12/14/22, 9:56 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:08 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < on behalf of Thomas Salinas
<
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 6:41 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 9:56 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Thomas Salinas
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 9:57 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:08 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Brian Tremaine
< >
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 8:16 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I disagree with most of the community input. The Golf course is NOT open land, it is private property owned by the family that had the golf course. The area should be developed with housing that includes a few small lot-size parks that will give people a place to walk and be outdoors. Cunningham Lake is right across the street. There should be a pedestrian walkway over White Rd to Cunningham. That provides adequate access to 'open space'.
Secondly, there should be adequate parking so the streets don't become like the rest of East San Jose, with dozens of cars on the street and everyone putting out 'no parking' cones. This also means the homes should have two and three bedrooms so it will limit the number of people per house. Four and five-bedroom homes are expensive and house too many people for the area.
It should NOT be 3 & 4-story townhomes with no street parking that is too expensive for the average- income family to own or rent.
Sincerely,
Brian T
remaine
12/14/22, 9:57 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 9:57 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:08 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Sukhdev Tumber
< >
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 8:44 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 9:57 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Sukhdev Tumber
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 9:58 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:09 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Ruth Cliffor d
< >
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 10:48 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 9:58 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Ruth Clifford
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 9:58 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:09 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Teresa
Deardorff < >
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 11:25 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 9:58 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
T
eresa Deardorff
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 10:25 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Dolores Gaona 95133 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:08 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 2:42 PM
To: Agendadesk <[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]>; District1 <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Dolores Gaona 95133 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 10:25 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Dolores Gaona
95133
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
12/14/22, 10:25 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Lisa Deshpande 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:08 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 8:15 PM
To: Agendadesk <[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]>; District1 <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Lisa Deshpande 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 10:25 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Lisa Deshpande
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
12/14/22, 10:26 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:07 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Marjorie Rhodes-
Ousley
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 9:14 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
Please join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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.
As a long time resident, 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
12/14/22, 10:26 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
In this case developing the Pleasant Hills parcel as residences would exacerbate already congested roads, and there is also no K-8 infrastructure to accommodate such a change. Curtailing he community visioning process, and facilitating residential development like this over all else will create an imbalance of resources and facilities and lead to a crisis in San Jose neighborhoods! Best regards,
Marjorie Rhodes-Ousley
Sincerely,
Marjorie Rhodes-Ousley
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 10:26 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Bowen Hammil 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:07 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 9:54 PM
To: Agendadesk <[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]>; District1 <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Bowen Hammil 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 10:26 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Bowen Hammil
95127
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
12/14/22, 10:52 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Letty Trivino 95133 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:07 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 7:32 AM
To: Agendadesk <[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]>; District1 <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Le y Trivino 95133 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Let the community decide please.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 10:52 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Letty Trivino
95133
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
12/14/22, 10:52 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:07 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Cheryl Lavery
< >
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 11:26 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 10:52 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Lavery
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 10:53 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:05 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of
Mary Helen Doherty < >
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 4:36 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 10:53 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Mary Helen Doherty
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 10:54 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:04 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of
Kathryn Funk < >
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 6:11 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 10:54 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Funk
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 10:54 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:03 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: on behalf of Iesha Bayona
< >
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 6:36 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 10:54 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Iesha Bayona
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 10:55 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:02 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Colleen
McCarthy Reyes < >
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 7:43 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 10:55 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Colleen McCarthy R
eyes
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 10:58 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:07 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Jessie
Bernal < >
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 9:48 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 10:58 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Jessie Bernal
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 11:00 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:05 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Eric
Barajas < >
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 1:58 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 11:00 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Eric Barajas
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 11:04 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:04 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Chris Spenner
< >
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 6:13 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 11:04 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Chris Spenner
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 11:05 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Cindy Aviles 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:03 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 8:15 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Cindy Aviles 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 11:05 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
Cindy Aviles
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:06 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:02 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Stacie Wolny
< >
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 9:11 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I applaud your 2018 policy to prioritize infill of the city center for any new development, we should stop business-as-usual sprawl into undeveloped areas. This also means that areas zoned as Open Space should stay that way. Residents (both human and otherwise) need green spaces for the myriad benefits they provide. If anything, Open Space and Recreation areas should be required to do restoration of native ecosystems and the many services that they provide, certainly not allow "development" (as if paving over the rest of nature for private profit is somehow progress).
Please follow the Planning Department staff recommendation for updating Transportation Analysis Policy 5-1, and reject the Alternative Recommendation that would facilitate development on Private Recreation and Open Space land. This is one of many opportunities to reject the status quo destruction of our open space by private interests, and choose a new path of working with residents to envision a home where both community and nature thrive.
Sincerely,
Stacie Wolny
12/14/22, 11:06 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 11:07 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:06 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Helen Arreola
< >
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 9:21 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 11:07 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Helen Arreola
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 11:08 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: RUBEN MATOS 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:04 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 10:18 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
RUBEN MATOS 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Please allow community input. Thanks
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:08 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
RUBEN MATOS
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:09 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:04 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Susana Rlassal
< >
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 11:27 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 11:09 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Susana Rlassal
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 11:10 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Pat Waite 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:02 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 12:02 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Pat Waite 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 11:10 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
Pat Waite
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
12/14/22, 11:10 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Jim Frizzell 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:02 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 12:04 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Jim Frizzell 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 11:10 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
Jim Frizzell
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:11 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Penny L Pollock 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:06 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 12:04 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Penny L Pollock 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
As a resident of East San Jose for 30+ years I feel this is another example of some developer hoping to pull a fast one the residents of the East Side. We need more open space not more upscale housing that is not affordable to a major portion of our residents. More affordable housing and open space is what we need and deserve.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
12/14/22, 11:11 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
Penny L Pollock
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:12 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Jill Bohn 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:05 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 12:07 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Jill Bohn 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
No special breaks for developers. Use the process of public 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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:12 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Jill Bohn
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:12 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Sue Ellen Tomasic 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:04 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 12:31 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Sue Ellen Tomasic 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:12 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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 Ellen Tomasic
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:13 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Elizabeth Escandon 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:03 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 1:02 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Elizabeth Escandon 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:13 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Elizabeth Escandon
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:14 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Jean Kaelin 95112 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:01 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 1:14 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Jean Kaelin 95112 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Just stop this constant taking away of open space. Once an open space is gone, it is gone for good. We are becoming a rather ugly city of poorly designed mixed use and low income housing units/buildings.
Take a cue from New York City. Parks, many big beautiful parks that will be there forever for all to enjoy. $$$$$$$$ is driving these choices. And it shows. Let’s give greed a back seat for a change.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public
12/14/22, 11:14 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. open space.
4. 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.
Jean Kaelin
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
12/14/22, 11:19 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:06 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of charlo e
delaplaine < >
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 2:00 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 11:19 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
charlotte delaplaine
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 11:19 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Butch Meyner 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:05 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 2:08 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Butch Meyner 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Traffic patterns disallow anything but 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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:19 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Butch Meyner
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:20 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: ANGELO GONZAGA 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:04 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 2:43 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
ANGELO GONZAGA 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
WE NEED TO KEEP 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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:20 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
ANGELO GONZAGA
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
12/14/22, 11:22 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Geoffrey Lynch 95112 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:03 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 2:59 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Geoffrey Lynch 95112 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Please use the process in place to allow the citizens of our city to decide the course of action on this public land. Stamp our corruption!
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
12/14/22, 11:22 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
4. 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.
