►
From YouTube: FEB 12, 2020 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José
Planning Commission
View agenda at https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=762043&GUID=C76BD4A5-8C37-48A5-BC88-2816EB0F6D15
A
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
get
started
with
the
Planning
Commission
hearing,
and
can
everybody
hear
me
all
right,
yeah,
okay,
we're
in
a
different
location,
so
just
it's
it's
different,
cozy,
yeah
and
I
suspect
a
lot
of
the
technical
capabilities
aren't
necessarily
the
same
and
so
I'm
wondering
from
this
staff.
Do
we
have
a
recording
of
this
summary
of
hearing
the
hearing
procedures
or
do
I
need
to
read
that
all
right,
so
I'm
going
to
go
ahead?
A
A
A
A
I
get
to
call
out
the
names
on
the
speaker
cards
in
the
order
that
they
are
received,
as
your
name
is
called
line
up
in
front
of
the
microphone
at
the
front
of
the
chamber
right
there,
and
each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes
and
speakers
using
a
translator
will
have
four
minutes
and
I'm
hoping
that
we'll
be
able
to
set
this
clock
up
here
to
be
able
to
time
folks.
So
you
can
see
how
you're
doing
you
can
see
how
close
you
are
to
ending
the
two
minutes
after
public
testimony.
A
The
applicant
and
appellant
may
make
closing
remarks
for
an
additional
five
minutes.
Planning
commissioners
may
ask
Shen's
of
the
speaker's
response
to
Commissioner
questions
will
not
reduce
the
speaker's
time
allowance.
The
public
hearing
will
then
be
closed
and
the
Planning
Commission
will
take
action
on
the
item.
The
Planning
Commission
may
request
staff
to
respond
to
the
public.
Testimony
asks
tough
questions
and
discuss
the
item.
A
If
you
challenge
these
land-use
decisions
in
court,
you
may
be
limited
to
raising
only
those
issues
you
or
someone
else
raised
at
this
public
hearing
or
in
written
correspondence
to
deliver
to
the
city
at
or
prior
to
the
public
hearing.
Excuse
me
the
Planning
Commission's
action
on
rezoning,
pre,
zonings
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
City
Council.
The
City
Council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
Section
20.12,
0.4,
0,
0
of
the
Municipal
Code,
provides
the
procedures
for
legal
protests
to
the
City
Council
on
reasonings
and
Crees
awnings.
A
The
Planning
Commission's
action
on
conditional
use
permits
is
appealable
to
the
City
Council
in
accordance
with
section
20
point:
102
2,
0
of
the
Municipal
Code
agendas
and
a
binder
of
all
staff
reports
have
been
placed
on
the
table
near
the
door
for
your
convenience.
So
that
is
the
summary
of
how
things
will
go
tonight.
A
It
looks
like
mario
has
joined
us,
Commissioner
Caballero,
and
so
we
will
go
ahead
and
move
to
public
comment.
This
is
agenda.
Item
number
2
and
the
intent
here
is
for
folks
to
comment
if
they
want
on
anything.
That
is
not
on
the
agenda.
I
do
not
believe
I
have
any
speaker
cards
other
than
agenda
item
8.
So
unless
someone
wants
to
just
speak
on
something,
that's
not
agendized
I
will
go
ahead
and
move
on
and
there
are
no
items
on
item
number,
3,
deferrals
and
removals
from
the
calendar.
A
C
A
D
Thank
You
chair
Alexander,
Hughes
from
the
policy
and
ordinance
team
in
the
planning
department.
The
item
before
you
is
a
quarterly
update
for
the
title:
28
owning
code,
commending
sections,
2030
doc,
600
table
20,
84
fence
regulations
and
several
sections
of
the
2080
1,400
outdoor
private
property.
Special
events
permit.
D
D
A
E
E
F
1980
was
supervising
planner
things
in
another
way,
and
so
currently
there
actually
is
the
only
time
events
are
allowed
on.
Residential
properties
is
churches
or
schools,
and
there
actually
is
no
distance
requirement.
We
considered
adding
a
distance
requirement,
but
in
working
with
our
Cultural
Affairs
Department,
who
does
permit
these
they
they
said
that
in
their
experience
they
actually
are
permitting
a
number
of
these
events
with
less
than
a
50
foot
requirement
as
as
up
today,
because
it's
not
there
and
they
tend
to
be
a
lot
smaller.
F
When
they're
related
to
church
in
school,
they
had
a
concern
with
having
a
no
setback
requirement
when
we're
expanding
it
beyond
churches
and
schools,
to
kind
of
other
more
commercial
uses.
The
concern
was,
the
events,
wouldn't
likely
be
larger,
so
they
wanted
us
to
include
a
setback,
but
didn't
want
to
include
a
setback
that
would
then
no
longer
allow
events
that
have
been
going
on
for
years
to
be
permitted.
So
that's
the
reason
for
the
differentiation.
E
G
F
And
our
Office
of
Cultural
Affairs,
the
beauty
of
their
permit
process,
is
they
do
a
lot
of
one-on-one
with
the
applicants
and
kind
of
really
look
at
the
site-specific
and
work
with
them
on
kind
of
how
their
event
works,
and
so
they
did
feel
pretty
strongly.
They
wanted
something
actually
for
context
off
your
on
a
commercial
property.
It's
actually
a
hundred
and
fifty
feet
away
from
residences
the
requirement.
F
E
That
makes
sense
another
question
for
you
about
this
was
under
Section
20.0
1440.
The
addition
of
the
lawful
non-residential
uses
was
their
consideration
to
whether
there
should
be
extended
to
like
a
mixed-use
like
where
you
had
a
building
that
had
both
residential
and
a
mixed-use
component
or
I
suppose,
maybe
that
would
violate
the
50-foot
issue.
Yeah.
F
That's
a
you
know
what
that
didn't
come
up.
That's
a
good
question.
I
suspect
it
didn't
come
up
because
the
mixed-use
developments
tend
to
not
have
outdoor
parking
lots
that
they
use
for
events,
because
really
what
this
is
for
is
this
is,
if
you
look
at
there
were
you
know,
kind
of
what
qualifies
this
as
an
event?
Is
that
they're
taking
up
parking
required
parking
and
I?
Think
it's
that
we
found
mixed-use
developments
trying
to
have
parking
garages
right
where
they're?
Not
they
don't
have
them,
so
it
just
didn't
come
up.
F
A
Couple
questions
for
you.
First
of
all,
I
thought
the
staff
report
was
really
good.
It
helped
me
understand
what
the
issue
was.
You
know
it's
nice
to
like
what
is
the
problem
we're
trying
to
solve
and
what
are
our
goals
so
I
really
appreciated
the
way
that
things
were
outlined
and
it
made
me
curious.
So
I
just
have
a
couple
questions
here.
So
what
are
examples
of
events
that
that
you
might
foresee
falling
under
this.
F
One
example
is
in
the
Willow
Glen
in
Lincoln
Avenue
in
particular,
some
of
those
properties.
The
parking
lots
are
actually
sown
residential.
So
that
would
be
one
thing:
it
facilitates
using
those
parking
lots
a
behind
BevMo
for
events,
the
other
thing
again
using
the
Willow
Glen
example
is,
and
we
found
this
in
other
business
districts-
is
that
business
districts
tend
to
have
much
closer
interfaces
to
residential.
Hence
the
recommendation
of
updating
the
distance
requirement
where
they're
located
in
business
district.
So
we
expect,
we
might
see
more
events,
say
I'm,
like
maybe
13th
Street
business.
F
F
A
D
F
Not
huge
I
mean
we
did
a
sort
of,
you
know,
quick
analysis
of
it
and
it
was
intentionally
kept
somewhat
limited.
Various
reasons
and
kind
of
some
staffing
concerns
with
the
permit
process,
and
so
it's
not
like
wholesale
quadruple
the
number
of
spaces
or
anything
like
that.
It
should
be
fairly
modest
for
China.
Are
you.
D
A
And
then
my
last
comment,
/
question
is,
you
know
again:
I
appreciated
the
staff
report
and
I
appreciated
the
example
of
the
Rosicrucian
Museum.
It
helps
to
like
make
it
tangible
what
we're
talking
about
and
at
the
same
time,
it's
hard
to
think
in
the
abstract
and
then
how
that's
going
to
get
translated
and
what
the
implications
are
going
to
be.
Ultimately,
so
I'm
wondering
if
you
guys
have
thought
about
I'm
supportive
of
this
change,
but
have
you
thought
about
like
an
evaluation
in
a
year
of
like
alright?
A
F
Mean
that's
a
great
idea.
We,
we
certainly
I,
think
we'll
find
out
very
clearly
because
these
all
do
go
through
our
cultural
affairs
group,
which
is
like
two
or
three
people
that
we
work
very
very
closely
with.
So,
if
there's
issues
we
will
know-
and
it's
always
our
plan
to
check
back
and
continuously
improve
I'm,
not
sure
what
mechanism
for
a
formal
thing
we
would
do,
but
I
mean
we
would
definitely
be
open
for
that,
because
it
would
be
interesting
to
kind
of
see
what
this
did
and
can
you
go
further?
E
So
this
isn't
about
the
events
any
longer.
This
is
actually
about
the
fence,
regulation
and
so
I
I
think
I
understand
what
what
you're
trying
to
do.
