Sent to Ken Yeager, Councilmember for District 6, September 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Yeager:

I want to thank you for your support and speaking out on behalf of more sensible "Planning Practices", especially with regard to the current Alma Bowl site proposal.

I know that we can count on you to oppose the incompatible rezoning proposal for the two 11-story high-rises at the Alma Bowl site. This neighborhood is an older, historical one with mostly one-story houses. The height is way too high and the project does not have any draws that would keep the traffic at the site: meaning amenities that a transit village would have. We do not want to build first and then wait decades for the attractions to be added. There isn't even a grocery store within walking distance, so everyone in that project will have to have a car and use it anyway.

We also do not want incompatible hi-rises sticking up in odd locations like pimples on a face. They belong in the downtown core like most cities have.

It still befuddles me as to why anyone would think that this is proper planning at this time in history. Yes, everyone is in favor of having more parks. That should not be the driving force. It's funny how one developer's park fees can be spent miles away from their development site. In other words, the public has no guarantee that the park fee money will be spent at the very spot that it is needed. It's not really funny. With this kind of density at this location, any park built here would be full the very day it was opened!

What will be next, four 11-story hi-rises at Willow and Minnesota? Obviously, this is a bad trend-setter. The Pruneyard Towers in Campbell were always considered out-of-place, and they still are. These hi-rises belong downtown. Please don't make San Jose an even greater laughing-stock than it already is with regard to "the city that doesn't know how to plan"--as San Jose has been the object of numerous university studies as an example of what not to do. San Jose was used as the example in my Urban
Planning University class.

Also, please experiment, or have one of your office staff experience traffic reality and attempt to get on the northbound Highway 87 on-ramp at Lelong Avenue around 7:45 AM on a workday. Then imagine 50 to 150 more cars trying the same thing if this proposal is approved! Then have them try it five days a week for a month. . . that would be a taste of reality in this neighborhood.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Les High-Rise
San Jose

Sent to Judy Chirco, Councilmember for District 9, September 9, 2003

Dear Ms. Chirco:

I hope we can count on you to oppose the incompatible proposal for two 11 story high rises at the Alma Bowl site. This neighborhood is an older, historical one with mostly one-story houses. The height is way too high and the project does not have any draws that would keep the traffic at the site: meaning amenities that a transit village would have.

We do not want to build first and then wait decades for the attractions to be added. There isn't even a grocery store within walking distance, so everyone in that project will have to use their cars anyway.

We also do not want incompatible hi-rises sticking up in odd locations like pimples on someone's face. They belong in the downtown core like most cities have.

Can you imagine two 11-story monstrosities at Branham and Meridian? Or at Camden and Union? The Pruneyard towers always were considered out-of-place, and they still are. These hi-rises belong downtown. Please don't make San Jose an even greater laughing-stock than it already is with regard to "the city that doesn't know how to plan"--as San Jose has been the object of numerous university studies as an example of what not to do.

Les High-Rise
San Jose

(more letters to come)