4. Notice of Application, dated October 6,2015, regarding, "Morgan Hill 2015 Urban Service Area Amendment Application."

Transcription

1 RULES COMMITTEE: Item: E CITY OF ^2 SAN JOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council SUBJECT: The Public Record October 2 - October 8, 2015 FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC City Clerk DATE: October 9, 2015 ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD 1. Letter from Bradford B. Kuhn to the Mayor and City Council, dated October 2,2015, regarding, "Agreement for Non-Exclusive Installation and Property Use of Telecommunications Facilities in the Right-of-Way and on City-Owned Property." 2. Letter from David Wall to Councilmember Raul Peralez, dated October 2, 2015, regarding, "Is the 7-11 at 188 North 6 th Street a Public Nuisance property?" 3. Letter from Jeff Morales to James R. Janz, dated October 5,2015, regarding, "Your September 28, 2015 letter about Burlingame Open House October 7, 2015." 4. Notice of Application, dated October 6,2015, regarding, "Morgan Hill 2015 Urban Service Area Amendment Application." 5. Letter from David Wall to the Mayor and City Council, dated October 8, 2015, regarding, "Will RMC scandal with Santa Clara Valley Water District involve San Jose Officials?" 6. Letter from Martha O'Connell to the Mayor and City Council, dated October 7,2015, regarding, "Failure to Provide Time Certain on Mobilehome Issues Negates Level Playing Field." Toni J. Taber, CMC City Clerk TJT/at Distribution: Mayor/Council Director of Transportation City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant to City Manager Council Liaison Director of Planning City Attorney Public Information Office San Jose Mercury News Library Director of Public Works City Auditor Director of Finance

2 PUBLIC RECORD t NOSSAMAN llp ATTORNEYS AT LAW Irvine, CA T F VIA city.clerk@sanjoseca.gov Bradford B. Kuhn T October 2, 2015 City of San Jose c/o City Clerk 200 E. Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA Re: Agreement for Non-Exclusive Installation and Property Use of Telecommunications Facilities in the Right-of-Way and on City- Owned Property Dear Honorable Mayor Liccardo and Honorable Councilmembers: This law firm represents T-Mobile with respect to the City of San Jose's ("City") consideration of a resolution to approve a form template Agreement for Non-Exclusive Installation and Property Use of Telecommunications Facilities in the Right-of-Way and on City-Owned Property ("Agreement"). T-Mobile just recently learned of the City's plan to adopt a resolution approving the Agreement, although it is unclear at this point when the City intends to move forward with consideration of the Agreement. On behalf of T-Mobile, we respectfully request that the City postpone voting on the approval of the Agreement so that T-Mobile, other wireless carriers, and industry representatives can provide comments and feedback. We concur with a September 21 letter submitted by Verizon Wireless that there are a number of material, non-standard wireless industry provisions which would preclude T-Mobile from entering into the Agreement as proposed. We also share many of the same concerns identified in a September 22 letter submitted by AT&T that the proposed Agreement will discourage wireless carriers from operating on City-owned property, and will result in the potential termination of existing agreements for facilities on City-owned property. T-Mobile is very interested in working with the City to produce the Agreement in a form that will meet the City's goals of providing improved cellular and data coverage. In order to effectuate that goal, we suggest postponing consideration of the Agreement, and instead scheduling a meeting with the industry stakeholders to address necessary revisions V1 nossaman.coni

3 City of San Jose October 2, 2015 Page 2 We thank the City Council for its time and consideration. Very truly yours, Bradford B. Kuhn of Nossaman LLP V1

