts

future use of the park under Civil Code section 798.56. (Id.) The court found that a statement about some yet-to-be- determined change of use did not meet the statutory requirement for terminating a tenancy that Civil Code section 798.56 requires. (Id.)
Unfortunately, San Jose is on the verge of adopting the proposed Closure Ordinance that likely runs afoul of the requirements of Civil Code section 798.56, since it is poised to allow park owners to simply certify that, at the moment they apply for park closure, that they don’t want to be in business any longer. This is not the detailed description that the court in Keh v. Walters held that Civil Code section 798.56 requires to prevent arbitrary and capricious conversions.
3 Government Code section 65863.7(e) grants local legislative bodies the power to “require, as a condition of [a mobilehome change of use], the [party proposing the change] to take steps to miti gate any adverse impact of the conversion, closure, or cessation of use on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate housing in a mobilehome park. The steps required to be taken to mitigate shall not exceed the reasonable costs of relocation.”
4 California Rule of Court 8.1115 states that opinions of the California Court of Appeal that are unpublished generally “must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action.” Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 5 ends

from a park owner’s proposal to change the use of a park on park residents when a subdivision is not concurrently sought.

One of the potential impacts of a closure is the diminution of the City’s affordable housing stock. San José has a duty to conserve and improve the condition of its existing affordable housing stock, which includes mobilehome housing units. This duty comes from State law, which requires cities to adopt a Housing Element.5 The Housing Element is a component of the General Plan, and it specifies the actions that a jurisdiction will take to promote the development of new affordable housing units and preserve existing affordable housing units that will be demolished by public or private action.6 Maintaining San José’s existing affordable housing stock is the most efficient way to fulfill the City’s duty to conserve and improve the existing affordable housing stock.

Mobilehomes are an important component of the existing affordable housing stock, with nearly 11,000 mobilehomes in 59 parks throughout the City.7 These parks and mobilehomes provide a vital source of unsubsidized affordable housing to San José’s residents. In a city that largely seeks to meet its affordable housing needs through subsidized housing, San José’s mobilehome parks provide residents with modest and/or fixed incomes with homeownership opportunities8 and modest regulated rents9 relative to most apartments in San José. San José previously estimated that up to 73% of mobilehome owners are low- to extremely-low-income, which means that mobilehomes provide housing for nearly 8,000 of San José’s low- to extremely-low income households.10

Mobilehome parks are under increasing threat of closure, or have closed, in Santa Clara County. At least two park owners in San José have expressed interest in redeveloping their mobilehome parks.11 Palo Alto’s only mobilehome park, Buena Vista, remains under threat of closure.12 Since 1991, six mobilehome parks in Sunnyvale have closed.13 Although Sunnyvale

5 Cal. Gov’t. Code § 65583(c)(4).
6 Id.
7 City of San Jose Housing Department, Mobilehome Resource Guide, p. 9, available at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1151.
8 Id., pp. 2-11.
9 Mobilehome Rent Ordinance Summary, Department of Housing, City of San José, January 29, 2014, p.3, available at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/32825
10Memorandum from Leslye Corsiglia on Mobilehome Park Conversions to the Rules and Open Government Committee, Apr. 30, 2014, p. 3, available at http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30282. 11 City of San Jose, Housing and Community Development Committee, Park Owner’s [Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park’s] Proposal for Redevelopment of the Site and Relocation Assistance, October 13, 2016, p. 1, available at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/62039; Letter from Peter Wang, owner, to San Jose staff, regarding Opt-In/Stay in Business Proposal and potential redevelopment of Mobile Home Manor, November 11, 2015, p. 8, available at http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557348. 12 City of Palo Alto City Council Action Minutes, Special Meeting, May 26, 201 5, available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47521. 13“Possible Revisions to the Mobile Home Park Conversion Process and Requirements,” Council Report Outreach Meeting, City of Sunnyvale, p.4., available at
http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Portals/0/Sunnyvale/CDD/Housing/HUD%20Programs/MOBILE%20HOME%20PARK%2 0PPT%20presentation.pdf. In addition to the mobilehome communities identified in this report that closed, Nick’s Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 6 ends

adopted land use policies that served to protect most of its parks, those that were not designated as mobilehome park uses do not benefit from these preservation measures. One of the last remaining parks that does not contain a mobilehome park land use designation, Blue Bonnet, recently received Council approval to close.14 Over the last two decades, Mountain View has lost about 240 mobilehome lots.15

In furtherance of its duty to preserve affordable housing, San José must adopt policies that preserve mobilehome housing, which is a vital component of our affordable homeownership housing stock. Although San José originally prioritized study and adoption of policies that would preserve mobilehome parks and protect residents, if adopted, the proposed Closure Ordinance will undermine this duty because it will facilitate the displacement of mobilehome park residents and destruction of affordable homeownership housing units across our city.

Although evaluating and mitigating the impacts on park residents relating to a proposed park change of use, including closure, are paramount, nothing in Government Code section 65863.7, which authorizes this evaluation and mitigation, prohibits San José from analyzing other impacts. San José’s long-standing Conversion Ordinance should continue to govern all conversion of use projects, even projects labeled as park closures, since San José has obligations to evaluate and mitigate a host of adverse impacts. The proposed Closure Ordinance would prevent San José from doing what State laws mandate it to do, including evaluating a proposal that seeks to permanently remove hundreds of affordable and rent-stabilized homeownership housing from our community and the environmental impacts associated with this action. San José should reject the proposed Closure Ordinance and continue to utilize its Conversion Ordinance for all projects that seek to change the use of a mobilehome park, including closing it.

2. If the proposed Closure Ordinance is not rejected entirely, it must be amended to address crucial flaws.

While we disagree that adoption of a Closure Ordinance is necessary, we strongly believe that it should contain terms that prevent a park owner from circumventing the Conversion Ordinance’s requirements and provide the same protections for residents as those provided in the City’s existing Conversion Ordinance and related Council Policy.16 The proposed Closure

Trailer Park also closed. See: http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/28/sunnyvale-closed-trailer-park-will-make- way-for-108-unit-apartment-project/
14San Jose Mercury News, “Sunnyvale: Blue Bonnet mobile park to close soon after conversion report’s approval,” available at http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/15/sunnyvale-blue-bonnet-mobile-park-to-close-soon-after- conversion-reports-approval/.
15 Katie Kramon, Peninsula Press, Mobile Home Parks: A Vanishing Source of Affordable Housing, March 14, 2015. Gina Hall, Silicon Valley Business Journal, Mountain View approves closure of mobile home park, July 10, 2015, available at http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/07/10/mountain-view-approves-closure-of- mobile-home-park.html.
16 In our letter to the Planning Commission dated March 21, 2017, regarding the March 7, 2017, version of the Closure Ordinance, we identified a substantial number of changes that were required. Although staff incorporated some of the changes we suggested, the present March 21, 2017 version still fails to contain provisions that prevent park owners from utilizing it to circumvent the City’s Conversion Ordinance. Further, the relocation assistance benefits afforded under the Closure Ordinance still fall well short of what the Conversion Ordinance requires, which must be corrected. These, and the other deficits we identify above, are most significant problems with the current Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 7 ends

Ordinance provides drastically fewer procedural protections than the Conversion Ordinance and Council Policy. It also provides much more limited benefits and relocation payment to displaced residents. Quite simply, it is ridiculous and obviously unfair that mobilehome park residents— the people most negatively impacted by mobilehome park closure and/or conversion—would be deprived of any protections and benefits simply because of a park owner’s administrative course of action. In addition to the significant problems identified below, we describe a list of Closure Ordinance deficiencies in the attachment to this letter.

