Fw: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 Council Policy 5-1: Reject the Alternative Recommendation City Clerk <
Fri 12/2/2022 6:59 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 11:00 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 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.
As the Planning Commission wrote “One developer’s interest in one potential redevelopment project should not drive the direction of Citywide policy.”
We agree that if the Council would like to consider allowing the Pleasant Hills Golf Course 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.
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,
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 7:04 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 12:02 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 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 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Matthew Burrows
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 7:04 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 12:03 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: 11/29/22 Agenda Item 8.5 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 the site could meet the needs of its future residents, the larger community, and the city.
Sincerely,
Wate Bakker
message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
[External Email]
FW: Comment letter from Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority to agenda item 8.4 on 12-6-22 City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 12/5/2022 4:53 PM
To:Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Marc Landgraf
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:53 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Lena Eyen District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOffi[email protected]>
Subject: Comment le er from Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority to agenda item 8.4 on 12-6-22
Dear City Clerk,
Please find a ached a comment le er from the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, per nent to agenda Item 8.4 on tomorrow’s (Dec 6, 2022) City Council Agenda. This le er was originally submi ed on Nov 29, 2022 for item 8.5 on last week’s agenda, when the item was deferred to this week, though I didn’t see it in the currently posted Le ers from the Public.
Thank you!
Marc Landgraf
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
From: Marc Landgraf
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 12:25 PM
To:
councilmee [email protected]
Cc: Lena Eyen < >; Andrea Mackenzie < >
Subject: Comment le er to agenda item 8.5 from Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
Please find a ached a comment le er, from the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, to be submi ed to the public record per nent to agenda Item 8.5 on today’s City Council Agenda.
Thank you very much,
Marc
Marc Landgraf (he/him)
External Affairs Manager
Nature is for everyone, and everyone is welcome in the preserves. Help us keep your beloved open spaces fun and safe for all.
P ease pr nt on y f necessary.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Confiden a ty No ce: This message, including any a achments, is intended to be used only by the person(s) or en ty to which it is addressed. This message may contain confiden al and/or legally privileged informa on. If the reader is not the intended recipient of this message or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message, you are hereby no fied that you are prohibited from prin ng, copying storing, dissemina ng, or distribu ng this communica on. If you received this communica on in error, please delete it from your computer along with any a achments and no fy the sender by telephone or by reply e-mail.
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Subject: Item 8.4 Council Agenda December 6, 2022
I have longtime interest in Evergreen properties, I write to ask you to approve the T&E Committee’s preferred VMT policy update option 5-1B as proposed by T&E Committee Chair Debra Davis and Councilmember Raul Peralez in their November 23, 2022 memorandum to the City Council.
While researching this issue, I’ve discovered that the City of San Jose currently has the most extreme VMT policy in the Bay Area which is affecting the city’s ability to create more housing opportunities. Yet, our homeless population continues to grow. The lack of housing unit production has caused our city to be over-run by the homeless, increase the crime rate and lower property values of people’s homes.
Our state and local community is in a housing crisis and we need to be responsible by respecting property rights and at create more needed affordable and market rate housing for local families. The will of the San Jose voters have made it loud and clear during this election that the status quo that caused this crisis will not be supported.
The cost of doing little has cost the City of San Jose way too much. The time for action is now, please approve the T&E Committee’s preferred option VMT 5-1B as proposed by Councilmember Dev Davis and Raul Peralez.
Sincerely,
b.s. Dhillon -digitally signed
Bob Dhillon