Letters from the Public - 12 of 14 — San Jose City Council, August 18, 2026

Outlook
Fw: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 2:51 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535 -12 60
Fax:408 -292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Mary Forcier
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:51 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Mary S.B.

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< httP-s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don 't often get email from
httP-s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear Mayor and city council:

Learn why this is important at
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 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 change - not otherwise mandated by the state - should 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 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,
Mary Forcier
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
Fw: Missing Middle Housing
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 2:58 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St ., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Justine
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:53 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Missing Middle Housing
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP-s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
httP-s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Regarding rezoning for Almaden Valley:

Learn why this is important at
No parking requirements - This adds minimum of 2 cars per each living space. No parking off street? That means cars parked at the curbs. Take a drive down Nancarrow between Desert Flame and Firefly during the evening or weekend and get a feel for what that means for street parking. These are single family homes with children who are now driving and have cars. It's crowded . That would be every street in the neighborhood .

Schools- More children suddenly in schools leads to overcrowding of classrooms. Any plans to address that?
Power and Water- Almaden Valley and the surrounding area already have occasional loss of power. Has the increase in power usage been considered? More condensed housing increases water use and sewage use. Is this being addressed?
With increased traffic and parking on street, safety of pedestrians comes into play, particularly children and seniors. Is this being considered? Use of stop signs, crosswalks would be needed.

There are many issues to consider when changing rezoning in any neighborhood that I haven’t heard about yet.

Justine Consiglio
Registered Voter
City Taxpayer
28 Year Resident
Sent from my iPhone
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 8/17/2026 2:59 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax:408 -292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: dave garcia
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:42 PM
To: Mahan, Matt
Cc: 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< httP-s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don 't often get email from
httP-s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear Mayor Mahan,
Learn why this is important at
I am writing to object with the San Jose proposal to increase housing units to 32 units per acre.

Apparently this proposal does not provide additional parking in the design, which is horribly wrong. have personally witnessed high density housing without regard to parking , and it creates a permanent problem for residents.

I implore you to rethink this proposal design, place the necessary parking infrastructure into it and then move forward.

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.

Outlook
FW: Please vote NO on the Missing Middle General Plan amendments on August 18, 2026.

From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/ 17/ 2026 4:00 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Gia Brown
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: Ortiz, Peter
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Please vote NO on the Missing M iddle General Plan amendments on 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 imgortant Dear Councilmember 0~
Vote NO on the Missing Middle General Plan amendments on August 18, 2026.

While we support addressing San Jose's housing needs, this proposal raises concerns about increased density, parking and traffic impacts, loss of tree canopy, added strain on infrastructure, and reduced opportun ities for neighborhood input.

It is particularly troubling that, once adopted, these changes may be difficult to revisit despite the ir potential to permanently alter the character of single fami ly neighborhoods.

These significant cityw ide changes should not move forward without stronger safeguards, proper infrastructure planning, and meaningful community engagement.

Please vote NO on the proposal in its current form and ensure residents have a voice before these broad changes are adopted.

Sincerely,
Dan and Gia Brown
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 as 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:02 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Sujata ramna rayan
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 city council agenda as 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from
Dear council members,
. Learn why th is is im12ortant
I urge you to vote against/ modify the proposed item to build multi housing units on any residential plot. This goes beyond any state or other city proposal. We have invested in our house so we can have the environment we desire and I do not want a 3 or five story building next door that blocks the sun and creates congestion in the street and changes the look of my neighborhood and the value of my property. While I think it is okay to propose such changes in commercial zones (with multi use complexes) , current residential neighborhoods should be allowed to retain their character.

Thank you and I hope you will take tge right decision that is reasonable.

Sujata
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: General Plan 4 year Review - Public Comment
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:02 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Brent Van Bracklin
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: District 6
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: General Plan 4 year Review - Public Comment
[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 Hello Council Members,
I was a resident at Miro and recently moved to Vespaio on July 31, right on The Alameda. I am reaching out to both of your offices because you have represented, or currently represent, my interests in San Jose's future.

I am writing to express my support for the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the City's single-family zoning regulations to allow much-needed missing middle housing.

As someone who lives in San Jose and cares deeply about its future, I believe we need more housing options for people at all stages of life. Missing middle housing can help create starter homes, rental opportunities, and downsizing options for older adults while fitting into existing neighborhoods.

Expanding these housing choices is an important step toward addressing our housing sho11age and improving affordability.

I encourage the City Council to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow missing middle housing at up to 32 units per acre citywide and avoid imposing new parking requirements that would increase costs and discourage small-scale housing production.

To summarize, I respectfully ask that the Council:
• Keep the density limit at 32 homes per acre and move forward without delaying implementation for additional study.
• Allow missing middle housing citywide rather than limiting it to select areas. • Reject new parking requirements or other regulations that would make these homes more expensive or difficult to build.

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

San José needs more homes, and this policy change is a practical way to expand housing opportunities while preserving neighborhood character. I urge you to support the Planning Commission's recommendation and make a decision that will benefit current and future residents alike.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

This email reflects my pers
onal views only and does not represent the position of my employer.

Best Regards,
Brent Van Brocklin (he/him)
VTA Project Manager, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) MRED+D '24, LEED Green Associate, CAPM

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/ 2026 4:02 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Sue
Sent: Mon
Cohen, •
, Pa
han,
Pam
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
Council members ,
. Learn whY. this is imgortant
I am absolutely opposed to your housing proposal plan to allow 3-story apartment buildings with 16+ units on any residential lot - no on-site parking, reduced setbacks and no public hearings , input and/or commission and council votes. This is outrageous. Reject this framework and protect local community input and quality of life in San Jose. Your top taxpayers will revolt and leave the city if you insist on destroying it - vote no to reject this plan.

Regards ,
Sue Bozzini
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/ 2026 4:03 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Fernand Forcier<~
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 3:40 PM
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
Dear Mayer and city council:
. Learn why this is imP-ortant
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.

Quadrupl ing the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-w ide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback, is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabr ic of our San Jose neighborhoods. SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkab le, unpopu lar or ineffect ive. Permanent and far-reaching zoning change - not otherwise mandated by the state - should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in the futu re.

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

Respectfully,
Fernand N. Forcier Jr.

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

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:03 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Saranya V
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meetin g [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 imi;iorta nt Dear Councilmember ~
My name is Saranya Venkateswaran. I live on
I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up zoning proposal tomorrow. This 'by-right' multiple-unit zoning will destroy our single-family neighborhood character, add massive traffic overflow from Santana Row, and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements. Please protect the interior blocks of Lynnhaven and vote against this permanent rezoning.

Thank you.

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

Outlook
FW: NO on Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:03 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Roger
Sent: Monday, A g s
To: City Clerk Dist rict 6
Subject: NO on 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 imr;1ortant Mayor Mahan and Mem~Jose City Council:

Please vote NO on item 10.3. You're pulling the rug out from under everyone who expected the city to honor its zoning commitments. Would it now be possible to rezone the lot next to mayor Mahan's house for a sewage treatment plant that he has no say in or compensation for? This is a disaster for our quality of life. Plenty of large old industrial sites that can be targeted for high density housing.

This is a make or brake issue for my support of any candidate.

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 8/17/2026 4:03 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Robin Bates-Pualuan
Sent: Monday, August 17, 20
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-orta nt Dear Mayor Mahan and San Jose City Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge you to oppose Agenda Item 10.3 and to reconsider any policy that would fundamentally change the character of San Jose's established single-family neighborh oods.

I support responsible housing development in San Jose. We need more housing, and I believe there are many appropriate places for additional density. But increasing housing supply should not require effectively eliminating single-family neighborhoods as a meaningful category of residential zoning.

San Jose's established neighborhoods are an important part of the city's character and livability. They provide stability for families, predictable neighborhood environments, mature landscaping, open space, and a sense of community that cannot simply be recreated through zoning . Residents who purchased homes in these neighborhoods did so with reasonable expectations about the surrounding land-use framework.

I am particularly concerned about policies that would allow substantially greater density on individual lots throughout existing single-family neighborhoods without adequately considering the cumulative impact on neighborhood character, traffic, parking, infrastructure, privacy, trees, and the scale of surrounding homes.

There is a significant difference between allowing some thoughtful, compatible fo1ms of additional housing and fundamentally changing the underlying zoning expectations for hundreds of established neighborhoods . The latter deserves much more careful consideration than simply treating every residential parcel as an opportunity for maximum additional density.

San Jose can pursue housing goals while still preserving meaningful areas oflower-density residential development. We should be looking for ways to add housing where it makes the most sense-near transit, commercial coITidors, major streets, and existing or planned higher-density development-rather than This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. placing the burden of regional housing policy disproportionately on established residential neighborhoods.

I respectfully ask the Council to vote NO on Agenda Item 10.3 and to pursue a more balanced approach that increases housing opportunities while preserving the character and stability of San José’s existing neighborhoods.

Thank you for considering my concerns and for your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Robin Bates Pualuan

Outlook
FW: City Council Agenda Item 10.3 (August 18, 2026) - OPPOSE proposal to increase residential density up to 32 units per acre, in single-family neighborhood s throughout San Jose From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:03 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Karen Nelson <knelson@pacificmed ia.com>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 3:26 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 10.3 (August 18, 2026) - OPPOSE proposal to increase residential density up to 32 units per acre, in single-family neighborhoods throughout San Jose [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I oppose the proposal to increase residential density up to 32 units per acre, in single family neighborhoods throughout San Jose. Over time, this will have a devastating impact on the character and livability of our single-family neighborhoods.

And I really want to know why this has NOT had adequate public awareness building, for public input before it reached the council for approval?
There is no reason to adopt this proposal , given the viable alternatives to adequately create sufficient housing that support the state's housing requirements for San Jose. We are in a historical shift in how technolog y and other types of industry utilize their employees to support their labor objectives. Have you driven through North San Jose and seen how many one story have FOR LEASE signs? Conversion to residential is already happening in these areas and continued , managed conversion , done appropriately will not negatively impact San Jose's economic future . The jobs/housing imbalance can be better improved by strategically locating new housing in areas like North San Jose, in marginal commercial areas adjacent to downtown San Jose and in corridors that are well served by rail and rapid transit that run through these areas.

If developers are allowed to demolish a house and replace it with up to a three-story building (16 housing units) along with NO parking ; injected in any location within current single home neighborhoods , this will significantlY. increase traffic, narrow the drivabili!Y. of streets with increased numbers of P-arked cars, increase noise levels and dramaticallY. reduce the safetY. of our children that walk to school and other locations . Plus, home P-rivacY. could be significantly impacted by these taller than typical buildings , among other negative impacts.

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

Most people still rely on and have automobiles. If the city permits multi-rise, multi-family developments with no parking, then we’ll likely experience around 10 to 25 or more additional cars on the neighborhood streets near each of these multi-family developments. This may result in NO or extremely reduced street parking for the neighboring homes. Our house values may actually decline as well, as the neighborhoods with embedded high-rise buildings dramatically create these very visible livability issues. It is clear that this proposal can have a devastating impact on the current livability of many neighborhoods.

Please vote NO on this proposal and ask the planning commission to revise the plan revisions to eliminate the proposal to embed multi-story development inside our single-family neighborhoods.