My
question
is,
or
maybe
comment-
is
that
I
really
don't
understand
what
adjacent
to
a
side,
setback
area
or
the
side
setback
area
actually
is
on
a
corner
lot.
I
find
this
very
confusing,
and
so
I
I
mean
I
was
looking
at
ok
side
setback
area
not
adjacent
to
a
street.
E
Is
that
the
shared
property
line
that
would
be
on
the
side
and
if
that's
the
shared
property
line,
are
you
saying
that
your
fence
would
have
to
be
inside
the
property
line?
So
I
guess
my
question
is
what
does
it
mean
and
then
the
second
part
of
that
it
would
be?
Is
there
a
way
to
maybe
make
it
more
clear
as
to
what
is
actually
what
side
of
the
property
is
meant
to
be
covered
by
this
fence
regulation
on
a
corner
lot.
D
F
Yeah,
so
the
other
terminology
we
use
for
this
is
the
interior
side
setback.
We
actually
we
thought
about
using
that,
but
we
thought
that
might
be
more
confusing.
Then
you
know
it's
either
than
one
side
setback
next
to
the
street
or
the
side
side
like
that's
not,
but
we
could.
You
know
we'd,
be
open
to
the
recommendations
for
changes
to
clarify
that
and
I'll
just
tell
you
practically
speaking
and
we
have
a
diagram.
That's
what
we
really
handle
is
our
diagram.
So
nobody
actually
kind
of
references.
F
E
F
It's
not
that
the
fence
has
to
be
5
feet
from
property
line.
It's
on
the
side
corner
lot.
For
the
most
part,
the
side
setback
is
actually
12
and
a
half
feet.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
it's
just
that
if
it
is
within
that
12
and
a
half
feet,
the
fence
is
limited
to
3
5
feet
or
3
feet
tall.
Actually,
sorry,
if
it's
within
that
5
feet,
we
did
define
it
that
way.
F
E
F
E
E
I
J
D
J
D
A
K
A
F
If
Thank
You,
chair
and
commissioners
I'll
try
to
keep
this
short
martini,
the
supervising
planner
with
the
ordinance
and
policy
team,
the
ordinance
before
you
today
is
to
facilitate
permitting
of
Tap
Room's
and
tasting
rooms
that
are
associated
with
specific
alcohol
manufacturers,
either
on
the
same
site
as
the
manufacturing
facility
or
as
a
standalone
use.
Historically
tap
in
tasting
rooms
are
not
distinguished
in
our
code
from
regular
bars
and
nightclubs
and
had
to
go
through
the
same
permit
processes
as
a
bar
or
nightclub.
So
a
standalone
tasting
room,
that's
associated
with,
say,
a
brewery.
F
We
consider
it
exactly
the
same
as
any
old
bar
and
as
part
of
the
first
phase
of
the
zoning
and
general
plan
alignment
work
that
was
adopted
by
council
last
spring
and
went
to
the
Commission
last
spring.
We
did
recommend
and
they
did
approve
changing
the
tap
and
tasting
rooms,
went
on
the
side
of
a
manufacturer
to
a
special
use
permit
from
a
conditional
use
department.
F
So
that
was
our
first
step
of
distinguishing
them,
and
this
ordinance
takes
it
a
step
further
and
so
to
touch
on
kind
of
why
they're
different
they
actually
do
get
a
completely
different
permit
from
the
Department
of
Av
alcoholic
beverages,
control
that
has
different
allowances
and
requirements
from
traditional
bars.
Key
differences
include
that
the
premises
are
not
age
restricted,
so
people
can
and
often
do
bring
their
families
and
that
they
are
only
allowed
to
sell
products
that
are
manufactured
by
the
manufacturer
who
holds
the
license
unless
they
operate
as
a
full
bonafide
public
eating
establishment.
F
So
that
means
that,
for
example,
I
couldn't
use
this
process
to
open
Martinez
beer,
barn
and
sell
Bud
Light
as
a
tasting
room.
I
don't
make
Bud
Light
if
I
was
a
brewer
who
made
beer,
I
could
use
this
process,
but
so
it
is
restricted.
So
we
currently
have
about
it
and
permitted
tasting
rooms
in
San
Jose.
Most
of
them
are
located
at
breweries
and
there
are
two
winery
tasting
rooms,
all
of
which
had
received
a
conditional
use,
permit
or
planned
development
permit.
F
In
one
case,
and
when
we
looked
through
the
records,
we
found
that
the
conditional
use
permits
really
have
not
been
controversial.
The
ones
we
found
agenda
listings
for
went
through
on
consent
and
they
tended
to
be
standardized
when
it
came
to
issues
we
looked
at,
such
as
noise
parking
outdoor
areas
and
ours,
operation
I'm
intended
to
have
standardized
conditions.
So
as
such,
we
we
decide
to
take
it
a
step
further
and
create
a
new
definition
for
tap
or
tasting
room.
F
That's
separate
from
a
traditional
drinking
establishment
and
to
create
an
administrative
permit
process
for
these
uses
to
locate
in
San
Jose.
These
tend
to
be
small
businesses
and
so
reducing
the
permit,
timeline
and
cost
and
will
be
especially
beneficial
to
these
businesses.
Opening
we've
been
working
with
our
local
alcohol
manufacturing
community
on
this
ordinance,
and
you
can
see,
we've
included
a
couple,
letters
and
emails
of
support.
In
addition,
we
have
been
checking
in
with
our
Police
Department
to
make
sure
they
didn't
have
any
concerns.
F
Back
to
us
with
something
a
little
bit
more
formal,
they
shared
that
they
reviewed
it
with
the
deputy
chief.
We
didn't
get
a
formal
memo,
but
they
sent
us
something
saying
that
ordinance
looks
good.
They
complimented
whoever
put
it
together
for
the
time
and
all
the
issues
they
looked
at
and
they
did
confirm
as
we
asked
them
to
confirm
whether
or
not
our
existing
breweries
and
wineries
have
are
having
calls
for
service
or
issues,
and
they
confirm
that
they
or
not.
F
So
for
those
reasons,
we
are
recommending
these
changes
to
our
regulations
for
tap
and
tasting
rooms,
and
if
you
are
wondering
how
eliminating
parking
for
downtown
ended
up
medical
offices
downtown
ended
up
in
this
ordinance,
it
would
have
actually
been
in
the
quarterly
update.
But
we
realized
that
it
was
going
the
same
hearing
and
was
going
to
update
the
same
use
table
as
this
ordinance,
and
we
couldn't
have
two
ordinances
adopting
the
same
table
at
the
same
hearing.
What
would
immediately
supersede
the
other?
F
F
F
Making
downtown
and
we'll
play
mobile
transit
face
and
it
seems
to
be
working
as
it
comes
to
this
use.
So,
to
conclude,
my
report
staff
recommends
the
Commission
recommend
the
council
adopt
the
ordinance
to
amend
title
20,
to
create
a
definition
for
top
and
tasting
rooms
requiring
an
administrative
permit
for
top
or
tasting
room
that
meets
the
provisions
of
chapter
20
m80
and
to
eliminate
the
parking
requirement
for
medical
offices
downtown.
This
concludes
staff
report
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
F
F
So
downtown
were
actually
not
recommending
any
parking
it's
outside
of
downtown
or
recommending
parking.
We
did
a
really
careful
analysis
on
this
parking
ratio,
because
parking
was
an
issue
that
it
was
pretty
difficult
to
do
parking
for
these
uses
because
it
kind
of
made
up
three
different
uses.
When
it
came
to
parking,
we
did
there
retail
areas,
retail.
We
did
there
drinking
areas,
drinking
establishment,
which
is
a
different
ratio
from
there
manufacturing,
which
is
a
different
ratio
from
storage.
F
So
our
goal
was
to
kind
of
look
at
what's
out
there
and
come
up
with
a
practical,
uniform
ratio
that
we
think
will
work
for
everybody.
What
we
did
is
we
looked
at
all
of
our
existing
permits
and
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
they
could
all
have
been
permitted
under
this
admin
permit
process
and
they
all
definitely
were,
and
this
parking
seemed
to
work
based
on
what's
out
there
and
kind
of
be
a
little
bit
more
consistent
with
similar
drinking
or
eating
establishments
outside
a
downtown.
F
So
for
that
reason
we
we
do
feel
pretty
confident
that
we
don't
think
the
parking
is
gonna,
be
an
issue.
We
think
that
it's
a
more
generous
ratio
than
it
was
now
that's
going
to
be
a
lot
or
before
that's
going
to
be
a
lot
easier
to
calculate,
so
we
anticipate
it's
going
to
be
adequate.
However,
if
we
find
out,
you
know
what
its
what
still
way
too
high,
we
will
come
back
and
change
it.
A
K
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
Commissioner
Robert
Rivera
with
the
Planning
Division
GPT
1900
3
is
a
city
initiate
general
plan
amendment
to
add
a
new
land
use
designation,
titled
mobile
home
park
to
the
envision
San
Jose
2040
general
plan.
The
new
land
use
designation
is
intended
to
preserve
existing
housing
stock
and
to
reduce
and
avoid
the
displacement
of
long-term
residents.
Gp
1900
5
and
GP
1900
6,
our
city,
initiated
general
plan
amendments
to
change
to
the
existing
general
plan.