Geoffrey Lynch
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
12/14/22, 11:23 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: John Gallo 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:02 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 3:05 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
John Gallo 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 11:23 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
John Gallo
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:28 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Ricardo R Chavez 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:58 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 5:20 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Ricardo R Chavez 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:28 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Ricardo R Chavez
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:29 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Mary Jo Dilger 95123 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:58 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 5:56 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Mary Jo Dilger 95123 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
I think voters or people in affected area should have a voice in use of 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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:29 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Mary Jo Dilger
95123
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
12/14/22, 11:30 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:59 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Anne e McMillan
< >
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 6:24 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 11:30 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Annette McMillan
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 11:31 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:59 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Eric Eugenio
< >
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 7:25 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 11:31 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Eric Eugenio
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 11:31 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Theodora Morse 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:59 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: District 5 United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 7:48 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Theodora Morse 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
12/14/22, 11:31 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
4. 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.
Theodora Morse
95135
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
12/14/22, 11:32 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Gerald Francis O'Connell 95124 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:58 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 8:02 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Gerald Francis O'Connell 95124 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:32 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Gerald Francis O'Connell
95124
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
12/14/22, 11:33 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 3:01 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Erika
Or z < >
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 8:05 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 11:33 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Erika Ortiz
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 11:33 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Anna Luna 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:59 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: District 5 United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 8:41 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Anna Luna 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Born and raised in San Jose. No more building houses. Open space for children/ pre-teens, young adults educational parks.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public
12/14/22, 11:33 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. open space.
4. 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.
Anna Luna
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
12/14/22, 11:34 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Norma 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:58 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 8:42 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Norma 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 11:34 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
Norma
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:35 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Susan L Price 95128 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:57 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 8:58 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Susan L Price 95128 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
There must be public discuss and a vote when public land is considered for private use. Don't make exceptions for an individual developer. This pertains to the Pleasant Hills Golf Course. How to use this land must be discussed and decided IN PUBLIC by City Council.!!! 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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public
12/14/22, 11:35 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. open space.
4. 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.
Susan L Price
95128
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
12/14/22, 11:35 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Myra Nava 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:55 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 9:34 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Myra Nava 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 11:35 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
Myra Nava
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
12/14/22, 11:36 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Camillia Brennan 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:54 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 9:42 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Camillia Brennan 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:36 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Camillia Brennan
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
12/14/22, 11:37 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Jennifer Rutherford 95136 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:57 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 10:16 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Jennifer Rutherford 95136 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
No additional comments
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:37 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Jennifer Rutherford
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
12/14/22, 11:37 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Doris Livezey 95129-3138 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:54 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 11:09 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Doris Livezey 95129-3138 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Save our Open Space – when it's gone, it's gone!
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:37 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Doris Livezey
95129-3138
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
12/14/22, 11:38 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Thomas Haney 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:54 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 11:13 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Thomas Haney 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Please do the right thing by citizens and not special interest of developer 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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:38 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Thomas Haney
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:43 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: JULIE NUNES 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:57 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: District 5 United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 2:41 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
JULIE NUNES 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
DON’T TAKE OUR OPEN SPACE WITHOUT COMMUNITY VISIONING!
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
12/14/22, 11:43 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
4. 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.
JULIE NUNES
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
12/14/22, 11:44 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Shannon Tuttle 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:54 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 5:32 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Shannon Tu le 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:44 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Shannon Tuttle
95127
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
12/14/22, 11:44 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: RICHARD TARVER 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:53 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: District 5 United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 6:18 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
RICHARD TARVER 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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.
A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
12/14/22, 11:44 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Richard Tarver
95127
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
RICHARD TARVER
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
12/14/22, 11:45 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Maria G Reyes 95122 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:53 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: District 5 United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 6:31 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Maria G Reyes 95122 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
No one developer should have the day so as to what happens in our communities. As an elected official, your responsibility is to the community who elected you not to any one person.
Also,has the city done an environmental study to see what any future developments will do to this community?
Stop the abuse to our communities. Listen to the community.
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.
