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

Outlook
FW: August 18 Council Meeting - Items 10.2 and 10.3 - San Jose's "small town feel"? From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/10/2026 7:37 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Tina Toni
Sent: Sunday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: August 18 Council Meeting - Items 10.2 and 10.3 - San Jose's "small town feel"? [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 ---------- Forwarded messaqe ---------
From: Tina Toni >
Date: Sun, Aug 9, a
Subject: August 18 Council Meeting - Items 10.2 and 10.3 - San Jose's "small town feel"? To: Citv of San Jose Mayor's Office
>
Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers:
> '
I urge you to uphold the appeals and deny the Planning Director 's reliance on the environmental exemption for 1295 Curtner Avenue and reject the recommendation that increases residential capacity in the City's General Plan.

Mayor Mahan, didn't you just brag about San Jose's "small town feel" on Facebook? Do you really think these hideous, cheaply constructed, dense new structures that are popping up all over San Jose are preserving San Jose's "small town feel"? They are not - they are actually making San Jose ugly, congested, and overcrowded.

I am convinced that the densification of our neighborhoods by politicians (like all of you), developers, and housing activists has nothing to do with decreasing the cost of housing, but everything to do with promoting an ideological agenda that makes absolutely no sense given the reality of the situation:

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

1.) A study from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that constraints on development, including zoning and environmental rules, have little or no impact on housing prices in the United States. Therefore, eliminating those constraints and rules and mandating high density housing throughout our neighborhoods will not lower housing costs.

2.) The so-called "housing crisis" is a crisis of affordability, not supply. Stagnant wages and astronomical property insurance, property taxes, permitting fees, and building material costs, as well as other cost of living expenses, all contribute to the cost of housing. For example, the city of San Diego has record high vacancy rates and no rent relief.

3.) These new "pack and stack" cheaply built dense housing structures that look like correctional facilities are making San Jose one of the *UGLIEST* big cities in the country and I am embarrassed of my hometown. Just look at the eyesores that now exist on Meridian Avenue, Kooser Road, and Bascom Avenue, for example, and that will soon exist on Willow Street. These atrocious buildings will not maintain San Jose's "small town feel."

4.) Densely packed neighborhoods have a much lower quality of life, especially for families with children. Residents have to deal with parking and traffic issues - since there are no longer any parking requirements - making once serene neighborhoods over-crowded and congested.

5.) It is simply not economically viable for the City to transition the infrastructure in these low density neighborhoods to a higher density environment. I have yet to hear a compelling explanation or see with my own eyes how the City plans to handle the additional stress these high density developments will put on our infrastructure.

Instead of irreparably wrecking all of our neighborhoods with dense housing development, I strongly urge you to support the following ways of making housing more affordable:

1.) Eliminate the capital gains tax so homeowners don't feel that they can't move due to an enormous tax bill.

2.) Prohibit private equity and foreign investors from buying real estate.

3.) Support remote work.

4.) Increase wages.

In the upcoming elections, I will only vote for candidates who do not support the densification of our neighborhoods and advocate for returning housing decisions to local jurisdictions.

Stop being complicit in ruining San Jose's "small town feel." Sincerely,
Tina Toni
Willow Glen

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.2-1295 Curtner Avenue/ H25-021 & ER25-133 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:20 AM
To Agendadesk
From: brian darby
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 12:55
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: Agenda Item 10.2 - 1295 Curtner Avenue/ H25-021 & ER25-133 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:

I am writing regarding Agenda Item 10.2, the appeals concerning the environmental determination and Site Development Permit for the proposed residential development at 1295 Curtner Avenue.

After reviewing the staff report, environmental documentation, appeal issues, and public correspondence, I believe this item deserves a careful discussion that avoids reducing the issue to a simple choice between supporting housing and opposing neighborhood change.

San Jose needs additional housing, including housing attainable to people who cannot afford the increasingly extraordinary cost of a conventional single family home. Infill development is necessarily part of meeting that need.

At the same time, supporting additional housing should not mean that legit imate site-specific questions about traffic, pedestrian safety, design, infrastructure, or neighborhood compatibility are automatically characterized as opposition to housing.