A. The Closure Ordinance must follow the existing Conversion Ordinance and Council Policy regarding conversion of use.

After months of staff work, public input, and public deliberation, the City Council adopted certain changes to its zoning code and the Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance “Council Policy.” Among other things, this Council Policy provides guidelines for assessing and mitigating adverse impacts as well as proposing relocation benefits that will enable residents to find comparable replacement housing when their mobilehome community is closed or converted and they are faced with the loss of their homes. Although we urge the Council to adopt procedural changes that we recommend below, the Council Policy’s mitigation and relocation provisions are thoughtful, thorough, and fair. The Council Policy represented a promise to the City’s 35,000 mobilehome park residents, a promise that will be broken should the City adopt the Closure Ordinance because it is deficient in numerous ways.

Moreover, the Council Policy does more than establish guidelines for mitigation of adverse impacts of a park closure on residents. The Council Policy also sets forth principles for approval of a proposed park conversion that take into account important City priorities like the need for adequate housing for all City residents regardless of income, facilitating resident ownership of mobilehome parks when feasible, and reducing and avoiding displacement of particularly vulnerable, long-term residents from our community.

San José must additionally protect mobilehome park residents’ due process rights by requiring that an application to close a mobilehome park be heard by the San José City Council.

State law calls for the City’s legislative body or its delegated advisory agency, to review the relocation impact report. (Government Code § 65863.7(e).) However, instead of designating San José’s legislative body, the City Council, to consider applications under the Closure Ordinance, the proposed Closure Ordinance designates the Director of Planning to consider these applications unless a park owner or park resident requests a hearing. (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.760(A).) Park residents are afforded no opportunity to appeal the Planning Directors decision to the Council.

Unfortunately, our community knows that even when large-scale projects, like The Reserve, that seek to redevelop rent-stabilized properties, public participation is often absent.

The closure of The Reserve displaced hundreds of San Joséans from their rent-stabilized homes,

version of the Closure Ordinance. However, other problems require correction, and we encourage the Council to review our recommendations in that letter. A copy of our letter is available at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/66986.

Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 8 ends

and it was obvious that language and employment barriers prevented residents from engaging with staff and the Council about critical adverse impacts that must be mitigated. Similarly, we are concerned that park residents who face similar access barriers will not participate in this public process and that they will be denied important rights.

In contrast to San José’s proposed Closure Ordinance, the cities of Palo Alto and Sunnyvale both require hearings on applications to convert parks, including closing parks, and provide appeals processes. (Sunnyvale Conversion Ordinance, 19.72.130(c); Palo Alto Mobilehome Conversion Ordinance, 9.76.040.) Even San José’s Zoning Ordinance was specifically amended to ensure that the City Council, and not the Planning Director, would be the decision-maker that considered applications to convert mobilehome parks, and such a significant procedural distinction should exist based on a park owner’s decision to simply close rather than convert. State law on the subject provides the bare minimum—San José can and must require a public hearing before the displacement of potentially hundreds of households. Such important land use and displacement issues must be reviewed with greater public scrutiny by appropriate public entities than the proposed Closure Ordinance currently provides.

We understand that some mobilehome park owners have threatened litigation against the City, and that this threat has driven staff to propose this draft Closure Ordinance. We ask that the City not allow itself to be held hostage by threats when the continued stability and well-being of thousands of our city’s most vulnerable residents are threatened.

B. To prevent park owners from circumventing the Conversion Ordinance, San José must limit use of the Closure Ordinance to instances where a park owner cannot make a reasonable return on their investment.

If San José adopts a Closure Ordinance, it should include a provision that requires a park owner to prove, through the submission of records and a hearing before the Council, that they cannot make a reasonable rate of return on their investment prior to receiving approval to close a park. This requirement is necessary for the City to ensure that it does not allow for the displacement of hundreds, if not thousands, of households and the loss of vital affordable housing stock based on an owner’s whim. Moreover, such a requirement is legally permissible so long as it does not interfere with the owner’s primary, investment-backed expectations, and it does not render the owner unable to receive a reasonable return on their investment. (Nash v.

City of Santa Monica (1984) 37 Cal.3d 97, 102.) As stated above, state Ellis Act does not apply to mobilehome parks, and municipalities can require this showing under their power to regulate land use.

Although Nash v. City of Santa Monica was superseded as to conversions of rent- stabilized residential real property when the Ellis Act was adopted, this case and its holding still articulates state law allowing jurisdictions to require that a mobilehome park owner show they can no longer make a reasonable rate of return before they can close and displace all their residents. As such, the City of San José should impose such a requirement to prevent park owners from simply circumventing the Conversion Ordinance by closing, displacing low-income Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 9 ends

residents, destroying rent stabilized affordable housing units, and seeking to redevelop the property with other uses.

As presently drafted, the Closure Ordinance has no provision that prevents a park owner from misusing the Closure Ordinance to circumvent the Conversion Ordinance. The Closure Ordinance’s only attempt to limit its misuse is by requiring a park owner to disclose the nature of the use of the parcel(s) where the park is located after the park is closed or a statement that no new use is contemplated under penalty of perjury.17 (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.740(E).) While this measure is a positive step, it poses no real barrier to misuse of the proposed Closure Ordinance, since it does not even specify what recourse and remedies displaced park residents or the City have to address a park owner’s misrepresentations.

We urge the Council to reject the Closure Ordinance since the City’s Conversion Ordinance encompasses projects termed as closure applications. However, if the City elects to adopt a Closure Ordinance, it should require significant changes are made because, among other things, the Closure Ordinance fails to preserve San José’s 59 mobilehome parks and requires less rigorous relocation impact analyses and fewer relocation benefits for displaced residents than required by the City’s longstanding Conversion Ordinance. More specifically, if a Closure Ordinance is adopted, the City should require that 1) it does not prevent owner from using the Closure Ordinance to circumvent the Conversion Ordinance, 2) does not require that the City Council hear the application to close a park, and, 3) it continues to require an inferior relocation impact analysis and mitigation benefits than what the Conversion Ordinance provides.

3. Adopt General Plan Text Amendment Changes.

Staff has proposed several General Plan text amendments that, if adopted, may help San José maintain an affordable and diverse housing stock, which includes mobilehomes. Again, these changes may become meaningless if the City adopts the present draft of the Closure Ordinance, which facilitates closure of San José’s 59 mobilehome parks.

The City should establish a mobilehome park designation in the General Plan if it seeks to preserve its 59 mobilehome parks. Currently, San José has no General Plan designation for mobilehome parks. Although most mobilehome parks are designated as “Residential Neighborhood,” some others are designated for industrial and commercial uses. The City should address this problem by adopting and applying this designation to all mobilehome parks, demonstrating that it values mobilehome parks as sources of affordable housing and that it intends to preserve mobilehome parks into the future.

In addition to adopting and applying a mobilehome park designation, the City should also amend the General Plan to establish a policy of “no net loss” of land zoned for mobilehome use.

17 We are concerned that even this requirement falls far short of what State law requires. State law requires a park owner who seeks to change the use of a park, including closing it, to “disclose in detail the nature of the change of use.” (Government Code § 798.56(g)(2).) The proposed Closure Ordinance seems to authorize the park owner to provide something that does not comply with this State law requirement, since the park owner is not asked to provide a detailed disclosure about the nature of the use. (Closure Ordinance §20.180.740(E).) Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 10 ends

There are multiple examples of “no net loss” policies that the City can use to preserve mobilehomes, including San José’s own industrial lands policy, Sunnyvale’s policy of preserving a set number of acres for mobilehomes, and Santa Cruz’s stated policy of preserving a set number of mobilehome units.

