Outlook
FW: Public Comments for 8/18 CC - General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (File # 26-852) FromCity Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Wed 8/12/2026 11:08 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
9 attachments (2 MB)
07-30-26 Fw NEW SUBMISSION 4-year GP Review Email Sign up.pdf; 08-10-26 0734pm Fw NEW SUBMISSION 4-year GP Review Email Sign up_Redacted.pdf; 08-10-26 0748pm Fw NEW SUBMISSION 4-year GP Review Email Sign up_Redacted.pdf; A. Patil Fw Public Comment – Opposition to Proposed High-Density Zoning Along Winchester Boulevard_Redacted.pdf; Coalition Support for Expanding Community-Serving Uses on PQP.pdf; Fw Middle up zoning in San Jose_Redacted.pdf; Fw_Letter of Support for Missing Middle Housing_Redacted.pdf; Gmail - Strong Opposition to the Planning Commission’s Advisory Framework for the Envision 2040 General Plan Update (Missing Middle Up-Zoning)_Redacted.pdf; V. Chandra Fw Public Comment – Opposition to Proposed High-Density Zoning Along Winchester Boulevard_Redacted.pdf;
From: Smith, Cassandra <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 11:05 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comments for 8/18 CC - General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (File # 26-852)
Hello,
Hope all is well. Attached are public comments to be posted with the 8/18 CC - General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework item (File # 26-852). I have not sent in public comments to the City Clerk before; please let me know if the files should be labeled, organized in a specific way, or sent elsewhere. I’ve redacted as needed and ran all docs through the accessibility check. Thank you!
Best,
Cassandra
Cassandra Smith, Administrative Assistant
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
City of San José | 200 E. Santa Clara Street 3rd FL | San José, CA 95113 408-535-7880 | [email protected]
Facebook X Instagram PBCE News Code Connection Visit us
Coalition Support for Empowering School Communities and Faith Congregations by Expanding Allowable Uses on School and Faith Owned Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Properties
Dear Chair Rosario and Planning Commissioners,
We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our strong support for expanding the allowable, permitted uses on school and faith institution properties, designated Public/Quasi-Public (PQP), as part of the General Plan Four-Year Review.
We would oppose an approach that would limit the expansion of allowable community-serving uses to some sites but not others, as we believe this could unintentionally interfere with the difficult decisions school districts and faith congregations must make in close partnership with their communities. It would also create equity impacts, as options available to one school district, community, or faith congregation may not be available to another. Finally, an uneven approach is likely to accelerate the loss of PQP sites to non-community uses. School districts and faith communities that lack the resources to navigate a lengthy and uncertain approval process may be forced to sell their land outright rather than retain ownership and redevelop it in ways that both strengthen their long-term financial sustainability and continue serving the community.
San José is experiencing profound demographic, economic, and housing changes that are reshaping our communities. Public school enrollment has declined significantly over the past decade, forcing difficult conversations about school consolidation and campus closures. At the same time, many faith communities are adapting to changing congregational needs while continuing to provide essential services, gathering spaces, and support for their neighborhoods.
These institutions have long served as anchors of community life. The General Plan should provide them with the flexibility to continue fulfilling that role as community needs evolve.
Expanding the allowable uses on school and faith properties would not require redevelopment of any site. Rather, it would give schools, congregations, and community partners the ability to pursue locally appropriate solutions that strengthen their institutions and better serve their neighborhoods. Depending on local needs, these solutions could include educator and workforce housing, affordable family or senior housing, childcare centers, community health services, nonprofit offices, neighborhood-serving retail, recreational facilities, cultural spaces, or other community-serving uses.
Providing this flexibility is particularly important as San José works to address its housing shortage. The city's housing crisis affects every sector of our community. Families with children increasingly struggle to remain in San José, contributing to declining school enrollment.
Teachers, nonprofit employees, healthcare workers, and service workers face long commutes because they cannot afford to live near the communities they serve. Older adults often lack housing options that allow them to age within their neighborhoods.
We see this reflected in the more than a third of San José households (more than 112,000 families and individuals) experiencing housing cost burden, paying more than 30% or even more than half their income for housing each month.
1 Meanwhile, our rents and home prices
continue to rise while vacancy falls2- and when fewer homes are available, San Jose’s lowest income residents are more likely to be pushed into homelessness. The single greatest systemic cause of homelessness- and the largest gap in the system- is the lack of affordable housing. 3 At the same time, innovative partnerships between faith communities or school districts and local nonprofit organizations, can deliver much-needed and complementary community-serving uses. In May 2026, the Alum Rock Union School District entered an exclusive negotiating agreement with SOMOS Mayfair and the School of Arts and Culture (representing the Si Se Puede Collective) for the potential rebuilding of the former Mexican American Community Services Agency (MACSA) youth center. The community envisions recreating a community center and gym, which would provide youth programs, academic support, cultural programming, mental health services, workforce development, family services, childcare, sports programs and a community gathering space.