The proposal before Council is relatively small in absolute terms but substantial in relation to its site. It would replace one single family residence on approximately 0.65 acre with 12 residential units. The project is proceeding under the State Density Bonus Law and includes one incentive and 14 waivers involving height, number of stories, floor area ratio, common and private open space, tree canopy, parking standards, building entrances and lot depth ratio.

That does not make the project inappropriate. State law expressly provides incentives and waivers to make qualifying housing projects feasible, and the City's discretion to reject them is consequently limited. Staff explains that a waiver generally must be granted unless substantial evidence supports a finding of a specific adverse effect on public health or safety.

I think that legal limitation should be acknowledged rather than suggesting that Council possesses discretion that state law may not actually give it.

Nevertheless, 14 waivers on a 0.65-acre property are significant enough that Council should understand their cumulative practical effect, particularly where several involve setbacks, parking, tree canopy and other physical characteristics that can affect how a development interacts with its immediate surroundings.

The strongest concern I found in reviewing the material is traffic and pedestrian safety.

This is not simply a generalized assertion that additional housing creates additional traffic. The appellants raise specific concerns about the location of the project entrance on Cottle Avenue near the Curtner intersection, reduced setbacks and sight distance, nearby schools, pedestrian activity, and an existing history of collisions and safety concerns in the area.

Staff has responded substantively to those concerns.

The Department of Transportation reviewed the project, and staff estimates that it would generate approximately five trips during the morning peak hour, six during the evening peak hour and 67 trips over an entire day. Because those numbers fall below the City's thresholds, the project does not require a full Transportation Analysis. DOT has also reviewed collision information, and the City installed traffic-calming improvements at Curtner and Cottle in July 2025.

Those are meaningful facts in the project's favor.

But I believe there is an important distinction between asking whether 12 additional homes will create a statistically significant regional transportation impact and asking whether the physical configuration of a driveway, parking spaces and reduced setbacks is appropriate at a particular intersection heavily used by students and pedestrians.

The fact that a project falls below a numerical threshold for additional transportation analysis does not make the residents' site specific observations irrelevant. Conversely, the existence of previous accidents does not establish that this particular project will cause additional accidents.

That is precisely why I would like Council to focus on the actual site conditions rather than either extreme.

The driveway issue illustrates this well. Staff explains that the City's guideline calling for driveways to be at least 150 feet from signalized intersections applies to major streets. The project's driveway is on Cottle Avenue, which the City considers a minor street, and DOT therefore found the proposed configuration acceptable. Staff also indicates that additional red curbing may be required to maintain adequate sight distance.

That may be a completely adequate technical answer. But given the schools, pedestrians and collision concerns identified in the record, I would encourage Council to ask DOT directly whether it is comfortable with the actual field conditions at this location—not merely whether the project falls within the applicable regulatory thresholds.

I have a similar concern about the parking and setback waivers.

Staff reports that eliminating the requested parking configuration could result in the loss of four units and that staff could not identify objective evidence of a specific adverse health or safety impact sufficient to deny the waiver. That is an important consideration under the Density Bonus Law.

At the same time, the City should explain clearly why the resulting configuration remains safe for pedestrians and motorists. A waiver should not be treated as inherently dangerous simply because it is a waiver, but neither should the legal requirement to grant a waiver substitute for explaining why the resulting design works at this particular location.

There are also positive aspects of the project that should not be overlooked.

The development adds 12 homes on an existing urban infill site rather than expanding development into undeveloped land. It includes affordable units qualifying it for the State Density Bonus program.

The project also provides 20 garage parking spaces and two guest spaces despite San José no longer imposing minimum parking requirements.

The environmental documentation also contains protections that deserve recognition. The City determined that the project qualifies for a Class 32 infill exemption under CEQA and found no significant effects involving habitat, transportation, air quality, noise or water quality.

The tree issue is less reassuring to me.

The environmental documentation identifies 24 existing trees—18 ordinance-sized and six non- ordinance-sized—and states that implementation would remove all trees on the site, with replacement planting or payment of off-site replacement fees required under City standards.

I recognize that replacement requirements exist, but replacing a mature tree and replacing its canopy are not necessarily the same thing, particularly in the first several decades after development. Because one of the Density Bonus waivers concerns tree canopy requirements, I would encourage the City to maximize actual on site replacement wherever physically feasible rather than relying primarily on off site fees.

