Letters from the Public - 13 of 14 — San Jose City Council, August 18, 2026

Outlook
FW: Support - Item 10.3, General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (File 26-852) From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:44 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Matt Larson
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Cc: Tordillos, Anthony Gvatua, Alexander
Subject: Support - Item 10.3, General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (File 26-852) [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, Vice Mayor Foley, and Members of the City Council, I write in support ofltem 10.3, the General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework. I urge the Council to adopt the policy framework, with several additions proposed in the supplemental memoranda, especially the one from Councilmembers Tordillos and Kamei.

I want to start by recognizing Planning staff. The nine-month Task Force process - eight public meetings, community open houses, stakeholder sessions, and focused outreach - produced a framework that is unusually coherent for work of this scope. Ruth Cueto, Jerad Ferguson, and their colleagues deserve real credit for it, as does the Planning Commission for working through each policy area in detail.

I work as a real estate development consultant, specializing in policy, public affairs and navigating the entitlement process. I have also been involved in housing advocacy for the better part of the past decade.

This is a ve1y good plan, and it is ve1y pro-housing.

Increasing residential capacity across the Mixed Use Neighborhood and Urban Residential designations, building out a Small Multifamily program, streamlining a long-stalled Urban Village process, and creating a real pathway for Affordable Housing on Public/Quasi-Public land are each meaningful on their own. Together they represent the kind of comprehensive land use work that few California cities have been willing to take on. San Jose should be proud to be doing it.

I want to highlight two items from the supplemental memoranda that matter from a practitioner's standpoint. The additional General Plan Amendment cycle proposed by Councilmembers Candelas, Ortiz, and Mulcahy addresses a real and costly problem - under the cmTent annual cycle, a project that misses the window can lose a full year while carrying land, financing, and pre-development costs. This disproportionately affects mom-and-pop developers and smaller projects . The proposed change will help these smaller projects stay alive. Likewise, the provision in the Mayor's memorandum providing more This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. flexibility for building Affordable Housing on smaller Public/Quasi-Public sites will produce more Affordable units and have a meaningful impact.

Finally, the Tordillos-Kamei memorandum is especially important. The memo accurately illustrates the stakes of losing Housing Element certification, and keeping certification needs to be a paramount goal.

Also their proposal for a local density bonus program that is ministerial and offers a more attractive pathway than an ordinary application is exactly the right mechanism: it uses process certainty as the incentive, so that applicants have a genuine reason to build within San José's own objective standards instead of defaulting to existing state law. This is a smart win-win for both developers and the City's residents.

Thank you all for your continued leadership on housing. I appreciate the Council's work on this item and urge your support.

Respectfully,
Matt Larson
[Title, Firm]
[Phone]
ᐧ

Outlook
FW: DO NOT PASS THIS!
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:44 AM
To Agendadesk
From:JD
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 4:58 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: DO NOT PASS THIS!
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. I earn more) You don't often get email from • I earn why this is important COtJNCO. DECIDES TOF-SOAY
San Jose residents des
voice in key land-used
8yPlertutgl OfMJrto
On Tul~4J ), the S3JI Jose City
Ccn1,1et1 •,a,,iU oonsi t!f'wh.ntn.n)' be
them c<:,r-c uei,tb1l Lq,d ll!)C
propos;d in chedtts bisrory.
tbcdchnn:: i~ n a.bout hou,s.
~~15 ru.ighborhoods. It..
ttbo!rt M\\'g:nr ,vthihouk l occur
nnd \\
1 liect1er ~di • ts should have
o ,,,ia in d('Cisionc; that cl.in..'C.'tlv
&lfh.'t"'t lnexr l"Ommurutlcs. -
Thie Plruuuatg Con11ni~ion \'OtL-d
9-1 to 1110-r~ the pro1 l forwllrd.

Oncofthcdissc.n:tmgroolln;ooutt•
ers actwilly wmued .._..._ ~b:T
d<..~ity. 'T1ic p1 ~,) rnnv ~ •. ri~
to pie CityCouncil, w:bcre the fin:d
~~ will be made nc,ctv.-eek
San.Jose~yl~anambi
ti1.u Gerliel'D.1 Plan. Hll\mgserved
an the Gencml Pbn ,.rask Force
three times during the past two
dccud~ I ha\ie,vimessed the
=~= allows for appraximarcly4()0,000
additional resident$ and~
that~ toward meas with • • • _,_ trunSil and
empla,mentcencers where walk
ing biking and public D 8mpui ta•
tion are • cal options.

Tbe~fomia~b&,
pldl$C!dnumerousblwsintmded
001~1'1.1d!hy • Jose is not
n."qll_tre ~• ~tu~ lnvr, lt b ,, di:-;cn11..
oon:\l)" locnl decision. &in~
ic; n~ of e fo,,, cities in the coun-
tl}' com-idcring ·:h i.ntL-i ~ty fur
esmbli.ctl-ted single-fnmiJy neighbor
hoods.

Undt'1"~p~ l,n ~ngil! fam
ily home could bedemolisbed n.nd
n:p~~ vnlh ·c r~n,· :a: 10, 12, 1,,
ortl\'C.n 16 hoo.tingu~i . ~rp tothf'tlP.
~"tones in hdgh~. "+th oo pru'.:-
u,g requircn1L-nts nnd zero public
hcu:rings .. f-tt~idcnt"'''it0 h.rrv~ l•n-d
Clt:Xtdoorfor <.k~ "'-ould h:n'l!
l10 funnalopportuaityto pro-.i(1'
fuedback.
·rhe • bcfareSnnJ
isnot\\~O build I :nV\l~
11-.e question is whether gro-.-..1h
YIOI.Lld oca1r throughcolla.banrtion
\\-ith neighborhoods m-"'·• cher
conununiti1..-s &bould inrply be
~"ted roabsorb drunuttic
~,vithout inp\11.

There is also fiscal consider•
ation. San Josealn.~y b.ns one
of the most ~~-to-
Jn •singimbalaore\ ru,d ho\lsing
~lQPJlllfflt notaccon1pe.nit-<l by
~fficiemetnplO)·n~tgn,,,.1h \ -11
furth« mabldt>· ~
Newresident's increase demand
i>r muniapalsenices, whilt n.$
dcmiaJ de\~~'lt '-YP~.ally
-m • mg-\
~.

Pc
1his
Lbl U
w ·
do
the
t
J
d
J •
Cl)l;.:i,.iu.q
• on
\\'"}
W'I
ttlu
net·
ma,
ti
nhou
sh
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This is dangerous for San Jose home owners! Do not pass this! Shame on our city council for wven contemplating this nonsense! The people of San Jose deserve better than criminals in the office seats. Stop spending .oney we don't have on useless advancements that we can't support. Stop spending tax dollars and start learning how to save so we can actually create a surplus and then grow from that.

Outlook
FW: OPPOSITION: Zoning changes to Winchester Corrid or next to Beechwood and Fernwood From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:44 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Rita Crawford
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 5:02 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
. . .
strictl
Subject: OPPOSITION: Zoning changes to Winchester Corridor next to Beechwood and Fernwood Import ance: High
[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 Greetings, Mayor Mahan and Council Members
. Learn why this is imP-ortant
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 must be retained in any higher density zoning land use.

Specifically, regarding the Winchester Corridor: A site-by-site review must be conducted of the 18 parcels in question. The Planning Commission'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,
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Rita Crawford
Resident of District 6, Cory Neighborhood

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.

From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:45 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Maria Chavez
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 .
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from
Attention City council,
. Learn why this is im12ortant
As a 23+ year resident and taxpayer of the Santa Teresa Footh ills Neighborhood of San Jose, I do not support the proposed change in zoning of any reside ntial lot or open land in the city of San Jose.

I , Maria Chavez, state that this protest can be received, filed , and made a part of any proceedings before the Ci ty counci l pertaining to the above Agenda Item 10.3.

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

Outlook
FW: 8/18 The Red Herring - Critical Claims for Item 10.3 Are Not Supported by the Written Record or the Facts
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:45 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Roberta Moore
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Subject: 8/18 The Red Herring - Critical Claims for Item 10.3 Are Not Supported by the Written Record or the Facts [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Before approving a framework for permanent citywide increases in development rights, Council should require answers to three basic questions: Is it required? Is it needed? What will it cost our existing housing and residents?
A review by leaders from community and neighborhood groups comparing the Planning Department's proposal with state law, HCD requirements, and San Jose's adopted Housing Element raises serious concerns .

1. HCD COMPLIANCE-Citywide density increases are not required simply to maintain compliance.

San Jose already has an HCD-ce1iified Housing Element and substantial existing housing capacity. San Jose has already met P-35 designating 4 to 10 units per lot. Policy can not be enforced, and therefore should not be followed, based on private conversations. What is based on a written state law or HCD requirement versus what is a discretionary City policy choice?

2. NEED - Demonstrate that existing capacity is insufficient before adding more.

San Jose's General Plan already provides substantial capacity for future housing growth. Before granting the direction to establish additional pe1manent development rights citywide , the City should document how much existing capacity is available, where it is located, and why it is inadequate.

3. HOUSING LOSS & DISPLACEMENT - Count what could be lost, not just what might be built.

More density does not automatica lly mean more affordable housing. An existing lower-cost home can be demolished and replaced with several higher-cost market-rate units, producing zero deed-restricted affordable housing while permanently eliminating an existing lower-cost home. Renters are displaced immediately when their homes are demolished even if replacement units are eventually built.

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

This raises an important question about whether increasing redevelopment pressure without first measuring housing loss is consistent with the housing-preservation and anti-displacement objectives of San José’s own Housing Element.

4. AFFORDABILITY — Measure affordability, not density.

The City’s 2025 Cost of Residential Development Study found significant financial challenges for higher- density housing. Council should require analysis of financial feasibility, actual affordable-housing production, and the affordability of housing being lost before approving increased density in the name of affordability.

5. IMPACT — Understand the consequences before making the change permanent.

Staff has not adequately quantified potential housing loss, displacement, infrastructure demands, environmental impacts, or the cumulative effects of existing state laws such as SB 9 combined with additional citywide development rights.

CALL TO ACTION
Send the framework back to Planning.

Direct staff to return with:

A clear list of what is legally required versus discretionary in writing from HCD; An accounting of San José’s existing housing capacity and actual need for additional capacity;
A housing-loss, displacement, affordability, infrastructure, and environmental impact analysis; and
Alternatives that prioritize housing production where infrastructure exists and affordable- housing requirements can actually produce affordable units.

Implementation of San José’s existing Housing Element and General Plan should come before another soon to be permanent expansion of citywide development rights.

Council does not need to choose between housing production and protecting existing residents. It can demand the analysis necessary to pursue both.

Please do not approve a permanent framework before these fundamental questions are answered.

Respectfully Submitted,

Roberta Moore

•
•
•
•
Outlook
FW: increase housing
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:45 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Donna Holt
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: increase 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 imP-ortant Dear Councilmember ,
I do not agree with this proposal. I believe it will harm our neighborhoods and increase traffic in already congested areas.

Thank you for considering my in put,
Donna Holt
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Augu st 18th City Council Agenda, Item 10.3 - OPPOSE MISSING MIDDLE From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:45 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Lorena Villatoro
Sent: Monday, August 17, 0
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18th City Council Agenda, Item 10.3 - OPPOSE MISSING MIDDLE [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant From: Lorena Villatoro
To:

Cc:

Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 05:15:45 PM PDT
>; Doan Bien
>
Subject: August 18th City Council Agenda , Item 10.3 - OPPOSE MISSING MIDDLE Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to OPPOSE the Planning Commission's
recommendation to amend the 4-year General Plan, as outlined in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Jose and Lorena C Villatoro
San Jose, CA 95121

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public comment opposing citywide up-zoning-item on 8/18 council meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:45 AM
To Agendadesk
From: James Bjerrum <~
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 5:33 PM
To: Districtl
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 morel You don't often get email from - · Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Dear Council Member~
District 1. I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San 1 ywide Up-Zoning proposal on 8/18.

We are already seeing an increase in traffic to our area with the El Paseo building and will see more once Costco is open. I do not feel that multistory buildings with no-on site parking in our single family home area is conducive to the atmosphere we currently have. I am not against building more homes but feel the emphasis needs to be on making them affordable. Building multistory buildings makes sense but then charging 1 M+ for them is, by definition, not affordable.

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

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

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

Outlook
FW: Please protect our neighborhoods
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:46 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Bob Cai
Sent: Monda
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Please protect our neighborhoods
[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 Council Member Kamei,
I live istrict 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 El Paseo 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, impact utilities and flood our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements .

Please protect our neighborhoods and vote against this proposal! Sincerely
Robert L Cain
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 8/18 The Red Herring - Critical Claims Item 10.3 Not Supported by Written Record or Facts From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:46 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Roberta Moore
Sent: Monday, August
To: Mahan, Matt
Nguyen, Mindy
Pierluigi Oliverio
Gina Zari
Subject: 8/18 The Red Herring - Critical Claims Item 10.3 Not Supported by Written Record or Facts [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Matt and Staff,
After hearing San Jose risks HCD dece11ification, I asked for the source:
"HCD has told staff that the City could be at risk of dece1tification." Where is that in writing?
Our extensive analysis found no written requirement for higher density citywide to maintain HCD compliance. San Jose's Housing Element ah-eady addresses required Missing Middle housing.