4 However, few of these uses are permitted under the current PQP designation.
School and faith institution lands can provide significant opportunities to address these interconnected challenges while preserving community ownership and stewardship of land.
Rather than forcing institutions to choose between maintaining underutilized property or selling it outright, the General Plan can create pathways for thoughtful redevelopment through long-term partnerships that allows these organizations to remain community anchors while addressing today's needs.
Importantly, expanding allowable uses is not simply about housing. It is about creating resilient community campuses that can evolve over time. Across the Bay Area, school districts and faith institutions have successfully partnered to develop affordable housing, educator housing, childcare facilities, senior services, health clinics, and other community-serving uses while continuing their core educational and religious missions. These projects demonstrate that greater flexibility can strengthen the role these institutions play in neighborhood life. 4 Lorraine Gabbert for San Jose Spotlight. (May 29, 2026). Burned East San Jose youth center could be rebuilt
3 City of San José. (March 1, 2023). City of San José HOME Investment Partnerships American Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) Allocation Plan
2 City of San José. San José Housing Market Update, First Quarter 2026. 1 City of San José Informational Memo (March 11, 2026). Data Analysis and Alternative Financing for Affordable Housing Production.
This recommendation also advances one of the central objectives of the General Plan Four-Year Review: identifying opportunities to expand residential capacity. School and faith properties are distributed throughout San José, including neighborhoods where opportunities for additional housing are otherwise limited. Allowing a broader range of residential and mixed-use development on these sites can meaningfully increase housing capacity while ensuring that new development remains rooted in community-serving institutions.
Most importantly, this approach preserves local choice. Expanding allowable uses does not predetermine what will happen on any individual property. Decisions about whether and how to redevelop will continue to be made by school districts, congregations, nonprofit partners, and local communities through established public processes. The General Plan should provide these institutions with options, not constraints, as they plan for their futures.
We respectfully urge the Task Force to recommend a citywide expansion of allowable uses on PQP-designated school and faith institution properties. Doing so will strengthen schools, support faith communities, expand housing opportunities, preserve valuable community assets, and help ensure that these institutions can continue serving San José residents for generations to come.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
The undersigned organizations
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director, SV@Home
Victor Vasquez
Co-Executive Director, SOMOS Mayfair
Samantha Blewis
Pastor, St. Paul’s United Methodist Church
Maimona Afzal Berta
Trustee, Santa Clara County Office of Education
Sujata Srivastava
Chief of Policy, SPUR
Poncho Guevara
Executive Director, Sacred Heart Community Service
Jaria Jaug
School Board President, Berryessa Union School District
Jorge Pacheco Jr
Trustee, Santa Clara County Office of Education
Alex Shoor
Executive Director, Catalyze Silicon Valley
Kyra Kazantzis
Executive Director, Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits
Sandy Perry
Board Member, South Bay Community Land Trust
Maritza Maldonado
Executive Director, Amigos de Guadalupe Center for Justice and Empowerment
Ali Sapirman
Advocacy & Policy Manager, Housing Action Coalition
Frances Herbert
School Board President, Oak Grove School District
Lori Katcher
Lead Organizer, Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Santa Clara County
Heather Hood
Enterprise Community Partners, Northern California
1 Smith, Cassandra
From: GeneralPlanStaff
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 2:00 PM
To: Smith, Cassandra
Subject: Fw: Letter of Support for Missing Middle Housing Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: PlanningSupportStaff <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 8:29 AM
To: GeneralPlanStaff <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Letter of Support for Missing Middle Housing
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Shoor < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 4:38 PM
To: PlanningSupportStaff <[email protected]> Subject: Letter of Support for Missing Middle Housing
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear Planning Commission,
As a resident of San Jose, I appreciate the analysis led by the Planning Department to unlock more housing capacity in the city. Housing has become increasingly unaffordable, and it's unsustainable to continue this way.
Increasing density in mixed-use and residential neighborhoods are necessary steps the city must take to support its existing population and build new homes for new families.
Thank you,
Alex Shoor, resident of D6
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Sandra Delvin < >
Strong Opposition to the Planning Commission’s Advisory Framework for the Envision 2040 General Plan Update (Missing Middle Up-Zoning) Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 2:23
PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
My name is Brenda Dohmen, a 30-year San José 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 José 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 José 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. 8/7/26, 11:24 AM Gmail - Strong Opposition to the Planning Commission’s Advisory Framework for the Envision 2040 General Plan Update (Missing … https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=eea6253364&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1872538862071092835&simpl=msg-f:1872538862071092835 1/2
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,
Brenda Dohmen
San José Resident & Homeowner
District 10
8/7/26, 11:24 AM Gmail - Strong Opposition to the Planning Commission’s Advisory Framework for the Envision 2040 General Plan Update (Missing … https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=eea6253364&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1872538862071092835&simpl=msg-f:1872538862071092835 2/2