I also reviewed the public correspondence. Some of it expresses very strong opposition to density generally and uses language about the appearance of newer housing that I do not find particularly helpful in evaluating this specific application. One submission, for example, argues broadly against neighborhood densification and describes newer multifamily development primarily in aesthetic and ideological terms.

Those are legitimate personal opinions, but I do not believe they are the strongest basis for deciding this appeal.

The stronger public arguments are the specific ones: pedestrian safety, school traffic, driveway placement, sight distance, the cumulative consequences of the requested waivers, and whether the City's standardized transportation thresholds adequately capture unusual conditions at this particular intersection.

Likewise, the strongest arguments supporting the project are specific rather than ideological: it adds housing on an infill parcel, includes affordable units, provides substantial on site parking, has undergone DOT and Fire Department review, and generates a relatively small number of additional peak hour vehicle trips.

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

For those reasons, I would encourage Council to concentrate its deliberation on several practical questions:

1. Is DOT satisfied, based upon actual conditions at Curtner and Cottle and not simply numerical thresholds, that the driveway, sight distances and parking configuration are safe for the number of students and pedestrians using this area?

2. When the 14 Density Bonus waivers are considered together rather than individually, does the resulting project remain compatible with the physical constraints of this particular site?

3. Can additional on site tree preservation or replacement be achieved without making the housing project infeasible?

4. Are there reasonable safety improvements that could be incorporated as conditions without conflicting with the State Density Bonus Law or the Housing Accountability Act? I do not believe every neighborhood objection justifies denying new housing, particularly when state law substantially limits local discretion. At the same time, residents who live with the consequences of a land-use decision can sometimes identify conditions that are not obvious from a model, threshold or staff table.

The appropriate response is neither to automatically reject development nor to automatically dismiss those concerns.

If Council is satisfied after questioning staff and DOT that the project can safely function at this particular location, then the record should clearly explain why. If there are reasonable modifications or safety measures that can be imposed without violating state housing law, those should be considered as well.

San José needs housing, but good housing policy should also produce developments that work for the people who will live in them and for the neighborhoods into which they are being placed.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Respectfully,
Brian Darby

Outlook
Fw: Aug 18 City Council Agenda item 10.2: H25-021 & ER25-133 Permit and Environmental Appeals August 18 2026 City Hall Meeting
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 2:44 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax:408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Phuong Daniels
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:42 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Aug 18 City Council Agenda item 10.2: H25-021 & ER25-133 Permit and Environmental Appeals August 18 2026 City Hall Meeting
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why' th is is imP.ortant Jacqueline Guerrero, Planning Commission, and City Council and Mayor:

My central concern throughout opposing the project at 1295 Curtner was the absence of any proper traffic safety review. I have formally and repeatedly requested a review since November 2025. The City told me in writing on December 1, 2025 that there were no traffic concerns, and within 48 hours a child cyclist was struck on Cottle Ave. during morning school drop-off . April 30, Jenny McClennahan, author of the Permit Appeal and I (author of the Environmental Appeal) had a meeting with Tommy Wilson, City Connect CEO. At the meeting, he denied any traffic problem. Within 24 hours after this meeting another pedestrian child was struck by a vehicle during traffic-impacted school drop-off time.

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

The project will permanently worsen traffic dangers in this area, both during the construction phase and ongoing because of the changes in traffic patterns it creates. Although the city persistently states they are not legally required to do a traffic review, they can choose to do so. It is the City's duty to the public to ensure safety, not just check boxes that legal minimums are made. If data proves the legal minimum does not apply, the legal minimum should change. The City refuses to listen to local residents who know the reality, instead doubling down on models . Every single person opposing the project in the Planning Commission director's meeting pleaded for a traffic study.

The city listens to developers but not to residents.

My only conclusion why the City refuses to do a traffic study despite evidence and public request is that it is afraid of the result and afraid of the developer and the developer's elite high paid lawyers. Even if the City feels pressure to meet state regulations, the state regulations accommodate for common sense safety.