Karen Nelson
District 6 resident

Outlook
FW: Strongly Against Your 'Missing Middle' Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:04 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Brian C
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 3:23 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
. . .

Subject: Strongly Against Your 'M issing M iddle' Proposal 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 imP-ortant Mayor Mahan and San Jo~
This is in regards to the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework. Although San Jose needs additional housing, but broadly increasing density within established residential neighborhoods is not 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.

D With no on-site parking required, additional 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.

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 smTounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules are sweepingly changed for everyone in this city. Housing policy should add housing thoughtfully while respecting the people and neighborhoods already here. This would devastate and reduce the quality of life in many of San Jose's neighborhoods; I urge you not to advance a blanket citywide approach and to pursue more targeted housing This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. solutions with meaningful neighborhood input. Please vote NO on advancing this proposal. Thank you,
Brian Crowell

Outlook
FW: City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:05 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Mara Zlotoff <zloto~
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 3:08 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: 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 We are long-time San ~nd voters. We are writing in opposition to the proposed changes to the City of San Jose Envision 2040 plan which includes language that would allow for properties Zoned R-1-8 to have a density that is inappropriate to residential neighborhoods, including Thousand Oaks.

We are particularly concerned about the implications of expanding the language in this plan as to the now newly-vacant Terrell Elementary School site.

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

Outlook
FW: "General Plan Four-Year Review Policy - "Missing Middle" housing proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:06 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Carol Couper
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: "General Plan Four-Year Review Policy- "Missing Middle" housing 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 Dear City Clerk,
I am ve1y concerned about this housing proposal allowing three-st01y, multi-unit housing in single family zones city wide with no provision for parking accommodations for these strnctures. Also, these has not been any consideration for revisions of roads to accommodate the excessive amounts of traffic in this city or adding alternative transportat ion as it is without adding more housing. I am not opposed to additional housing but there has not been consideration of these added problems.

Sincerely Yours,
Carol Couper
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 8/17/2026 4:06 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Varun Bedi
Sent: Monday, Aug s
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. 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.

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.

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

Respectfully,
Varun Bedi

Outlook
FW: Please vote NO on the Missing Middle General Plan amendments on August 18, 2026 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/ 17/ 2026 4:06 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Gia Brown
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: Mahan, Matt
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Please vote NO on the Missing M iddle General Plan amendments on August 18, 2026 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from
Dear Mayor Mahan,
. Learn whY. this is imgortant
Vote NO on the Missing Middle General Plan amendments on August 18, 2026.

It is particularly troubling that, once adopted, these changes may be difficult to revisit despite the ir potential to permanently alter the character of single fami ly neighborhoods.

These significant cityw ide changes should not move forward without stronger safeguards, proper infrastructure planning, and meaningful community engagement.

Please vote NO on the proposal in its current form and ensure residents have a voice before these broad changes are adopted.

Sincerely,
I . I .. • • .. : • ' I
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Letter in support of Staff General Plan Recommendations From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:07 PM
To Agendadesk
From: David Naczycz
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Subject: Letter in support of Staff General Plan Recommendations [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 today to su~ral plan recommendations for increasing housing density throughout the city. I am an urban economic development consultant and in my work, I am seeing more and more how a lack of housing options can severely depress the prosperity of localities. Opponents today may be speaking from their narrow self interest, but you, the elected officials, must take into account the needs of the city as a whole. From my professional perspective, following your Planning Staffs recommendations densifying all zoning classifications including the Winchester Corridor, not restoring parking minimums and the rest, is the right path forward .

More housing equals more opportunity, businesses can hire more easily, communities become healthier and more walkable, I have seen this time and time again. San Jose is experiencing a housing and cost of living crisis. These recommendations are the absolute minimum that is required to adequately address that crisis.

Thank you for your consideration.

David Naczycz
San Jose Resident
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Please vote NO on the Missing Middle General Plan amendments on August 18, 2026 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/ 17/ 2026 4:08 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Gia Brown
Sent: Monday, August
To: Kamei, Rosemary
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Please vote NO on the Missing M iddle General Plan amendments on 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 imgortant Dear Councilmember ~
Vote NO on the Missing Middle General Plan amendments on August 18, 2026.

It is particularly troubling that, once adopted, these changes may be difficult to revisit despite the ir potential to permanently alter the character of single fami ly neighborhoods.

These significant cityw ide changes should not move forward without stronger safeguards, proper infrastructure planning, and meaningful community engagement.

Please vote NO on the proposal in its current form and ensure residents have a voice before these broad changes are adopted.

Sincerely,
Dan and Gia Brown
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Agenda item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:08 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Kathi Cambiano
Sent: Monday, Auoust 17, 2026
To: City Clerk
Subject: 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 ]
To the Mayor and Councilmembers,
Learn why this is important at
I am beyond shocked to read that you are proposing a change in the residential density of ALL neighborhoods in San Jose. Staggering heights of up to 35 ft would drastically alter the character of neighborhoods . An influx of that many people per lot in each block potentially can have serious impacts to aging infrastructure! Would developers be obligated to make upgrades? The impacts on parking will be significant. Right now I live next to people that have 4 cars, can you imagine how many cars there would be if that lot was subdivided according to these new rules? Now let's consider privacy, I like mine.

If I had a 35' unit next to me I would lose all my privacy.

As far as I'm concerned, this is all about developers and realtors making money under the guise of "affordable housing" which never turns out to be affordable.

Sincerely,
Kathi Cambiano
Dist. 6 resident
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Reject Item Agenda Item Number (10.3) as it is currently outlined - blanket/ sweeping changes to our communities without regard to how they are working now is not the answer to addressing missing middle housing.

From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:08 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Erika Murphy
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: Mahan, Matt
Dis
istrict 10
City Cler
Cc: Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga
Subject: Reject Item Agenda Item Number (10.3) as it is currently outlined - blanket/sweeping changes to our communities without regard to how they are working now is not the answer to addressing missing middle housing.
[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-members,
The City's proposed housing policy changes-paiti cularly the plan to allow "small multifamily" or "missing middle" housing on virtually any residential lot in San Jose-are deeply concerning. The proposal appears to disregard the character of established neighborhoods and the significant effects such sweeping changes could have on existing communities and infrastructure.

This proposal goes far beyond state housing mandates. No other city in Santa Clara County appears to be pursuing such broad and pe1manent upzoning , and San Jose should not move f01ward without fully evaluating and publicly addressing the consequences.

As currently proposed, the policy appears to pe1mit three-st01y multifamily buildings containing as many as 32 dwelling units on virtually any residential lot, while drastically reducing setbacks, eliminating or This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. minimizing parking requirements, and providing insufficient protections for neighborhood compatibility.

The additional vehicles alone, without parking requirements, could have a dramatic negative effect on the safety, livability, and quality of life of our neighborhood streets.

The proposal also does not appear to adequately account for the infrastructure improvements that this level of density would require, including upgrades to electrical service, water and sewer systems, roadways, emergency services, and other public facilities. These impacts—and the question of who will pay for them—must be thoroughly evaluated before any permanent policy is adopted.

There is no question that San José must find responsible ways to address its housing shortage. However, housing policy must be developed thoughtfully and comprehensively, with consideration for every piece of the puzzle. Increasing housing supply should not come at the expense of public safety, adequate infrastructure, neighborhood compatibility, or the quality of life of the residents and communities already here.

I urge the City Council not to approve this sweeping proposal in its current form. The City should instead conduct meaningful community outreach, complete a transparent assessment of neighborhood and infrastructure impacts, and develop a more balanced housing strategy that adds housing responsibly while protecting the communities that make San José a desirable place to live.

Sincerely,
Erika Murphy
San Jose, CA 95120

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:20 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Rick Slater
Sent: Monday, Aug s
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
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 Some people who received this message don't often get email from Dear Mr. Mayor and San Jose City Council members;
. Learn whY. th is is im12ortant
I am a long-time resident of San Jose. I am absolutely opposed to allowing any apartment dwellings to be build on 'residential lots' in San Jose! This will degrade our neighborhoods for many reasons, including inadequate parking, traffic congestion, and 'vie w' impediments for existing homeowners.

I urge you all to vote 'NO' !! !!
Richard Slater
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 2026 4:27 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Debbi Funk
To: District1
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting [Extern al 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 Dear Councilmember Kame1,
I live in District 1. I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning proposal tomorrow.

With the El Paseo and Costco projects (which were strnngly opposed by the adjoin ing neighborhoods) already bringing heavy density and traffic to our immediate borders, our quiet interior resident ial blocks cannot handle additional multi-unit zoning. This pe1manent "by-right" rnle will destroy our single-family neighbo rhood character and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements . Our cul-de-sac already has limited residential parking due to the relaxation of ADU construct ion rnles which should be enough . This plan doesn't seem well thought out and lacks transparency and consideration for the neighborhoos where we raised our families and invested to live in our single family homes by choice (not condos or apartments).

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

Respectfully yours, Debbi and Greg Fun
San Jose, CA
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.

From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:27 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Ben Guzman
Sent: Monday, Auous
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 ]
San Jose City Planning,
Learn why this is important at
I am writing to voice my opposition to the adoption of the changes to zoning of single family neighborhoods that will greatly increase the number of residential units per parcel. This proposal, like the state mandate prompting it, is not well thought out and will result in devastating the city both in quality of life and financially. Yes, the housing crisis will be solved .. no one will want to live here.

Ben Guzman
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 8/17/2026 4:27 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Brooke Sylvester
Sent: Monday, August 17,
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mu lcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - 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 imP-ortant Hi,
We bought in Cory because we want a single family house type of neighborhood. If we wanted to live among high rises and more congestion we would live in downtown SJ or SF.

Since living here for 14 years, the congestion and urban blight gets worse eve1y year. Finding parking to do simple grocery shopping is a nightmare! The quality of life is diminishing due to strained infrastructure & services, and this is why people are leaving CA.

Do any of you want up to a 16 unit apa1tment on either side of your house? I highly doubt it.

I strongly oppose the by right, pe1manent, in-eversible, city-wide, up-zoning proposal which exceeds state mandates.
-Brooke Sylvester
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Housing
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:32 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Gwyneth Anne Freedman
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 4:2
To: City Clerk
Subject: Housing
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear San Jose City Council,
. Learn whY. this is imgortant
I would like to please cast my vote to *NOT INCREASE* the housing density in our city and neighborhoods.

It feels that we have reached and exceeded the threshold for:
- finding parking,
- dealing with traffic,
- having to wait through multiple lights to get through an intersection, - need to be mindful of water availability,
- power infrastmcture capacity,
- the bandwidth of our medical system and availability to see doctors, get tests, etc. - the bandwidth of our police, fire depa11tnents and other emergency workers - the wear and tear of our roads and other infrastructure - adding concrete and reducing trees adds to the already heating climate.

Basically San Jose is getting that "crowded rat cage" feeling with more tension, anger and fmstration . Our quality of life is being significantly negatively impacted when decisions are made to add more people.

As your goal seemed to be to decrease the cost of housing, perhaps you are happy to know that the value of our home has plummeted about 20% in the last year or so. This of course does not make us happy.

Let's please agree, that enough is enough.

Thank you for considering my perspective.