4 PUBLIC RECORD David S. Wall San Jose, California Phone / Fax October 2, 2015 Councilmember Raul Peralez-District East Santa Clara Street San Jose, California Re: Is the 7-11 at 188 North 6 th Street a Public Nuisance property? This 7-11 should be investigated by the city. Dateline: City Desk [Friday, ( )]. All Public Nuisance businesses in San Jose should be shut down. It was almost a year ago to date that the El Tarasco Bar (801 North 13 th Street) had its liquor license revoked and later was shuttered for just cause. It is a shame that other "problem businesses" in District 3 and the city were not simultaneously shut down as well. One such business that should be investigated by the city is the 7-11 located at 188 North 6 th Street. Is it time to revoke their liquor license and business license due to criminal activities that allegedly occur on this property at all times of the day and night? Are the business and or property owners aware as to concerns raised by surrounding neighbors as to the criminal activities allegedly occurring at this property? The San Jose Police Department (SJPD) and Planning Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) should provide you the number of responses and types of complaints involving the 7-1 I at 188 N. 6!li Street from FY 2000 to Using the techniques employed to remedy the El Tarasco problem, it is past time to initiate proceedings against all "problem" businesses in San Jose. In addition to SJPD's and PBCE's research into the 7-11 at 188 North 6 th Street, is the Bar Savoy located f 1030 North 10 th Street (above Horning Street) also a "problem business?" Respectfully submitted, /s/dgvi'4 5. Wall III III III ID, OZ, Cc: Mayor Liccardo and Members San Jose City Council City Attorney / Chief: San Jose Police City Manager / City Auditor / Director PBCE

5 PUBLIC RECORD CALIFORNIA High-Speed Rail Authority October 5, 2015 BOARD MEMBERS Dan Richard CHAIR Thomas Richards VICE CHAIR VIA Mr. James R. Janz Chairperson CC-HSR Board of Directors AND OVERNIGHT MAIL Thea Seiby VICE CHAIR Woodside, CA Lou Correa Daniel Curtin Michael Rossi Lynn Schenk Jeff Morales CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Re: Your September 28, 2015 letter about Burlingame Open House October 7, 2015 Dr. Mr. Janz: Thank you for your letter of September 28, The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) looks forward to continued engagement with you and your organization, as we and our local partner Caltrain plan for in collaboration with the community and local governments - electrified blended commuter and high-speed rail operations between San Francisco and San Jose. Your letter requests that the Authority modify its planned Open House meeting October 7, 2015, in Burlingame to include a podium-style public comment opportunity (i.e., oneby-one public comment at a podium). It is important that the public believes in and trusts the Authority's public processes, so will modify its upcoming meeting as requested. EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR The entire meeting will be from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The first two hours will consist of the same Open House format we have used successfully elsewhere on the Peninsula and throughout the state, particularly in these early stages of community engagement. Contrary to limiting public comment and engagement (as your letter suggests), it provides members of the public with hours of time to talk - usually one-on-one - with and get answers from staff knowledgeable about the specific issues and questions the member of the public may have. The majority of the public attending these sessions have found this approach productive, efficient, engaging and responsive. For those preferring to leave a comment rather than engaging one-on-one with staff, we offer/take comment cards. From 6:00 pm to 6:30 p.m., the Authority staff will give a brief presentation. Your requested podium-style public comment will occur from 6:30 pm to 7:00 pm. 770 L Street, Suite 1160, Sacramento, CA T: (916) F: (916)

6 Mr. James R. Janz October 5, 2015 Page 2 Community engagement will not end on October 7 th, of course. Subsequently, we plan to utilize existing and/or form where necessary Community Working Groups. These groups will include members of the local community, and will inform us about local issues as we further develop design options for the blended system. Further, there will be additional opportunities for public comment before the Authority Board of Directors in open session public meetings later, as the blended system development and evaluation evolves through further community collaboration. It is important to note that the Legislature restricted the type, characteristics and limitations of the blended system when it enacted Senate Bill 1029 in 2012 and subsequent legislation in Any and all steps we are taking are in compliance with and to implement the Legislature's directions. The Authority will fond over 40 percent of the current Caltrain Modernization Program, which includes electrification. As you know, the electrification project went through an extensive environmental review that identified and addressed impacts. The Authority also proposes to construct upgrades in the corridor to facilitate the blended system. Electrification and these upgrades improve local air quality and safety. Air quality is improved by eliminating diesel particulates by replacing diesel passenger trains with electric trains. Safety would be improved by constructing quad gates at at-grade intersections and additional elements to further limit pedestrian access to the operating rails, among other potential improvements. The Authority recognizes, however, that implementation of the blended system needs to be evaluated for potential negative impacts, and mitigation developed for any such impacts. Equally importantly, the system design and impact/mitigation evaluation needs to be done in collaboration with the local community. That collaboration has been ongoing and continued/s with the Open Houses this September and October. Your letter states that what "the blended system will look like is already being hammered out...in secret..." That is not true. The key aspects of the Proposition 1A blended system (e.g., primarily a two-track system shared by Caltrain, high-speed rail service, and current rail tenants) were developed based on extensive public discussion, review and debate and established by the Legislature. Additional aspects of the blended system will be developed, informed by technical, planning and safety requirements, with the input of affected communities. That input is beginning with these Open House sessions.

