Letters from the Public - 10 of 14 — San Jose City Council, August 18, 2026

Outlook
FW: LAND USE VOTE IN CITY COUNCIL TUES AUG 18
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:36 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Elaine Pitek
Sent: Sunday, Augus 16,
To: City Clerk
Subject: LAND USE VOTE IN CITY COUNCIL TUES AUG 18
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more l You don't often get email from-· Learn whY. this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and memb~Council ,
As a 30 year resident and 30 year home owner in San Jose, I am urging you to VOTE NO on the Land Use change of 32 units per acre in the City of San Jose. I adamantly oppose the proposal across the entire City of San Jose.

There are pockets of San Jose where this would make sense, but to have a blanket approval for ANY residential property to get developed into high-density housing simply does not work and is very short-sighted.

On my residential street of single family homes, someone could build 10-14 units on a small 7000-8,999 sq. ft. lot? That would significantly impact the look and feel of my street and neighborhood. It would likely lower my property values, too.

Let's talk about parking. This plan does not require driveways or any parking spaces. That will significantly impact all the neighbors as well.

I support the goals of the Envision San Jose 2040 which anticipated significant population growth of 400,000 people and was developed through extensive community engagement and public input. The General Plan provides a thoughtful framework for accommodating future growth while preserving the character and economic vitality of the city.

The charm of San Jose is that each neighborhood has its own personality. Building high-density apartments in the middle of a residential area just doesn't make sense. San Jose has lots of land. Put the high-density units where it makes sense. In downtown , next to corridors served by public transportation and near commercial amenities. The General Plan takes this into account with a deliberate and carefully planned strategy rather than imposing increased density in established single-family home neighborhoods where it has never been envisioned. Let's keep the charm of the neighborhoods and pump up commercial areas with high foot traffic.

Please VOTE NO on the Residential Land Use High Density change.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: VOTE NO ON LAMD USE CHANGE
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:11 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Beth Fontana
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: VOTE NO ON LAMD USE CHANGE
[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 Dear Mayor and memb~ I,
As a 30 year resident and 30 year home owner in San Jose, I am urging you to VOTE NO on the Land Use change of 32 units per acre in the City of San Jose. I adamantly oppose the proposal across the entire City of San Jose.

Let's talk about parking. This plan does not require driveways or any parking spaces. That will significantly impact all the neighbors as well.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Please VOTE NO on the Residential Land Use High Density change.

Thawk You,

Beth Fontana

Outlook
FW: Proposed Changes to the General Plan Before City Council From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:11 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Mike Carter & Dee Dee O'Moore
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 10:06 A
To: Mahan, Matt
Matt Mahan
District2
Districts
District8
Willems, Maggie
Subject: Proposed Changes to the General Plan Before City Council [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 Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers:

We support housing that is affordable, well-designed, and located where it can be served by transit , jobs, infrastructure , and public services. Please do NOT approve the proposed citywide increase of the Residential Neighborhood designation from 8 to 32 dwelling units per acre as currently framed.

The proposal has not demonstrated that a blanket increase across residential neighborhoods is required by SB 79 or AB 130.

In fact, SB 79 is directed to qualifying areas near transit and allows several local implementation paths; AB 130 streamlines qualifying actions but does not mandate citywide missing-middle upzoning. San Jose's adopted Housing Element policy P-35 instead calls for a targeted , feasibility-informed missing-middle strategy, generally four to 10 units, in locations near Urban Villages and major streets.

The City of San Jose has NOT demonstrated that existing higher-density areas are saturated. The more credible concern is that much of the City's planned capacity is not yet converting into housing because of incomplete implementation planning, slow or customized rezonings , discretionary approvals, financing barriers , and infrastructure constraints . Adding very large theoretical capacity across every Residential Neighborhood before resolving those barriers risks disrupting established neighborhoods without delivering meaningfu l or affordable production.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

We respectfully request that the Council adopt a phased, evidence-based alternative:

1. Prioritize existing growth areas. Complete and streamline rezoning, objective standards, and ministerial permitting in Downtown, transit areas, major corridors, and Urban Villages before applying broad changes citywide.

2. Use a targeted missing-middle program. Implement P-35 with four-to-10-unit typologies near Urban Villages, major streets, and transit, with clear transition, tree- canopy, privacy, parking/curb, emergency-access, and infrastructure standards.

3. Evaluate an SB 79 local pathway. Consider a transit-focused implementation ordinance or HCD-reviewable TOD Alternative Plan rather than treating a citywide RN change as the only compliance option.

4. Publish a delivery and feasibility record. Before any broader amendment, provide a transparent, area-by-area accounting of zoned capacity, adopted rezoning status, permits issued, entitled and under-construction units, approval timelines, market-feasible capacity, infrastructure limits, and expected affordability.

5. Phase any expansion based on results.

Expand the program only after public
reporting shows that targeted implementation and permitting reforms cannot meet the City’s demonstrated housing-delivery needs.

This approach would advance housing production while respecting the City’s adopted Housing Element, meeting state-law obligations, and preserving a meaningful public record for decisions that will shape every neighborhood. We ask the Council to direct staff to return with this targeted alternative and the supporting analysis before adopting the proposed amendments.

We are also deeply concerned that few citizens knew of this vote tomorrow, August 18, 2026. We fear with summer vacations and back to school, too many people do not know of this planned action or vote. At a minimum, we ask that your table the vote and conduct at least two listening sessions in each district, before a vote.

Sincerely,
Dee Dee O'Moore
Michael Carter

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:12 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Alie Victorine
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 10.3
District4
District!
District9
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

District?
Districts
District 6
District 10
I am writing to respectfully oppose some elements of the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the 4-year General Plan, as described in Agenda Item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.

I am very concerned that this proposal:
• goes beyond State housing requirements
• may not be reversible or amended according to SB330
• requires no off-street parking when our current and future transit system is not able to efficiently transport people
• increases the imbalance in San Jose's job to housing ratio To be clear, I am not opposed to increasing the missing middle housing density. I live in a mixed use neighborhood , with single family homes, 2 story apartment and townhome complexes, and many duplexes. Our neighborhood is walkable with several convenient strip malls and shopping centers, a community center, library and a park available within a one mile radius of most residents. We also have multiple VTA bus lines.

But due to our high density we already have issues with parking and highly congested traffic that can triple the time a short trip can take in the morning commute. Many houses have cemented over green spaces in their front yards in order to provide parking for their own home.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

And while we do have several VTA bus lines serving our neighborhood and even a CalTrain station, these public transportation opportunities rarely can get me to where I need or want to go in a reasonable timeframe.

I understand that the General Plan is trying to predict the future and I agree that we need more housing density. I still ask that the City Council direct the planning commission to carefully consider how the changes to the General Plan will ultimately impact our neighborhoods and whether exceeding State requirements with no mandated parking, no public input and no way to reverse any upzoning is the best way to proceed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Alie Victorine
D7 Resident

Outlook
FW: Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:13 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine Dyer
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Subject: Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [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 Dear Mayor and city council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quadrnpling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback, is a drastic and ineversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods. SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective. Pe1manent and far-reaching zoning changes-not otherwise mandated by the state-should not be unde11aken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods, further aggravate San Jose's fiscally drainingjobs-to housing ratio, infringe on one's privacy and peace of mind, increase crime and the safety of neighborhoods , and fm1her burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Katherine Dyer
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: "Missing Middle" housing recommendation
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:13 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Kathleen Muller
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 10:11
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: "Missing Middle" housing recommendation
City Clerk
[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 August17 , 2026
Dear Mayor Mahan & Members of the Council:

I am writing to urge you to reject the Planning Commission's recommendation on housing density coming to you for consideration tomorrow. This is an extreme proposal, not mandated by the state , that has the potential to destroy neighborhoods across our city. I understand you are current ly not being asked to approve it; but by directing city staff to spend time on environmenta l reviews and implementation guidelines you are, in fact , endorsing an ill-conceived concept.

