Letters from the Public - 1 of 2 — San Jose City Council, November 29, 2022

FW: Reject the Alternative Recommendation facilitating development on Private Recreation and Open Space land
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Wed 11/23/2022 3:32 PM
To:Agendadesk <[email protected]>

-----Original Message-----
From: Carolyn Straub < >
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 3:31 PM
To: District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>

Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Reject the Alternative Recommendation facilitating development on Private Recreation and Open Space land [External Email]
We write to ask that you adopt the Planning Department staff recommendation for updating Transportation Analysis Policy 5-1 while rejecting the Alternative Recommendation that would facilitate development on Private Recreation and Open Space land. Send a clear message that one developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.

We object to the proposed Alternative Recommendation because it is inconsistent with the city’s General Plan and would facilitate development of huge parcels of open space without a community visioning process, such as is currently being provided for multiple other large parcels in San Jose.

If the Council would like to consider allowing this site to redevelop, the city should lead a transparent community engagement process to determine how the development of the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.

Thank you,
Carolyn Straub and Stephen McHenry
District 7
San Jose
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

11/28/22, 12:26 PM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAuAAAAAADU… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation Chloe Van Loon <
Thu 11/24/2022 9:35 AM
To:The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Hello,
As a constituent, naturalist, and environmental educator, I write to ask that you adopt the Planning Department staff recommendation for updating Transportation Analysis Policy 5-1 while rejecting the Alternative Recommendation that would facilitate development on Private Recreation and Open Space land. Send a clear message that one developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.

I object to the proposed Alternative Recommendation because it is inconsistent with the city’s General Plan and would facilitate development of huge parcels of open space without a community visioning process, such as is currently being provided for multiple other large parcels in San Jose.

The most immediate and obvious beneficiary of this harmful policy would be the owners of the 114 acre former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site, which presents an unparalleled opportunity to gain publicly accessible open space for local communities as part of a community-centered visioning process for future development of the site. If the Council would like to consider allowing this site to redevelop, the city should lead a transparent community engagement process to determine how the development of the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.

Thank you,
Chloe Van Loon,
San Jose

11/28/22, 12:27 PM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAuAAAAAADU… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation Stacey Winters <
Fri 11/25/2022 12:04 PM
To:The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Dear Representatives,
As a San Jose resident who is concerned about habitat loss in our county, I feel compelled to speak about the need to be consistent and honor our city's General Plan.

I write to ask that you adopt the Planning Department staff recommendation for updating Transportation Analysis Policy 5-1 while rejecting the Alternative Recommendation that would facilitate development on Private Recreation and Open Space land. Send a clear message that one developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.

Sincerely,
Stacey Winters

11/28/22, 12:27 PM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAuAAAAAADU… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation Elaine Gould <
Fri 11/25/2022 3:24 PM
To:The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>; <
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

In order to make SanJose a liveable city, it is very important to maintain as much open space as possibe for its citizens and local wildlife. With that in mind,I write to ask that you adopt the Planning Department staff recommendation for updating Transportation Analysis Policy 5-1 while rejecting the Alternative Recommendation that would facilitate development on Private Recreation and Open Space land. Send a clear message that one developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.

Thank you,
Elaine and Stan Gould

11/28/22, 8:25 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/3 [External Email]
[External Email]
Nov. 29th Agenda Item 8.55c: Update to City Council Policy 5-1 < >
Sat 11/26/2022 12:57 AM
To:District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Gary Cunningham < >;Lalbabu (Babu) Prasad < >;Joan
Rivas-Cosby < >;Linda Locke < >;Juan Estrada
< >;Dr. Larry Ames < >;Pat Waite < >;Barbara
Pena Atak < >;David Heindel < >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important

San Jose All District Leadership Group
Council Districts
D1 - D2 - D3 - D4 - D5 - D6 - D8 - D9 - D10
San Jose, California

Honorable Mayor and City Council
via email, sent November 26, 2022

re: Nov. 29th Agenda Item 8.55c: Update to City Council Policy 5-1

Dear City Council,

The San Jose All District Leadership Group (SJADLG) is a consortium of the leadership of the active San Jose leadership groups. The purpose of the SJADLG is to strengthen two-way communication between neighborhoods and government agencies and representatives and build a stronger sense of community within all Districts in the City of San Jose.