First, the City could use San José’s existing industrial lands policy as an example for an effective anti-conversion policy relating to mobilehome parks. This policy enables the City to preserve its valuable employment lands in order to promote economic growth. The vehicle for this policy is a series of clear statements in San José’s General Plan which integrates the industrial lands policy with many of the General Plan’s broad goals and policies. Council should take a similar approach here.

Second, Sunnyvale’s Housing Element and General Plan together take an approach that preserves the amount of mobilehome park acreage within the City through the City’s policy to “maintain at least 400 acres of mobile home park zoning.” Sunnyvale currently has 413.45 acres of mobilehome park zoning, making the “400 acre” policy effectively a no net loss policy.

Third, Santa Cruz implements a “no net loss policy” by preserving its current number of mobilehomes through a similar provision in its Housing Element, which expresses the goal to “Maintain current mobilehome [ . . . ] conversion regulations to preserve 360 mobilehomes in parks in the community.” San José should take a similar approach and amend its General Plan with a policy protecting either mobilehome acreage or units. We thus recommend that the General Plan be amended to include an exclusively mobilehome park designation and “no net loss” policy similar to the City’s industrial no net loss policy to fortify its commitment to preserving mobilehome park lands and this source of affordable housing.

In addition to these changes, staff’s proposed text amendments need to be clarified, expanded and/or strengthened to further strengthen mobilehome preservation efforts. We believe that the additional goals and actions that we include below to help preserve our City’s 59 mobilehome parks. More specifically, in addition to several of staff’s recommended General Plan text amendments (specifically H-1.1, H-1.10, General Land Use Goal LU-2 - Growth Areas, Implementation Policy IP-5.1(2), and Implementation Policy IP-5.7), we ask that the Council support and recommend the following changes. Underlined text is language we recommend adding while struck-through language is that which we recommend deleting.

Policies - Housing - Social Equity and Diversity

H-1.3 - Create, preserve, and rehabilitate housing opportunities and accessible living environments that allow seniors to age in place, either in the same home, assisted living facilities, continuing care facilities, or other housing types within the same community.

H-1.9 - Facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing to meet San José’s fair share of the County’s and region’s housing needs.

Actions - Housing – Social Equity and Diversity
Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 11 ends

H-1.16 Encourage that all proposed Cconversions of Use or Changes of Use of mobilehome parks to other uses to include mitigation measures that provide displaced residents with housing options that are affordable once any short-term subsidy has elapsed purposes other than the rental, or the holding out for rent, of four (4) or more mobilehome sites or spaces to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitations, including the cessation of use, to mitigate any adverse impact to enable residents to relocate to replacement housing that is affordable and equivalent, including but not limited to their location and amenities.

Implementation Goal IP-5 – Urban Village Planning

Use new proposals for residential, mixed use, or employment development to help create walkable, bicycle-, and transit-friendly “Urban Villages” (also referred to as “Villages” within the Envision General Plan) at strategic locations throughout the City, and to enhance established neighborhoods, including existing mobilehome parks. In new Village development, integrate a mix of uses including retail shops, services, employment opportunities, public facilitates and services, housing, places of worship, and other cultural facilities, parks and public gathering places.

Implementation Goal IP-5.2 – Urban Village Planning

Develop and use an Urban Village Planning process so that each Urban Village Plan can be successfully completed within an approximately nine month planning period, followed by completion of environmental review as required for adoption of the Plan. Engage Urban Village area property owners and residents to the fullest extent possible, along with representatives of adjacent neighborhood areas, potential developers and other stakeholders in the Urban Village Planning process.

Implementation Policy IP-5.4, Urban Village Planning

Prepare and implement Urban Village Plans carefully, with sensitivity to concerns of the surrounding community, residents, and property owners and developers who propose redevelopment of properties within the Urban Village areas. In furtherance of this policy and San José’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing choice, prepare and report on the number of affordable housing units, including rent stabilized units, and socio-economic characteristics of the of residents who reside in the Urban Village. Urban Village Planning should protect against the displacement of low- and moderate-income tenants and mobilehome park residents who live in the Urban Village, and they must also plan for the mitigation of the loss of any mobilehome housing, rent controlled housing, and other affordable housing options that are lost to the community as a result of redevelopment. As part of the Urban Village Planning process, outreach to and community meetings for residents who face displacement, particularly those in mobilehome communities and multifamily housing, should be conducted. Proceed generally in the order of the following timeline, although some steps may be taken concurrently;

Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 12 ends

4. Uniformly Zone all Mobilehome Parks for this Exclusive Use.

San José has an R-MH mobilehome zoning designation which reserves these lands for mobilehome park uses.18 Currently, at least one third of the City’s 59 mobilehome parks are not zoned R-MH.19 Updating the zoning on mobilehome parks would both demonstrate the City’s commitment to mobilehome preservation and enable consistent regulation of R-MH lots. If the City adopts a Closure Ordinance, rezoning all parks so that they were intended for exclusively mobilehome park land use may create at least one barrier that may cause park owners to reexamine their efforts to circumvent the Conversion Ordinance. The City should update every mobilehome park to the R-MH designation to help protect mobilehome parks lands and to help prevent misuse of the proposed Closure Ordinance.

5. Amend the Council Policy to Further the Intent of and Clarify the Conversion Ordinance.

We continue to believe that San José can, and should, do more to strengthen its land use regulations to preserve mobilehome communities, especially if the City adopts a Closure Ordinance that permits a park owner to disregard the Conversion Ordinance and Council Policy.

However, in light of staff’s and the City’s present approach, we request that the Council adopt the following changes to the Council Policy.

A. Do not amend the clarification presently contained in the Council Policy that park closure projects should not be excluded from mobilehome park conversion of use projects.

When the Council adopted the Council Policy to the Conversion Ordinance, it contained a section that stated that “the definition of ‘Mobilehome park conversion of use’ should not be interpreted to exclude projects described as ‘park closure’ from the requirements of Chapter

20.180.” (Res. No. 77673, Conversion of Mobilehome Parks to Other Uses, Council Policy 6- 33,1(e).) Since Council will consider adopting a Closure Ordinance, staff has proposed amending this language. We continue to argue that a separate Closure Ordinance is not necessary and that every application to change the use of a park, including closing it, should be processed through the Conversion Ordinance. If the Council agrees and does not adopt the Closure Ordinance, we ask that the Council not amend this language to make clear that all changes of use projects, including closures, will be processed through the Conversion Ordinance.

B. Define the term “sufficient information” to clarify that it includes more than only an appraisal.

One of the goals of the Conversion Ordinance is to help preserve San José’s mobilehome parks by encouraging park owners and residents’ associations (called Designated Residents’

18 San José Municipal Code § 20.30.010(C)(4).
19 A table that the zoning for all of the City’s mobilehome parks may be found starting at page 19 of the Planning Commission’s Memo to Council dated March 28, 2017, which may be accessed at:
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2679&meta_id=626699.

Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 13 ends

Organizations (DROs) in the Conversion Ordinance) to negotiate for the sale of the park to DROs so that the affordable homeownership housing in these parks is preserved. To submit a viable offer to purchase the park, the DRO needs records relating to the operation and condition of the park. Although the appraisal of the mobilehome park is an important tool in preparing a purchase offer, it is not the only record that the DRO needs to prepare a viable offer. The DRO needs other records that specify the costs to operate the park, its outstanding financial obligations, its future maintenance obligations, and other relevant records. Staff has proposed to amend subsection d(i) of section 1 by providing more detail about what “sufficient information” the DRO will need to prepare its offer. Although staff’s suggested edit to include a reference to an appraisal is helpful, other examples of what constitutes sufficient information must also be specified.

