1/20/26, 8 47 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook Outlook
Fw: 1/13/2026 Agenda Item 10.1.b - SB 9 Expansions
From Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 1/20/2026 8:46 AM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 8:35 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: 1/13/2026 Agenda Item 10.1.b - SB 9 Expansions Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Doug Andrey
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2026 6:30 PM
To: Horie, Rina <[email protected]>; Ankola, Aparna <[email protected]>; Davis, Martina <Martina [email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Families & Homes San Jose Cc: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1/13/2026 Agenda Item 10.1.b - SB 9 Expansions [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant I have added a line where we request to be involved in all parts of process.
Doug Andrey
On Sunday, January 11, 2026 at 04:23: 10 PM PST, Families & Homes San Jose wrote:
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/ AAQkADhh Yzk3NTk1 L TBmZDAtN Dc4Yi1 h N2Q0L TZjNmZjNTk5MT.. 1 /2 1/20/26, 8:47 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook Dear Councilmembers,
Several members of our board met with City Planning staff earlier in 2025 to discuss proposed changes to SB 9. We appreciate the staff 's time, professionalism, and willingness to listen. They provided helpful infonn ation and offered thoughtful proposals to address concerns related to privacy, fire safety, and unit count.
However, due to state law constraints and other limitations, many of our concerns could not be addressed .
We remain concerned that the City is proposing measures that exceed Housing Element requirements and, as a result, may not fully reflect the concerns of our residents .
We are particularly concerned about the proposal to align rear yard height and setbacks with cmTent ADU standards. Our understanding is thatADUs may be built on the rear property line (with additional fire requirements) or as close as 18 inches from the rear prope1iy line (with no additional fire requirements).
In contrast, the 4-foot rear setback required under SB 9 is ah-eady more than adequate and should be maintained.
Privacy was a major concern raised both during our meeting with staff and in public comment sessions.
Since measures such as privacy glass, grates, or higher window placement cannot be required , maintainin g the 4-foot setback is especially important. We strongly urge the Council not to approve rear setbacks of less than 4-feet for SB 9 developments .
Finally, we request that the total number of units under SB9 be maintained at 4 units or less.
We also request to be invited to all meetings of the SB9 process as this is of critical interest to our constituents.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sandra A. Delvin
Board Member
Families & Homes San Jose
FAMILIES & HOMES
Son Jose
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/MQkADhhYzk3NTk 1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2QOLTZjNmZjNTk5MT... 2/2