Sincerely,
Gwyneth Anne Freedman
Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council - Item 10.3 - Support for Planning Staff Recommendations From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 5:02 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Jonathan Sheng <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 4:52 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council - Item 10.3 - Support for Planning Staff Recommendations [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 San Jose City Co~
I am writing as an individual to express my support for all of the Planning staff recommendations under Item 10.3, the General Plan Four-Year Review, including the recommendation for the Winchester Corridor. I grew up in Milpitas, and I understand how important it is for people to have the option to live closer to family, jobs , transit, and the communities they already know. Thoughtful housing growth in the Winchester Corridor can help create that option while supporting a walkable, connected area of San Jose. I encourage the City Council to support all of Planning staffs recommendations and to continue planning for more housing in locations that are well served by jobs, services, and transportation .

Sincerely,
Jonathan Sheng
Writing as an individual
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 8/17/2026 5:02 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Ant hony Picard
Sent: Monday, August
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 Some people who received this message don't often get email from Dear Mayor and city counci l:
. Learn whY. this is im12ortant
I am writing to OPPOSE the planning comm ission recommenda tion to amend the 4-year general plan, as descr ibed in agenda item 10.3 of the Aug ust 18 council age nda.

Quadru pling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre , city-wide, eliminat ing any possibility for comm unity review or feedback, is a drastic and irreversible change to the comm unity fa bric of our San Jose neigh borhoods. SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkab le, unpopular or ineffective. Permane nt and far-reaching zoning changes - not otherwise manda ted by the state- should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The pro posal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requiremen t for onsite parking, this recommenda tion will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cove r in rapidly heating neigh borhoods, further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and othe r city resources.

Respectf ully,
Anthony Picard
CA 95117
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Opposition to: Tues. Aug. 18, 2026 Meeting Agenda #26-852 General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 5:02 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Marcella Brown ing
Sent: Monday, August 17, 20
To: Mahan, Matt
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Opposition to: Tues. Aug. 18, 2026 Meeting Agenda #26-852 General Plan Task Force M issing M iddle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel NO, NO, NO. EVERY ASPECT of this proposal is horrendous. Just abort this plan, now. Do not waste a breath of your time , nor a penny of our taxes on advancing this.

A four or more unit residential rental building requires an on-site property manager. This is a clue to what the proposal to expand the state's mandate constitutes. Having eliminated all parking requirements prior to building out a viable public transit system is just begging for serious conflict among residents. If each unit has two adult drivers on average, a quarter acre parcel could have 32 or more vehicles. Other concerns include, but are not limited to:

Water supply,
Energy supply,
Traffic,
Waste management/ landfill
Complete disruption or inhalation of the reasons people purchased SFR properties in San Jose. The recent sudden vast changes have betrayed the current property owners.

More tax payers are leaving SJ and taking their assets with them. The number of houses for sale throughout SJ is tremendous. This proposal is the last straw for a multiple generation hold-out to whom I shared this proposal. In the same short conversation, one of her siblings told me the other siblings and their families will leave if the initial one sells her house. How many similar families are ready to ditch San Jose?
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

INSTEAD of expanding housing requirements, please require data centers to conserve water annual consumption per center to less than one gallon, and electricity super low as well. I’ll send a separate message of a man who built, r
etained, and operates

Outlook
FW: City Council item 10.3 on August 18 - citywide density increase will hurt the city - VOTE NO From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 5:02 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Chris Wilde
Sent: Monday, Au
District 1
Subject: City Council item 10.3 on August 18 - citywide density increase will hurt the city - 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 im12ortant Dear Mayor Mahan an~
I am a 40-year San Jose resident and long-time homeowner. I urge you to vote NO on a blanket upzoning of single family parcels across the city. This process has been done without any meaningful engagement with the residents who be forever affected by it since the decision can't be unmade per state rules. The result will also be harmful to the city in many ways. It will activately work against many of the policies the city has been working on to make San Jose a better place for current and future residents and businesses. A few examples:

Jobs-to-housing balance:

San Jose will continue to be the bedroom to the rest of the region, further diluting the city's tax base and making it even harder for the city to provide services to residents.

Vehicle miles:

The city has been trying to reduce VMT for years for many very sound reasons. Unchecked and unplanned development in any possible location will increase driving, commute times, pollution, and congestion.

Traffic safety and vision zero:

Families with children forced to walk several blocks home due to a lack of parking will be exposed to more traffic, increasing risk of collisions. Residents searching for parking will be distracted behind the wheel, putting children in more danger.

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

Lack of engagement with residents:

San Jose residents should not have to absorb a regional problem. The issue requires much more thought, analysis, and engagement. I strongly urge the city council to reject any efforts to upzone properties in one sweeping motion. The current general plan has many thoughtful strategies to help San Jose grow to 400,000 more residents. This plan went through a rigorous engagement process. The current proposal has not. This change will affect hundreds of thousands of people n San Jose. How many of them have had any real input along the way or even know about this?

Residents investments:

People in San Jose have invested a great deal into living here. This proposal could severely undercut residents investments with no guarantee of anything positive in return.

Many others have pointed out that the city did an analysis showing that this type of policy won't work, so why move forward on something so drastic and damaging when it's not required by the state and we already have a sound general plan?

Sincerely,

Christian Wilder
District 6
40 year resident

Outlook
FW: Vote NO on "Missing Middle"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 5:02 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Leslie Rearte
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: Vote NO on " 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 imr2ortant Dear Office of the City er ,
I am writing to strongly 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 1 O units, a substantial change from the existing development pattern of many neighborhoods.

My concerns:
1 . Significantly increasing allowable density can fundamentally change the character and scale of established residential neighborhoods.

2. Adding substantially more households should require careful consideration of the cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood services.

3. 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 the concerns of the people.

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

Best regards,
Leslie

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Meeting Upzoning
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 5:03 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Jeff Fisher
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 5:03 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
. . .

Subject: August 18 City Council Meeting Upzoning
strictl
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't ofte n get email from Greetings, Mayor Mahan and Council Members
. Learn whY. this is im12ortant
In general, I support the positions advocated by the Concerned Cory Neighbors in opposition to the upzoning recommendations of the Planning Commission.

Specifically, regarding the recommendation to increase the allowable density of Residential Neighborhoods by 4X:

I am strongly opposed to making this change citywide. I recognize the motivation to add so-called "missing middle" zoning; however, I think such additions should be focused, for instance in areas specifically planned for growth in Envision San Jose 2040. Allowing isolated 3-story structures to be located randomly in any established single-story residential neighborhood is a poor way to increase density. Furthermore, I think that minimum parking requirements and maximum land usage requirements should be retained in any higher density zoning.

Specifically, regarding the Winchester Corridor: I support staff's recommendation to conduct a site-by-site review of the 18 parcels in question . The Planning Commision's 50/50 split clearly shows lack of consensus with the proposal as is. As a resident of Cory neighborhood, I can attest that traffic and parking spillover are already serious issues, and I believe that more careful consideration of impacts on the Cory neighborhood is needed.

Sincerely,
Jeff Fisher
Resident of District 6, Cory Neighborhood
Jeff Wesl ey Fishe r, PhD, PE
Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywid e Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 5:03 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messa e----
From: Savita Sinha
Sent: Monday, Auous
To: District1 <
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 Council Meeting [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< htt12s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
htt12s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear Council Member Kamei,
Learn why this is important at
I live on Clarendon Drive in District 1. I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning proposal tomorrow.

With the ongoing and planned EIPaseo and Costco projects already bringing heavy density and traffic to our neighborhoods, our quiet residential blocks cannot handle additional multi -unit zoning.

This permanent "by-right " rule will destroy our single-family neighborhood character, overwhelm our schools, and flood our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements .

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

Respectfully yours,
Savita Sinha
Outlook
FW: Voting tomorrow SJC new housing laws
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 5:04 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Kimberly Young <
Sent: Monday, Auoust 17, 2026
To: Ortiz, Peter
Anthony
Kamei, R
Casey, G
Doming Doan, Bien <
Michael City Clerk
Subject: Voting tomorrow SJC new housing laws
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< htt12s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
htt12s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Completely opposed to this!!
This is awful.

Learn why this is important at
There is already enough unwanted housing going up on Alum Rock Ave.

Please do not pass this.

Kimberly Young
Sent from my iPhone
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 8/17/2026 5:04 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Jo Kawanami
Sent: Monday, Auqus
To: District9 <
Mahan, Matt City Clerk
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 more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
Dear City Council Member,
The new General plan that includes Missing Middle Housing rezones suburban areas is an egregious idea for families and residents! Why? Building 3-story homes with 12 + units in standard residential lots is insane. Not only because it is not a well thought idea most city planners and council members would be proud of, but because you already have General Plan 2040 that addresses the need for housing. Why put in housing that doesn't include parking, increased electric/water/gas needs and safety concerns for our children and neighbors? That is utter foolishness and very shortsighted.

This is not a workable solution for residents in San Jose. We love our city. Please fight for our residents and put us first and not state mandates.

Sent from my iPad
Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 5:04 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Christine Klenk
Sent: Monday, Auoust
To: District1 <
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 Council Meeting [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 ]
Dear Council Member Kamei,
I live on Clarendon Drive in District 1.

Learn why this is important at
I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning proposal tomorrow.

With the ongoing and planned EIPaseo and Costco projects already bringing heavy density and traffic to our neighborhoods, our quiet residential blocks cannot handle additional multi -unit zoning.

This permanent "by-right" rule will destroy our single-family neighborhood character, overwhelm our schools, and flood our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements.

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

Please feel free to call me if you wish to discuss this matter.

Best,
Christine Klenk
Outlook
FW: Public Comment for Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 5:02 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Matt Savage
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment for Item 10.3
Leora Tanjuatco Ross
District3
District 6
District9
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel San Jose
San Jose YIMBY
San Jose, CA
August14,2 026
Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers,
YIMBY
We are writing on behalf of San Jose YIMBY regarding Item 10.3 from Tuesday's General Plan 4-Year Review. Thank you for your ongoing work to guide San Jose's future, and we are generally supportive of Staff's approach. We are concerned, however, that reducing This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. planned density and reinstating parking minimums in key neighborhoods will limit the city’s ability to respond effectively to our housing crisis.

These areas were chosen because they already have strong infrastructure, transit access, and existing parking. Restricting density or adding new parking requirements undermines the purpose of utilizing that existing parking to support more homes. These new parking requirements will make building more expensive, making it more difficult for San Jose residents to find a place to live. If we fail to take advantage of these opportunities, San José will lose critical housing capacity where it’s most practical to build.

This has direct consequences for the people who help San José thrive. Essential workers, including firefighters, teachers, nurses, and other service workers, already face long commutes and rising housing costs. When these workers cannot afford to live in the communities they serve, the city loses the stability and reliability that residents depend on.

Families and young couples also struggle to stay near their loved ones, and seniors who rent face growing vulnerability. Many seniors who rent live on fixed incomes and risk being priced out of neighborhoods they’ve called home for years. Their displacement weakens the community ties and support networks that make neighborhoods strong.

Tech workers and innovators are an essential part of the region’s economy. But the next generation of tech workers need housing options that allow them to begin their careers here.

If they cannot afford to live in San José, they will move to other regions where housing is more attainable, taking the skills, creativity, and ideas that power the Silicon Valley economy and tax base.

