The ongoing administration of single-family zoning in a high-resource, demographically segregated area is materially inconsistent with this obligation. Zoning is not a one-time legislative act. It is continuously administered through permit decisions, applications of zoning standards, and the denial of projects inconsistent with existing zoning. Each such act of administration is an action within the meaning of § 8899.50(b )(1). Single-family zoning arti
ficially restricts housing supply and inflates
housing costs in the areas where it is enforced.
The relationship between exclusionary residential zoning and patterns of racial and economic segregation is documented in HCD's own analysis of impediments to fair housing in California (HCD, Final 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, June 2020), and is recognized in the AFFH Guidance, which observes that "single-family zoning emerged and replaced race-based zoning as a tool for segregating communities by restricting more affordable housing options" and that "exclusionary zoning policies have made it dif
ficult for lower-income residents to access certain communities and in turn has had a discriminatory effect on protected characteristics such as race, disability, and familial status. " (HCD AFFH Guidance, April 2021, at 6.) Because income and race are correlated in San Jose as throughout California, zoning that in
flates housing costs has a racially disparate impact in its operation. Limiting San Jose to existing single-family zoning perpetuates these exclusionary patterns and is therefore materially inconsistent with the obligation to af firmatively further fair
housing under § 8899.50(b )(1).
While Government Code § 8899.50( d), provides that the section does not require or prohibit "any one particular action" in ful
filling AFFH obligations, this provision does
not provide a defense. By its plain terms, subdivision ( d) addresses the selection of meaningful actions to ful
fill the obligation imposed by subdivision (b ). It presupposes compliance with that obligation; it does not exempt agencies from it. An agency may exercise discretion in choosing among actions that af
firmatively further fair housing. It
may not invoke that discretion to defend the continued administration of a zoning scheme whose operation is materially inconsistent with the statutory mandate.
The City may also point to Government Code § 8899.50( c), which requires that the statute be interpreted consistent with HUD's 2015 Af
firmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Final Rule. The HUD rule's commentary states that the rule does not impose zoning decisions on local governments. (80 Fed. Reg. 42272, 42289-42290.) This language does not support the City's position. By its terms, it addresses the scope of the federal rule, which applied only to HUD grantees and public housing authorities, not to all California cities and counties. Section 8899.50( c) directs that California's statute be interpreted consistent with the federal rule, but the California legislature simultaneously enacted in subdivisions (a) and (b ) a substantially broader scope, extending the AFFH obligation to all public agencies and to all activities and programs relating to housing and community development. A reading of subdivision ( c) that imported the federal rule's narrower scope into the California statute would render the legislature's express scope provisions surplusage. HCD's interpretation of § 8899.50, expressed in its April 2021 AFFH
Guidance, applies the obligation to local zoning and is persuasive authority on the proper construction of the statute.
Housing Element Programs P- 11 and P- 35 specifically made missing middle a priority for San Jose, setting a goal of permitting 350 such units within the city. San Jose noted that P- 11 itself is an AFFH implementation program. California’s AFFH rules and San Jose’s own Housing Element commitments support legalizing missing middle housing types, and narrowly limiting exemptions.
Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
1 Provedor, Jennifer
From: Lindy Hayes
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 12:35 PM
To: PlanningSupportStaff
Cc: Ken Hittleman; Greg Carlson; Joey Mauro; Mulcahy, Michael Subject: 24 June 2026 Planning Commission meeting
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
I am writing on behalf of the Concerned Cory Neighbors group.
We are deeply worried about the latest proposed rezoning map of the Winchester corridor, as recently published by the Planning Dept.
staff. The Urban Residential zones are now extended from Beechwood to Woodland/Cory Avenues, promising destruction to a host of small businesses that keep our neighborhood vibrant and provide needed tax revenue to the City. This is a scatter-shot approach, and not a plan.
The idea is that individual landowners may decide to convert to housing, or not decide, and that this will all take place over a number of decades. This is hardly the way to meet the state deadlines for housing.
Our greater objection is that once this rezoning is done, it cannot be undone. Urban Residential is the most extreme of the three options available. The City cannot rezone down afterwards. We accept the idea that the City needs housing, that the parcels at 600 N. Winchester and
826 N. Winchester are vacant and cry out for the land to be well used.
We advocate for Mixed Use Neighborhood in our area.
thank you Lindy Hayes
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
1 Provedor, Jennifer
From: Melissa Miller
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:06 AM
To: GeneralPlanStaff; PlanningSupportStaff; District 6; City Clerk Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Kelly Cox Subject: Oppose Rezoning on Forest and Winchester for high-density/high-rise housing
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Ladies, Gentlemen,
I am a resident of the neighborhood across Winchester at Pruneridge. This means I am in Santa Clara, not San Jose, but that doesn’t mean I won’t be affected by the proposed zoning changes to the properties on the San Jose side of Winchester.
As I understand it, there will be a great number of lots zoned for high-density, high-rise housing. I also understand that there will be little to no requirement that the new housing be required to accommodate the cars of the new residents of these buildings.
Apparently the powers that be expect the new residents will go everywhere by public transit, and will not need cars. In the real world, in San Jose/South Bay, people have and use cars because they need to get around town on surface streets, and to go places on our freeway system. Our existing public transit system is barely adequate to the demands of the existing population. The reasonable estimated number of cars per apartment is somewhere between one and two.
You can do the math to get an idea of just how many more cars will come with each new building—and there are so many new buildings proposed.
Many, if not all, those new residents will bring their cars with them when they move into their new high- rise homes, and
will want access to their cars at will. They will park as close to their apartments as possible; if there is no parking at the apartmen
t building, they will look for on street parking nearby. We can expect they will explore the neighborhood across Winchester to find available on-street parking spaces.
That’s my neighborhood. My neighbors and I will not be pleased to have increased vehicle traffic on our quiet streets, parked cars jamming our curbs and driveways, and people walking through at whatever hours of the day and night. The choices made by the San Jose Planning Commission will affect us, the neighbors across Winchester, in Santa Clara as well.
The proposed zoning changes will profoundly change the character of our neighborhood, and not in ways that I look forward to. Furthermore, the proposed zoning changes don’t seem to consider the impact on existing natural and municipal resources of clean air, clean water, sewage, capacity for road traffic, and congestion at peak hours.
The rezoning proposed is unsuitable for our neighborhood. Please withdraw this proposal.
2 Melissa Miller
Concerned Cory Neighbor
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.