Send the framework back to Planning. Require:
• Written documentation of what is required vs. discretionary; • Proof that additional citywide capacity is needed;
• Analysis of housing loss, displacement, affordability, infrastructure and environmental impacts; and
• Analysis of consistency with Housing Element preservation and anti-displacement policies.

Do not establish a framework for permanent citywide land-use changes based on an undocumented HCD warning. Require the evidence first.

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

Roberta Moore

Outlook
FW: Request to VOTE NO on the citywide up-zoning proposal From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:46 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe----
From: Anil Naik
Sent: Monday, Au
To: District1 <
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Request to VOTE NO on the citywide up-zoning proposal [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 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 Santana Row expansion already bringing heavy density and traffic to our immediate borders, our quiet interior residential blocks cannot handle additional multi -unit zoning . This permanent "by-right" rule will destroy our single-family neighborhood character and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements. Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposa l.

Respectfully
Anil Naik
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 8/18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:46 AM
To Agendadesk
From: DJ Chu
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 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 im12ortant Dear Council Member~
I liv-istrict 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 El Paseo 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 Distinguished 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,
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Oppose Missing Middle Housing proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:47 AM
To Agendadesk
From: null
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 6:26 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Oppose 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. th is is imi;iortant Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Please oppose the Middle Housing Proposal. Before moving forward , the city must protect its current residents. I urge you to reject any zoning changes that lower parking minimums or threaten the financial stability of our established neighborhoods.

I am writing to formally voice my strong opposition to the proposed zoning amendments expanding "missing middle" housing in our single-family neighborhoods . While I support sensible city planning, the current proposal threatens the safety and quality of life in our community by creating severe traffic hazards and overcrowding our local infrastructure.

Our residential streets are designed for low-density traffic, not the high-volume vehicle flow that multi-unit developments bring. Adding duplexes , triplexes , and fourplexes to single-family lots will rapidly multiply the number of cars parked on our streets and driving through our neighborhoods . This increased traffic creates immediate blind spots and safety hazards for pedestrians , cyclists, and children playing outside. Furthermore , the resulting gridlock risks delaying emergency response vehicles, putting everyone at risk.

Beyond the streets, our neighborhood infrastructure simply cannot handle this sudden influx of residents. Our public services , and utility grids are also at capacity This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. and unprepared for this rapid, unplanned growth.

Before approving these drastic zoning changes, the city must conduct thorough traffic safety and infrastructure capacity studies. I urge you to protect our neighborhoods and reject any plans that compromise pedestrian safety or overcrowd our community resources.

Please don’t destroy San Jose with the loss of neighborhood identity with overcrowding and crime. I did not vote for this, and I will not vote for it in the future.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Sincerely,

Pam Aberg

Outlook
FW: Augu st 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppo se General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposa
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:47 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Carole Correa
Sent: Monday, August
Cohen, •
, Pa
han,
Pam
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 Proposa
[External Email. Do not open links or attachmen ts from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't ofte n get email from
Dear SJ City Council -
. Learn whY. this is im12ortant
We'd like to go on record as strongly opposing this "Missing Middle" building proposal. While we do understand housing affordability is a major issue, this proposal is not the right solution. It avoids public input, doesn't account for needed parking, could lead to overcrowding in already maxed out neighborhood schools and increase already heavy local traffic - this is not the way to go.

New housing needs to be planned thoughtfully to maintain a reasonable quality of living for existing as well as new homeowners. We are already seeing negative impacts due to "builders remedy" developments, where traffic, schools, and infrastructure in general were not fully considered before dense housing is plopped into an unprepared neighborhood.

If you're trying to drive residents to other cities, this is one way to do it. Please do better.

Thank you for considering.

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:47 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Priscilla Joyce
Sent: Monday, August
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Cityw ide Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 Council Meetin g [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from
Dear Council Member Kamei,
. Learn why this is imgortant
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 proposa l tomorrow.

With the ongoing and planned El Paseo 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. This is not a NIMBY issue it is a practical, safety, quality of life issue. Our infrastructu re simply cannot handle this type of expansion.

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

Respectfully yours,
Priscilla Joyce
Clarendon Drive/Country Lane Neighborhood, San Jose, CA This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Natarajan C
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Opposing Citywi de Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeti ng [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 Council member~
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force's "Opportunity Housing" up-zoning proposal. As a San Jose resident and property owner in the Lynhaven area, I am deeply concerned about the negative impacts this plan will have on our existing single-family neighborhoods .

My opposition centers on two aspects of the proposal:

First, eliminating on-site parking requirements will inevitably lead to severe parking congestion .

Under this plan, a single-family lot could be converted to house up to four units. This change could easily bring eight or more vehicles to a single parcel, yet there is no mandate to accommodate these vehicles on the property. The resulting overflow onto our streets will create unmanageable congestion and negatively impact neighborhood accessibility.

Second, I strongly object to eliminating community input. Permitting these lot conversions "by right" strips existing residents of their ability to review, voice concerns, or request reasonable modifications to multi-unit developments happening right next door. Fundamentally altering the lower-density character of our established neighborhoods without any public hearings or community review process is unacceptable.

Densifying single-family neighborhoods in this manner- without adequate parking infrastructure or a venue for resident feedback- is the wrong approach for San Jose. I strongly urge you to vote against this proposal and protect the voices of existing residents.

Thank you for your time and representat ion.

Natarajan Chandrashekar
Lynn Oaks Dr, San Jose, CA
Outlook
FW: 8-18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle Housing From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Dan Se
Sent: Monda
To:Th •
Cc: Taber, Toni
Subject: 8-18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose 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 imQortant Hello Mayor Mahan an~mbers ,
Casey,
District8
Tami Sell
PLEASE vote No on the Missing Middle Housing proposal: it needs serious improvement before it can go forward.

The density change is too radical, and the reckless abandonment of off street parking would cause serious harm.

Any housing proposal must include appropriate , realistic off-street parking because working. class J:2eOJ:2le need their cars. Consider the second-shift janitors and third-shift workers who clean and secure our city. Only a select few workers have good train or bus service to their workplace at both ends of the work shift. A 16-unit building with no parking brings about 24 cars that compete for curb space with other resident vehicles. This opens a parking war! In Boston, people hoard parking spaces with old furniture and vandalize any car displacing that.

ComP-etition leads to vandalism , leads to violence between neighbors! Chicago's infamous "projects" lack parking, and don't help the residents hold down jobs. The epitome of arrogance is saying "I'm interested in space for people, not cars" while ruining life for janitors , shift workers and almostevery working poor family.

You agreed to building housing near transportation corridors and reducing VMT - vehicle miles traveled. Please do that, and proceed more cautiously with other projects . Please do not ruin our city's single family home neighborhoods by allowing up to 16 units on a single family sized lot.

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

Our population is decreasing. We need to enhance density thoughtfully, and honor livability and quality of life.

We already have condos that sit empty because they are too overpriced or don't have enough parking spaces.

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

Outlook
FW: Missing Middle Council Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Irene Willi ams
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Subject: Missing Middle Council Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor Mahan an~ers ,
I am writing regarding the Missing Middle Proposal included in San Jose City Council Agenda Item 10.3 for the upcoming meeting on Tuesday, August 18.

I ask you to reject this Missing Middle housing proposal for all the reasons local folks have already outlined in their emails to you. We understand the need for additional housing in San Jose, however, we can't let greed overrule the common sense needs of all involved. Please listen to us, the local residents, when we say this is not the right way to expand housing.

By allowing this proposal to go ahead, you will be undermining the needs of current residents while at the same time creating an environment that will be more congested, and less safe as well as putting a great strain on the current infrastructure such as water, power etc.,. which I don't see as being addressed.

Also, by agreeing to this proposal you will take away the ability for constituents to oppose or be heard in future building projects of the same nature. That is not acceptable! Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

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

Outlook
FW: 10.3 Missung middle
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Tom Turney
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 7:27 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
Subject: 10.3 Missung middle
. . .
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 . Learn why this is im12ortant I have much to say about this topic, but I will try to keep it short. I only found out about this a few weeks ago through Nextdoor. I have talked to numero us people since then, and not a single person has any idea what I'm talking about or knew anything about this initiative .

The lack of public outreach-either through mailings, advertisements , or emails-is appalling. What are you guys trying to hide! Out of all the people I have talked to so far who are now educated on the issue, I have not found a single person who is in favor of this. Yet, I read on the news feeds and on social media that the City Council has seen very little opposition.

The reason is obvio us: nobody knows about it.

The other issue I will touch on briefly is zoning. Zoning, to me, is something that is sacred. People buy in a certain area because it is zoned a certain way, with the expectation that it is going to stay that way. To change the rules on us and make it irrevocable (which I don't even understand why you would do, out of sheer stupidity and short sightedness) is, I think , a violation of the public trust.

Please vote no on this issue. If you truly represent us, you should be listening to us-all of us-and that's hard to do when no one knows about the issue.

Tom Turney
Outlook
FW: 8/18/2026 Mtg item 10.3 - Oppose Winchester Corridor rezoning to UR, max of MUN instead From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Ken Hittleman
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
On Behalf Of Ken Hittleman
◄
◄
◄
◄
Subject: 8/18/2026 Mtg item 10.3 - Oppose Winchester Corridor rezoning to UR, max of MUN instead [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel District!
District4
District?
District 10
Some people who received this message don't ofte n get email from Dear Mayor Mahan and City Council Members,
. Learn whY. this is im12ortant
I am writing in support of the August 14, 2026, memorandum from Council member Michael Mulcahy, Councilmember Peter Ortiz, and Councilmember Domingo Candelas.

The compomise to replace all the proposed UR zoning with MUN along with the preservation of RN along Forest Avenue is what makes sense for the Winchester Corridor.

I have attended almost all of the General Plan 4-year Review meetings, and appreciate that the task force members did not support the Staff's recommendations for UR and held multiple votes and also countered with proposals for MUN zoning in place of UR.

Cory residents understand that more housing is needed, but UR zoning would not create housing that would actually benefit the potential new residents, and would severely negatively impact current ones.

The already terrible traffic would be awful and further the lack of any parking mandate would be devastating to an area already impacted by overflow parking form Valley Fair that has been exacerbated since they increased their parking fees. The area is not at all appropriate for UR zoning. MUN zoning along Winchester Blvd and preserving RN along Forest Ave is a reasonable compromise.

With regard to the blanket quadrupling of residential density from R-1-8 to R-1-32, I strongly feel a more targeted approach would better serve San Jose. The lack of any review process is basically abandoning any planning and letting developers do whatever they want without regard to the impacted This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. neighborhood, especially given no parking requirements, minimal setbacks, no impact analysis for environmental and service impacts like water, sewage, electrical, and emergency services.

It goes well beyond the state mandates. The state is continuing to make changes in this area. San Jose should only conform to the state requirements as they continue to unfold.

Any councilmember who votes for the proposed quadrupling of residental density should be recalled from their position. Once granted, reducing this back to sanity is pretty much impossible. Changes like this should be thoroughly studied, rolled out incrementally, and be thoroughly communicat ed in
advance to all the residents. Each project should also be subject to individual review for the impacted residents to be notiﬁed and allowed to weigh in on it.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
Ken Hittleman

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Earle Makin
Sent: Monday, Aug s
Cohen, •
, Pa
han,
Pam
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 You don't often get email from - - Learn why this is imP-ortant Honorable Mayor and ~ers,
As a 48 year resident of San Jose 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 proposal describes Missing Middle housing under consideration as currently 8 DU/AC to 32 DU/AC, 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 (critical scarce resources including power and water) and neighborhood services.

Third: homeowners have invested significant amounts of their savings and income based in part on the existing character and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods and San Jose.

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

Potential impacts on surrounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules are broadly changed.

Fourth: risk of losing residents and small businesses (major concern for the city). If high- density approvals continue to be staccked without regard for existing residents, families will seriously consider leaving San Jose and take small business with them. Small businesses makie up 99.9% of all US businesses and account for roughly 43.5% of U.S. GDP, according to the SBA office of Advocacy. The city cannot afford to drive them away.

Fifth: Environmental and EconomicTrade-offs: Over-densifying low-densisity neighborhooods increases localized Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than reducing them, worsens San Jose's job-to-housing ratio, and places us at higher density thresholds than neighboring Silicon Valley cities. Furthermore, historical city analysis indicates that market-rate upzoning does not automatically yield affordable units.

Addressing the entire population needs to be considered before solving for a specific sub- population. Housing policy should add housing thoughtfully while respecting the people and neighborhoods already here.

I implore you to revisit the needs and assess feasible solutions which will protect the San Jose we have invested in, while securing housing for the missing middle and lower income constituents.

I urge you to VOTE NO on advancing this proposal.