San José must build the housing to meet present and future needs. Policies that restrict density or reinstate parking minimums move us backward at a moment when we need to move forward with urgency.

We respectfully urge the Council to prioritize housing production, affordability, and smart land use as you consider Item 10.3 and the General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework.

Sincerely,
Theresa Do & Matt Savage
Co-Leads, San José YIMBY

Outlook
FW: General plan 4 year review - missing middle vote 8-18-26 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:27 PM
To Agendadesk
I 1 attachment (26 KB)
Missing M iddle 8 18 26.pdf;
From: Kelsey Colson
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 4:20 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
. . .
strictl
District4
District7
Subject: General plan 4 year review - missing middle vote 8-18-26 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel August 17, 2026
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I appreciated hearing at a council meeting that the City would begin using the Agile Method. I was thrilled by the idea. The Agile method allows room to pivot when needed. It creates a process of iteration and incremental steps towards a successful outcome rather than locking a team into only one approach.

The current rezoning proposal for the General Plan 4 year review, however, feels more like the Concrete Method. It locks the City and future generations into a zoning decision that cannot be reversed. That is not thoughtful planning for today or for the future.

We need more housing. And we need to build thoughtfully with a plan that allows for growth , pivots and adaptations to future community needs.

We need a plan that values neighborhoods and respects the reasons residents chose to live where they do. We need a plan grounded in common sense: build greater density where there is already a functioning transit hub, not where there is only one bus stop that may or may not be fully operational.

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

We also need a plan that carefully considers each neighborhood, including its existing resources, infrastructure, and capacity for responsible growth. As the City works to become less energy-dependent, building a multi-story structure that blocks currently installed solar panels would move us backward rather than forward.

Please pause this vote. Return to the table and develop a plan that is intentional, adaptable, and responsive to the kind of city we want to build.

Let’s build - but let’s build where it makes sense.

Sincerely,
Kelsey Colson
D9 Resident for 30 years

August 17, 2026

Dear Mayor and City Council,

I appreciated hearing at a council meeting that the City would begin using the Agile Method. I was thrilled by the idea. The Agile method allows room to pivot when needed. It creates a process of iteration and incremental steps towards a successful outcome rather than locking a team into only one approach.

The current rezoning proposal for the General plan 4 year review, however, feels more like the Concrete Method. It locks the City—and future generations—into a zoning decision that cannot be reversed. That is not thoughtful planning for today or for the future.

We need more housing. And we need to build thoughtfully with a plan that allows for growth, pivots and adaptations to future community needs.

We need a plan that values neighborhoods and respects the reasons residents chose to live where they do.

We need a plan grounded in common sense: build greater density where there is already a functioning transit hub, not where there is only one bus stop that may or may not be fully operational.

Please pause this vote. Return to the table and develop a plan that is intentional, adaptable, and responsive to the kind of city we want to build.

Let’s build - but let’s build where it makes sense.

Sincerely,
Kelsey Colson
D9 Resident for 30 years
Outlook
FW: 10:3 General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework-Modifying the density range of the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) land use designation from up to 30 DU/AC (dwelling units per acre) to 20-50 DU/ AC and increase the height to 4 to 5 stories Housing inc From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:28 PM
To Agendadesk
liJ 1 attachment (8 KB)
Housing incentives.docx;
From: rudy.a.flores.j r
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 4:19 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
◄
◄
◄
strictl
District4
Subject: 10:3 General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework-Mod ifying the density range of the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) land use designation from up to 30 DU/AC (dwelling units per acre) to 20-50 DU/AC and increase the height to 4 to 5 stories Housing ince ...
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
.b.!!P.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSender ldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Subject: 10:3 General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework—Modifying the density range of the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) land use designation from up to 30 DU/AC (dwelling units per acre) to 20-50 DU/AC and increase the height to 4 to 5 stories Dear San Jose Mayor and Councilmembers,
I’d like to share an idea that I believe deserves consideration as an alternative to the changes to mixed use being proposed on item 10:3 of tomorrows, August 18, 2026 meeting.

In the 1990s, the federal government helped expand homeownership by improving access to affordable mortgage financing. Rather than building homes directly, government created conditions that enabled private lenders and homebuyers to succeed.

Today, we face a different challenge. In cities like San Jose, many housing developments are approved or proposed but never get built because they no longer “pencil out.” High interest rates, construction costs, insurance, and financing expenses have made many otherwise viable projects economically impossible.

Perhaps it is time for a modern version of that earlier approach—this time focused on housing development rather than homebuyers.

A partnership approach with a federal or state developed initiative could provide loan guarantees, lower-cost construction financing, or other financial tools that reduce borrowing costs and encourage lenders to finance qualified housing projects. The goal would be to help private developers move stalled projects forward.

This approach could increase housing production, improve affordability over time through greater supply, create construction jobs, and generate additional tax revenue—all while relying on the private sector to deliver the housing.

I encourage the City of San Jose to explore this concept and, if appropriate, work with other partners to advocate for state and federal legislation that modernizes housing finance for today’s economic realities and preserves the investments we’ve made and the culture of our single family homes for future generations.

Thank you for your consideration and for your continued service to our community.

Sincerely,
Rudy Flores
Former Chair PRNS Commission
San Jose Dartmouth Neighborhood Association President
Founding Member D-9 Leadership Group

Outlook
FW: Item 10.3 - Support for the Small Multifamily/Missing Middle Housing Program From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:47 AM
To Agendadesk
I 1 attachment (380 KB)
Onyx Support Letter Missing Middle Housing.pdf;
From: Delvin Hall I Principal & Founder
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 6:02 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Tordillos, Anthony
Subject: Item 10.3 - Support for the Small Mu ltifamily/M issing Middle Housing Program [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear City Clerk,
Please accept the attached letter from Onyx Equity Partners for the public record regarding Item 10.3, the General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework, scheduled for the August 18, 2026 City Council meeting.

The letter supports the proposed Small Multifamily/Missing Middle Housing program and the additional direction contained in the August 14, 2026 memorandum from Councilmembers Anthony Tordillos and Rosemary Kamei.

Thank you for distributing this correspondence to the Mayor and City Council and including it in the public record for Item 10.3.

All the best,
Delvin Hall
Principal & Founder, ONYX Equity Partners
@ onyxeguinrnartners.com
Schedule a Meeting: View MY. Connection Menu

1999 Harrison Street, 9th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Onyx Equity Partners Page 1

August 17, 2026

Honorable Mayor Matt Mahan
Vice Mayor Pam Foley
Members of the San Jose City Council
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, California 95113

Re: Item 10.3 - Support for the Small Multifamily/Missing Middle Housing Program

Dear Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of Onyx Equity Partners, I am writing in support of the City's proposed Small Multifamily/Missing Middle Housing program under Item 10.3, including the additional direction contained in the August 14, 2026 memorandum from Councilmembers Anthony Tordillos and Rosemary Kamei.

As a housing developer and advisor evaluating and advancing small- and midsize infill housing opportunities in San Jose and throughout the Bay Area, I believe missing middle housing represents an important and underutilized component of the region's housing-production strategy. It can create more homes within existing neighborhoods, expand housing options for working- and middle-income households, and support development that is right-sized, neighborhood-aligned, and responsive to the fabric of the place.

From a development standpoint, however, zoning capacity alone does not produce housing. A successful program must translate that capacity into projects that can secure financing, obtain permits, and move into construction.

For that reason, I strongly support preserving 32 dwelling units per acre within the scope of the City's analysis and future program design. On a typical residential parcel, lower densities may technically permit additional housing while still failing to provide enough units to overcome land, design, entitlement, financing, and construction costs. A duplex or fourplex may be permissible but remain financially infeasible. In many cases, the ability to build six to ten homes is the difference between theoretical capacity and a project that can obtain capital and break ground.

I also support exploring a ministerial local density bonus program that provides a meaningful and predictable pathway for projects incorporating affordable homes. For the local program to be effective, it must offer a genuinely preferable alternative to State Density Bonus Law through clear eligibility requirements, objective development standards, defined review timelines, and sufficient additional capacity to improve project feasibility. If the local pathway is slower, less predictable, or produces materially fewer units, it is unlikely to achieve meaningful utilization.

ONYX

EQU I TY PARTNERS

1999 Harrison Street, 9th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Onyx Equity Partners Page 2
Similarly, the proposed pilot allowing up to four stories and 45 feet near Tier 1 and Tier 2 transit hubs in and around downtown is a practical way to align housing capacity with the City's transit investments. This targeted flexibility would allow projects to use constrained infill sites more efficiently while creating an intentional transition between higher-density transit areas and surrounding residential neighborhoods.

As staff develops the program, I encourage the City to engage experienced small- and midsize developers, architects, lenders, and contractors in testing the proposed standards against actual sites and development pro formas. The City should also consider complementary implementation tools, including predictable ministerial review timelines, standardized or prototype designs, calibrated development fees, and early feasibility review. These measures can reduce predevelopment risk and help ensure that the final program produces completed homes rather than capacity that exists only on paper.

Missing middle housing is also one of the few development scales where experienced local firms can lead projects, establish repeatable models, and contribute meaningfully to the City's housing goals. Creating a clear and executable program would therefore expand both the range of housing San Jose can produce and the range of capable development partners able to participate in that production.

I respectfully urge the City Council to approve the Small Multifamily/Missing Middle Housing direction under Item 10.3, adopt the additional recommendations in the Tordillos-Kamei memorandum, and preserve a sufficiently broad scope of analysis to support a legally compliant, financially workable, and effective citywide program.

Thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to provide this perspective.

Sincerely,
Delvin Hall
Principal & Founder
Onyx Equity Partners

ONYX

EQU I TY PARTNERS
Outlook
FW: PUBLIC COMMENT -August 18, 2026-Agenda Item 10.3 (26-852) - General Plan Four-Year Review - Evacuation & Public Safety
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:15 AM
To Agendadesk
® 4 attachments (1 MB)
Gmail Follow up to Formal CEQA Objectio n and Request for Evacuation Analysis File No. GP24 001.pdf; Gmail Formal Request for Simultaneous Evacuation Capacity Analysis and Wildfire Emergency Traffic Study East San Jose Alum Rock Foothills Development Area.pdf; Scan 1 Manual evacuation signatures Aug 17 2026.pdf; Evacuation signatures via Change.org August 17 2026.pdf;
From: Randi
Sent: Monday,
To: City Clerk
District4
District 7
District 10
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - August 18, 2026 - Agenda Item 10.3 (26-852) - General Plan Four-Year Review Evacuation & Public Safety
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Leam why this is important Dear City Clerk, Mayor, City Councilmembers, and City Staff:

Please accept this email and the attached materials, including our petition containing more than 300 resident signatures, as formal written public comment for the August 18, 2026 San Jose City Council meeting, Agenda Item 10.3 (26-852), General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework, and include this correspondence, the petition, and all accompanying signature pages in the official record for this agenda item.

We are submitting these materials on behalf of concerned residents of Alum Rock, East San Jose, and the East Foothills regarding emergency evacuation capacity, wildfire safety, cumulative traffic impacts, and the effect of additional residential density on the limited evacuation corridors serving our communities.

Our community petition has now received more than 400 signatures, demonstrating significant public concern regarding this issue. The petition and accompanying signature pages are attached to this submission so that the signatures themselves are included as part of the public record.