Sincerely,
Christine Nguyen

Outlook
Fw: Aug 18 City Council Agenda item 10.2: H25-021 & ER25-133 Permit and Environmental Appeals August 18 2026 City Hall Meeting
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 2:45 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax:408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Phuong Daniels
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:44 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Aug 18 City Council Agenda item 10.2: H25-021 & ER25-133 Permit and Environmental Appeals August 18 2026 City Hall Meeting
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why' th is is imP.ortant Jacqueline Guerrero, Planning Commission, City Council , and Mayor, On April 30, Permit Appeal author Jenny Mcclenahan and I (the Environmental Appeal author) had a forty-minute Zoom meeting with Tom Wilson, CEO of City Connect, the developer for the project at 1295 Curtner. I took immediate notes that day about the details of this non-recorded meeting to maintain optimal accuracy.

Jenny and I both understood the meeting to be informal. The developer 's framing and presence of other City Connect members shifted that dynamic . During the Zoom, Cyrus Jahan ian (Chief Development Officer), and another man Tommy identified as Sajj (sp?) Patel (VP of Operat ions) were also present. Tom Wilson opened by announcing his team was calling from their "war room" [Tom's words] .

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

Tom turned the conversation to the cost and delay the appeals had caused his company. As the meeting continued, Jenny and I attempted to redirect to our specific safety concerns, which has always been the crux of residents’ opposition. He dismissed safety concerns as fear mongering. Tom’s tone became more combative and dismissive. He stated more than once that if the appeals continued to cost City Connect money and time, the company would respond by making the project larger and more onerous.

Both Jenny and I told Tommy we felt his remarks about retaliating with a larger, more dense project to make up for his lost time and money were threatening. After the call ended, Jenny and I both felt the meeting’s primary purpose was to pressure us into retracting our appeals, not to engage in good faith with the safety concerns in the record.

Christine Nguyen

Outlook
FW: Agenda item 10-2. Requesting a comprehensive traffic and safety study for 1295 Curtner Ave. prior to development
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:02 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe----
From: Comcast
Sent: Monday, Au
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda item 10-2. Requesting a comprehensive traffic and safety study for 1295 Curtner Ave. prior to development
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear Members of the City Council,
Learn why this is important at
I am writing to express my strong and unequivocal opposition to the proposed development at 1295 Curtner Avenue and to urge the City Council to put the safety and concerns of its residents ahead of the interests of development.

The City Council works for the people. You were elected to represent and protect the interests of the community, not to dismiss legitimate safety concerns raised by the people you serve.

Residents are repeatedly demanding a thorough, independent traffic and safety study of the proposed development. Yet the Council continues to deny or avoid conducting the comprehensive traffic study that residents are requesting. This is unacceptable when the project has the potential to increase traffic, congestion, pedestrian risks, and dangerous conditions in the surrounding area.

A traffic study should not be viewed as an unnecessary obstacle to development. It is a basic and reasonable step when there are serious questions about whether the existing roads, inte rsections, access points, pedestrian infrastructure , and emergency access can safely accommodate additional traffic.

The people are asking for answers, and the Council has a responsibility to listen.

Approving this development without first adequately addressing these concerns would be irresponsible.

The City should not wait until someone is seriously injured or worse before taking action. If the Council knowingly moves forward despite repeated warnings from residents and without adequately studying the traffic and safety impacts, the Council and the City should expect to be held accountable for the consequences of that decision.

I am therefore asking the City Council to:
• Stop moving forward with the proposed development until a comprehensive traffic and safety study is completed.
• Address the specific safety concerns raised by residents rather than continuing to dismiss them. • Evaluate increased vehicle traffic, congestion, pedestrian and cyclist safety, sight lines, driveway access, nearby intersections, and emergency vehicle access.
• Make the results of any traffic and safety analysis available to the public. • Consider the cumulative impact of this development along with existing and other proposed developments in the area.
• Put public safety and the interests of residents before development interests.

City officials have a duty to exercise sound judgment when the safety of the public is at stake. Residents should not have to fight their own City Council simply to obtain a traffic study.

Please listen to the people you represent. Conduct the traffic study. Address the safety concerns. Do not approve a project first and investigate its consequences later.

If someone is injured because known and repeatedly raised safety concerns were ignored, the public will rightly ask who knew about the risks, who had the authority to act, and who chose not to.

I strongly urge the City Council to oppose the development at 1295 Curtner unless and until a comprehensive traffic and safety study has been completed and the identified safety concerns have been adequately resolved.

The Council works for the people. Please start listening to them.