Land
use
designations
to
the
proposed
mobile
home
park.
Land
use.
I
H
I
In
response
to
the
proposed
conversion
of
Winchester
Ranch
mobile
home
park,
the
City
Council
directed
staff
to
develop
a
work
plan
and
process
for
updating
or
creating
new
ordinance
and
policies
to
protect
existing
mobile
home
park
residents.
This
included
a
temporary
moratorium
for
mobile
home
park
convergence
and
closures.
I
With
analysis
of
the
proposed
general
plan,
land-use
amendments
for
mobile
home
parks
and
the
associated
staffing
requirements
for
moving
these
amendments
forward.
Staff
analysis
identified
two
mobile
home
parks
with
high
density,
residential
land
use
designations,
west
winds
and
mount
springs
that
are
most
at
risk
of
redevelopment
council
directed
staff
to
create
a
new
mobile
home
park.
Land
use,
designation
and
apply
it
to
west
winds
and
mount
springs
mobile
home
parks.
I
It's
important
to
know
that
the
city
initiated
general
plan
amendments
do
not
directly
prohibit
park,
conversions,
but
strengthen
existing
protections
of
mobile
home
park
residents.
The
implementation
of
mobile
home
park
land
use
designation
creates
an
additional
land
use
process
for
redevelopment.
This
would
be
an
additional
process
requiring
City
Council
discretion
on
top
of
what
is
already
required
under
council
policy.
6-3
3,
which
guides
implementation
of
mobile
home
park.
Conversions,
where
City
Council
is
also
the
decision-making
body,
Mountain,
Springs
and
west
winds.
I
Mobile
home
parks
are
the
most
at
risk
of
conversion
because
their
existing
land
use
designation
is
an
urban
residential
land
use
designation,
which
would
support
the
redevelopment
into
high
density
residential
uses.
Given
current
development
trends
to
denser
housing,
the
remaining
mobile
home
parks
would
require
general
plan
to
redevelop
to
multi-family
residential
uses.
I
The
proposed
mobile
home
park
Linux
designations,
as
detailed
in
the
staff
report,
would
allow
mobile
home
park
mobile
home
parks
and
incidental
uses
for
mobile
home
park
residents,
with
a
density
of
up
to
25
mobile
home
Lots
per
acre.
The
proposed
density
reflects
the
full
range
of
densities
found
in
all
mobile
home
parks
in
San
Jose.
However,
any
infill
development
would
need
to
match
the
density
of
mobile
home
Lots
in
existing
mobile
home
parks.
I
Mountain
Springs
mobile
home
park
is
approximately
20
1.71
gross
acre
site
located
on
the
north
side
of
Hillsdale
Avenue
approximately
675
feet.
East
of
Narva
is
Avenue
and
is
comprised
of
two
parcels.
The
site
includes
144
mobile
homes
with
private
roadways,
surface
parking
and
a
clubhouse
Mountain
Springs
mobile
home
park
has
a
split
general
plan.
Land
use,
designation
of
urban,
residential
and
residential
neighborhood
urban
residential
allows
for
medium
to
high
density,
residential
developments
and
a
broad
range
of
commercial
uses,
while
residential
neighborhood
allows
for
your
typical,
suburban
residential
neighborhoods
west
winds.
I
Mobile
home
park
is
then
approximately
80
3.43
Krause
acre
site
located
on
Nicholson
Lane,
approximately
1,000
feet
northeast
of
North
first
Street
and
is
comprised
of
five
parcels.
The
site
includes
723
mobile
homes
with
private
roadways,
surface
parking,
clubhouses
and
park
space
west
winds,
mobile
home
park
has
an
urban
residential
land
use
designation,
which
allows
for
medium
to
high
density,
residential
developments
and
a
broad
range
of
commercial
uses.
I
A
Thank
you
before
I
open
it
up
for
a
public
hearing.
Is
there?
Are
there
any
questions
for
staff
at
this
time?
Seeing
none
I'll
go
ahead
and
go
to
the
public.
I
have
a
few
speaker
cards
here.
I'm
gonna
call
up
three
names
so
that
you
guys
can
queue
up.
You'll
have
two
minutes
and
I
assume
that
that
is
going
to
be
tracked
on
the
the
big
clock
III
screen
up
here,
so
starting
with
Patrick
Grimes,
Marg,
Lundberg
and
Saul,
no
last
name
just
salt.
H
Commissioners,
thank
you.
My
name
is
Patrick
Grimes
I'm,
a
resident
of
west
wings
have
been
for
almost
30
years.
My
family
and
I
moved
to
west
winds
mobile
home
park,
because
mobile
homes
are
the
were
the
last
available,
affordable
housing
in
Silicon
Valley.
Our
alternate
at
that
point.
If
we
wanted
to
own
our
own
home
would
be
to
move
outside
of
the
county,
and
that
was
unacceptable
to
our
family.
Life.
H
H
California
is
having
a
crisis:
affordable
housing.
You
guys
know
it
all
the
way
from
city
level,
all
the
way
up
to
the
California
governor.
This
is
a
major
problem
in
California
Benjamin
Franklin,
said
saved.
Is
a
penny
earned
apply
to
mobile
home
parks?
That
means
that
saving
our
existing
housing
stock
of
affordable
housing
is
just
as
effective
as
building
more
affordable
housing
and,
in
fact
this
housing
already
exists
and
requires
no
additional
city.
Investment
I
strongly
urge
the
Planning
Commission
to
recommend
this
land
use
designation.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
H
My
name
is
Marge
Lundberg
I've
lived
at
Mountain
Springs
for
15
years,
and
I
would
like
to
see
myself
retire.
There
I'm
81
for
another
10
years,
maybe,
but
once
a
park
is
designated
or
the
word
gets
out
that
a
park
is
gonna
have
a
problem
with
a
developer
or
whatever
guess
how
much
my
house
is
gonna,
be
worth
that's
the
big
problem.
Our
equity
will
go
down
to
zero.
We
urge
that
the
council
not
just
do
these
two
parks
but
the
whole
mobile
home
park
system
in
the
San
Jose.
H
A
H
M
H
Project
manager,
Rob
Rivera
for
all
the
work
they've
gone
through
in
this
recommendation
that
they're
putting
forth
to
the
City
Council
it's
important
if
everyone
to
realize
that
the
homeless
problem
is
increasing.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
the
less
studies
showed
that
the
HOS,
the
homeless
problem
has
increased
by
52%.
H
H
N
My
name
is
Ivan
Ellis
I'm,
also
a
resident
of
Monte
Springs
mobile
home
park.
We
moved
into
the
park
five
years
ago
with
my
wife
as
a
part
of
our
retirement
planning
process.
I
I
think
it
is
very
important
to
mention
that
the
senior
parks
they
need
even
more
protection
between
the
mobile
home
parks,
because
this
is
the
only
way
with
limited
resources
to
plan
your
retirement
years
for
a
long
time,
and
it
is
really
important
to
know
the
worries
there
in
place
today.
N
It
will
be
in
place
in
in
10,
15
20
25
years
as
well,
so
every
protection
what
the
City
Council
can
provide
for
the
for
the
mobile
home
parks.
It
is
really
important
for
us.
This
is
the
only
way
we
can
plan
our
retirement
sources
for
for
longer
time,
because
housing
is
big
part
of
that
that
cost
and-
and
it
is
really
important
to
see
with
the
with
rent
control,
which
helps
a
lot
it
can
be
controlled
in
a
very
strong
way.
Thank
you.
H
M
H
Reason
why
I
be
here
today
to
support
the
rezoning
of
mobile
home
park
I
strongly
to
oppose
the
land
owner
from
selling
the
land
to
force
us
to
move
because
I'm?
Really,
oh
I,
don't
know
where
do
I
go
it
tastes
so
lookin
for
looking
for
only
place
to
live
in
this
time.
So
I
urge
I
urge
the
mayor
and
the
City
Council
member
what
resort
mobile
home
park
moving
on
back
to
the
mobile
home
park
only.
A
A
So,
as
a
general
practice,
we
try
to
discourage
folks
from
clapping.
So
please,
if
you
could
keep
things
under
wraps
that
would
be
appreciated.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
feels
welcome.
For
example,
if
someone
wanted
to
come
up
to
the
microphone
and
say
that
they
absolutely
do
not
want
this
general
plan
designation,
but
they
hear
you
all
being
very
supportive.
It
just
makes
it
kind
of
an
unwelcoming
atmosphere
for
them.
So
if
you
could
just
keep
your
emotions
in
check,
that
would
be
great.
So
next
up
Dexter
goody.
Yes,.
O
My
name
is
Dexter
goody.
First
of
all,
I
live
in
west
winds,
mobile
home
park,
504,
Hermitage
and
I
want
to
thank
Robert
for
the
time
and
the
work
that
he's
put
in
on
this
living
in
jeopardy,
which
is
what
I
feel
I
am
not
knowing.
What's
going
to
happen
to
my
home
that
I've
been
in
for
13
years
now,
I've
owned
the
home
I
pay
rent
on
the
space
when
I
bought
my
home
from
the
Vantage
homes
back
in
2007.
O
It
was
built
in
Southern,
California
transported
up
here
and
I
chose
the
lot
where
it's
now
sitting.
I
didn't
know
at
that
time.