I support the goal of developing housing for the "Missing Middle", as I am sure many homeowners in San Jose do. Allowing churches and schools to build housing on their properties and increasing height limits near transit corridors and commercial centers are parts of the Commiss ion's proposa l I wholeheartedly endorse.

But quadrupling density limits in existing neighborhoods is extreme. It threatens to destroy the unique character of our city's neighborhoods and will adversely affect the quality of life for residents . This is especially true if new projects are allowed to proceed without including parking . The result will be cars lining residential streets - which will make our neighborhoods less safe for pedestrians and families with children and totally alter the livability of communities.

We do have a housing problem in San Jose. I think everyone acknowledges that. But quadrupling density in existing neighborhoods is not the answer.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Muller
District 9
Outlook
FW: High Density Land Use Vote
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:13 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Ronna Cuddihy
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Subject: High Density land Use Vote
[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 Dear Mayor and members~,
As a 60+ year resident in San Jose and home owner for over 30 years in San Jose, I am urging you to VOTE NO on the Land Use change of 32 units per acre in the City of San Jose. I adamantly oppose the proposal across the entire City of San Jose.

Parking is also a major concern. This plan does not require driveways or any parking spaces. Lack of adequate parking will significantly impact all the neighbors.

The charm of San Jose is that each neighborhood has its own personality. Building high-density apartments in the middle of a residential area just doesn't make sense. San Jose has lots of land. Put the high-density units where it makes sense. In downtown, next to coITidors served by public transp01tation and near commercial amenities. The General Plan takes this into account with a deliberate and carefully planned strategy rather than imposing increased density in established single-family home neighborhoods where it has never been envisioned . Let's keep the charm of the neighborhoods and pump up commercial areas with high foot traffic.

Please VOTE NO on the Residential Land Use High Density change.

Outlook
FW: Comments on Agenda Item 10.3 on General Plan 4 Year Review for City Council Meeting of 8/18/2026
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 202610:13 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Jim Steele
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: Comments on Agenda Item 10.3 on General Plan 4 Year Review for City Council Meeting of 8/18/2026 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is imQortant RE: Agenda Item 10.3 General Plan Review on Housing
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

We understand the need to increase housing density in a responsible way consistent with State law in order to facilitate more housing , especially in the "Small Multifamily/ Missing Middle" sector. As you direct staff to draft specific General Plan language for adoption , we urge you to protect neighborhoods from adverse traffic and parking problems and to require development design standards consistent with historic neighborhoods ' character.

We do want to address parking specifically. We live in the historic Shasta/Hanchett neighborhood , and our house is typical: it was built in 1922 and has limited access to parking on site already. There are several houses on our block that have more cars than household members , so parking is already constrained. Please require adequate parking requirements in any General Plan updates for residential neighborhoods. Add special provisions particularly in older neighborhoods and ensure that design standards are consistent with the character of neighborhoods in historic districts like ours.

Finally, additional infill units should be prioritized along larger roads such as (in our neighborhood as examples) Park, Alameda , San Carlos, Bascom , Naglee, Hedding, and Race. Additional density can be built along these streets that allows for adequate parking.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Thank you,

James and Lisa Steele

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 26-852 Aug 18th City Council meeting
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:13 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Pat Blevins
Sent: Monday, Aug
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 26-852 Aug 18th City Council meeting [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel I am completely opposed to the Plannin g Commission's Small Multifamily / Missing Middle Housing. I am requesting the City Council vote NO as moving ahead will surely lead to the devastating destrnction of our City.

San Jose needs more housing and home ownership opportunities but under the Planning Department proposal a single family home could be demolished and replaced with 10,12,14 or even 16 housing units up to 3 stories in height with no parking requirements and zero public hearings.

Residents who have lived next door for decades would have NO opportun ity for feedback.

Yes, San Jose needs increased housing, but neighborhoods and communities should definitely have a say in how that new housing plays out and NOT be expected to absorb this type of dramatic distrnction of their neighborhoods
without any input.

There is also a fiscal consideration. San Jose already has one of the most challenging jobs to housing imbalances with job to housing development not accompanied by sufficient employment growth which will further strain City finances. Maintainin g a healthy jobs to housing ratio is critical to both quality of life and the City's long term fiscal sustainabi lity. Additionally the loss of our tree canopy will further increase heat and decrease CO2 absorption in a time of climate disaster.

With no requirement for onsite parking our naiTow residential streets will be over crowded with parked vehicles of all sizes making it impossible to drive safely on our streets, let alone allowing emergency vehicles timely response to calls in our neighborhoods. The increase in commute traffic will be another extremely negative consequence .

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The Planning Department's proposal is completely un necessary when you take into consideration the City's General Plan already allows for approximately 400,000 additional residents and directs that growth to
areas with existing infrastructure, transit and employment centers where walking, biking and public transportation are practical options.

The Planning Commission's proposal is NOT required by State law. It is a discretionary local decision. San Jose is one of a few cities in the whole country considering such housing intensity for established single family neighborhoods.

And worst of all the decision is irreversible. Under State law once zoning capacity is increased Cities do NOT have the ability to reduce it in the future.

The City is considering this disastrous proposal without the majority of San Jose residents even being made aware of the potential for irreversible changes to their single family neighborhoods. Before the City Council
votes on this Planning Commission Proposal the residents of San Jose should be informed in writing, mailed to their homes, and not dependent on the internet to inform them. Further, they should have the opportunity to participate in City wide discussions in libraries, Community centers and at City Hall where the City Council can hear directly from their constituents about whether or not the Proposal is what they want. Its our City and you were elected to represent the residents of San Jose, NOT developers or realtors.

Please consider what I have said and vote NO on this proposal.

Patricia Blevins

Outlook
FW: "Missing Middle " upzoning framework.

From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:14 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe----
From: Lisa Long
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 11 :53 PM
Subject: "Missing Middle " upzoning framework.
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" up-zoning framework .

I recognize San Jose's need for additional housing, but I do not believe broadly increasing density within established residential neighborhoods is the right solution . The City itself describes Missing Middle housing under consideration as allowing 4 to 10 units, a substantial change from the existing development pattern of many neighborhoods.

My concerns are straightforward. First, significantly increasing allowable density can fundamentally change the character and scale of established residential neighborhoods. Second, adding substantially more households should require careful consideration of the cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood services. Third, homeowners have invested significant amounts of their savings and income based in part on the existing character and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods . Potential impacts on surrounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules are broadly changed.

Housing policy should add housing thoughtfully while respecting the people and neighborhoods already here. I urge you not to advance a blanket citywide approach and to pursue more targeted housing solutions with meaningful neighborhood input.