Sincerely,
Douglas Dull and Kantiya Roche
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.2 (26-851)_8.18 Mtg _1295 Curtner Avenue _Public Letter From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:06 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Jennifer McClenaha
Sent: Monday, August 17,
Mcclenahan City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 10.2 (26-851)_8.18 Mtg _1295 Curtner Avenue _Public Letter [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
Kevin
I'm submitting this public comment ahead of the August 18, 2026 San Jose City Council meeting in strong opposition to the 1295 Curtner project (H25-021). This supplements the permit appeal I filed with the city on April 13, 2026 and the environmental appeal submitted by Christine Nyugen on behalf of neighboring residents (including Sandra Ave, Cottle Ave, Markham Ave, Madrona Way, Curtner Ave, Hermosa Way, and Newport Ave.)
This opposition is not about whether additional housing is needed, but instead focuses on the severe, unmitigated safety and environmental hazards of this site; at a bare minimum, this project cannot be allowed to move forward without a comprehensive, independent traffic and safety study that addresses the severe risks created by its unique location.

The Planning Commission's assertion that a 12-unit project is automatically exempt from a safety study simply because of its unit count is fundamentally disconnected from the reality of this site. Under state environmental guidelines (CEQA), small-project exemptions cannot be legally applied where "unusual circumstances" or cumulative local impacts create a significant traffic or safety hazard.

1. Extreme School-Zone Vulnerability: The project sits on a tight corner lot directly adjacent to a preschool, Willow Glen Middle School, and Willow Glen High School. Concentrating 12 units here creates a dangerous pinch -point that directly collides with heavy daily foot traffic, bicyclists, high stress peak school drop -off/pick -up congestion, and heavy commuter traffic.

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

2. Documented High-Risk Corridor: Curtner Avenue is already the focus of an active city safety improvement project due to a high volume of fatal and severe-injury crashes. Neither Cottle nor Curtner at this intersection can be characterized as minor streets.

3. Inadequate Infrastructure Mitigation: The “improvements” the city implemented in the last year do not solve for the points continually raised by residents, nor are they adequate to offset the severe hazards introduced by this development—leaving the community’s core safety concerns unaddressed.

4. Absence of Factual Basis: The administrative record relies on generalized national statistics rather than localized traffic, circulation, and emergency vehicle access data. Approving this layout without a dedicated traffic and safety study leaves the Council without an adequate legal and factual basis to determine that the project can operate safely.

State density laws do not override the city's fundamental responsibility to protect public safety and maintain safe sightlines. As recent municipal precedents demonstrate—such as actions taken by the City of Saratoga—cities possess both the authority and the obligation to halt or deny projects when significant localized safety risks threaten the community. Labeling concerns already raised over this project as 'addressed' overlooks the actual conditions at this site, leaving critical safety and traffic risks unanalyzed.

This is simply the wrong location for a project of this scale from a circulation and infrastructure standpoint. Placing 12 units - 10 of which are considered luxury housing at market-rate - onto a tight, low-visibility corner lot in a major school-zone area permanently amplifies the risk of traffic and pedestrian conflicts. Sacrificing community safety for a project that delivers only two BMR units creates permanent hazards that cannot be justified by marginal housing numbers. Approving this project without a rigorous, independent safety analysis means willfully ignoring clear, foreseeable risks to public safety.

We urge the Council to uphold the appeal and deny the project outright. At a bare minimum, if the project is not fully denied, we are asking the Council to remand it to require a comprehensive, independent safety study and mandate significant downsizing to eliminate these inherent hazards.

Sincerely,
Jennifer and Kevin McClenahan

Outlook
FW: Item 10.2 (File 26-851) - H25-021 Appeal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:47 AM
To Agendadesk
From: William Lee
Sent: Monday, Aug st
To: City Clerk
Cc: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: Item 10.2 (File 26-851) - H25-021 Appeal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. learn morel You don 't often get email from -· Learn why this is imQortant Dear Mayor and Coun~
Regarding Item 10 .2 (File 26-851 ), I write in support of both timely appeals, including the permit appeal filed by Jennifer Mcclenahan and the environmental appeal filed by Christine Nguyen, and urge you to allow the required environmental review of the 1295 Curtner Avenue project before approval.

