This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. project that could significantly change their neighborhood. Giving residents no meaningful opportunity to participate in that process does not feel like a fair way to plan our communities.
Before making such a sweeping change, I believe the City should take a much closer look at the impact on existing infrastructure and services, including water and sewer systems, roads, emergency services, trash collection, and other resources. Increasing the number of people living on individual lots will naturally increase the demand on these systems.
I also worry about the loss of mature trees and green space. When significantly more units can be placed on a property, there will naturally be pressure to use more of the lot for buildings, driveways, and other hardscape. Mature trees and yards are not just cosmetic. They provide shade, privacy, drainage, and contribute to the quality of life in our neighborhoods.
I believe San José can add much-needed housing without completely changing the character of established single-family neighborhoods. There has to be a middle ground that allows the City to grow while still respecting the people and communities that are already here.
Please do not treat every neighborhood in San José as though it has the same infrastructure, streets, parking availability, and capacity for additional density. What works in one part of the city may not work in another.
I respectfully ask the Mayor and City Council to vote against Agenda Item 10.3 in its current form and reconsider a more thoughtful approach to increasing housing that takes the individual needs and characteristics of San José's neighborhoods into account.
Please listen to the residents who will actually be living with the consequences of this decision. We want San José to grow, but we also want it to remain a city where different types of neighborhoods can continue to exist.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and for considering the impact this proposal could have on our community.
Sincerely,
Mia Chavez
Curie Ct, San Jose
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. infrastructure, neighborhood-specific impacts, and appropriate development standards before moving forward with such a broad increase in residential density.
Respectfully,
Jan Polnoff
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Thank you for the work that's gone into this framework, and for taking the time to read resident input on it.
I am writing solely in my personal capacity as a San José resident, and these views do not represent the position of the San José parks and Recreation Commission.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Additionally, I see a future of a great Exodus of the native people of San Jose.
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,
Kim Mattos
Sent from my Galaxy
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Cynthia Boman
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Additionally, I see a future of a great Exodus of the native people of San Jose.
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,
Kim Mattos
Sent from my Galaxy
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Although affected homeowners may see their neighborhoods change significantly, their property taxes are unlikely to decrease. Any increase in property value may benefit owners only if they sell to a developer, creating further pressure to replace detached homes with denser projects.
A Better Approach
The task force, mayor, and City Council should pursue more thoughtful ways to meet California’s housing requirements. Rather than broadly rezoning established neighborhoods, the city should identify areas where additional development would be appropriate and beneficial.
Priority should be given to underused commercial properties and other sites near public transit that can support new housing with less disruption. The city should explore these alternatives before imposing sweeping density changes on existing single-family neighborhoods.
Sincerely
Cheri Machado-Knapp
--
Cheri Machado-Knapp
I have lived in my home for 44 years, this just doesn’t make any sense. San Jose still has plenty of open space to build and should build new single family starter homes, apartments and condos, multi-level dwellings along with adequate parking, shopping and work opportunities.
These monster buildings are just not viable in long established neighborhoods! I am not opposed to, for example, if the City wanted to allow for a duplex with adequate setbacks, dedicated driveways and garages for each side of each unit to be built where a single family home once was.
We certainly do not have viable public transportation to think that people will not need cars. I can’t imagine a family of 4 or 5 walking or taking a bus to Costco or any store to buy their groceries! I buy a monthly bus pass now for my grandson to take the bus to and from Pioneer High School and many times the bus is late or cancelled without sufficient notice for him to walk the 2 miles to and from school! With the streets reconfigured to less lanes the traffic is horrible! Kids today carry 30-40+ lb. backpacks to school. Schools have no lockers anymore. My grandson had to walk to school last year in terrible downpours, he and backpack were soaked all day until he walked back home after school. At the end of the year he was given a bill for a book, charged $168. for a book that got wet thru his backpack! I’m still disputing that charge. What is a kid to do! No school bussing if under 3 miles. VTA not as reliable as it should be. People will lose their jobs if they can’t get to work on time, we need our cars and a place to park them.
This plan is just plain wrong on so many levels it just boggles my mind. I urge our city leaders to reject this proposal in its entirety!
Peggy John
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Susan Munne
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
West San Jose
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Irreversible Precedent under SB 330: Under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), downzoning a property after it has been upzoned is legally restricted. Adopting this proposal creates an irreversible change that cannot easily be corrected if it harms our neighborhoods.
Lack of Functional Parking Standards: West San Jose and similar neighborhoods lack the robust public transit infrastructure needed to support zero-parking developments.
Residents, including working families and seniors, depend on vehicles. A lack of onsite parking will force drivers to circle blocks and park far from their homes. Furthermore, a lack of street space already causes my neighbors to park in their yards and to place garbage bins into bicycle lanes, creating safety hazards for cyclists.
My neighbors and I support responsible, balanced growth. However, granting by-right development at these extreme densities without mandatory parking requirements will cause severe, lasting harm to our communities.
Please vote against the adoption of these General Plan upzoning recommendations. Instead, please direct staff to develop realistic parking standards that mitigate the impacts of new development.
Sincerely,
Amy Cody
President, Moreland West NA, District 1
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.
Elaine Blocher
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. out for the people of this city. There is not adequate public transportation to support and achieve your desire for people not to drive.
I implore you to vote NO on this.
Respectfully,
Howard Baker
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. out for the people of this city. There is not adequate public transportation to support and achieve your desire for people not to drive.
I implore you to vote NO on this.
Respectfully,
Pamela Baker
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. which is confidential or prohibited from any disclosure under the HIPAA Privacy Rule or other federal or state laws. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the original sender and delete this email and any attachments. Thank you.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Sincerely,
Virindra Trehan
San Jose Resident for over 40 Years.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Changes of such magnitude deserve robust public discussion before being permanently incorporated into the City’s zoning code. Once adopted, they could fundamentally alter the character and density of residential neighborhoods without further opportunities for community review.
I respectfully ask the Mayor and City Council to reject the proposal in its current form. At a minimum, please remove it from any consent or streamlined calendar and allow for a full public hearing and meaningful community discussion before taking action. Thank you for your consideration and for listening to the residents who will live with the long-term consequences of this decision.
Best Regards,
San Jose Resident
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Respectfully,
Daniel Orlando
NOTICE: The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
A long time home owning resident in the same home for almost 40 years, Kathy Lee
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Sincerely,
David and Catherine Young
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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,
Pari Kannan
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Writing as an individual
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
We support responsible housing. We do not support turning established neighborhoods into high-density developments seemingly designed primarily to increase developer profits.
San Jose needs smart, sustainable growth that includes adequate infrastructure, parking, and consideration for the neighborhoods that already exist.
Meredith Leonard
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Thank you for your consideration. I will be viewing and participating in the council meeting on August 18.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Barnes, A.A.E.
PRoComms
Owner and Principal
| |
A long-time District 6 resident, taxpayer, and voter
I am in favor of increasing housing density, especially at transit hubs, but without regarding parking, well that is flawed.
As you know homeowners, like myself, have more than one car, so creating a flawed building design by without adequate parking would be foolish.
Please vote no on this ill-prepared PROPOSAL on August 18.
Sincerely,
David Garcia
Member Seventrees Neighborhood Association
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I am in favor of increasing housing density, especially at transit hubs, but without regarding parking, well that is flawed.
As you know homeowners, like myself, have more than one car, so creating a flawed building design by without adequate parking would be foolish.
Please vote no on this ill-prepared PROPOSAL on August 18.
Sincerely,
David Garcia
Member Seventrees Neighborhood Association
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
If you want to add more housing without providing space for parking or traffic relieve, you will have to make sure you have a walkable city first.
Where are our street cars on every major street, like Santa Teresa Boulevard or Blossom Hill Road? Where are accessible public restrooms along those corridors? Where are shaded benches? Where are greengrocers, coffeeshops that stay open late, and yes, bookstores, record stores, and kid hangouts in our small local strip malls?
Where are movie theaters within walking distance? Or dare I say, even performance places? Where even are medical services available to all in a timely manner on foot? Once you have those things in place, I will welcome more and different kinds of housing. Right now, you will only overcrowd already depleted neighborhoods. And that will not end well.
Please put the horse in front of the cart and make our city available and accessible by foot first, before you just add more people who need to fight over the already sparse resources.
Sincerely,
Ute Orgassa
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
San José needs more housing choices and a more predictable process for building them. I encourage the Council to move these recommendations forward.
Jean-Marie White
Naglee Park, District 3
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. od allowable densities and direct them to include on-site parking requirements in any development proposal based on the number of bedrooms per unit of each development.
I am a former assistant director of project management at the former San Jose Redevelopment Agency and a city staff member for 27 years before my retirement. I live in Willow Glen, and I understand the ramifications of such a drastic proposal. Please mdify the staff proposal and vote appropriately.
Bob Ruff
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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 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,
Gabriel Marcu
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
2. Protects existing lower-cost housing and measures housing loss and displacement.
3. Uses existing capacity first before expanding permanent citywide development rights.
4. Measures SB 9 results—production, affordability, housing loss, displacement and environmental impact.
5. Separates legal requirements from discretionary City policy.
Build more housing. Produce affordable housing. Preserve what we have. Measure the results. Then determine what additional citywide density is actually needed.
Please refer to today’s emails (Item 10.3) and the attached detailed analysis regarding HCD compliance and the Housing Element, Capacity Overview and supporting documents for more information.
Respectfully submitted,
Roberta Moore
CURRENT CAPACITY
San José Housing Capacity Already Identified Under Existing Planning and SB 79 Summary. The attached analyses identify substantial housing capacity in San José from three distinct sources: (1) existing capacity in three SB 79 station areas, (2) additional theoretical capacity created by SB 79, and (3) potential capacity on 260 Mixed Use Commercial parcels in Urban Villages. A broader scenario analysis also shows that the approximately 40,000 parcels potentially affected by SB 79 could carry very large theoretical zoning capacity. These figures are capacity estimates—not forecasts of actual construction—and the categories should not be added together without parcel-level analysis because they may overlap.
1. Three SB 79 Station Areas
San José’s January 2026 analysis identifies 72,668 units of existing capacity in the Berryessa, Tamien, and Snell station areas. Under SB 79, theoretical capacity across those same three areas rises to 128,866 units, a net increase of 56,198 units.
Station Area Existing Capacity SB 79 Capacity Net Change Berryessa 59,001 57,996 -1,005
Tamien 10,434 33,717 +23,283
Snell 3,233 37,153 +33,920
TOTAL 72,668 128,866 +56,198
2. 260 Mixed Use Commercial Parcels in Urban Villages
Staff identified approximately 260 MUC parcels totaling about 87 acres within Urban Villages. Staff has not published one unit-yield number for all parcels because redesignation would occur site by site.
Using the identified acreage, the attached analysis illustrates approximately 4,000–14,000 base units depending on eventual densities, with potentially more capacity where State Density Bonus Law or other state laws apply.
Illustrative Density Potential Units on 87 Acres
50 DU/acre 4,350
95 DU/acre 8,265
100 DU/acre 8,700
140 DU/acre 12,180
160 DU/acre 13,920
3. Approximately 40,000 Parcels Potentially Affected by SB 79 SB 79 does not assign one density to every parcel. The attached analysis identifies illustrative statutory standards of 80, 100, and 120 dwelling units per acre, with a potential additional 40 DU/acre for immediately adjacent qualifying sites. Qualifying projects may also use State Density Bonus Law.
Because the total acreage of the approximately 40,000 parcels was not available in the analysis, its citywide totals are scenarios—not City staff findings. Under aggressive assumptions, the scenario range reaches 720,000 to 1.92 million units of gross theoretical zoning capacity. The source expressly cautions that this is not a forecast of actual construction and that a defensible citywide number should be calculated from parcel-specific GIS capacity data.
Bottom Line
San José already has substantial identified housing capacity before considering additional citywide discretionary density changes. The three station areas alone contain 72,668 units of existing capacity and 128,866 units of theoretical SB 79 capacity. Separately, 260 MUC parcels in Urban Villages could represent roughly 4,000–14,000 base units under illustrative densities. The approximately 40,000 SB 79 parcels could represent far greater theoretical capacity, but a reliable citywide total requires parcel-level analysis.
Policy implication: Before approving additional permanent citywide development rights, the City can first quantify the capacity already available under the General Plan, existing zoning, SB 79, Urban Villages, and applicable density bonuses; identify overlap among these categories; and distinguish theoretical zoning capacity from realistic development capacity.
Important Measurement Note
These capacity figures should not simply be added together. The station-area, MUC, and broader SB 79 parcel categories may overlap. A consolidated City analysis should use parcel-level GIS data to avoid double counting and should separately report existing capacity, state-law-added capacity, discretionary City-added capacity, and realistic development capacity.
Source documents: Potential Housing Capacity of 260 Mixed Use Commercial Sites in San José; SB 79 Density and Potential Housing Capacity in San José; San José SB 79: Three Station Areas.
1 San José Housing Element & HCD Compliance
Required vs. Discretionary Density, Housing Preservation, Affordable Housing & Displacement
Introduction
This report examines San José’s Housing Element and HCD compliance obligations in relation to proposed additional citywide density. It distinguishes requirements imposed by state law and the certified Housing Element from discretionary City policy choices; reviews P-11, P-35, P-38 and P-46; considers existing General Plan capacity and additional capacity created by SB 9 and SB 79; and evaluates Housing Element policies R-9 and R-12 concerning housing preservation and displacement. It also examines the City’s 2025 residential- development cost and feasibility findings, the higher costs and complexity associated with taller multifamily construction, the potential demolition of existing lower-cost and renter-occupied housing, displacement, and the difference between theoretical housing capacity and actual affordable-housing production. The report concludes with recommended questions and measurements Council should require before approving additional permanent citywide development rights.
The Central Questions for Council
How many existing homes—and particularly existing lower-cost and renter-occupied homes—could be demolished as a result of increased citywide development rights? How many residents could be displaced? How many deed-restricted affordable homes would actually replace those lost?
And equally important:
Which components of the proposed land-use changes are actually required by state law or San José’s certified Housing Element, and which are discretionary City policy choices?
Those are different questions and should be answered before permanent citywide development rights are approved.
2 Summary Conclusion — Measure Housing Loss
and Displacement, Not Just Housing Capacity
San José already has an HCD-certified Housing Element. Increased citywide density is not automatically required to maintain HCD compliance. The City’s continuing obligation is to implement the commitments in its certified Housing Element, maintain sufficient housing capacity, complete required implementation actions, and comply with applicable state housing laws. Any additional development rights beyond what those obligations require should be clearly identified as discretionary City policy and justified by demonstrated need.
Before approving a framework for additional permanent citywide development rights, San José should measure what housing it could lose—not simply how many theoretical units additional density could accommodate.
A policy can increase theoretical housing capacity while simultaneously encouraging demolition of existing lower-cost housing.
The appropriate measurements are therefore:
New housing produced existing housing demolished = net housing gain− and:
New affordable housing produced existing affordable/lower-cost housing − lost = net affordable-housing impact
A lower-cost rental home could be demolished and replaced with several market- rate units. That redevelopment would increase the City’s housing count, but it could simultaneously eliminate existing lower-cost housing, displace the current residents, and produce no deed-restricted affordable housing.
Displacement is not merely a future housing statistic: when an occupied home is demolished, the household must relocate immediately, and there is no guarantee the replacement housing will be affordable to them or that they will be able to return.
This is directly relevant to Housing Element R-9 (Housing Preservation Policy) and R-12 (Residential Anti-Displacement Strategy).
3 Construction Cost and Feasibility Must Also Be Measured The City’s own 2025 Cost of Residential Development Study adds an important economic constraint to this analysis. The study found that most higher-density market-rate housing product types were not financially feasible under the market conditions studied, while lower-density townhomes and stacked flats were the product types showing positive residual land values. City materials summarizing the study also report that direct construction costs account for approximately 69% of total development costs.
This matters when evaluating policies intended to encourage three-story-and- higher multifamily development. As projects become taller and more structurally complex, they can move into more expensive construction forms and face higher direct construction costs and financing burdens. Increasing allowable density therefore does not necessarily make housing economically feasible—or guarantee that the additional theoretical capacity will actually be built.
Council should measure not only theoretical unit capacity and potential housing loss, but also whether the housing form being encouraged can be built economically. A policy that creates more development rights while increasing redevelopment pressure on existing lower-cost homes could produce the worst combination: demolition and displacement without financially feasible replacement housing or deed-restricted affordable housing.
Important: Implementation Is Required —
Additional Changes Are Not Automatically
Required
San José already has an HCD-certified Housing Element. The City’s General Plan provides the underlying framework and capacity supporting that Housing Element. The immediate compliance obligation is to implement the commitments in the certified Housing Element and comply with applicable state housing laws—not automatically to adopt additional citywide density beyond those requirements.
HCD found San José’s adopted 2023–2031 Housing Element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law on January 29, 2024.
How HCD Addresses a Potential Compliance Problem
4 Loss of HCD compliance is not ordinarily the first step when HCD identifies a potential implementation problem. Under Government Code section 65585 and HCD’s published enforcement process, HCD generally provides notice and an opportunity for the jurisdiction to respond and correct the issue before compliance is revoked.
• Notice / inquiry. HCD may contact the City, request information, provide technical assistance, or issue a Notice of Inquiry or Notice of Potential Violation concerning a required Housing Element action. • Written findings and opportunity to respond. If HCD reviews an action or failure to act that may be inconsistent with the adopted Housing Element, it issues written findings and must provide the jurisdiction a reasonable period —no longer than 30 days—to respond before taking further action authorized by Government Code section 65585(i).
• Corrective action. HCD may issue a Notice of Non-Compliance or Corrective Action identifying the required remedy and warning that Housing Element compliance may be revoked if the problem is not corrected. If the City completes the corrective action, HCD can acknowledge the correction and close the matter.
• Decertification if unresolved. If the compliance problem is not corrected, HCD may revoke its prior finding of substantial compliance. The matter may also be referred to the California Attorney General.
• Recertification. If the jurisdiction later corrects the issue that resulted in decertification, HCD can restore its finding of Housing Element compliance.
This process is important to the present policy discussion: a potential future implementation concern does not mean Council must preemptively approve additional citywide density beyond the requirements of state law and the certified Housing Element. If HCD identifies a specific compliance deficiency, the City generally has notice of the issue and an opportunity to respond and take corrective action. Council can therefore require staff to identify the specific legal or Housing Element requirement at issue—and the minimum corrective action necessary—before treating broader discretionary density increases as necessary for HCD compliance.
That distinction is critical.
5 HCD Compliance Requires Implementation
San José must:
implement the programs and actions promised in its certified Housing Element;
complete required rezonings and other implementation actions; maintain sufficient sites and capacity to accommodate its RHNA; comply with applicable state housing laws; and
avoid subsequent actions that undermine the Housing Element or its required housing capacity.
Programs such as P-11, P-35, P-38 and P-46 therefore must be evaluated according to the commitments actually contained in those programs.
Compliance Does Not Automatically Require Additional Policy Expansion
The fact that San José must implement P-35 does not by itself mean that HCD requires every additional density level or geographic expansion proposed by City staff.
The appropriate distinction is:
IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTIFIED COMMITMENTS = REQUIRED
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS BEYOND THOSE COMMITMENTS = DISCRETIONARY, unless another state-law requirement applies This is particularly important because San José’s Housing Element was already certified based upon the City’s adopted Housing Element, General Plan framework, sites inventory, rezoning commitments and implementation programs.
The policy question should therefore not begin with:
“What additional density can San José authorize?”
It should begin with:
“What does San José already have authority and capacity to build, what does state law already allow, and what additional actions are actually necessary to implement the certified Housing Element?” 6 Only after answering those questions should Council consider whether additional discretionary citywide development rights are warranted.
The General Plan and Housing Element Should Be Used and Implemented
San José’s existing planning framework already directs substantial housing growth to Urban Villages, transit-oriented areas and other locations identified for development.
State law—including SB 9 and SB 79—adds additional development opportunities beyond the City’s traditional zoning framework.
P-35 adds another implementation commitment involving Small Multifamily housing and net-new capacity.
Before adding still more permanent development rights, the City should therefore:
Implement what is already approved.
Account for what state law already provides.
Measure actual housing production.
Measure affordable-housing production.
Measure demolition and displacement.
Determine whether an actual capacity shortfall remains.
Then decide whether additional discretionary density is necessary.
Key Finding
San José does not need additional citywide density merely to obtain Housing Element certification—it already has certification. What it must do is maintain compliance by implementing its certified Housing Element and applicable state housing laws. Any density beyond what is necessary for those obligations should be identified transparently as a discretionary City policy choice and evaluated on its own merits, impacts and demonstrated need.
7 1. Required by State Law/Housing Element
vs. Discretionary City Policy
San José’s Housing Element was certified by HCD on January 29, 2024.
The City must comply with applicable state housing laws and implement the programs upon which its certified Housing Element is based.
That does not mean every density proposal subsequently recommended by staff is required by HCD.
Council should separate four categories:
1. State laws that apply directly
These include laws such as SB 9 and SB 79, where qualifying development rights are established by state law.
2. Specific statutory Housing Element rezoning obligations Programs such as P-38 and P-46 identify particular rezoning actions tied to state Housing Element law.
3. Housing Element program commitments
P-35 Small Multifamily Housing is an important example. San José has committed to implementing this program and cannot simply disregard it.
4. Additional discretionary City policy choices
The particular densities, geographic boundaries and development standards San José chooses to adopt beyond what state law or the certified Housing Element specifically requires fall into this category.
2. What Is Actually Required?
Proposed Action Required? Analysis
Maintain and
implement the certified
Housing Element
YES This is San José’s
fundamental continuing
compliance obligation.
8 Proposed Action Required? Analysis
Maintain adequate
RHNA capacity
YES The City must preserve
adequate sites/capacity
and comply with
Housing Element Law.
Comply with SB 9 YES — State law Qualifying projects
receive rights provided
by state law.
Comply with SB 79 on
qualifying parcels
YES — State law Qualifying SB 79 projects
must be processed under
applicable state
standards.
Rezone approximately
40,000 potentially
affected SB 79 parcels
NO SB 79 can apply without
individual City rezoning
of every qualifying
parcel.
Adopt a San José SB 79
ordinance
OPTIONAL A jurisdiction may adopt
a compliant
implementing ordinance.
Adopt an SB 79 TOD
Alternative Plan
OPTIONAL State law permits an
alternative plan meeting
statutory requirements.
Implement P-35 Small
Multifamily Housing
YES — Housing Element
commitment
San José must
meaningfully implement
its certified program at 4
to 10 units. (SB9 and
SB10)
Meet P-35’s net-new-
capacity commitment
YES — Housing Element
implementation
commitment
City implementation
reporting identifies a
target of at least 20,000
units of net new
capacity.
Implement 4–10-unit
Small Multifamily
provisions consistent
with P-35
Housing Element
commitment
P-35 expressly describes
this housing form.
16 DU/acre throughout No specific state/HCD Local
9 Proposed Action Required? Analysis
Residential
Neighborhood areas
mandate identified implementation/policy
choice unless staff
identifies another
requirement.
24 DU/acre throughout
Residential
Neighborhood areas
No specific state/HCD
mandate identified
Same distinction.
32 DU/acre throughout
Residential
Neighborhood areas
No specific state/HCD
mandate identified
No reviewed provision
establishes this density
as an HCD requirement.
Study 16/24/32 DU/acre
alternatives
Not specifically
mandated by state law
The City must implement
P-35; these particular
density alternatives are
not themselves
prescribed by state law.
P-38 statutory rezoning YES Express
statutory/Housing
Element obligation.
P-46 low-income
shortfall rezoning
YES Express
statutory/Housing
Element obligation.
Additional citywide
density beyond
required
programs/capacity
DISCRETIONARY unless
another legal
requirement is
identified
Council should require
staff to identify any
claimed legal
requirement.
3. P-35 — What San José Actually Committed To
P-35 is part of San José’s certified Housing Element and therefore should not be characterized as purely optional.
It concerns Small Multifamily Housing, commonly referred to as Missing Middle housing, and describes housing of approximately 4–10 units, including locations in high-opportunity areas, areas adjacent to Urban Villages and residential areas along major streets.
10 P-35 includes feasibility analysis, possible incentives, design standards, Council consideration of land-use changes and a reported target of at least 20,000 units of net new capacity citywide.
Critical Distinction
San José must implement P-35.
But:
P-35 implementation is not automatically synonymous with approving every component of the proposed 16/24/32 DU/acre framework.
Council should require staff to identify:
What is the minimum land-use change necessary to fulfill P-35’s certified commitments, and which portions of the proposed framework exceed those requirements as discretionary City policy?
4. P-11, P-38 and P-46
P-11 — SB 9-Type Housing
P-11 concerns SB 9-type housing on specified additional properties, design standards and outreach.
P-38 — Statutory Rezoning
P-38 demonstrates how the Housing Element identifies a genuine statutory rezoning requirement through specific sites, statutory authority and required implementation.
P-46 — Low-Income Shortfall Rezoning
P-46 similarly addresses a specific statutory rezoning obligation related to low- income RHNA capacity.
These programs reinforce why Council should distinguish mandatory implementation from discretionary policy expansion.
11 5. SB 79 — Additional Capacity Without Citywide
Rezoning
SB 79 creates qualifying transit-oriented development rights under state law.
San José does not have to individually rezone every qualifying parcel before those rights can apply.
Before approving additional discretionary density, Council should therefore quantify:
Existing General Plan/zoning capacity
+ SB 9 capacity
+ SB 79 capacity
+ required P-35 capacity
= Total housing capacity already available or required
Only then should Council determine whether additional citywide density is necessary.
6. R-9 — Housing Preservation Policy
R-9 commits San José to housing preservation.
If additional development rights increase the financial incentive to demolish existing lower-cost housing, Council should determine how that effect is reconciled with R-9.
A development can produce more total housing while producing less affordable housing.
12 7. Displacement and Loss of Existing Lower-Cost
Housing
Increasing development rights can make occupied properties more attractive for redevelopment. An existing lower-cost home can be demolished and replaced with several higher-cost market-rate units. The City's total housing count may increase while an existing affordable or naturally lower-cost home is permanently lost.
Displacement happens immediately; replacement housing does not. A renter cannot remain in a home while it is being demolished and rebuilt. That household must find another place to live—potentially at a substantially higher rent, farther from work or school, or outside the neighborhood entirely. Even when more units eventually replace the demolished home, there is no assurance the displaced household will be able to afford or return to the new development.
This concern extends well beyond apartment buildings. San José renters also live in single-family homes, duplexes, ADUs, and other small residential properties. Protecting only conventional multifamily rental housing therefore fails to measure the full displacement risk created by citywide redevelopment. A renter displaced from a single-family home is still a displaced renter.
The scale of this issue is significant. U.S. Census Bureau 2020–2024 estimates report an owner-occupied housing rate of 55.8% in San José, meaning approximately 44.2% of occupied housing units are renter-occupied. With nearly half of occupied homes housing renters, displacement protections and analysis should not be limited to conventional apartment buildings. Citywide redevelopment policy can affect renters living in single-family homes and other small residential properties as well.
This is particularly important because the Housing Element contains both R-9, Housing Preservation Policy, and R-12, Residential Anti-Displacement Strategy. A policy that increases redevelopment incentives without first measuring the existing housing that could be lost may work against these preservation and anti-displacement objectives.
Before approving a framework for additional permanent citywide development rights, Council should require staff to determine:
• How many existing homes could become redevelopment candidates? 13 • How many are currently renter-occupied or naturally lower-cost? • How many households could be displaced?
• How many existing affordable or lower-cost homes could be demolished? • How many deed-restricted affordable homes would replace them? • How many displaced residents could realistically afford to return? The appropriate measure is not simply how many units could be built. It is the net result after demolition, affordability loss, and displacement are counted.
9. Affordable Housing Is Different From Housing
Capacity
Increasing development capacity does not necessarily produce affordable housing.
Council should separately measure:
Gross units constructed
Existing units demolished
Net housing production
Affordable units constructed
Existing lower-cost units lost
Net affordable-housing production
Residents displaced
Residents able to return
14 10. Recommended Council Action
Before approving a framework for additional permanent citywide development rights, require staff to provide a Required vs. Discretionary and Net Housing Impact Analysis addressing:
1. What does state law actually require?
2. What does the certified Housing Element actually require?
3. What does P-35 specifically require?
4. What portions of 16/24/32 DU/acre are discretionary?
5. What housing capacity already exists?
6. What capacity has SB 9 added?
7. What capacity has SB 79 added?
8. What additional capacity is required to implement P-35?
9. How many existing homes could be demolished?
10. How many are lower-cost?
11. How many are renter-occupied?
12. How many households could be displaced?
13. How many deed-restricted affordable homes would actually result?
14. What is the net affordable-housing gain or loss?
15. After accounting for all existing and state-created capacity, what demonstrated housing need requires additional permanent citywide density?
Final Conclusion
Implementation should come before expansion.
San José already has an HCD-certified Housing Element. The City’s obligation is to implement that certified Housing Element, maintain adequate housing capacity and comply with applicable state law.
That does not automatically require additional citywide density beyond those commitments.
Before expanding development rights further:
Use the General Plan. Implement the Housing Element. Account for SB 9 and SB 79. Implement P-35 to the extent required. Measure 15 actual production, affordability, demolition and displacement. Then determine whether additional citywide density is necessary.
Compliance requires implementation. Additional policy expansion requires justification.
August 18, 2026
Mayor Matt Mahan and Members of the San José City Council:
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
Re: Missing Middle Housing Framework: General Plan Four-Year Review Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:
The Housing Action Coalition (HAC), SPUR, and Catalyze SV , write to urge the San José City Council to adopt an ambitious, workable missing-middle housing framework as part of the General Plan Four-Year Review. This Council has already shown that it is willing to act boldly to address the housing crisis. In January, the City Council advanced incentive programs to reduce the costs of higher-density housing at a time when too few projects have been financially feasible; the City should bring that same urgency and ambition to removing barriers and facilitating missing middle housing citywide.We write today because the decisions before this Council, on density, setbacks, floor area ratio, corridor rezoning, and parking requirements, will determine whether San José's missing-middle program delivers real homes or remains largely aspirational.