Earle Makin

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: MARSEY KAHN
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
The proposal to increase residential housing density in single-family neighborhoods has left me feeling much the same way I felt when tiny homes were first proposed in 2017. That proposal was so seriously flawed it was eventually scrapped in favor of a well-researched plan that addressed all relevant issues around sheltering the unhoused. As a result, we now have sites such as the Cherry Avenue EIH, which is already demonstrating some of the positive results achievable with sensible, innovative planning.

I believe the current proposal for increasing housing density in single-family neighborhoods represents another rushed attempt to respond to a very complex problem. The proposal does not directly address the environmental impact of issues such as parking shortages, increased traffic on narrow streets, inadequate water and sewage systems, or increased strain on utilities.

I am in favor of protecting the integrity of single-family neighborhoods, and also of finding common-sense , truly workable solutions that will increase housing opportunities. I support the recommendations proposed by Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, and Councilmembers Campos, Cohen, and Casey in their August 13 memorandum.

Sincerely,
Morsey Kahn
Thousand Oaks Neighborhood Association
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middl From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/ 18/2026 7:49 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Carolyn Newburn
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middl [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant 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 18council agenda.

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

Respectfully,
Carolyn and Paul Newburn
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Augu st 18th City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:49 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Andrew Mattioda
Sent: Monday, Auoust 17, 2026 7: 4
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18th 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 ]
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Item 10.3
Dear Mayor and Members of the San Jose City Council,
Learn why this is important at
I am writing to urge you to vote no on Agenda Item 10.3, which would increase the permitted number of housing units from 8 to 32 units per acre.

I support responsible housing development, but this blanket decision does not adequately consider the character, infrastructure, traffic, parking, and livability of San Jose's existing single-family neighborhoods.

A citywide policy of this magnitude should not be adopted without meaningful neighborhood input and a careful evaluation of its effects on individual communities.

Residents deserve a transparent, neighborhood -sensitive process- not a one-size-fits-all decision made without their participation . Density standards should account for differences among neighborhoods, including street capacity, public services, parking availability, school impacts, emergency access, and compatibility with surrounding homes.

I respectfully ask the Council to reject Agenda Item 10.3, or at minimum return it for substantial public engagement and a more carefully tailored approach that protects existing neighborhoods while addressing the need for housing.

I also want to be clear about the political consequences of this vote: I vote in San José elections, and I will not vote for any Councilmember or Mayor who supports this proposal. I will also actively campaign against elected officials who vote for it in the next election.

Please listen to the residents who will be directly affected and vote no on Agenda Item 10.3.

Sincerely,
Andrew L. Mattioda, Ph.D.

District 10
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: General Plan 4-year Policy
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:49 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Larry Prowd
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: Casey, George
Subject: General Plan 4-year Policy
City Clerk
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn whY. this is im12ortant Dear George Casey an~ City Council,
I am concerned about the proposed "General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework". To allow 3-story, multi-unit buildings by right in single-family zones citywide, with no parking requirement, is wrong!
It will strain our already strained infrastructure, increase vehicle miles traveled, reduce our climate control with reduced tree canopy and the parking issue .... oh my!! "Sustainable growth requires planning that protects both current and future residents." Thank you for fighting for what is right for ALL.

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

Outlook
FW: Housing in San Jose
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:49 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Barb Smith
To: District9
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Housing in San Jose
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear Pam:
. Learn why this is im12ortant
I understand that the city council will be discussing the San Jose General Plan. I am a 44 year resident of San Jose, living in the Cambrian area for that entire time. I love San Jose; I think it's a great place to live. Unfortunately, it is not a very affordable place to live. The cost of housing is very high. I have two grown adult children , and although they don't live in the Bay Area, they do live in California and both daughters are renting ; housing costs are just too high.

In college I had an environmental law professor who said something that has stuck with me all these years. The definition of an environmentalist is "someone who got there first." Too often, those who have homes already want to protect their neighborhoods at the expense of those who would also like to live there. We need more homes in San Jose, not less. My concerns are these:

1. The density of housing should not be lowered, it should remain at 32 homes per acre.

2. Higher density housing should be allowed in more areas and not restricted so much.

3. Make it easier for new homes to be built, not harder, while keeping safety and the environment in mind. I believe that there is a great deal of extra regulation that could be done away with in order to build new homes.

One of my daughters is a public school teacher. I am very aware that teachers are an underpaid resource in this state . Please make it possible for our students to have This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. teachers who also live near their schools.

Thanks for listening.

Barb Smith
San Jose resident

Outlook
FW: Missing middle
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:50 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Carol Linney
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:03 P
To: The Office of Mavor Matt Mahan
Cc: District 6
Subject: Missing middle
[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 ]
Learn why this is important at
Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilman Mulcahy and Toni Taber, As a resident of Willow Glen, I am concerned about the "upzon ing" proposal coming before the city council.

I was attracted to the small houses in our neighborhood that have character and have seen more and more of these charming residences changed into massive homes that lack any character. It's destroying the Willow Glen charm. Allowing multiple homes on a single lot will only exacerbate the problem.

Please protect the ident ity of Willow Glen and vote NO on this proposal.

I will appreciate a reply.

Carol Wilson
Outlook
FW: Public comment opposing citywide up zoning
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:50 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: CYNTHIA HULTON
Sent: Monday, Auoust 17, 2026
To: City Clerk District1
Subject: Public comment opposing citywide up zoning
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear Council member Kamei,
I live on 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 expansion already bringing heavy density and traffic to our immediate area, our quiet interior residential blocks cannot handle additional multi -unit zoning. This permanent "by-right" rule will destroy our single-family neighborhood character and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements . Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

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 idea!
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:50 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messa e----
From: James Baker
Sent: Monday, Auous
To: Ortiz, Peter
Anthony
Kamei, R
Casey, G
Doming
Michael
oan, •
Clerk
Subject: Please vote NO on the missing middle idea!
[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 City Council folks,
Learn why this is important at
Please vote no on the idea of building 3 story apartment building on single family parcels in San Jose.

That's a horrible idea! Unscrupulous developers will start buying almost any single family home that is for sale to simply tear it down and build a 20-30 unit apartment building! There's no infrastructure or parking or anything to support that in a residential neighborhood . Please vote no.

Regards
James Baker
Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 Council Meeting - No "Middle housing project " From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:50 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Julie Herbert
Sent: Monday, Augus
I
han,
Pam
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
n, •
Subject: August 18, 2026 Council Meeting - No "Middle housing project" Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from- · Learn whY. this is imJ;lortant To the San Josee City ~presentatives ,
We would like to inform you that we, homeowners in San Jose, are against the "Missing Middle" housing proposal that allows 3-story apartment buildings with 16+ units on any residential lot, with no on-site parking, drastically reduced setbacks, and by-right approval-no public input, no hearings, no Planning Commission or Council vote. We think it is a very bad idea and would like you to to consider other options. I urge you to vote NO tomorrow.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

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

Outlook
FW: Opposition to Recommendation to Amend Four Year General Plan (Agenda Item 10.3) August 18, 2026 Meeting
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/ 2026 7:50 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Kimberly Dal
Sent: Monday, Aug
To: Councilmember
Cc: Kamei, Rosemary
Tordillos, Anthony
Subject: Opposition to Recommendation to Amend Four Year General Plan (Agenda Item 10.3) August 18, 2026 Meeting
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from - · Learn whY. this is imP-ortant Dear Councilperson Ma~
I live in District 6 and 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 path that San Jose is currently on will further destroy whatever charm and beauty this City once had. Willow Glen is especially being ruined with the high density housing and big This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. modular block houses that are popping up. Please listen to your constituents and oppose the plan.

Respectfully,
Kimberly Daly

Outlook
FW: General Plan Envision 2040 Update Council Meeting Agenda Item 10.3 From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:50 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Janet Holt
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: General Plan Envision 2040 Update Council Meeting 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 imP-ortant Please place in public comments for Aug18 Countil Meeting Agenda Item 10.3 Envision 2040 General Plan Update
Thank you ,
Janet
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council, As a San Jose resident, I support building more housing and keeping our City fully compl iant with California housing law. But compliance and maximizing density throughout our residential neighborhoods are not the same thing.

Before moving forward, I ask Council to answer a fundamental question:

What is the legal threshold San Jose must meet to remain fully compliant with state housing mandates, and how much of the proposed additional density goes beyond that threshold as a local policy choice?
The proposal to increase the Residential Neighborhood designation from approximately 8 to as much as 32 dwelling units per acre is a fourfold increase in maximum density. That is a significant change and deserves a clear explanation of what portion is legally necessary.

I could support missing middle housing-duplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, condom iniums and other appropriately scaled housing. But we can create more housing without applying the maximum density broadly across residential neighborhoods.

I urge Council to:

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

Establish the legal threshold first. Account for existing Housing Element capacity, state- mandated capacity, ADUs, Urban Villages, commercial redevelopment and approved-but- unbuilt housing. Then determine what reasonable buffer is necessary to remain safely in compliance.

Prioritize housing where it can actually be built—Downtown, Urban Villages, transit corridors, underused commercial properties, shopping centers and large redevelopment sites.

Use graduated missing-middle zoning, with modest increases within residential neighborhoods and greater density on larger lots, neighborhood edges, major corridors and transit-accessible areas.

Target 32 DU/acre rather than applying it broadly, using objective criteria such as transit access, parcel size, infrastructure, fire access and street capacity.

Measure housing actually built, not simply theoretical zoning capacity. Success should be measured by homes permitted, started and completed.

This should not be a choice between being “YIMBY” or “NIMBY.” Residents can strongly support more housing while also asking whether density beyond the legal threshold is necessary, appropriately located, supported by infrastructure and likely to produce actual homes.

Meet the legal threshold. Maintain a reasonable compliance buffer. Build more housing. Then require a clear public justification for density increases that go materially beyond what state law requires.

I believe that is a balanced approach to both housing production and responsible planning.

Respectfully,
Janet Holt
San José Resident

•
•
•
•
•
Outlook
FW: Augu st 18 City Coun cil Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:50 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Monika Kress
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 ]
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Learn why this is important at
As property owners, longtime residents, and voters in San Jose (Santa Teresa neighborhood) , my husband Stan Vaughn and I strongly object to the zoning changes that have been proposed.

Loosening up zoning restrictions will expose our city to corporate greed, worse than it already is. You can bet that small homes like mine (6000 sq ft lot) will be razed, replaced with a multi -family dwelling designed to max out corporate profits. These corporations cannot be trusted. They demonstrate time and again that they are totally out of control, have no regard for life, laws, or the environment , they exist solely to increase shareholder value at the expense of taxpayers. They will pounce during this moment of stupidity and laziness to max out their profits. Wouldn't local employers love it if their employees could live in cheap slums a short commuting distance from work? They could pay workers even less.

Not that long ago, my husband and I were priced out of the housing market, paying exorbitant rent, but we eventually made our way to middle -class home ownership . If this legislation passes, our property values and quality of life will tank and we will have no choice but to leave California, taking our Cal PERS pensions with us and pay our taxes into another state. Expect that many thousands of California homeowners will do the same. Say goodbye to your tax base and your voters if this legislations passes.

I know firsthand that we need more housing in San Jose, but driving the middle class out of town and replacing decent middle class communities with urban blight is a bad idea. Improve mass transit, expand high speed rail from the East Bay and Central Valley, improve minimum wage, utilize existing developed spaces, renovate the empty office buildings for low-income renters, penalize rich people and corporations that have unused buildings and real estate lots, force/incentivize employers to allow more remote work and reduce driving time are far better solutions than turning middle class housing into slums under the guise of “we need more affordable housing.” Sincerely,
Monika Kress and Stanley Vaughn
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 Tue 8/18/2026 7:50 AM
To Agendadesk
From: RON CANARIO
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 You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

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

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.

Respectfully,
Ron Canario
District 1
Outlook
FW: URGENT: Oppose Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:51 AM
To Agendadesk
From: MC
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Oppose Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 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 this is im12ortant Dear Council Member~
I live - District 1. Please VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force~ing proposal tomorrow.

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

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

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

Outlook
FW: Vote NO on "Missing Middle"
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:51 AM
To Agendadesk
From: DucoJan Pilot
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:49 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
. . .

Subject: Vote NO on "Missing Middle"
strictl
[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 imgortan t Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council , I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework.

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

My concerns are straightfo1ward. 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, infrastmcture, and neighborhood services . Third, homeowner s have invested significant amounts of their savings and income based in pait on the existing chai·acter and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods. Potential impacts on sunounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those mle s are broadly changed.

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

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:51 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Luci Sheppard
Sent: Monday, Auoust 7, 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 ]
Learn why this is important at
Please note to City Council Members that my family is against the Missing Middle Plan Thanks
Luci Sheppard
94301
Sent from my iPhone
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 Tue 8/18/2026 7:51 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Meghana Joshi
Sent: Monday, August
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting [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 Council Member~
I live in District 1. I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the orce Citywide up-zoning proposal tomorrow.

With the ongoing Santana Row expansion already bringing heavy density and traffic to our immediate borders, our quiet interior residential blocks cannot handle additional multi-unit zoning.

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

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

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

Outlook
FW: Strongly oppose "Missing Middle " housing proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:51 AM
To Agendadesk
Cohen, •
, Pa
han,
Pam
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Subject: Strongly oppose "Missing Middle" housing proposa l Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mu lcahy, M ichael
[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 I am writing as a concerned San Jose resident to strongly urge you to vote NO on the permanent , city wide "Missing Middle" housing proposal.