C. Council Policy should call for a confidentiality agreement, not a third party, to protect park owner’s proprietary information.

In line with comments we submitted over a year ago,20 we suggest that subsection d(i), which enables a park owner to have a third party hold information in confidence that the DRO needs to formulate a viable offer to purchase the park, is unworkable. It is inconsistent for the Council Policy to suggest that the park owner provide the DRO with sufficient information to enable it to make a viable offer and then, in the same section, state that the owner may require that a third party hold this information in confidence so that the DRO cannot access it. This information is absolutely necessary to evaluate whether a resident purchase is viable, for identifying financing, and for composing a credible offer to purchase the park. While we understand park owners’ desire for their financial information not to become public, release of that information to the DRO—or to an agent of the DRO—is an essential prerequisite to the good faith negotiations required by the Ordinance and Council Policy. Instead of the present language, the Council Policy could either require or allow the parties to enter into a confidentiality agreement at the outset of their negotiations.

D. Clarify that the required Relocation Impact Report should be interpreted to mean that required under either Government Code § 66427.4 and 65863.7.

Government Code section 66427.4 specifies that a Relocation Impact Report (“RIR”) will be required for conversion of use of mobilehome parks when a the party seeking to convert the park also seeks a map to subdivide the park. Government Code section 65863.7 specifies RIR requirements when conversion, closure or cessation of use of a park is sought without a concurrent subdivision map. As such, and particularly if the Council approves amending the Council Policy to state that the Conversion Ordinance excludes park closure applications, the Council should correct this section to reference the requirements under Government Code section 66427.4

20 A copy of our coalition letter dated February 22, 2016, which includes additional recommendations for changes to the Council Policy, can be found starting at page 51 of the following link:
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557348 .

Letter to San José City Council, May 11, 2017
Re: City Council Meeting, May 16, 2017
Agenda Items 4.1 and 10.1, Mobilehome Park Protection & Closure Ordinance

Page 14 ends

E. Provide clear guidance regarding how disputes concerning selection of appraisers and RIR Specialists are resolved.

Staff’s proposed changes at Sections 2.a. and 2.c. of the Council Policy, which relate to appraiser and RIR Specialist selection, are incomplete and require revision. Section 2.a. discusses the selection of the appraiser that will prepare valuations of mobilehome owners’ h
omes. Section 2.c. discusses selection of the RIR Specialist. Although these two sections allow for parties to select their respective appraisers and RIR Specialists, staff did not provide guidance about how the parties should resolve any disputes regarding the ultimate selection of these professionals, like through mediation that is free of charge to park residents. Therefore, the
Council should direct staff to clarify these sections.

F. State that the City, not a park owner, will provide an appeals process where there is a dispute regarding relocation and purchase assistance.

The Council should amend section 2.g. of the Council Policy so that the City, not the park owner, provides an appeals process to resolve disputes regarding relocation and purchase assistance. As we stated before the Council Policy was adopted, this dispute resolution process contained in the Council Policy is unacceptable, since any party hearing an appeal will be directly hired by and be an agent of the park owner. Instead, the City should have and govern an
appeals process before a neutral fact finder.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Law Foundation’s letter with Council Members. I may be reached at 408-280-2448 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Diana E. Castillo
Senior Attorney

Fair Housing Law Project
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San José, California 95112
Fax (408) 293-0106 • Telephone (408) 280-2435 • TDD (408) 294-5667

Closure Ordinance Deficiencies
Attachment

The Mobilehome Park Closure Projects Ordinance (hereafter “Closure Ordinance”) fails to fulfill the City Council’s directive to preserve mobilehome parks and protect mobilehome park residents. The Closure Ordinance also fails to comply with State law because it prevents the decision maker from requiring the park owner who seeks to close their park from mitigating any adverse impact on the displaced mobilehome park resident to find adequate replacement housing.

In 2016, the City adopted Council Policy 6-33, which are thorough and thoughtful guidelines for interpreting requirements under the City’s Mobilehome Conversion Ordinance (hereafter “Conversion Ordinance”). Adoption of an inferior Closure Ordinance, which requires less rigorous Relocation Impact Report (hereafter “RIR”) analysis and relocation benefits, will make the City's Conversion Ordinance moot and make it impossible for residents to find adequate replacement housing. We note several of the Closure Ordinance’s deficiencies below and urge the Planning Commission to recommend rejection of the Closure Ordinance unless significant changes are made.

 Does Not Protect Residents Against Park Owners’ Misuse of the Closure Ordinance to Avoid the Conversion Ordinance’s Procedural and Relocation Assistance Provisions. As drafted, the Closure Ordinance provides fewer relocation benefits to residents than the Conversion Ordinance. There is no part of the Closure Ordinance that requires or penalizes a park owner who truly seeks to redevelop, versus simply closing the park and immediately applying to redevelop it, to actually proceed through the City’s Conversion Ordinance. The only, and narrow, way this issue is addressed in the Closure Ordinance states that the park owner shall disclose “the nature of the use of the Parcel(s) where the Park is located after Closure is approved or [provide] a statement under penalty of perjury that no new use is contemplated” in the RIR. Greater procedural protections must be included in the Closure Ordinance to safeguard against abuse.

 Does Not Provide Residents with an Opportunity to Negotiate for Park Preservation. The Closure Ordinance does not enable park residents to negotiate with the park owner to preserve their park. An association of residents, if it elects to, should be allowed to try and negotiate with the park owner to preserve the park, like the Conversion Ordinance provides. (Conversion Ordinance § 20.180.380.) The City’s Closure Ordinance does not allow for this.

 Does No Provide Residents with a First Right of Refusal. The Closure Ordinance does not provide residents with a first right of refusal to rent or purchase housing in a future residential development (if the resident qualifies). The Council Policy calls for this. (Council Policy 6-33 § 1(j).)
San Jose City Council
Council Meeting May 16, 2017, Agenda Items 4.1 & 10.1
Mobilehome Preservation and Closure Ordinance
May 11, 2017
Closure Ordinance Deficiencies Attachment

Page 2 ends

 Unreasonably Disqualifies Residents from Relocation Assistance Benefits. The Closure Ordinance, particularly its definitions section, does not reflect residents’ real- world homeownership and space rental realities, including the hardship they will face during a closure application. Since most mobilehomes in San José’s parks cannot be moved, we are concerned that many mobilehome owners will be disqualified from receiving compensation for the loss of their homes under the Closure Ordinance based on the Closure Ordinance’s definition. Although we appreciate that staff amended this definition in its March 21, 2017, Closure Ordinance draft, we note that it is far narrower than the Conversion Ordinance’s definition, which encompasses a host of ways that residents can prove that they are, in deed mobilehome owners. (Closure Ordinance §

20.180.705(R); Conversion Ordinance, § 20.180.160.) As such, the Closure Ordinance’s definition should be amended to be the same as the Conversion Ordinance’s, which is, “a person who has the right to the use of a mobilehome lot within a mobilehome park on which to locate, maintain, and occupy a mobilehome, lot improvements and accessory structures for human habitation, including the use of the services and facilities of the park.” (Conversion Ordinance, § 20.180.160.)