Density: The Framework Needs a Higher Floor
We acknowledge that the staff's proposal of 32 dwelling units per acre aligns with Housing Element Strategy Policy P-35, and we appreciate that it reflects a genuine attempt to move the needle. But 32 du/acre is not enough to make most missing-middle projects financially viable, particularly given land costs, labor costs, and the financing environment in the South Bay. The Terner Center's Housing Policy Simulator makes clear that allowing at least six units per parcel, including in high-opportunity neighborhoods, is the threshold at which policy begins to meaningfully shift housing supply.
We were encouraged to hear Task Force members repeatedly call for a 40 du/acre minimum, and we urge the Council to adopt that floor or go further. Berkeley’s program goes a step further at 70 du/acre. A program that looks strong on paper but fails to generate viable projects will not address the affordability crisis driving residents and workers out of San José. Density must be high enough to make the math work.
Setbacks, Stepbacks, and Other Development Standards: Flexibility Over Uniformity We support staff's recommendation to look to Berkeley as a model for flexible setback standards, and we encourage the Council to adopt that approach. Rigid rear-yard setbacks, applied uniformly regardless of site conditions, adjacency, or actual impact, unnecessarily constrain
buildable area on infill lots. Where impacts are genuinely limited or site-specific, the framework should give developers and designers the flexibility to respond accordingly. Well-intentioned but overly uniform standards produce programs that appear strong on paper but deliver minimal housing in practice.
Floor Area Ratio: Adopt 1.25 and Keep It Simple
State law (Government Code section 65913.11) already requires cities to allow qualifying projects to achieve a FAR of at least 1.0 for projects with 3 to 7 units, and 1.25 for projects with 8 to 10 units. If San José chooses to regulate through FAR, the simplest and most effective approach is to adopt a uniform standard of 1.25 across missing-middle projects. Complex exemption structures and tiered standards create compliance burdens, discourage smaller builders, and open the door to uneven application. Clarity serves everyone: the city, developers, and the residents who ultimately benefit from new housing. We encourage the city to continue to prioritize density, as townhomes alone cannot be the only typology built because they are often low density and car-centric.
Winchester Corridor: Support Staff's Rezoning Recommendation We support staff's recommendation to rezone several parcels on the Winchester corridor to Urban Residential. This is especially important on parcels like 826 N Winchester that are able to accommodate significant numbers of new homes. On paper, planning policy can look good, but it is essential to be guided by real world conditions that are likely to bring our Housing Element to its stated housing production goals. Furthermore, carving out exemptions on a case-by-case basis based on neighborhood opposition is a poor process and exactly how San José and other California cities have gotten into the severe housing shortage we are currently addressing with the help of City Staff's well-informed recommendations. The next generation and current families struggling to find a place to live deserve an opportunity to live on the Winchester Corridor.
Parking Minimums: Don't Bring Them Back
San José’s Council voted unanimously in 2022 to eliminate parking minimums citywide, aligning parking policy with Climate Smart San José and the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, in recognition that the old standards were an obstacle to housing production and affordability and undermined the City's climate and transportation goals. San José should not bring back parking minimums because they drive up construction costs and reduce the number of homes that pencil out financially, at a time when the city needs more housing at every income level, not less. Parking requirements also work against San José's own transit and climate goals by forcing car infrastructure onto sites near light rail and frequent bus lines, even where residents may not need or want a car. On top of that, reinstating minimums would add unnecessary complexity back into a permitting process the city has spent years trying
to streamline, slowing down the very housing production San José needs to address its affordability crisis. We encourage you to accept staff’s expertise and continue to let the market dictate needs, rather than artificially determine it.
San José has a genuine opportunity here. A missing-middle framework with sufficient density, flexible setbacks, a clear FAR standard, thoughtful corridor rezoning, and no return to parking minimums can close the affordability gap between deeply subsidized housing and a $2 million home and expand access to the high-opportunity neighborhoods where this city's future growth should be concentrated. We urge the Council to be bold.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ali Sapirman
Advocacy and Policy Manager
Housing Action Coalition
Lori Droste
Housing and Planning Policy Director
SPUR
Alex Shoor
Executive Director
Catalyze SV
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
SV@Home
Matt Savage
Teresa Do
San José Yimby Leads