That
I'd
be
faced
with
this,
this
type
of
anxiety,
which
is
what
it
is
because
I
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen,
and
this
is
not
only
right
now,
but
this
is
every
year,
because
what
I
understand
is
the
landowners
if
we
do
actually
change
this
to
mobile
home
parks,
which
I
approve
and
hope
we
do.
O
But
from
what
I
understand
the
landowners
can
then
petition
the
Planning
Commission
every
year
during
the
year,
then
in
November
it
goes
for
a
vote
and
then
in
December.
It
goes
City
Council
so
every
year,
even
though
I'm
living
there
and
now
what's
called
a
mobile
home
park,
that's
a
designation
I'm,
also
faced
with
the
anxiety
of
not
knowing
what's
gonna
happen
this
year
next
year
or
ten
years
from
now.
So
my
home
is
where
I
live.
O
L
Evening,
commissioners,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
time
for
public
comments,
I'm
from
Orchard,
City,
indivisible
and
Campbell,
and
we
are
very
concerned
about
the
housing
crisis
here
in
San
Jose,
and
we
were
very
concerned
for
our
friend
Vince
Flores,
who
will
be
speaking
soon
about
him,
possibly
leaving
losing
his
home.
A
member
of
my
church
lost
their
home
in
the
Winchester
park
that
was
mentioned
earlier.
We
are
in
a
great
housing
crisis
right
now.
People
my
age,
can
only
afford
a
home
of
a
mobile
home
park.
L
So
we
really
need
to
keep
this
option
open
to
everybody,
not
just
seniors,
but
it's
the
only
option
for
many
people
here
in
this
county
nowadays
hard-working
people.
So
please
keep
that
in
mind.
Consider
designating
the
park
a
mobile
home
park.
I
know
many
people
that
live
in
them.
I
know
people
that
rent
on
sweets
and
mobile
home
parks
as
a
way
to
save
money,
students,
etc.
We
need
to
do
our
best
to
better
protect
our
residents
here
in
San
Jose
from
the
housing
crisis.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
C
Than
what
is,
are
it
legal?
This
is
more
than
what
zoning
can
be
assigned
or
what
new
restrictions
can
be
applied
to
prevent
or
slow
down
the
conversion
of
this
community
into
yet
more
high-rise
apartments
and
high-tech
buildings.
It
is
also
about
doing
what
is
right
and
recognizing
what
is
valuable
in
a
human
sense.
It
is
also
a
social
justice
issue.
C
It
is
outrageous
that
a
person
or
a
group
of
people
can
a
residents
from
their
homes
destroy
a
community
where
children
live
and
are
safe
to
play,
a
community
that
is
ethnically
diverse
where
retirees
that
raised
their
families
can
afford
to
live
and
where
their
children
raise
their
families,
where
teachers,
janitors
trade,
people,
gardeners,
small
business
owners
and
others
can
afford
to
live
and
own
homes.
This
is
the
catastrophic
destruction
of
a
community
from
which
many
will
not
be
able
to
recover.
It
is
vital
to
recognize
that
this
is
about
more
than
our
community.
C
Continuing
down
this
path
will
lead
to
a
city
where
only
the
wealthy
can
afford
to
live
and
own
homes.
I
was
born
and
raised
here
in
this
valley
and,
unlike
most
of
you,
I
remember
when
there
were
orchards
and
farms
and
neighborhoods
and
kids
could
play
on
the
street,
and
now
we've
taken
paradise
and
turned
it
into
an
unending
row
of
giant
housing
complexes
and
high-tech
buildings.
I
ask
you
to
pass
this
not
only
for
our
two
mobile
homes,
but
for
all
of
the
other
mobile.
C
A
N
Tonight,
I,
don't
know
what
to
say:
I've
been
living
there
for
28
years
group
raised
that
my
son
19
years
old,
he's
blind
but
I.
Remember
all
the
times
we
used
to
walk
to
the
creek
walk
around
place
and
everywhere
you
go
like
he
was
everybody
saying,
there's
like
buildings
and
structures
going
up
everywhere
and
it's
taking
over
the
whole
area
and
it's
very
affordable
for
us
to
be
able
to
live
this
area.
N
But
there's
we
lived
somewhere
else
anywhere
near
here
for
the
price
were
like
we're,
paying
it's
affordable
for
us
to
live
there
and
I
hope
you
guys.
I've
listened
to
all
the
people
that
spoke
today,
because
they've
said
some
really
good
stuff
that
you
know
I
hope
across
the
message
to
you
guys.
It's
it'd
be
sad
to
see
all
these
people
have
to
find
a
place
to
live
and
only
that,
but
the
value
of
each
houses,
nothing.
You
know
there
were
we're.
Gonna
have
nothing.
N
A
L
Good
evening
my
name
is
Annabelle
Gonzalez
Allie,
but
west
winds
lack
three
six
one
I've
been
there.
I
lived
there
for
20
years,
we're
moving
there
I'm,
not
foreseeing
that
this
is
going
to
be
happening
and
with
all
the
housing
crisis
right
now
this
is
the
most
affordable
place.
We
can
live.
I
hope
that
they
will
pass.
They
will
keep
our
mobile
home
parks
so.
L
L
I'm
Maria,
Sinclair,
I,
live
at
west
winds.
I
think
that
anyone
involved
in
the
high-density
residence
area
in
my
neighborhood
should
drive
around
and
actually
see
the
results.
The
urban
village
idea
of
commercial
services
and
residents
has
not
panned
out.
Our
nearest
Safeway
is
close
to
three
miles
away
and
must
now
serve
ten
times
as
many
people.
You
should
see
this
to
try
to
get
less
receipt.
You
should
try
to
get
a
few
groceries
that
are
safe
way
around
6:00
p.m.
sometime,
and
you
can
see
how
impacted
our
neighborhood
has
become
to
shop.
L
Using
public
transportation
will
require
a
train
ride
and
a
bus
ride
in
an
extra
two
hours.
In
a
day
our
community
has
streets,
children
can
walk
on,
they
can
ride
their
bikes.
They
know
their
neighbors
walk
around
the
miles
and
miles
of
condo
blocks
and
try
to
find
kids
playing.
The
streets
are
dark
because
tall
condos
end
at
narrow
streets
facing
another
block
of
tall
buildings.
On
the
other
side,
we
have
trees,
birds.
P
Good
evening
planning
commissioners,
my
name
is
Hui
Tran
I
am
running
to
represent
district
4
and
the
San
Jose
City
Council,
but
I
appeared
tonight
as
an
ally
of
the
mobile-home
west
winds
residents
and
mobile
home
residents
across
the
city.
It
is
no
secret
that
we
face
a
housing
crisis
and
to
address
this,
we
obviously
must
build
more
housing,
and
we
must
both
density.
However,
allowing
developers
to
target
mobile
home
parks
is
not
the
answer
to
this
mobile
home
park.
P
P
Because
what
equity
can
you
keep
and
maintain
in
a
home
or
in
a
building
when
the
land,
underneath
it
has
no
security
or
guarantee
at
all,
I
want
to
bring
up
the
following
points
for
your
consideration,
because
I
am
in
full
support
of
the
land,
use,
designation
and
applying
it
to
west
winds
and
amount
Springs,
but
I
urge
you
to
do
what
the
Housing
Commission
is
done
and
expanded
across
the
city
as
well.
While
we
need
more
housing,
we
actually
also
need
affordable
housing.
P
We
often
hear
that
the
solution
to
the
housing
crisis
is
simply
to
have
more.
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
helped
been
a
part
of
building
it.
San
Jose
has
booked
thousands
of
market
rate
units
North
San
Jose
is
the
prime
example
of
that.
We
have
built
the
8,000
residential
units
that
we
are
allowed
to
with
a
handful
of
affordable
units
in
the
North
San
Jose
plan.
P
Now,
despite
giving
free
rein
to
market
rate
developers
in
this
region,
the
average
price
of
a
class,
a
one-bedroom
apartment
is
still
over
twenty-seven
hundred
dollars
a
month.
The
desired
drop
in
rent
has
not
materialized.
We
also
have
a
revolving
door
of
residents
where
significant
number
of
them
move
in
and
out
within
the
span
of
a
few
years,
meaning
that
there
are
units
that
become
available
on
a
regular
basis.
These
are
opponents
that
are
available
to
rent
in
the
city.
P
A
H
Evening
my
name
is
Janet
Travis
and
I
am
one
of
I
live
in
Mountain
Springs
mobile
home
park
I've
lived
there
14
years,
I'm
one
of
those
who
rents
a
room
in
my
two
bedroom
mobile
home
park,
so
that
I
can
afford
increasing
rent,
increasing
costs
of
insurance,
increasing
costs
of
everything
living
in
the
valley.
I
have
a
daughter,
son-in-law
and
three
grandchildren
under
10.
If
I
am
forced
out
of
the
park,
then
I
will
have
to
move
elsewhere
because
I
cannot
afford
to
live
here,
and
that
means
traveling
I'm
76.
H
That
means
traveling
into
town
to
see
my
grandchildren
and
my
daughter
and
son-in-law
as
well
as
of
course
they'll.
Come
visit
me
sometimes
but
they're
very
busy.
They
both
work
so
I.
That
makes
it
even
more
difficult,
so
I
encourage
you
and
implore.
