Sjc 40 acres by Guadalupe

[Kevin Wang]

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-jose-officials-consider-plans-for-vacant-land-near-sjc/3541790/

Seems a missed opportunity to build bike friendly housing, since it's right on the Guadalupe

- kjw

[Tuan Tu]

It is, but I remember some other things on this 40acres related to this. This might be the document they referenced. https://www.flysanjose.com/sites/default/files/commission/05.13.24.Airport.Commission.Memo_.pdf 

"The property is Federally obligated/regulated in perpetuity under City Airport ownership....[property] defined by the FAA as a noise buffer." So no residential and other usage. They were actually forced  by the FAA to clear encampments, and "activate" with this land to prevent future habitation.

[Kevin Wang]

Hm, would it be worth trying to get it instead of industrial be designed as cycle friendly businesses? Unfortunately there's no nearby source of foot traffic so maybe industrial is the better option. Offices maybe? I dunno. 

[Jordan Moldow]

The Parks and Recreation Commission (an advisory committee without any decision-making authority, similar to BPAC) is discussing this proposal tomorrow night at 5:30pm and will vote on its recommendation. If you have feelings on this proposal and want to weigh in, I suggest trying to attend in-person if you can. It isn't the first substantial item on the agenda, so even if you cannot be there right at 5:30pm, you might still be able to get there in time to speak. It's technically too late to send email public comments, though you could try and see what happens.

Here again is the document that Tuan linked to, from the Airport Commission: https://www.flysanjose.com/sites/default/files/commission/05.13.24.Airport.Commission.Memo_.pdf

This is the document for tomorrow, it's not exactly the same, though I imagine the changes are just in terms of how the information is presented: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=112268&t=638521499263923233

I'm going to try to be there if I can, if the weather isn't too brutal to go out.

In the grand scheme of things, this project probably doesn't matter much. That being said, this project upsets me. I wish they weren't rezoning parts of the Gardens just so that the FAA/SJC can make up for its losses by charging rent on the land. Apparently the original contract with the FAA said that the land has to be put to "productive" uses (but not housing, like Tuan said, because that is incompatible with being next to the airport - they actually tore down housing in the 70s, using money from the federal government, which is why the FAA can dictate these land use changes now).

These are the comments I sent after a public meeting last fall:

I am opposed to the rezoning of parcels of the Guadalupe Gardens around Coleman and Hedding. I'm particularly strongly opposed to the rezoning of the large Site 3 (Parcels 1, 2, and 5).

The driver of this project is entirely external to the city: the FAA claims that the city is in violation of the grant that was used to purchase the land, and they expect the land to be "productive" and revenue generating (to fund FAA operations).

This seems very backwards to me, and I hope that our city council and environment committees and departments can push back on the FAA. Air travel is a significant contributor to climate change. The current open space in the gardens helps mitigate climate change, so this seems like the most "productive" use of the land. Open space is also a public good, in a way that most private commercial development can match.

Parcel 3 seems minor, I have no objection to re-zoning it.

Sites 1 and 2 (Parcels 6 and 7) are much smaller than Site 3, so it wouldn't be as big a deal if they get developed, though I'd still prefer that they not. But if they do have to be developed, I'd much rather see it be developed for non-profits that work at mitigate climate change. For example, Our City Forest, which recently received a commendation from the city council, has a similar plot of land in this area, and they put it to very productive use as a nursery. There are also great gardens and nursaries in Guadalupe Gardens, as well as the nearby Garden to Table SV on the other side of Highway 87. If the FAA forces a land-use change, I think it would be great if these groups, or groups like them, are able to develop these lands for purposes that benefit the environment and the community.

And it is still my firm belief that Site 3 (Parcels 1, 2, and 5) should remain with its current zoning. If it absolutely must be rezoned and redeveloped, then I would suggest the same approach that I suggested for Sites 1 and 2.

To be clear, I am not against commercial infill. Infill is another good tool for not creating worse environmental problems, when the only other alternative is to destroy forests and other natural lands. But in this case, the rezoning and infill is entirely based off FAA rent-seeking, and not based on any demonstrated need.

I hope that our city decides to push back against the FAA, and reach out to our local Congressmembers if necessary. Thank you.

I'd like to see the land remain in a nature-like state, or at least used for environment-supporting purposes, like what Our City Forest and other non-profits currently do in the Gardens. If that's not possible, then like Kevin said, having commercial uses that go well with the adjacent trails and gardens would be nice. Though that might be too specific to put in the General Plan.

Jordan

--
Topics posted to this list are visible to the public.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SVBC San Jose Team" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sanjose+u...@bikesiliconvalley.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/d/msgid/sanjose/CAGw5MrYz4HrG%2BUimdeGB_EYuFt5Q6_N3ry%3DRCcwmL%2Bg9dE-_kA%40mail.gmail.com.