We urge you to join hundreds of community members, many neighborhood associations, the San Jose All District Leadership Group, Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission in rejecting the Alternative Recommendation for Policy 5-1.

11/28/22, 8:25 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/3 The SJADLG discussed aspects of the proposed changes to City Council Policy 5-1 titled “Transportation Analysis Policy”. Most of the changes recommended by Staff address the priorities of protecting and improving the environment by limiting Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) while at the same time addressing the need for affordable housing projects and market rate projects in designated City Planned Growth Areas. We in the SJADLG appreciate the pressing need for affordable housing and also the need to protect the environment, and we also appreciate the challenge of balancing these two competing priorities, and so we do not take a position on the matter.

We are concerned by the “Alternative Recommendation by the Council Committee on Transportation and the Environment”, p. 12 et seq in the Staff Report 1 . As the Staff report notes and as community members and leaders expressed to the Committee, this seems to be driven by a single project to allow the Pleasant Hill Golf Course to redevelop into housing or other uses not approved by the current General Plan designation. This developer should follow the standard process for such a project: (1) be annexed into the city, (2) be rezoned, and (3) follow “a transparent community engagement process, similar to an Urban Village process, to determine how the development of the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the City.” However, rather than following the standard process, a Committee member’s alternative recommendation would help short-circuit the process. Staff have complied with this request by documenting this “Alternative Recommendation” while noting that they do not support it.

We in the SJADLG are very concerned by this “Alternative Recommendation” for a number of reasons:

1. It does not seem appropriate for the City to change policy citywide for the benefit of a single developer;

2. We are very concerned by the possibility of “unintended consequence” and the chance that the Alternative Recommendation might enable entirely inappropriate development elsewhere, such as in the bay lands, Coyote Valley, Edenvale, or elsewhere; and

3. Appropriate development of the parcel should be a transparent community engagement process

We urge you to reject the Alternative Recommendation.

Thank you.

Greg Peck
Chair, San Jose All District Leadership Group
District 1 – Gary Cunningham
District 2 – Lalbabu (Babu) Prasad
District 3 – Joan Rivas-Cosby
District 4 – Linda Locke
District 5 – Juan Estrada
District 6 – Larry Ames
District 8 – Pat Waite
District 9 – Bobbi Pena-Atak
District 10 – David Heindel

1 hps://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=91903&t=638035887653451664

11/28/22, 8:28 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation Suzanne Morrone < >
Sat 11/26/2022 9:38 AM
To:Matt Mahan < >;The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<[email protected]>;Peralez, Raul <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; < >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important

Thank you,
Suzanne Morrone
San Jose

11/28/22, 12:28 PM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAuAAAAAADU… 1/2 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fwd: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation
Victoria Farrell <
Sat 11/26/2022 12:41 PM
To:City Clerk <[email protected]>; <
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Victoria Farrell < >
Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 12:40 PM
Subject: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Please adopt the Planning Department staff recommendation for updating Transportation Analysis Policy 5-1 while rejecting the Alternative Recommendation that would facilitate development on Private Recreation and Open Space land. Send a clear message that one developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.

I am against and object to the proposed Alternative Recommendation because it is inconsistent with the city’s General Plan and would facilitate development of huge parcels of open space without a community visioning process, such as is currently being provided for multiple other large parcels in San Jose.

I recognize the need for housing, but there are much better solutions that will benefit all of the community and residents of San Jose.

Thank you,
[Your name]
San Jose

Nov 29, 2022 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Adopt Staff Recommendation Katja Irvin <
Sat 11/26/2022 7:27 PM
To:The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Dear San Jose Mayor and City Council,
I have been involved with planning efforts in the San Jose Evergreen area since the Evergreen Vision Strategy in 2004. This area has several constraints that need to be evaluated in relation to previous planning efforts and the direction of the City as a whole.