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Lisa Long
Willow Glen resident and homeowner
Sent from my IPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 8/18/26 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Dave Noel
Sent: Sunday, Aug s
Cc: City Clerk
Cohen, •
, Pa
han,
Pam
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mu lcahy, M ichael
Subject: 8/18/26 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing M iddle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - · Learn why this is imP-ortant Hi Mayor Mahan and C~
I urge you to adopt the following strategy for "Missing Middle" housing:
• Conform Residential Neighborhood densities with current state laws • Add a minimum parking requirement for residential neighborhoods of one off-street parking space per unit as allowed by 8B9
• Advocate at the state level to resolve Construction Defect Liability laws which prevent building condos -- condos are the perfect solution to provide missing middle home ownership opportunities at scale statewide
Here are some additional benefits of my recommendations:
• Matching state requirements will allow shared best practices with neighboring cities - more efficient use of staff time
• State housing laws change quickly -- digest the current laws and reserve any extra staff capacity to address future law changes as they occur
• Most residents are unaware of this major change and if passed, will fuel extreme government mistrust
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Locating missing middle housing in growth areas defined in the current General Plan will be better for VMT, traffic congestion, tree canopy, neighborhood service delivery and walkable neighborhoods
Thanks so much for your consideration,

David Noel, District 9 resident

•
Outlook
FW: Agenda item 10.3 General plan for four year review
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:14 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Eileen Meier <
Sent: Sunday, Auqust
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda item 10.3 General plan for four year review [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
To who it may concern. I am a home owner and am totally against this plan to add more housing on single family properties. Why are you trying to ruin our neighborhoods . I'm sure there are other areas in the city to build the housing. I have lived in the same home since the 60's. I'm a senior and shouldn't have to stress out about some developer buying up the homes in my neighborhood. It's one thing to allow ADU's. It's another thing to allow multiple apartments. Maybe it's time for the Mayor of San Jose to be recalled for allowing this!
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 202610:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: lorenzo_martinez123
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 202
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mu lcahy, Michael
Subject: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Midd le Proposal"
[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 Attention San Jose City Council et al,
I am writing to express my VEHEMENT opposition to the General Plan Task Force's Missing Middle Proposal.

The allowances in this proposa l are absolutely unacceptable.

I URGE you to vote NO on this.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards ,
Lary James
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 202610: 16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: E Jane Hendri cks
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mu lcahy, M ichael
Subject: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn why this is imP-ortant Am reaching out as a c~r in the City of San Jose, in opposition to the proposed plan regarding (Item 10.3) "Missing Middle" housing proposal that allows 3-story apartment buildings with 16+ units on any residential lot, with no on-site parking, drastically reduced setbacks, and by-right approval-no public input, no hearings! This is Not representative governance, it is 'top-down'
You can put me down as a 'NO' re this terrible bill that is being proposed, also feel you are being disrespectful to your constituents by even proposing such a bill, even more disrespectful , when YOUR constituents are NOT even allowed to come before San Jose City Council and make 'their case'
E Jane Hendricks
zip 95133
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 8/18/26, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Cynthia Batchelder
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2
To: Tordillos, Anthony Mahan, Matt
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 8/18/26, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor and Councilmember Tordillos,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Planning Commission's "Missing Middle Housing" proposa l. As a San Jose resident, I urge you to vote NO on this initiat ive to preserve the safety, livability, and environmental integrity of our neighborhoods.

My concerns stem from several critical issues:
• Grid & Infrastructure Deficits: I have personally witnessed a PG&E powerline catch fire in front of my house. Our current infrastructu re-spanning power grids, water delivery, and sewer capacity-is already stretched to its limit. Accelerating high density rezoning without first securing fully modern ized util ity capacity invites safety hazards and service failures. • Environmental & Green Space Degradation: Residential neighborhoods thrive on mature tree canopies and green spaces. Blanket upzoning risks eliminating these essential natural resources, increasing urban heat island effects, and permanently altering the character of the communit ies we cherish.
• Quality of Life & Noise Pollution: Increased density without hyper localized site planning drives significant traffic congestion, parking congestion, and elevated noise pollution into previously quiet residential areas.
• Better Housing Alternatives: Rather than upzoning existing, established single family neighborhoods, the City should focus housing strategy on revitalizing vacant properties, repurposing underutilized commercial corridors, and maximizing transit adjacent developments.

San Jose needs thoughtfu l growth that aligns with actual infrastructure capabilities. Please say NO to the Missing Middle proposa l so we can protect our homes, our environment, and the neighborhoods we love.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Sincerely,
Thank you,

Cynthia Batchelder
Resident of Japantown

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Lenore Gonsalves
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. this is imf;!ortant Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the 4-year General Plan, as outlined in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.

Increasing the maximum permitted housing density citywide from 8 to 32 units per acre is an enormous change to the character of our San Jose neighborhoods. I am especially concerned that this would happen without meaningful opportunities for community review or feedback .

This is also not a change that can simply be undone later if it turns out to be unworkable, unpopular, or ineffective. SB 330 makes these types of zoning changes much more difficult to reverse. For something this significant and far-reaching, I believe the community should have the ability to review, weigh in, and reconsider these changes over time.

I am also concerned that this proposal goes beyond what is required by the Housing Element and state law. With no requirement for onsite parking, this could add even more traffic and parking conflicts to neighborhoods that are already dealing with crowded streets. It could also mean less tree cover in neighborhoods that are already getting hotter, while placing additional strain on police, fire, and other city resources.

I strongly urge the Mayor and City Council to reject this recommendation and allow for a more thoughtful process that includes meaningful community input.

Respectfully,
Lenore Gonsalves
Outlook
FW: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 202610: 16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: E Jane Hendri cks
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mu lcahy, M ichael
Subject: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn why this is imP-ortant Am reaching out as a c~r in the City of San Jose, in opposition to the proposed plan regarding (Item 10.3) "Missing Middle" housing proposal that allows 3-story apartment buildings with 16+ units on any residential lot, with no on-site parking, drastically reduced setbacks, and by-right approval-no public input, no hearings! This is Not representative governance, it is 'top-down'
You can put me down as a 'NO' re this terrible bill that is being proposed, also feel you are being disrespectful to your constituents by even proposing such a bill, even more disrespectful , when YOUR constituents are NOT even allowed to come before San Jose City Council and make 'their case'
E Jane Hendricks
zip 95133
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:1 6 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Barbara Gaylord
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Public Comment - General Plan 4-Year Review, Agenda Item 10.3 To: San Jose City Clerk
Re: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - General Plan 4-Year Review Policy Framework Dear City Clerk and Members of the San Jose City Council, I am a San Jose resident and a member of my neighborhood association, and I am writing regarding Agenda Item 10.3, the General Plan 4-Year Review Policy Framework.

I support the City's efforts to address the need for additional housing. However, I am concerned about the proposed expansion of housing capacity within existing single-family neighborhoods and the potential impact on the character, infrastructure, traffic, and parking conditions of those neighborhoods.

In particular, I am concerned about allowing substantially more housing units to be built on individual single-family parcels. I do not believe that allowing four or more units on a traditional single-family lot should become the default approach throughout existing single-family neighborhoods.

If the City does move forward with allowing additional units on these lots, I respectfully ask that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs be counted toward the maximum number of housing units permitted on a parcel, rather than allowing them to be added on top of an increased number of primary units.

I am also very concerned about the parking implications. I understand that California law places limitations on when cities can require minimum parking, and that San Jose has already eliminated many of its local minimum parking requirements. Nevertheless, I ask the City Council to carefully consider the real-world consequences of adding multiple additional households to established single-family neighborhoods without requiring adequate space for vehicles.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Many existing residential streets already have limited on-street parking. When additional homes are added without corresponding parking capacity, the impact does not remain conﬁned to the property being dev
eloped. It can result in more vehicles parked along neighborhood streets, increased congestion, reduced visibility, and greater competition for the limited parking available to existing residents and their guests.

I believe San José can add needed housing while still taking a thoughtful approach to the scale and density of development in established single-family neighborhoods.

My requests are:

1. Do not establish a policy that would routinely allow four or more housing units on a traditional single-family parcel without careful consideration of neighborhood impacts.

2. If additional units are permitted, count ADUs and JADUs toward the maximum number of units allowed on the parcel.

3. Carefully evaluate the cumulative impacts of increased density on neighborhood parking, traﬃc, infrastructure, emergency access, and quality of life.

4. Provide meaningful opportunities for neighborhood residents to participate in the development of the subsequent General Plan and Zoning Code amendments.

Thank you for considering the concerns of San José residents as you move forward with the General Plan 4-Year Review.

Sincerely,
Barbara Gaylord
San José Resident
Baker West Neighborhood Association

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 20261 0:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: V. Rengarajan
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [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 Dear Mayor and city councn:--
1 am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quadrupling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods. SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far reaching zoning changes-not otherwise mandated by the state-should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future .