7 Mr. James R. Janz October 5, 2015 Page 3 Lastly, your letter asked a series of questions. Those questions are repeated below, along with responses. 1) Will high-speed train service, as proposed, displace or potentially displace current and future Caltrain commuter service, to the detriment of the commuting public? No. In fact, by facilitating the modernization and electrification of the Caltrain commuter service through the commitment of $600 million in Proposition 1A finds, the Authority will enable Caltrain to deliver more service. Once electrified, Caltrain will be able to operate up to six commuter trains per hour per direction, as opposed to the five trains per hour per direction that it operates today. 2) Will the proposed high-speed train service increase noise issues, and have adverse impacts on local neighborhoods and businesses? Will the Authority follow CEQA in evaluating these? - Potential noise impacts will be evaluated as part of high-speed rail's environmental review process in accordance with applicable laws and requirements. Generally speaking, electric trains produce less noise than the diesel trains that Caltrain currently operates, but higher speeds can contribute to louder sounds. As studies are conducted, more information will be available, including potential mitigation, if warranted. 3) Will the proposed new facilities and high-speed train service be constructed and operated in a way that will not impact surface automobile traffic in the communities located along the Caltrain corridor? As part of environmental review, the Authority will analyze potential impacts and mitigation to surface automobile traffic in communities located along the Caltrain corridor. The introduction of more frequent service along the corridor can affect traffic throughput where roads cross the rails at grade due to increased gate down time. However, overlapping train-stopping patterns (in both directions) and higher average train speeds can translate into decreased gate down time in some locations at certain times of the day. Additionally, the installation of new communication technology (Caltrain's CBOSS/PTC system currently under construction) may also reduce, eliminate, and/or mitigate potential impacts to automobile traffic through more strategic train dispatching.

8 Mr. James R. Janz October 5, 2015 Page 4 4) Will the new construction and train service proposed cause blight along the Caltrain right-of-way, and/or will residents and business along the right-of-way be compensated for the diminution of their property values? Caltrain's Modernization Program will introduce new visual elements, including catenary poles and wires, which were already evaluated and addressed through Caltrain's public environmental review process. Most construction elements related to the introduction of high-speed service in the corridor will be limited to track work and minor station modifications; the Authority is committed to working with local communities and stakeholders to find ways to design and implement those additional improvements to minimize any potential impacts to residents and businesses along the right-of-way. It is important that communities get involved in in the project, to assist the Authority in developing plans that will avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to each community. _ 5) Will the proposed train service increase or otheiwise affect the genuine epidemic of suicide and other deaths currently associated with train service on the Caltrain corridor? Safety is a key benefit of the improvements being made on the corridor, both through the Caltrain electrification program and the additional steps for the blended system. The Authority is committed to improving the safety and security of train service in the Peninsula Corridor. The blended system proposes safety and security elements such as but not limited to installation of four-quadrant gates and channelization at each grade crossing between San Francisco and San Jose, as well as the installation of more robust perimeter fencing along the entirety of the corridor to prevent pedestrian access. The Authority will work with the local communities to design, develop and implement these blended system safety improvements. The Authority looks forward to continued engagement with you and your group regarding these matters. Sincerely, Jeff Morales CEO cc: U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo

9 U.S. Representative Jackie Speier State Senator Jerry Hill Assembly Member Rich Gordon Assembly Member Kevin Mullin Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Caltrain Joint Powers Board City of San Jose City Council City of Santa Clara City Council City of Mountain View City Council City of Sunnyvale City Council City of Palo Alto City Council City of Menlo Park City Council Town of Atherton Town Council City of Redwood City City Council City of San Mateo City Council City of San Bruno City Council City of Burlingame City Council City of Hillsborough City Council City of Millbrae City Council City of Brisbane City Council Friends of Caltrain

10 KLAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County PUBLIC RECORD *il- NOTICE OF APPLICATION Pursuant to Government Code 56658(b) TO: Andrew Crab tree, Morgan Hill Community Development Director, Applicant Steve Rymer, City Manager, Morgan Hill Suzanne Carrig, Santa Clara Comity Committee on School District Organization District Managers and Clerks of Affected Special Districts Superintendents of Affected School Districts Other Affected Agencies Individuals Requesting Notification DATE: October 6,2015 SUBJECT: MORGAN HILL 2015 URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT APPLICATION The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Santa Clara County has received an application from the City of Morgan Hill to expand its urban service area to include: Area 1 (Sports-Recrealion-Leisure District), composed of 21 parcels with a combined area of approximately 215 acres; and Area 2 (Monterey-South-Hordness/City of Morgan Hill), composed of 17 parcels with a combined area of approximately 65 acres. The proposal is temporarily designated as Morgan Hill 2015 USA Amendment. It has not been determined at this time whether the application meets all the necessary filing requirements. For further information, please contact the LAFCO Office at (408) , County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, 11 th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, CA Emmanuel Abello LAFCO Clerk 70 West Hedding Street 11 th Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA > (408) COMMISSIONERS: Cindy Chavez, Sequoia Hall, Johnny Khamis, Linda J. LeZotte, Cat Tucker, Mike Wasserman, Susan Vicklund Wilson ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS: Ash Kalra, Yoriko Kishimoto, Tara Martin-Milius, Terry Trumbull, Ken Yeager EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Neelima Palacherla

11 PUBLIC RECOPvD f2. DavidS. Wall r;cr. r San Jose, California 95150, I,,. Phone / Fax " J0S3 * Ahi:i October 8, Ulh OU I ~d. hi 3 : 40 Mayor Liccardo and Members San Jose City Council 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, California Re: Will RMC scandal with Santa Clara Valley Water District involve San Jose Officials? The "six member selection panel" raises interests on how votes were cast or how ratings were agreed upon. Was RMC's SBWR MASTER PLAN tailored to meet or exceed SCVWD's needs and expectations? Does SBWR MASTER PLAN violate FUND 512 AND FUND 541? Did ESD & San Jose serve the best interests of the rate payers or was potable water the force majeure? Dateline: City Desk [Thursday, ( )]. Was RMC's selection for SBWR Master Plan legitimate or rigged? Below is the text of a pending Request for Public Record information. "Request for PUBLIC RECORD INFORMATION: [RMC- SBWR Master Plan (Set 1)] This request for Public Record information concerns itself with the Environmental Services Department (ESD) involvement with the RMC Water and Environment (RMC) selection for the South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) Master Plan. BACKGROUND: Information Requests will flow from a Memorandum dated ( ); [Council Agenda: ( ); Item (7.1)] SUBJECT: MASTER CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH RMC WATER AND ENVIRONMENT TO DEVELOP A MASTER PLAN FOR THE SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM. I request the following Public Record Information: *Please provide all documents, s, Memoranda, voice mails, videos, (4) written proposals (i.e., RMC, Kennedy-Jenks, Carollo and Black & Veatch), etcetera involving the process to select "a six (6) member selection panel representing the Environmental Services Department (ESD), The Plant's Tributary Agencies," (Tribs) "and the SCVWD" to evaluate the four (4) written proposals. **Please provide all documents, RATING SHEETS-BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN, s, Memoranda, voice mails, videos, and etcetera, IDENTIFYING all participants from ESD, Tributary Agencies, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) on the six (6) member selection panel and the two (2) "Prospective Consultants" who were invited to participate on the oral interviews. *** Please provide all documents, s, Memoranda, voice mails, videos, contracts, permitting an ESD employee to enter into a consulting contract or a temporary employee contract of SCVWD involving RMC." Cc: City Attorney / City Auditor / City Manager Members: Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TPAC) Respectfully submitted, /s/david S. Wall IO.oa.i5-

