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

Outlook
FW: OPPOSE Proposed Changes to the General Plan Before City Council From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 3:55 PM
To Agendadesk
lo 1 attachment (195 KB)
Letter of Support for VEP.pdf;
From: michael ospring
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
Subject: OPPOSE Proposed Changes to the General Plan Before City Council [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
City Clerk,
Learn why this is important
Districtl
The Office
Please enter the attachment to the public record for item 10.3 on the agenda for the Council meeting on the August 18th.

Thank you,
Michael Ospring on behalf of the
Coyote Creek Neighborhood Association
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Coyote Creek Neighborhood Association August 17, 2026

Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of the Coyote Creek Neighborhood Association, we respectfully submit this letter in support of the attached correspondence from the VEP Community Association regarding the proposed changes to the Residential Neighborhood designation in San José’s General Plan.

Our Board has reviewed the VEP Community Association’s letter and finds it to be well-written, thoughtful, and grounded in a reasoned analysis of both the City’s housing objectives and the potential impacts of the proposed amendments. We believe the letter presents a constructive, evidence-based approach that merits serious consideration by the City Council.

The Coyote Creek Neighborhood Association has served South San José residents since 1985 and represents approximately 870 homes. As neighborhood volunteers, we recognize the importance of addressing San José’s housing needs while ensuring that growth is aligned with available infrastructure, public services, transportation, and thoughtful planning. Rather than restate the detailed points contained in the attached letter, we wish to express our full support for the concerns, recommendations, and phased implementation approach outlined by the VEP Community Association.

We respectfully urge the Council to carefully consider the recommendations contained in the attached VEP Community Association letter before taking action on the proposed General Plan amendments.

Thank you for your service to the residents of San José and for your consideration of our community’s perspective.

Sincerely,
Board Members of the Coyote Creek Neighborhood Association SJ District 2

Attachment: VEP Community Association Letter Regarding Proposed General Plan Changes

(Text of letter to Council from VEP Community Association)

Letter to Council

Re: Proposed Changes to the General Plan Before City Council

Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers:

The VEP Community Association supports housing that is affordable, well-designed, and located where it can be served by transit, jobs, infrastructure, and public services. We urge the Council not to approve the proposed citywide increase of the Residential Neighborhood designation from 8 to 32 dwelling units per acre as currently framed.

The proposal has not demonstrated that a blanket increase across residential neighborhoods is required by SB 79 or AB 130. SB 79 is directed to qualifying areas near transit and allows several local implementation paths; AB 130 streamlines qualifying actions but does not mandate citywide missing-middle upzoning. San José’s adopted Housing Element policy P-35 instead calls for a targeted, feasibility-informed missing-middle strategy, generally four to 10 units, in locations near Urban Villages and major streets.

Nor has the City shown that existing higher-density areas are saturated. The more credible concern is that much of the City’s planned capacity is not yet converting into housing because of incomplete implementation planning, slow or customized rezonings, discretionary approvals, financing barriers, and infrastructure constraints. Adding very large theoretical capacity across every Residential Neighborhood before resolving those barriers risks disrupting established neighborhoods without delivering meaningful or affordable production.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Phase any expansion based on results. Expand the program only after public reporting shows that targeted implementation and permitting reforms cannot meet the City’s demonstrated housing-delivery needs.

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

Sincerely,

Alain Mowad
President
VEP Community Association

Outlook
FW: August 18 Council Meeting, Item 10.3, General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:19 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Lance Danbe
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 Council Meeting, 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
Citizen Input regarding
Leam why this is imP.ortant
August 18 agenda item 10.3 General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (b) Small Multifamily/Missing Middle Housing:
(i) Increase the density in the Residential Neighborhood land use designation from 8 DU/AC to 32 DU/AC; To The Honorable Matt Mahan and Councilmembers,
What could be more sensible, effective, fair etc. then major strategy 3, focused growth, of the existing general plan which "strictly limits new residential development through neighborhood infill to preserve and enhance the quality of existing neighborhoods. " If the August 18 vote passes and allows by-1ight pe1mitting throughout San Jose, then the unintended consequences will surely overwhehn us and anger eve1yone. What is the point of having a planning staff if they merely need to review a checklist to approve building and pennitting fees, regardless of the concerns of affected neighborhood s and the impact on future city budgets. There is no safeguard against projects that are incompatible with smrounding residences. There is no process for analyzing the increased service demands such development would have on the demand for city and county services, no way to protect San Jose's fragile financial stability.

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

I long ago became suspicious when national candidates and leaders tell me they want what is good for the American people. And that's because they only think about tomorrow, not next year, next decade and beyond. Short term and social media ready content seem to drive all that they say. We elect you guys to think ahead. Please vote no on August 18 and show us that you are using common sense and have thought ahead for the good of San Jose citizens.

Houses come and go, but trust is a very hard thing to rebuild.

Regards,
Lance Danbe

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 8:19 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent: Tuesday,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: 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
(Copy)
--- Forwarded MessaQe ----
From: '
To:'
Cc: '
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 8:06 AM
Learn why this is imP.ortant
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting
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,
Arun Barboza
Bundy Ave
San Jose
(Lynhaven Neighborhood)
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outl ook
FW: City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal" From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 9:10 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Judith Sayler
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
Doan,
Kamei, Rosemary Casey, George
Campos, Pamela Tordi llos, Anthony
Cohen, David
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal" [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from Leam why this is imP.01tant Dear Mayor and Council Members ,
I want tot tell you that vehemently oppose the proposal to allow 3-story apartment buildings with 16+ units on any residential lot. I had not heard of this proposal nor any discussion of on the news or in newsletters from Districts 2 or

10. I would assume the housing department held public meetings virtually or in person, but because I have been ill for several months, I do not know if these meetings were held to let San Jose residents express their views. If not, this lack of transparency is concerning.

While I support more affordable housing in San Jose, I oppose this proposal because it will degrade the quality of life for single-family residents who might even have a developer tear down a home on a block of single-family homes in order to build a multi-family unit without any parking provided. A multi-family unit in the middle of single-family homes is not appropriate . Having lived in a single family home near the Woods Apartments in District 10, we often experienced overflow parking on the street in front of our homes. While I realize the streets are public, but having to compete for parking near our house was stressful to say the least.

I also don't know if these developments would be subject to CEQA review which in my opinion should be mandatory to take into account noise from residents of the apartment unit residents, inreased traffic, blocking sunlight and many other potential issues including the noise and many trucks during construction .

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

Hopefully Council Members will take out the wording "on any residential lot" to restrict it to appropriate parcels in in-fill areas or lots near other multi-family housing.

Sincerely,
Judith Sayler

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3 Aug 18th City Council meeting
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 9:11 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Pat Blevins
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 10.3 Aug 18th City Council meeting [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel I am completely opposed to the Plannin g Commission's Small Multifamil y/ Missing Middle Housing Proposal. I am requesting the City Council to vote NO as moving ahead will only lead to the complete destruction of our neigborhood s and the quality of life for the residents/taxpayers/voters of our City.

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

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

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

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

With no requirement for onsite parking our natTow residentia l streets will be over crowded with parked vehicles of all sizes making it impossible to drive safely on our streets, let alone allowing emergency vehicles timely response This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. to calls in our neighborhoods. The increase in commute traffic will be another extremely negative consequence.

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

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

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

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

Please consider what I have said and vote NO on the Planning Commission's Missing Middle Proposal.