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods, further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Varadachari Rengarajan
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Chris Schille
Sent: Sund ay, Augus 16,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from -· Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and city couiicir-
1 am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4- year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quadrupling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods. SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes-not otherwise mandated by the state-should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods , further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources .

Respectfully,
Chris Schille
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: aparna sarasam
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback, is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods, fu1ther aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and fmther burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Respectfully,
Aparna Sarasam

Outlook
FW: "MISSING MIDDLE" UPZONING FRAMWORK VOTE AUGUST 18, 2026 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 20261 0:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 4:06 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
Clerk
◄
◄
◄
strictl
Subject: "M ISSING MIDDLE" UPZONING FRAMWORK VOTE AUGUST 18, 2026 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from ---- · Learn why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor Mahan, City ~ ers of the San Jose City Council, RE: "MISSING MIDDLE" UPZONING FRAMWORK VOTE AUGUST 18, 2026 I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the current proposal before the Council for "upzoning" to increase the density of housing units in established residential neighborhoods.

For many homeowners, their house is not only their home, but their largest investment and their retirement security. Additional units per lot without additional off-street parking, as well as additional multi-story structures, which reduce privacy, have a negative effect on quality of life, existing property values, and the character of neighborhoods .

The need for additional housing in San Jose is recognized , however, accomplishing this by destroying the character of existing residential neighborhoods with the proposed UPZONING is just WRONG .

When making zoning changes, council members should respect their constituents' neighborhoods as they already exist and not seek to degrade them.

Further, the current building of multi-story housing complexes in the area, without adequate off-street parking, are already creating substantial problems for existing neighborhoods , even though the occupation rates of the new buildings are less than 50%.

The goal of the City Planners may be to eliminate motor vehicles, but that is totally unrealistic , at least with the current infrastructure . Even if an individual uses public transportation for their work commute, they will still need a car for all the other activities in their life. Most housing units will be occupied by more than one adult, thus should have off-street parking for at least 2 vehicles . The new structures recently built or under construction don't even have one off-street space for each unit. This is a huge problem for the new tenants , existing neighbors, and nearby businesses .

Housing policy should improve the City of San Jose while respecting the people and neighborhoods already here. Please REJECT this blanket citywide framework and look for more targeted solutions with meaningful neighborhood input. Please vote NO on this proposal. Thank you for considering my concerns .

Respectfully Submitted,
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dianne Chin

Outlook
FW: Agenda # 26-852
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: SHIRLEY NESDAHL
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 3:48 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
Subject: Agenda # 26-852
. . .
strictl
[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 Dear Mayor and City C~
I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework.

More affordable housing is needed for sure but I do not believe this is the way to resolve the problem. There are so many reasons this is not a good solution. Parking would be a nightmare! Providing enough water and electricity another concern. Impact on surrounding homes and property values would be affected. Many homeowners have invested everything to be in their home and to rezone without any consideration for them is simply WRONG! Please put yourself in our shoes and do not move forward with this! If this passes and I were considering a move to the bay area I would NEVER consider living in San Jose!
A concerned resident of San Jose.

Shirley Nesdahl
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Aug 17, Vote no on large scale development to replace a single-family home From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent: Sunday,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Aug 17, Vote no on large scale development to replace a single-family home [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear City Clerk of San Jose
Learn why this is important at
Please do not vote to increase the size of developments in neighborhoods, especially on The Alameda, where there are historical homes nearby.

I live close to north Morrison and Julian where the massive size of a new apartment house completely overshadows homes. Yes, I understand that affordable housing is necessary, even though this new apartment is costly to rent, however, there are many areas in the downtown that can be used. The "Google" Urban Village was suppose to be built to help with this and new businesses. Parking and an increase in traffic are already a problem for my neighborhood and downtown . If you allow growth to occur without neighborhood input this could be disastrous and irreversible for all home owners.

I implore you not to vote for this to happen.

A concerned citizen and small residential house owner.

Sincerely,
Patricia Samuelson
Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3, File 26-852 - Writing in Opposition From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Mike Schumacher
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
To: City Clerk
Cc: Foley, Pam
Subject: Agenda Item 10.3, File 26-852 - Writing in Opposition [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 am writing in opposition to the Planning Department's proposed General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework.

This proposal represents a revolutionary increase in allowable densities that will adversely impact long established single-family resident ial neighborhoods. This proposed framework for future development throws out decades of thoughtfully and evolved planning that preserved neighborhoods and enhanced livability in our city. The proposed plan is not fully mandated by the State and was not unanimously approved by our own Planning Commission. Public hearings and Town Halls I've attended were marked by near unanimous vocal outrage by citizen of our fair city.

Drastically increased density and uncharacteris tic buildings within traditional neighborhood housing tracts , coupled with a lack of resident notification and any reasonable means of resident adjudication , will yield years of conflict and dis-satisfaction with City governance.

We need more housing, not "build by right" development. We need thoughtfu l development, not build whatever a Developer can sell. We need higher density where it makes sense, not where a builder simply asks to build. We need the interests of neighbors , and neighborhoods, to be heard over those of corporate housing developers and be reflected in our city's General Plan.

Send this proposa l back to the Planning Department for down-density revision. I urge a "No" vote.

Respectfully ,
Michael Schumacher
Outlook
FW: Agenda item 10.3 file2 6-852
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:18 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Dorothy Schumacher <
Sent: Sunday, Auqust 16, 202
To: City Clerk
Cc: Foley, Pam
Subject: Agenda item 10.3 file26 -852
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< htt12s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
httQs://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Honorable Matt Mahan and City Council
Learn why this is important at
Vote No! This is a huge power grab by the San Jose Planning Department. They give themselves absolute authority over all single family zoned lots. No notification of immediate neighbors familiar with undocumented ADUs means neighbors and neighborhoods are not given the opportunity to protect tenant residents from evection. SB 1123 and SB9 requires an attestation form there were no former tenants . Neighbors should have the same right to protect their neighborhoods through attestation that there WERE tenants. Properties will always sell the highest cash bidder. These bidding wars generate the very problem the developers claim to want to solve. They are not interested in San Jose or the livability of our neighborhoods . They are not interested in protecting tenants. Their only interest is generating more money to continue to destroy more neighborhoods . Please block this power grab by the City of San Jose Planning Department working in conjunction with deep pockets developers. They will destroy San Jose's habitability . Vote No! Retain your position as a representative of the people of San Jose.

Dorothy Schumacher
Outlook
FW: "Missing" Middle"?. Vote NO
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Cindy Fulk
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 2:17 P
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: "Missing" Middle"? . Vote NO
. .
◄
◄
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and CoU11cil Members
Please do not advance the "Missing Middle " proposal.
oley, Pam
District3
District 6
istrict9
The name of the proposal does not apply to what is actually being proposed. It will destroy the single family neighborhoods and reduce the already short supply of single family homes.

What a horrible thing to do to the single family home owners. Many pay huge property taxes and others want to change the character of their street? Regards
Cindy Fulk
District 9 resident
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Frank Lem
Sent: Sunday, Aug
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear Mayor and City Council,
. Learn why this is im12ortant
I am wl'iting to oppose the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the 4-year General Plan, as outlined in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.

This is also not a change that can simply be undone later if it turns out to be unworkable, unpopular, or ineffective. SB 330 makes these types of zoning changes much more difficult to reverse. For· something this significant and far reaching, I believe the community should have the ability to review, weigh in, and reconsider these changes over time.

I am also concerned that this proposal goes beyond what is required by the Housing Element and state law. With no requirement for onsite parking, this could add even more traffic and parking conflicts to neighborhoods that are already dealing with c1·owded streets. It could also mean less tree cover in neighborhoods that are already getting hotter, while placing additional strain on police, fire, and other city resources.