Relationship to Agenda Item 10.3
Agenda Item 10.3 directs staff to prepare General Plan amendments and ordinances that would substantially modify residential capacity and development policy throughout San José, including:
- Increasing the Residential Neighborhood designation from 8 dwelling units per acre to 32 dwelling units per acre;
- Increasing allowable residential density in other General Plan land-use designations; - Allowing small multifamily development of up to three stories/35 feet in Residential Neighborhood areas;
- Developing a ministerial approval process for qualifying small multifamily development; and - Making significant changes to the City's Urban Village strategy and future residential capacity.

We recognize that Item 10.3 specifically proposes prohibiting small multifamily projects within Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. However, that protection does not address what happens when substantial additional residential density is added along, below, or adjacent to the same road network relied upon by residents of fire-prone foothill communities for evacuation.

A wildfire does not stop at a zoning boundary, and neither does evacuation traffic.

Our Request
Before the City implements policies that substantially increase residential capacity affecting the Alum Rock/East Foothills area and its evacuation corridors, we respectfully request that the City conduct a comprehensive evacuation capacity and public-safety analysis that considers existing conditions together with reasonably foreseeable additional development.

That analysis should evaluate, at minimum:
- Cumulative residential growth and increased vehicle demand; - Emergency evacuation capacity during a major wildfire or other regional emergency; - Existing roadway bottlenecks and constrained evacuation routes, including the principal corridors serving the Alum Rock/East Foothills area;
- Simultaneous evacuation of foothill residents and residents of the more densely developed areas below them;
- Emergency vehicle ingress occurring at the same time residents are attempting to evacuate; - The effect of proposed General Plan density increases and other reasonably foreseeable development on evacuation times and roadway capacity; and - Whether additional infrastructure, roadway improvements, traffic-management measures, emergency planning, or development limitations are necessary before additional residential capacity is approved.

We are not asking the City to oppose housing. We are asking the City to ensure that increased development does not outpace the infrastructure necessary to safely evacuate existing and future residents.

Previous Requests
The attached correspondence documents that these concerns have already been formally raised with City and other governmental officials. We are resubmitting those materials This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. specifically in connection with Agenda Item 10.3 so there is a clear record that evacuation capacity and cumulative public-safety impacts were raised while the City Council is considering the policy framework that will direct preparation of these General Plan amendments and implementing ordinances.

Because Agenda Item 10.3 is identified as “Not a Project” for purposes of CEQA and provides preliminary direction to staff, with eventual action requiring approval by a decision-making body, we believe this is precisely the appropriate stage for the Council to direct staff to incorporate evacuation capacity and cumulative emergency-access analysis into the work that follows.

We therefore respectfully request that the City Council:

1. Direct staff to evaluate cumulative evacuation and emergency-access impacts as part of the General Plan amendments and ordinances developed pursuant to Agenda Item 10.3;

2. Ensure that future environmental review considers the combined effect of increased residential capacity and reasonably foreseeable development on the evacuation corridors serving Alum Rock and the East Foothills;

3. Identify what roadway, emergency-management, infrastructure, or other mitigation measures would be necessary to maintain safe evacuation capacity before additional density affecting these corridors is implemented; and

4. Provide a written response identifying how and at what stage these evacuation and public- safety concerns will be evaluated as the General Plan amendments and implementing ordinances move forward.

With more than 300 residents already signing the attached petition, we respectfully ask the Council not to defer this issue until individual development projects are proposed. Evacuation capacity should be evaluated at the planning stage, while the City is deciding where and how much additional residential capacity should be created.

Please distribute this correspondence and all attachments, including the petition and all accompanying signature pages, to the Mayor and all members of the City Council and include all of these materials in the official public record for Agenda Item 10.3 (26-852), General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework, August 18, 2026.

Thank you for your attention to this important public-safety issue. We respectfully request acknowledgment of receipt, confirmation that the petition and signature pages have been included in the record, and information regarding how these concerns will be incorporated into the City's continuing General Plan review process.

Sincerely,
Tina Morgado
Alum Rock City Resident
Randi McMasters
Alum Rock/East Foothills Resident

