[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: TENIYA SUTTON 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:13:38 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 7:55 AM
Subject: TENIYA SUTTON 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
TENIYA SUTTON
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Rajani Nair 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:13:54 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 8:03 AM
Subject: Rajani Nair 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
There is limited open space in east San Jose and no safe access to go to any existing open spaces other than by car.
Additional housing is not what is needed for this part of community. There needs to be protected bile lanes, access to park space, and public facilities.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Rajani Nair
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: HOLLY PELKING 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:14:05 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 8:04 AM
Subject: HOLLY PELKING 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
The consideration of ANY development of existing open space MUST come to the attention of the community.
San Jose has miles of concrete jungle that is not inhabited. We need to tear down old buildings not in use and RE-develop what is already here.
Thank you for listening to the PEOPLE, not only the developers.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
HOLLY PELKING
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Ravi Upasani 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:14:14 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 8:16 AM
Subject: Ravi Upasani 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Ravi Upasani
95148
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Pankaja Parameshwarappa 95135 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:14:26 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 8:20 AM
Subject: Pankaja Parameshwarappa 95135 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
None
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Pankaja Parameshwarappa
95135
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Anthony Lopez 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:15:16 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 9:17 AM
Subject: Anthony Lopez 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Anthony Lopez
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Camelot Thompson 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:16:04 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 10:12 AM
Subject: Camelot Thompson 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Camelot Thompson
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Candelario Lopez 95122 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:14:43 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 8:34 AM
Subject: Candelario Lopez 95122 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5- 1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Candelario Lopez
95122
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Carlos DaSilva 95116 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:15:04 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 9:07 AM
Subject: Carlos DaSilva 95116 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Carlos DaSilva
95116
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: David Byam 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:15:56 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 10:08 AM
Subject: David Byam 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
A home builder has owned this land for the last 30 years or so. It has always been planned as a housing development of approx. 300 homes
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
David Byam
95148
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Elida Alvarez 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:14:34 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 8:34 AM
Subject: Elida Alvarez 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Why was our community left our of this discussion? Would you do the same to more affluent zip codes?
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Elida Alvarez
95148
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Elizabeth Garcia 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:15:45 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 9:54 AM
Subject: Elizabeth Garcia 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
We would like to keep open spaces that support trees and plants. We do not high density living that will cause other issues.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Elizabeth Garcia
95148
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Hung Ho 95148-2025 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:13:46 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 7:57 AM
Subject: Hung Ho 95148-2025 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Hung Ho
95148-2025
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Luis Cabrera 95122 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:16:18 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 10:50 AM
Subject: Luis Cabrera 95122 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Luis Cabrera
95122
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Martin Drisjell 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:14:21 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 8:16 AM
Subject: Martin Drisjell 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Please do not build a commercial building. Preserve open space in Evergreen.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Martin Drisjell
95148
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Rod Kirk 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:15:33 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 9:50 AM
Subject: Rod Kirk 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Stop! Please think about what you are about to do; going against an agreed upon system of community involvement for land usage. Read on…
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Rod Kirk
95148
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Sandra A Sundberg 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:15:23 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 9:39 AM
Subject: Sandra A Sundberg 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Sandra A Sundberg
95148
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Sandy Flores 95116 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:15:10 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 9:07 AM
Subject: Sandy Flores 95116 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Sandy Flores
95116
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Shannon Tuttle 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:16:10 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 10:22 AM
Subject: Shannon Tuttle 95127 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Shannon Tuttle
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: District 5 United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Yuying Zhao 95132 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:14:58 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: District 5 United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 8:52 AM
Subject: Yuying Zhao 95132 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Yuying Zhao
95132
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
--
Sincerely,
District 5 United
www.district5united.org
[External Email]
From: San Jose United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Colette Farabaugh 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:22:52 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: San Jose United <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 11:20 PM
Subject: Colette Farabaugh 95148 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5- 1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site in San Jose with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
Once again, development is being planned that will have impact on the already very busy Capitol Expressway corridor. It seems as if not enough thought is being given to the impact that further development will have on those of us who live here now.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives.
Colette Farabaugh
95148
You may not use my contact information for any purpose other than to respond to my concern regarding the topic listed above, nor may you share my address with any other organization(s) or individual(s).
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via San Jose United https://www.sanjoseunited.net
Community Working Together
[External Email]
From: San Jose United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: aurelia sanchez 95112 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don"t Take Open Space w/o community visioning
Date: Sunday, August 28, 2022 8:22:59 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: San Jose United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 6:23 AM
Subject: aurelia sanchez 95112 - Agenda Item (d)1, CC 22-167, 8/29/22, Council Policy 5-1, Don't Take Open Space w/o community visioning
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Transportation and Environment Committee,
As a community member, I reject the proposed significant policy change that would allow a developer to convert the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site in San Jose with no clear process or plan for meaningful engagement by the community in visioning the future uses of the land.
This is open space and in Council member David Cohen district it was not allowed to have supportive housing because of the trails and future park. Quick trying to place all the affordable housing in areas that need more open space, community gardens and trees. This is land that belongs to the public and should not be sold. Google has bought much land that the city sold them so stop already and perhaps this land could be used for the Airport Baseball fields for the kids that were displaced.
Do not implement a policy change to accommodate a single property and the corresponding developers. If you decide to allow development of a 114 acre property, do so via a city-driven and very robust community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. I understand that staff are not recommending this policy change.
2. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. If it is, that should be disclosed for transparency.
3. The policy change would have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
4. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
5. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-led community based process instead of developing a policy to lay that out. The city and community should drive that process, not a developer.
The city is already doing visioning for other locations, including a 15-acre site, throughout other council districts and our community demands the same due process, community engagement, and requirements that are already in place to ensure our neighborhood growth and development align with the city's general plan and the community open space initiatives. aurelia sanchez
95112
You may not use my contact information for any purpose other than to respond to my concern regarding the topic listed above, nor may you share my address with any other organization(s) or individual(s).
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via San Jose United https://www.sanjoseunited.net
Community Working Together