I am also concerned that there are not enough VTA bus route to service the riding need of youth and seniors in congested housing area. This will effect our quality of life.

I strongly urge the Mayor and City Council to reject this 1·ecommendation and allow for a more thoughtful process that includes meaningful community input.

Respectfully,
Frank Lem
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: "August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:19 AM
To Agendadesk
From: taxpayer26
Sent:Sunda½Augus
To: Ortiz, Peter
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: "August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal" [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP.orta nt I am writing to encourage a NO vote to the proposed up zoning We are at a delicate time in California and especially in San Jose. Our tax burdens are the highest in the country in almost every category.

Headquarters and established industries are fleeing to lower cost and less regulated states. It's becoming the trendy thing for CEO s to do , they don't want to look stupid staying in California.

Our existing housing stock is, imo, in an artificially inflated price. When the latest , and probably last California bubble- Al matures and leaves the State doing this up zoning will just leave the San Jose with undesirable over crowded underserved neighborhoods .

The folks remaining will probably be older and circling the block for parking will not be an option.

To decide to shell out 1-3 million for a tract house means you want a yard, parking, privacy. VALUE Up zoning will not create "cheap" or "affordable" housing--it will just wreck the qualify of life we have now .

You want a Time Machine of housing prices - then you need the Detroit model - run businesses out , watch the prices fall.

San Jose needs to ask -not why should a HQ come here-- but how to keep what we have.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Please oppose the up zoning ; if passed it will just damage the quality of life that we, existing residents, are paying most dearly for with mortgages and taxes.

The current laws allow infill , let's see how that plays out first.

Thank you.

Outlook
FW: Aug. 18 City Council 10.8 Oppose Missing Middle as is From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:19 AM
To Agendadesk
From: SH
Sent: Sunday, A g s
To: City Clerk
Subject: Aug. 18 City Council 10.8 Oppose Missing Middle as is [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from
During the Aug. 18 City
Middle as is.
. Learn why this is imgortant
a item 10.3, please vote to oppose Missing
Although more housing is needed, it is too much to put 3-story buildings in existing neighborhoods without requiring significant off-street parking spots, increasing infrastructure (water, sewer, gas, electricity) , increasing schools, and increasing outdoor play areas for children.

I live in San Jose, 95132.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3 - General Plan Four-Year Review: Public Record, Missing Middle Housing and Land-Use Policy
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:20 AM
To Agendadesk
From: brian darby
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 12:47 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
. . .
strictl
District4
District?
Subject: Agenda Item 10.3 - General Plan Four-Year Review: Public Record, Missing Middle Housing and Land-Use Policy
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:

I am writing regarding Agenda Item 10.3, the Genera l Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework.

I have reviewed the staff material, the Council memoranda, and a substantial amount of the unusually large volume of public conespondence submitted on this item. I have not read every repetitive passage word for word, and many of the emails clearly use common or substant ially similar language . I therefore do not believe it would be useful simply to repeat those same arguments again.

Instead, I would like to identify several specific issues that I believe deserve an answer from the Council and, equally imporiant, deserve to be clearly preserved in the public record as this process moves forward.

I recognize at the outset that the action before Council on August 18 is not the final adoption of a citywide Missing Middle ordinance or every General Plan and zoning amendment contemplated by this framework.

Staff character izes the present action as preliminary direction. Following Council direction , staff intends to prepare General Plan and ordinance amendments , conduct appropriate environmental analysis, continue community engagement, and return to the Planning Commiss ion and Council around December 2027. The current CEQA determination is "Not a Project." That distinction is important and should temper some of the more categorical claims appearing in the public correspondence.

It does not, however, make the present decision inconsequential.

Council is being asked to establish the policy framework that will direct approximately the next year and a half of staff work. Once Council establishes that framework, considerable institutional momentum, staff time, environmental analysis and public resources will necessarily follow it. The parameters Council chooses now therefore matter.

For that reason, I respectfully ask Council to treat August 18 not merely as authorization to continue studying a predetermined outcome, but as an opportunity to establish the questions that must be answered before any eventual adoption.

I also ask that the concerns raised in this letter be expressly included in the administrative record for Item 10.3 and considered as the City develops any subsequent General Plan amendments, zoning amendments, environmental review and Missing Middle implementation ordinance arising from this policy framework.

I make that request for a practical reason.

California land-use law places considerable importance on the administrative record. Government Code section 65009 provides, in circumstances to which it applies, that issues raised in a judicial challenge to a land-use decision made following a properly noticed public hearing generally are limited to issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the agency before or at the hearing, subject to statutory exceptions.

CEQA contains a similar exhaustion requirement in Public Resources Code section 21177. California courts have explained that the purpose is to give the public agency an opportunity to receive, evaluate and respond to specific factual and legal concerns before those concerns become the subject of litigation.

I am not suggesting that litigation is inevitable, nor am I attempting to predict which exhaustion requirements would apply to a future challenge involving actions that have not yet been taken.

My point is considerably simpler: when a land-use policy is this consequential and controversial, building a complete administrative record now protects everyone—the public, the Council and ultimately the City.

A strong record demonstrates not merely that people spoke, but that their substantive concerns were identified, considered and answered.

Missing Middle Housing
I support the objective of creating more housing opportunities in San José.

The housing shortage is real. The cost of housing has displaced families, workers and younger generations who otherwise would remain in this community. Missing Middle housing can be one useful component of a broader housing strategy.

State law has also already substantially changed what can occur in traditionally single-family neighborhoods. Staff notes that ADUs and junior ADUs are permitted, SB 9 provides a ministerial pathway potentially producing four units on an existing single-family parcel, and SB 1123 can authorize up to ten units on eligible parcels through ministerial subdivision and development processes.

That reality should be acknowledged by both supporters and opponents.

But the fact that state law permits substantial additional development does not answer the separate policy question of how much farther San José should voluntarily go, under what conditions, and with what safeguards.

The Planning Commission recommendation would establish parameters for a Missing Middle program including increasing Residential Neighborhood density from 8 dwelling units per acre to as much as 32 DU/AC, with buildings potentially reaching 35 feet and three stories.

The Mayor/Foley/Campos/Cohen/Casey memorandum wisely modifies that approach by directing staff to environmentally review alternatives of 16, 24 and 32 DU/AC rather than assuming 32 DU/AC is necessarily the appropriate citywide answer. It also proposes a minimum parking standard in Residential Neighborhood areas with low transit access.

I strongly support studying those alternatives rather than beginning with the assumption that the maximum density under consideration must ultimately become the policy.

That is not opposition to housing. It is planning.

Ministerial Approval and Public Participation
One of the most persistent concerns in the correspondence is the movement toward ministerial or "by- right" approval.

Some of the correspondence overstates what Council is actually approving on August 18. But the underlying concern is legitimate.

Ministerial approval has advantages. It can reduce delay, cost and uncertainty. Objective standards also reduce opportunities for arbitrary decision-making and can make housing development substantially more predictable.

But ministerial approval also changes the point at which meaningful public participation occurs.

If individual projects will not receive discretionary hearings, then the public's meaningful opportunity to shape the rules is before those objective standards are adopted.

That makes the quality of the present and forthcoming public process more not less important.

The Brown Act guarantees members of the public an opportunity to address the legislative body on matters before it, and San José itself states that open government requires decisions and activities to occur in full view of the public. The City's Public Outreach Policy similarly describes early and frequent communication as an objective of the land-use process.

I recognize that staff reports substantial outreach: eight Task Force meetings, five community meetings including four open houses, sixteen stakeholder meetings, four meetings with intergovernmental agencies, six leadership and neighborhood meetings, and three community-specific focus groups.

That work deserves acknowledgment.

But quantity of outreach events and effectiveness of outreach are not necessarily identical measurements.

