Maren Sederquist

655sc

City Hall Reminder

Speaking up in person has the most impact.

Details for the City Council vote on the Planning Commission's recommendations Tuesday (8/18):

  • The exact time is unknown, but likely after 3:30pm.
  • Be prepared with your succinct 60 second comment. They will cut you off.
  • Be firm, but polite.
  • FREE parking is available under city hall off Sixth Street.
  • Take the elevator to the Rotunda (on the left as you drive in).
  • Fill out a card to speak: Agenda Item 10.3
  • Zoom in if you absolutely can't make it in person

Read the full agenda (p14-17) and meeting details here.

Potential talking points:

  • This is a choice, not a mandate. This is a discretionary decision by the San José City Council—not a requirement from federal or state law.
  • How much is enough? The existing General Plan was designed to accommodate roughly 1.3 million people and 430,000 dwelling units. Since then, California has added significant new housing laws. Before adding still more capacity, shouldn't we understand the combined impact of what is already planned and required?
  • The Housing Element does not require 32 du/acre. The Four-Year Review scope called for implementing P-35 and allowing missing-middle housing of 4–10 units. Why turn that into a much broader, more intensive policy?
  • Why add a burden the City doesn't have to add? California has already imposed major housing and infill requirements. San José should meet its obligations without voluntarily going further unless there is a compelling reason.
  • Start incrementally. Why not start with the state-mandated changes, measure the results, and adjust later? If more density is ultimately needed, the City can revisit it.
  • We support more housing—but it has to make sense for the neighborhood.
  • Good faith goes both ways. We should make room for people who want to afford a home here while respecting people who have already invested their homes, time and lives in these neighborhoods.
  • Use the City's existing growth strategy. Put greater density where transit, jobs, services and infrastructure can support it, rather than treating every established neighborhood the same.
  • The General Plan already anticipates substantial growth. We should not assume that maximum density everywhere is the only way to accommodate future residents.
  • Why not see what recent state laws actually produce first? SB 9, SB 1123 and other recent laws are already changing what can be built. Let's measure those results before adding another layer of citywide upzoning.
  • Don't expand ministerial approval beyond what Sacramento requires.
  • Neighbors deserve meaningful input. This isn't about giving neighbors a veto. It's about allowing them to identify legitimate site-specific concerns before a project is approved.
  • No public hearing means no meaningful opportunity to address cumulative impacts. Traffic, parking, trees, drainage, fire access and building scale don't disappear because approval is ministerial.
  • Look at cumulative impacts. One redevelopment may seem manageable. Thousands of redevelopments across established neighborhoods are a different question.
  • 32 du/acre is a major change. The Council should explain why that level of density is necessary rather than assuming more is always better.
  • Parking matters. Eliminating parking requirements doesn't eliminate the need for parking. The City should learn from projects where parking assumptions have created problems.
  • Protect the tree canopy. How does widespread redevelopment of established lots fit with San José's goals for preserving and increasing its tree canopy?
  • Housing and transportation policy should work together. Density makes the most sense where walking, biking and transit are genuinely practical—not simply because a parcel happens to be residential.
  • Community engagement should be meaningful, not just procedural. Residents should feel that their concerns actually influenced the proposal.
  • Be careful about making a citywide change that is difficult to undo. Once development capacity is broadly increased, reversing course can be legally and practically difficult. Get the balance right the first time.
  • This isn't “housing versus neighborhoods.” We can do both. The Council's job is to find a compromise that respects people who need housing and people who already call these neighborhoods home.

Further reading
Support WGNA by joining today!

Willow Glen Neighborhood Association · San Jose, CA 95125, United States