This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <
Fri 12/2/2022 7:11 PM
To:Agendadesk <
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:
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 8:27 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternave Recommendaon
[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 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Mary Huynh
message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <
Fri 12/2/2022 7:12 PM
To:Agendadesk <
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:
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 8:43 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternave Recommendaon
[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 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Maha Hariharan
message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <
Fri 12/2/2022 7:12 PM
To:Agendadesk <
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:
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 9:20 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternave Recommendaon
[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 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Cristal Banuelos
message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <
Fri 12/2/2022 7:13 PM
To:Agendadesk <
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:
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 9:39 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternave Recommendaon
[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 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Thank you,
Dean Davidson
Sincerely,
Dean Davidson