The appellants' central point is borne out by the city's own actions: DOT installed speed bumps, delineators, and daylighting at this exact intersection in July 2025 in response to collisions - including injuries to children. Despite that record, staff approved 14 waivers reducing setbacks, sight lines, and parking clearances without a single written safety finding, and placed the project's only driveway 85 feet from the signal when the city's Complete Streets guidelines call for at least 150 feet.

As the permit appeal notes, this analysis depends on how Curtner Avenue is classified - and the staff memo itself confirms Curtner is a "City Connector Street or major street" in the General Plan Transportation Network (page 8). A major connector carrying school traffic to three nearby campuses warrants the full driveway clearance, the full setbacks protecting sight lines, and the formal sight-distance study the appellant requested - none of which the record contains.

The environmental appeal is equally well-founded. Staff relied on generic ITE trip-rate tables with no field observation of school drop-off conditions at Willow Glen Middle, Willow Glen High, and First Discoveries Preschool - on a corridor that now requires crossing guards at four intersections - and the Hearing Officer acknowledged on the record that her conclusion about school traffic was an "assumption." A documented collision history involving children, combined with these site conditions, is precisely the kind of unusual circumstance that disqualifies a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c). State housing law still requires the city to address substantial evidence of specific, adverse safety impacts; that This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. evidence is in the record and remains unanswered.

I ask that you grant the environmental appeal, or continue the item until a site-specific traffic safety study treating Curtner as the major connector, as defined by the General Plan says it is, is completed. Our children cross this intersection every school day.

Respectfully,
William Lee

Outlook
FW: Item 10.2 (File 26-851) - H25-021 Appeal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:47 AM
To Agendadesk
From: William Lee
Sent: Monday, Aug st
To: District 6 City Clerk
Subject: Item 10.2 (File 26-851) - H25-021 Appeal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. learn morel You don't often get email from -. Learn why this is imQortant Dear Mayor and Coun~
Regarding Item 10 .2 (File 26-851 ), I write in support of both timely appeals, including the permit appeal filed by Jennifer Mcclenahan and the environmental appeal filed by Christine Nguyen, and urge you to allow the required environmental review of the 1295 Curtner Avenue project before approval.

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

Respectfully,
William Lee

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.2 (26-851)_8.18 Mtg _1295 Curtner Avenue _Public Lette From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/18/2026 7:51 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Helen Solinski
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Cc: Helen Solinski
Subject: Agenda Item 10.2 (26-851)_8.18 Mtg _1295 Curtner Avenue _Public Lette [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn why this is imf;!ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to formally oppose the proposed development at 1295 Curtner Avenue and to urge the Council to prioritize resident safety over development interests until legitimate concerns have been addressed.

As elected representatives, the Council has a responsibility to weigh the concerns of the community it serves. Residents have repeatedly requested a thorough, independent traffic and safety study of this project, and to date that request has not been meaningfully addressed. Given the project's potential to increase traffic volume, congestion, and pedestrian risk in the surrounding area, this is a reasonable and necessary step, not an obstacle to development.

A traffic and safety study is standard due to diligence when there are open questions about whether existing infrastructure, roads, intersections, access points, pedestrian pathways, and emergency access can safely absorb additional traffic. Approving this development without first resolving those questions would be premature and would expose both residents and the City to preventable risk.

I respectfully request that the City Council:
• Postpone further action on the proposed development until a comprehensive, independent traffic and safety study is completed.
• Directly address the specific safety concerns residents have raised. • Evaluate the project's impact on vehicle traffic, congestion, pedestrian and cyclist safety, sight lines, driveway access, nearby intersections, and emergency vehicle access. • Make the findings of any traffic and safety analysis publicly available.

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

Consider the cumulative impact of this development alongside other existing and proposed projects in the area.

Prioritize public safety in the Council's ﬁnal decision.

City oﬃcials have a duty to exercise sound judgment where public safety is concerned, and residents should not have to advocate at length simply to secure a standard safety review.

I urge the Council to complete a thorough traﬃc and safety study, address the concerns that have been raised, and avoid a "approve ﬁrs t, evaluate later" approach, an approach that carries real risk to public safety and, ultimately, to public trust in this Council's decision-making.

I respectfully but ﬁrmly ask the Council to withhold approval of the development at 1295 Curtner Avenue until a comprehensive traﬃc and safe
ty study has been completed, and the concerns it identiﬁes have been adequately resolved. I'm sure you would put safety ﬁrs t for your child walking or riding to WGHS or Middle School.