You
please
designate
mobile-home
Mountain,
Springs
mobile
home
park
and
west
winds
and
I
grew
the
others
as
protected
mobile
home
parks.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
A
H
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
of
speaking
and
my
wife
and
I
moved
in
to
do
Mountain.
Springs
16
years
ago
we
took
our
savings
and
bought
her
home
and
we've
been
making
payments
rental
payments
along
the
way
we
thought
we
had
some
equity,
the
fact
that
we
had
bought
our
mobile
home
and
when
I'm
sure
my
wife
passed
away
six
years
ago.
So
my
income
was
cut
basically
in
half
with
Social
Security
and
it's
a
struggle
the
way
it
is
no.
H
H
A
B
M
G
I
mean
we
didn't
really
know
something
we
were
exploring.
We
didn't
come
to
sort
of
a
final
analysis
and
sort
of
like
the
whether
to
move
forward
or
that
or
not
what
happened
was
Council
gave
us
direction.
Council
did
not
give
us
direction
and
do
an
overlay.
Frankly,
we
were
sort
of
exploring
that,
as
maybe
this
makes
sense,
and
then
we've
been
given
direction
to
bring
the
amendments
before
you
tonight.
So
we
kind
of
halted
work
on
that.
B
Let
me
go
back
to
the
Winchester
ranch
conversion
which,
by
the
time
it
finally
came
to
us,
included
a
set
of
protections
for
the
residents
that
were
so
good.
They
probably
constitute
a
template
of
what
the
city
would
expect
from
the
conversion
of
any
affordable
housing
project
which
basically
consisted
of
protection
for
the
residents.
B
I.
Don't
personally
know
of
any
way
the
city
could
mandate
that
in
advance.
But
is
that
information
widely
available?
And
is
there
some
way
to
bring
it
into
consideration
so
that
any
discussion
of
converting
a
mobile
home
park,
the
developers
should
assume
that
something
some
similar
level
of
protection
would
be
desired
by
the
city
and
that
the
residents
have
some
idea
of
what
they
should
be
asking
for?
I
the
the
Winchester
scenario
took
years
to
get
there
and
the
involvement
of
a
pro
bono
nonprofit
legal
organization
to
assist
the
residents
in
negotiating.
B
G
Think
that
was
the
general
idea
behind
an
overlay
or
which
could
actually
be
a
digital
language
in
a
council
policy,
or
it
could
be
something
in
the
general
plan,
but
to
provide
more
specificity
about
what
the
city
would
be
expecting
if,
if
a
proper,
if
the
mobile
home
park
was
to
convert
with
the
idea,
that
would
provide
more
clarity
and
reassurance
is
what
the
city
is
looking
for.
Both
from
me,
the
residents
as
well
as
the
property
owner
that
works,
that
work
was.
K
Has
to
do
with
the
fact
that
Mountain
Springs
has
sort
of
a
split
current
zoning
and
one
of
which
is
presidential
and
one
of
which
is
urban
residential
right.
So
does
differences
in
density
and
the
decision
to
sort
of
create
to
apply
the
mobile
home
park
designation
to
both
parcels,
and
so
that's
question
one.
So
you
can
go
ahead
and
address
that
first
sure.
M
Yes,
so
with
that
one
right
it
has
this,
but
what
land
use
designation,
we
just
thought
for
simplicity.
I
mean
we're
already
up
through
the
action,
be
applying
the
new
mobile
home
park,
land
used
as
the
nation
to
half
of
it.
So
why
not
just
make
the
art
in
its
entirety
consistent
with
the
mobile
new
mobile
home
park,
land
use
designation.
You
know
we
could
have
left
it.
Yes
is
residential
neighborhood
and
it
would
you
know
largely
it
achieved
the
same
goals,
but
we
thought,
given
you
have
you
know
one
mobile
home
park.
K
My
second
question
has
more
to
do
with
why
two
versus
all
59,
you
know,
obviously
so.
First
off
I
was
somewhat
surprised
to
find
out
that
there
were
59
mobile
home
parks.
I
have
a
family
member
that
lives
in
one
of
the
59,
so
I'm,
very
aware
of
the
plight
of
folks
of
the
availability
of
mobile
home
parks
and
the
sort
of
great
asset
that
it
is
to
particularly
seniors
staying
in
place.
K
But
you
know
the
urban
residential
has
the
higher
density
and
I
think
to
Commissioner
as
Annie's
point,
maybe
from
if
we
could
achieve
higher
density,
while
also
maintaining
the
low-income,
designation
and
and
achieve
sort
of
the
same
sort
of
number
of
spaces
that
were
available
to
folks
to
stay
in
community,
but
also
perhaps
live
in
a
higher
dense
and
have
more
housing
in
general.
Wouldn't
that
be
sort
of
a
best
of
both
worlds
idea,
but
I
guess
so
that
so
that's
one!
This
is
a
bifurcated
question.
I
apologize.
K
So
what's
the
reasoning
behind
that,
and
then
the
second
part
of
that
question
is:
is
there
some
way
that
we
could,
as
a
Planning
Commission,
make
recommendations
to
the
City
Council
to
say
like
if
you
were
to
do
a
conversion?
This
would
be
the
set
of
templates
or
or
expectations
for
which
a
conversion
would
be
an
agreeable
way
to
move
forward,
and
maybe
that's
a
question
for
Council.
So
those
are
my
two
questions.
What.
M
Answer
your
first
question:
yeah
I,
mean
I
think,
as
you
mentioned
this
staff
report
that
these
you
know.
Given
these
two
parks
have
the
urban
residential
land
use
designation.
It
allows
for
medium
to
high
density,
multi-family,
residential
and
and
where
the
market
is
at
this
time
we
found
these
to
be
most
at
risk
of
conversion.
M
The
other
remaining
parks
all
have
low-density,
residential,
neighborhood,
designation
or
what
or
commercial
or
industrial
land
uses,
and
those
would
require
a
general
plan
amendment
to
do
anything
above
kind
of
a
single-family
development
or
in
the
case
of
commercial,
those
designated
an
industrial,
commercial
or
commercial.
It's
most
likely
that
the
mobile
home
park
use
on
site
now
is
going
to
be
of
higher
value.
M
G
I
mean
the
Planning
Commission
can
make
a
statement
or
an
additional
comment
to
City
Council.
So
you
have
that
discretion
need
that.
I
just
want
to
clarify
following
up
with
Michelle's,
further
question
and
just
for
folks
in
the
audience
that
they're,
those
that
are
not
aware,
we
actually
do
have
a
council
as
Robert
mention
a
council
policy
related
to
closure,
that
it
has
a
lot
of
protections
and
and
clarifies
the
procedures
for
that,
and
that's
what
was
used
by
the
Winchester
mobile
home
park.
G
Conversion
process
that
that
led
to
an
outcome
that,
in
the
end,
I
think
both
parties.
They
both
parties
were
relatively
happy
with
the
outcome.
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear.
That
there
is
a
process
already
in
place.
What's
proposed
tonight
would
add
a
further
discretionary
action
for
council
and
the
thinking
behind
that
from
the
council
from
staff
at
councils
perspective.
Is
that
it
would.
It
would
facilitate
the
type
of
arrangement
that
happened
at
Winchester
part,
because
that
Park
did
need
a
a
general
plan.
K
I
think
that
the
one
concern
I
had
with
the
Winchester
ranch
sort
of
conversion
was
the
idea
that
you
know
those
the
the
parcels
that
then
would
be
converted
and
the
residences
that
would
be
available
to
the
residents
who
were
losing
their
mobile
home
parks
would
only
be
low
income
until
those
folks
were
no
you're
able
to
live
in
them.
And
so
at
some
point
the
entire
parcel
becomes
market
rate
right.
K
And
so
then
we
are
no
longer
preserving
our
low
income,
and
so
that
I
think
is,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
the
value
like.
If
there
is
some
sort
of
direction
or
recommendation
that
we
could
make
to
the
City
Council.
My
desire
would
be
for
us
to
say
we
value
mobile
home
parks
because
they
offer
a
low
income
option
to
a
variety
of
types
of
residents,
and
we
want
to
keep
those
folks
in
our
community
because
it's
important
for
the
the
viability
and
having
a
vibrant
community
right.
So
how
do
we
do
that?
K
When
we
do
conversions?
Because
at
this
point,
while
those
residents
are
protected,
that
those
homes
are
not
protected
once
those
residents
are
no
longer
able
to
live
in
their
homes
and
so
that
that
was
my
one
caveat
of
being
of
concern
with
Winchester
Ranch
and
so
then
I
just
have
one
follow-up
question
and
it's
it's
more
of
an
offer.
Gender
thing
not
to
be
talked
about
here.
But
someone
mentioned
the
distinction
between
senior
parks
and
regular
mobile
home
parks
and
I
was
wondering
of
that
list
of
59.
K
M
K
E
Arrows
points
which
I
think
are
very
good
ones.
One
one
question
I
had
was:
what
was
the
reasoning
if
we,
if
you
know
behind
the
urban
residential
designation,
I
thought
I
read
somewhere,
that
it
was
in
2011
that
the
portion
of
the
site
was
designated
as
urban
residential?
Was
there
some
reasoning
behind
that
I.
M
Think,
given
the
density
of
the
mobile
home
parks
on
that
particular
portion
of
the
site,
it
was
designator
been
residential.