This proposal goes far beyond any state mandate. It would allow 3-story apartment buildings with 16 or more units on virtually any residentia l lot, with drastically reduced setbacks, no on-site parking requirements, and by-right approva l. Once adopted , these projects would require no public hearings , no Planning Commission review, and no City Counci l vote. When construction begins, the project will already be fully approved- with zero opportunity for neighborhood input. It is crazy and irresponsib le to allow such construction projects to go ahead without any conside ration of traffic , parking, utility infrastructure etc.

I respectfully ask the Council to reject this proposal and allow enough time for citizens to voice their opinion . At a minimum, please remove it from any consent
or stream lined calendar so a full public hearing so that genuine community discussion can take place.

Thank you for your consideration and for listening to the residents who will live with the long-term consequence of such zon ing change .

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

Outlook
FW: Oppose agenda item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:52 AM
To Agendadesk
From: David Ricci
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: Oppose agenda item 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn whY. this is imP.ortant 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 18council agenda.

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

Respectfully,
David G Ricci

Outlook
FW: Please no 3 story apartment buidlings!
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:52 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Noele Gringeri
Sent: Monday, August
To: Kamei, Rosemary
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Please no 3 story apartment buidlings!
District!
[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 Counsel Member~
Please Know many of us oppose the citywide upzoning item on 8/18 council Please vote NO on the Envision San JOse 2040 Task Force Citywide upzoning.

Do not ruin our neighborhoods for MORE TAX MONEY.

Please, please vote no.

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

Outlook
FW: Please represent your constituents and oppose 5B330 From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:52 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Cathleen Peters
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Please represent your constituents and oppose 58330 [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 Pl ease represent your constituents and oppose SB 330. We bought our homes to live in neighborhoods! If we wanted high rise density we would have bought there! We have invested in this type of lifestyle and not high density housing! There are many areas of San Jose that you could implement high density housing such as Bascom Ave! Please represent us and oppose this bill!
Thank you!
Cathleen Peters
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: 8/ 18/2026 Mtg item 10.3 OPPOSITION: Zoning changes to Winchester Corridor next to Beechwood and Fernwood
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:52 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Rita Crawford
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: City Clerk
District3
District 6
District9
◄
◄
◄
◄
District!
District4
District?
District 10
Subject: 8/18/2026 Mtg item 10.3 OPPOSITION: Zoning changes to Winchester Corridor next to Beechwood and Fernwood
[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 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 .

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 must be retained in any higher density zoning land use.

Specifically, regarding the Winchester Corridor: A site-by-site review must be conducted of the 18 parcels in question . The Planning Commission's 50/50 split clearly shows lack of consensus with the proposal as is.

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

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,
Rita Crawford

Outlook
FW: Please oppose 5B330
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:52 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Cathleen Peters
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Please oppose S8330
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

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

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

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhood s, fu1ther aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police , fire, and other city resources. We invested in our neighborhoods by buying our home. We never bought in our areas with anticipation that it would change to high density housing! If we wanted that we would have bought in such neighborhood s! There are so many areas in San Jose where you can utilize high density housing such as Bascom Ave! Please represent your constituents and vote no to SN330!
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Respectfully,
Cathleen Peters

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:52 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Stacey
Sent: Monday, A g 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 often get email from . Learn whY. this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the 4-yeai· general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

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

Respectfully,
StaceyM.

Outlook
FW: "August 18, 2026City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:53 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Don and Dee Walker
Sent: Monday, August 17, 20
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
Ca delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: "August 18, 2026City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn why this is imf;!ortant Dear council members,
Don's comments:

Since we are unable to attend your hearings on this proposal, we would like to say that we STRONGLY oppose this proposal.

For one thing, parking would be a huge issue. Wherever we go in San Jose where there are apartments or condos nearby, the streets are lined with cars. Even in our neighborhood , there are condos nearby and many times the cars belonging to those owners line our street - two blocks away.

Please allow this to simmer for a while, get the word out more, allow public input, and have some hearings.

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

Dee's comments:

We just became informed of this proposal and as a long-time home owner, are outraged that you evidently are planning to proceed without making sure that the public is properly notified and can respond. This is certainly not what we want for our neighborhood.

Don and Dee
Concerned citizens

Outlook
FW: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:53 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Samuel Garrett
Sent: Monday, August
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn whY. this is imP.ortant Dear Council member Kamei, I live in District 1, and I am writing to urge a NO vote on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force citywide up-zoning proposal tomorrow.

Our community strongly supports San Jose's regiona l housing goals and believes in smart, equitable growth. However, District 1 has already absorbed substantial growth and multi family density-most notab ly through major regional developments like the ongoing Santana Row expansion right along our borders. Because our neighborhood has already done its proportionate share to support regional density and housing needs, applying a blanket, permanent "by right" up zoning to our interior residential blocks goes beyond balanced growth.

Furthermore, introducing high-density allowances without adequate on-site parking requirements creates compounding infrastructure challenges. Our local streets and intersections are already operating at capacity, and additional density without parking minimums risks overwhelming neighborhood circulation and safety.

We respectfully ask that you protect our existing residential fabric, recognize the significant density District 1 already contributes to the city's housing ecosystem, and vote no on this proposal. Respectfully, Samuel Garrett Lynhaven Neighborhood, San Jose, CA This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:12 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Jenny Tomlin
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Cc: District1
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmember Kamei:

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

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

Respectfully,
Jenny Tomlin
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 Tue 8/ 18/2026 8:13 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Sandra Pinal
Sent: Monday, Augus
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 impo1tant To all city Government elected officials;
As a home owner at East San Jose, I fully oppose this General plan Task force. Enough is enough! Find other areas to build, not in the residential area with single family homes! We don't need buildings within family homes! San Jose is already very crowded, building will bring more garbage, rats, and everything that comes with more buildings in areas where they should not be! Do NOT do this damage to the city of San Jose!
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Vote
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Eric Casares
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: Vote
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam whY. this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and City Council: I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda. Quadrupling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback, is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods. SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far reaching zoning changes-not otherwise mandated by the state -should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future. The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods, further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

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

Outlook
FW: Aug 18th city council vote
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Maggie Best
Sent: Monday, Augu
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Aug 18t h city council vote
Tordillos, Anth ony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
a delas, Domingo
M ulcahy, M ichael
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Maver Mahan and Members of the San Jose Citv Council, I am writinq to stronqlv OPPOSE the planninq commission recommendation to amend the 4 year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

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.

Quadruplinq the maximum permitted housinq density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city wide, eliminatinq anv possibility for community review or feedback, is a drastic and irreversible cha nae to the communitv fabric of our San Jose neiahborhoods. SB330 prevents anv reversal of this up zoninq if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far reachinq zoninq chanqes-not otherwise mandated by the state-should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

First, significantly increasing allowable density can fundamentally change the character and scale of established residential neighborhoods. Second, adding substantially more households should require careful consideration of the cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood services. Third, homeowners have invested significant amounts of their savings and income based in part on the existing character and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods. Electricity demand is skyrocketing due to aging infrastructure that can't support the number of electric cars, AC, and the requirement that all gas appliances can't be replaced after Jan 2027. The water mains on our street needed replacement after exploding as geysers multiple times.

High density housing does not belong in established 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.

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

Thank you.

Margaret Best
San Jose, CA 95120

Outlook
FW: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Mary Nguyen
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting [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.Otiant Dear Council member Kamei, I live in District 1, and I am writing to urge a NO vote on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force citywide up-zoning proposal tomorrow.

Our community strongly supports San Jose's regional housing goals and believes in smart, equitable growth. However, District 1 has already absorbed substantial growth and multi family density-most notably through major regional developments like the ongoing Santana Row expansion right along our borders. Because our neighborhood has already done its proportionate share to support regional density and housing needs, applying a blanket, permanent "by right" up zoning to our interior residential blocks goes beyond balanced growth.

We respectfully ask that you protect our existing residential fabric, recognize the significant density District 1 already contributes to the city's housing ecosystem, and vote no on this proposal. Respectfully, Mary Garrett Lynhaven Neighborhood, San Jose, CA This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachm ents from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Vote NO on Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Angela Chu
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Vote NO on Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imr.ortant Dear Council Member Kamei,
I live on Augusta Way in District 1. Please VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning proposal tomorrow.

The ongoing and planned El Paseo and Costco projects are already bringing heavy density and traffic to our neighborhoods. Our quiet residential blocks cannot handle additional multi-unit zoning.

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

Angela Chu
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 Tue 8/18/2026 8:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: joe gruender
Sent: Monday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10 .3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and inever sible 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 faT-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

Respectfully,
Joe Gruender
Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Ravindra JN
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk Ravindra Rao
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
Dear Council Member Kamei,
As a resident
Envision San I • I• I • ' I
. Learn why this is imP.ortant
District 1, I am writing to urge you to vote against the e citywide up-zoning proposal.

The ongoing Santana Row expansion already brings significant density and traffic to our immediate borders. Our quiet interior residential blocks cannot accommodate additional multi unit zoning. This permanent "by-right" rule would compromise our single-family neighborhood character and overwhelm our streets with vehicles due to the lack of on-site parking requirements .

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

Respectfully yours,
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 Tue 8/18/2026 8:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Ramdas Hegde
Sent: Monday, August
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Cityw ide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting [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 Council member Kamei, I live on 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 Santana Row expansion already bringing heavy density and traffic to our immediate borders, our quiet interior residential blocks cannot handle additional multi-unit zoning. This permanent "by right" rule will destroy our single family neighborhood character and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements. Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

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

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 Oppose
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:15 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Lisa Brown
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 Oppose [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and city council :

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

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

Respectfu I ly,
Lisa Brown
Get Outlook for iOS
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Strongly oppose item# 10.3 "General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework" , (Higher Density Housing)file# 26-852 (key words: Envision San Jose/Missing Middle Housing) From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:15 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Alison Lam
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
ohen,
, Mic
las, Do
George
The Offi ce of Mayor Matt Mahan
Tordillos, Anthony
Subject: Strongly oppose ite m# 10.3 "General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework", (Higher Density Housing)fi le# 26-852 (key words: Envision San Jose/ 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 imP.ortant My name is Alison Lam, and I am a long-time San Jose resident and voter. I urge the Mayor and City Council to REJECT the Task Force recommendation for citywide Missing Middle up-zoning. State mandates under SB 79 and Urban Village plans already meet our regional housing goals. Unchecked, 'by-right' up-zoning with zero parking requirements and zero public oversight will strain our infrastructure , increase fire safety risks, and harm our neighborhood s.

Stick to state minimum s and protect San Jose 's residential communities
Please vote NO!
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Alison Lam

Outlook
FW: Remove my address when reproducing my comments. Thanks, Fwd: "General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework " So-called,"missing middle".

From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:15 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Joyce M Eden
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Cc: joyce M Eden
Subject: Remove my address when reproducing my comments. Thanks, Fwd: "General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework " So-called,"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 . Leam why this is imgortant **Remove my address when reproducing my comments. Thanks, Begin forwarded message:

From: Joyce M Eden
Subject: "General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework" So-called,"missing middle".

Date: August 17, 2026 at4:57:09 PM PDT
To:

Cc:

City of San Jose:

City Clerk
Mayor of San Jose and City Council of San Jose, CA
I strongly object to the proposed plant to allow 2 or 3 atory buildings to be built in residential areas with no parking on top of that!
It has rightly been the policy and rules of Cities in the South Bay, including the City of San Jose, to REQUIRE adequate parking before approving any construction in zonee residential areas.

It is shocking to hear of this proposal.

It has lopng been the policy and rightly so to REQUIRE adequate parking for construction of residences as well as businesses for quality of life and many other This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. reasons.

Is the City Council and Mayor going to allow this destruction of residential quality of life and their rights .

If it is now actually and shockingly allowed by State Law to override homeowners rights to do so, it is only right that the City of San Jose and the Council people and the Mayor fight this proposal and bring their fight to the state.

In addition I have many friends living in residential neighborhoods of San Jose who I would like to be able to visit without a long search for a parking space including at night and when carrying children and pac Birthday packages to their homes..

Thank you for listening and acting!
Joyce M Eden
Cupertino, CA

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:15 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Kathy Rosendin
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: 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 morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP.oliant I vehemently oppose the Missing Middle Proposal. To accept and pass this proposal without neighbor or citizen input, as well as no plans to accommodate vehicles for any 3-story dwelling with individual apartments is incredibly irresponsible.

Do better, that is what we as your constituents demand. What is proposed is NOT in the best interest of the neighborhoods.

Kathy Rosendin
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 Tue 8/18/2026 8:15 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Anil K Gundurao
Sent: Monday, August 17,
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 this is imP.Otiant Dear Council member Kamei,
I am a resident in west San Jose. I writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning proposal tomorrow.

With the ongoing Santana Row expansion already bringing heavy density and traffic to our immediate borders, our quiet interior residential blocks cannot handle additional multi-unit zoning. This permanent "by-right" rule will destroy our single-family neighborhood character and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements . We are strongly opposed to this proposal.

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

Respectfully yours,
Anil K. Gundurao
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 Tue 8/18/2026 8:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Deepak Gupta
Sent: Monday, August
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 this is imP.ortant Dear Council member Kamei,
I live 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 Santana Row expansion already bringing heavy density and traffic to our immediate borders, our quiet interior residential blocks cannot handle additional multi-unit zoning. This permanent "by-right" rule will destroy our single-family neighborhood character and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements. Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

Respectfully yours,
Deepak Gupta
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 - Oppo se General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Nathan Yoder
Sent: Monday, August
Cc: City Clerk
Cohen, •
, Pa
han,
Pam
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imP.ortant Hi,
We moved to our San Jose neighborhood 12 years ago because we fell in love with the character of the single-family Co1y neighborhood .

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 oflife is diminishing due to strained infrastructure & services, and this is one factor among many that continues to degrade the quality of life here in San Jose. However, our neighborhood has remained relatively intact as many residents have fought to preserve the character of the neighborhood .

This proposal would ruin neighborhoods like ours, and would not meaningfully help the people who need it most, but rather would benefit the strange bedfellows of large commercial builders and activists who are opposed to the idea of single-family neighborhoods.

I strongly oppose the by right, pe1manent, ineversible , city-wide, up-zoning proposal which exceeds state mandates, and I will vote against anyone who suppo1ts it and do what I can to convince my fellow residents to do the same.

Shame on anyone who votes for this atrocity, you will be voting to rip out the heait of our city and stifle the voices of local residents .

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

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Sharmanand Mishra
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 often get email from . Leam why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10. 3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quadmpling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback, is a drastic and iITeversible change to the community fab1ic of our San Jose neighborhood s. SB330 prevents any reversal of this up zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be unde1iaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

Respectfully,
Sharma Nand Mishra
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Public Comments on Item 10.3 General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Jia Li
Sent: Tuesday,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comments on Item 10.3 General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework [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.ortant Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is Jia Li with AlphaX RE Capital. As a local developer and builder, our team is dedicated to provid ing housing across the entire spectrum-from ADUs, starter homes, and missing middle housing to standard commun ity developments. I am writing to express my strong support for the items and directives presented in the staff memos regarding the General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework.

Specifically, I would like to highlight my support for the following measures:
• Support for Proposed Items in Staff Memo: I support all proposed items and recommendat ions in this memo to modern ize San Jose's planning framework, including:

1. Increasing residential capacity,

2. Creating Missing Middle housing to expand accessible, entry-level homeownership opportun ities for working families,

3. Updating the Urban Village implementation strategy, and

4. Evaluating the General Plan's Jobs-to-Employed Residents Ratio.

Prioritizing homeownership pathways helps build long term generational wealth, stabilizes neighbo rhood s, and ensures families can put down roots in San Jose. Furthermore, creating diverse housing options brings in new students, boosting enrollment and keeping our public schools strong for future generations.
• Support for Additional GPA Cycle: I strong ly support directing the City to establish a second annual General Plan Amendment (GPA) review cycle-occurring six months apart from the existing schedule-for residential, commercial, and public-quas i-pub lic properties. Establishing This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. this predictable, twice-a-year timeline will reduce development delays, expand homeownership options, and optimize city resources while maintaining public oversight. I urge the Council to make this change effective by late this year or early next year.

I encourage the City Council to adopt the proposed items and direct staff to establish the additional semi annual GPA cycle as outlined.

Thank you to city leadership and staff for your dedicated efforts to get more housing built right here in San José.

Sincerely,
Jia Li
Chief Asset Management Officer (CAMO)
Vice President of Development

www.alphax-capital.com ｜ www.alphainbay.com

NorCal: 10275 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA
95014
SoCal: 750 The City Dr S, Orange, Unit 450, CA
92868

~ --- ---
0 Outlook
FW: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:16 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe----
From: Afsaneh <
Sent: Tuesday, Au s
To: District1 <
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 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 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 Santana Row expansion already bringing heavy density and traffic to our immed iate borders, our quiet interior residential blocks cannot handle additional multi -unit zoning . This permanent "by-right" rule will destroy our single-family neighborhood character and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements. Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

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

Outlook
FW: Missing Middle
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:17 AM
To Agendadesk
District 10
Subject: Missing Middle
[Extern al 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 Members of the San Jose City Council,
I STRONGLY OPPOSE the Missing Middle Housing recommendation .

It is difficult for me to understand why the Planning Commission would even suggest such bad "planning" for the city. They are supposed to ensure the city is functional and beautiful. Their job is not to indiscriminately prop-up housing without planning to satisfy a state housing requirement . This missing middle proposal will only bring chaos and ugliness to the city.

The Planning Commission should consider the General Plan 2040 Map that has "South Almaden valley" categorized as "Urban Reserves" rather than residential neighborhoods that are already built . There is a lot of land that can be planned adequately in lieu of destroying existing neighborhoods . Wouldn't it make more sense to add housing to areas that have low density per acre, like South Almaden Valley (1 house/acre) It would make a lot more sense to add high density housing in areas that are not built, rather than areas that are already built up. If South Almaden valley is designated for Urban Reserve, why not build there? Sincerely,
Diana Tong
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Jorge Ton
Sent: Tuesda
Ti •
Subject: Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from---. Learn whY. this is important Mayor Mahan and Memb~e City Council,
District4
District 10
San Jose has been a bedroom community for Silicon Valley. We do not have the large Company headquarters that generate Millions of dollars in Sales Taxes (as does Apple for Cupertino). San Jose also has 1 job for every 1.5 housing unit. Obviously, we need more businesses, NOT HOUSING for the city to have an adequate budget.

Having an improper ratio of jobs/housing, typical of a bedroom community, causes more traffic and congestion since people have to commute to neighboring cities to go to work.

Getting greater housing density will compound the traffic and congestion problem . I oppose the "Missing Middle" up-zoning.

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

Outlook
FW: Missing Middle - Vote it DOWN
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Karin Barrett._
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 3:49 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Missing Middle - Vote it DOWN
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - . Leam why this is imP.ortant Whoever votes yes for this ridiculous proposal allowing up to 16+ units on a single-family lot should be voted out of office!
Thank you,
Karin Barrett
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 Tue 8/18/2026 8:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Sarah Innocenti
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear ELECTED official,
. Learn why this is imP.Qrtant
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.

I have been a homeowner for 7 years and grateful to work bard to buy a single family home in San Jose with bard work and financial planning. I have watched the traffic increase, density worsen, and what should be at 17 minutes work commute each way increase to SO plus minutes each way. Without parking, infrastructure, and more stores/restaurants this would poison the future of San Jose. I am a millennial and my generation is TIRED of hearing that we need more "homes" that mean apartments and condo that mean no yard, or with association fees, and rising rents. We have a housing crisis for the ideal single family homes, but we have a renters Saturday market with many condos and apartments just sitting vacant. Vacancies are up for rent in the last couple of years since the pandemic. This bill is about MONEY for developers, not the good of San Jose.

Build roads, parking, and infrastructure first or as part of the bill. There could be a balance between the all the residents needs, but as written my family and neighbors are in complete opposition.

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-shou ld 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 \viii increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly beating 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,
Sarah Innocenti,
A San Jose homeowner disappointed to have to write this email.

Sarah Innocenti, OTR/L

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing City Wide Up-Zoing
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Laura Conroy
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing City Wide Up-Zoing [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 Council member Kamei,
I live on in District 1. I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning proposal.

With the ongoing Santana Row expansion already bringing heavy density and traffic to our immediate borders, our quiet interior residential blocks cannot handle additional multi-unit zoning. This permanent "by-right" rule will destroy our single-family neighborhood character and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements.

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

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

Outlook
FW: Middle Housing Matters!
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Elaine Uan
Sent: Tuesday, Au
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Middle Housing Matte rs!
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is iinP.ottant Dear San Jose City Council,
I applaud you for leading a process to make middle housing legal again in San Jose. Most American cities traditionally and naturally grew their residential housing stock through middle housing like duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes , town homes, cottage courts. Since its incorporation in 1850, San Jose naturally grew this way for 100 years. Neighborhoods like Horace Mann, Julian St James, Japantown , Willow Glen and Rose Garden are full of blocks where single family homes migle happily with duplexes or small .aP-artments.to create mixed income, mixed housing streets. But somewhere along the way, we made middle housing illegal, forbidden.

In today's housing shortage, middle housing is particularly important because middle housing is physically more akin to a wood framed single family homes, which makes them cheaper to build than podium apartments or other multifamily. With such high construction costs, we need to prioritize more cost effective construction.

But there is a caveat - middle housing is onlY. cheaP-er and easier to build as long as we don't imP-ose too man.Y. constraints. Please prioritize new Middle Housing standards that make it faster and easier to build. The staff's recommendations are reallY. excellent , but I'd like to emphasize a couple additional points, especially as this process moves forward:
• Parking flexibilit~ - most residential sites are small (50-60' feet wide) and car parking dimensions are large (9' x18' with 10' driveways or 24' drive aisles). Middle housing projects need flexibility to accommodate parking on site. Reductions in total parking This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. spaces should be allowed,. Enclosed structured parking is expensive, so open air parking should be allowed, with flexible or reduced driveway widths and aisle dimensions.

Simplified & Unified Process - While today's council item is about development standards, it is equally important to make the process of permitting middle housing easy. A simplified and unified process to make middle housing easier to build is crticial. Planning, building (envelope/structural/MEP), public works, fire, and all utility hookups (sewer, storm, water, electrical) should be done together, seamlessly Fees - Looking ahead at the future, middle housing needs to be financially feasible. Just as many fees have been waived for ADUs, middle housing needs fewer fees to be financially feasible to build
Again, thank you, thank you, thank you, for your leadership on this topic. It is wonderful to see you leading this process to make middle housing legal again in San Jose. I urge you also to make it EASY to build middle housing, so we can have neighborhoods that welcome and retain all the people we need for a thriving San Jose.

SIncerely,
Elaine Uang
Middle Housing Architect

•
•
Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Shubha Prithv iraj
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting [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.01tant Dear Council member Kamei,
I liv 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 Santana Row expansion already bringing heavy density and traffic to our immediate borders, our quiet interior residential blocks cannot handle additional multi-unit zoning. This permanent "by-right" rule will destroy our single-family neighborhood character and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements. Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

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

Outlook
FW: NO on Envision San Jose 2040
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Emilie & Jeff Kriech
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2 26 7:0
To: City Clerk
Subject: NO on Envision San Jose 2040
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imP.ortant DearCouncilmembera:

I am writing to strongly urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning proposal.

It is the job of our leaders to support and defend the rights and needs of the people who live into these communities rather than follow big money interests.

This permanent "by-right" rule will destroy our single-family neighborhood character, overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of on-site parking requirements , tax already depleted resources like water and energy as well as increase light and noise pollution for everyone.

Numerous studies here and abroad show definitive links between high density and lack of green space with significant decline in mental health and overall wellbeing. Our communities are in a mental health crisis - packing people on like sardines will only serve to exacerbate this trend.

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

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

Outlook
FW: Support for the Tordillos Kamei on Small Multifamily/ Missing Middle Housing Program From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Scott Atwood
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
District3
District 6
District9
◄
◄
◄
◄
Subject: Support for the Tordillos Kamei on Small Multifamily/ Missing Middle Housing Program [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imnortant Mayor Matt Mahan and San Jose City Councilmembers,
District!
District4
District7
District 10
I am writing to ask for your support for the Tordillos Kamei memo in regards to the implementation of the Small Multifamily / Missing Middle Housing Program.

San Jose has an affordable housing crisis. We are ranked as the least affordable city in the world for first time home buyers, and the lack of sufficient new housing is driving working class and middle class families out of San Jose.

The Tordillos Kamei memo outlines a path forward on missing middle housing, a plan which I wholeheartedly support . It is a common sense plan for gentle densificat ion, adding in-fill homes appropriately scaled to our city, tackling the root of our housing affordability crisis.

I urge you to vote to ensure our general plan delivers on real homes. San Jose needs affordable housing, not just aspirational promises.

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

San Jose, CA 95112
Japantown resident since 2022

Outlook
FW: Concerned about housing vote
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Susan DelMedico
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
Subject: Concerned about housing vote
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
[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 . Leam why this is imP.ottant I only recently read about the vote today to dramatically increase the zoning limits and more troublingly , to allow development without resident input. While I understand and support increased housing density, I think it should be done more thoughtfully with consideration for strategic and sensible growth.

This proposal is far too drastic. It disempowers the residents of San Jose and has a high likelihood of ruining neighborhoods and the desirability of living in San Jose.

Please vote no on this proposal to allow a better plan to be developed.

Than k you.