Patricia Blevins

Outlook
FW: Proposed Housing Plan (August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3) From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 9:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: James Wendling
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Proposed Housing Plan (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 Leam why this is imP.01tant Dear San Jose City Council members/ clerk
My name is Jim Wendling. I have lived in San Jose for almost all of my life and am writing to express my concerns and strong opposition to the direction the Council appears to be headed with its proposal to change the housing zoning rules . I understand and support the need to provide adequate housing in San Jose. The cmTent proposal as I understand it will cause far more serious problems in several areas.

San Jose needs to provide affordable housing , but the cmTent plan will dramatically disrupt our neighborhoods without any assurance that the new housing will be affordable. More likely, it will provide builders/developers freedom to build dense housing wherever they like. The resulting effect on existing neighborhoods will be a disaster. Parking and traffic flows will be huge issues. Access to public transportation should be a requirement for the most dense housing. Access to adequate parking spaces is critical. The proposal does not adequately consider the interests and concerns of residents living in existing single-family neighborhoods, many of whom have invested in and built their lives in these communities.

There appears to be insufficient infrastructure planning. How will our sewers, power, gas, roads and traffic capacity, parking, open space, police and fire services, emergency response, waste management, public transportation be impacted? Parking, for example, is already a major problem in many neighborhoods .

Increasing housing density appears to be the goal. That will not automatically result in affordable new housing. Without adequately considering the many factors that contribute to housing affordability, the proposal will likely lead to increased development while failing to achieve its intended housing availability and affordability objectives.

This will have a major impact on San Jose's neighborhoods . The unintended long-te1m consequences from such changes need to be further studied before making any pe1manent changes.

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

For these reasons, I strongly urge the City Council not to approve the current proposal. Instead, I respectively ask the Council to take additional time to evaluate the proposal completely and to comprehensively address the impacts on existing neighborhoods, infrastructure, public services, traffic, livability and housing affordability.

I believe San Jose should pursue meaningful solutions to its housing challenges, but those solutions need to balance the need for additional housing with the City's ability to provide the infrastructure and services necessary to support sustainable growth and maintain a high quality of life for all residents.

Please share my thoughts with all council members prior to the August 18 meeting.

Respectively,

Jim Wendling

Outl ook
FW: Augu st 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.

From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 9:45 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Nancy C
Sent: Tuesday, Au
To: City Clerk CouncilMeeting
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 Leam why this is imP.Ottant I recognize the need for additional housing in San Jose, but broadly increasing density in established neighborhoods is not the light approach. The City's "Missing Middle" proposal would allow 4 to 10 units per lot, which is a drastic depa1ture from our current neighborhood patterns.

My concerns are threefold:

Neighborhood Character: Allowing significantly higher density fundamentally alters the scale and feel of existing residential areas.

Infrastructure & Services: Adding this many households requires careful evaluation of the combined strain on parking, local traffic, infrastructure, and public se1vices.

Property Values & Investment: Homeowners have invested significantly based on cunent zoning expectations.

Potential impacts on sunounding homes and property values must be thoroughly evaluated before changing these rules citywide.

Housing policy should add supply thoughtfully while respecting existing communities. I urge you to reject a blanket citywide approach in favor of targeted solutions developed with direct 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.

Outl ook
FW: Augu st 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 9:45 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Joe Carroll Jr
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk CouncilMeeting
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 Leam why this is imP.Ottant While San Jose certainly needs more housing, broadly upzoning established neighborhoods isn't the solution.

Allowing 4 to 10 units on single-family lots is a major change that Iisks alte1ing neighborhood character:
overburdening parking and traffic; infrastrncture such as utilities, police and fire departments; and impacting home values that residents have worked hard to build.

Rather than a blanket citywide policy, I urge the Council to pursue targeted housing growth developed alongside the community. Please vote NO on this proposal.

Sincerely, Joe Canon
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" on August 18, 2026
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 9:45 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Karen Krouse
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 9:44 A
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
District7
Subject: Vote NO on "Missing Middle" on August 18, 2026 [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 Members of the San Jose City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework.

This proposal consists of serious and long-lasting implications for all San Jose residents . Increasing housing density as proposed will create exponentially more traffic on already crowded streets, increase the number of parked cars in all neighborhoods, which creates a significant safety hazard for pedestrians, bicyclists and children on bikes.

There is no plan in place to address infrastructure necessary to support population increases in neighborhoods. What schools, parks, and emergency services are available to support this plan.

It is important for residents of San Jose to have a voice in a matter such as this, it is our city, our community, our neighborhood; a proposal with "forever" zoning changes, especially this one with zero recourse, affects us all. Let the voters, rather than 10 council members decide if this proposal is best for the city.

I urge you to vote no on this proposal on August 18, 2026. There is no reason this proposal needs to be pushed through without serious and thoughtful consideration, and a vote by city residents.

Thank you for considering my concerns and those of many other San Jose city residents .

Karen Krouse
registered voter in San Jose
Outlook
FW: General Plan 4-Year Review public comment
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 9:46 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent: Tuesday,
To: City Clerk
Subject: General Plan 4-Year Review public comment
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Leam why this is imP.ortant Hello,
I am writing to share a public comment for the "General Plan 4-Year Review - City of San Jose City Council."
I am writing the council to urge them to look in to and study the lasting and compounding effects of data centers on our community. Conside1ing the mounting evidence that data centers cause noise, environmental and water pollution when in use and crate ve1y few jobs for the community while harming it. I strongly urge the council to study the impact of these data centers and indeed make it a requirement of the general plan moving fo1ward.

I am a lifelong resident of San Jose and I want this city to thrive. Something that is only achieved when we protect everyone in this city especially our most vulnerable communities.

Best,
Mia Thompson
(If this is not the correct way to share public comment please let me know) This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Letter of support
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 10:25 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Jim Hamilton
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Letter of support
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more l You don't often get email from Leam why this is imP.otiant Dear Mayor and Council,
As a REALTOR I support more housing - with balance. We need to build more housing units to improve affordability, but growth must respect the integrity and infrastructure of existing neighborhoods. Density increases, without corresponding investment in roads, water, sewer, and school capacity, strain the neighborhoods residents already call home -growth plans should account for these impacts up front, not after the fact.

Please keep density out of fire risk areas. Prohibit increased density in Fire Hazard Severity Zones to protect public safety. We must always be thinking smartly about how to protect and preserve the housing we do have.

In addition, I hope these proposed changes will happen in a thoughtful and productive way. That is why I support the memo from Mayor Mahan to ensure this process is fair, transparent, and responsive to the needs of San Jose Residents.

Thank you very much!
Jim Hamilton
Local REALTOR
Jim Hamilton
Silicon Valley Association
Of Realtors
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Past President
California Association
of Realtors

Outlook
FW: VOTE NO on Missing Middle plan
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 10:25 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Linda Carcione
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
Cc: Linda Carcione
Subject: VOTE NO on Missing Middle plan
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 Leam why this is imP.ortant Honorable Mayor and City Council members,
I am writing as a concerned San Jose resident to strongly urge you to vote NO on the permanent, citywide
"Missing Middle" housing proposal scheduled for August 18.

This proposal goes far beyond any state mandate. No other city in Santa Clara County is implementing such sweeping, permanent upzoning. It would allow 3-story apartment buildings with 16 or more units on virtually any residential lot, with drastically reduced setbacks, no on-site parking requirements, and by-right approval. Once adopted, these projects would require no public hearings, no Planning Commission review, and no City Council vote. When construction begins, the project will already be fully
approved-with zero opportunity for neighborhood input.

The consequences are serious and irreversible:
- The upzoning is permanent and cannot be undone.
- With no on-site parking required, additional cars will park on already-crowded city streets. - No upgrades to utilities (PG&E, water, or sewer systems) or roadways will be required, placing further strain on existing infrastructure.
-A 2021 study commissioned by the City itself confirmed that this type of zoning change will not produce affordable housing units.

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

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

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

I respectfully ask the Council to
reject this proposal. At a minimum, please remove it from any consent or streamlined calendar so a full public hearing and genuine community discussion can take place.

Thank you for your consideration

Linda Carcione

----
Outl ook
FW: Housing density limits citywide in San Jose
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 10:30 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Lin-Lin Tsou-Ota ni
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 10:28 AM
To:CityClerk........_
Cc:B rett Jenni ~
Subject: Housing density limits citywid e in San Jose
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. I earn more) You don't often get email from L&am why this is important Dear Mayor and Council,
As a REALTOR I support more housing - with balance, We need to build more housing units to improve affordabi lity, but growth must respect the integrity and infrastructure of existing neighborhoods. Density increases, without corresponding investment in roads, water, sewer, and school capacity, strain the neighborhoods residents already call home -growth plans should account for these impacts up front, not afte r the fact.

Please keep density out of fire-risk areas, Prohib it increased density in Fire Hazard Severity Zones to protect public safety. We must always be thinking smartly about how to protect and preserve the housing we do have,
In addition, I hope these proposed changes will happen in a thoughtful and productive way. That is why I support the memo from Mayor Mahan to ensure this process is fair, tra nsparent, and responsive to t he needs of San Jose Residents.

Thank you very much!
Lin-Lin Tsou-Otani
Senior Listing Specialist Partner
Local REALTOR
Outlook
FW: Winchester Boulevard Corridor
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 10:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Bianca Vallorz
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Winchester Boulevard Corridor
District3
Dist rict 6
Distri ct9
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Good day,
I am a resident of Cory Neighborhood , and I live on
District4
District7
District 10
support Councilmembers Mulcahy, Candelas, and Ortiz recommendation to designate Winchester Blvd corridor as a Mixed Use Neighborhood and not Urban Residential. (UR) for the following reasons:

1. Pedestrian/Bicyclist Safety- I have witnessed numerous car accidents on W. Hedding and Redwood, and I am in the process of filing reports for accidents that I have witnessed with photos. Yesterday I filed three separate reports for said intersection. These car accidents involve cars hitting bicyclists, pedestrians , destroying fire hydrants and street trees, and hitting other cars. Creating an Urban Density will only greaten the already existing concerns of bicyclists and pedestrians being hit by cars. Especially if people have to run across a busy street to find parking.

2. Lack of parking-
a. San Jose is not equipped for high rise urban buildings without transportation. The Fay apartment complex was built for urban density and now is struggling with 60% occupancy rate because of lack of parking and went through foreclosures. b. I have witnessed people parking at O'Connor Hospital parking garage and walking to Valley Fair. People going to the hospital should not have to fight for parking! c. Additionally, Valley Fair parking already creates a nightmare especially from October-January .

Residents of Cory Neighborhood who live South of W. Hedding struggle to find parking and face issues with people blocking their driveways.

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

3. No Transit Hub- This does not exist in Cory Neighborhood. There are no light rail stations, train stations, or multiple bus lines to make this neighborhood a Transit Hub. The Bus station on Forest, by Valley Fair Mall is no longer operational. As Councilmembers stated in their memorandum, creating a UR neighborhood in this area
will result in residents needing to travel
longer distances by car.

4. Santa Clara City Concerns- Last year Santa Clara City officials submitted their objections to UR at 826 Winchester. San Jose needs to work with cities that will be affected by increasing zoning because the adjacent cities services will also be impacted.

5. Can't Decrease Zoning- Tread lightly, once the zoning capacity is increased, the city cannot lower the zoning capacity.

Thank you for your time,

Bianca Vallorz

Outlook
FW: General Plan Review.

From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 10:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Mark and Jackie Mian
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 10:3
To: City Clerk
Subject: General Plan Review.
[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 Council,
As a REALTOR I support more housing - with balance. We need to build more housing units to improve affordability, but growth must respect the integrity and infrastructure of existing neighborhoods. Density increases, without corresponding investment in roads, water, sewer, and school capacity, strain the neighborhoods residents already call home. Growth plans should account for these impacts up front, not after t he fact.

Please keep density out of fire-risk areas. Prohibit increased density in Fire Hazard Severity Zones to protect publi c safety. We must always think smartly about how to protect and preserve the housing we have.

In addition, I hope these proposed changes happen in a thoughtful and productive way. That is why I support the memo from Mayor Mahan to ensure this process is fair, transparent, and responsive to the needs of San Jose Residents.

Thank you very much!
Stay Well and Prosper,
Mark
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 10:52 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Yasamin Shamshiri
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Leam why this is important Dear Mayor and City Council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-yeai 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 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, further aggravate San Jose 's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

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

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing (w/ counter-proposal) Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 10:52 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Coralmoon
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 26 10: AM
To: District1
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing (w/ counter-pr oposal) Cityw ide 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 often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Councilmember Kamei,
I am a resident of District 1 - in San Jose, and I am writing to urge you to vote no on the Envision San Jose 2~ Citywide up-zoning proposal tomorrow.

Instead of the current proposal, I recommend a phased approach that implements changes gradually and only impacts well-established single-family neighborhoods once all other options have been exhausted.

My primary concerns with the current proposal include:
- Lack of comprehensive development planning
- Insufficient infrastructure planning
- Questionable impact on housing affordability
- Potential long-term, unintended consequences
For these reasons, I strongly urge the City Council not to approve the proposal in its current form. Instead, I respectfully ask the Council to consider smaller, incremental changes.

For example, a phased approach with an individual proposal and approval process for each phase could look like this:
- Phase 1: Apply up-zoning to churches and schools.
- Phase 2: Extend up-zoning to single-family homes on major streets only. - etc.

This incremental approach would help preserve established single-family neighborhoods until additional density is absolutely necessary.

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

Respectfully yours,
Christina F

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 [Oppose Missing Middle] From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 10:52 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Mousumi M ullick
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 Leam why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose the Planning Commission's 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 , while eliminating community review, represents a drastic and irreversible change to the fabric of San Jose neighborhoods . Furthermore , SB 330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable or ineffective. Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes especially those not mandated by the state-should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider them in the future.

This proposal exceeds both Housing Element requirements and state laws. Because it removes onsite parking requirements , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on our already crowded streets. It will also reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods, worsen San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

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

Outl ook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11: 12 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Reza Rashed
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 26 10: AM
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.01tant 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,
Reza Rashed
Willow Glen Resident
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11: 12 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Faramarz Rashed
Sent: Tuesday, Auqust 18, 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 more< httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear Mayor and City Council:

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

Quadrupling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback, is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods. SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far-reaching zoning 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,
Faramarz Rashed
Willow Glen Resident
Outlook
FW: Item 10.3: General Plan Review - "Missing Middle" Housing From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11: 12 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Too Joe
Sent: Tuesday,
To: District 10 City Clerk
Subject: Item 10.3: General Plan Review - "Missing Middle" Housing [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 To : George Casey, District 10
San Jose City Clerk
Leam why this is im)).Otiant
We are adding our voices to those that have already objected to the proposed "Missing Middle" Housing plan.

The plan could severely alter the character of neighborhoods where homeowners have worked hard and sacrificed for many years to purchase and own a home. Indeed, there are those that are currently in this process. The character of the neighborhood is a primary factor for a place to live and raise a family.

To potentially alter the character of the neighborhoods through this proposal is unreasonable and disrespectful to those that live there.

Sincerely,
Too and Bertram Joe
District 10
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Quadrupling Density Unfairly Impacts Lower Income Neighborhoods From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11: 13 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Elva Wilso
Sent: Tuesday,
I
delas, Do •
Casey, George
Celia, Joe
Kamei, Ros
I
Subject: Quadrupling Density Unfairly Impacts Lower Income Neighborhoods City Clerk
oan, Bien
Foley, Pam
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. learn morel You don't often get email from
Honorable Representatives:

Learn why this is important
My neighbors in D5 are opposed to this proposal to rezone single-family residential homes by potentially quadrupling density in San Jose.

Let's get real: This blanket proposal unfairly negatively impacts lower income neighborhoods.

How? We all know that potentially quadrupling housing density in lower income neighborhoods will look a lot different than quadrupling density in west San Jose or Almaden Valley or Willow Glen or Silver Creek.

Quadrupling housing density in East San Jose will be a blanket tool for capitalistic predatory landlords to cram even more people into tiny spaces, without parking accommodations for their vehicles.

How this plays out? Right now, in East San Jose, under the current pre-expanded density guidelines, a predatory capitalistic landlord has had 9-11 adults crammed into a tiny 1,080 sq ft 3-bedroom , 1 bathroom home on my street (761 Linda Flora StreeVAPN 599-17-063) in San Jose.

For years, they have had at least 11-12 cars parked all along my street from end-to-end. This property owner also owns the construction company that employs most of the tenants at his property.

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

These tenants have been so crammed in the tiny living quarters with no privacy, that many of them sit in their cars for hours in the evenings on their phones, either making phone calls or streaming videos. Essentially, they were living part of the time in their vehicles. In addition, many of these residents were seen daily searching for a space to park all up and down the streets and around the block, and would even lie to neighbors (apologetically) saying they were parking "temporarily" as they were doing a construction job nearby.

The residents of this cramped living quarters at 761 Linda Flora Street have been Latino laborers of the construction company who also owns this property. Of course the tenants employed by the property owner did not complain about the cramped living conditions with no parking.

Public Transit Option? Construction workers need vehicles to carry tools for their trade; they aren't using public transit or cycling to work carrying a briefcase.

I called Code Enforcement in March/April 2025 to report the cramped living quarters on Linda Flora Street with inadequate parking for the tenants, but learned that this is what the
current occupancy guidelines look like (which I assume will quadruple with the proposed density increase).

This proposed Up Zoning is OPPRESSIVE to low-income vulnerable people. City Council quadrupling density to further give predatory, capitalistic land owners a greater tool to house people like cattle in East San Jose is SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION. Think of the negative unintended consequences.

Here's the kicker: At this same property at 761 Linda Flora Street, the predatory construction company owner-property landlord is currently demolishing much of this single-family house and converting it into 3 living units/3-plex. They are getting rid of the garage, not adding any additional parking on-site and may be reducing the driveway.

This means instead of cramming
11 adults into a small 5,035 sq ft lot, legal occupancy may be 15-18, and, based on history, this same owner may cram in 20+ people here. Once again, Code Enforcement may likely look the other way, in part, due to laws enacted by council which they have to administer.

Under current density guidelines how many more vulnerable construction workers will this
predatory construction company owner-property landlord now cram into this newly- expanded living space at 761 Linda Flora Street with no additional parking for tenants?

What will quadrupling density with no added on-site parking in East San Jose look like?

Quality of life should matter.

Respectfully,

(Maria) Elva Wilson
(D5)

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Stop Ruining Our Middleclass Neighborhoods - Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11: 13 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Susanne Macdougall
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 1
To: District1
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Stop Ruining Our Middleclass Neighborhoods - 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 Leam why this is imP-ortant Dear Council Member Kamei,
I am writing to urge you to vote no on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force citywide up zoning proposal on today's council meeting agenda.

The ongoing expansions are already bringing high 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 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: Missing Middle Housing
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11: 13 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Kathy Shideler
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Missing Middle Housing
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Absolutely NOT!!!!!
Have a great day!
Kathleen Shideler
Learn why this is imP.Otiant
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outl ook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11 :20 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Venkatesh Srinivasan
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 1
To: District1
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
Dear Council member Kamei,
I live
Learn why this is imP.Otiant
istrict 1. I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning proposal tomor row.

With the ongoing Santana Row expansion already bringing heavy density and traff ic to our immediate borders, our quiet inter ior 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 yours,
Venkatesh Srinivasan
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 11 :26 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Vinitha Iyengar
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: District1
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 Leam why this is imP.ottant Dear Council member Kamei,
I live
Jose I• I • ' I •
District 1. I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San itywide 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,
I I• - It•
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outl ook
FW: In Support of Housing Growth in San Jose
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 11 :26 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Alan Barbi
Sent: Tuesda
To: City Clerk
Subject: In Support of Housing Growth in San Jose
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more l You don't often get email from Learn why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and Council,
As a REALTOR I support more housing - with balance. We need to build more housing units to improve affordability, but growth must respect the integrity and infrastructure of existing neighborhoods. Density increases, without corresponding investment in roads, water, sewer, and school capacity, strain the neighborhoods residents already call home -growth plans should account for these impacts up front, not after the fact.

Thank you for your support
Alan Barbie
Outl ook
FW: PLS READ OPINION : Upzon e Single Fam to Mult Fam=Equity Steal from Middl e Class Homeowner, Political Perspective
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/ 2026 12:24 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Janet Boeninger
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: PLS READ OPINION : Upzone Single Fam to Mult Fam=Equity Steal from Middle Class Homeowner, Political Perspective
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel To SJCC
PLS READ OPINION ARTICLE: Upzone Single Fam to Mult Fam=Equity Steal from Middle Class Homeowner Political Perspective.

Title: NIMBY Con HOW Oligarchs are Rebranding their Theft as Progress Cal also use this concept for Data Centers.

Opinion Article: Is YIMBY really for common good of country? WHY? Who owns upzoned property after homes are built? Corporations, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS)? Profit goes to upper class Investors to make them rich,
Article is long. Excerpts are printed to give overview. Full Article link at bottom.

Much more in Article.
************************************************************************************************* What "NIMBY" Actually Means-And What It's Being Twisted Into "NIMBY" - Not In My Backyard - began as a mildly pejorat ive shorthand for the entirely huma n tendency of supporting something in theory while oppos ing it when it imposes costs nearby. Power plants? Sure. Just not next to my house. Halfway houses? Important. Not on my block.

It is a real phenomenon with real costs. Exclusionary zoning has blocked affordable housing, delayed transit, protected segregation, and made many cities harder to live in. Those failures deserve honest discussion.

But what is happening now is not honest discussion.

What is happening now is that billionaire backed think tanks, tech oligarchs, corporate real estate interests, and well funded “YIMBY” (Yes In My Backyard) advocacy organizations are fusing the legitimate critique of exclusionary zoning with something entirely different and far more sinister: a broad assault on the idea that ordinary homeowners have any right to protect the value, stability, and character of the neighborhoods they bought into.

Middle class families scraped together down payments. They stretched budgets. They accepted decades of mortgage payments. They bet their financial futures on a place not merely on four walls and a roof, but on the stability of the neighborhood surrounding those walls.

Now they are being told that defending that stability is selfish. That is the con.

****************************************************************************** The Pattern Is the Point to dismantle the protection underneath.

The attack on NIMBY is an attack on the last meaningful wealth protection available to the American middle class. It is being funded by people who will never be affected by it, executed by a media apparatus that has been captured by those same interests, and sold to the public by manipulating the language of progressivism and housing justice.

Three mechanisms work in concert: first, strip the legal protections that make neighborhoods resistant to devaluation; second, use tax structures that structurally disadvantage individual owners relative to corporate buyers; third, irrevocably convert neighborhoods from nice places to live into profit centers for extracting rents, perpetually. Each piece is individually obscure. Together they form a wealth-transfer engine that further enriches and empowers the richest 1% of Americans.

Our neighborhoods, our homes, our communities’ right to determine their own futures — these are not selfishness. They are the architecture and security of a middle-class life. And the people telling us to give them up are not altruistic actors — they have direct financial designs on weakening the protections of the assets they don’t yet own. Their goal is not abundance. Their goal is acquisition.

They used political leverage to create the housing crisis, and are now leveraging the anger over that crisis to impose externalities on middle-class homeowners — depressing the value of assets they don’t yet own, until those assets become easier to acquire, and calling that dispossession progress ******************************************************************************************* Leverage: Control Without Ownership

Imagine you own a modest house worth $400,000. You’ve lived there twelve years. You’ve paid down the mortgage, watched the neighborhood stabilize, maybe even improved the property. Your equity is real it represents years of payments, sacrifice, and bet placing on a particular place and community.

Now imagine a politically connected developer gets approval for a concrete batching plant on the vacant lot next door. Trucks. Dust. Noise. Industrial equipment. Traffic. Early mornings. Late nights.

You didn’t sell anything. No one took your deed. The structure of your house is identical to what it was yesterday. But your home is now worth $280,000. One hundred and twenty thousand dollars of your equity has effectively vanished. It didn’t disappear into thin air it was transferred, without a transaction, in the most literal economic sense: whoever eventually buys that neighboring lot will pay a price that already accounts for the depressed surrounding values. The discount they pay is your loss. Your equity became their acquisition savings, without either of you signing a contract, and without you receiving a cent.

And now, whenever you’re willing to sell, they can buy your house with that discount as well. That is leverage, used as a tool for taking. Defined precisely, leverage means the use of borrowed capital, positional power, or controlling influence to amplify one’s ability to affect outcomes and to extract value beyond what direct ownership alone would permit. In its most familiar form, leverage is a mortgage: you control a $400,000 house with $80,000 down, because the bank’s capital amplifies your purchasing power. But leverage operates far beyond borrowing. Any mechanism that allows a party to control an asset, determine its value, or dictate the terms under which others hold it without owning it outright is a form of leverage.

Most of us learn about ownership in the straightforward sense: you buy something, you hold the deed, you control it. But billionaires know that leverage lets them expand power and influence far beyond what they own. What we are not taught and what the financial and legal complexity of the modern economy has been structured to obscure is that formal ownership is merely one way of controlling an asset. If you can determine what an asset is worth, how it performs, what happens to it, and under what conditions it can be sold, you own it in an economically meaningful sense, without ever appearing on the title and without ever paying full price.

***************************************************************************************************** What Is Actually at Stake

The long-term implications extend well beyond household balance sheets and billionaire acquisitions. The conversion of owner-occupied housing to permanent rental stock is not easily reversed. A tax cut can be repealed. A regulation can be reinstated. But when a generation grows up as renters with no expectation of homeownership, the political constituency for homeowner protections shrinks. When the housing stock has been absorbed into corporate portfolios and the institutional infrastructure for single-family rentals has been built out at scale, converting it back requires political will against interests that will, by then, be even more powerful than they are now. When young people have been redirected into crypto and betting as their primary financial aspirations, rebuilding the cultural and financial infrastructure of broadly accessible homeownership has no clear path back.

The oligarchs don’t need to win forever. They just need to win long enough that the opposition demographic ages out and the next generation never develops the financial stake — and the civic stake — that would motivate them to resist.

A society of homeowners distributes wealth broadly. A society of renters concentrates wealth among those who own the rental properties. But the difference goes beyond the financial. Ownership creates stability, civic engagement, and local accountability. Homeowners attend school board meetings. Homeowners vote in local elections. Homeowners have a reason to care about what gets built next door, because it affects something they own and depend upon. And that care, multiplied across a neighborhood, is precisely what produces the value that outside interests are trying to capture. Home equity isn’t built in isolation — it is built collectively, by every neighbor who maintains their property, invests in the community, and shows up.

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

Strip that away replace a neighborhood of owners with a neighborhood of renters paying perpetually rising rents to a corporate landlord headquartered in another state and we have not just transferred wealth. We have transferred power. We have converted citizens with stakes into customers with none.

This is the deepest form of the leverage principle. It is not merely that the oligarchs want to own our homes. It is that a nation of renters is a nation of people with no permanent stake in their communities, no intergenerational asset to pass down, no financial foundation from which to resist the terms being set for them. A landlord class that owns the housing has leverage in the oldest and most complete sense over everyone who must pay to live in it.

And, when you strip the ownership away, you don’t just transfer the financial asset. You dissolve the community that created it.

The question is not “should we build more housing?” the real question is why, after decades of policy choices that have deliberately constrained supply and converted ownership to rental, are we being told that eliminating existing homeowner protections is the solution. Who benefits from the systematic removal of the protections that give ordinary people a seat at the table of their own communities?

The answer, consistently, is not the young renter being used as the human face of the YIMBY movement. The answer is the institutional investor waiting to absorb what remains once the protections are gone.

**************************************************************************************************** Link to Full Article
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/6/26/800057250/community/the-nimby-con-how-oligarchs-are-rebranding-their- theft-as-progress/

The “NIMBY” Con: How Oligarchs Are Rebranding Their Theft as Progress dailykos.com

------ --
Outlook
FW: August 18 Council meeting
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:24 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Tom Pardini
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Cc:

Subject: August 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.orfant Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council:

I am writing to strongly oppose the Planning Commission's recommendation in Agenda Item 10.3 and urge the City Council to reject the proposed General Plan amendment.

The proposal to increase the maximum permitted residential density from 8 units per acre to 32 units per acre citywide is not a modest policy adjustment. It is a fourfold increase in allowable density that would fundamentally and permanently alter the character of San Jose neighborhoods.

This is far too consequential a decision to make without giving residents a meaningful opportun ity to evaluate, challenge , and reconsider its effects at the neighborhood level.

Most troubling is the permanence of the change. Once development capacity is substantially increased, state law-including the restrictions imposed by SB 330-can significantly limit the City's ability to subsequently reduce that capacity.

In other words, the Council should not make a citywide, potentially irreversible commitment today based on assumptions about what San Jose may need years from now.

If this policy ultimately produces unintended consequences-more traffic, inadequate parking, increased infrastructure demands, loss of neighborhood character, or insufficient public services-the City and its residents may have very limited ability to correct course.

There are also serious practical concerns that deserve much more scrutiny before the Council approves such a sweeping change:
• Traffic and congestion: Increasing residential density fourfold in areas that were not designed or planned for that level of development will place additional pressure on already congested streets and intersections.
• Parking: Eliminating or substantially reducing the expectation for onsite parking does not eliminate the need for parking. It simply transfers the burden from developers to existing residents and neighborhoods, increasing competition for curb space and creating additional parking conflicts .

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

Infrastructure: More residents require adequate roads, drainage, water, sewer capacity, schools, parks, transit, and other public infrastructure. Density should not be increased first and infrastructure addressed later.

Public safety: Police, fire, emergency response, and other municipal services are already required to operate within significant fiscal constraints. The City should demonstrate that these services can adequately support the additional population before permanently increasing development capacity on such a massive scale.

Trees and environmental quality: Greater building intensity can mean less space for mature trees, landscaping, and permeable surfaces. This is particularly concerning as San José experiences increasingly hot conditions and neighborhoods depend on tree canopy for shade and cooling.

Neighborhood character: A citywide fourfold increase in allowable density would fundamentally change the scale and character of many established neighborhoods. Residents should not be told that such changes are simply inevitable when the City is making a policy choice about how broadly to apply them.

Jobs and housing balance: San José must consider whether continually increasing residential capacity without a corresponding strategy for employment, transportation, infrastructure, and municipal finances will actually produce a healthier and more sustainable city.

I support responsible housing development. I do not support abandoning reasonable planning standards or permanently increasing density across the entire city without adequate consideration of infrastructure, transportation, parking, public safety, environmental impacts, and the concerns of existing residents.

Housing policy should not be reduced to a simple calculation of how many additional units can theoretically be placed on a parcel. San José is a functioning community, not merely a collection of development sites. Good planning requires balancing housing needs with livability, infrastructure, public services, environmental quality, and the long-term interests of the people who already live here.

There is also a political consequence to this decision that I want to state plainly. If the Council approves this measure despite the serious concerns raised by residents, I will take each Councilmember's vote into account when deciding which candidates I can support in future elections. I will also carefully consider the positions and voting records of individuals seeking public office or appointment in the future.

I believe elected officials should be accountable to the residents they represent. My future political support will depend, in part, on how each Councilmember chooses to vote on this measure and whether they demonstrate that they are listening to the residents of San José.

The Council should therefore reject the Planning Commission recommendation in Agenda Item 10.3 and refuse to approve this sweeping citywide increase in allowable residential density.

At an absolute minimum, any proposal of this magnitude should be subjected to substantially greater public review, neighborhood-level analysis, infrastructure capacity analysis, traffic and parking analysis, and a clear demonstration that the proposed changes are actually necessary and appropriate.

Please do not make a permanent and far-reaching change to San José's neighborhoods without first establishing that the City has the infrastructure, resources, and community support necessary to make that change responsibly.

I respectfully urge each member of the City Council to vote NO on Agenda Item 10.3.

Respectfully,
Tom and Jane Pardini
District 1 resident
San José, California

•
•
•
•
•
Outlook
FW: Public Comment: OPPOSE Agenda Item 26-852
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:24 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Bala Ramachandran
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 1 : 7 A
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment : OPPOSE Agenda Item 26-852
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
My wife, Veena, and I are homeowners residing
express our strong opposition to the "Small Multi am, y proposed under Agenda Item 26-852.
and we are writing to
e Housing" framework
This proposal introduces drastic changes to established single-family communities without adequate oversight or a chance for current homeowners to voice their opposition We specifically object to the following elements of the proposal:

Extreme Density Increases: The proposal seeks to increase the allowable density in the Residential Neighborhood land use designation from 8 DU/AC to 32 DU/AC. And demolish single-family homes without any consideration for single-family neighbors.

1. Additionally, there seems to be a hurried and quick waiver for essential items like parking structures , proper entrances, preserving open spaces and tree cover.

2. This is unacceptable , as it severely compromises existing neighborhood single-home resources, privacy and safety

3. Also builders once builders see the multi story buildings coming up, they will prey on single family homeowners to force sales at lower prices

4. Inappropriate Scale: Allowing building heights of up to 35 feet and 3 stories will severely impact the privacy and character of our existing streetscapes.

5. Strain on Infrastructure and Services: Quadrupling the neighborhood density without a parallel plan for infrastructure upgrades will place an unsustainable burden on our essential public services, stretching our police, fire, water, and sewer systems to the breaking point.

6. Elimination of Community Input: Directing staff to develop a "ministerial approval process" for these developments is unacceptable. Removing discretionary review means that immediate neighbors will be stripped of public notice, public hearings, and the right to voice concerns about major structural changes happening right next door.

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

We urge the City Council to reject the multi family zoning for pure single family residential zoning areas like 95132 in Berryessa.

Sincerely yours

Ramachandran Bala

Outlook
FW: Housing density
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:24 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Salas, Ann
Sent: Tuesda
To: City Clerk
Subject: Housing density
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more l You don't often get email from Leam whY. this is imP.01tant Dear Mayor and Council,
As a REALTOR I support more housing - with balance. We need to build more housing units to improve affordability, but growth must respect the integrity and infrastructure of existing neighborhoods. Density increases, without corresponding investment in roads, water, sewer, and school capacity, strain the neighborhoods residents already call home -growth plans should account for these impacts up front, not after the fact.

Thank you very much
Anna Salas
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment opposing citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:25 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Ram B
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk Ram B
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.Otiant Dear Council Mmember Kamei,
I live an Jose (95117).

I'm writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up zoning proposal today.

This proposal will destroy the single-family neighbourhood character and overwhelm our streets with cars due to the lack of onsite parking requirements.

Please portect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

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

Outl ook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:25 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Russel Lindsay
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
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 Leam why this is imP.01tant Mr Mayor and esteemed Council members,
I ask you to please reconsider your proposed changes to single family zoning in San Jose.

While I applaud your efforts and support new building in general, the lack of parking space requirements will be a disaster for any neighborhood that draws the short stick of new development. We see it all over the city already, people own too many cars and they'll litter our streets and make one nice neighborhoods attractive to thieves and feel like trash. Don't listen to the sob stories of developers so they can build cheaper, make more, and leave our neighborhoods in ruin. Sure there are places where fewer parking restrictions make sense because public transport is readily available , but that is not the case in the vast majority of the city. You'll turn San Jose into a heap while cities like Sunnyvale, Saratoga, and Mountain View continue to enjoy further NYMBY status in an ever widening prosperity gap.

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

Outl ook
FW: Heather Lange-San Jose Resident: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide "Missing Middle " upzoning .

From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:25 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Heather Lange
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: District 6
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Heather Lange-San Jose Resident: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning. [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 Thank you, Joseph.

Leam why this is imP-ortant
I appreciate your response and your passing my concerns along to Councilmember Mulcahy.

Unfortunately, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I sincerely hope my comments will be noted and considered as part of the discussion.

I understand that San Jose needs additional housing, and I support thoughtful efforts to create it. However, I do not believe increasing housing density should come at the expense of established residential neighborhoods or the homeowners who have invested significantly in them.

Any plan for increased density needs to give meaningful consideration to the real impacts on the surrounding community, including adequate parking, increased traffic, infrastructure capacity, neighborhood character, and the potential effect on surrounding property values. Zoning and density should be appropriate for what individual streets and neighborhoods can reasonably accommodate, rather than applying a broad approach without sufficient consideration of those differences .

I hope Councilmember Mulcahy will advocate for a balanced approach that creates needed housing while also protecting the livability, character, and long-term value of San Jose's established neighborhoods .

Thank you again for making sure my voice is heard this evening.

Best regards,
Heather Lange
San Jose Resident
Heather Lange I Realtor
Heather Lange Homes

From: District 6 <
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:41 AM
To: Heather Lange <
Subject: RE: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide “Missing Middle” upzoning.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

Thank you so much for reaching out to the Oﬃce of Councilmember Michael Mulcahy.

We appreciate you reaching out regarding the General Plan 4-Year Review proposal, set to come before the City Council on Tuesday, August 18. I will be sure to note your comments and your concerns with the proposal to Councilmember Mulcahy.

Please do not hesitate to reach out to with any additional questions, comments, and concerns.

Sincerely,
Joseph Mauro
Council Policy and Legislative Analyst
Oﬃce of Councilmember Michael Mulcahy
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 18th Floor
San José, CA 95113
--------------- Original Message ---------------
From: Heather Lange [
Sent: 8/13/2026, 3:12 PM
To:

Cc:

Subject: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide “Missing Middle” upzoning. --------

MICHAEL
p.1ULCAHy
SAN J □ SE CITY C □ UNCILMEMBER
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San José City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed citywide “Missing Middle” upzoning.

San José homeowners have invested significant amounts of their savings and income into their homes and neighborhoods. Broad upzoning that allows substantially higher density development within established residential neighborhoods could have lasting consequences for neighborhood character, parking, infrastructure and surrounding property values.

Housing policy should be thoughtful and balanced, with meaningful consideration given to the homeowners and residents who have invested in these communities. A change of this magnitude should not be implemented broadly without adequate neighborhood input and careful consideration of its long term impacts.

Please vote NO on this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Heather

Heather Lange Homes of Intero

Please excuse any typos
Sent from my iPhone
thread::mjUgJRMWPquYrsPRg638IUY::

Outl ook
FW: Change of residential zoning regulations
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:25 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Carla O'Shaughnessy
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 1
To: City Clerk The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: Change of residential zoning regulations
[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 Members of the San Jose City Council, I have just learned of the proposa l to make permanent major changes in the zoning code for residentia l housing. I believe that the proposed changes would be a major, irreversible mistake for the residents of our city.

It is true that we need housing for our residents, but this is not the best way to do it, and it will make our city quite unlivab le for all. We do not have the infrastructure to support such dense housing. Our streets, water, sewage, and electrical systems will be stretched way too thinly.

Parking shortage is already a major problem in areas of District 1. We live on the street on the backside of Anderson School. About 20 years ago, a charter school was added to the school grounds, with nearly no parking for the school teachers, personnel, and parents required to participate as volunteer help. Most of the students who attend it do not live nearby, so depend upon fam ilies to drive them to and from school.

This has presented a major problem for all nearby residents. Traffic congests our residentia l streets multiple times of the day, with very limited parking for anyone. Residents have tried to accommodate the parking needs by parking in their garages and driveways, but still, there is not enough curbside space for parking the many vehicles that come to the neighborhood.

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

The parking issue is further complicated by the needs of residents who live in apartments and duplexes on the nearby streets of Barrymore and Floral. On weekdays during the school season, much of the curb space is occupied by cars associated with the school. After school hours, in evenings, and on days when school is not in session, the spaces are occupied by residents of nearby streets.

Cars frequently park beside fire hydrants and along curbed zones that are painted red for extended time periods. They sometimes block driveways by 3 feet or more, making it difficult for residents to get in and out of driveways, and affect visibility as well as space needs.

It is also very difficult to find space on Tuesdays to put out trash and recycling bins. We sometimes have to block our own driveway just to put out the cans for trash and recycling pick-up.

The parking shortage is also a problem for mail delivery vehicles and other delivery vehicles. Delivery vehicles sometimes have to park in the street. Service people coming to prune trees, do yardwork, repair plumbing, do roofing repairs, etc, sometimes have to "double park{" or park several blocks away.

Evening emergency vehicles, such as ambulance vehicles and fire engines responding to 911 calls have had to "double park".

Most people in this area need cars to get to work, medical appointments and to purchase groceries. There is not a good public transportation service, and the distances are to far to walk. Elderly residents are not usually able to bike or walk far, let alone, trying to transport needed groceries. (Delivery vehicles have almost no place to park.)

If I understand correctly, the new zoning proposal permanently allows 8-10, or more, residential buildings to be built on land that currently has 1 home. Not only will no parking space be required, but, dwellings can be built very near to sidewalks, eliminating garages and driveways. How will these dwellings be built if there is no room to park vehicles of the workers trying to build them?

In this letter, I have only focused on the issues related to parking, but, that is only one of many that other residents have mentioned in their letters. This proposal is harmful to the residents of our city in many ways.

Please give this proposal very serious thought before voting, as it will harm our residents in many ways for many years, decreasing livability, and being irreversible' I urge you to vote "no" on this proposal.

Thank you for considering this letter and the needs of our citizens.

Sincerely,
Carla O'Shaughnessy

Outl ook
FW: Oppositi on to Citywide "Missing Middle " Proposal City Council Agenda for August 18, 2026, Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:26 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Linden Skjeie
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk Casey, George
Subject: Opposition to Citywide "Missing Middle" Proposal City Council Agenda for August 18, 2026, 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 Hi,
I am echoing the letter sent to you by Rick Mandel, the president of the Santa Teresa Foothills Neighborhood Association regarding Item 10.3 on today's City Council agenda.

While I am not opposed to building housing in San Jose, I am opposed to infill that potentially destroys single-family neighborhoods and compromises property values. Allowing such density on typical 6000 sq ft lots also would compromise biodiversity in San Jose and its biodiversity goals as laid out in the working and natural lands element of the Climate Action Plan. As well as its Urban Tree Canopy Master Plan.

The New Provision also doesn't address parking impacts such increased density would create.

For these reasons, I'm opposed to the changes included in Item 10.3 and urge the Council to vote "NO."
Thank you, Linden Skjeie
District 10
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: OPPOSITION: Envision San Jose 2040 Four-Year Review- Housing Density Proposal - meeting date (August 18, 2026)
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:37 PM
To Agendadesk
From: District 6
Sent: Tuesday, Au ust 18, 2026 12:27 PM
To:

Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: OPPOSITION: Envision San Jose 2040 Four-Year Review - Housing Density Proposal - meeting date (August 18, 2026)
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Hello David and Catherine,
Thank you so much for reaching out to the Office of Councilmember Michael Mulcahy.

Please do not hesitate to reach out to
comments, and concerns.

Lynn Lee
Chief of Staff
Office of Councilmember Michael Mulcahy
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 18th Floor
San Jose , CA 95113
with any additional questions,
--------------- Original Messaqe --------------
From: Dave Young -
Sent: 8/17/2026. 2:~
To:

Sul:>Jec : : nvIsIon an ose
Proposal - meeting date (August 18, 2026)
our-Year Review - Housing Density
Dear Council member Mulcahy and Memb ers of the City Council, As a resident of the 95125 zip code within the Willow Glen neighborhood, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed land-use overhaul that would quadruple housing density limits in single-fami ly neighborhoods.

My wife and I have deep roots in Willow Glen. We have lived here since 1960, attended Willow Glen High School together , and purchased our home in Willow Glen in 1980. For more than six decades, we have watched this community grow while mainta ining the quiet resident ial character that makes it such a desirable place to live and raise famil ies.

While I support finding practical solutio ns to meet regiona l housing needs, replacing traditional single-fami ly zoning with development of up to 32 units per acre would fundamen tally alter the character of our established neighborhoods. It would also place significant pressure on local infrastructure . Our roads, neighborhood schools, utilities, and publ ic services are not equipped to absorb this level of localized densification without serious impacts on residents' quality of life.

It would appear that the current proposal encourages drastic changes to neighborhoods that have long been valued for their stability, livability, and sense of community. I believe there are more balanced approaches to increasing housing opportunities that do not require sacrificing the character of Willow Glen and similar residential areas.

Please vote "No" on the General Plan Four-Year Review density changes this Tuesday, August 18, and instead prio ritize thoughtfu l, localized development strategies that preserve our established residential commun ities while addressing housing needs responsibly.

Sincerely,
thread: :5N8T-9eOP Je51 XciPzVp9kY::

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

Outlook
FW: Support Housing Growth in San Jose
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 12:50 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Stephanie Larsen
Sent: Tuesday, August 18,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Support Housing Growth in San Jose
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. learn more l You don't often get email from Learn why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and Council,
As a REALTOR I support more housing - with balance. We need to build more housing units to improve affordabi lity, but growth must respect the integ rity and infrastructure of existing neighborhoods. Density increases , without corresponding investment in roads , water , sewer, and school capacity, strain the neighborhoods residents already call home-growth plans should a ccount for these impacts up front, not after the fact.

Please keep dens ity out of fire risk areas. Prohibit increased dens ity in Fire Hazard Severity Zones to protect public safety. We must always be thinking smar tly about how to protect and preserve the housing we do have.

In addition, I hope these proposed changes will happen in a thoughtful and productive way . That is why I support the memo from Mayor Mahan to ensure this process is fair, transparent , and responsive to the needs of San Jose Residents.

Thank you very much !
Loca l REALTOR.

STEPHANIE LARSEN
Contents of thi:s message are privileged and confidential. This message should not be forwarded or distributed without permission. ORE 020233-64 Outlook
FW: Please Vote No on the Envision San Jose 2040 Up-Zoning Proposal From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 1:06 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Mari a Tilne
Sent: Tuesda
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Please Vote No on the Envision San Jose 2040 Up-Zoning Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more l You don't often get email from Learn why this is imP.ortant Dear Council Member Kamei,
I am a District 1 resident, and I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force citywide up-zoning proposal tomorrow.

Our neighborhood is already experiencing the effects of significant development and increased density from the ongoing expansion of Santana Row. Adding additional multi-unit zoning to the quiet residential streets surrounding this area would place even more pressure on traffic, parking, and neighborhood infrastructure.

I am especially concerned about making this type of development permanently allowed "by right," particularly without adequate on-site parking requirements. Our interior residential streets were not designed to accommodate the additional vehicles and congestion that could result from increased density.

I understand the need for thoughtful housing solutions , but I believe they should take into account the existing density, infrastructure , and character of individual neighborhoods. District 1 communities bordering major developments like Santana Row are already absorbing substantial growth.

Please protect our residential neighborhoods and vote NO on this proposal.

Thank you for your time and for representing District 1.

Outlook
FW: Oppose of "moving forward with the proposed citywide "missing middle" upzoning framework From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 1:28 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Pauline Liang
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 1:26 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
◄
◄
.
strictl
District4
Subject: RE: Oppose of "moving forward with the proposed citywide "missing middle" upzoning framework [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.Otiant 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 light solution. The City itself describes Missing Middle housing under consideration as allowing 4 to 10 units, a substantial change from the existing development pattern of many neighborhoods.

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

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

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Outlook
FW: Missing Middle proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 2:18 PM
To Agendadesk
From: District 9
Sent: Tuesday, Au ust 18, 26 2:15 PM
To:

City Clerk
Subject: RE: Missing Middle proposal
The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nelson,
Thank you very much for taking the time to reach out to the office of Vice Mayor Pam Foley.

Due to the overwhelming amount of communication received, the Vice Mayor sometimes requests her staff to respond to some of the email received.

I appreciate your comments on the upcoming Council item regarding the General Plan 4-Year Review. I'll be sure to share this with Vice Mayor Foley. Here is a link to a memorandum that Vice Mayor Foley coauthored on the item that helps clarify her position on the matter. The item, alongside the Council memo, will be heard today at the City Council meeting.

Should you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Best,
Justin Wang (he/him/his)
Policy Aide
Office of Vice Mayor Pam Foley
(408) 535-4977 I
--------------- Original MessaQe --------------
From: Barbara Nelson
Sent: 8/15/2026. 1 O :29
To:

Cc:

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

Dear Ms. Foley,
We are writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide “Missing Middle” upzoning framework.

We recognize San José’s need for additional housing, but 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.

Vacant commercial properties should be considered versus residential neighborhoods.

Our concerns are straightforward. First, significantly increasing allowable density can fundamentally change the character and scale of established residential neighborhoods.

Second, adding substantially more households should require careful consideration of the cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood services. Third, homeowners have invested significant amounts of their savings and income based in part on the existing character and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods. Potential impacts on surrounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules are broadly changed.

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering our concerns.

Sincerely,
David and Barbara Nelson
thread::NTEZa9ZkPA-tY0kFigool0Y::

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on Aug 18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 2:36 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Yijie B
Sent: Tuesda
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.ortant Dear Council member Kamei,
I live in District 1. I am writing to you to VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up-zoning proposal today. 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 rotect our nei hborhood and vote against this proposal.

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

Outlook
FW: High Density Housing Measure
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 2:49 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe-----
From: Tabby -
Sent: Tuesday, Auqust 18, 2026 2:43 PM
To: City Clerk Mahan, Matt <
Foley, Pam
Subject: High Density Housing Measure
Campos, Pamela
Casey, George
[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 Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express concern about the rapid increase in residential density without the infrastructure needed to support it. Our existing systems- libraries, parks, police, fire, roads, water, power, and sewer are already strained, and adding more units will only deepen these challenges.

Higher density also increases Vehicle Miles Traveled, reduces tree canopy, and contributes to hotter neighborhoods and more congestion. Emergency services are at risk as well; the city's own study shows we are short several fire stations, which affects response times and potentially fire insurance rates.

Parking remains a major issue. New multi -unit developments require no on-site parking, pushing all vehicles onto already crowded streets. I experience this on my street.

I respectfully urge the Council to ensure infrastructure, emergency services, and transportation systems are expanded before approving additional density. Sustainable growth requires planning that protects both current and future residents.

Thank you for your attention.

Tabassum Vaidyanath
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 3:00 PM
To Agendadesk
From: TheOnlyFTG
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 Leam why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the 4-year General Plan, as outlined in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

Outlook
Fw: Support General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 4:35 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax:408-292-6207
How is om service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Darryl Putnam
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 4:07 PM
Subject: Support General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
Candelas, 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 imP.ortant Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.members. My name is Dan.yl Putnam . I've spent more than 35 years in construction and real estate development here in the San Jose Area.

I strongly support the direction you're considering to allow greater housing density within our existing residential neighbo rhoods.

We all recognize that we need more housing. But planning for housing is not the same as producing it.

Allowing appropriate additional density on existing residential lots creates an opportunity to add homes gradually, within established neighborhood s, rather than relying exclusively on large multifamily developments.

But density alone won't produce housing.

For these projects to actually get built, they need to be economically feasible, and the approval process needs to be clear and predictable. Objective standards and a straightforward ministerial process can reduce uncertainty, time, and cost and allow small builders and individual prope1ty owners to become part of the housing solution.

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

I encourage you to move this forward and, as you develop the details, keep one question in mind:

Will these rules actually result in homes being built?
Thank you.

Darryl Putnam

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 4:36 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our serv ice? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: G. D. Cagley
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 4:32 PM
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
, Domingo
ulcahy, 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 untrus ted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
To Whom It may Concern:

Learn why this is imP.ortant
I'm stead fast against the Missing Middle Proposal and urge you to vote no for the following reasons:

Chaotic, runaway development:

The plan will allow a developer to build 12-14-16 units (depending on lot size), 3-story apartment building anywhere with zero paTking requirements , or neighbor feedback as all public hearings will be eliminated. Density will be increasing fomfold and under California law downzoning will not be allowed in future.

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

Missing Middle will not increase home ownership:

Proposed change supports investors building for large investors. SB 9 (what we have now--4 units per lot by right) is more conducive to home ownership than proposed change.

Missing Middle will not lower the cost of housing.

Every story added increases the cost of building. A city economic study in 2021 (report starts on pg. 20) documented that four and eight plex units per lot do NOT make housing more affordable. Basically, each unit = same price as replaced single-family-home.

Won't solve housing shortall.

Missing Middle housing city-wide is not required to achieve RHNA housing goals: San Jose is supposed to build 62,000 housing units by 2031--which can be done with the existing General Plan 2040 which allows for a population increase of 400,000 people within planned areas near transit.

This is another dumb City Council idea that needs to be REJECTED! Best Regards,
George

San Jose City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026