It's
also
within
the
communications,
health,
specific
plan,
growth
area
and
so
I.
You
know
I
would
say
also
is,
while
those
sites
were
designated
in
2011,
certainly
time
to
change
in
terms
of
our
the
the
housing
crisis
and
cost
of
housing,
and
so
you
know
it's
looked
at
it.
Maybe
the
the
council's
priority
has
in
terms
of
preserving
mobile
home
parks,
has
come
about
after
designation
of
those
sites
as
urban
residential
Jared.
E
All
right
and
I
guess
that
sort
of
goes
into
another
question
that
I
had,
which
was
the
mobile
home
park
designation,
allows
up
to
25
mobile
homes
per
acre,
but
there
also
was
that
provision
that
you
mentioned
where
new
info
must
match
the
existing
density
on
the
specific
site
and,
just
looking
to
say
the
Nicholson
and
West
one
site.
It
appears
that
the
density
is
pretty
low.
It's
actually
by
my
calculations
at
Westwind,
about
seven
mobile
home
units
per
acre
and
at
Nicholson
nine
dwelling
units
per
acre.
E
Is
that
the
intention
that
there
wouldn't
be
the
ability
to
say,
add
additional
mobile
home
units
to
densify
still
providing
a
low-income
housing
stock,
but
densifying
that
particular
park
or
designation
to
increase
the
housing
stock
may
be
more
in
line
with
the
densities
that
we'd
like
to
see.
Overall.
M
That's
correct,
yeah.
That
was
a
concern
about
you
know
with
we
were
trying
to
capture
the
range
of
densities
with
the
25
mobile
home
watts
per
acre
throughout
throughout
the
city
capture
that
range.
But
then
there
was
also
concern
about
yeah,
adding
additional
mobile
home
Lots
to
to
the
mobile
home
parks
that
have
a
lower
density
and
almost
like
our
residential
neighborhood
land
use,
designation
that
aims
to
kind
of
keep
must
establish
or
keep
the
prevailing
neighborhood
density.
M
We
took
a
similar
approach
here,
so
if
there
were
any
infill
development
of
mobile
home
parks,
it
would
be
of
a
similar
character
to
the
parks
currently,
and
we
think
it's
unlikely
that
there
would
be
in
the
first
place
that
there
would
be
a
desire
to
add
additional
mobile
home
Lots
most
that
those
sites
are
pretty
built
out.
It
would
be
suppose
it
would
be
possible,
but
we
don't
think
that's
likely,
but
we
wanted
to
add
that
language
in
there
yeah.
E
I
mean
like
just
looking
at
the
the
maps
it
didn't
seem
like.
There
was
actually
that
much
room
despite
the
fact
that
it
was
actually
a
fairly
low
density,
but
it
also
seems
like
that,
somewhat
disconnected
from
the
ad
use
and
the
junior
ad
use
and
and
even
the
presentation
that
we
had
about
how
do
we
convert
our
residential
neighborhoods
into
a
higher
density,
designation
while
still
preserving
character
and
so
to
carve
out?
What's
pretty
large
swaths
of
land
here
for
a
very
low
density?
I
had
some
concern
about
that.
E
So
that's
more
of
a
comment,
and
then
I
guess.
Another
comment
or
question
would
be
with
respect
to
the
process,
for
if
there
is
a
to
speak
to
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised
from
the
comments
about
you
know,
each
year
someone
can
apply
for
a
general
plan
amendment.
No,
this
makes
it
more
difficult,
but
council
changes
policies,
change
was
there
any
consideration
put
into
specifying
compensation
and
Ellis
act
or
something
of
that
nature?
E
E
M
I
mean
I
think
within
the
policy
scope
of
this
work,
no,
not
necessarily,
and
that
we've
you
know,
we've
got
this
new
land
use,
designation,
we're
creating
and
then
applying
it
to
the
the
two
sites,
so
that
probably
falls
outside
of
the
scope
of
this
particular
work.
I
would
say
that
the
the
extra
layer
of
protection
in
terms
of
the
council,
having
you
know
again,
I
think,
is
Michael
and
Robert
mentioned
the
City
Council
already
is
the
decision
maker
on
on
the
any
mobile
home
park.
M
Conversion
in
the
ordinance
lays
out
what
that
process
is
and
the
the
requirements
in
terms
of
you
know
providing
compensation,
and
this
would
add
an
additional
layer
of
discretion
for
the
City
Council.
So
I
think
that
act
alone
gives
a
little
bit
provides
more
protection
and
and
ensuring
that
the
residents
are
taking
care
of
similar
to
the
Winchester.
The
outcome
there
was,
you
know,
I,
think
everyone
would
agree,
largely
positive
and
that
that
gives
the
council
that
discretion
to
make
sure
that
the
residents
are
that
any
compensation
they
receive
is
fair.
G
I
mean
the
council:
could
you
know
we
weren't
directed
to
do
that
level
of
work
as
part
of
force
before
you
tonight,
but
the
council
could
decide
that
makes
sense.
We
should
provide
more
specific
direction
about
what
the
council
is
expecting
if
a
conversion
is
to
be
considered,
so
that's
really
for
them
to
sort
of
think
about
and
give
us
direction
if
that's
something
they
want
us
to
pursue
and
and
and
and
add,
additional
sort
of
criteria
to
the
process.
G
The
council
policy
now
is
more
about
the
process
unless
the
less
about
the
expectations
of
what
would
be
achieved,
specifically
at
the
end
regarding
affordability
or
any
of
that
stuff.
So
the
Winchester
Mark
Winchester
Park
mobile
home
process
that
you
know
required
and
general
plan
and
all
those
other
entitlements.
So
the
property
owner
realized
that
to
get
the
approval
of
the
council,
they
were
going
to
have
to
really
work
with
the
mobile
home
park
residents
to
come
up
with
an
agreement
that
all
everybody
could
live
with.
G
So
I
mean
I,
think
that
is
a
model
and
that's
really
for
the
council
to
decide
if
they
want
to
direct
staff
to
provide,
you
know
more
clarity
and
what
would
be
expected,
whether
it's
affordability
or
whether
the
residents
who
could
be
displaced
have
the
option
to
live
on-site
at
the
same
rents
for
the
remainder
of
their
life
or
whatever.
That
looks
like
that
would
be
at
the
council's
discretion.
Just.
E
Think
things
can
change
really
quickly,
like
the
what
we've
seen
with
Google
coming
and
now
a
lot
more
interest
in
commercial
space
and
office
fees
and
and
to
say
that
mobile
home
parks
with
a
commercial
designation
aren't
at
risk
that
might
be
given
where
they're
located.
But
I
would
like
to
personally
see
a
more
broader
designation
applied
to
all
of
the
mobile
home
parks.
E
J
Echo
on
colleagues
sentiments
about
all
58
rather
than
just
two
but
I
think
the
mobile
homes
are
interesting
right
because
there's
this
feeling
of
it's
yours,
the
landowner
knows
that
it's
not
yours
per
se,
because
they
own
the
land.
Having
said
that,
though,
it
is
yours
and
I.
Think
for
me,
I'd,
like
the
motion,
that's
okay,
that
we
approve
staffs
recommendation
as
intellectually
stimulating
as
the
conversation
as
I
I
do
want
to
give
some
level
of
direction,
and
that's
really
that's
it.
That's
it
short
and
sweet
tonight.
There's.
A
Q
Cubanía
beat
me
to
the
punch
on
making
the
motion,
but
I
would
like
to
add
a
couple
friendly
amendments,
if
possible,
all
of
staff's
recommendations,
one
through
four,
with
additional
recommendations,
one
that
the
City
Council
gave
direction
to
staff
to
begin
the
work
of
analyzing.
Applying
this
land
use
designation
to
all
mobile
home
parks
in
San
Jose,
all
58
59
covered
many.
They
may
be.
If
staff
needs
that
direction,
then
the
council
needs
to
give
it
and
we
are
here
to
recommend
that
to
the
council.
Q
So
let's
do
it
and
I
really
sympathize
the
staff,
because
it
sounds
like
again
you
twist
yourselves
into
pretzels
to
obey
council
direction
when
you
probably
know
better
so
I'm,
really
sorry
about
that.
The
second
amendment,
in
addition,
would
be
to
Commissioner
copy
arrows
point
points
raised
by
other
commissioners
that
the
council
explore
and
direct
staff
to
explore
revising
in
the
mobile
home
conversion
ordinance.
Council
policy.
I
forget
the
number
of
the
council
policy
to
include
some
standards
related
to
what
happened
at
Winchester
Ranch.
Q
But
if
there
are
any
other
standards
that
could
be
added
to
the
existing
policy
to
make
it
more
specific.
In
terms
of
the
compensation
to
residents
when
these
are
converted,
I
know
that
we
did
can
consider
this
a
couple
years
ago,
as
the
Commission,
where
they
were.
There
was
an
effort
to
weaken
from
some
commissioners
perspective
them
conversion
ordinance,
and
we
opposed
that
and
the
council
did
too
so
Polly
for
us,
but
I
think
we
can
do
better.
Q
J
You
said
they
were
friendly,
I
accept
and
I
also
want
to
add
a
no
Commissioner
Coelho
had
mentioned
earlier.
The
prat
you
had
suggested
the
idea
of
saying
something
to
the
City
Council.