Therefore, I'm writing to request that you adopt the Planning Department staff recommendation for updating Transportation Analysis Policy 5-1 and reject the Alternative Recommendation that would fast-track development on Private Recreation and Open Space land. The Alternative Recommendation is inconsistent with the City of San Jose General Plan, and development of 114 acres of open space should not occur without applying broad planning practices to ensure that any project will benefit the community.

Google's Downtown West project covers 80 acres and is an example of a top-notch community- based planning process, from visioning to a master plan. Cambrian Plaza and El Paseo de Saratoga underwent significant master planning for much smaller projects. Please do not shortchange the community around Pleasant Hills Golf Course.

The loss of open space in San Jose is a serious concern. The costs and benefits of creating public open space vs. conversion to private development must be thoroughly analyzed. A transparent community engagement process is needed to determine how any development of the site could meet the needs of the larger community.

Thank you,
Katja Irvin, AICP
San Jose Resident

11/28/22, 12:29 PM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAuAAAAAADU… 1/2 [External Email]
11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation lc boros <
Sun 11/27/2022 7:16 PM
To:The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Hi,
I live above the hills above area being discussed and I’m writing to ask that you adopt the Planning Department staff recommendation for updating Transportation Analysis Policy 5-1 while rejecting the Alternative Recommendation that would facilitate development on Private Recreation and Open Space land. Send a clear message that one developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.

I object to the proposed “Alternative" Recommendation because it is inconsistent with the city’s General Plan and it would facilitate development of huge parcels of open space without a community visioning process, such as is currently being provided for multiple other large parcels in San Jose.

Thanks!
/lc
————
LC Boros (stega)

Voice Actor and Ranch Manager @ Purgatory Auto Works and Dinosaur Farm stega.org / purgatory.org / boros.net / networkgirl.org Instagram: @the.stega

11/28/22, 12:34 PM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAuAAAAAADU… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation Gary Campanella <
Mon 11/28/2022 10:52 AM
To:The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

To the Mayor and City Council Members:

I am a long-time (46 years) resident of San Jose. In addition, I am quite familiar with the Pleasant Hills golf course having played there many times before its closure. It is a wonderful piece of property that provides needed green space in that part of town.

I write to ask that you adopt the Planning Department staff recommendation for updating Transportation Analysis Policy 5-1 while rejecting the Alternative Recommendation that would facilitate development on Private Recreation and Open Space land. I ask you to send a clear message that one developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.

The most immediate and obvious beneficiary of this harmful policy would be the owners of the 114 acre former Pleasant Hills Golf Course site. This parcel presents an unparalleled opportunity to gain publicly accessible open space for local communities as part of a community-centered visioning process for future development of the site.

If the Council would like to consider allowing this site to redevelop, the city should lead a transparent community
engagement process to determine how the development of the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.

Thank you.

Gary Campanella
Cell:

11/28/22, 12:34 PM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAuAAAAAADU… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. opposing the “Alternative Recommendation”, part of “Amendment to the City Council Policy 5-1 Transportation Analysis for Affordable Housing Projects” (Agenda Item 8.5) Lames <
Mon 11/28/2022 11:26 AM
To:The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>;District1 <[email protected]>;District2 <[email protected]>;District3 <[email protected]>;District4 <[email protected]>;District5 <[email protected]>;District 6 <[email protected]>;District7 <[email protected]>;District8 <[email protected]>;District9 <[email protected]>;District 10 <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;Maguire, Jennifer <[email protected]> 1 attachments (429 KB)
D6NLG letter to Council on 5.1 & Pleasant Hill golf course.pdf;

Attached please find the letter from the Dist. 6 Neighborhood Leaders Group (D6NLG) regarding Item 8.5 on tomorrow's Council Agenda.
~Larry Ames
Chair, D6NLG

1 The Honorable Sam Liccardo, Mayor of San José,
and Members of the San José Council,
200 E Santa Clara St.

San José, CA 95113
via email, sent November 28, 2022

Subject: opposing the “Alternative Recommendation”, part of “Amendment to the City Council Policy 5-1 Transportation Analysis for Affordable Housing Projects” (Agenda Item 8.5)