Name Location Signed On
Tina Morgado San Jose, CA 2026-05-08
Jeannie Ha San Jose, CA 2026-05-08
Rosalind Ormonde San Jose, CA 2026-05-08
Douglas Roe San Jose, CA 2026-05-08
Rick simoes San Jose, CA 2026-05-08
Vikram Boutelle Cincinnati, OH 2026-05-08
Darlene Zamora Brookdale, CA 2026-05-09
Judy Choppelas San Jose, CA 2026-05-09
Masoud Afkham Fraydoon corny, CA 2026-05-10
Kamaldeep Singh Uppal Oakdale, CA 2026-05-10
Jerry Sun Santa Clara, CA 2026-05-10
warren kaplan saratoga, CA 2026-05-10
Christi Vaubel San Jose, CA 2026-05-10
Diya Duggireddy Cupertino, CA 2026-05-10
Melissa wilcoxon santa cruz, CA 2026-05-11
molly williamson Seattle, United States 2026-05-11
William Moran San Jose, CA 2026-05-11
Caitlyn Lindley San Jose, CA 2026-05-11
Li Zheng Los Angeles, CA 2026-05-11
Uriyah Delatorre California, CA 2026-05-11
Joe Pat San Jose, CA 2026-05-11
Name Location Signed On
Myrrita Cosmo San Jose, CA 2026-05-12
Leann Blamer San Jose, CA 2026-05-12
Michele Frances Marquess Warfel San Jose, CA 2026-05-12 Naina Porwal Fremont, CA 2026-05-12
Peggy Feeback Redding, CA 2026-05-13
Elaine gonzales San Jose, CA 2026-05-13
Ined Deanda Boulder Creek, CA 2026-05-13
Usiel Garcia Mendoza Salinas, CA 2026-05-13
Tabitha Peschke Morgan Hill, CA 2026-05-13
P V Milpitas, CA 2026-05-14
kalyani Soniminde San Jose, CA 2026-05-14
Aida Lutta San Jose, CA 2026-05-14
Marcos Nuno Los Banos, CA 2026-05-14
Minjing Liu San Jose, CA 2026-05-14
Victor Sanchez Fremont, CA 2026-05-14
Cherry Truong San Jose, CA 2026-05-14
Rosario Jaeger Milpitas, CA 2026-05-14
Frank Ybarra Milpitas, CA 2026-05-14
Gisselle Lopez San Jose, CA 2026-05-14
Lori Olsen St. Petersburg, FL 2026-05-14
Anu Jolly Milpitas, CA 2026-05-14
Name Location Signed On
Sharmila desai Milpitas, CA 2026-05-14
li xie San Jose, CA 2026-05-14
John Morgado San Jose, CA 2026-05-14
Raynond Solis Susanville, CA 2026-05-16
Donna Round Susanville, CA 2026-05-16
Elena Berumen Watsonville, CA 2026-05-16
Guadalupe Salazar Tularosa, NM 2026-05-16
Katlin Williams San Jose, CA 2026-05-16
Reagan Arndt San Jose, CA 2026-05-16
Nik Ak San Jose, CA 2026-05-16
Marcos Garcia Sacramento, CA 2026-05-16
Louis Duarte Livermore, CA 2026-05-16
Bryan Clark San Jose, CA 2026-05-16
salvador esparza Watsonville, CA 2026-05-17
Elda cota Watsonville, CA 2026-05-17
Sandra colula San Jose, CA 2026-05-17
kathleen tarlow modesto, CA 2026-05-17
Tony Fong Cupertino, CA 2026-05-17
Sherri Espindola Hughson, CA 2026-05-17
Luci Ungar San Francisco, CA 2026-05-17
Gina Gutierrez San Jose, CA 2026-05-21
Name Location Signed On
Douglas Brewer San Jose, CA 2026-05-21
Jesse Gutierrez San Jose, CA 2026-05-21
Mel Ausman San Jose, CA 2026-05-21
Candace Douglas San Jose, CA 2026-05-21
Vihaan Gupta Dublin, CA 2026-05-21
Valerin Suárez San Jose, CA 2026-05-21
Jayden salto new york city, NY 2026-05-21
Ali Zamani San Jose, CA 2026-05-21
mo badr San Jose, CA 2026-05-21
Sandra Hernandez San jose, CA 2026-05-22
Betty Reutter San Jose, CA 2026-05-23
Terri Henry San Jose, CA 2026-05-25
Tina M Rivera San Jose, CA 2026-05-25
steven lynch San Jose, CA 2026-05-25
Sarah Ving San Jose, CA 2026-05-25
Janice Czaplicki San Jose, CA 2026-05-26
Carol Herzog San Jose, CA 2026-05-26
Janet Jamerson San Leandro, CA 2026-05-27
Frances McGinnis San Jose, CA 2026-05-29
norma flores San Jose, CA 2026-05-29
Mari Sharp San Jose, CA 2026-05-29
Name Location Signed On
Kandi Bayer San Jose, CA 2026-05-29
Scott Dayton San Jose, CA 2026-05-30
Pat perez San Jose, CA 2026-05-30
Lynn levoe San Jose, CA 2026-05-31
Melissa Dutra San Jose, CA 2026-06-01
Tanya Freudenberger San Jose, CA 2026-06-01
Jodi Keddy San Jose, CA 2026-06-01
Elva Wilson New Y ork, NY 2026-06-02
Terri Renfroe San Jose, CA 2026-06-04
Irene Bishop San Jose, CA 2026-06-04
Lydia Martinez San Jose, CA 2026-06-04
Mona Sampognaro San Jose, CA 2026-06-04
My Hanh Le San Jose, CA 2026-06-06
Abel Martinez San Jose, CA 2026-06-08
Andrea Ator San Jose, CA 2026-06-12
Mary Redigan San Jose, CA 2026-06-14
Parveen Velmurugan Fremont, CA 2026-06-14
Sachi Jaiswal San Jose, CA 2026-06-14
Diana rodriguez San Jose, CA 2026-06-14
tamara saindon bay point, CA 2026-06-14
Vanessa Gonzalez Pittsburg, CA 2026-06-14
Name Location Signed On
AUSTIN Duffy Oakley, CA 2026-06-14
Gianna T Marina, CA 2026-06-14
Miss Mimi Lebreton San Jose, CA 2026-06-14
Luis Rodriguez San Jose, CA 2026-06-21
Kathy Shanahan San Jose, CA 2026-06-22
Karelle Barroso San Jose, CA 2026-06-22
Ashley Lopez San Jose, CA 2026-06-23
Wayne Aniban Waipahu, HI 2026-06-23
Mizael Montes Sinaloa, Mexico 2026-06-23
Pamela McMullan Reno, NV 2026-06-23
Sandra Quintanilla Brentwood, CA 2026-06-23
Brenda Arroyo Modesto, CA, CA 2026-06-23
Yuli viveros Houston, TX 2026-06-23
Joan Castle Santa Cruz, CA 2026-06-23
Harwinder Bains San Jose, CA 2026-06-23
Saeid Bolu Fremont, CA 2026-06-24
Mari Khani San Jose, CA 2026-06-24
???? ??? Fremont, CA 2026-06-24
????? ??? ?????? Santa Clara, CA 2026-06-24
Bahman Jonghani San Jose, CA 2026-06-24
Vira Confectioner Sunol, CA 2026-06-24
Name Location Signed On
Tian Ethan San Jose, CA 2026-06-24
Imelda Martínez Antioch, CA 2026-06-24
Iesha Bayona San Jose, CA 2026-06-25
Bishwarup Dey San Jose, CA 2026-06-25
Rachel Beltran San Jose, CA 2026-06-25
kathy Dyer San Jose, CA 2026-06-25
Cammi Bowen San Jose, CA 2026-06-25
Lily Tenes San Jose, CA 2026-06-25
Linda caywood San Jose, CA 2026-06-25
Julie Cano San Jose, CA 2026-06-26
christine lustfield San Jose, CA 2026-06-26
Aileen Graeber San Jose, CA 2026-06-26
Gaurav Ranade San Jose, CA 2026-06-26
Alma Castillo San Jose, CA 2026-06-28
Estefany Portillo San Jose, CA 2026-06-30
Margarida Silva San Jose, CA 2026-07-02
RHODA ABIDOG SAN JOSE, CA 2026-07-02
JEYSON LOPEZ San Jose, CA 2026-07-03
Liliana Jimenez San Jose, CA 2026-07-03
Susy Valencia Cupertino, CA 2026-07-03
mo ryan Soquel, CA 2026-07-03
Name Location Signed On
Vay Mel Los Gatos, CA 2026-07-04
Rebecca Ray San Jose, CA 2026-07-05
Nicole Morgado Union City, CA 2026-07-05
Gabriel Robinson Los Gatos, CA 2026-07-07
Sonja Halstead San Jose, CA 2026-07-07
Richard Lico San Martin, CA 2026-07-10
Jim Griffin Aptos, CA 2026-07-10
Lauren Costanzo Campbell, CA 2026-07-10
Linda Krieg redwood city, CA 2026-07-10
Kelly Andrada Hayward, CA 2026-07-11
Mathew Padilla Gilroy, CA 2026-07-11
Bret Fontaine San Jose, CA 2026-07-12
Sarah Kim Santa Clara, CA 2026-07-13
M McArthur Santa Cruz, CA 2026-07-15
justin k San Jose, CA 2026-07-20
joyce mckee San Jose, CA 2026-07-22
George Gamboa Fremont, CA 2026-07-22
Greg Melancon Hayward, CA 2026-07-24
Howard Cohen Palo Alto, CA 2026-07-25
Loralyn Noragong San Jose, CA 2026-07-29
Lisa Wyatt san mateo, CA 2026-07-30
Name Location Signed On
Katherine Sayles San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Silvia Spencer San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Andrea Apan San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Patti Elias San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Michelle Tachibana Santa Clara, CA 2026-07-31
Michelle Acidera Salida, CA 2026-07-31
Adriana Lopez San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Lisa peck Aptos, CA 2026-07-31
Aida ibanez San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Jenifer Stone San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Diane Duffy Avon, CT 2026-07-31
Andrea Gomez San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Roger Gomez San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Graciela Ornelas Fremont, CA 2026-07-31
Corrina Colon San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Dylan Baldwin San Jose, CA 2026-07-31
Jennifer McKinney Stockton, CA 2026-07-31
Jason Orozco Salinas, CA 2026-07-31
Mia Andrade Turlock, CA 2026-07-31
Lauren Spaulding Union City, CA 2026-08-01
Ann Thorson Pleasanton, CA 2026-08-01
Name Location Signed On
Keira Gregory Morgan Hill, CA 2026-08-01
Stacy Hutchison Santa Clara, CA 2026-08-01
dennis gormley Arcata, CA 2026-08-01
Amy Padilla San Jose, CA 2026-08-01
Andrew Jensen San Jose, CA 2026-08-01
Brenda Moll Los Banos, CA 2026-08-01
Angel Salinas San Francisco, CA 2026-08-01
Valery Hernandez Los Banos, CA 2026-08-01
Rebecca uribe San Jose, CA 2026-08-01
Shannon Woodruff San Jose, CA 2026-08-01
Nick C Sacramento, CA 2026-08-01
Charlena Carter San Jose, CA 2026-08-01
Eddie Jimenez San jose, CA 2026-08-02
marcus lee San Jose, CA 2026-08-02
Javed Farhad Turlock, CA 2026-08-02
Phyllis Silva San Jose, CA 2026-08-02
Yuri Gonzalez Watsonville, CA 2026-08-02
Angela Zhang Campbell, CA 2026-08-02
Jerry meredith Redding, CA 2026-08-02
Steven Sautter Sunnyvale, CA 2026-08-02
Valerie Draper San Jose, CA 2026-08-02
Name Location Signed On
Tom D San Jose, CA 2026-08-02
Emmanuel Juarez San Jose, CA 2026-08-02
Melissa Holder San Carlos, CA 2026-08-03
Simrat Kaur San Jose, CA 2026-08-03
Katherine Borzone San Jose, CA 2026-08-03
Cheryl Carrasco San Jose, CA 2026-08-03
Debra Fierro Trotter Morgan Hill, CA 2026-08-03
Connie Ancira San Jose, CA 2026-08-03
Issac Melodys San Jose, CA 2026-08-04
Brafley Willis Sacramento, CA 2026-08-04
Kevin L Sacramento, CA 2026-08-04
VERONICA Medina Hanford, CA 2026-08-04
Briseida Moreno Hollister, CA 2026-08-04
Mark Washington Fresno, CA 2026-08-04
marialaura casella Littleton, CO 2026-08-04
Cos Ortiz San Jose, CA 2026-08-04
Caleb Giles Hollister, CA 2026-08-04
Lillyann Hyatt Turlock, CA 2026-08-04
Leslie Bearden Modesto, CA 2026-08-04
Ashley Mayen San Francisco, CA 2026-08-04
Cathy S Sacramento, CA 2026-08-04
Name Location Signed On
Jerr Thaynes Sacramento, CA 2026-08-05
Jennifer Holbrook Campbell, CA 2026-08-05
Jacob Miranda San Jose, CA 2026-08-05
Tamanna Y asmin San Jose, CA 2026-08-05
Betah Music United States 2026-08-05
JaDell Schadewitz San Jose, CA 2026-08-05
doug maciolek San Jose, CA 2026-08-05
Lindsay C Sacramento, CA 2026-08-06
John Feanco Sacramento, CA 2026-08-06
Anthony Nguyen San Jose, CA 2026-08-06
Sandra jones Alta, CA 2026-08-06
Kelly Montoya Salida, CA 2026-08-06
Shurjada Shoshe San Jose, CA 2026-08-06
Bobby Gregory Fremont, CA 2026-08-06
meadow vallo Modesto, United States 2026-08-06
Naznin Nahar San Jose, CA 2026-08-06
Arianna O'Hehir San Jose, CA 2026-08-06
Dhruvi Parsoya Milpitas, CA 2026-08-07
Constance Tanzil San Jose, CA 2026-08-07
Susan Gray Santa Clara, CA 2026-08-07
Leif Y oung Fremont, CA 2026-08-07
Name Location Signed On
Travis Murillo Modesto, CA 2026-08-07
Andrew Kesterson Trafalgar, IN 2026-08-07
Tyler Wesenberg Seaside, CA 2026-08-07
Christina Cantu San Jose, CA 2026-08-07
Fatuma hassan San Jose, CA 2026-08-07
Debra Smith Santa Clara, CA 2026-08-07
Verynka Prima Oregon City, OR 2026-08-08
Stas Molochnyk Kent, WA 2026-08-08
Corina Rodriguez Sudbury, United States 2026-08-08
Charlotte G Riverbank, CA 2026-08-08
Kay Tran San Jose, CA 2026-08-08
Mia Schobert San Juan Bautista, CA 2026-08-08
Andrea Villegas San Jose, CA 2026-08-08
Melissa Moreno Morgan Hill, CA 2026-08-08
Ganna Shcherbatykh Milpitas, CA 2026-08-08
Irma Salazar San Jose, CA 2026-08-08
Bette Linderman San Jose, CA 2026-08-08
Anita Kumari San Jose, CA 2026-08-08
Jennifer Allan San Jose, CA 2026-08-09
Esmeralda santacruz San Jose, CA 2026-08-09
Diana Valverde San Jose, CA 2026-08-09
Name Location Signed On
Robert Garcia San Jose, CA 2026-08-09
JOHN BASINGER San Jose, CA 2026-08-09
Sally Jo Pries Gilroy, CA 2026-08-10
Carolyn Robinson San Jose, CA 2026-08-10
Anthony Smith Mount Hamilton, CA 2026-08-10
Reon Stallings San Jose, CA 2026-08-10
Charles Snyder San Jose, CA 2026-08-10
Y ork Huang San Jose, CA 2026-08-10
Babur Hadimioglu San Jose, CA 2026-08-10
Colin Gong Milpitas, CA 2026-08-10
Blanca Guerrero Gustine, CA 2026-08-10
Bill Davis San Jose, CA 2026-08-10
Whitley Bruce Redding, CA 2026-08-11
Samantha Turner Knightsen, CA 2026-08-11
Yuliia Mumriak Sacramento, CA 2026-08-11
Lucas s Manassas, VA 2026-08-11
Ann Jeghers San Jose, CA 2026-08-11
Anthony Phung San Jose, CA 2026-08-11
Christy Zhou Los Altos, CA 2026-08-11
Nick Hopper Redwood City, CA 2026-08-11
Vanessa Ipsen San Carlos, CA 2026-08-11
Name Location Signed On
Wendy Eichenseer San Jose, CA 2026-08-11
Cindy Meyers Capitola, CA 2026-08-11
Karen Scoffone San Jose, CA 2026-08-11
Robin scalise San Jose, CA 2026-08-12
David Nevarez Newark, CA 2026-08-12
Erik Hanson Santa cruz, CA 2026-08-12
mark jackson Milpitas, CA 2026-08-12
Sharis Woodard Sunnyvale, CA 2026-08-13
John Fontanilla Sunnyvale, CA 2026-08-14
Gerald Giles San Jose, CA 2026-08-14
Nadezhda Banchik San Jose, CA 2026-08-15
Paul Federighi Los Gatos, CA 2026-08-15
Harriet Wright Hayward, CA 2026-08-15
Alexis Keaton San Jose, CA 2026-08-16
Krystal Goode San Jose, CA 2026-08-16
Mark McClain San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Patricia OLIVAS San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Maria macias San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Christina Garcia San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Gloria Macias San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Anthony Do San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Name Location Signed On
David Walker San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Clare Rhodes San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
trang tran San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Brooke Andrews San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Anil Altinay San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Cassandra Saucedo San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Gamaliel Hernandez San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Linh Phan San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Isabel Ortiz San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Carla Jackson San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Elizabeth Ramirez San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Mel Ausman San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Anthony Moules San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Lynette Stavros San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Karina Hernandez San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
victor goulart San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Jesse Barajas San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Jessica Martinez San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Nancy Scanlon San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Dan Pisani San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Ashley Ward San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Name Location Signed On
Beverly Carrasco San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Renu jindal San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Michelle Magana San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Nola Prevost San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Tedd Fernandez San Jose, CA 2026-08-17
Wayne Fiori San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Paul Mattish San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
James Bariteau San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Kate Cortese San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Angelica Quinones San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Rae Abueg San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Rebecca Wallingford San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Alicia Schoolcraft San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Silvia Quintero San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Marcus Bariteau San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
claudia jimenez San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Razel llamanzares San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Joseph INDALECIO Guam 2026-08-18
Mary Tapia San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Jerry Atkins San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Margaret Bariteau San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Name Location Signed On
Rosie Gomez San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Barbara Rodriguez San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Gloria Ramirez San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Eileen Synegal San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Rebeca Montoya San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Trac nguyen San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Mary Rivera San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Tina Berryhill San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Francisco Escobedo San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Desiree CORBAL San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Sherrie Escamilla San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
VICTOR FRAUSTO San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Lorraine O’Dea San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Minerva Diaz San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Y aneth hernandez San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Louise Locki San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Terra Wahl-Lau San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Elizabeth Garcia San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Suzanne Morrone San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Eruvey meneses San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Katheryn Garcia San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Name Location Signed On
Erick ramirez San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Annette Aguilar San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
ana Gambelin San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Sheryl Lynch San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Joe McKinnon San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Linda Peres San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Elaine Fonseca San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Dana Vazquez Morgan Hill, CA 2026-08-18
Nanci Viera San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Randi McMasters San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Mark McMasters San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Colter McMasters San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Brycen McMasters San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Martha Ramirez San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
Richard Vega San Jose, CA 2026-08-18
8/17/26, 8:46 PM Gmail - Follow up to Formal CEQA Objection and Request for Evacuation Analysis – File No. GP24-001 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/7/?ik=fb160adcb3&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r4900370977592094132&simpl=msg-a:r2496072653426141171 1/1 Randi <
Follow up to Formal CEQA Objection and Request for Evacuation Analysis – File No. GP24-001 1 message
Randi < Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 10:22 PM
To:

Dear Planning Staff,
On June 11, we submitted a formal request regarding public safety concerns associated with the cumulative impact of approximately 2,000 planned residential units in the East San José / Alum Rock area and requested information regarding emergency evacuation planning.

We received your automated acknowledgment confirming receipt of our email, but we have not received a substantive response.

Because this issue involves public safety and emergency evacuation, we are respectfully requesting an update on the status of my request.

Specifically, we would appreciate written responses to the following questions:

1. Has the City conducted a Simultaneous or Compounded Wildfire Evacuation Capacity Analysis for the East Hills / Alum Rock area that considers the cumulative impact of existing neighborhoods together with approximately 2,000 planned residential units?

2. If such a study exists, please provide a copy or direct us to where it may be obtained.

3. If no such analysis has been completed, which City department is responsible for determining whether the existing transportation network can safely accommodate a large-scale wildfire evacuation under these cumulative development conditions?

4. Has the San José Fire Department been consulted regarding emergency access and evacuation capacity for these planned developments? Given California's increasing wildfire risk and the limited evacuation routes serving the East Hills, we believe these questions warrant careful consideration before additional development approvals move forward.

If this request has been directed to another department or staff member, we would appreciate knowing who is handling the matter so we may communicate with the appropriate individual directly.

Please let us know whom we should contact regarding this request, and we would appreciate a written response at your earliest convenience.

We respectfully request a written response within 15 business days identifying whether a Simultaneous Evacuation Capacity Analysis has been completed, or if not, which department is responsible for evaluating cumulative emergency evacuation capacity for these proposed developments.” We can be reached
at:

Thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Tina Morgado
Alum Rock, City of San Jose Resident
Randi Maureen McMasters
Alum Rock/East Foothills Resident
Gmail
8/17/26, 8:45 PM Gmail - Formal Request for Simultaneous Evacuation Capacity Analysis and Wildfire Emergency Traffic Study – East San José / Alum Rock Foothills Development Area https://mail.google.com/mail/u/7/?ik=fb160adcb3&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r3854410622076936757&simpl=msg-a:r4091713825602555331&simpl=msg-f:1872835909466334423&simpl=… 1/3 Randi <
Formal Request for Simultaneous Evacuation Capacity Analysis and Wildfire Emergency Traffic Study – East San José / Alum Rock Foothills Development Area 3 messages
Randi < Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 8:43 PM
To:

To Whom It May Concern:

As residents and stakeholders in the East San José foothill communities, we formally request that the City of San José, the Department of Transportation, and the San José Fire Department conduct a comprehensive Simultaneous Evacuation Capacity Analysis prior to approval of additional large-scale residential development projects within the East Hills and Alum Rock planning areas.

Current and proposed projects collectively represent approximately 2,000 additional residential units that would substantially increase trafic loads onto already constrained evacuation corridors, including but not limited to:
• Clayton Road
• Mount Hamilton Road
• White Road
• Capitol Expressway
• Alum Rock Avenue • Associated foothill collector streets and intersections including Quimby and Aborn Rds Existing trafic studies appear to evaluate routine peak-hour commuting conditions only. However , standard trafic modeling does not adequately analyze compounded emergency evacuation scenarios involving simultaneous wildire evacuation and valley-loor congestion.

We speciically request a worst-case emergency evacuation simulation that evaluates:

1. A fast-moving wildire event in the East Hills or foothill interface area;

2. Simultaneous downhill evacuation demand from hillside residents;

3. Concurrent evacuation attempts from newly constructed valley-loor residential developments;

4. Roadway impairment scenarios involving stalled vehicles, intersection failures, smoke-reduced visibility, or emergency responder access conlicts;

5. Emergency egress times for vulnerable populations, including seniors, disabled residents, school zones, and multifamily housing occupants;

6. Fire apparatus ingress capability during resident evacuation lows.

The increasing wildire risks facing California communities make this analysis both foreseeable and necessary. The current roadway network contains multiple choke points and limited alternative evacuation routes.

Without a comprehensive evacuation capacity analysis, approval of substantial additional density may expose residents to unacceptable life-safety risks during emergency conditions.

We further request that any environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) include cumulative emergency evacuation impacts and wildire-related circulation analysis prior to project approvals.

This request is not opposition to housing in principle. Rather , it is a request that public safety infrastructure and evacuation capacity be responsibly analyzed before irreversible approvals are granted.

We respectfully request:
• A formal response from the City regarding whether such evacuation modeling has been performed; • Public release of any prior evacuation studies affecting the area; • Consideration of an independent evacuation simulation if one has not yet been completed; • Inclusion of these issues in all upcoming Planning Commission and City Council hearings related to East Hills and Alum Rock development proposals.

Thank you for your attention to this important public safety matter .

Sincerely,
Tina Morgado
Alum Rock City Resident
Randi Maureen McMasters
Gmail
8/17/26, 8:45 PM Gmail - Formal Request for Simultaneous Evacuation Capacity Analysis and Wildfire Emergency Traffic Study – East San José / Alum Rock Foothills Development Area https://mail.google.com/mail/u/7/?ik=fb160adcb3&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r3854410622076936757&simpl=msg-a:r4091713825602555331&simpl=msg-f:1872835909466334423&simpl=… 2/3 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Alum Rock / East Foothills Resident
Ortiz, Peter < Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 9:04 PM
To: Randi < ZoningQuestions < "Keyon, David" < pwgeneralinfo < PlanningSupportStaff < City Clerk < CouncilMeeting < SJFDPermitSpecialist < " < " < " < District5 < District8 < "Candelas, Domingo" <
Cc: "Burton, Chris" < "Ferguson, Jerad" < "Schembri, Jennifer" < "Sapien, Robert" < Hello Randi,
Thank you for your email and your advocacy for East San Jose residents. I live in the foothills area and am just a block from several of the new housing developments you mentioned.

The safety of residents and their property is a priority for my office, and I am happy to elevate your request. I am including the Directors of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, the Department of Transportation, the Fire Department, and Deputy City Manager Jennifer Schembri so that they may respond to your request directly.

Thanks,
Peter
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Randi <
Sent: Thursday, 06 August 2026 20:43:16
To: ZoningQuesons < Keyon, David < pwgeneralinfo < PlanningSupportStaﬀ < City Clerk < CouncilMeeng < SJFDPermitSpecialist < < < < Orz, Peter < District5 < District8
< Candelas, Domingo <
Subject: Formal Request for Simultaneous Evacuaon Capacity Analysis and Wildﬁre Emergency Traﬃc Study – East San José / Alum Rock Foothills Development Area

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [Quoted text hidden]

Ortiz, Peter < Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 9:07 PM
To: Randi < ZoningQuestions < "Keyon, David" < pwgeneralinfo < PlanningSupportStaff < City Clerk < CouncilMeeting < SJFDPermitSpecialist < " < " < " < District5 < District8 < "Candelas, Domingo" <
Cc: "Burton, Chris" < "Ferguson, Jerad" < "Schembri, Jennifer" < "Sapien, Robert" < "Ristow, John" < "Scott, Rick" <
Adding John and Rick.

Get Outlook for iOS

8/17/26, 8:45 PM Gmail - Formal Request for Simultaneous Evacuation Capacity Analysis and Wildfire Emergency Traffic Study – East San José / Alum Rock Foothills Development Area https://mail.google.com/mail/u/7/?ik=fb160adcb3&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r3854410622076936757&simpl=msg-a:r4091713825602555331&simpl=msg-f:1872835909466334423&simpl=… 3/3 From: Orz, Peter <
Sent: Thursday, 06 August 2026 21:04:58
To: Randi < ZoningQuesons < Keyon, David < pwgeneralinfo < PlanningSupportStaﬀ < City Clerk < CouncilMeeng < SJFDPermitSpecialist <SJFDPermitSpecialist@ sanjoseca.gov>; < < < District5
< District8 < Candelas, Domingo <
Cc: Burton, Chris < Ferguson, Jerad < Schembri, Jennifer < Sapien, Robert < Subject: Re: Formal Request for Simultaneous Evacuaon Capacity Analysis and Wildﬁre Emergency Traﬃc Study – East San José / Alum Rock Foothills Development Area

[Quoted text hidden]

Alum Rock Safety & Traffic Petition
Contact: Randi McMasters Email: [email protected]

PETITION REQUESTING CORRIDOR-LEVEL SAFETY AND TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR THE ALUM ROCK URBAN VILLAGE (STATE ROUTE 130 CORRIDOR) Purpose
Residents and stakeholders respectfully request that the City of San Jose complete corridor -level analysis of evacuation feasibility, emergency access, and cumulative traffic conditions before advancing additional residential intensity within the Alum Rock Urban Village.

Background
Alum Rock Avenue (State Route 130) functions as both a major urban corridor and a connection to foothill and wildland areas. During past wildfire events, evacuation warnings have been issued to communities connected to this corridor .

The City is currently considering increased residential density within the Alum Rock Urban Village.

Corridor -level evacuation feasibility and cumulative traffic capacity analysis have not yet been completed.

Given the cumulative nature of proposed development, residents request that public safety and transportation capacity be evaluated prior to further implementation decisions.

Requested Actions

1. Publicly identify any existing documents evaluating cumulative evacuation feasibility and corridor-level traffic capacity.

2. Conduct a corridor -level cumulative traffic study ( operations, intersections, emergency vehicle movement, projected buildout).