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

Outlook
FW: Additional Public Comment for 8/18 CC - General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (File # 26-852)
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 9:52 AM
To Agendadesk
~ 3 attachme nts (761 KB)
Fw NEW SUBMISSION 4 year GP Review Email Sign up Redacted.pdf; Fw August 18th City Council Vote on the General Plan Four Year Review Policy Framework Redacted.pdf; Fw Oppos ition to Proposed Density Changes in San Jose Neighborhoods Redacted.pdf;
From: Smith, Cassandra
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Additi onal Public Comment for 8/18 CC - General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (File # 26-852) Hello,
Attached are additional public comments for the 8/18 CC - General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework item (File # 26-852). I've redacted and ran the accessibility check for each doc. Please let me know if there are any issues, or if there's a specific cut off time for sending in public comments . Our General Plan team let me know that they're anticipating more emails coming through before Council starts at 1 :30pm.

Thank you!
Best,
Cassandra
Planning. 8ui!di11g u11d
C()(le Enfi>n."C'menl
Cassandra Smith, Administrative Assistant
De12artment of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
City of San Jose 1200 E. Santa Clara Street 3rd FL I San Jose, CA 95113 408-535-7880 I
Facebook ~ lnstagram PBCE News Code Connection Visit us [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] From: GeneralPlanStaff
To: Smith, Cassandra
Subject: Fw: *NEW SUBMISSION* 4-year GP Review Email Sign up Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 9:37:40 AM
From: City of San José <
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 8:16 PM
To: GeneralPlanStaff <
Subject: *NEW SUBMISSION* 4-year GP Review Email Sign up

4-year GP Review Email Sign up
Submission #: 5056887
IP Address:

Submission Date: 08/13/2026 8:16
Survey Time: 6 minutes, 30 seconds
You have a new online form submission.

Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login.

Full Name
David Bunger
Which topic would you like to comment on:

Residential Capacity
Please leave comment.

Dear Sir, The San Jose City Council is doing what it does best. Approve construction with NO thought or Concern about the Infrastructure required to support additional homes, data Centers or any other construction that simply brings revenue to San Jose. The current reservoir capacity for Santa Clara County is 24% of capacity. WHERE IS THE WATER GOING TO COME FROM TO SUPPORT all that you want to approve. With current planning by the city, it is a matter of time until San Jose is out of Water!
Please enter your email if you would like to sign up for updates on the 4-Year Review:

Thank you,
City of San José
I

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

This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

I
From:

To:

GeneralPlanStaff
Smith. Cassandra
Subject:

Date:

Fw: August 18th - City Council Vote on the General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework Tuesday, August 18, 2026 9:37:58 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
From: Debi Gordon
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:44 AM
To: GeneralPlanStaff
Subject: Re: August 18th - City Council Vote on t he General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from
important
Will the 1 :30pm meeting be available online?
Thanks,
Debra
On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 3:54 PM GeneralPlanStaff
wrote:

Good afternoo n,
Learn why this is
This email is to inform you t hat t he Planning Commission's recommendat ion on t he GP 4- Year Review Policy Framework wi ll be conside red by the City Council next Tuesday, August 18, 2026. The City Council meeti ng will begin at 1:30 p.m. wit h several it ems to be heard prior to item 10.3. The agenda, PC-to-CC memo , publ ic comments, and mate rials are posted and wil l cont inue to be updated on t his webpage: City of San Jose - File#: 26-852 You can also review t he minu t es and vote results of t he Planning Commission's discussion on t he GP 4-Year Review Policy Framewo rk here: 639185105477870000 Should the City Council approve t he recomme nded pol icy framework on August 18, 2026, staff will initiat e work on General Plan and Zoning Code amendments, cont inue work on requ ired environmental review under t he Californ ia Environme ntal Quality Act (CEQA), and ident ify outreac h opportun it ies as developme nt standards are furt her refi ned. Staff's fi nal recommenda t ions are targeted t o be presented to t he Planning Commission and City Council by December 2027 for approval.

If you have any questions, please respond to this email or reach out to Jerad Ferguson, or Ruth Cueto,
Thank you,
General Plan Staff
City of San José | Planning, Building and Code Enforcement 200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
bit.ly/SJgeneralplan4review
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
~ ~
ENVISION 2040
---- 4-YEAR REVIEW
I
From:

To:

GeneralPlanStaff
Smith. Cassandra
Subject:

Date:

Fw: Opposition to Proposed Density Changes in San Jose Neighborhoods Tuesday, August 18, 2026 9:38:12 AM
From: Shagufta Kazi
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 9:44 PM
District 6
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Density Changes in San Jose Neighborhoods [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
is im12ortant
Dear Mayor Mahan and San Jose City Councilmembers,
Learn why this
I am a San Jose resident in the 95128 area and a Co1y Neighborhood homeowner. I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed expansion of multi-unit housing into established single-family neighborhoods.

I suppoti responsible housing growth, but this proposal could fundamentally change the character, chaim , and livability of neighborhoods like ours. Many residents chose and invested in their homes because of the area's beauty, mature landscaping, spacing between homes, and established residentia l character. Allowing substantially more units on individual lots- with limited parking requirements and potentially ve1y small units-co uld pennanently alter these qualities .

I am also concerned about the broader economic impact. Homeowners have made significant investments in these neighborhoo ds, and prope1iy values contribute to San Jose's overall tax base. The City should cai·efully evaluate whether substantia lly increasing density on individual lots could affect neighborhood desirability , prope1iy values, infrastructure demands, and the long-tenn fiscal impact on the City.

Before moving fo1ward, I ask the Council to require clear limits on unit size, buildin g height, lot coverage, setbacks, parking , ti·ees and open space, along with neighborhood-level analysis of infrastrncture and fiscal impacts.

Please include my opposition in the public record and reconsider this approach to increasing housing supply.

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

I
Outlook
FW: Item 10.3, General Plan Review & Missing Middle Housing From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 2:17 PM
To Agendadesk
~ 1 attachment (366 KB)
San Jose Missing Middle 8 18 26 FINAL.docx.pdf;
From: Sonja Trauss
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Cc: Anne Paulson Jack Farrell
Subject: Re: Item 10.3, General Plan Review & Missing Middle Housing [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Leam why this is impo1tant Hello ,
Please find our letter supporting and elaborating on Anne Paulson's remarks attached.

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

YIMBYLaw
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
8/18/2026
City of San Jose
City Council
200 E. Santa Clara St.

Re: Item 10.3, General Plan Review & Missing Middle Housing Dear City Council of San Jose,

YIMBY LAW
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring compliance with California's housing laws. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws. We write to strongly encourage San Jose city council to approve the General Plan Task Force's recommendations to allow for more housing. Taken together with California Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing responsibilities and recent Supreme Court precedent, the law presents high standards for cities seeking to justify extremely restrictive zoning policies, like the existing zoning.

San Jose's existing zoning mechanism has historically limited necessary development.

Under that plan, existing residential zoning would not survive the legal strictures developed by the Roberts court; this logic weighs public purpose against restrictions on property rights. YIMBY Law is prepared to challenge the existing zoning plan on that basis, but the proposed higher density plan being contemplated may survive these tests.

Constitutional Support for Property rights
For decades, judicial uber-deference to local preferences instead of exigencies against real harm has restricted many American neighborhoods to exclusive single-family use. The Court encapsulated the preference-over-exigency approach when it wrote, "[w]here property interests are adversely affected by zoning, the courts generally have emphasized the breadth of municipal power to control land use and have sustained the regulation if it is rationally related to legitimate state concerns and does not deprive the

owner of economically viable use of his property. ” Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68 (1981).

However, in recent years, rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court have offered a far more exacting framework for analyzing when, where and how far state, county, and municipal governments may go in using their police powers to order the public regulation of private property. Crucially, these rulings have recognized a far more expansive universe of fundamental (that is, pre-constitutional) property rights than American jurists have ever previously read into the constitutional context. Recent trends in takings and due-process jurisprudence are poised to now largely disfavor exclusionary zoning rules, requiring lawmakers and land-use administrators to do more than merely aver that their chosen housing-density limits are within their generalized police powers. Recent caselaw—including several landmark high-court rulings, are far more skeptical of of
ﬁcial proffers that a given land-use control is justiﬁable in view of the restrictions they impose on a host of fundamental rights categories, including (but not limited to ): (a) private property; (b ) due process; ( c) travel; and ( d) establishing a home.

Until the last decade or so, most courts gave legislatures and public agencies wide latitude to determine what quali
ﬁed as a public exigency or even merely a public purpose sufﬁcient to pierce the private-property veil. These courts all followed in the footsteps of Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954 ), in which Justice William O. Douglas declared that a legislature’s justiﬁcation for a land-use law is “well-nigh conclusive” and afforded the greatest judicial deference. Id. at 32. However, the landscape has shifted markedly in recent years—primarily with respect to rights to property, but also to due process, travel, and establishing a home becoming far less deferential to ofﬁcial narratives.

This letter surveys the new landscape and applies it to the zoning and permitting contexts—in particular, to controls that impede medium-density housing. This letter gauges the extent to which the new rules ( or rather, a return to the old ones ) replace the Berman paradigm in favor of a far more heightened standard for reviewing land-use controls. While most land use controls still do not invite the most exacting standard of judicial review—i.e., the “strict scrutiny” applied to laws targeting narrow classes of rights and individuals1—recent years have witnessed a rising tide of courts willing to consider scrutinizing beyond “mere” rational-basis review (Berman’s ambit) and increasingly eager to determine whether or not the target rule implicates (and disrupts ) one or more fundamental rights.2
To best explain how San Jose’s current zoning code contains fatal constitutional defects, we open this letter with a brief history of American land-use regulation. We start with its 2 See, e.g., Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021); Sheetz v. El Dorado County, 601 U.S. 267 (2024).
1 See generally Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Strict Judicial Scrutiny, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1267 (2007).

common-law origins, discuss a handful of high-court opinions from the 1910s and 20s that laid the doctrinal groundwork for modern zoning, and conclude with Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) which took Berman to its most extreme yet, holding “economic development” by itself to be a justi
ﬁed public basis for overriding private
interests. To this end, we then discuss recent Supreme Court rulings offering strong signals that the end of Berman is nigh, to be replaced with standards of review that accord rights in property the same heightened or enhanced levels of scrutiny long afforded to personal rights to privacy, to establish a home, to travel, and to be free from certain species of discrimination. Diving deeper, we will see how lower federal and state courts have put this new paradigm into practice—previewing the standard of review that the courts hearing challenges to the zoning code will likely employ, and to what end.

I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF AMERICAN LAND-USE CONTROLS
From the Colonial Era until the 1910s, American courts strongly disfavored land-use controls that did not provably advance the anti-nuisance doctrine of sic utere tuo, ut alienum non laedas—viz., that “one cannot not use his or her own lands in manners interfering with another’s rights to theirs. ” See Elmer E. Smead, Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas: A Basis of the State Police Power, 21 Cornell L.Q. 276, 276 (1936) (“The principle that one should use his own property in such a way that he does not injure that of another is to be found early in the common law. ”). For centuries, sic utere and other anti-nuisance doctrines did much of the legwork for justifying codi ﬁed controls,
enabling jurists to render independent judgment of lawmakers’ motives without fear of hijacking their legislative prerogative. See, e.g., Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S, 623 (1887) ( declaring courts “at liberty—indeed, are under a solemn duty—to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority”).

This paradigm began to shift at the turn of the twentieth century as the demands of industrialization and proto-suburbanization offered “a strange coalition of interests” the opportunity to “enrich incumbent property owners, lock existing neighborhoods in amber, institutionalize segregation, and mandate a sprawling vision of growth. ” M.

Nolan Gray, Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It 12 (2022).

The move also compelled American courts to reappraise whether the nuisance-based approach to land-use controls was still sustainable in an increasingly complex world. See Charles M. Haar & Michael Allan Wolf, Commentary, Euclid Lives: The Survival of Progressive Jurisprudence, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 2158, 2176 (2002) (noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., infra, “appeared during a crucial transition period in American legal and constitutional history, as statutory and administrative law began to supplant the common law as the primary source of law governing business and private property relationships”). Many jurists began to view the catch-all “public interest” as a way to simplify seemingly irreducible socioeconomic

problems.3 Courts largely began tolerating zoning or permitting measures that lawmakers simply declared would further the public interest, whether or not they could plausibly claim that it was only or even the best means available,4 and with ever less attention paid to the wounds these measures inﬂicted on fundamental private rights.5 Soon, the harm-prevention model of land-use regulation expressed in the ancient sic utere maxim found itself nearly everywhere displaced by a rubberstamp allegiance to legislative “wisdom” —or at least a willful blindness to its shortfalls for fear that the old model would slow the compounding technological progress.

By the 1940s, the Euclidean model had become the norm in land-use planning. See Steven J. Eagle, Land Use Regulation and Good Intentions, 33 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 87 , 94–99 (2018) (tracing the rapid evolution from comprehensive plans to the targeted regulation of certain clearly non-nuisant uses ). Fast forward to the post -Berman period wherein courts at nearly every level came to treat the police power as all but self-justifying, sustaining land-use controls on little more than a legislative recital that they advanced the general welfare. That deference reached its apogee a half-century later in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), which upheld the condemnation of unblighted homes for transfer to a private developer on the theory that the anticipated economic development was itself a public use—and, in so holding, provoked the broadest popular and legislative backlash of any modern takings decision. Kelo almost instantly stirred a national argument over whether Bermanesque deference can be squared with the needs of the public, let alone its con
ﬂicts with the constitutional text. And all of this
is still unfolding against an acute and ever-worsening housing shortage on one side and, on the other, a Supreme Court increasingly prepared to treat the incidents of private ownership (among others ) as fundamental. This new convergence that subjects controls like San Jose’s current zoning to far more searching scrutiny than the Euclidean settlement ever contemplated.

1. The Pre-Euclidean Landscape
Almost all iterations of judicial deference to legislative “wisdom” on land-use questions can trace their origins to Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). There, the Supreme Court approved a municipal zoning scheme designed speci ﬁcally to exclude
apartment housing from the afﬂuent suburbs northeast of Cleveland, Ohio. Euclid is known as a landmark case because it was a break with previous Court reasoning on zoning. The exclusionary measure in Euclid had gone well beyond those that the Court had previously endorsed. In the interregnum between Mugler and Euclid, the Court in Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 395 (1915), sought to balance these competing 5 See John G. Sprankling, Property and the Roberts Court, 65 Kan. L. Rev. 1 (2016). 4 See Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32 (1954).
3 See Charles M. Haar & Michael Allan Wolf, Euclid Lives: The Survival of Progressive Jurisprudence, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 2158 (2002).

philosophies by deferring to lawmakers on what tangible harms (e.g., noxious smells, humming machinery) merited public interference of private property rights, but reserving for itself the ﬁnal word on the validity of regulations of intangible harms, like those offensive to broad categories “public health” or “safety. ” Euclid extended the Court’s uber-deferential approach to intangible harms, writing that “the harmless may sometimes be brought within the regulation or prohibition in order to abate or destroy the harmful. ” Euclid, 272 U.S. at 392 (internal citation omitted). Soon after, however, the Court published two opinions exercising the very independence it claimed to have just exorcized in Euclid. In Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928), the Court rejected a municipal ordinance restricting the claimant’s property to residential use. Then, in Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (1928), it held that requiring neighbors’ consent for certain uses—in that case, for the siting of an indigent nursing home—violated the would-be residents’ due process rights by delegating legislative authority to the crowd. On paper, Nectow and Roberge placed powerful limits on the breadth of legislative
ﬁat in determining legitimate public
interests sufﬁcient to overcome private property (and other) rights. In practice, however, the next several decades would see the Court issue a host of rulings that leaned heavily in Euclid’s uber-deferential direction.

2. Berman and Its Aftermath
For the next eighty odd years, land-use authorities at all levels promulgated regulations that should have died under Nectow or Roberge but thrived, instead, on a watered-down version of Euclid in which “[s ]ubject to speci
ﬁc constitutional limitations . . . the role of
the judiciary in determining whether” the legislature is acting intra vires “is an extremely narrow one. ” Berman, 348 U.S. at 32. Widespread adoption of the Berman approach turned most land-use controls into creatures of
ﬁat, as courts at all levels dependably greenlit
exclusionary zoning, permitting, and building and housing rules thinly veiled as serving some nebulous “public purpose, ” but in reality meant to preserve the economic self-interest of established residents and businesses, or worse. Scholars have long documented how this deference allowed incumbents to convert the police power into an instrument for protecting their own home values. See Richard F . Babcock, The Zoning Game 3– 18 (1966); William A. Fischel, The Homevoter Hypothesis 39– 71 (2001).

In Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974 ), the Court endorsed a local law prohibiting the cohabitation of nonrelatives or even extended family. In so holding, the Court ran through a laundry list of the “speci
ﬁc constitutional limitations” contemplated
in Berman but found no reason to doubt legislative assurances that the restriction served legitimate and non-discriminatory public ends. It concluded under Berman “[a] quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs. ” Id. at 9. That “[t]he police

power is not conﬁned to elimination of ﬁlth, stench, and unhealthy places” but “is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people. ” Id. ( emphasis added). Indeed, under this rubric the Court went so far to reserve for “single-family residences” its own special status within the panoply of legitimate public purposes. See City of Edmonds v. Oxford Houses, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 732– 33 (1995) (“In particular, reserving land for single-family residences preserves the character of neighborhoods, securing “zones where family values, ” etc., make them “sanctuar[ies ] for people. ”).

3. New Patterns Emerge
To be sure, some courts were never entirely sold on the constitutional soundness of the Euclidean approach. “Over the subsequent 90 plus years, ” one scholar notes, “many courts and commentators have expressed discomfort with the notion that all zoning decisions made by the local legislature constitute ‘legislative’ decisions that are owed such generous deference. ” Michael Allan Wolf, A Common Law of Zoning, 61 Ariz. L. Rev. 771, 796 (2019). So long as the Supreme Court remained on board, however, these voices would remain on the sidelines.

Enter the Roberts Court. This Court has proven itself the most property-friendly assemblage in generations. See John G. Sprankling, Property and the Roberts Court, 65 Kan. L. Rev. 1, 1 (2016). This is not necessarily to praise the current bench, but to acknowledge how far prior majorities had fallen from the original conception of constitutional property rights.

There are myriad explanations for this shift, from the obvious rebalancing of the Court towards a more originalist center to the more gradual evolution of political, sociocultural, and economic forces that bear on the Court’s decisionmaking, whether the justices admit it or not. This is most evident in legislative climate in years immediately following the landmark Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)—which extended Berman’s already-permissive logic to its outer limit —when state lawmakers everywhere took seriously the raucous public outrage at a ruling that its author Justice John Paul Stevens later called “the most unpopular opinion” he wrote in more than three decades on the Court. See John Paul Stevens, The Making of a Justice: Reﬂections on My First 94 Years (2019).

In Kelo, a 5-4 majority held that a municipality’s condemnation of unblighted private homes for conveyance to a private developer satisﬁed the Public Use Clause, provided it was rationally related to a comprehensive economic-development plan. In so ruling, however, the Court ignited a public ﬁrestorm, as many rightfully feared that it gave local governments a blank check to simply label a taking “useful” to the public and call it a day. The popular and legislative response was immediate –polling showed lopsided disapproval across the political spectrum, and some forty-ﬁve states answered with

statutes or constitutional amendments curtailing the use of eminent domain. See Ilya Somin, The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain (2015). More consequential for present purposes was the decision’s effect on the property-rights conversation writ large. Kelo furnished a vivid, cross-ideological emblem of how far judicial deference had drifted from the constitutional text, and it lent fresh urgency to the long-marginalized argument that the incidents of ownership deserve protection commensurate with other fundamental rights. That argument has only sharpened as the nation confronts a deepening housing shortage—one that a less re
ﬂexively deferential, more accommodating jurisprudence is increasingly understood to be essential in relieving. See generally Gray, supra.

II. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AT THE ROBERTS COURT
The Roberts majority has shown itself more than willing to depart from the Court’s own precedent when stare decisis would perpetuate an abjectly incorrect reading of the Constitution. This is not limited to property rights, of course. However, given the earlier “poor relation” that property rights bore to other fundamental and constitutional rights,6 it is sensible for this
ﬁeld among all others to undergo one of the more drastic doctrinal revisions. According to one source, “[ o ]wners prevail in 86% of civil property-related disputes with government entities. ” John G. Sprankling, Property and the Roberts Court, 65 Kan. L. Rev. 1, 1 (2016). Sprankling concluded that “under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts the Court has expanded the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to owners to a greater extent than any prior Court. ” Id. And this was prior to some of the most pivotal opinions.

On questions of regulating land use, since mid-century onwards, courts have overwhelmingly privileged legislative averments, even without evidence, that a given regulation served a legitimate public purpose, even when it meant turning a blind eye to its injurious impact on private property. The upshot is that since Berman, property rights have not been treated as “fundamental rights” of the kind long recognized in the rights to speech, to vote, to marry, or to privacy.

The Roberts Court is beginning to reconsider that taxonomy, showing clear signs of a project to dismantle the very deference that has long made exclusionary zoning so dif
ﬁcult to challenge. Local land-use authorities would be remiss to ignore or downplay this nascent development.

For example, in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021), the Court conﬁrmed that the “right to exclude” others from one’s property (not from one’s community) is a fundamental (that is, pre-constitutional) right. Public interference with that right 6 The Court has expressly disclaimed any such hierarchy. See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 392 (1994) (declining to relegate the Takings Clause “to the status of a poor relation” among the provisions of the Bill of Rights).

requires governments show more than mere “rational basis review, ” the light standard under which nearly any conceivable public purpose permits interference with private property without triggering a constitutional taking.

Treating property rights by this standard has long placed them in the “status of a poor relation” with the other rights expressed in the Bill of Rights. See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 392 (1994 ). Cedar Point marks a paradigm shift away from rational basis and towards a heightened scrutiny of regulations that disrupt private property rights, among other rights “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental” —e.g., the right to establish a home. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319; Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (1928).

In Cedar Point, the court upheld a landowner’s fundamental property right to exclude to prevent labor organizers from coming onto their property to meet with employees during business hours, as California law permitted. California argued that it has the police power to interfere with the right to exclude in order to advance the general welfare that it claimed the public derived from labor’s exercise of their First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the con
ﬂict between employees’ right to free speech
but that the right to exclude is the sine qua non of private property, and so its interference required the state show that there were no less restrictive means of furthering that public interest.

Before Cedar Point, federal courts would not have required the government to announce anything more than a “rational basis” for the interference. With respect to San Jose’s existing low-density zoning, the existing public welfare goals are already, at best, poorly de
ﬁned (and certainly do not implicate the public's constitutional rights ). The City will not be able to show, under heightened scrutiny, that there exist no less restrictive means of achieving these goals than maintaining its current low-density zones. In fact, the city’s own staff reports demonstrate that the proposed high density zoning both achieve the cities’ stated public welfare goals, and are also less restrictive than the existing zoning. And even if it did not, it would likely fail heightened scrutiny because it unduly interferes with owners’ right to gainful use of their property and, crucially, the right of aspiring residents to establish their homes with San Jose’s borders.

The Roberts Court’s skepticism of public-purpose justiﬁcations that interfere with elemental property rights is not a departure from longstanding precedent on other categories of fundamental rights. It is, instead, early signals of a substantive restoration of the harm-prevention framework, in which courts exercise real and robust skepticism towards the declared police-power justiﬁcations for interferences with private property rights.

All told, the Roberts Court’s elevation of private property to the same constitutional status as one’s personal rights to privacy and others listed in, or “emanating” from, the

Bill of Rights, continues to enhance the standards by which courts measure the legitimacy of public disruptions of private property. As we shall see, these heightened standards resemble those already broadly applied to state interferences with a person’s rights to privacy, to establish a home, to travel, and to be free from discrimination.

III. ENHANCED STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The Roberts Court’s willingness—even eagerness—to overturn precedent it believes incorrect is already enhancing the standards by which courts at all levels scrutinize declared police-power justiﬁcations. These downstream effects are not limited to property rights but extend to a host of other fundamental—often called “substantive” —rights that bear directly on the constitutional status of a host of longstanding exclusionary zoning rules. According to our research and review of all relevant caselaw, after (a) private property, exclusionary zoning rules like San Jose’s current density limits also often implicate (b ) rights to privacy included in the “penumbra, formed by emanations” of the Bill of Rights (it sounds funny, but it’s real7); ( c) the right to “establish a home”; and,
ﬁnally, ( d) the right to travel. And fundamental
rights require courts to exercise their independent judgment. As an earlier Court put it:
“When a statutory classiﬁcation signiﬁcantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufﬁciently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests. ” Zablocki v.

Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1978).

Before we expound on San Jose’s constitutional trespasses, we must ﬁrst gauge the prevailing standard(s ) of scrutiny to which alleged offenses to each of these categories of rights are subject. Only at this high-altitude can we offer informed predictions of how courts will scrutinize challenges to San Jose’s current building standards. For all of these, the Kelo case offers a useful chronological pathmark, as it both contributed to, and largely coincided with, the Roberts Court’s and lower federal and state courts’ elevating rights in property to the same status as those categories of rights long accorded enhanced scrutiny. See Erwin Chemerinsky, Substantive Due Process, 15 Touro L. Rev. 1501, 1509 (1999) (noting “courts use substantive due process . . . in the protection of unenumerated constitutional rights”).

Of course, what enhanced scrutiny entails varies substantially across different areas of law and depending on the dangers a challenged government action poses to the fundamental right invoked. See generally Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Strict Judicial Scrutiny, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1267 (2007) (surveying variations in the composition and application of various tests, all of which courts have at one time or another described as “heightened” 7 The reference is to Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965), which located certain unenumerated rights in the “penumbras, formed by emanations” of the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

or “strict” scrutiny). In the following Subparts, we parse and then offer informed predictions on how the doctrinal landscape will continue to evolve and, eventually, strip legislative (and administrative) “wisdom” of much of its mystique—at least replaced with standards of review that robustly test whether the stated (and even less so, implied) public bene
ﬁts are not sufﬁcient —nor the methods used necessary—to justify their degree of interference into the private realm.8
A. Property Rights
Property rights cover a wide ambit of private-over-public prerogatives rooted in the bundle of rights attached to ownership (and some lesser interests ) in both chattel and realty. The “right to exclude” at stake in Cedar Point is hardly the only “fundamental” element of ownership. As Professor Adam Mossoff argued that “the right to exclude is essential to the concept of property, but it is not the only characteristic, nor is it the most fundamental. Other elements of property—acquisition, use, and disposal—are necessary for a suf
ﬁcient description of this concept. ” Mossoff, What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together, 45 Ariz. L. Rev. 371, 376 (2003). See Cedar Point, 594 U.S. at 150 ( discussing the Court’s consistent treatment of certain fundamental or “essential” sticks in the “bundle of rights”). See also Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 576 U.S. 350, 358 (2015) ( extending takings-clause protection to the appropriation of personalty, not just realty). On this front, zoning rules and permitting decisions designed to prohibit mixed uses and denser housing arrangements must conform to a standard of review that acknowledges the fundamental rights at stake.