Dear Mayor Liccardo and Councilmembers,

We in the District 6 Neighborhood Leaders Group (D6NLG), a decades-old association of involved community representatives of the numerous District 6 neighborhoods and associations, are dedicated to preserving and enhancing the quality of life in a sustainable and equitable San José. We support the City in its efforts to promote more housing, especially affordable housing, on appropriate sites and with appropriate services and infrastructure (such as transportation and parks). We also support the City in its efforts to comply with the State mandate to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging projects that minimize “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT). The intent of amending City Council Policy 5-1 (Agenda Item 8.5) is to balance the prioritization of new affordable housing with the prioritization of reducing VMT. We trust that you will make a well-considered decision.

We are writing you to express our concern about the “Alternative Recommendation” which proposes to change policy citywide for the benefit of a single project: the long-closed Pleasant Hill Golf Course in unincorporated eastern San José. While this parcel is not in District 6, we could suffer “collateral damage” from unintended consequences: the proposed citywide policy could green-light development of open-spaces from Alviso to Coyote Valley, to the detriment of both the environment and the City Services budget.

As we said in our Nov. 15th letter to the Planning Commission1, we understand that development of the Pleasant Hill parcel has been stymied for decades by constraints in the Evergreen Development Plan, by various housing development “entitlement swaps” with adjacent regions (Berryessa and Edenvale), and perhaps also by the parcel owner’s overly ambitious development proposals. We also note that there have been a number of attempted workarounds, including the failed Measure B in 2018 and an unsuccessful push for a statewide law, and we feel that this is just another attempt to shortcut the appropriate planning process.

The Council’s Transportation and Environment (T&E) Committee directed Staff to propose language for a remedy, and they complied, but then states that they do not support the Alternative Recommendation. To quote from the Staff Report:

1 http://calsj.org/D6/D6NLG%20letter%20on%20PlanningCmsn%205.1%20&%20Pleasant%20Hill%20golf%20course.pdf

2 If the Council would like to consider allowing the Pleasant Hill Golf Course to redevelop into housing and/or other uses, staff recommends that the City lead a transparent community engagement process, similar to an Urban Village process, to determine how the development of the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the City. Such a process could determine the appropriate mix and type of uses, desired community amenities, needed multimodal transportation improvements, and how, overall, such a development could successfully be integrated into the Evergreen Area. The process should include consideration of how the project could fit with the anticipated redevelopment of other key development sites in the immediate area including Reed Hill View (sic) airport and surrounding properties. Review of the development under Policy 5-1 would be one small component of a much larger entitlement process, and the Policy as proposed by staff would not preclude a public planning process or the ultimate approval of a project. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy. [emphasis added]

The D6NLG wholeheartedly agrees with this. We feel that it is inappropriate for the T&E Committee to write proscriptive development details for a large project outside of a transparent community process.

We acknowledge the urgency of the housing crisis. We all should also acknowledge that housing development is influenced by the availability of financing, and current feasibility/cost analyses show no development is feasible now except for subsidized affordable housing projects, and also that people with lower incomes are better served by housing with readily accessible transit. A well designed planning and approval process would balance acknowledged community impacts with measureable community benefits through the collection of mitigation fees that would help improve transit in the isolated parts of the City.

We urge you to accept the recommendations of both Staff and the Planning Commission and to reject the Alterative Recommendation.

Dr. Lawrence Ames, Chair, D6NLG

11/28/22, 12:41 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQAI… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: Pleasant Hill Golf Course redevelopment
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 11/28/2022 12:16 PM
To:Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: John Clear < >
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 11:49 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Pleasant Hill Golf Course redevelopment

San Jose has a desperate need for more housing.

This property has been abandoned for nearly two decades and is in a prime spot to be developed into high density housing thanks to being near to many bus lines and close to the future light rail extension.

Given that this plot of land has been abandoned for twenty years, redeveloping it should be able to proceed quickly. The potenal traﬃc issues caused by this development can be covered by adding addional buses and speeding up the meline of the light rail extension.

John Clear

San Jose City CouncilNovember 29, 2022

San Jose City Council
November 29, 2022