The extraordinary volume of correspondence now arriving before Council suggests that a substantial number of residents either did not understand the scope of the proposal earlier, did not believe they had been adequately reached, or did not appreciate its potential consequences until relatively late in the process.

That does not prove that staff failed to satisfy a legal notice requirement.

It does suggest that something in the communication process did not work as well as intended.

The August 18 agenda also shows that the Council meeting begins at 1:30 p.m. and that the previously scheduled 6:00 p.m. evening session has been cancelled.

I do not know the reason for that cancellation and will not speculate about it.

I will simply observe that an item producing hundreds of pages of correspondence and potentially affecting Residential Neighborhood properties throughout San José is precisely the kind of matter for which meaningful opportunities for participation by working residents are particularly important.

Parking Should Be Based on the Actual Neighborhood
I do not support treating parking as an ideological issue.

In a genuinely transit-rich neighborhood, excessive mandatory parking can increase housing costs, consume land and undermine transit-oriented development.

But San José is geographically large and highly heterogeneous. A neighborhood near BART, light rail or frequent transit is not functionally identical to a residential neighborhood where most daily trips continue to require automobiles.

The public correspondence repeatedly raises this distinction. Some submissions make sweeping claims that are difficult to substantiate, but others identify practical concerns involving school traffic, emergency access, service vehicles and already constrained curb parking.

The Mayor's memorandum responds constructively by proposing minimum parking standards in Residential Neighborhood areas with low transit access.

I believe that is a reasonable middle position.

Parking policy should reflect actual transportation alternatives, street capacity and neighborhood conditions rather than imposing either universal parking minimums or universal zero-parking assumptions.

Infrastructure Must Be Analyzed Cumulatively
Another recurring concern involves water, sewer capacity, streets, schools, parks, emergency response, tree canopy and other public infrastructure.

No individual duplex, fourplex or small apartment building will overwhelm San José's infrastructure.

That is not the correct analytical question.

The appropriate question is what happens cumulatively if thousands of parcels become eligible for substantially greater residential capacity over time.

The General Plan exists precisely because cities must consider cumulative growth rather than evaluate every parcel as though it exists in isolation.

I therefore ask that the eventual environmental and infrastructure analysis evaluate reasonably foreseeable cumulative development under the policy, including:
traffic and vehicle miles traveled;
pedestrian and bicycle safety;
water and wastewater capacity;
stormwater infrastructure;
fire access and emergency response;
street parking and service access;
tree canopy and urban heat;
parks and other public facilities;
and the fiscal effects of additional residential growth.

The City's decision to maintain the Jobs-to-Employed Residents target of 1.1 is also relevant. Staff itself explains that maintaining that ratio supports fiscal sustainability, environmental objectives and more complete communities containing both housing and employment.

Housing policy should therefore be evaluated together with infrastructure, employment and municipal finances rather than as a numerical housing-capacity exercise alone.

Fire, VMT and Sensitive Areas
I particularly support the Candelas/Ortiz/Mulcahy proposal to expand exclusions for Missing Middle development to include Moderate Fire Severity Zones, areas with immitigable high VMT, Planned Developments and Area Specific Plans.

Those are examples of tailoring policy to actual physical conditions rather than assuming every Residential Neighborhood parcel presents the same planning circumstances.

If Council ultimately decides that one of those exclusions is unnecessary, the record should explain why.

Fire evacuation, emergency access and transportation impacts are health-and-safety issues. They deserve findings based on evidence rather than being treated as proxies either for opposition to housing or support for density.

Density Bonus Law and Local Objective Standards
I also believe the Tordillos/Kamei memorandum raises an unusually important issue.

It proposes exploring a local Missing Middle density bonus program that could provide developers with an attractive ministerial alternative while requiring compliance with locally adopted objective development standards. It also proposes written health-and-safety standards for applications relying on the State Density Bonus Law and asks the City to pursue state legislation preserving greater local authority over objective standards.

That strikes me as constructive policymaking.

If San José can make a local program faster, clearer and economically attractive enough that developers voluntarily choose it, the City may be able to encourage housing production while obtaining better predictability regarding height, setbacks, open space and neighborhood compatibility.

That deserves serious examination.

Winchester Boulevard and Existing Businesses
I am also concerned about treating every commercial parcel primarily as latent housing capacity.

The Winchester correspondence contains some of the most site-specific public comments in the packet.

Residents identify parking spillover from Valley Fair, pedestrian concerns, limited transit access and potential displacement of neighborhood-serving businesses. Staff itself records that eight Cory Neighborhood speakers supported additional housing while arguing that Mixed Use Neighborhood designation would provide a better compromise than Urban Residential.

Staff has a legitimate counterargument. Its analysis estimates that Urban Residential designation on the seven identified Winchester sites could accommodate approximately 114–220 units, compared with approximately 44–114 under Mixed Use Neighborhood designation.

That is a real housing-capacity difference.

But capacity is not the only General Plan objective.

One detailed public submission reports that existing businesses along the affected corridor were unaware of the proposed redesignation and argues that eliminating viable commercial locations could weaken neighborhood services and the City's tax base.

The Candelas/Ortiz/Mulcahy memorandum's proposal to use Mixed Use Neighborhood rather than Urban Residential for many of these parcels therefore deserves serious consideration.

Housing and neighborhood-serving commerce should not automatically be treated as competing objectives. Good mixed-use planning should attempt to preserve both.

Public/Quasi-Public Land
The PQP proposal likewise deserves caution.

Schools, religious institutions and other community organizations sometimes possess underutilized land that could support affordable housing while providing those institutions with revenue and helping them remain in the community.

There is considerable merit in exploring that opportunity.

But PQP land also accommodates schools, recreation, religious institutions and other community-serving uses that become increasingly difficult and expensive to replace after land has converted to residential use.

I therefore support the Mayor's memorandum's direction that the framework be informed by outreach to affected property owners such as school districts.

The eventual policy should also demonstrate that San José will retain sufficient geographically distributed community-serving land as population and housing capacity increase.

Environmental Review
I want to be particularly clear on CEQA.

Because staff currently characterizes the August action as preliminary policy direction and "Not a Project," I am not asserting that Council must prepare an EIR before giving staff further direction.

Staff itself states that appropriate environmental analysis will occur as implementing amendments and ordinances are developed.

My request is that the eventual environmental review be genuinely informative rather than merely confirmatory.

CEQA is most useful when environmental analysis occurs early enough to influence the decision rather than after the essential policy choices have effectively become irreversible.

Accordingly, the environmental analysis should examine reasonable alternatives—including the 16, 24 and 32 DU/AC alternatives proposed in the Mayor's memorandum—and should examine the cumulative consequences of the policy together with other state and local housing laws already increasing development capacity.

The Public Correspondence
Finally, I want to address the sheer volume of correspondence.

I looked through the submitted material. There is plainly substantial repetition. Some messages are virtually identical; some contain only a sentence or two opposing the Missing Middle proposal.

That should not be hidden or exaggerated.

A hundred copies of the same argument are not a hundred independent factual studies.

But neither are they meaningless.

They represent individual residents who were sufficiently concerned to put their names behind a position.

More importantly, mixed among the repetitive correspondence are thoughtful submissions from people who support housing growth but question this particular approach. One District 6 neighborhood organization, for example, expressly states that growth and neighborhood preservation are not opposing goals, while asking for more outreach, incremental implementation and focused rather than indiscriminate growth.

Another commenter identifies himself as a retired urban planner and supporter of urban villages, transit- oriented development, higher-density housing and reduced parking requirements in appropriate locations, yet strongly questions eliminating on-site parking requirements in single-family neighborhoods.

Those are not easily dismissed as generalized anti-housing sentiment.