If
you
wanted
to
make
a
friendly
amendment,
I'd
be
more
than
happy
to
again,
because
it's
finally
accepted
no
pressure.
A
K
You
so
I
would
just
second
the
sentiments
of
Commissioner
Allen
because
he
put
into
action
what
I
was
trying
to
to
say,
which
is
that
I
do
think
that
our
role
as
advisory
to
the
council
is
to
make
recommendations
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we'll
sort
of
keep
folks
from
having
this
fear
that
they're
going
to
lose
their
homes,
because
either
through
this
yearly
process
or
through
not
all
of
the
parks
being
designated.
So
I
do
I
completely
agree
with
the
friendly
amendments.
The
original
amendments
and
all
of
that
so
I,
appreciate
that.
K
These
policies
that
could
perhaps
make
our
housing
stock
more
robust,
that
could
make
land-use
Degnan
nations
more
concrete
and
and
that
could
really
save
our
affordable
housing
for
all
of
our
residents
and
continue
to
have
San
Jose,
be
a
vibrant
community.
So
thank
you,
Commissioner
Allen,
for
putting
into
action
what
I
was
trying
to
say
and
didn't
actually
know
how
to
do
so.
Thank
you.
I.
A
Wanted
to
make
a
few
comments
and
fortunately
pretty
much
all
my
colleagues
have
said
what
I
wanted
to
say
so
I
+1
to
everything,
that's
been
said,
and
just
want
to
emphasize
that
it
sounds
like
we're
all
on
the
same
page
in
terms
of
understanding
the
importance
of
mobile
home
parks,
understanding
the
importance
of
affordable
housing,
and
so
we
thought
I
wanted
to
say
two
things.
One
is
I'll
offer
a
friendly
amendment
to
the
friendly
amendment,
which
is,
in
addition
to
saying,
hey,
look
city
council.
A
What
we're
really
looking
for
is
for
people
who
are
in
the
unenviable
position
of
potentially
losing
where
they've
been
living
for
a
long
time
to
be
fully
made
whole,
especially
given,
and
and
that's
hard
to
quantify,
I
mean
living
in
one
place
and
having
a
home
and
having
a
community.
It's
hard
to
put
a
price
on
that,
but
there
is.
That
is
something
you
know.
It's
not
just
the
price
of
the
home.
It's
the
price
I
mean
meaning
the
physical
structure.
A
A
A
Q
A
Right
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna
need
to
summarize
it
at
some
point.
I
hope.
That's
not
me.
That's
gonna,
summarize
it,
but
so
I
wanted
to
make
one
other
comment.
I
know
that
Commissioner
you
wanted
to
add
something
as
well,
and
that
is
something
that's
a
it's
related,
but
perhaps
a
little
off
topic,
and
that
is
that
the
subject
of
mobile
home
parks
is,
we
are
in
I
believe
we
are
in
the
place
that
we
are
in
because
folks
view
mobile
home
parks
as
kind
of
this
unique
housing
type
where
you
own
it.
A
You
have
a
mortgage
and
you
have
a
rent
and
it's
more
affordable.
As
someone
who
mentioned,
and
so
we've
carved
out
this
special
place
for
considering
stronger
anti
displacement
and
compensation
packages
for
this
specific
housing,
product
type
and
I.
Think
that's
wonderful
and
great
and
I
agree
with
it,
and
I
also
just
wanted
to
use
this
as
an
opportunity
to
highlight
that
there
is
something
special
about
a
lot
of
different
housing
types
that
tend
to
be
more
affordable.
A
In
particular,
you
know
our
garden
garden
style
apartments,
where
these
are
naturally
occurring,
affordable,
housing,
where
there
are
plenty
of
people.
You
know
that
what
the
staff
report
says
here
specifically,
is
that
one
of
the
things
that
makes
this
special
and
unique
is
that
mobile
home
parks
provide
a
long-term.
There
are
many
people
have
been
living
there
for
a
long
long
time?
A
The
same
can
be
true
that
uniqueness
can
be
ascribed
to
a
lot
of
other
housing
situations
and
as
well,
and
so
I
use
a
garden
apartment
style
housing
as
an
example,
because
those
are
the
ones
that
we
on
the
Planning
Commission
are
going
to
be
seeing
more
and
more
coming
before
us,
because
they
are
ripe
in
a
developer's
mind
for
redevelopment,
and
so
we
have
a
naturally
occurring,
affordable,
housing
type
where
we
don't.
We
are
not
viewing
that
housing
type
as
currently.
A
We
are
not
necessarily
viewing
it
as
one
that
is
special
in
the
same
way
that
a
mobile
home
park
is,
and
therefore
we
are
not
necessarily
saying
we
need
to
drop
everything
and
come
up
with
some
anti
displacement
policies,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
say,
use
this
as
an
opportunity
to
raise
that
issue.
That
I
think
we
ought
to
that
we're
going
to
be
losing
these
affordable
housing.
These
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing
apartments
and
we
need
really
strong
anti
displacement
compensation.
A
Whatever
you
want
to
call
it
packages
and
I
understand
that
the
city
is,
we
just
released
a
report
on
this,
and
so
I
hope
that
the
city
and
the
City
Council
is
moving
forward
to
do
that.
But
I
wanted
to
use
this
issue
as
an
opportunity
to
highlight
that
shine,
a
light
on
it
and
really
encourage
the
council
to
move
forward
on
putting
strong
anti
displacement
policies
in
place
for
other
types
of
affordable
housing
and
commissioner
yasin
ii.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
reason
I
was
anxious
to
speak
is
I
could
feel
our
motion
growing
out
of
control.
My
brain
was
about
to
explode,
there's
at
least
four
or
five
critical
points
in
the
motion,
and
we
dumped
a
lot
of
Burbidge
on
to
this
recording
which
the
staff
is
going
to
have
to
sort
through
to
try
to
summarize
our
motion
and
I
thought.
Maybe
we
should
do
that
now.
Q
A
quick
question
before
we
reiterated
also
we
maybe
we
might
want
to
change
it
after
my
comment,
maybe
not
just
on
if
staff
could
just
remark
that
I
agree
with
that
sentiment.
As
far
as
I
know,
the
City,
Council
and
staff
is
working
on
a
less
act.
Other
kind
of
renter
protections
displacement
protections
for
all
of
our
housing
stock,
I'm
trying
to
remove
something
from
my.
B
Q
Q
B
We
don't
know
what
it
says:
we'd
the
Planning
Commission
staff
knows
what
it
says,
council
sort
of
knows
what
it
says.
Maybe
it
already
says
what
it
is
we're
trying
to
say
here,
or
it
contains
some
version
of
what
we
want
to
communicate.
So
my
first
question
to
staff
is:
does
633
require
the
kinds
of
protections
that
Winchester
Ranch
came
up
with
at
the
end
of
their
process?.
M
M
B
G
I
think
it
does
talk
about
doing
an
assessed
value
of
the
mobile
home
at
before,
but
essentially
the
announcement
goes
out
that
it
might
convert,
but
that
level
of
specificity
that
happened
at
Winchester
Ranch,
where
people
were
given
the
opportunity
to
remain
on
site
or
had
the
choice
to
to
be
paid
out
or
all
that
stuff
that
that
level
of
details
is
not
in
the
in
the
counts
of
policy.
It's
more
about
the
process.
Okay,
yeah,
that's
kind.
R
There's
legal
constraints
in
terms
of
what
the
city
can
do
so
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
done
since
2015
we
have
the
housing
staff
here.
They've
done
a
lot
of
work.
We
have
the
Deputy
Director
here
so
I
mean
a
lot
of
what
you
see
in
the
conversion.
Ordinance
and
a
council
policy
is
because
we're
kind
of
constraining
terms
what
the
city
can
do.
We
can't
force
the
developer
to
pay
a
certain
price.
R
We
cannot
force
them
to
allow
the
residents
to
continue
to
live
there
like
Winchester,
so
we
create
a
process
that
they
have
to
go
through
and
ultimately
the
council
has
the
ultimate
say
with
the
general
plan
amendment,
but
a
lot
of
what
you're
asking
for
illegally.
We
just
can't
do.
Can
we
provide
better
protection
in
the
ordinance
and
the
policy?
Yes,
but
in
terms
of
dictating
exactly
how
is
gonna
be
done?
The
answer's
no
thank.
B
They
don't
have
to
make
any
of
those
decisions
unless
they're
satisfied
that
a
package
of
protections
that
is
sufficient
to
protect
the
residents
is
also
going
to
be
incorporated
into
the
approval
process.
So
our
recommendations
to
council
wants
to
encourage
them
is
to
encourage
them
in
that
thought
process
and
to
place
our
own
I.
B
Don't
know
we
don't
have
an
awful
lot
of
weight
in
this
thing,
no
power
here,
but
to
make
it
clear
that
that's
as
a
Planning
Commission.
That
is
also
what
we're
looking
for
we're
a
land
use
body
and
part
of
the
land
use
decision
making
is
that
we
want
them
to
be
sure
to
get
this
level
of
protection.
So
we
need
to
phrase
our
of
our
approval,
the
conditions
of
approval
that
we're
adding
to
it
to
give
the
council
as
much
encouragement
to
do
that
as
possible.
R
Simple
as
encouraging
council
to
direct
staff
to
continue
explore
ways
to
protect
mobile
homes.
