City Hall Diary
One issue that everyone who is paying attention to San Jose politics agrees with is that the City of San Jose’s General Plan is outdated and is in need of revamping.
At the August 7 city council meeting, all of Mayor Reed’s recommendations for the General Plan Update Task Force (which included Councilmembers Liccardo and Chirco and me) were supported by the council. The task force is a diverse group of people representing environmentalists, developers, unions and community members, among others.
The General Plan will take time. It is not a process that can be rushed (finishing early does not count here). I will take the time necessary to read the information that is brought forth and ask questions and challenge the status quo. I will also listen to all members of the community regarding their thoughts, ideas and recommendations for the future of land use in San Jose.
Two of the members on the General Plan Task Force were my recommendations to the mayor.
I chose Nancy Ianni, a former council member who served District 6 from 1981-1993, and Harvey Darnell, the current President of North Willow Glen Neighborhood Association. Both Nancy and Harvey are neighborhood advocates who will serve the task force well.
Nancy’s history in San Jose planning dates back over 40 years. In fact, she was one of the founders of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association back in the mid-seventies when Norm Mineta was mayor. As a council member, Nancy was well liked and respected by the neighborhoods. She led and funded the Mid-town Specific Plan and was part of a community group that stopped the City of San Jose from expanding Willow St., Pine Ave. and Cherry Ave. into four lanes. In addition, she made sure that the Shasta Hanchett neighborhood did not suffer from Arena traffic. Nancy is sharp, witty and fair. Her roots are in the neighborhoods and we are fortunate to have her.
Harvey Darnell was the chairman of Counter to Council and very active in CalSJ, which is a group that protects the riparian corridor (waterways) and advocates for parks. Harvey is not afraid to speak up for what he believes in and has challenged developers and fought for increased park fees. He is genuine and has the ability to see the whole picture, not just what is right in front of him. The task force needs community members with this skill.
The questions that we all should be asking are: How do we want our city to grow? How do we want to define net loss? Is it time to perform an audit of historic buildings?
The General Plan meetings are not set yet, but I encourage all of you to attend and speak when the time comes.
The solution for the City of San Jose is to unincorporate. The County of Santa Clara can do a better job of running our neighborhoods on a daily basis. Whether it’s police, fire, garbage, transportation, education, employment, environment, preservation or libraries, the County Supervisors have the experience and knowledge. The County has an efficient, well-run government, the City has inept, uninformed people in charge. Forrest Williams, Judy Chirco and Nora Campos are pathetic.
Hey PO. Thanks for the opening, continuing what Tom started last week. Many of the comments on that blog were to the point: JMO
wondering why Jesus was on the Master Plan committee, and another blogger wondering how anything at all could get done with a committee of 37. (Why not 50 or 100—please absolutely everyone.) There are some very good people on the committee, no doubt, and they will be opposed by some very bad people. Babel! What do any of these folks, even the good people, know about planning? How come Frank Gehry and Renzo Piano aren’t on a General Plan committee for the 10th largest city in America? This GP group would fit right into Tombstone, AZ. The appointment of Harvey Darnell is illustrative of the problem: Harvey is a terrific, activist guy. He worked for my wife for years when she ran a home health agency, then ran a Kaiser homecare/hospice program. Harvey knows all about wound care—he’s the best, but master planning San Jose? How does that work? The real reason Harvey, Lisa Jensen and almost all the rest are on this monstrous, useless committee to plan the future of our fair city is that they have a neighborhood connection. Did Harvey plan Willow Glen? Lisa, who is into moving old houses onto downtown lots in Uni Neighborhood and elsewhere, another Preservation Action activist, is Chuck’s appt. to the Planning Commission. Why?? Everyone on the Council feels absolutely obliged to kiss the ass of neighborhood “activists”—for votes
(which they can’t deliver) and dollars (ditto).
It’s gotten to the point in San Jose where the neighborhood crazies tell the planners what to do. Another kind of PC bullshit. Chuck, Sam, and PO are all better than what we’ve had, BUT, there will be no vision for San Jose, even for the neighborhoods, because Gonzo and Cindy were caught up in the neighborhood syndrome too, and Chuck, Sam and PO are keeping it going. It may be worse because they’re all nice guys, not nasties, and can’t say no, except to other nice guys. Tom is ever hopeful, but including in the GPC a few opponents to cashing in Coyote for the personal fortunes of a few housebuilders, and big wages for the unions, is NOT a plan for SJ. George Green
Is George Berlin a real person ?
Is Forrest Williams a Council Member?
#5, not sure, but I like how he thinks!
Pierluigi,
Will the GPC consider water availability when formulating recommendations for residential growth? While other elements of infrastructure can be bolstered with less exorbitant funds, increasing the supply of water comes at a very high cost. How will that be done and who will pay for it?
“One issue that everyone who is paying attention to San Jose politics agrees with is that the City of San Jose’s General Plan is outdated and is in need of revamping.”
Just to respectfully dissent, the General Plan has been updated for up to four times a year since it was first adopted. Each time the City Council considers the impact of any general plan changes (including annexations, and changes from employment classification to residential classification), they amend and update it.
There is probably no planning document so thoroughly reviewed and studied as the existing General Plan. In a way, the City Council serves the function of a permanent General Plan Review committee.
The need for a General Plan Review committee is much more a style point than a substance point, but the danger is that major substantive points will be buried in a new General Plan under the peculiar language of contemporary planners, the meaning of which will only be known when it is cited to require anti-neighborhood actions.
“The General Plan meetings are not set yet, but I encourage all of you to attend and speak when the time comes. “
What a joke. You people put together a kangaroo court of apoligists and followers. They follow the direction of staff; who follow the direction of lobbyist and developers.
Then you give us a whopping 2 minutes to speak at the end.
I’ll take a pass. Let us know what the insiders of city hall decide to make our city!
About downtown, our city and how it’s morphed from orchard-farm land to housing and manufacturing to now high tech and services:
Traveling larger and midsize cities of Europe and the Pacific Rim you get a sense of the difference between cities that have grown over centuries and those that have blossomed in just a few decades.
San Jose it seems, is the stereo-typical adolescent city, growing fast through those formative years in search of it’s identity… struggling to define itself and find that identity, personality and character that builds confidence, security and balance.
Developers and free market pressures push for carpeting the valley floor with homes, box-stores and strip malls. (ala Roseville CA.). Downtown pressures cry for being cosmopolitan and the center of the universe.
From the perspective of this 60 plus native, I whole heartedly agree with the current process of stepping back, taking a deeeeeep breath and setting in place a way to move San Jose in a direction that preserves our history, our open space and desirability as a place to work and live for all. And now to my point. . .
Given the high value of land and all the pressures that places on us, if San Jose were to plot a course for growth that means higher density in the core city coupled with live-work-shop concentrations along public transportation corridors, and protect and enhance the irreplaceable assets of riparian corridors, agricultural land and open space; I would be very pleased and proud of that.
Yes that would bring increased pressures on our cherished neighborhoods, but those pressures need not destroy their livability and unique character if the vision and process are reasonable and fair… protected privacy and a sense of community.