Conversely, the record also contains support from San José YIMBY , SPUR, SV@Home, school districts, faith organizations and housing advocates for increased residential capacity, Missing Middle housing and broader use of PQP properties.

Council should consider both.

The volume of public comment should not become a reason that the substance of public comment disappears.

Requested Direction
For these reasons, I respectfully ask Council to use Item 10.3 to establish a careful framework rather than prematurely settle questions that have not yet been adequately tested.

Specifically, I ask that Council:

1. Direct environmental review of multiple Residential Neighborhood density alternatives, including 16, 24 and 32 DU/AC, without presuming the highest density is the preferred outcome.

2. Establish parking standards that recognize actual transit availability and neighborhood conditions.

3. Require cumulative infrastructure, public-safety, fiscal and environmental analysis rather than examining individual future projects in isolation.

4. Establish clear exclusions or heightened standards for fire-risk areas, high-VMT areas and other locations presenting identifiable health-and-safety constraints.

5. Develop objective design, height, setback, open-space, tree-canopy and health-and- safety standards before establishing a broadly ministerial Missing Middle program.

6. Examine the Tordillos/Kamei local density-bonus concept as a possible means of making a locally controlled program more attractive than reliance on state waivers.

7. Reconsider whether Mixed Use Neighborhood designation provides a better balance than Urban Residential for portions of the Winchester corridor, particularly where viable neighborhood-serving businesses currently operate.

8. Ensure that conversion of PQP land does not leave neighborhoods without adequate schools, community facilities, religious institutions, recreation and other community- serving uses.

9. Conduct additional outreach before final adoption, with particular attention to renters, homeowners, affected businesses, school communities, people with disabilities, neighborhoods with limited transit and residents who cannot readily attend weekday daytime meetings.

10. Preserve and respond to the specific substantive concerns raised in the written and oral record as subsequent General Plan amendments, zoning amendments, environmental documents and implementation ordinances are developed.

I recognize that some members of Council may ultimately reach a different conclusion on each of these questions.

What I ask is that the conclusions be reached after the questions have been asked and answered.

California's land-use system gives enormous importance to administrative process. Government Code section 65009 and CEQA's exhaustion provisions are reminders that the public hearing and written- comment process are not ceremonial steps preceding the real decision. They are part of the decision.

San José's own stated open-government principle is that City decisions should be reached in full view of the public. The City's public-comment policy also provides that correspondence concerning Council agenda items becomes part of the record for that meeting.

That principle is particularly important here.

This is not simply a decision about whether San José needs more housing. It does.

It is a decision about where housing should go, what form it should take, what objective rules should govern it, what infrastructure should accompany it, what degree of local control can legally be retained, and how residents can meaningfully participate before ministerial rules replace project- by-project discretionary review.

Those questions deserve more than slogans from either side.

They deserve a record.

I respectfully ask the Council to make that record complete before San José commits itself to changes that will shape its neighborhoods for decades.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Thank you for considering these comments and for including them in the public record for Agenda Item

10.3. Respectfully,
Brian Darby

Outlook
FW:

From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:20 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Lynne Stee le
Sent: Sund ay, Augus 16,
To: District2
Subject:

City Clerk
[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 Dear Pamela Campos: ~ ongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework. I recognize San Jose's need for additional housing, but I do not believe broadly increasing density within established residential neighborhoods is the right solution.

The City itself describes Missing Middle housing under consideration as allowing 4 to 10 units, a substantial change from the existing development pattern of many neighborhoods. My concerns are straightforward .

First, significantly increasing allowable density can fundamentally change the character and scale of established residential neighborhoods. Second, adding substant ially more households should require careful consideration of the cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood services. Third, homeowners have invested significant amounts of their savings and income based in part on the existing character and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods.

Potential impacts on surrounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules are broadly changed. Housing policy should add housing thoughtfully while respecting the people and neighborhoods already here. I urge you not to advance a blanket citywide approach and to pursue more targeted housing solutions with meaningful neighborhood input. Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Lynne Steele
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 20261 0:20 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Anne Pak
Sent: Sunday, Aug s
To: Anne Pak
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and city council :

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective . Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhood s, fu1ther aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Anne Pak
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:20 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Stevenl <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 11:17 AM
To: City Clerk District!
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is imr2orta nt Dear Mayor and city council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quadrupling the maximum pe1mitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods. SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective . Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes-not otherwise mandated by the state-should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhood s, fu1ther aggravate San Jose 's fiscally di·aining jobs-to-housing ratio, and fu1ther burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

There is a place for every single and multi-resedential neighbohoods in this city. Dis1upting the original city planned housing divisions should not be dis1upted.

Strut as you have been doing to move into 1milti-residencial buildings into the commerial property space. Also look into removing the empty commercial buildings that have not been occupied for years to plan this multiple famly residental project.

Leave all the 40+ year residential neighborhoods ALONE.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Don't ruin what the fore fathers had planned as a place we call home.

Respectfully,
Kerry and Steven Maciel
Life long SJ Residents

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:21 AM
To Agendadesk
From: See C Young
Sent: Sunday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Cc:

Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imgorta nt Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the 4 year General Plan, as outlined in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.

Increa sing the maximum permitted housing density citywide from 8 to 32 units per acre is an enormous change to the character of our San Jose neighborhoods. I am especially concerned that this would happen without meaningful opportunities for community review or feedback.

This is also not a change that can simply be undone later if it turns out to be unworkable, unpopuhu, or ineffective. SB 330 makes these types of zoning changes much more difficult to reverse. For something this significant and far reaching , I believe the community should have the ability to review, weigh in, and reconsider these changes over time.

I am also concerned that this proposal goes beyond what is required by the Housing Element and state law. With no requirement for onsite parking , this could add even more traffic and parking conflicts to neighborhoods that are already dealing with crowded streets. It could also mean less tree cover in neighborhoods that an already getting hotter, while placing additional strain on police, fn·e, and other city resources.

I strongly urge the Mayor and City Council to reject this recommendation and allow for a more thoughtful process that includes meaningful community input.

Respectfully,
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

See C. Young

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 20261 0:21 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Sarah Mohler
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [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 As a resident of San Jo~er , I thoroughly oppose this change.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Augu st 18 agenda 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:21 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Ann Maziotis
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 agenda 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Oppose
. Learn why th is is im12ortant
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Augu st 18 City Council Agenda item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:21 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: George Morrison
Sent: Sunday, Auqust 16, 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
This proposal goes far beyond any state mandate. No other city in Santa Clara County is implementing such sweeping, permanent upzoning .

It would allow 3-story apartment buildings with 16 or more units on residential lots, with drastically reduced setbacks, no on-site parking requirements , and by-right approval.

Once adopted , these projects would require no public hearings, no Planning Commission review, and no City Council vote.

When construction begins, the project will already be fully approved - with zero opportunity for neighborhood input.

The consequences are serious and irreversible:

D The upzon ing is permanent and cannot be undone.

D With no on-site parking required, addit ional cars will park on already-crowded city streets.

D No upgrades to utilities (PG&E, water, or sewer systems) or roadways will be required, placing further strain on existing infrastructure .

DA 2021 study commissioned by the City itself confirmed that this type of zoning change will not produce affordable housing units.

Council members have said they have heard little opposition. That silence should not be mistaken for consent. Many residents are only now learning how far-reaching and permanent these changes will be.

Once written into the zoning code, the character of our residential neighborhoods will be altered forever, without further public process.

Regards,
George Morrison
95117
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 20261 0:21 AM
To Agendadesk
From: chung-gmail
Sent: Sunday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn whY. this is imJ;!ortant Dear Mayor and city council :

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective . Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhood s, fu1ther aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Hsiao-Chen Chung
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.

From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:21 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Amy Bobby Le
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from
We oppose this measure.

Amy
. Learn why this is imP-ortant
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 20261 0:22 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Craig Matsuno
Sent: Saturday, August 1 , 2 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and city council :

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August l 8council agenda.