3. Conduct an evacuation feasibility analysis evaluating timing, constraints , and wildfire scenarios.

4. Present findings publicly before Planning Commission and City Council decisions affecting additional density.

5. Tie future approvals to demonstrate evacuation capacity and transportation performance thresholds .

Clarification
This petition does not oppose housing citywide or responsible development. It requests that safety and mobility analysis occur before cumulative density is implemented along this corridor.

Privacy Notice: Contact informatio n will be used solely for updates related to this petition and related public hearings. Information will not be sold or shared for unrelated purposes.

Alum Rock Safety & Traffic Petition
Contact: Randi McMasters Email:

Name (Prin
Signature:

Address:

Email: ______ _
□ I would like updates regarding this issue.

Emai
~I w uld like updates regarding this issue. □ I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Pri
Signathre:

Addr ,s:

Email
f:}(I would like updates regarding this issue.

Email: Email:
r)i I w9uld like updates regarding this issue. D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print) :

Signature
Addrek •
Email·
D I wr'd like u
I would like updates regarding this issue.
-me (P
Privacy Notice: Contact information will be used solely for updates related to this petition and related public hearings. Information will not be sold or shared for unrelated purposes.

Alum Rock Safety & Traffic Petition
Contact: Randi McMasters Email: Randi@QualityReturns .net Signatur •
Address:

Email: fv(A
□ I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print): ______ _
Signature: ____ _ _ _
Address: ___ ___ _
Email: _ _____ _
D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print): _ _ ____ _
Signature : ______ _
Address: _ _____ _
Email: ______ _
D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print) : _____ _ _
Signature: _____ _ _
Address: ______ _
Email: ______ _
D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print): _ ____ _ _
Signature: ____ __ _
Address: _ ____ _ _
Email: ___ ___ _
D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print): ___ _ __ _
Signature: ______ _
Address: ______ _
Email: _ ___ __ _
D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print): ______ _
Signature: _ _____ _
Address: ______ _
Email: _ _____ _
D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print): _ ___ __ _
Signature: ______ _
Address: _ ___ _ _ _
Email: ______ _
D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print) : ______ _
Signature: _ _ ____ _
Address: _ _____ _
Email: _ _ ____ _
D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print): _____ _ _
Signature : ______ _
Address : _ _____ _
Email: _ _____ _
D I would like updates regard ing this issue.

Name (Print): ______ _
Signature: ______ _
Address: ______ _
Email: ______ _
D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Name (Print): ____ _ _ _
Signature: _ ____ _ _
Address: ______ _
Email: _ _ _ ___ _
D I would like updates regarding this issue.

Privacy Notice: Contact information will be used solely for updates related to this petition and related public hearings . Information will not be sold or shared for unrelated purposes .

Outlook
FW: 8/18/2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 Missing Middle GP Recommendation From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:17 AM
To Agendadesk
I 1 attachment (104 KB)
2608.17 Email to council members .pdf;
From: District 10 leadersh ip
Sent: Monday, August 17, 202
To: Mahan, Matt
lcahy, Michael
Candelas, Domingo
Casey, George
Subject: 8/18/2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 Missing Midd le GP Recommendation [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. learn morel You don't often get email from
imP-ortant
Learn why this is
Honorable Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council
I have reviewed the Staff Report and the three Councilmember Memos and am writing to urge the Council to approve the Memo crafted by Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers Campos, Cohen, Foley and Casey with one recommended change.

Under "Memos Recommendations 1.b"
ADD "8 DU/AC" : since 8 DU/AC is the existing base line condition and with SB79 now in effect, San Jose's Housing Element is fully compliant without any changes in DU/AC. Please include the current base line condition in the list of options for staff to review (my attempt to suggest the changed language is below).

1. b. "Amend and replace e. [Small Multifamily / Missing Middle Housing ]1 (i): to direct staff to environmentallY. review existing RN 8 DU/AC and increases to 16 DU/AC, 24 DU/AC, and 32 DU/AC, and return to the Council with these options in December 2027 for consideration.”

I would also suggest the Council specifically address two additional issues. If these two are not issues that any Councilmember can support, I would hope that they would share their thoughts at the meeting.

a. DELAY CITY-WIDE UPZONING DECISION: Item 10.3 is a General Plan Framework; City-wide up-zoning is a radical policy change and is best handled as a separate Council discussion and not part of this GP Framework. With the addition of 40,000 parcels at 56 sites due to SB79, San Jose’s Housing Element is fully compliant without this change and City staff should engage CA HCD to request any necessary minor adjustments in the approved Housing Element to reflect this new CA state mandate.

b. STUDY ALL FIRE HAZARD AREAS: direct staff to study ALL areas of San Jose for fire risk and return to the Council with a discussion of areas where up-zoning for additional intense development will put residents at an unacceptable level of fire risk. This should include areas that are outside current Cal Fire Hazard areas, as up-zoning is permanent and Cal Fire maps are continuously being updated.

Finally, I have three general comments based on my engagement with other city residents and organizations over these past many months:

1. AFFORDBILITY: The notion expressed by many that these proposed changes will increase affordability is contrary to the City Planning Department’s own 2021 consultant study.

As a side comment: Daniel Parolek, UC Berkeley Urban Studies graduate, created the term “missing middle” in 2011, and it appears to be a primary focus of his company, Opticos Design Inc. Some have referred to it as simply “the marketing term of a private firm”. San Jose Planning staﬀ’s report uses Opticos’ typology -
https://missingmiddlehousing.com

2. OUTREACH AND CITIZEN INPUT:
· The All District Leadership Group, of which I am member, sent a letter to all Councilmembers on April 21 expressing the view that outreach for these proposed radical changes was inadequate and should be expanded from 4 to all 10 Districts.
· I subsequently testified at the April 22 Rules Committee meeting with a similar message.
· On May 20 I attended one of the four outreach events (and discovered key information was either missing, incorrect or at the very least misleading). · On June 17, I testified at a Task Force meeting (where my question concerning SB79 was ignored and never addressed)
· In the past few weeks, almost everyone that I have mentioned this topic to was unaware. So, I am ashamed to say that given my engagement in the topic This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. over these last 6 months, I am not optimistic that once Council gives staff the green light, resident stakeholders should expect a more robust opportunity to shape the final product.

3. ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS:
· It seems appropriate to embrace recent comments by Margaret Abe-Koga, my representative at our Board of Supervisors, who has suggested that cities need a break from seven years of new housing legislation, almost always multiple new laws every year.
· Our city planners and those throughout the state are overwhelmed trying to determine what the most recent new law means for their city. · Planners also appear to spend a fair bit of their time, monitoring legislation as it is moving through the legislature each year, even one’s that do not become law.
· Given the nature of the development cycle, there has been insufficient time to determine whether all these new laws are helping get housing constructed in our state, or whether there may be a need to adjust them to eliminate unintended consequences that are moving us in the opposite direction. · I therefore would urge the Council to engage with other cities in Santa Clara County, our county officials, and city and county representatives in the seven other counties that SB79 applies to, and join together in an effort to urge our state officials to give us some breathing room, and let us spend some time absorbing all the laws that have recently passed before passing more.

I realize this is a complex issue and I have done my best to understand as many of its nuances as I could. It has been an opportunity for me to employ my five decades of experience in the construction and real estate development field. But I am sure I have missed something, very likely something important.

I am also well aware that the Council is balancing many competing interests concerning this issue. I look forward to the hearing tomorrow.

Sincerely,
David Heindel

8/18/2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 Missing Middle GP Recommendation Page 1 of 2 Honorable Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council

August 17, 2026

SUBJECT: 8/18/2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 Missing Middle GP Recommendation

I have reviewed the Staff Report and the three Councilmember Memos and am writing to urge the Council to approve the Memo crafted by Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers Campos, Cohen, Foley and Casey with one recommended change.

Under “Memos Recommendations 1.b”
ADD ”8 DU/AC”: since 8 DU/AC is the existing base line condition and with SB79 now in effect, San Jose’s Housing Element is fully compliant without any changes in DU/AC. Please include the current base line condition in the list of options for staff to review (my attempt to suggest the changed language is below).

1. b. “Amend and replace e. [Small Multifamily / Missing Middle Housing ]1 (i): to direct staff to environmentally review existing RN 8 DU/AC and increases to 16 DU/AC, 24 DU/AC, and 32 DU/AC, and return to the Council with these options in December 2027 for consideration.”

Finally, I have three general comments based on my engagement with other city residents and organizations over these past many months:

1. AFFORDBILITY: The notion expressed by many that these proposed changes will increase affordability is contrary to the City Planning Department’s own 2021 consultant study.

As a side comment: Daniel Parolek, UC Berkeley Urban Studies graduate, created the term “missing middle” in 2011, and it appears to be a primary focus of his company, Opticos ----------------------
8/18/2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 Missing Middle GP Recommendation Page 2 of 2 Design Inc. Some have referred to it as simply “the marketing term of a private firm”. San Jose Planning staﬀ’s report uses Opticos’ typology - https://missingmiddlehousing.com

2. OUTREACH AND CITIZEN INPUT:
• The All District Leadership Group, of which I am member, sent a letter to all Councilmembers on April 21 expressing the view that outreach for these proposed radical changes was inadequate and should be expanded from 4 to all 10 Districts. • I subsequently testified at the April 22 Rules Committee meeting with a similar message. • On May 20 I attended one of the four outreach events (and discovered key information was either missing, incorrect or at the very least misleading). • On June 17, I testified at a Task Force meeting (where my question concerning SB79 was ignored and never addressed)
• In the past few weeks, almost everyone that I have mentioned this topic to was unaware.

So, I am ashamed to say that given my engagement in the topic over these last 6 months, I am not optimistic that once Council gives staff the green light, resident stakeholders should expect a more robust opportunity to shape the final product.

3. ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS:
• It seems appropriate to embrace recent comments by Margaret Abe-Koga, my representative at our Board of Supervisors, who has suggested that cities need a break from seven years of new housing legislation, almost always multiple new laws every year.
• Our city planners and those throughout the state are overwhelmed trying to determine what the most recent new law means for their city.
• Planners also appear to spend a fair bit of their time, monitoring legislation as it is moving through the legislature each year, even one’s that do not become law. • Given the nature of the development cycle, there has been insufficient time to determine whether all these new laws are helping get housing constructed in our state, or whether there may be a need to adjust them to eliminate unintended consequences that are moving us in the opposite direction.
• I therefore would urge the Council to engage with other cities in Santa Clara County, our county officials, and city and county representatives in the seven other counties that SB79 applies to, and join together in an effort to urge our state officials to give us some breathing room, and let us spend some time absorbing all the laws that have recently passed before passing more.

I am also well aware that the Council is balancing many competing interests concerning this issue. I look forward to the hearing tomorrow.

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

Confidentiality Notice: This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. They may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the original message and any copies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Onyx Equity Partners is not liable for any errors or omissions in the content of this message or any attachments that arise as a result of email transmission.

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

You agreed to building housing near transportation corridors and reducing VMT - vehicle miles traveled.

PLEASE Vote No and do not allow San Jose to become even higher density than what the state is allowing in SB 79.

Any housing proposal must include appropriate, realistic off-street parking because working class people need their cars. Only a select few workers have good train or bus service to their workplace at both ends of the work shift.

Thank you, Tami Sell, resident and voter in D-10.

San Jose City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026