You
know
we
can
definitely
there's
ways.
We
can
revise
the
mobile
home
closure
ordinance
and
the
council
policy
there's
more.
We
can
definitely
do
I
mean
in
terms
of
process
and
requirements,
but
we
just
can't
dictate
exactly
how
much
people
are
gonna
say.
J
I'm
sorry
I
viewed
the
Friendly's
more
as
our
thoughts
right
our
thoughts
of
the
council,
things
for
them
to
consider.
Not
necessarily
you
know
do
this
as
much
as
we're
thinking
about
it.
So
in
that
sense,
I
think
if
there's
a
way
to
organize
it,
I
think
that's
a
discussion,
sure
I
think
but
I.
Never.
R
Handle
I
think
with
all
the
friendly
amendments.
Everything
was
fine,
I
think
when
the
discussions
started
getting
down
to
you
know
how
much
we
should
pay
and
this
like
being
naturally
into
an
area
where
it's
definitely
illegal
but
I.
Think
with
all
the
different
formats.
I
didn't
speak
up
because
everyone
was
fine.
Well.
G
Q
A
Want
to
avoid
what
Commissioner
Griswold
said,
which
is
in
the
case
of
the
Winchester
ranch.
We
had
this
nice
alignment
of
forces,
you
know
had
the
Law
Foundation
happen
to
have
capacity
to
stick
their
nose
in
and
like
be
a
really
good
champion
of
this
can't
guarantee.
That's
not
gonna.
You
know,
Law
Foundation
may
not
exist
the
next
time
they
name
may
not
have
the
funding
to
do
it
like.
We
can't
rely
on
a
non-profit
to
be
able
to
come
in
and
really
help,
and
you
know
I
don't
want
to
diminish.
A
Also,
there
are
folks
here
in
the
room
who
are
from
Winchester
ranch
who
were
active.
You
know
it's
not
often
that
you
have
people
who
have
the
capacity
to
be
working
with
the
Law
Foundation
and
to
be
a
good
champion
of
this
stuff.
So
there
was
a
little
bit
of
luck
involved
in
Winchester
that
you
know,
and
it.
A
A
Q
A
Q
If
the
City
Council
is
watching,
something
could
get
suggested,
then
at
some
point
is,
even
since
the
city
definitely
doesn't
have
the
capacity
to.
How
can
we
do
more
to
support
nonprofit
and
CBO's
that
do
that
work
right
and
provide
at
least
referrals
and
legal
assistance
to
these
residents
right?
If
we
can't
mandate
anything
legally,
at
least
we
can
give
them
the
opportunity
to
utilize
those
services.
So
that's
another
recommendation,
but
not
part
of
the
so.
Q
B
G
One
was
revised
council
policy
to
provide
more
specificity
regarding
what
would
be
provided
a
mobile
home
park
residents
when
the
park
is
closed
and
then
Shila
and
added
that
winchester
package
should
be
used
as
a
floor
for
compensation,
slash
closure
package,
so
your
gift-giving
and
then
it
goes
on
and
then
says.
Council
should
also
consider
requiring
including
on-site,
affordable
de
restricted
housing
units.
When
a
mobile
home
park
is
converted
as.
B
E
K
Thank
you,
so
I
think
that
the
the
point
is
is
that
like
so,
if
we're
increasing
density?
So,
for
example,
if
the
existing
density
is
7
mobile,
home
parks
that
are
reasonably
affordable
per
acre,
that
if
we
increase
density
to
whatever
urban
residential
is
yeah
240,
that
seven
of
those
would
still
remain
affordable,
low
income
so
like
whatever
the
proportion
is
of
the
existing
mobile
home
parks
that
that
continues
to
be
the
proportion
that's
affordable
because
with
the
rent
Chester
ranch.
K
What
to
be
blunt
about
it
once
the
residents
die
or
move
those
those
apartments
and
condos
are
no
longer
affordable,
like
that
was
what
I
walked
away
from
that
meeting
understanding.
Is
that
it's
great
for
the
existing
residents,
and
we
want
to
preserve
that
for
all
of
you
and
for
anyone
who's
in
this
situation,
but
it
doesn't
actually
solve
our
long-term
problem
of
affordability,
which
is
that
once
those
once
those
residents
who
were
afforded
that
option
are
no
longer
living
there.
G
I
B
E
J
H
J
That
show
I
think
this
is
about
to
be
a
large
American
city.
We
have
to
always
ensure
that
there's
room
for
everyone
and
20
minutes
up
north
we're
seeing
cities
that
are
being
decimated,
because
these
types
of
protections
aren't
there
so
I'm
proud
to
stand
with
you
in
supporting
this,
so
I
have
about
property
rights,
but
equally
I
am
about
something
bigger
and
that's
ensuring
that
San
Jose
is
a
place.
Everyone
can
call
home
so
I
hope
you
stand
with
you
on
this
ho.
R
Yeah
I
just
want
to
clarify
a
few
things.
We
definitely
understand
the
Planning
Commission's
motion
and
will
definitely
memorialize
it
in
our
memo
to
the
council.
So
when
the
City
Council
approves
a
multi-family
residential
project,
what
happens
then?
Is
they
have
to
comply
with
the
city's
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
right,
which
allows
them
to
either
pay
a
fee
or
to
provide
certain
affordable
units
on
site?
So
it's
not
like,
because
it's
a
mobile
home
conversion
and
we
can
dictate
that
they
do
something
different.
So
we
have
our
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
that
apply
now.
R
D
A
Right
any
other
questions.
Comments
from
my
fellow
commissioners
am
I
sure
he
isn't.
He
is
asking
that
we
call
for
a
vote
before
we
do
that.
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
staff
I
thought
that
this
staff
report
was
nice.
I
really
appreciated
that
it
included
the
memo
that
we
that
came
to
the
Planning
Commission
months
and
months
ago.
So
it
was
nice
to
have
the
historic
context
and
be
reminded
that
oh
yeah,
this
was
this
big
issue.
A
A
P
R
Q
G
Right
so
city
council
report
back
from
February
11th
there
was
a
council
was
considering
a
conditional
use
permit
for
the
market
proposed
a
market
at
788,
North,
King
Road,
the
Maori
market.
This
is
permitted
determination
of
public
convenience
and
necessity
to
allow
a
sale
of
alcohol
and
the
council
rec
that
there
also
was
a
general
plan
amendment
and
a
conforming
rezoning
and
as
especially
use
permit
for
yes
for
a
real
property
at
6:15
and
the
623
Stockton
Avenue.
So
you
guys
should
remember
this
one.
G
This
was
the
proposed
hotel
at
Stockton
that
had
a
lot
of
people
come
out
expressing
concern
with
the
project
the
Planning
Commission
did
recommend
Council
approved
the
project
that
council
actually
unanimously
denied
the
project.
I
was
not
there,
but
from
what
I
understand
council
member
Davis
was
really
upset
with
the
applicant.
That
did
that
the
applicant
did
not
reach
out
with
her
to
work
with
her
on
finding
a
path
forward
for
the
with
the
project.
J
A
G
So
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong
Jared,
but
there
there
is,
there
is
a
the
the
commercial
property,
the
commercial
building,
that
is
they
own
on
the
corner
of
Schiele,
I.
Think
and
Stockton
is
his
general
planned
and
zoned
for
commercials.
So
they
could
do
a
much
smaller
project
on
that
property.
It
would
actually
all
go
to
a
director's
hearing
on
a
Wednesday
afternoon.
It
would
probably
be
appeal,
then,
would
come
before
you
guys
on
appeal,
so
they
could
do
that.
But
the
mayor
pointed
that
out,
but
then
voted
with
the
majority.
G
M
A
A
Q
A
question
not
necessarily
correction
I'm,
just
curious
as
far
as
just
standards
for
taking
action
minutes
when
an
item
gets
multiple
motions
made.
Multiple
votes
were
taken.
I
understand
that
the
final
motion
has
to
be
recorded
in
the
minutes.
That's
appropriate
I'm,
just
curious.
If
is
it
standard
operating
procedure,
to
remove
the
record
of
a
previous
motion
in
previous
vote,
for
example
on
item
a
B
which
we
just
heard
about
going
to
council
the
other
night
or
last
night
on
a
be,
the
final
vote
was
for
three
in
favor
of
statutory
condition.
Q
Q
Seems
when
you
talk
about
action
like
you
want
to
reflect
the
full
action
because,
for
example,
yes,
it's
implied
that
the
three
of
us
who
voted
against
the
final
motion,
you
know,
approved
the
previous
motion,
but
there's
no
record
that
that
motion
was
made
and
it
could
have
been
a
different
vote.
It
could
have
been
two
to
five.
It
could
have
been
unanimous
in
favor
of
the
eventual
emotion
because
I
wouldn't
want
to.
A
A
G
B
Q
H
A
O
Q
R
R
Your
input
on
the
council's
recommendation
to
bring
forward
a
charter
amendment
to
the
voters
in
November
to
change
a
composition
of
the
planning
on
creating
riots
movie.
That's
free
is
that
other
26
2016
it's
not
on
the
agenda
right
now,
but
the
idea
was
maybe
we'll
have
a
lot
of
26,
but
we're
not
sure
it
might
be
pushing
tomorrow.
Okay,.