12/14/22, 11:45 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
1. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
Maria G Reyes
95122
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
12/14/22, 11:50 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Stan Ketchum 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:53 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: District 5 United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 7:24 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Stan Ketchum 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
12/14/22, 11:50 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
4. 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.
Stan Ketchum
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
12/14/22, 11:50 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Betty Lawler 95051 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:52 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 7:39 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Be y Lawler 95051 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 11:50 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
Betty Lawler
95051
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
12/14/22, 11:51 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Sharon Schuetze 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:53 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: District 5 United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 7:46 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Sharon Schuetze 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Do not allow a developer to take land for their profit. This is not acceptable. We, the people, need to have a say in the matter. especially when it goes against environmental standards.
This will set a dangerous precedent.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be
12/14/22, 11:51 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
Sharon Schuetze
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
12/14/22, 8:40 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Jay Kenshin 95116 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:52 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 7:58 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Jay Kenshin 95116 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 8:40 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
Jay Kenshin
95116
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
12/14/22, 11:52 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Ramesh Gunna 95129 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:51 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 8:04 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Ramesh Gunna 95129 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
I am strongly opposed to short cutting any processes or allowing special provisions without citizens input.
Please allow the citizens to participate, work with them & have a meaningful engagement with the citizens.
We are not living in an autocracy, this is democracy and DO NOT FORGET that. – thank you
Ramesh’
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.
12/14/22, 11:52 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
1. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
Ramesh Gunna
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
12/14/22, 8:39 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Rosalie jackson 95129 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:50 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 8:18 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Rosalie jackson 95129 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 8:40 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Rosalie jackson
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
12/14/22, 8:39 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: William Wong 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:49 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 8:19 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
William Wong 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 8:39 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
William Wong
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
12/14/22, 11:54 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Stephanie Brooks 95117 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:48 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 8:22 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Stephanie Brooks 95117 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
With population and housing increasing, we cannot afford to lose ANY 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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 11:54 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Stephanie Brooks
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
12/14/22, 11:59 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Dina Vaz 95008 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:44 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 8:49 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Dina Vaz 95008 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 11:59 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
Dina Vaz
95008
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
12/14/22, 11:54 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Lawrence J Cargnoni 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:51 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: District 5 United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 8:55 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Lawrence J Cargnoni 95135 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
All development must include community and neighborhoodhoods' input and feedback 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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public
12/14/22, 11:54 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. open space.
4. 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.
Lawrence J Cargnoni
95135
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
12/14/22, 12:05 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Sophia Dodson 95117 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:45 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 9:57 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Sophia Dodson 95117 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 12:05 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Sophia Dodson
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
12/14/22, 12:07 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Maria Hennessy 95112 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:44 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 10:11 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Maria Hennessy 95112 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Our city needs to maintain open space. The towering apartment buildings being built by rapacious developers will add to our population without the parkland and recreational areas needed to support this influx. People need to live healthy lives in our city.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public
12/14/22, 12:07 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. open space.
4. 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.
Maria Hennessy
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
12/14/22, 12:06 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: peggy cabrera 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:49 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: District 5 United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 10:45 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
peggy cabrera 95127 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
i may not live in this area, but i've always appreciated the open space area with the trees when i drive past this property. i have read a lot of community input opposed to the development of this property without having gathered community input first. this is one of the last areas in our area that has some semblance of nature in our environment. please be cautious about developing this land without getting input from the people who live around this property. it's only fair. the developer will populate this space with lots of buildings and roads, but will not have to live with the consequences of this growth.
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
12/14/22, 12:06 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. community engagement and visioning process like you are doing for sites a fraction of the size.
1. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
peggy cabrera
95127
--
This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via District 5 United https://www.district5united.org
Community Working Together
12/14/22, 12:08 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: james Carter 95125 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:48 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 10:45 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
james Carter 95125 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 12:08 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
james Carter
95125
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
12/14/22, 12:08 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:48 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Dan Haifley
< >
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 10:54 AM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 12:08 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Dan Haifley
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 12:09 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Joseph kochanski 95120 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:46 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 11:11 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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Joseph kochanski 95120 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
People’s voice needs to be heard before 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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 12:09 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Joseph kochanski
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
12/14/22, 12:09 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Linda Ladwig 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:45 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 12:12 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Linda Ladwig 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Please do not destroy our neighborhood without community vision and input. This is one of the last large piece of property in Evergreen area and can be used to benefit our immediate Evergreen neighborhood with a 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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
12/14/22, 12:10 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
4. 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.
Linda Ladwig
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
12/14/22, 12:11 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Rosemary Kulpa 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:49 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 2:21 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Rosemary Kulpa 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 12:11 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Rosemary Kulpa
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
12/14/22, 12:11 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:48 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: > on behalf of Nancy Leonard
< >
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 3:05 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 12:11 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Nancy Leonar
d
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 12:12 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Hella Bluhm-Stieber 95129 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:47 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 3:47 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Hella Bluhm-S eber 95129 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Open space is very important for me. I am a trail patrol volunteer and have seen how the usage of our local parks has increased over the last few years. It is really important that we all have input when open space is planned to be developed.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public
12/14/22, 12:12 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. open space.
4. 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.
Hella Bluhm-Stieber
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
12/14/22, 12:13 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:46 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: < > on behalf of Rosemary Ramirez
< >
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:07 PM
T
o: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/6/22 Agenda Item 8.4 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[External Email]
Dear City Clerk City Clerk,
I ask that you join hundreds of community members and the Planning Commission by following 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
12/14/22, 12:13 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
R
osemary Ramirez
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
12/14/22, 12:13 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Mary Umstattd 95130 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:45 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:09 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Mary Umsta d 95130 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 12:13 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Mary Umstattd
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
12/14/22, 12:14 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Yolanda 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:51 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 5:49 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Yolanda 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Members of the City Council, join the city Planning Commission in overwhelmingly rejecting the proposal of one developer's special interest in developing the former Pleasant Hills Golf Course. What ever happened to the concept of Preservation of Open Space in area that is already impacted.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
12/14/22, 12:14 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
4. 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.
Yolanda
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
12/14/22, 12:14 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Henry Myers 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:50 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 6:48 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Henry Myers 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Keep the old Pleasant Hills Golf course recreational space for the community. Use it to expand Cunningham park and reopen it as the golf course that it was intended for. Building housing on the 114 acres will increase traffic and cause great increases in toxic pollutions due to increased autos fumes, This will also exacerbate climate warming.
PLEASE PROTECT THE PUBLIC!!!
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
12/14/22, 12:14 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
Henry Myers
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
12/14/22, 12:18 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Lam Ngo 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:49 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 7:15 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Lam Ngo 95148 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
Don’t take our open space without community visioning
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. If the city would like to explore what should happen with this 114 acre site, it should be through a city-
12/14/22, 12:18 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Lam Ngo
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
12/14/22, 12:18 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Sorin Florea 95138 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transportation Policy 5-1, Reject the Alternative Recommendation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/12/2022 2:47 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: San Jose United <
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 7:52 PM
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 <TheOffi[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
Sorin Florea 95138 - 12/6/22 Item 8.4 Transporta on Policy 5-1, Reject the Alterna ve Recommenda on
Dear City Council,
I join ~1,000 community members in asking you to reject the "Alternative Recommendation", that is opposed by staff and was rejected by the Planning Commission, for the update to Council Policy 5-1. It 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. One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.
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. A policy change should not be driven by a single property, in this case the Pleasant Hills Golf Course.
2. The policy change could have implications for other areas. It could be used as a model that could be applied down the road to other types of zoning.
3. Any future plans for this site must include dedication of a significant percentage of the site for public open space.
4. 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.
12/14/22, 12:18 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 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.
Sorin Florea
95138
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