Another oversight is that mobilehome owners who are 55 or older qualify to rent spaces in San José’s parks, but, under the Closure Ordinance, seniors need to be 62 years or older to qualify for certain relocation benefits. (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.705(Y).) These overly restrictive definitions unreasonably deny residents vital benefits and are contrary to the requirements of State law.

 Limits Who is Eligible to Receive Certain Benefits, Like a Rent Differential Subsidy.

The Closure Ordinance provides a rent subsidy only if a resident household qualifies as senior (62 and older), disabled, or low-income. (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.730.) All displaced residents should qualify for a rent differential, which is what the Conversion Ordinance provides (§ 20.180.630(d).) San José is home to mobilehome parks that contain upwards of 700 mobilehomes. If 700 households were displaced, a majority would be unable to find other rent stabilized housing, whether in or out of a mobilehome park. If households were mere dollars above some low-income threshold, they would be denied the ability to have the soft landing that a rent subsidy is designed to provide. A park owner should not be able to avoid paying for displacement mitigation protections based solely on the type of application they submit.

 Does Not Require Individualized Assessment of Long-term Housing Solutions. We thank staff for amending the March 21, 2017, draft of the Closure Ordinance to incorporate our request that the RIR Specialist prepare individualized assessment for comparable housing evaluation. This evaluation should include longer-term housing solutions so that each displaced resident is not displaced, again, once a housing subsidy terminates. The Closure Ordinance does not require any evaluation of long-term housing solutions for individual households like the Conversion Ordinance and Council Policy San Jose City Council
Council Meeting May 16, 2017, Agenda Items 4.1 & 10.1
Mobilehome Preservation and Closure Ordinance
May 11, 2017
Closure Ordinance Deficiencies Attachment

Page 3 ends

specify. (Council Policy 6-33 §§ 1(g)-(j).) These assessment provisions should be the same under the Conversion Ordinance/Council Policy and the Closure Ordinance.

 Lacks a Housing Burden Assessment. The Closure Ordinance fails to require that relocation and purchase assistance provide sufficient subsidies and other measures to allow residents to find other adequate, safe housing priced at a level that does not create a greater housing burden on a resident. (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.730; Council Policy to the Conversion Ordinance 6-33 §§ 1(g)-(j).)

 Provides Insufficient Subsidy for Large Households. Unlike the Conversion Ordinance, the Closure Ordinance does not call for more than one housing subsidy if a large household is forced to split into smaller households. (Conversion Ordinance §

20.180.6302(C); Closure Ordinance § 20.180.730.) If any mobilehome park closes, it is likely that most residents will need to move to smaller households. Because other housing opportunities may limit the number of residents who can live in a housing unit, larger families will need to split up. The Closure Ordinance does not require a rent subsidy for multiple households if they must split up, which will severely disadvantage larger households and substantially limit their ability to find replacement housing.

 Insufficient Guidance for Appraisers. The Closure Ordinance fails to provide sufficient direction to appraisers in determining value. (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.740.) Appraisals should list in-place value of mobilehomes prior to any public discussion or communication regarding closure of the mobilehome park because of the downward impact that public knowledge of closure has on value. Moreover, if the appraiser identifies lack of maintenance or deterioration of the subject mobilehome park that negatively affects the value of a mobilehome, the appraiser should determine the value of the home with an upward adjustment in value as needed to eliminate the negative effect in value caused by the lack of maintenance or deterioration.

 Does Not Require Staff to Obtain Confidential Questionnaires if Incomplete. The Closure Ordinance mandates that the RIR specialist will analyze residents’ confidential responses to a questionnaire in evaluating the relocation assistance they require. (Closure Ordinance, § 20.180.750.) As presently drafted, the Planning Director “may but is not required to seek the information directly from the Mobilehome Owner and/or Resident.” (Id.) Already stinging from a park owner’s broken promise that their park will remain open, park residents will be reticent to entrust confidential information about themselves to an RIR Specialist. Other barriers may exist, fear or denial over the prospect of losing one’s home, language-and employment barriers, and disability, may prevent a park resident from submitting questionnaires. This section must be amended to require City staff to make several attempts to obtain information from park residents if their questionnaires are incomplete or not submitted to the RIR Specialist. As such, we ask that the Closure Ordinance recognize this and mandate that the Planning Director will make several attempts to collect this vital information.

San Jose City Council
Council Meeting May 16, 2017, Agenda Items 4.1 & 10.1
Mobilehome Preservation and Closure Ordinance
May 11, 2017
Closure Ordinance Deficiencies Attachment

Page 4 ends

 Contains a Wholly Inadequate Appraisal Dispute Resolution Process. The Closure Ordinance resolves a dispute about the valuation of a residents’ home by requiring the resident to obtain a costly appraisal report, and then, “may require that the Mobilehome Owner be compensated based on the average of the appraisals obtained by the Park Owner and the Mobilehome Owner.” (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.730 (B)(5), emphasis added.) This dispute process is wholly inadequate and will lead park owners, who select their own appraiser, to generate low appraisal amounts. It is unlikely that low-income residents will hire their own appraisers, which means that park owners’ appraisers will propose artificially low valuations of residents’ homes. Even if a resident hires their own appraiser, they will always receive less than what their expert appraiser determines is the value of their home. Instead, the City should have and govern an appeals process before a neutral fact finder.

 Does Not Enable Decision-Makers to Comply with State Law nor Require Park Owner to Mitigate Any Adverse Impact on Residents’ Ability to Find Adequate Replacement Housing. The Closure Ordinance fails to make clear that, under State law, the RIR Specialist may propose, and the Planning Director or City Council may require, relocation assistance that mitigates any adverse impact on a resident’s ability to find adequate replacement housing in a mobilehome park. (Government Code § 65863.7(e), emphasis added.) Such instruction is not provided to the RIR Specialist who will prepare the RIR. (Closure Ordinance §§ 20.180.730 -.740.)

To mitigate any adverse impact, the Planning Director has the ability to require relocation assistance amounts that are more than even the 100% appraised value of a residents’ home if it takes more assistance to secure adequate replacement housing in another park.

The limit, that mitigation shall not exceed the “reasonable cost of relocation,” may include more assistance than the limited categories that the Closure Ordinance specifies.

The Closure Ordinance must provide the RIR Specialist, the Director of Planning and the Council with a clear statement that they have the ability to require additional mitigation measures if they are necessary to enable the resident to relocate to adequate replacement housing. Failure to include this provision means that the Closure Ordinance fails to comply with State law.

 Does Not Require a Public Hearing to Review the Sufficiency of the RIR. The Closure Ordinance states that a public hearing to review the sufficiency of the RIR would only be scheduled if a resident or park owner requests it. (Closure Ordinance §

20.180.740.) Given the displacement of thousands of vulnerable residents in any potential closure, a City Council hearing assessing the sufficiency of the Relocation Impact Report should be required as a matter of course. This requirement would not contravene State law on the subject, which allows the legislative body, the City Council, to review and evaluate the application.

San Jose City Council
Council Meeting May 16, 2017, Agenda Items 4.1 & 10.1
Mobilehome Preservation and Closure Ordinance
May 11, 2017
Closure Ordinance Deficiencies Attachment

Page 5 ends

 Does Not Require that Notices to Park Residents about the Proposed Closure of a Mobilehome Park be Accessible. The Closure Ordinance identifies notices that residents will receive related to the park closure application. (Closure Ordinance §20.180.760(B).) It will notify them that they can obtain “information on accommodations and how to obtain interpretation and translated information or other accommodations from the RIR Specialist.” (Id.) However, it fails to specify that these initial notices (about how to obtain accommodations and translated information) will be accessible for residents who are disabled or not proficient in English. Further, it states that “information” will possibly be translated, but it doesn’t say that the RIR will be translated. These are major oversights that must be corrected, since these notices and the RIR contain important rights and information that must be accessible for people who are not English-language proficient or who are disabled. This oversight means that many park residents will be unable to understand and assert their rights.

