[External Email]
From: San Jose United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: Alexandra Taratutin 95118 - 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 8:23:14 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 7:52 AM
Subject: Alexandra Taratutin 95118 - 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.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Alexandra Taratutin
95118
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: Anthony Smith 95140 - 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 8:25:04 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 2:39 PM
Subject: Anthony Smith 95140 - 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.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Anthony Smith
95140
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: Bob Tran 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 8:24:58 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 2:38 PM
Subject: Bob Tran 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.
No Taking Open Space w/o Community Input
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.
Bob Tran
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
[External Email]
From: San Jose United
To: Espejo, Gina
Subject: Fwd: David Eisbach 95117 - 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 8:23:28 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 9:54 AM
Subject: David Eisbach 95117 - 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.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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 Eisbach
95117
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: David W Poeschel 95120 - 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 8:25:30 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 2:51 PM
Subject: David W Poeschel 95120 - 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.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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 W Poeschel
95120
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: Jennifer Cordero 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 8:23:20 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 8:10 AM
Subject: Jennifer Cordero 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.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Jennifer Cordero
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: Karla Schrader 95120 - 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 8:23:44 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 1:15 PM
Subject: Karla Schrader 95120 - 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.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Karla Schrader
95120
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: Kelly Snider 95126 - 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 8:23:36 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 12:55 PM
Subject: Kelly Snider 95126 - 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.
Plus, Lake Cunningham and Pleasant Hills is perfect to re-locate the *SJ FLEA MARKET* !! An Outdoor Market shd replace that CHEMICAL GOLF course.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Kelly Snider
95126
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: Mark Luiso 95118 - 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 8:24:20 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 1:40 PM
Subject: Mark Luiso 95118 - 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.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Mark Luiso
95118
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: Marlene Fischer 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 8:24:45 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 2:33 PM
Subject: Marlene Fischer 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.
Re; The Pleasant Hills GOlf Course.
DON’T TAKE OUR OPEN SPACE WITHOUT COMMUNITY INPUT! You have already added the HORRIBLE ADA units and no parking plans. My neighborhood that was so lovely before is a parking lot of renters who don't care about the neighborhood. Now you want to give MORE power to developers? As neighbors who have been here over 30 years when we gather outside to chat we wonder: How much do you all get in kickbacks? Why else would you be making terrible decisions for our city? And as for the Airport – leave it be.
Our Evergreen is full enough of people and you have no plans for water? Electricity? Infrastructure improvements? Policing? The homeless? Enough already.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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 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.
Marlene Fischer
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: Ofelia Medina 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 8:25:39 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 2:54 PM
Subject: Ofelia Medina 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.
The residents in the Pleasant Hills Community should be provided an opportunity to give input for the use 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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Ofelia Medina
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: Rachel Witmeyer 95136 - 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 8:24:52 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: San Jose United <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 2:34 PM
Subject: Rachel Witmeyer 95136 - 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.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Rachel Witmeyer
95136
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: Ralph Byrd 95117-2302 - 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 8:25:21 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 2:47 PM
Subject: Ralph Byrd 95117-2302 - 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.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Ralph Byrd
95117-2302
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: Roneta Dickey 95130 - 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 8:24:01 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 1:25 PM
Subject: Roneta Dickey 95130 - 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.
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Roneta Dickey
95130
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: Sallie McFarland 95120 - 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 8:23:51 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 1:17 PM
Subject: Sallie McFarland 95120 - 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.
San José should not consider adding additional housing before shortage of water and power outages are alleviated. Keep open spaces open!
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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Sallie McFarland
95120
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: Sergio Zarantonello 95129 - 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 8:25:16 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 2:46 PM
Subject: Sergio Zarantonello 95129 - 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.
Don’t take our open space !!
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.
Sergio Zarantonello
95129
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: Step Wolfe 95110 - 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 8:24:37 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 2:12 PM
Subject: Step Wolfe 95110 - 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.
Something this large in such an important area needs community input! 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.
Step Wolfe
95110
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: Sue Cancilla-Conde 95129 - 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 8:24:30 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 1:42 PM
Subject: Sue Cancilla-Conde 95129 - 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.
What is going on City Council? You are authorizing and promoting high rises on 3 corners of Saratoga Ave and Prospect, More high rises within a mile of this area, Winchester and Williams and the East side. All without approval of the neighborhoods. The lucky home owners get to flee the city now before all this new construction begins. The rest of us not so lucky. City council has not listen to us. I fear this email is also futile. We feel so helpless.
Very depressed over it all. Very fearful of kids being hit by cars once all this is built.
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.
Sue Cancilla-Conde
95129
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: Utpala Sharma 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 8:23:07 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 7:40 AM
Subject: Utpala Sharma 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 in San Jose 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 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Utpala Sharma
95135
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
City of San José Transportation and Environment Committee, Council Policy 5-1 Status Report August 29, 2022
with the intent of Senate Bill 743, which established the requirement to use VMT in CEQA Transportation analysis, or the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on implementing SB 743.
VTA requests that City staff continue to work with VTA staff to discuss potential refinements to the screening criteria in Council Policy 5-1 to streamline Transit-Oriented Development and extended Transit-Oriented Communities to the greatest extent possible, consistent with SB 743, City transportation and climate goals, and VTA goals for Transit-Oriented Communities and increased ridership generation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this item. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 408-321-7093 or to discuss any questions you may have on this letter.
Sincerely,
Deborah Dagang
Chief Planning & Programming Officer
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority