Letters from the Public - 2 of 14 — San Jose City Council, August 18, 2026

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Fri 7/10/202611:47 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Sue Ross
Sent: Friday, July 0,
Cc: City Clerk
11: 2
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
elas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Members of the San Jose City Council,
Please vote NO on the proposal to allow by-right, three-story multi-unit development in single-family neighborhoods.

While San Jose needs more housing , this proposal goes well beyond state mandates and permanently changes established neighborhoods without providing the affordability residents have been promised. The City's own 2021 economic study found that replacing single-family homes with four- and eight-unit developments does not make housing more affordable ; the new units are expected to sell for prices similar to the homes they replace.

By-right approval also eliminates meaningful public participation. Neighbors may not know a project is coming until construction begins. There are no public hearings , no Planning Commission review, and no City Council vote on individual projects.

The proposal also fails to address significant neighborhood impacts, including increased demand on roads, water, sewer, pai·ks, police , and fire services, as well as traffic, parking , and emergency access.

Because no on-site pai·king is required , additional vehicles will spill onto already crowded neighborhood streets.

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

Allowing three-story buildings in single-family neighborhoods will also reduce privacy, cast shadows over neighboring homes and gardens, diminish sunlight for outdoor living spaces, and reduce the effectiveness of existing rooftop solar systems. These impacts affect homeowners' quality of life and conflict with California's continued investment in clean energy.

San José needs balanced housing solutions that increase supply while protecting existing neighborhoods and ensuring infrastructure keeps pace with growth. I respectfully urge you to reject this proposal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Sue Ross | Allied ASID | IDG
Susan Ross Interiors

Outlook
FW: "August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal" From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/13/2026 7:19 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Janet Boeninger
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2
To: Cohen, David
Pamela
e
in
hae
rtiz,
Subject: "August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal" [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Response to Email from Families and Homes SJ on Density in Middling Middle Section (Housing to be added to residential areas like ADUs, 4 plexes etc. to create more housing.

I don't quite understand the charts but it looks like high numbers of units on lots may cause original house on the lot to be demolished and lot filled with entirely 3-stoy 4 plexes.

This is a lot of extra density.

If it starts with one house, and then another, more residents will move away from the area and multi-family housing will end up being built on all lots and eventually comprise the entire neighborhood in 10 year time span.

With street parking only you to have to look for a place to park, park a long way away and walk to/from your house. your car/house and search (I know this from living in dense apartment complex).

Existing wealthy areas will not be spared. It may be more difficult for developer to buy land there, put people would pay higher rents to live in good school zone.

You don't say anything about implementation . How does developer purchase your house? Will a bulldozer come and run over your house?
It doesn't look good. Home Owners are not Villains. They did nothing to intentionally cause this problem except come to the area a long time ago and work and save to buy a house.

It is too much for one city to absorb.
* Table from staff presentation (see page 6 of GP Task Force May 20 Meeting Presentation on Missing Middle) There are some increases from what was sent previously and from initial Planning Staff Proposal and material presented at Open Houses.

On 8/18 City Council Votes on "By Right" development of Thank you.

Regards, Janet Boeninger

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Families & Homes <
To: " <
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2026 at 09:35:29 AM PDT
Subject: HELP! We Need You to Show Up For Yourselves & Our City

FAMILIES&HOMES
Sa n Jose
-
Unmt s Allowed by Parcel Size·, RN Density Max = 32 DU/ AC 84%
Parcel area 0-2,999 3,000· 5000 · 6,000. 7,000 · 8,000· 9,000· 1 0 , 891 ♦ •(square feet.) 4,999 S.999 6,999 7.999 8,999 10,890
Parcel area 0-.07 .07-.11 .11-.14 .14-.16 .16-.18 .18-.21 .21-.25 .25+ (acres) Share of RN: 6% 22% 40% 13% 9% 4% 3 3 parcels
Primary units 1-2 2-4 4 4-5 5-6 7 6-,8 8+ allowed
ADUs allowed 2 2-4 4 4-5 5-6 7 6,.6 8
Total units 3-4 4-8 8 8-10 10-12 14 112~16 1·6+ allowed 3-storY-units combine with 8 - 16+ units/lot CitY-wide in Residential Neighborhoods
In a 9-2 vote the Planning Commission approved the staff proposal (One opposed because density was too high and other opposed because the density was too low.) The City Council votes on August 18. This is the last onnortuni!Y. to ston. this pennanent citywide up-zoning! Imagine 3- stories units with no parking; setbacks potentially as little as 18"; multiple garbage cans in the stTeet, lost tree canopy, increased trn.ffic, and more! Council Members have told us they have received no or little pushback from residents! Between now and August 17, you must take action!
Must Take Actions
• Save the Date: Tuesday, August 18, Time: TBD - Attend & Speak at City Council Meeting
Attend in person on August 18 meeting and SPEAK. Coming and speaking will help. If you cannot attend in person, call in. (Details will be sent later) Your estimated comment time will be 1 - 2 minutes. Prepare your remarks in advance. • W1ite to ALL Council Members & Mayor opposing this BY RIGHT, PERMANENT, IRREVERSIBLE, CITY-WIDE, UP-ZONING proposal which EXCEEDS STATE MANDATES!
Title of Email: "August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
Email addresses:
• Inform 5 other people. Ask them to w1ite and attend on August 18. • More Actions Coming in future emails. But take these actions NOW! Talking Points
No Impact on Housing Affordability, Unaddressed
Infrastructure Costs, Densification Proposal in Other Cities Not as Extreme, Exceeds State Law Mandates
• This will NOT produce more affordable housing in spite of Planning Staff & Task Force Members comments.

A city consultant completed an economic study in 2021 (report starts on pg 20) with the expectation that it would document a decrease in housing prices. The actual result showed that four and eight plex units per lot do NOT make housing more affordable. Basically, each unit = same price as replaced single-family-home.

Proposed density EXCEEDS STATE MANDATES (contained in SB9 and SB1123 which applies to vacant lots)

EXCEEDS DENSIFICATION PROPOSALS in other Bay Area cities.

EXACERBATES JOB-TO-HOUSING RATIO adversely impacting City finances

BY RIGHT means NO PUBLIC COMMENT. When the bulldozer arrives is when you find out about it No hearing. No vote of Planning Commission or City Council.

Talking Points - Quality of Life
Strained infrastructure (libraries, parks, police, fire, roads, water, power, sewer, etc.) Increasing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Decreased tree canopy (increasing heat islands)
Increases time spent in automobiles
Potential fire insurance impacts
Police and fire impacts (city study says we are 3 stations short already) Parking - no parking spaces required and relies on street parking. No garage or driveway required.

Garbage day could require permanent signs be installed in front of house stating no parking on garbage day to make room for garbage cans, recycling cart, and dumpsters for multi-unit buildings
About Families and Homes SJ
Families and Homes SJ is a 100% volunteer-staffed grassroots coalition of San José residents and organizations joining together to defend the rights of single-family residential neighborhoods within the city of San José. The organization supports the city’s current Urban Village housing strategy, which will produce large numbers of affordable and market-rate housing that is both environmentally and fiscally sustainable.

Learn More About Families & Homes SJ
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

E-Mail Us:

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

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

----------
Outlook
FW: We Strongly Oppose Aggressive Upzoning and General Plan Overhaul in Single-Family Neighborhoods
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/13/202 6 7: 19 AM
To Agendadesk
From: barbara fonta na
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 11:16 AM
Subject: We Strongly Oppose Aggressive Upzoning and General Plan Overhaul in Single-Family Neighborhoods [External Email. Do not open !inks or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Mahan and San Jose City Councilmembers,
We are residents of San Jose, writing to urge you to vote AGAINST the aggressive upzoning measures scheduled to come before the City Council on Aug. 18, 2026.

While we support the creation of new housing in appropriate areas, we strongly oppose blanket upzoning policies that allow multi-unit developments and extreme height increases inside established single-family residential zones . Forcing dense, multi-unit complexes into suburban neighborhoods will completely alter their historic character, reduce privacy, overtax local infrastructure and possibly create crimes of opportunity by additiona l traffic/visitors in our neighborhoods .

Our neighborhoods are already struggling with narrow streets, limited parking and very old infrastructure. Adding multiple units to single-family lots without corresponding infrastructure upgrades will lead to severe traffic gridlock and create safety hazards for emergency response vehicles. Furthermore , stripping away local zoning control ignores the unique needs of our distinct communities.

Instead of this sweeping mandate, we urge the City Council to adhere to a "smart growth" model. San Jose should focus high-density, multi-family construction This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. exclusively within designated Urban Villages, downtown, and existing commercial transit corridors where infrastructure can actually support it.

Please protect our suburban communities and vote ”NO” on these pending upzoning measures. We want to thank George Casey, our councilmember for District 10, in opposing the aggressive upzoning measures, and we ask that he stays firm in his stance when the City Council votes on Aug 18, 2026 and on at any subsequent dates if needed.

Thank you for your time, leadership, and consideration of your constituents' voices.

Sincerely,
Robert and Barbara Fontana
San Jose, CA 95120
(We live in District 10, represented by Councilmember George Casey) P.S. We would appreciate our City Clerk of San Jose Toni J. Taber, confirming receipt of this email so it will be included during the City Council mtg. on Aug. 18, 2026 or any continuation mtg. of the City Council on this subject.

Outlook
FW: We Strongly Oppose Aggressive Upzonng and General Plan Overhaul in Single Family Neighborhoods
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/13/202 6 7: 19 AM
To Agendadesk
From: barbara fonta na
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2026 11:44 AM
Dist ricts
Distr ict8
Subject: We Strongly Oppose Aggressive Upzonng and General Plan Overhaul in Single Family Neighborhoods [External Email. Do not open !inks or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Mahan and San Jose City Councilmembers,
We are residents of San Jose, writing to urge you to vote AGAINST the aggressive upzoning measures scheduled to come before the City Council on Aug. 18, 2026.

While we support the creation of new housing in appropriate areas, we strongly oppose blanket upzoning policies that allow multi-unit developments and extreme height increases inside established single-family residential zones. Forcing dense, multi-unit complexes into suburban neighborhoods will completely alter their historic character, reduce privacy, overtax local infrastructure and possibly create crimes of opportunity by additiona l traffic/visitors in our neighborhoods .

Instead of this sweeping mandate, we urge the City Council to adhere to a "smart growth" model. San Jose should focus high-density, multi-family construction exclusively within designated Urban Villages, downtown , and existing commercial transit corridors where infrastructure can actually support it.

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

Thank you for your time, leadership, and consideration of your constituents' voices.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026, city council meeting - oppose general plan task force missing middle proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/13 / 2026 7:20 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Kevin Kraus
Sent: Sunday, July 1 , 2
Tordi llos, Anthony
Kame i, Rosemary
Casey, George
Candelas, Domingo
M ulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026, city counc il meeting - oppose general plan task force missing midd le proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources . Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Mahan and San Jose City Council Members ,
I am a resident writing to strongly oppose the General Plan Task Force "Miss ing Middle" up zoning proposal scheduled for a vote on August 18. This permanent, irreversible, citywide "by right " policy goes well beyond state mandates and threatens the core infrastr ucture of our neighborhood commun ities.

There is a fundamental social contract implied when residents invest in a commun ity. I personally worked and saved for nearly 20 years before purchas ing my San Jose home 14 years ago, specifica lly choosing my residential neighborhood for its character and environment. This sweeping , blanket proposal disregards the lifet ime of hard work that residents like myself put into buying a home in their desired neighborhood, changing the rules completely after the fact.

While I understand the need for thoughtful housing solutions , this extreme policy creates severe quality-of-life issues without guaranteeing any realistic impact on housing affordab ility. I urge you to vote "No" based on the follow ing crit ical issues:
• Infrastructure Strain: Allowing 8 to 16+ units per lot with zero parking requirements will overwhelm our neighborhood streets, drastically increase traffic congest ion, and crowd curbsides with excessive garbage bins.

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

Severe Setback Reductions: Reducing setbacks to potentially as little as 18 inches completely eliminates the privacy, spacing, and character of residential neighborhoods.

Environmental Loss: The footprint of these three-story units will decimate our local tree canopy, accelerating urban heat and ruining green spaces.

Overreaching Density: Even the Planning Commission's split 9-2 vote highlights that this extreme level of blanket density is contested and far too aggressive for a citywide rollout.

This permanent up-zoning strips local communities of their voice by removing discretionary oversight. Please protect our neighborhoods, honor the commitment made by existing homeowners, and reject this extreme proposal on August 18.

Sincerely,
Kevin Kraus
San Jose, CA 95120

•
•
•
Outlook
FW: Aug. 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - opposition to Winchester Corridor proposal From City Clerk
Date Tue 7/14/2026 7:37 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Heather Adams <
Sent: Monday, July 13, 202
To: City Clerk
Subject: Aug. 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - opposition to Winchester Corridor proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP.s://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSend erl dentifi cation >] [You don 't often get email from
httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear City Council,
Learn why this is important at
As a District 6 resident, I oppose the Planning Department's recommendation to change the land use and zoning designations along Winchester Blvd. Please vote against this proposal at the Aug. 18 City Council meeting.

Thanks very much,
Heather Adams
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Public Comment: General Plan 4-Year Review- Demand Infill Design Protections for District 10 From City Clerk
Date Tue 7/14/2026 1 :34 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Dan
Sent: Tuesday,
To: City Clerk District 10
Subject: Public Comment: General Plan 4-Year Review - Demand Infill Design Protections for District 10 [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 Mayor, City Council Members, and District 10 Representative, I am a homeowner in the 95120 area and am writing regarding the General Plan updates and proposed increases in residential density within established single-family neighborhoods.

I understand that San Jose must comply with state housing requirements. However, I urge the City to recognize that not all neighborhoods are equally suited for significant increases in density. Almaden Valley was designed as a low-density suburban community with limited transit infrastructure, narrow local streets, and a quality of life that has attracted residents for decades.

My concern is not with housing itself. My concern is with the potential erosion of neighborhood character and the gradual conversion of stable residential areas into development patterns that are incompatible with the existing community.

As the City considers future zoning and land-use changes, I respectfully request that the following principles be incorporated into any final ordinances:

Preserve Neighborhood Scale and Character
New development within established single-family neighborhoods should remain compatible with the surrounding homes in terms of height, massing, setbacks, and overall appearance. The City should avoid policies that encourage apartment-scale development in neighborhoods that were never designed to accommodate it.

Protect Residential Privacy
Multi-story infill projects should be designed to prevent direct overlooking of neighboring backyards and outdoor living spaces. Privacy protections should be a mandatory component of any future development standards.

Maintain Adequate Parking and Traffic Capacity
Almaden Valley remains heavily dependent on automobiles. Any increase in residential density should be accompanied by realistic parking requirements and a thorough evaluation of traffic impacts on local streets.

Ensure Infrastructure Keeps Pace with Growth
Additional housing should not outpace the capacity of existing infrastructure, including roads, stormwater systems, public safety services, schools, and utilities.

Growth should occur only where infrastructure can support it.

Require Meaningful Community Input
Residents who have invested in these neighborhoods deserve a meaningful voice in decisions that could significantly alter their quality of life. The City should preserve opportunities for public review and neighborhood input before approving projects that materially change the character of established communities.

I recognize the City's obligation to plan for future housing needs. At the same time, I ask that San José balance those objectives with its responsibility to protect the livability, privacy, safety, and character of existing neighborhoods.

Thank you for your consideration and for including these comments in the public record.

Sincerely,
Dan Williams
San José, CA 95120

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Thu 7/16/2026 1 :03 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Aliki Helman
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
elas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear Council members,
Learn why this is important
I bought my single-story residential house because of a peaceful, quiet neighborhood and quality of lifestyle. With your proposal, if approved, I can wake up to a 3-story condominium next door that can be built without my approval (SB9, SB 1 O)! I certainly object to this and want my voice to be heard!
I invite you to think and plan beyond the next 1 O years, when Al will change how we work, where we live, and what to expect from life. I believe that quality of life, the human experience, will be even more important wherever people choose to live, including San Jose.

There might be various scenarios of how the future develops: there might be lack of work and income and exodus from the Bay Area, or a surge of new types of jobs with likely distributed locations, or, with new waves of wealth from Al related IPOs, the focus may shift to quality of life.

We might see:
• More housing demand overall, because California still faces a long-standing housing shortage based on past experience which may or may not translate into the future.

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

Less demand near traditional office corridors, as remote and AI-assisted work expands.

Greater value is placed on neighborhoods that offer an exceptional quality of life— walkability, parks, trees, safety, and community—because people will have more flexibility in where they live.

A premium on adaptable housing. Homes that can accommodate multigenerational living, home offices, rental units, or changing family needs may become more valuable than those designed for a single fixed lifestyle.

While adding ADUs allows for more multi generational housing and flexibility, building a 3 story building with multiple units without input from the next door neighbour is, certainly, not desirable.

Your proposal for significantly increasing density is addressing today's issues, yet it is not looking 10 years ahead. The concerns of decreased quality of life due to the issues mentioned below will drive people out of San Jose which means that it will lose its appeal to the majority of the professional population that it attracts right now.

Thank you for hearing my vote against allowing 3 story condominiums in single story residential neighbourhoods.

With regard,
Aliki Helman, SPHR, CPC
Global Speaker, High-Performance Expert
Executive Coach/Consultant

•
•
•
Outlook
FW: Please vote NO on General Plan "Missing Middle" Proposal on Aug. 18 From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 7: 17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Don Chamberlin
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2
Subject: Please vote NO on General Plan "Missing Middle" Proposal on Aug. 18 Tordillos, Anthony
mei, Rosemary
orge
, Domingo
ulcahy, Michael
[External Email. Do not open !inks or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why th is is importa nt Dear San Jose City Council Member,
I am very concerned about the pending proposal to increase the density of residential neighborhoods in San Jose.

This proposal would allow, "by right" and with no notice, review, or permit, up to 16 living units (8 "primary units" and 8 ADUs) to be built on my property, currently a single-family home. If this "right" is exercised by my family and our neighbors, the character of our neighborhood will be destroyed . There is barely enough parking on my street as it is, and the proposal does not provide any way to accommodate large numbers of additional vehicles. The street would be packed on both sides with parked cars, impeding garbage pickup and emergency services. The proposed density exceeds state requirements, and according to a consultant report, it would not make housing more affordable. To preserve San Jose as a livable city, please vote NO on this proposal.

Thanks for your consideration,
Donald Chamberlin, an Jose CA 95120
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Please vote NO on General Plan "Missing Middle" Proposal on Aug. 18 From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 7:31 AM
To Agendadesk
Fro
Sent
To:
e
min
hae
Subject: Please vote NO on General Plan "Missing Middle" Proposal on Aug. 18 [External Email. Do not open !inks or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo1iant Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of San Jose's City Council:

Please vote no on the upcoming vote on citywide upzoning.

My main concern is that it is "by right", permanent , and irreversible . Getting rid of single family house zoning forever is a drastic step which will completely change our ideas of an organized city. Yes, the state has laws and we must respect them. Isn't it better to not reach further until we see how those laws work out? In the past there has been zoning that goes gradually from dense housing to duplexes to single family homes. This is an organized progression.

To say that in any neighborhood anyone can build many units next door to your single family house, some units 3-story, without city approval or negotiation is just not right. When you buy your house you have expectations that your neighborhood will stay roughly the same or change slowly. I have lived in my neighborhood for more than 50 years.

I have many concerns : changing the atmosphere of not just neighborhoods but the city, the lack of parking in areas where parking has always been taken for granted This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. and paid for dearly in house prices, bringing tension between neighbors, no approvals required and no recourse.

I ask you not to reach further in changing zoning on Aug. 18. Thank you.

Judith Chamberlin
D10
San Jose 95120

Outlook
FW: Please Reject the Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday , July 20, 202
To: Ortiz, Peter
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Please Reject the Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo11ant Dear Council Member Ortiz,
I respectfully urge you to oppose the General Plan Task Force's Missing Middle proposal because it is not supported by the City's own evidence. The City's 2021 economic analysis concluded that replacing single-family homes with four- and eight-unit developments would not produce more affordable housing . If the proposal cannot achieve its primary objective, it is difficult to justify the significant impacts it wou ld have on our neighborhoods.

The proposal also exceeds California 's housing requirements under SB 9 and SB 1123, mean ing the City would be imposing density beyond what the State requires. At the same time, it would allow many projects to proceed "by right," eliminating public hearings and preventing residents from having any meaningful voice before major redevelopment occurs.

Please support housing policies that are backed by evidence, respect community input, and comply with -rather than exceed-state mandates.

Best regards,
Katherine House
"Strive to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, as we instructed you.• 1 Thessalonians 4: 11
Outlook
FW: Infrastructure Must Come Before Higher Density
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
To: Cohen, David
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Infrastructure Must Come Before Higher Density [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo11ant Dear Council Member Cohen,
The Missing Middle proposal asks our neighborhoods to absorb substantially more housing without first addressing whether our infrastructure can support it. Our roads, parks, libraries, sewer systems, water supply, and electrical grid are already under increasing strain.

Public safety is another serious concern. City studies have acknowledged that we are already several fire stations short of current needs. Adding thousands of additional residents before expanding police and fire resources places everyone at greater risk.

When the City's own study also shows this proposal will not improve housing affordability, it becomes even harder to justify asking residents to accept deteriorating services and declining quality of life.

I respectfully ask you to vote no.

Best regards,
Katherine House
"Strive to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, as we instructed you.· 1 Thessalonians 4: 11
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Preserve Transparency in Planning Decisions
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
To: Tordillos, Anthony
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Preserve Transparency in Planning Decisions
[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 Learn why this is important Dear Council Member Tordillos,
One of the most troubling aspects of the Missing Middle proposal is its reliance on "by-right" approvals.

Under this system, residents could lose the opportunity to comment on projects that dramatically alter their neighborhoods because there would be no Planning Commission hearing or City Council vote.

Equally concerning is that the proposal exceeds state housing mandates while providing no evidence that it will create affordable housing. The City's own consultant found that these developments are expected to sell at prices comparable to the single-family homes they replace.

Planning decisions that permanently reshape neighborhoods should never eliminate public participation. Please oppose this proposal and preserve transparency in the planning process.

Best regards,
Katherine House
"Strive to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, as we instructed you.• 1 Thessalonians 4: 11
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Please Protect Our Neighborhood Quality of Life
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
To: Campos, Pamela
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Please Protect Our Neighborhood Quality of Life [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo11ant Dear Council Member Campos,
Housing policy should improve our community-not diminish it. The Missing Middle proposal would increase density while reducing tree canopy, creating larger heat islands, increasing Vehicle Miles Traveled, and forcing residents to spend more time in traffic.

Parking requirements would also be significantly reduced or eliminated, shifting the burden onto neighborhood streets. Residents already struggle with parking in many areas, and adding multi-unit housing without adequate parking will only make these problems worse.

Since the City's own economic study concluded that this proposal will not make housing more affordable, these quality-of-life sacrifices simply are not justified. Please oppose the proposal.

Outlook
FW: Responsible Planning Requires Responsible Financing From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
To: Kamei, Rosemary
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Responsible Planning Requires Responsible Financing [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo11ant Dear Council Member Kamei,
I am concerned that the Missing Middle proposal significantly increases housing density without identifying how the City will pay for the additional infrastructure and services that growth requires.

Roads, water systems, parks, police, fire protection, and libraries all have real costs.

The proposal may also worsen the City's jobs-to-housing imbalance, placing additional pressure on municipal finances while increasing demand for services . Yet despite these costs, the City's consultant concluded that the proposal would not reduce housing prices.

Please reject this proposal until its fiscal impacts have been fully analyzed and a realistic funding strategy has been developed.

Outlook
FW: Our City Should Not Go Beyond Regional Standards
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
To: Mahan, Matt
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Our City Should Not Go Beyond Regional Standards [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo11ant Dear Mayor Mahan,
Communities throughout the Bay Area are working to meet state housing requirements, but few have proposed density increases as aggressive as the Missing Middle proposal. Our City should not become an outlier by adopting policies that exceed both state mandates and the approaches taken by neighboring jurisdictions.

The proposal would also allow many developments to move forward by right, removing opportunities for neighborhood input while providing no demonstrated affordability benefit according to the City's own economic study.

Please reject this proposal and take a more balanced approach that addresses housing needs without fundamentally changing our neighborhoods.

Outlook
FW: Density Without Services Is Not Responsible Planning From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
Subject: Density Without Services Is Not Responsible Planning [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo11ant Dear Council Member Casey,
Before approving significant increases in residential density, the City must ensure that emergency services can keep pace. Existing studies already indicate that our community needs additional fire stations, yet the Missing Middle proposal would substantially increase demand without providing corresponding investments.

Higher density also means greater demands on roads, utilities, and public infrastructure, all while the City's own consultant found that the proposal is unlikely to produce more affordable housing.

Responsible growth requires planning for infrastructure first-not after neighborhoods have already been transformed. I respectfully urge you to oppose this proposal.

Outlook
FW: Consider the Real Impacts on Existing Neighborhoods From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
To: Foley, Pam
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Consider the Real Impacts on Existing Neighborhoods [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo11ant Dear Council Member Foley,
The Missing Middle proposal would dramatically change established neighborhoods by permitting multiple housing units where only one currently exists. At the same time, parking requirements would be reduced or eliminated, forcing more vehicles onto neighborhood streets and creating additional congestion.

Garbage collection for multi-unit developments could further reduce available parking through permanent no-parking zones, while increased density would likely reduce tree canopy and increase neighborhood temperatures.

These impacts are substantial, especially when there is no evidence that the proposal will make housing more affordable. Please vote against this proposal.

Outlook
FW: If It Doesn't Improve Affordability, Why Adopt It?
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:41 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
To: Candelas, Domingo
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: If It Doesn't Improve Affordability, Why Adopt It? [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo11ant Dear Council Member Candelas,
The primary justification for the Missing Middle proposal is increased housing affordability. However, the City's own consultant reached the opposite conclusion: replacing single-family homes with four- and eight-unit developments would not significantly reduce housing prices.

Instead, residents would experience greater traffic, increased Vehicle Miles Traveled, additional pressure on infrastructure, and fewer opportunities to participate in planning decisions because many developments would be approved by right.

Public policy should be based on facts rather than assumptions. I respectfully ask you to reject this proposal.

Outlook
FW: Growth Should Be Balanced and Sustainable
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:41 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
To: Doan, Bien
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Growth Should Be Balanced and Sustainable
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo11ant Dear Council Member Doan,
I support thoughtful housing growth, but the Missing Middle proposal is neither balanced nor sustainable. It exceeds state housing mandates while placing significant additional burdens on roads, water systems, parks, police, fire protection, and other public infrastructure.

The proposal also risks reducing neighborhood tree canopy, increasing traffic, and eliminating meaningful public input through by-right approvals. These are permanent changes that deserve careful public consideration.

Please oppose this proposal and instead pursue housing solutions that balance affordability, infrastructure, environmental stewardship, and community participation.

Outlook
FW: Please Vote No on the Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 8:41 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Katherine House
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
To: Mulcahy, Michael
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Please Vote No on the Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is impo11ant Dear Council Member Mulcahy,
I respectfully ask you to oppose the General Plan Task Force's Missing Middle proposal because it creates significant costs while failing to deliver its promised benefits. The City's own economic analysis concluded that four- and eight-unit developments would not produce more affordable housing, undermining the proposal's central justification.

The proposal goes well beyond California's housing mandates, exceeds the level of densification proposed in many neighboring cities, and would allow many projects to proceed by right without public hearings or City Council review. At the same time, it would increase demands on roads, water, sewer, police, fire protection, parks, and other essential infrastructure while creating additional traffic, parking shortages, and environmental impacts.

Our City deserves housing policies that are evidence-based, fiscally responsible, and transparent. I urge you to reject this proposal and support alternatives that genuinely improve affordability while protecting our neighborhoods and quality of life.

Best regards,
Katherine House
"Strive to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, as we instructed you.· 1 Thessalonians 4: 11
Outlook
FW: Opposition to By Right Development proposal scheduled for City Council vote on 8/18/26 From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 12:01 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Lynne Paulson
Sent: Monday, July 20,
To: Mahan, Matt
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Opposition to By Right Development proposal scheduled for City Council vote on 8/18/26 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Leam why this is impo1tant Mayor Mahan, Please note opposition to this proposal as summarized in my email below.

I appreciate many of your initiatives that represent improvements to our city such as tackling the homeless encampment issue. Increasing housing is important, but not in the way it has been proposed by the Planning Commission for the 8/18/26 City Council Vote. Please consider the input of the majority of your constituents on this matter.

Thank you.

Lynne Paulson
Email
From: Lynne Paulson
Sent: Monday, July 20,
To:

Subject: Opposition to By Right Development proposal scheduled for City Council vote on 8/18/26 Council Member Casey,
I oppose the proposal coming up for approval by the City Council that would revise the General Plan to supposedly address the "missing middle".

The state has already mandated increased density allowances for single family home parcels. This new proposal would allow too much increased density in too broad of an area.

With the new proposal, there would be negative impacts on wildlife and room for fewer trees. In my neighborhood, the urban wildlife and trees are important features which make the city livable. These are also important for the overall city in regards to reducing climate change impacts.

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

If you pass this measure, you would be eliminating the lower density option for many others of us in the middle class. The very rich can live on estates in Woodside and Hillsborough. The rest of us appreciate the option to live on modest single family parcels.

Most people in the city have not been aware of this proposal but everyone I talk to is adamantly opposed to it.

In your role as a city council member, please vote against the proposal that is coming up for a vote on 8/18/2026.

Please consider such a measure only for speciﬁc areas such as near transit centers.

Thank you for your service to our community.

Lynne Paulson
Email

Outlook
FW: Aug 18th City Council Meeting - Opposition to the General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 1 :47 PM
To Agendadesk
From: John Klimaszewski
Sent: Monday, July 20, 202
To: Casey, George
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Aug 18th City Council Meeting - Opposition to the General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Council Member Casey,
Learn whv this is important
On Aug 18 there will be a vote to approve the General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal. I strongly oppose the proposal being pushed by the Planning Commission. I have heard that you have received little pushback from residents. This is because many residents I have talked to have not even heard of this proposal. Everyone I have talked to are first astounded that it is even being proposed and then adamantly opposed to it.

There are many reasons to oppose this proposal. I will only name a few key ones

1. Too much Density - This proposal is suggesting a .r.1ermanent irreversible zoning that exceeds state mandates. If fully implemented, San Jose would have a higher density than New York City. Is that your view of San Jose's future?

2. Incomplete analysis- I attended a sponsored "workshop" that was arranged in a way that basically prevented constituent input. It was clear that each of the ten or so working groups at the workshop did not understand how their individual suggestions impacted the complete plan. There was no common understanding of the total amount of units being proposed for each plot. There was no consideration of the parking, traffic, impacts, etc.

3. Quality of Life - Not everyone wants to live in a congested dense city. Families want their own yard for children and dogs to play in without having three story buildings looming over them . What about the impact of quality of life for these families?

4. Lack of funding for Infrastructure - Every large city with densities even lower than that being proposed have large mass transit systems. If you approve this plan, you are also committing to extremely large expenditures to expand light rail or a new mass transit system. Roads and freeways will need to expanded.

Water, Sewer, Garbage collection, and on and on. Without understanding where the funds needed for these infrastructure improvements are coming from, I do not think you can vote to approve this proposal.

Your constituents have the right to know how much this is going to cost them, and they will be required to This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. vote for any increases. Approving this plan without knowing the infrastructure funding requirements would be irresponsible.

I urge you to take a long slow look at this proposal, understand the total max units allowed per each small parcel, (e.g. 10 units for a 6,000 – 6,999 sq ft parcel), and what that means if implemented city wide, and vote no on this proposal. Tell the Planning Commission to look at all the potential ramiﬁcations of this proposal and come back with a plan that is practical, achievable, and addresses the impacts of their initial proposal. Consider implementing measures like this with restrictions to be near existing mass transit centers, not city wide.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

John Klimaszewski
Long time resident of San Jose

Outlook
FW: SUPPORT for Winchester Corridor rezoning, 4-year GP Review From City Clerk
Date Tue 7/21/2026 7:38 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe----
From: Kirk Vartan
Sent: Monday , July 20, 20
To: City Clerk
Cc: District 6
Subject: SUPPORT for Winchester Corridor rezoning, 4-year GP Review [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP-s:1/aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] Dear Councilmember Mulcahy, Mayor, and Members of the City Council, I have lived in the Cory Neighborhood for over 20 year, was the co-chair of the Stevens Creek Advisory Group, on the Board of NOVAworks, and on the Board of the Cory Neighbo rhood Association . I speak for myself and on behalf of none of these organizations.

My letter today and I SUPPORT staff's recommendations for upzoning neighborhoods with proximity to retail hubs (like Valley Fair) and transit (like the Cory neighborhood on Winchester).

Here are some reasons why:
• 826 N Winchester Blvd could have become an iconic site with first -of-its-kind amenities, but public pol icy blocked it.
• Higher density drives better pedestrian amenities.
• There is no local grocery store anymore . It's unfortunate that the past 826 N Winchester Blvd proposal had a neighborhood grocery in it.
• Without more residents int he area (thought density), public transit will continue to lag. • 85 feet is not very tall; it is 7-8 stories. I personally feel with the FAA limits being irrelevant in our community , 20-40 story buildings should be proposed. After 4-5 stories, the issues are the same and more can be done of the community. San Jose cannot build substantia l density downtown ; this area can.

And since Valley Fair alone is the single, most traveled destination in all of Northern California (even greater if you include Santana Row across the street), the city should be encouraging any significant density in the area. I hope other areas will follow suit.

Kind regards,
Kirk Vartan
Cory resident
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Vote NO on current Missing Middle in SJ Plan
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/20/2026 3:07 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Robin Williams
Sent: Monday, July 20,
Subject: Vote NO on current Missing Middle in SJ Plan
Tordillos, Anthony
mei, Rosemary
orge
, Domingo
ulcahy, Michael
[External Email. Do not open !inks or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Leam why this is important I do not like the current proposal for the Missing Middle in the San Jose Plan so I urge you to vote NO on August 18, 2026 until we have a better plan.

I suggest you pick areas that already have some high density sections and grow those rather than destroying existing residential areas. Two-story buildings could be expanded to 3 or 4 stories, or their scale could be increased. ADUs could also be permissible and non-destructive in many residential areas right now.

I urge you to give more thought to how to provide for more lower cost housing in San Jose. I am also concerned about an increase in road traffic without better public transport. More housing only, is not the answer. City resources might even go down if people move away from San Jose.

Robin Williams, San Jose, CA 95120.

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

Outlook
FW: Formal Opposition to Proposed General Plan Updates - Permanent Neighborhood Shift From City Clerk
Date Thu 7/23/2026 1:16 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Ruth Callahan
Sent: Thursday, July 2 , 202
Webmaster Manager
Subject: Formal Opposition to Proposed General Plan Updates - Permanent Neighborhood Shift [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - Learn why th is is im12ortant Dear San Jose City Tas~ers,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed updates to the San Jose General Plan regarding the Permanent Neighborhood Shift.

As a resident of the Garcia Development tract within the Kooser and Dentwood neighborhoods, I am deeply concerned about the radical transformation this proposal imposes on our community.

The Garcia Development tract is governed by Title R1 Covenants, Conditions , and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which explicitly allow for only one residential unit per lot.

Please be advised that our community is prepared to defend these property rights and the established character of our neighborhood through all available legal means.

My opposition is based on the following critical points:
• Elimination of Due Process: The By Right development proposal is an affront to local democracy. By eliminating public hearings and advance notice, the city is stripping residents of their right to provide feedback on projects that directly impact their quality of life and property values.
• Irresponsible Density: Exploring densities of up to 14 residential units on a standard 6,000 sq. ft. lot is an extreme overreach. A three-story mandate with zero parking requirements will create untenable traffic congestion , safety hazards for pedestrians, and overwhelm our existing local infrastructure.
• Irreversible Consequences: The fact that these upzoning changes are permanent and cannot be reversed is a dangerous precedent. This "no going back policy" ignores the This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. long-term environmental and social health of established San José neighborhoods.

Violation of Established Character: Our neighborhoods were designed and purchased with the understanding of low-density residential living. This proposal goes far beyond state mandates, represents a locally driven initiative that ignores the specific needs and historical context of our streets.

We urge the Task Force to reject the Permanent Neighborhood Shift and instead seek housing solutions that respect existing legal protections, maintain community input, and preserve the integrity of San José’s residential neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
Ruth A. Callahan
Kooser Woods Coalition Representing 1873 Neighbors
San Jose CA 95118

•
Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 7/27/2026 7:32 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Laurence Chivers
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 20 6
elas, Dom
ahy, Michael
Tordillos, Anthony
orge
Doan, Bien
erk
Subject: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant Pam,
As a resident of San Jose I believe this proposal and others I have seen to continue the unabated in-fill of our neighborhoods has gone far enough. I live on Browning Ave in San Jose, and am not opposed to the types of developments that converted the school district property into housing at the end of our street, as those homes, relatively speaking , fit into the neighborhood (single family homes on individual lots). However, allowing multiple units on individual lots without providing proper parking creates unsightly neighborhoods that are difficult to navigate.

The traffic in the Cambrian area continues to worsen due to rapid development and once the Cambrian Park Plaza project is completed , this will lead to further congestion. I respectfully urge you to vote NO on this proposal.

Thank You,
Larry Chivers
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Opposition to By-Right Permitting and "Missing Middle" Density Increases in Single-Family Neighborhoods (August 18, 2026 Council Meeting)
From City Clerk
Date Tue 7/28/2026 7:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From: David Dolmatch
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mu lcahy, M ichael
Subject: Opposition to By-Right Permittin g and "Mis sing Midd le" Density Increases in Single-Family Neighborhoods (August 18, 2026 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 Mayor Mahan and San Jose City Council Members,
I respectfully ask that you vote NO on ministerial "by-right" permitting and the proposed residential neighborhood density caps during the August 18, 2026 meeting.

I am writing as a long-time San Jose resident to express my strong opposition to the General Plan Task Force's proposal to raise residential neighborhood density caps up to 32 units per acre and establish "by-right" ministerial approvals for multi-family developments.

While addressing housing accessibility in San Jose is an important goal, bypassing community input through blanket ministerial approvals is the wrong approach for our established neighborhoods. I urge you to reject this proposal for the following reasons:
• Elimination of Community Voice: "By-right" zoning strips residents and local stakeholders of their right to review, comment on, and shape developments happening next door to them.

Public hearings and discretionary reviews exist to ensure that new construction respects existing neighborhood context and mitigates local impacts.
• Infrastructure and Parking Strain: Blanket density increases without site-specific environmental, utility, and traffic impact evaluations will place severe strain on local street This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. parking, public utilities, and municipal services that were designed for single-family residential capacity.

One-Size-Fits-All Approach: San Jose’s neighborhoods are diverse in layout, topography, and infrastructure capacity. Removing discretionary oversight prevents city planners from negotiating necessary design adjustments, setbacks, or parking solutions that fit specific sites.

I strongly support thoughtful, well-planned housing growth along transit corridors and commercial centers where infrastructure already exists to handle density. However, upzoning residential neighborhoods while eliminating public oversight is detrimental to local communities.

Again, please vote NO on ministerial "by-right" permitting and the proposed residential neighborhood density caps during the August 18, 2026 meeting.

Thank you for your consideration and service to our city.

Sincerely,
David Dolmatch
San Jose Resident

Phone
EMAIL

•
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Mtg. - Oppose city wide up-zoning, PLEASE! From City Clerk
Date Tue 7/28/2026 11 :08 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Laura Flohr <laura~
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:07 AM
Cc: City Clerk
Cohen, David
Campos, Pamela
Mahan, Matt
Subject: August 18 City Council Mtg. - Oppose city wide up-zoning, PLEASE! Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
M ulcahy, 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 Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
Please do not pass the San Jose up-zoning recommendation that was recently approved. don't understand how there can be no parking requirements , not to mention so many units in a residential neighborhood . This would change things forever, in a very bad way. PLEASE OPPOSE THIS. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Laura Flohr (lifelong San Jose resident)
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: San Jose City Council Meeting August 18th - Re- Zoning Proposal From City Clerk
Date Wed 7/29/2026 9:47 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2026
To: Bill Wolf rtiz, Peter
hony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
elas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Dersh, Alexander
Pat Ota bonnie
Subject: San Jose City Council Meeting August 18th - Re- Zoning Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is imr;iortant Neighbors
I have reviewed this matter that the San Jose City Council is considering regarding Re-Zoning of residential neighborhoods and I believe it is in the best interest of the RSTNA neighborhood to be aware of the upcoming San Jose City Council meeting on August 18th . I encourage you all to express your concerns to the City Council on this matter regarding this re-zoning proposal.

I do believe it is appropriate for the City Council to hear the legitimate questions and concerns that many of us may share. I also encourage residents to submit comments to the City Council before the meeting, as well as attend the meeting on August 18.

Below are the primary questions and concerns I have identified for myself. If you feel as do about these concerns , please forward this e- mail or make a list of your own concerns and send that to all the above listed city council members as well as soon as possible .

1. Will this proposal make housing more affordable in San Jose? In 2021 the City of San Jose commissioned a consultant's report that concluded that new fornplexes and eightplexes did not reduce housing costs. The report found that these units sold for approximately the same price per square foot as newly constmcted single-family homes. It also found that smrnunding single-family home values did not decline. In fact, they increased. Has anything changed since that rep011 was issued? Has this rep011 been updated recently? Will there be rules requiring a certain number of these units to be below market rate / Affordable low income units ? ls the goal simply to create more housing , or will this proposal actually make housing more affordable?

2. Will the units in these large buildings be privately owned or will they be rentals under for profit rental corporations ? How will this affect current HOA's in these established neighborhoods ? .

3. If these units are built by large for profit rental companies will they cover all the necessary infrastructure costs ? road repairs, sewers and water upgrades ,parks, schools ,police , fire and other needed public service upgrades ? Or will this be levied as taxes on the current homeowners in these communities ?

4. Does this proposal adequately address infrastructure? I did not see specific discussion regarding the impacts on water, electrical capacity, sewer systems, or road infrastructure. Are the additional demands on local schools being reviewed ? How will these additional demands be accommodated?

5. How will parking and trash collection be addressed?
I did not find any meaningful discussion of parking requirements or refuse collection in the proposal. These are significant quality-of-life issues for existing neighborhoods.

6. Could increased neighborhood density affect homeowners' insurance costs? Has the City evaluated whether higher-density development could influence fire insurance rates or homeowners' insurance availability?

7. Have emergency access and evacuation of these additional density neighborhoods been evaluated ? Will our current police, fire, emergency medical, and other municipal services be able to easily access all these additional units in emergencies ? Will the current evacuation routes accommodate the additional density for wildfire and disaster evacuations ?

8. Will Neighborhood drainage and flooding risks increase? Will developers be required to manage stormwater on-site to be sure runoff is not directed onto neighboring properties or already burdened streets? Will insurance companies re- evaluate these neighborhoods and classify them as flood zones requiring flood coverage ?

9. Are there less disruptive locations where the same housing could be built? Has the city considered areas near transit , commercial corridors, shopping centers , and underused office properties that have stronger infrastructure and services , such as more parking ?

10. Will the council consider a pilot program rather than a full city wide change ? Would the council consider doing a test of this proposal in a few selected areas and them monitoring the impacts to affordability as well as other impacts ( public services , safety ect.) Then report on its effects publicly before applying it throughout the whole city?

11. What will be the impact on existing homeowners?
How will the construction of three-story buildings within established single-family neighborhoods affect the lives of existing residents, both during construction and after completion? If a home is ultimately surrounded by two new three-story buildings, what will be the long-term impact on privacy, sunlight , noise, and overall quality of life? ( will these taller buildings effect existing
solar systems on lower single family units ?)
I have lived in Rancho Santa Teresa for more than 35 years and have faithfully paid property taxes throughout that time. Now that I am retired, am I expected to bear the burdens of a proposal that appears to give little consideration to the impacts on existing homeowners and established neighborhoods?
These are the questions that concern me most. If I were to support this proposal, I would need clear, compelling, and evidence-based answers to each of them.

I recommend that the entire RSTNA membership submit their own comments to the San Jose City Council before the Council reconvenes from its summer recess.

To be clear, this is not intended as an endorsement or opposition to the proposal. Rather, it is a request for complete and transparent information so all residents can make informed decisions on how they feel about this matter.

Thank you.

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

Michael A Bryant

Outlook
FW: OPPOSITION: Winchester Corridor Upzoning (4-Year General Plan Review) From City Clerk
Date Wed 7/29/2026 4:01 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Elvira Rodrigue
Sent: Wednesday, Jul
To: The Office
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: OPPOSITION: Winchester Corridor Upzoning (4-Year General Plan Review) [External Email. Do not open links or attach ments from untrus ted sources. Learn morel You don't often get emai l from
Dear Mayor Mahan,
. Learn wlrx this is imi;iortant
As a resident of the Coty neighborhood in District 6, I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal to rezone the Winchester Boulevard conidor for 8-sto1y developments during the August 18th General Plan 4-Year Review.

The Planning Commission's recent 50/50 deadlock clearly demonstrates that this sweeping , blanket upzoning lacks consensus and is not ready for approval. While our neighborhood supports sustainable housing, an 8-st01y height limit directly threatens the safety and character of the adjacent single-family homes in Cory.

Our local infrastmcture cannot handle this massive increase in density without proper safeguards. The Winchester corridor afready suffers from severe traffic congestion , dangerous pedestrian conditions, and limited park space. Forcing an 8-sto1y height limit onto these parcels without localized traffic mitigation and transition zoning is irresponsible.

Please respect the Planning Commission's gridlock, listen to District 6 residents , and reject this specific Winchester upzoning package.

Thank you for your time and service to our city.

Sincerely,
Elvira G. Rodri uez
eighborhood
ave a blessed day.

Elvira Garza Rodriguez
Outlook
FW: OPPOSITION: Winchester Corridor Upzoning (4-Year General Plan Review) From City Clerk
Date Thu 7/30/2026 7:41 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Elvira Rodrigue
Sent: Wednesday, Jul
To: The Office
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: OPPOSITION: Winchester Corridor Upzoning (4-Year General Plan Review) [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,
As a resident of the Cory neighborhood in District 6, I am writing to mge you to vote NO on the proposal to rezone the Winchester Boulevard corridor for 8-stmy developments during the August 18thGeneral Plan 4-Year Review.

The Planning Commission's recent 50/50 deadlock clearly demonstrates that this sweeping, blanket upzoning lacks consensus and is not ready for approval. While our neighborhood supports sustainable housing, an 8-story height limit directly threatens the safety and character of the adjacent single-family homes in Cory.

Our local infrastrncture cannot handle this massive increase in density without proper safeguards. The Winchester co1Tidor ah-eady suffers from severe traffic congestion, dangerous pedestrian conditions, and limited park space. Forcing an 8-stmy height limit onto these parcels without localized traffic mitigation and transition zoning is irresponsible .

Please respect the Planning Commission's gridlock, listen to District 6 residents , and reject this specific Winchester upzoning package.

Thank you for your time and service to our city.

Sincerely,

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. services, roads, water, power, and sewer systems—is already under pressure and cannot support this level of expansion.

I ask that you prioritize the long-term stability and livability of San Jose by voting against this proposal.

Sincerely,
Irene Walkley
Irene Walkley

I ask that you prioritize the long-term stability and livability of San Jose by voting against this proposal.

Larry Walkley

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

Let's support more development of dense housing areas. I would suggest that the development of the Sunol-Mid-town area, between Lincoln and San Carlos and Park, has been brilliant and really well done.

I wonder why there hasn't been a development of high density housing in the old Orchard Supply Hardware on the other side of the bridge. The continued dense housing in other areas of the city is also great. But to just simply change, across the entire city all zoning, will significantly change our city, and will impact current neighborhoods badly. Please do not vote for this.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

San Jose, CA 95126

Outlook
FW: Strong Opposition to the Planning Commission's Advisory Framework for the Envision 2040 General Plan Update (Missing Middle Up-Zoning)
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/3/2026 2:29 PM
To Agendadesk
Fro
Sent
To:

Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Strong Opposition to the Planning Commission's Advisory Framework for the Envision 2040 General Plan Update (Missing Middle Up-Zoning)
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
My name is Brenda Dohmen , a 30-year San Jose resident , homeowner, and active voter residing in District 10. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Planning Commission's June 24, 2026, advisory recommendation to permanently up zone single-family residential parcels across San Jose up to 32 units per acre (+ADUs).

I respectfully urge the City Council to vote to completely REJECT and eliminate the "Missing Middle" framework from the Envision 2040 General Plan Update at your August 18, 2026 council meeting.

While smart growth along commercial and transit corridors is essential, blanket, citywide up-zoning strips local control, bypasses public input, and harms local neighborhoods. Please consider the following key concerns:

1. San Jose Can Meet State Housing Goals Without Neighborhood Up-Zoning California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) mandates and state laws like SB 79 already provide capacity for over 62,000 potential units concentrated along major transit corridors and designated Urban Villages. San José can comfortably meet its housing targets without forcing high-density development into quiet interior neighborhoods, nor should it overreach beyond what state law requires.

2. Lack of Guaranteed Affordable Housing & Investor Exploitation The City’s own 2021 economic study confirmed that four- and eight-plex units per lot offer zero guaranteed affordable units. Rather than creating homeownership options for local families, removing off-street parking and setback requirements primarily enables institutional investors to construct market-rate rental blocks in middle- and lower-income neighborhoods, accelerating displacement.

3. Wildfire Risk & Emergency Evacuation Hazards
Blanket up-zoning ignores critical geography in wildfire-prone areas like the East Foothills and Almaden Valley. High-density infill in areas with limited ingress/egress roads poses severe safety and evacuation risks during emergencies, threatening resident safety in high-fire hazard zones.

4. Severe Infrastructure Strain & Loss of Electric Vehicle (EV) Readiness Municipal Budget Strain: Uncoordinated neighborhood infill forces costly utility, road, and public safety upgrades onto a city already managing a structural General Fund deficit.

Loss of Off-Street Parking & Charging: Permitting multi-unit structures with zero off-street parking eliminates private garage charging options. Running charging cords across public sidewalks creates tripping hazards and ADA violations, while shifting grid retrofitting costs entirely onto the City and PG&E.

5. Increased VMT & Traffic Congestion
Infill housing only reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) when directly adjacent to high-frequency transit. Density added deep within suburban neighborhoods forces new residents to rely on personal vehicles for daily needs, increasing neighborhood congestion and local VMT.

6. Permanent Loss of Public Input and Local Control
Under California law, up-zoning is permanent. Establishing "by-right" permitting eliminates required public notifications, design reviews, and neighborhood hearings, silencing community input forever.

Conclusion & Direct Request
San José should focus high-density housing where it succeeds—along main transit corridors and Urban Villages supported by infrastructure—while protecting established residential neighborhoods.

I urge you to listen to your constituents on August 18th by voting to REJECT the Missing Middle up-zoning framework and directing staff to align exclusively with minimum state mandates.

Thank you for your service to San José and your consideration of this critical matter.

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

Brenda Dohmen
San José Resident & Homeowner
District 10

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/3/2026 3:10 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Amol Patil
Cc: City Clerk
Cohen, •
, Pa
han,
Pam
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers ,
I am a San Jose resident and I am writing to ask you to .!!P-P-OSe the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning proposal in its cmTent form.

I support adding housing in San Jose, but I believe this proposal needs significantly more analysis and public discussion before it is adopted. In particular, I am concerned about:
• By-right development and public input: Allowing substantially more density by right would reduce residents' ability to participate in decisions affecting their neighborhoods. I believe there should be meaningful public review and appropriate safeguards for major changes in density. • Infrastructure impacts: Before allowing substantially greater residential density across the city, the City should clearly identify and address the associated impacts and costs on roads, water, sewer, power, parks, libraries, police and fire services, and other infrastrncture . • Housing affordability: Increased density by itself does not guarantee more affordable housing. The City should provide clear evidence that this proposal will materially improve housing affordability and explain how affordability outcomes will be measmed.
• Traffic, parking , and environmental impacts: The proposal should be evaluated for its effects on vehicle miles traveled, neighborho od parking, tree canopy, and other environmental impacts.

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

I respectfully ask the Mayor and Council to reject the proposal in its current form and instead conduct additional analysis and public engagement, including a clear assessment of infrastructure costs, affordability outcomes, transportation impacts, and the appropriate level of public review.

Please consider my opposition when you vote on August 18.

Thank you for your service to San José and for considering residents’ concerns.

Sincerely,
Amol Patil
San José Resident

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/3/2026 3:12 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Lynne Peterson
Sent: Monday, Auqust 3,
To: Ortiz, Peter
Anthony
Kamei, Rosema
Casey, Georqe
Domingo
Michael
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
I have recently heard about an insane idea to put multi-unit apartments in single home neighborhoods.

PLEASE DON'T DO THAT.

How about you all work to make San Jose a NICER place to live? Zoning is an important part of city management, and this is nuts.

Also ... please get rid of all those sticks in the roads. They are dangerous, confusing, and cause distracted driving, accidents, and put pedestrians and cyclists at risk.

Lynne Peterson
Outlook
FW: Public Comment - Opposition to Proposed High-Density Zoning Along Winchester Boulevard From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/3/2026 4:10 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Amol Patil
Sent: Monday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment - Opposition to Proposed High-Density Zoning Along Winchester Boulevard [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
For the record
Thanks ,
Amel Patil
. Leam why this is imP.ortant
---------- Forwarded messaqe --------
From: Amol Patil,.- >
Date: Mon, 3Aug 2~
Subject: Public Comment - Opposition to Proposed High-Density Zoning Along Winchester Boulevard
To: >
Dear Councilmember Mulcahy ,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the prpposed high-density zoning changes along the Winchester Boulevard corridor discussed at the recent Planning Commission meeting as part of the General Plan 4 Year Review.

I support responsible housing growth in San Jose, but I do not believe the proposed zoning for this particular corridor is appropr iate. The recommendation to designate virtually all business parcels along Forest and Winchester, from Beechwood to Fernwood, as Urban Residential-with substantially increased density and building heights-wou ld fundamentally change the character of this established neighborhood.

My primary concerns are:

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

1. Loss of local businesses: Rezoning these parcels for high-density residential development creates a strong financial incentive for property owners to replace successful small businesses with residential development. This could eliminate many of the neighborhood's popular and locally serving businesses.

2. Density and height are substantially greater than they appear: Urban Residential zoning allows very high residential density, and density bonuses can potentially increase both the number of units and building height beyond the stated limits. A nominal height limit therefore does not necessarily provide adequate protection for the surrounding neighborhood.

3. Traffic and infrastructure: Concentrating large numbers of new residential units along Winchester Boulevard will put additional pressure on an already busy transportation corridor. Housing density should be planned alongside adequate transportation, parking, pedestrian infrastructure, parks, and other community amenities.

4. The zoning choice matters: If the City wants to encourage housing while preserving neighborhood-serving businesses, Mixed Use Neighborhood zoning appears more consistent with that goal than the highest-density Urban Residential designation. The City should not create incentives that make replacing existing businesses with large residential developments the most financially attractive outcome.

5. Citywide residential density increases: I am also concerned about the broader proposal to significantly increase residential density throughout San José, including increasing the current R-1 density from approximately 8 to 32 dwelling units per acre.

These changes should be evaluated carefully based on infrastructure capacity, transportation impacts, neighborhood character, and the City's ability to support the resulting growth.

I respectfully ask the Planning Commission and City Council to reject the proposed Urban Residential designation and the associated high-density zoning along the Winchester Boulevard corridor and instead consider a more balanced approach that supports housing while preserving existing businesses and the character and livability of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Winchester is a unique corridor, and I believe it deserves a thoughtful, context-sensitive plan rather than the highest available residential density.

Thank you for considering my comments and for your service to the community.

Sincerely,
Amol Patil
San José, CA

Outlook
FW: Opposition to Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/4/2026 7:43 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Betsy Tanner
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: Opposition to Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant City Clerk,
I want the councilman and councilwoman to poose the Missing Middle proposal and have sent this letter to each of them. Please put this into the record. It will actually cost the "Missing Middle" and community members more monetaril'll and in ,9uality of life by raising community rents, increasing car expenses from street parking break-ins and decreasing quality of life having people so stacked together.

Raising rents - multi unit building rent-per-unit always cost more than adjacent single unit rent,
o Multiunit rent> adjacent single house rent/# units rent which means the adjacent single unit rent will gg_y_p_ also, so single neighborhood rent and homes all will go up and with inflation these new multi unit will go up and people will be forced out of San Jose.

Increase car costs - not having parking means, street parking thus high risk of continuous car break-ins causing increased car repairs, replacing totaled cars and car insurance increases.

Decreased quality of life & Potential Crime increase -having people living so close, they are hear by others talking, laughing and stomping around, have with personal items get in each other's way due to limited space, different lifestyles become buttressed, neighbors easily become agitated, get into fights that could become violent.

It is immoral and unethical to remove decades of community/taxpayer input in development policy, removing our voice and replacing it with developer interests often driven by money and excluding the needs of the renters and neighbors.

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

It is a myth that it will help the “Missing Middle”. In the long run it will increase their expenses and that of other community members and decrease everyone’s quality of life. Please have the courage and moral compass to oppose the Missing Middle proposal to insure the current high quality building development and quality of life in San Jose.

Betsy Tanner
San Jose Resident and Voter

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/4/2026 7:43 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Vartika Chandra
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is imr;iortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers,
I am a San Jose resident writing to express my strong QP-P-Osition to the proposed "Missing Middle" citywide upzoning proposal.

I support building more housing in San Jose and understand the need to accommodate growth.

However, I do not believe the City should make such a significant and permanent change to residential zoning without adequately addressing the consequences and giving residents a meaningful opportunity to participate.

I am particularly concerned about the following:
• Scale of the proposal: Allowing substantially greater density, including potentially 3 story multifamily buildings and many units on existing residential lots, represents a major change to residential zoning across the city.
• Infrastructure: Before increasing density at this scale, the City should demonstrate that roads, water, sewer, electricity, parks, libraries, police, fire services, and other infrastructure can support the additional demand-and identify who will pay for those improvements.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. · Affordability: More units do not automatically mean more affordable housing. The City should provide clear evidence that this proposal will actually improve housing affordability rather than simply increasing the number of market-rate units. · Public participation: I am especially concerned about the “by right” approach. Residents should have an opportunity for meaningful public review when developments substantially increase density in an existing residential neighborhood. · Transportation and environment: The City should carefully evaluate the potential effects on parking, vehicle miles traveled, traffic, and tree canopy before implementing citywide changes.

I respectfully ask the Mayor and Council to vote against the proposal in its current form and require additional analysis and public engagement before moving forward.

San José needs more housing, but we should pursue that goal in a way that is financially sustainable, supported by adequate infrastructure, and transparent to the residents who will be affected.

Thank you for considering my concerns and for your service to San José.

Sincerely,
Vartika Chandra
San José Resident

Outlook
FW: Public Comment - Opposition to Proposed High-Density Zoning Along Winchester Boulevard From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/4/ 2026 7:43 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Vartika Chandra
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2026 9:13 PM
To: PlanningSupportStaff <PlanningSupportStaff@san joseca.gov>; District 6 Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment - Opposition to Proposed High-Density Zoning Along Winchester Boulevard [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Dear Planning Commission Members and Councilmember Mulcahy, I am writing to share my concerns and QP-P-OSition to the P-rOP-osed high-densitY. zoning changes along the Winchester Boulevard corridor discussed at the recent Planning Commission meeting as part of the General Plan 4-Year Review.

I support adding housing in San Jose and recognize the need for responsible growth. However, I believe the proposed zoning along Winchester goes too far and could have significant unintended consequences for the existing community.

My concerns include:

1. Risk to existing local businesses: Rezoning nearly all business parcels along Forest and Winchester for high-density residential development could create a strong financial incentive for property owners to sell or redevelop their properties. Over time , this could displace many of the small, successful, and locally serving businesses that make this corridor valuable to the community.

2. The actual scale of development could exceed the proposed limits: While the proposal includes stated height and density limits, available density bonuses could potentially allow significantly greater development. As a result, the stated height limit may not fully reflect what could ultimately be built along the corridor.

3. Traffic and infrastructure impacts: Adding a large concentration of housing along Winchester will inevitably increase pressure on roads and other infrastructure. Before approving this level of density, the City should demonstrate that transportation , parking , pedestrian infrastructure, parks, and other public services can adequately support the additional population.

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

4. Urban Residential is not the only option: If the City's objective is to increase housing while maintaining neighborhood-serving businesses, Mixed Use Neighborhood zoning seems like a more balanced approach. Assigning the highest- density Urban Residential zoning creates a strong incentive for developers to pursue maximum residential development rather than projects that incorporate and preserve affordable or neighborhood-serving uses.

5. Broader citywide density changes: I am also concerned about the separate proposal to substantially increase residential density throughout San José, including increasing R-1 density from approximately 8 to 32 dwelling units per acre. Changes of this magnitude deserve careful consideration of infrastructure, traffic, neighborhood character, and the City's ability to provide adequate services.

I respectfully ask the Planning Commission and City Council to reject the proposed Urban Residential designation and associated high density zoning along the Winchester corridor. I encourage the City to pursue a more measured approach that can accommodate additional housing while protecting existing businesses and maintaining the character and livability of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Winchester is a unique corridor with an established mix of businesses and residential neighborhoods. I believe it deserves a planning approach tailored to its specific circumstances rather than simply applying the highest-density zoning available.

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

Sincerely,
Vartika Chandra

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

Web: sjartsadvocates.org
Social: @SanJoseArts
Newsletter: Sign up

San José Arts Advocates
sjartsadvocates.org | [email protected] | @SanJoseArts August 4, 2026 Honorable Mayor and City Council, We write to you on behalf of San José Arts Advocates (SJAA), a volunteer collaborative of the San José creative community dedicated to education, advocacy, and action to support arts and culture. We believe the creative sector is essential to our city’s economic, social, and civic well-being. This belief has consistently been reinforced by data metrics and cross-sector research and analysis. While the recommendations you will consider for updates to the Envision San José 2040 General Plan at your meeting of August 18 do not directly affect arts and cultural programs, they could have a significant positive impact on the lives and livelihoods of local artists, cultural practitioners, and the creative workforce. We encourage you to bear this in mind in your analysis of the recommendations, and we offer the following insights with regard to the focus areas you established for the four-year General Plan review process: Urban Villages It is no secret that the cost of living in San José is among the highest in the nation. Meanwhile, studies show that our nonprofit arts sector alone supports nearly 5,000 jobs and generates nearly $300M in annual economic impact. The City’s Urban Village strategy can be used as a tool to prioritize affordable housing options, provide accessible spaces for arts and cultural programming, and to ensure a local preference and fair wages for artists engaged in community benefit programs. We particularly encourage you to explore opportunities to leverage Urban Villages to designate local cultural districts throughout the city, which would allow for the designation of affordable housing options specifically for our creative workforce through policies laid out in State Assembly Bill 812 (2023). This will help local creatives afford to keep, nurture, and share their talents in San José. Residential Capacity We applaud the City for exploring opportunities to create additional housing density across all zoning districts and price points. This will not only help San José meet its state-mandated housing goals but also drive down costs for all residents, including the creative workforce. Missing Middle Housing Similarly, we recognize the importance of providing affordable and abundant housing options for teachers, public servants, nonprofit professionals, and other residents who are currently priced out of Silicon Valley. This includes the artists, performers, and arts educators who serve as the heartbeat of our city’s cultural identity. As median home prices and rents have soared to astronomical levels, we risk losing the creative workforce that makes San Jose a vibrant place to live, work, and raise a family. sjartsadvocates.org | [email protected] | @SanJoseArts Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio Every day, tens of thousands of San José residents leave our city for jobs in other municipalities in Santa Clara County, the Bay Area, and beyond, creating a significant imbalance. This deprives the city of desperately needed revenue to provide core services and creates a burden on these residents in terms of time spent away from their families and communities, the costs of commuting, and loss of productivity. While we agree with the need for a realistic approach to reducing this imbalance, we urge you to leverage planning policy to foster an economically viable creative workforce in San José. This can be accomplished through guidelines that encourage mixed-use developments to provide accessible public and private spaces to artists and nonprofit organizations. Examples of this can be found in existing City of San José planning frameworks, such as the Berryessa BART Urban Village Plan (see Section 4: Open Space and Placemaking). Additionally, by facilitating short-and-long term lease agreements for administration, exhibition, and performance, the city can transform underutilized ground-floor units into vibrant community assets. Ideally, creative sector tenants should be integrated into the earliest stages of project planning to authentically create gathering places and design functional spaces that reduce the cost of tenant improvements. A successful example of such projects is Exhibit at J-Town, a partnership with Empire Seven Studios in the Japantown neighborhood of San José. We also encourage you to review recommendations from the recent SPUR policy brief, Getting In on the Ground Floor: Activation strategies for downtown San José, which focuses on “removing leasing barriers, improving urban design, and leveraging arts and culture to promote temporary activations and more permanent creative placemaking.” Thank you for considering our perspective from the front lines of the affordability crisis. We stand ready, willing, and able to serve as collaborative partners on current and future planning policy. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Regards, San José Arts Advocates Core Team cc: City Manager Planning Director Director, Office of Economic Development and Cultural Affairs Director of Cultural Affairs Arts Commission

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. residents have worked so hard to achieve. Please protect our neighborhoods and vote NO on this proposal.

Respectfully,
Craig Gorman
San Jose, Ca. 95133

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

Sincerely,
Maureen Sheehan, Owner/Resident
San Jose, CA 95125

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/7/2026 7:23 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Angela Elsey
Sent: Thursday, Aug s
Cohen, David
Campos, Pamela
Mahan, Matt
Angela Elsey
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
C delas, Domingo
M ulcahy, Michae l
Dave Hedges
Subject: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force M issing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Good afternoon
I'm writing to express my strong opposition to this proposal. Here are the reasons why I believe it would not be a good thing for San Jose:
• This will NOT produce more affordable housing in spite of Planning Staff & Task Force Members comments.
• Proposed density EXCEEDS STATE MANDATES and HOUSING ELEMENT

COMMITTMENTS
• EXCEEDS DENSIFICATION PROPOSALS in other Bay Area cities. • EXACERBATES JOB-TO-HOUSING RATIO adversely impacting City finances (see: Jobs per Emp.tQyed Resident)
• BY RIGHT means NO PUBLIC COMMENT. No public input. No hearing. No votes
• INCREASES VEHICLE MILES TRAVEL (VMT)_(adversely impacting Climate Smart Goals) & DECREASES TREE CANOPY (increasing heat islands) • STRAINED INFRASTRUCTURE (libraries, parks, police, fire, roads, water, power, sewer, etc.)
Thank you
Angela Elsey
San Jose CA 95126
Land line:

Cell:

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.

It's about learning to dance in the rain.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untr usted sources.

San Jose City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026