 Does Not Require that the RIR Report, and Subsequent Amendments, Be Provided to Residents as Required Under State Law. Contrary to the requirements under State law, which requires that the park owner provide a copy of the RIR to a resident of each mobilehome at the park, the Closure Ordinance state that each resident will be invited to obtain a copy. (Government Code § 65863.7(b); Closure Ordinance §20.180.760(B).) Further, the Closure Ordinance does not specify that this notice will be accessible for residents who are disabled or who are not fluent in English. (Id.) To comply with State law, the Closure Ordinance must require that the RIR and subsequent amendments be provided to a resident from each mobilehome. (Id.) As such, a resident from each mobilehome should receive these subsequent amendments or clarifying letters and at least 30 days prior to any hearing on or consideration of the RIR by the Planning Director and City Council and these should be accessible.

 Prevents the Decision-Maker from Denying an RIR While Making Full Compensation for Residents’ Relocation Expenses Optional. The Closure Ordinance only allows the Planning Director or City Council to approve or conditionally approve an RIR. (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.760(C).) It does not specify that these decision- makers have the ability to deny it. (Id.) This means that residents would be left in limbo for potentially significant periods of time during the application process, especially if the park owner causes unreasonable delay.

Further, the Closure Ordinance is patently unfair and unbalanced in how it treats park residents. For example, even though the decision-maker will be unable to deny the RIR, it does not require the decision-maker to fully compensate a homeowner for the in-place value of their home, provide a rent differential, or cover costs to re-install disability- related improvements the park resident will need at their replacement housing. (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.760(D).) Instead, the decision-maker may require a park owner to compensate residents for something far less than what residents need to obtain adequate replacement housing. (Id.)
San Jose City Council
Council Meeting May 16, 2017, Agenda Items 4.1 & 10.1
Mobilehome Preservation and Closure Ordinance
May 11, 2017
Closure Ordinance Deficiencies Attachment

Page 6 ends

 Does Not Specify that Public Hearings on Conditionally Approved RIRs will be Required. The Closure Ordinance is silent about whether subsequent hearings will be required if an RIR is conditionally approved. (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.760(C).) The findings relating to the adequacy and approval of the RIR should be evaluated at a public hearing. A closure should not be permitted unless and until an RIR is actually approved subsequent to a public hearing.

 Lacks a Necessary RIR Appeals Process. The Closure Ordinance permits the Director of Planning to authorize displacement of potentially thousands of residents, the permanent loss of hundreds of affordable and rent stabilized housing units, and closure of a mobilehome park. (Closure Ordinance § 20.180.760(B).) The Closure Ordinance provides for no appeals process in the event that park residents dispute the accuracy of or sufficiency of their relocation benefits. Neighboring cities provide appeals processes before a neutral fact finder. Although we disagree that the Planning Director should have the ability to unilaterally make a decision on a closure application, at a minimum, the City’s Closure Ordinance should contain an appeals process for residents to dispute the Planning Director’s decision about the adequacy of the benefits approved under the RIR.

I was planning on being at the City Council meeting tomorrow Tuesday March 10, but a sore throat and raised temperature will keep me home. SO many mobile home residents wanted to be at this meeting, but the fear of the coronavirus keeps the most vulnerable seniors and sick people like me away.

I can only say I hope the City Council can vote to PROTECT our Mobilehome parks. Seniors on oxygen, seniors on walkers, the working poor that cannot afford a babysitter for the city council meeting, the working poor like ME that are sick, etc ALL COUNT on our CITY COUNCIL members to PROTECT our homes.

Thank you to those of you who vote to protect our homes.....I will be watching....

Thank you,

Renee' Ingold

martha O'Connell
Tue 3/10/2020 7:13 AM
To:

Chapman, Helen; Agendadesk;The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo;District1;District2;District3;District4;District5;District 6;

District7; District8; District9; District 10; martha O'Connell

Well the mask is off.

Both owner(s) of Westwinds and Mt Springs have sent letters to Council talking about redevelopment. Those letters are on line as letters from the public on item 10.2 today.

Both oppose the MP designation in the GP.

Mt Springs talks about the "inevitable future redevelopment of the property" (page 1, second paragraph) and again page 2, fourth paragraph "....the park may be developed to provide more housing, which we believe inevitably it must." The Nicholson Family admits in writing that they met with the City last year in their 2- 10-20 letter. Page 2, second paragraph. In both this letter and their 3-9-20 one they dismiss the move to give the Parks a MH designation in the General Plan as "an exercise in politics" and "that as a result of the publicity caused by the lawsuit filed against TNFP, there is a need for some political action by the City Council." These statements are an insult to the thoughtful letter by Jimenez, Peralez, Esparza and Foley. These statements are an insult to the stressed out Mobilehome Park residents who face displacement.

angelictmt

Tue 3/10/2020 7:51 AM
To:

Agendadesk

I support ALL Mobile Home Parks in San Jose getting the MobileHome Designation in the General Plan. Many Thanks - Therisa Tritch

From: Huy Tran
Date: Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 11:32 AM
Subject: Comments for Item 10.2
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, District7 <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, District10 San Jose <[email protected]>, Candace Le <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Good morning esteemed Council Members, Mr. Mayor, and staff. I submit this statement in support of the memo proffered by Council Members Jimenez, Peralez, Esparza, and Foley. However, I want to use this opportunity to describe the broader issue that we must face as we prioritize higher-density developments and how we ensure that mobile home residents are treated fairly and given due consideration.

It is no secret that we are in a housing crisis, and to address this, we need to build more high density housing. Allowing developers to target mobile home parks is not the answer to this. In fact, mobile home residents tend to be very vulnerable to displacement because they are in the unenviable position of owning the home but not the land. The equity and investment that mobile home owners make into their homes can disappear just because rumors of park closures can destroy any value that exists. What value can there be in a building that has no security in the land beneath it?

I bring up the following points for your consideration. While I am in full support of the land use designation and applying it to Westwinds and Mount Spring, I believe this needs to be expanded to all mobile home parks in San Jose.

1. While we need more housing, we also need to ensure that there is affordable housing.

We often hear that the solution to the housing crisis is simply to have more housing. Our housing crisis is more than a simple analysis of supply versus demand. We have to look at the impact of the housing crisis on the communities that reside in San Jose and have been a part of building it.

San Jose has built thousands of market rate units. North San Jose is a prime example of that. We have built the 8000 residential units that we are allowed to build under Phase 1 of the North San Jose plan, with a handful of these units treated as below market rate (BMR) units. Despite giving free rein to market rate development in this region, the average price of a class A 1-bedroom apartment is still over $2700 per month. The desired drop in rent has not materialized. We also have a revolving door of residents where a significant number of residents move in and out within the span of just a few years - meaning that there are units that become available on a regular basis. There are apartments available to rent in the city. The reason why these vacancies persist is in part due to the high cost of rent.

The takeaway from this is that inherent in the housing crisis is the affordable housing crisis. We don't just need housing - we need affordable housing.