Nor is the right to exclude the only property right that the Roberts Court has hinted to be “fundamental” and therefore subject to heightened review. The right to use, for example, is among the most basic prerogatives of ownership, and a single-family-only mandate extinguishes the right to use for nearly every form of housing an owner might otherwise build. Cedar Point’s reafﬁrmance that the right to exclude is a fundamental attribute of ownership invites—even demands—courts carefully scrutinize legislative claims of an overriding public purpose. Cedar Point, 594 U.S. at 149–52. All this is not to suggest that established owners do not have the same rights as newcomers. Far from it. Instead, it simply means that the public cannot use established owners’ fundamental property rights—including the right to exclude—to shield entire neighborhoods from competing uses or densities that do no tangible (e.g., physical) harm to neighbors or existing uses.

See Joshua Braver & Ilya Somin, The Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning, 103 Tex. L. Rev. 1 (2024 ) ( contending that exclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause because the original understanding of “property” protected the owner’s right to use, and that incumbent objections to non-nuisance uses cannot justify that interference). 8 See Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 542 (2005).

The Euclidean model does more than limit how many people may live on a lot; it also often forbids owners from devoting their properties to entire classes of otherwise lawful, and certainly moral, non-nuisant uses. Interferences with the use-and-disposition element of ownership invites two independent modes of review. Under the regulatory-takings line, a restriction denying all economically bene ﬁcial use is a per se
taking, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 (1992), while one short of total wipeout is weighed under the factors of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978). Under the due-process line, Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 542 (2005), relocated the means-ends inquiry away from the Takings Clause but did not abolish it: a use ban untethered from any tangible harm remains exposed as arbitrary. The Roberts Court’s takings case law cuts through much of the noise, entreating courts to ask, simply, whether a prohibition protects the public from a concrete injury or merely preserves an incumbent preference. The lesson, for land-use authorities, is that nebulous “purposes” like “preserving the neighborhood’s character” will no longer suf
ﬁce.

B. Right to Establish a Home
The right to establish a home is one of the lesser known (but no less ) fundamental rights in common law. Properly applied, it is also one of its most potent. The Supreme Court traces this right farther back than almost any other9, and continues to defend it against land-use regulations lacking suf
ﬁcient, overriding public purposes. The right to
establish a home supersedes a number of legitimate public purposes, even if these are bona ﬁde and not pretextual. These are, i.a., (1) bans on duplexes, triplexes, and other medium-density housing where the denial of which directly disrupts would-be residents’ right to reside and live as they choose; and (2) parental rights to choose how to raise their children, subject to obligations the state owes to the children (e.g., in most states, to provide all an education).

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Supreme Court held that the “liberty” vouchsafed by the Due Process Clause “[w]ithout doubt . . . denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children. . . . ” Id. at 399. Professor John Sprankling—mentioned earlier in reference to the Roberts Court’s pro-property bent —focuses his attention on the implications this right has on “exclusionary zoning ordinances”:

Many cities have adopted ordinances that prohibit apartments, condominiums, and other multifamily housing; require large minimum lot 9 See Meyer v. Nebraska , 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (locating within constitutionally protected liberty the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children”); Sprankling, supra (tracing the historical and common-law roots of the right to establish a home).

sizes for single-family residences; or bar manufactured homes. Indeed, some cities permit only a particularly expensive form of housing: detached single-family homes on large lots. These ordinances harm the public by curtailing the types of homes that are available. A person who is ﬁnancially
able to buy a detached home on a large lot, for example, might strongly prefer to live in an apartment or condominium. Additionally, exclusionary zoning ordinances effectively prevent low-income and moderate-income families from securing affordable homes and disproportionately exclude minority groups.

John G. Sprankling, The Constitutional Right to “Establish a Home”, 90 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 632, 635 (2022). Sprankling notes that while “[n]o court has decided whether exclusionary zoning violates the right to establish a home, ” the Supreme Court “has already held that the right to marry and the right to bring up children . . . are fundamental rights for purposes of substantive due process analysis, which invokes intensive judicial scrutiny. ” Id. ( citing Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 675 (2015) (“[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right . . . . ”); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 , 66 (2000) (“[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. ”).

Several courts indicate that disruptions of the right included within the right to establish a home should at least garner something more than rational-basis review. See Moore v.

City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (plurality opinion) (subjecting an ordinance that dictated which relatives could occupy a single dwelling to heightened substantive-due-process review rather than rational basis ); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (protecting parental authority over the upbringing of children); see also Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (reafﬁrming that intimate choices deﬁning family and the home occupy a constitutionally protected sphere). No court has yet squarely held that exclusionary zoning violates the right to establish a home, see Sprankling, supra, at 635, but the constituent rights already command scrutiny well beyond Berman’s deferential rubric.

There is an acute risk that San Jose is designed or will have the foreseeable effect of discriminating against nonfamilial cohabitation in ways at odds with the emerging caselaw. As we saw in Boraas, the Supreme Court readily rubberstamped local concerns that permitting nonfamilial cohabitation would erode a neighborhood’s single-family “spirit. ” While many of these laws remain on the books, untested, recent caselaw suggests systemwide movement away from the single-family paradigm. Not simply because the social and cultural de
ﬁnitions of “family” are evolving, but also, again, by
sheer economic necessity. The percentage of American adults living with nonrelative roommates has ticked up alongside surges in co-living among parents and their adult

children as well as unmarried (and thus not legally family) life partners. See D’Vera Cohn et al., Financial Issues Top the List of Reasons U.S. Adults Live in Multigenerational Homes, Pew Res. Ctr. (Mar. 24, 2022). So has the number of Americans simply living alone—due in large part to declining marriage rates. See U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Households Tables (2023). This puts its own strains on the housing sector; the same way more cars and less public transport means more highway traf
ﬁc. See generally Kristen Jeffers,
Albert Esteve, Ewa Batyra, Non-Family Living Arrangements Among Young Adults in the United States, 40 Euro. J. Pop. 10 (2024 ) (providing detailed analysis of the recent literature on American household patterns ).

C. Right to Travel
Whether the right to travel is a fundamental right remains something of an open question. See generally Noah Smith-Drelich, The Constitutional Right to Travel Under Quarantine, S. Cal. L. Rev. 1367 (2021) ( discussing variable and sometimes con ﬂicting
judicial views on the meaning and scope of the “right to travel, ” especially in the backdrop of a public health crisis ). Despite the muddle, some iterations of this right are more deﬁned than others. San Jose’s code touches upon two of these—the right to relocate and the right to engage in interstate commerce.

Professor John Hart Ely has made a compelling case for a constitutional, if not fundamental, right to relocate. John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust 178 (1980). This theory still animates contemporary scholarship and has found its way into caselaw. See, e.g., Ilya Somin, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom 15–44 (2020) ( discussing Ely’s theory); Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500–04 (1999) (recognizing that the right to travel embraces a newly arrived resident’s right “to be treated like other citizens of that State” and invalidating a durational-residency penalty on that footing).

Land-use controls concerned with keeping “ins” in by “choking off the channels of political change to ensure . . . the outs will stay out” are also largely self-defeating from an economic perspective, to say nothing of its stultifying effect on social and cultural values. There are ample studies drawing direct throughlines between exclusionary zoning meant to keep “outs” out and a decline in local prosperity.

Wrapped up with the freedom to move is the right to engage in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has long recognized that there is a “dormant” element to the federal government’s enumerate powers under the Commerce Clause, which places important restrictions on how their ability to regulate “persons or things” involved in cross-border transactions. Relevant here is the prohibition against enforcing rules and regulations that disadvantage out -of-state residents in favor of the protectionist interest of in-staters. See, e.g., C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 390 (1994 ) (“The central rationale for the rule against discrimination is to prohibit state or municipal laws whose

object is local economic protectionism, laws that would excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures the Constitution was designed to prevent. ”).

An important caveat to the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine is that it does not extend, then, to disparate intrastate rules—though if enacted statewide, would likely run into equal-protection problems, and if enacted by a locality therein, is up to the state government to resolve. The doctrine’s reach into ordinary zoning is admittedly modest:
most land-use controls are facially evenhanded and local in effect. But a measure whose practical object is to advantage insiders against out -of-state competition is not immune merely because it wears the label of zoning. The Court has struck down even a municipal ordinance that erected a local trade barrier, see Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951), and a facially neutral rule that burdens interstate commerce excessively in relation to its local bene
ﬁts remains subject to the balancing of Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970). A growth cap or permitting regime engineered to keep outsiders and their capital at bay thus carries a residual—if rarely dispositive—Commerce Clause exposure alongside its more serious in
ﬁrmities.

California Law
Government Code § 8899.50(b )(1) requires that "[a] public agency shall administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to afﬁrmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to afﬁrmatively further fair housing. " Cities and counties are explicitly named as public agencies subject to this obligation. ( Gov. Code § 8899.50(a)(2)(B).) The duty extends to "all of a public agency's activities and programs relating to housing and community development. " ( Gov. Code § 8899.50(a)(1).) Zoning falls within that scope.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development has stated in its April 2021 AFFH Guidance that "planning and zoning documents should all af ﬁrmatively
further fair housing. " (HCD, Afﬁrmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, April 2021 Update, at 17 .) The ongoing administration of single-family zoning in a high-resource, demographically segregated area is materially inconsistent with this obligation. Zoning is not a one-time legislative act. It is continuously administered through permit decisions, applications of zoning standards, and the denial of projects inconsistent with existing zoning. Each such act of administration is an action within the meaning of § 8899.50(b )(1). Single-family zoning arti
ﬁcially restricts housing supply and inﬂates
housing costs in the areas where it is enforced.

The relationship between exclusionary residential zoning and patterns of racial and economic segregation is documented in HCD's own analysis of impediments to fair housing in California (HCD, Final 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice,

June 2020), and is recognized in the AFFH Guidance, which observes that "single-family zoning emerged and replaced race-based zoning as a tool for segregating communities by restricting more affordable housing options" and that "exclusionary zoning policies have made it dif
ﬁcult for lower-income residents to access certain communities and in turn has had a discriminatory effect on protected characteristics such as race, disability, and familial status. " (HCD AFFH Guidance, April 2021, at 6.) Because income and race are correlated in San Jose as throughout California, zoning that inﬂates housing costs has a racially disparate impact in its operation. Limiting large areas of San Jose to existing single-family zoning perpetuates these exclusionary patterns and is therefore materially inconsistent with the obligation to afﬁrmatively further fair housing under § 8899.50(b )(1).

While Government Code § 8899.50( d), provides that the section does not require or prohibit "any one particular action" in ful
ﬁlling AFFH obligations, this provision does
not provide a defense. By its plain terms, subdivision ( d) addresses the selection of meaningful actions to ful
ﬁll the obligation imposed by subdivision (b ). It presupposes compliance with that obligation; it does not exempt agencies from it. An agency may exercise discretion in choosing among actions that afﬁrmatively further fair housing. It may not invoke that discretion to defend the continued administration of a zoning scheme whose operation is materially inconsistent with the statutory mandate.

The City may also point to Government Code § 8899.50( c), which requires that the statute be interpreted consistent with HUD's 2015 Afﬁrmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule. The HUD rule's commentary states that the rule does not impose zoning decisions on local governments. (80 Fed. Reg. 42272, 42289-42290.) This language does not support the City's position. By its terms, it addresses the scope of the federal rule, which applied only to HUD grantees and public housing authorities, not to all California cities and counties. Section 8899.50( c) directs that California's statute be interpreted consistent with the federal rule, but the California legislature simultaneously enacted in subdivisions (a) and (b ) a substantially broader scope, extending the AFFH obligation to all public agencies and to all activities and programs relating to housing and community development. A reading of subdivision ( c) that imported the federal rule's narrower scope into the California statute would render the legislature's express scope provisions surplusage. HCD's interpretation of § 8899.50, expressed in its April 2021 AFFH Guidance, applies the obligation to local zoning and is persuasive authority on the proper construction of the statute.

Housing Element Programs P- 11 and P- 35 speciﬁcally made missing middle a priority for San Jose, setting a goal of permitting 350 such units within the city. San Jose noted that P- 11 itself is an AFFH implementation program. California’s AFFH rules and San Jose’s

own Housing Element commitments support legalizing missing middle housing types, and narrowly limiting exemptions.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law

San Jose City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026