12 city CITY of OF C; ^ 2^*5^5 SAN JOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY n r^tf <3* *3 COUNCIL AGENDA: ITEM: 7,\ Memorandum TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Kerrie Romanow SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: July 25,2012 A pproved Date 1 /%-f/t2- SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION MASTER CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH RMC WATER AND ENVIRONMENT TO DEVELOP A MASTER PLAN FOR THE SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM l Approval of a master agreement with RMC Water and Environment to develop a Master Plan (Plan) for the South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) Program for a total compensation not-to exceed amount of $2,400,000, and for a term upon execution of the agreement through June 30, ~ " OUTCOME The recommended action will enable the City of San Jose, as administering agency for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (Plant), to move forward on the development of a Master Plan for SBWR. The Plan will include current system needs, as well as options for expansion and external stakeholders in the Plant's service area, BACKGROUND The Plan will identify the purpose and future for SBWR, and how water recycling will continue to support the regulatory needs of the Plant as well as regional water needs. The majority of the SBWR system was constructed in the late 1990s and has now been in service between 10 and 15 years. In general, system facilities are well-maintained and in good condition, but components of SBWR, such as the control system and the majority of the valves in the distribution system will reach the end of their useful life in the next 3-5 years. SBWR currently serves the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Milpitas, but could potentially be expanded to serve other Plant tributary agency service areas, other areas of Santa Clara County, and beyond. On September 13,2011, Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) allowing the City to

13 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL July 25, 2012 Subject: South Bay Water Recycling Strategic and Master Planning Page 2, RECEIVED Jose CHy CRrr r 2015 OCT -0 Pic 3-3 receive up to $1,200,000 towards the reimbursement of a $2,400,000 feasibility study to develop a strategic and master plan for SBWR. The grant agreement was subsequently executed on September 30, On June 19, 2012, Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute a cost sharing agreement with the SCVWD to share in the cost of developing a strategic master plan for the SBWR Program, estimated to cost up to $2,400,000 with each party to contribute up to $ 1,200,000, and to share in reimbursements from the Reclamation Grant of up to $1,200,000 for costs associated with developing the Plan. In consideration for the SCVWD's share in the cost, the City will work closely with SCVWD to develop the scope of services for RMC Water and Environment (RMC), and to approve deliverables. ANALYSIS ' The master planning project Request for Proposals (RFP) was advertised on April 4, 2012, and a mandatory pre-proposal conference was held at the Plant on April 19, The pre-proposal conference was well attended with over 40 participants. Staff presented an overview of the RFP and answered questions from participants. Four written proposals were received and opened on May A six member selection panel representing the Environmental Services Department, the Plant's Tributary Agencies, and the SCVWD evaluated the written proposals. Two prospective consultants were invited to participate in oral interviews. The results from the written and oral reviews were combined, including the local and small business preference points. The table below provides a summary of the evaluation by category. RMC Kennedy-Jenks Carollo Black & Veatch A- Recycled Water System Plans B- Utility Governance C- Economic Analysis D- Project ' 9.17 Approach E- Corporate Sustainability 3, F- Project Samples 4,83 ' Local Business Enterprise Small Business Enterprise Total:

14 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ;, r July 25,2012 ; Subject: South Bay Water Recycling Strategic and Master Planning * Page 3 0n *C not RMC obtained the top score in both the written submittal and the oral presentation. Based 5n the above process and scoring, staff recommends that Council award the contract to RMC whose bid has been reviewed, analyzed, and found acceptable. EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP Staff will present an update on the SBWR Master Planning process to the Transportation and Environment Committee in January PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST [X] Criterion 1: Requires Council action on the use of public funds equal to $1 million or greater. (Required: Website Posting) I I Criterion 2: Adoption of a new or revised policy that may have implications for public health, safety, quality of life, or financial/economic vitality of the City. (Required: E mail and Website Posting) Criterion 3: Consideration of proposed changes to service delivery, programs, staffing that may have impacts to community services and have been identified by staff, Council or a Community group that requires special outreach. (Required: , Website Posting, Community Meetings, Notice in appropriate newspapers) COORDINATION This project and memorandum have been coordinated with Risk Management, Equality Assurance, Purchasing, the City Manager's Budget Office, and the City Attorney's Office. This item is scheduled to be heard at the August 2,2012 Treatment Plant Advisory Committee meeting. COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS 1. COST OF STRATEGIC AND MASTER PLANNING: $2,400, SOURCE OF FUNDING: Fund 512- SBWR Master Plan Funding Available: SBWR Master Plan Appropriation Total Funding Available: $ * $2,304,000

15 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL July 25, 2012 Subject: South Bay Water Recycling Strategic and Master Planning Page 4 Currently, $2,304,000 is available for this project in the San Jose/Santa Clara Treatment Plant Capital Fund (Fund 512) SBWR Master Plan Appropriation. Any expenditures within this Master Agreement beyond $2,304,000 will be subject to City Council appropriation of funds. Funding up to $1,200,000 will be reimbursed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, as described in a memorandum to the City Council on June 19,2012. Grant Funding approved through Council Resolution No will reimburse San Jose 50 percent of total project costs up to $1,200,000, and the City will pass on to the SCVWD 50 percent of the SCVWD's share of expenses. BUDGET REFERENCE Fund # Appn. # Appn. Name Total Appn. Amount for Agreement SBWR Master Plan Total Funding Available $2,400,000 Proposed Budget Page** Last Budget Action (Date, Ord. No.) $2,304,000 $2,400,000* V /19/2012, Ord. No *This contact will be encumbered bv service order. Any expenditures beyond $ will be subject to Citv Council appropriation of funds. ** The Proposed Operating Budget was approved by the City Council on June 19,2012, and the Adopted Budget will be published in fall CEOA Not a Project, File No,PP (a), Agreements and Contracts for purchase of professional services. /s/ KERRIE ROMANOW Acting Director, Environmental Services For questions please contact Rene Eyerly, Manager, Sustainability and Compliance at (408)

16 PUB-LIC--RE'G0RD-_^k Ciall agus neart - Reason and Strength October 7,2015 TO: FROM: RE: Mayor and Council Martha O'Connell Failure to Provide Time Certain on Mobilehome Issues Negates Level Playing Field On three separate occasions, I have asked the Rules Committee to set a time certain for critical issues surrounding mobilehomes. I stated that it is a hardship for many Seniors to have to sit for hours waiting to testify for two minutes, especially those who are disabled. On each occasion, a time certain was denied. VM Rose Herrera expressed concern on the second of those occasions and stated that "we will do better next time." This did not happen. I asked for a time certain for the issue of a moratorium on the conversion or closure of mobilehome parks that was heard by Council on I was told the meeting would go fast and there wasn't a need for a time certain. Instead, Seniors were kept waiting for hours. At least one speaker called out the entire Council for failure to set a time certain. Not only was this insensitive and unnecessary, but it resulted in a negation of the level playing field. The pro bono attorney from the Law Foundation who is representing the folks at Winchester Ranch had to leave. The Seniors and low to moderate income folks who live in mobilehomes cannot afford to retain an attorney to sit for hours waiting to speak for two minutes. The Park owners can afford it, have afforded it. and will continue to afford it. Without a time certain on these mobilehome issues, the Seniors and low to moderate income folks, and the pro bono attorneys who represent them, will be at a disadvantage.