Let's do the right thing for the 2500+ students who drive, walk, and ride through this intersection every day of the week, morning and afternoons.

Thank you,
Helen Solinski

•
•
Outlook
FW: Public Comment for 8/18 CC - Item 10.2 1295 Curtner Ave (File# 26-851) From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:28 PM
To Agendadesk
~ 2 attachme nts (483 KB)
8 16 26 Email Comment Redacted.pdf; 8 16 26 Email Comment 2 Redacted.pdf; From: Smith, Cassandra
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment for 8/1 8 CC - Item 10.2 1295 Curtne r Ave (File# 26-851) Hello,
Hope all is well. Apologies for the late notice, but I was just informed that we have two public comment emails to be included with tomorrow 's 8/18 CC- H25-021 & ER25-133 - Administrative Hearing on the Appeal of the Environmental Determination and Site Development Permit for Certain Real Property Located at 1295 Curtner Avenue (Item 10.2). The File# is 26-851 .

Attached are the two emails. I've redacted and ran the accessibility check for both. Please let me know if there are any issues. Thank you!
Best,
Cassandra
Planning. Buildi,rg u11d
C()(le En/()n.'(tmcnl
Cassandra Smith, Administrative Assistant
DeP.artment of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
City of San Jose 1200 E. Santa Clara Street 3rd FL I San Jose, CA 95113 I
Facebook ~ lnstagram PBCE News Code Connection Visit us 8/17/26, 3:54 PM lnbox - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook Outlook
Fwd: April 30 meeting with developer regarding H25-021 & ER25-133 Permit and Environmental Appeals
From Phuong Daniels >
Date Sun 8/ 16/2026 8:43 PM
To Guerrero, Jacqueline >
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel For the meeting August 18
---------- Forwarded messa
From: Phuong Daniels
Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 8:40 PM
Subject: April 30 meet ing with developer regarding H25-021 & ER25-133 Permit and Environmental Ap eals
Jacqueline Guerrero, Planning Commission, City Council, and Mayor, On April 30, Permit Appeal author Jenny Mcclenahan and I (the Environmental Appeal author) had a forty-minute Zoom meeting with Tom Wilson, CEO of City Connect, the developer for the project at 1295 Curtner. I took immediate notes that day about the details of this non-recorded meeting to maintain optimal accuracy.

Jenny and I both understood the meeting to be informal. The developer's framing and presence of other City Connect members shifted that dynamic . During the Zoom, Cyrus Jahanian (Chief Development Officer), and another man Tommy identified as Sali (sp?) Patel (VP of Operations) were also present.

Tom Wilson opened by announcing his team was calling from their "war room" [fom's words].

Tom turned the conversat ion to the cost and delay the appeals had caused his company. As the meeting continued , Jenny and I attempted to redirect to our specific safety concerns, which has always been the crux of residents' opposition. He dismissed safety concerns as fear mongering . Tom's tone became more combative and dismissive. He stated more than once that if the appeals continued to cost City https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AfK5baUYG4EKcKKCIN2EhbQAGZGQr4AAA 1/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Connect money and time, the company would respond by making the project larger and more onerous.

Christine Nguyen

8/17/26, 3:54 PM Inbox - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AfK5baUYG4EKcKKClN2EhbQAGZGQr4AAA 2/2 8/17/26, 3 54 PM lnbox - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook Outlook
Fwd: H25-021 & ER25-133 Permit and Environmental Appeals August 18 2026 City Hall Meeting From Phuong Daniels
Date Sun 8/16/2026 8:38 PM
To Guerrero, Jacqueline
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more ] For the meeting August 18.
---------- Forwarded messaae --------
From: Phuong Daniels
Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 8:24 PM
Subject: H25-021 & ER25-133 Permit and Environmenta l Appeals August 18 2026 City Hall Meet ing To:

Cc: >
Jacqueline Guerrero, Planning Commission, and City Council and Mayor:

Christopher Burton's rebuttals to my appeal regarding traffic included references to a few improvements made in July 2025. Please note the above child-related accidents happened after these improvements were made. The party line and reality do not match up. The city is checking the boxes but not doing the work.
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACQAC%2FEWg0AfK5baUYG4EKcKKCIN2EhbQAGZGQn9AAA 1/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The project will permanently worsen traffic dangers in this area, both during the construction phase and ongoing because of the changes in traffic patterns it creates. Although the city persistently states they are not legally required to do a traffic review, they can choose to do so. It is the City's duty to the public to ensure safety
, not just check boxes that legal minimums are made. If data proves the legal minimum does not apply, the legal minimum should change. The City refuses to listen to local residents who know the reality, instead doubling down on models . Every single person opposing the project in the Planning Commission director's meeting pleaded for a traffic study.