2. Mobile Home Parks are naturally occurring affordable housing.

There are 59 mobile home parks in San Jose, with 11,000 homes. Tens of thousands of residents have opted for mobile homes because getting a three- or four-bedroom mobile home can be as low as 20% of the cost of a home outside of a park. Newer residents to Westwinds have paid between $250,000 to $300,000 to get a four-bedroom home, while the average price for homes in San Jose are over $1,000,000 for three- or four-bedrooms. Clearly, the reason for this variance is that mobile homes are not the same as single family homes, but that fact is what makes mobile home parks much more affordable.

This difference in price has translated into mobile home communities that include many retirees, service workers, and immigrant families. Westwinds itself has many such residents who have been there for decades. People who otherwise would not have any option to buy now have it.

Once a park is lost, it will never be recovered.

3. There are other options to build density than to put at risk the families in mobile home parks.

Looking at North San Jose alone, we have many options where we can focus our growth. Apple is making its land in North San Jose available for high-density housing. There is commercial property that has been vacant for a long-time that can be converted to mixed use developments, such as The Assembly, which currently has 300,000 square feet of commercial space up for lease, and could be converted to up to 1.3 million square feet of space. Google is rumored to be interested in this space, but there is still a lot of empty office space that can be converted to other uses.

Outside of North San Jose, there are opportunities to in-fill, and we need to pursue mid-density strategies as well, such as town homes and 4-plexes in traditional single-family home neighborhoods.

4. The Mobile Home Land Use Designation also balances out the bargaining power between park owners and park residents.

Land ownership is a powerful role to have, which is why policies such as the mobile home land use designation are necessary to balance the negotiating power between the park owners and the park residents. If preservation is not possible despite our best efforts, then we have an obligation to ensure that park residents are able to preserve their equity and value. Whatever park residents are able to recover will be necessary for them to find other housing options because there is no housing available that matches what residents get in mobile home parks for the price that they pay.

Applying the land use designation will require developers and land owners to be transparent about their plans because such changes will have to be justified to the City Council itself, even before a conversion can take effect.

5. The Winchester Ranch Agreement is a good compromise for those residents and the developer, but whether it can be duplicated is not a guarantee.

By all accounts, the negotiations between the Winchester Ranch residents and Pulte were successful. The residents and the developer reported that they were satisfied with the result. However, what occurred at Winchester is far from guaranteed for the other parks in San Jose.

The distinction is that Winchester is a senior park. All of the residents were at least 55 years old. In the years it took to get to the settlement, dozens of the residents passed away, and the developer's obligation to provide for the residents lessened each time. Other mobile home parks do not have such conditions, and provisions such as lifetime housing will carry much higher price tags for residents in other mobile home parks. The provisions of the Winchester Ranch agreement will be much more expensive when younger residents, residents with families, and residents who are still working or want to better secure their investments negotiate with potential developers.

While the Winchester Ranch agreement is good news and can provide a framework for those residents interested in negotiating conversions, Mobile Home residents still need the protection that prevents them from being displaced.

6. Addressing Councilman Diep's arguments opposing the broad application of the mobile home land use designation

Councilman Diep's arguments are twofold. First, the cost in staff time is unwarranted, or an "unfunded mandate" as stated in his memo. The second is that creating a uniform mobile home park designation would be ineffective in protecting mobile home parks. I address both of these at the same time because creating a uniform designation is the cost-effective and effective way to increase protections for mobile home park residents, increase the leverage of park residents in any potential negotiations, and require transparency.

At the high end of the cost estimate, staff project that it will cost $380,000 to apply the mobile home park designation to all parks in San Jose. While $380,000 is no small investment, considering that number in context shows that it is truly worthwhile:

- As stated earlier, there are Westwinds residents who have spent $250,000 to $300,000 just in the past few months for their homes. For the price of 1.5 of the homes purchased by these new residents, our city can protect all 58 of the mobile home parks in San Jose. - Under the IHO, developers can avoid building below market rate units by paying a per-unit in-lieu fee that is just under $200,000 per for-sale unit. The in-lieu fees for just 2 for-sale units, which developers have shown a great willingness to pay, will increase protections for the thousands of mobile homes that exist in San Jose.

Councilman Lan Diep specifically described the $380,000 price tag as an "unfunded mandate," and put up $30,000 of initial funding out of his own council budget for a "Mobile Home Protection Fund." As shown above, money is not the issue here, particularly in light of the fact that this Council voted to give away $67 million in fee waivers to the very developers who stand to profit immensely from buying out mobile home parks and re-developing them. Further, Councilman Lan Diep himself rolled over close to $900,000 in his city council budget alone in 2019. The person who portrays himself as having the back of mobile home park residents can literally fund the staff projections of costs on his own, and yet only puts forward $30,000 towards a fund that has no clear purpose, or with any projects as to how much an individual analysis and implementation of tailor-made solutions to each park would cost.

In Conclusion,
I urge our city council to protect the mobile home park residents of San Jose. The very ideas being considered by this Council were first proposed in 2018 by Councilmembers Jimenez, Peralez, and Rocha. Our city knew that these issues were coming when the Winchester Conversion was announced. If the Council truly cares about protecting mobile home park residents, then the obvious answer - actually protecting all mobile home parks - is before you. The only reason not to support this position is to leave the door open to convert mobile home parks
From: Carol Bennett
Date: Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:14 PM
Subject: MobileHome Designation
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: martha O'Connell

Elected Officers of San Jose CA

It was my intention to attend the City Council Meeting tonight to express my opinion that the MobileHome designation be applied to every mobile home park in the city of San Jose. Due to the current concerns about the coronavirus, I will remain at home.

It seems redundant to me that City Council legislation should be required to do this, but as it is, I am urging all members of the City Council to approve this agenda item.

In addition, since San Jose has been urging all necessary action to provide more and more Affordable Housing, it would be a severe step backwards if any mobile home parks in the city were vulnerable to closure. It would only increase the need for more people to be in need of such housing.

Again I urge your support for designating all mobile home parks in the city as Mobile Homes for the protection of those who reside there.

Thank you,
Carol Bennett

martha O'Connell

Tue 3/10/2020 9:40 AM
To:

Agendadesk;

martha O'Connell

The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo; District1;District2;District3;District4;District5;District 6;District7;District8;District9; District 10

I Nadine Sabanovich live at Villa Teresa MHP San Jose CA. I support All mobile home parks in San Jose getting the mobile home designation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Lou Etten
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2020 7:34 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Meeting on 3/10/20

Please let the city council know that as a resident of Westwinds mobile home park I urge you to vote yes on the new land use for our park.

Thank you
Mary Lou Etten

Sent from my iPad

Joseph B. Vieira

March 9, 2020

Via Email

Sam Liccardo, Mayor
And Members of the San Jose City Council
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113

Re: Mountain Springs Mobile Home Park
625 Hillsdale Avenue

Dear Mayor Liccardo and City Council Members,

For more than 125 years our family has owned the property at 625 Hillsdale Avenue where Mountain Springs Mobile Home Park has been located since the mid-1970s. Four generations of our family were living on the land in the 1960s. Our family has been a part of the growth of San Jose and has contributed to that growth in many ways as commemorated on a marker in Vieira Park in the Tuscany Hills neighborhood that overlooks Mountain Springs.

Our property currently carries two General Plan designations: Residential Neighborhood on the lower portion and Urban Residential on the upper portion. We find it necessary to object to the proposed General Plan amendment on your agenda for March 10 that would re-designate both areas to a newly created Mobilehome Park designation. If any part of our property is to be re-designated to a Mobilehome Park designation, an overlay needs to be concurrently adopted in order to provide certainty to both property owners and mobile home owners regarding the inevitable future redevelopment of the property.