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective . Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhood s, fu1ther aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Craig Matsuno
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:22 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Sanjeev Agrawal
Sent: Saturday, August 1
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and City Council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quadrnpling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback, is a drastic and iITeversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods. SB3 30 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular, or ineffective. Pe1manent and far-reaching zoning changes-not otherwise mandated by the stat~shou ld not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in the future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for on-site parking ; this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose 's ah-eady crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods , further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police , fire, and other city resources .

Respectfully,
Sanjeev Agrawal
Malvika Agrawal
San Jose, CA
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:22 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Christine Perkins
Sent: Saturday, August 1
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
[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 My husband and I just le~opo sed change to the zoning of family neighborhoods allowing up to 10 residential units on a 6,000' lot. My mind boggles at the thought of units like this going into to my neighborhood or any other already established neighborh ood in this city. I am asking you to please reconsider such a broad all encompassing change to the cunent zoning law.

Parking is one big issue that comes to mind. Overcrowding of our streets is an issue in many single family neighborhood s already. Overcrowding in our public schools is also a concern. Please considering all the other problems this will cause in ah-eady settled neighborhoods.

We ask you, once again, to please reconsider this change. Please open this issue up to the public for comment and a vote - don't sneak it into law without letting the people of this city speak to the changes this tenible idea will bring.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:22 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Jacqueline Lu
Sent: Saturday, August 1 , 2 2
To: City Clerk
Cc:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective . Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not otherwise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhood s, fu1ther aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and fmther burden strained police, fire, and other city resom·ces.

Both Parking & Public transportation plans MUST be put in place together with any housing density increases. That is common sense, which is something I know you are a strong proponent of.

Respectfully,
Jacqueline Lu
San Jose Resident
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:22 AM
To Agendadesk
From: John Peter
Sent: Saturd
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from - · Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Mayor, City Council, an~ei (our city council representative) , I OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Our neighborhood has already been impacted by SB 9 the lot splitting bill passed by the state several years ago. The contractor has built a substandard ADU at 3192 Oriole Dr, then sold the unit in front to a naive buyer. There was a requirement for him to live in the lot split for 3 years which he never did. He then tried to build a >2500 sqft house on the split lot with some zero lot lines, which he never informed the new owner of the unit out in front of the plans when he sold them house. The development was stopped and is in litigation. We have directly seen how unscrupulous developers can severely impact a neighborhood and this was with supposed oversight that was not enforced. Removing any oversight and public comment will destroy neighborhoods .

Our street Oriole Dr has been severely impacted by parking from out of neighborhood apartments with insufficient parking, again developers and landlords taking advantage of the poor. Often you cannot find a parking space on our street at all.

I think it is foolish for enact such a drastic measure as the Missing Middle. Something this drastic should be implemented in specific zones or areas that don't impact existing neighborhoods . Not city wide with a broad brush legislation.

Our son lived in Glendale, CA where this sort of haphazard development made a complete mess of neighborhoods. You had single family homes surrounded by 4 story apartment complexes , and they were taller than expected due to the first floors being parking. If you want to see how this messes up neighborhoods just look there.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I am all for higher density on our main corridors streets and where mass transit exists. But the reality is that residents need cars and parking should be a requirement in any development.

Just look at how unsuccessful The Fay, now The Flow was down at 10 Reed St. It is unrealistic to allow developers to do this kind of development and then declare bankruptcy when they can’t rent or sell the units. The building they leave behind will still exist impacting the neighborhood for all generations to come.

We can meet our housing goals by increasing housing density in other ways. Irresponsible development by unscrupulous developers is not the way to provide more housing units.

Please vote no on the Missing Middle proposal. Lets bring commons sense back to higher density and meet the needs of generations to come.

Thanks you,
John

John Peters

Outlook
FW: Augu st 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.

From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:22 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Susan & Mike
Sent: Saturday, Auqust 5, 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Strongly opposed to this.
- Susan Burrell
Learn why this is important at
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 20261 0:22 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Venkat Viswanath an
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn whY. this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and city council :

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective . Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhood s, fu1ther aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully
Venkatesan Viswanathan
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:23 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Richard Rizio
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 6:18 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
. . .

Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
strictl
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear Representatives:
. Learn whY. th is is imJ;lortant
I oppose the "Missing Middle" proposal. Most of the residential streets have become overly crowded due to lack of space and parking. There are some residential areas where streets are wide and parking is abundant. If the proposal were written to focus on areas with wider streets and more available parking, it would secure more general approval.

Thank you,
Richard Rizio
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:23 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Yifei MENG
Sent: Saturday, August 1
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [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 Dear Mayor and City Council:

I am writing to strongly OPPOSE the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the four-year General Plan, as described in Agenda Item 10.3 of the August 18 Council agenda. As a longtime homeowner in the San Jose Eden neighborhood, I have a direct and lasting stake in this decision - and I urge you to reject it.

Quadrnpling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide and with no opp01tunity for community review, is a drastic and ineversible rewrite of the fabric of San Jose's neighborhoods. Under SB 330, this up-zoning cannot be reversed even if it proves unworkable, unpopular, or ineffective. Permanent, far-reaching zoning changes that the state does not mandate should never be locked in without the ability to reconsider them later. Residents deserve a voice before their neighborhoods are changed forever.

This proposal exceeds both the Housing Element and State law, and it does so recklessly. It requires no on-site parking, guaranteeing worse traffic and parking conflicts on ah-eady-crowded streets. It will strip tree cover from neighborhoods that are heating rapidly, deepen San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to housing imbalance, and pile new demand onto police, fire, and other city services that are already stretched thin. The city gains nothing that justifies these pe1manent costs.

I ask you to reject Agenda Item 10.3 and to pursue housing solutions that do not sacrifice community input, neighborhood character, and basic infrastrncture in a single ineversible vote.

Respectfully,
Yifei Meng
Eden, San Jose
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 20261 0:23 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Venkatesh Srinivasan
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and city council :

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective . Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhood s, fu1ther aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Venkatesh
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 20261 0:23 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Kelly Miller
Sent: Saturday, August 1
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from
Hello,
. Learn why this is im12ortant
I am very much against "Land Use Regular Agenda Item 10 .3" ! As a lifelong San Jose resident, the city is already over-crowded and heavy traffic is already a problem. We pay too much for water and utilities, and to allow these multi-use buildings to be built will strain the systems further and make it worse for us all.

This would be a terrible mistake. Don't be greedy! This city should already be making a ton of revenue. I strongly urge the council to vote, No!
Sincerely,
Kelly1',iaie+,-
Author of award-winning Austenesque Regency romances
htti:2s://linktr.ee/kellv.millerauthor
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Opposing planning commission recommendation to amend 4 year gen plan From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 1 :23 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Stephanie Brooks
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Opposing planning commission recommendation to amend 4 year gen plan [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and City Council Member Cortese:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective . Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not otherwise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhood s, further aggravate San Jose 's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and fu1ther burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Stephanie Brooks
Step C • e B - o•(s {she/her)

MS, RDN, CEDS-C J CEO, FOUNDER

BAY AREA NUTRITION
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments , is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient , please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Clinical Urgency/ Emergencies: Email should not be used for urgent medical problems or complicated clinical matters. Electronic communication cannot substitute for live (in-person or phone) consultation , history review, and examination. If you require immediate assistance please call your local police/ emergency services staff by calling 911, or seek out clinical support at your local emergency room/ crisis center.

Email is not Secure: Email is not a secure transmission. If you have privacy concerns, please use secure message through our portal or telephone.

HIP AA Exceptions: HIP AA federal guidelines allow patients to choose the form of communication that they are most comfortable with and as such patients may elect to use e mail at their discretion.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

San Jose City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026