According to your staff report, San Jose has 59 mobile home parks. However, the General Plan amendments on your agenda for March 10th only seek to re-designate two of those 59 parks: ours and Westwinds. We object to this unequal and unjustified treatment of our property compared to 57 other properties in San Jose that are being used in a manner identical to ours. The property owners who own these 59 parks should all be treated equally, just like the owners of the mobile homes within each of these 59 parks and the tenants in any of those mobile homes should be treated equally. We believe that this selective application of the new designation violates our constitutional rights, including our right to equal protection and treatment under the law.

Sam Liccardo, Mayor March 9, 2020
And Members of the San Jose City Council Page 2

The only justification offered for singling out two mobile home parks for the new designation is that only these two parks currently have a designation of Urban Residential, a designation that would allow a high density residential redevelopment without the need for any General Plan amendment. However, even if true, that justification does not apply to the lower portion of our property, which is not designated Urban Residential, but rather is designated Residential Neighborhood, the same designation which many if not most of the other 57 mobile home parks in San Jose currently have. Consequently, and just like those other 57 mobile home parks, it would be legally impossible for us to redevelop the lower portion of our property to high density residential without a General Plan amendment.

The fact that the upper portion of our property is designated Urban Residential would not allow us to bypass the General Plan amendment requirement prior to developing high density residential on the lower portion, and thus the contention that the upper and lower portions are part of the same park cannot be used to justify re-designating the lower portion to Mobilehome Park. On this basis we object to the re-designation of the portion of our property currently designated Residential Neighborhood to a Mobilehome Park designation on the grounds that it violates our constitutional rights, including our right to equal protection and treatment under the law. Our Residential Neighborhood-designated property is being treated unequally compared to every other parcel in San Jose with that identical designation.

We recognize that General plan designations can be changed at the discretion of a majority of the City Council. Just as the current City Council has directed staff to bring forth a new Mobilehome Park designation and apply it to properties designated Urban Residential, a different City Council can change the designation back to Urban Residential as we approach the end of the ground lease that we have with the Mountain Springs Mobile Home Park operator 16 years from now.

We believe that this prospect creates uncertainty for us as owners of the property, just as it must for the owners of the mobile homes within the park on our property. The bare Mobilehome Park designation offers no guidance as to what the rules or expectations will be when, at least 16 years in the future, the park may be redeveloped to provide more housing, which we believe inevitably it must.

It is for that reason that we agree with and support the overlay proposal provided in Nicholson Family's letter to the Planning Commission dated February 10, 2020 (copy attached). That overlay recognizes the ultimate high density residential redevelopment of the park, takes lessons from the recent Winchester Mobile Home Park conversion which is universally agreed to have achieved an excellent result from all perspectives (see last month’s Community Strategy Report:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=50333), while those lessons are fresh, and memorializes the expectations that would accompany the ultimate use of property such as ours for high-density residential development adjacent to light rail transit consistent with an Urban Residential designation. We would think that mobile home owners understand that the bare Mobilehome Park designation provides them with no long-term assurances, and that Sam Liccardo, Mayor March 9, 2020
And Members of the San Jose City Council Page 3

they would want the protection of that overlay as much as property owners would. The Planning Commission was supportive of the overlay concept in its recommendation to the City Council.

Mayor Liccardo, you lauded the landmark Winchester Ranch agreement after which the Nicholson Family’s proposed overlay is modeled in a recent newsletter, saying, “This agreement makes room for much-needed housing in San José and enables residents to remain within their existing community.”

To summarize our position, we object to the re-designation of our property at 625 Hillsdale Avenue to the new Mobilehome Park designation and specifically object to that designation being applied to the portion of our property currently designated Residential Neighborhood. If the Mobilehome Park designation is to be applied to any part of our land, it should only be applied to the portion currently designated Urban Residential, and in that event, the attached overlay proposed by the Nicholson Family should concurrently be approved and adopted by the City to provide guidance for the future use of that property.

Very truly yours,

Nine Islands III, LLC,

By: _____________________
Joseph B. Vieira

By: _____________________
Davide B .Vieira

Attachment: Nicholson Overlay Proposal

cc: Rosalynn Hughey ([email protected])
Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley ([email protected]) Barton Hechtman, Matteoni, O’Laughlin & Hechtman ([email protected])

martha O'Connell
Tue 3/10/2020 9:40 AM
• Agendadesk;
• martha O'Connell <[email protected]>;
• The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo;
• District1;
• District2
+8 others

I Nadine Sabanovich live at Villa Teresa MHP San Jose CA. I support All mobile home parks in San Jose getting the mobile home designation.

From: Mark De La Cruz < >
Date: Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Support Mobilehome Designation in General Plan for ALL mobilehome parks in San Jose! To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <District1@sanjo seca.gov>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <District3@sanj oseca.gov>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <District5@san joseca.gov>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <District7@sa njoseca.gov>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <District9@s anjoseca.gov>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: homeownersforequity <homeownersforequity>

Dear Mayor Liccardo and Councilmembers:

My name is Mark De La Cruz, and I am a San Jose resident and a resident of the Quail Hollow Mobilehome Community (District 6). I strongly support (and I urge you to strongly support) ALL mobilehome parks in San Jose to acquire the Mobilehome Designation in the General Plan.

Sincerely,

Mark De La Cruz

From: Meg Williams
Date: Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:05 PM
Subject: March 10 Meeting Mobilehome Park Designation in the General Plan To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <District1@sanjo seca.gov>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <District6@sanj oseca.gov>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <District7@san joseca.gov>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <District9@sa njoseca.gov>, homeownersforequity ;
homeownersforequity, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <d [email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>

Dear Thoughtful People

In accordance with the encouragement of 55+ citizens not going to large gatherings, I am sending you an email reiterating the stand that my husband and I are hoping that you have taken in support of all mobile-home parks in San Jose being given the mobile- home park designation in the General Plan.

We are affordable housing which everyone is trying to provide and secure in this 'high priced' area. Don't remove a large portion of what is currently available in this category.

Protect it~!!

Please vote to extend the designation in the General Plan, Thank you.

Margaret L. & Charles L. Williams

Date: Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:41 PM
Subject: MH Designation For ALL Parks
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, District <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: homeownersforequity

I support ALL Mobilehome Parks in San Jose getting the Mobilehome designation in the General Plan.

Lois Gerchman

From: sandra crane
Date: Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:37 PM
Subject: MOBILE HOME DESIGNATION
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: martha O'Connell

Elected Officers of San Jose CA

I had every intention of attending the City Council Meeting tonight to express my opinion that the MobileHome Designation be applied to all mobile home parks in the city of San Jose. I will not be attending due to the current level of COVID-19 concern among our population.

I urge all members of the City Council to approve this agenda item.

San Jose has been diligently working and urging necessary action to provide more affordable housing. I believe it will be a very detrimental step backward if the mobile home parks in this county were vulnerable to closure.

Thank you for reading my recommendation. Please support the Designation for all MobileHome Parks.

Sandra Crane

From: Dave Johnsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 4:34 PM
To: City Clerk; Jones, Chappie; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo; District4 Subject: Agenda item 10.2 on March 10, 2020

The General Plan amendment for zoning mobile home parks at Westwinds and Mountain Springs needs to be passed with no amendments now.

The next move for the City is to zone all mobile home parks as such immediately. Planning has stated that the zoning of the rest of the parks being commercial or industrial are safe. This is only true if future Councils value those designations more than inexpensive housing.

Sincerely,

Dave Johnsen

San Jose City CouncilOctober 18, 2022

San Jose City Council
October 18, 2022