The city listens to developers but not to residents.

My only conclusion why the City refuses to do a traffic study is that it is afraid of the result and afraid of the developer and the developer's elite high paid lawyers. If they are afraid of meeting state regulations, the City should still understand that these regulations would clearly be seen as unreasonable and unenforceable if there was overwhelming evidence of public dang er.

Sincerely,
Christine Nguyen

8/17/26, 3:54 PM Inbox - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AfK5baUYG4EKcKKClN2EhbQAGZGQn9AAA 2/2 Outl ook
FW: Correspondence from Californians for Homeowner ship re H25-021 & ER25-133 - Item 10.2 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 4:05 PM
To Agendadesk
lo 1 attachment (415 KB)
HAA Letter from Californ ians for Homeow nership.pdf;
From: Christian Garcia
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Correspondence fro m Californians for Homeownership re H25-021 & ER25-133 - Item 10.2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from
Good afternoon ,
Learn why this is important
Please see the attached correspondence from Californians for Homeownership regarding item

10.2 for the San Jose City Council meeting taking place on August 18, 2026.

Sincerely,
Christian Garcia
Californian s for Homeownership
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. •

CALIFORNIANS FOR

HOMEOWNERSHIP

M ATTHEW GELFAND

FOR REVIEW AND PLACEMENT IN APPLICATION FILE
To Local Agency Staff:

Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California's housing crisis. We request that the letter included below be considered in connection with an Application 1 that appears to be governed by the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5. The address or application number associated with the Application is identified in the cover email or letter you received with this letter. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this letter constitutes our written comments on the application. We specifically request that you take the following actions with respect to this letter:

1. Place the letter in your agency's official file for the Application.

2. Provide the letter to any official, hearing officer, public body, or other public agency charged with reviewing or making any detennin ation regarding the Application or the development to which it relates.

3. Publish the letter in the same manner you would publish other public coITespondence received in advance of a public hearing regarding the Application or the development to which it relates.

4. Provide notice at [email protected] regarding the Application or the development to which it relates, as required by Government Code section 65092.

5. Ensure that this letter is included in the administrative record in any litigation concerning the Application or the development to which it relates. * * *
To the Reviewing Official, Hearing Officer, or Public Body:

We are writing regarding an application to develop a residential or mixed-use project that includes two or more residential units. Your approval of this project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
1 All references to the "Application" in this letter include any subsequent fonnal application if the Application is a preliminaiy application, any subsequent, ainended, or related application, and any application for an ancillaiy or related penni t concerning the development to which the Application relates.
915 L Street , #1460
Sacramento , CA 95814

Page 2 ends

The HAA generally requires you to approve a housing development project unless the project fails to comply with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). To count as “objective,” a standard must “involve[e] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)( 9). In making this determination, you must approve the project if the evidence “would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project met the relevant standard. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4).

Projects subject to modified standards pursuant to a density bonus are judged against the standards as modified. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3). The courts interpret these provisions broadly to mandate approval. California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 830.

A “disapproval” under the HAA includes not only the failure to approve an application or a necessary land use approval for the project, but also the failure to comply with specified time periods, the failure to comply with SB 330’s five hearing limit (Gov. Code § 65905.5), the failure to cease conduct “undertaken for an improper purpose” that “effectively disapproves” the project, and the failure to make a CEQA exemption determination or to adopt or approve a CEQA document. Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(h)(6), 65589.5.1, 65589.5.2. The inclusion of an improper item in an incompleteness determination under the Permit Streamlining Act also constitutes a denial.

Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(G). And for most purposes, the HAA treats the imposition of a “condition that the project be developed at a lower density” or a condition that renders the project infeasible as the equivalent of a disapproval. Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(d), (j).

Your agency is subject to strict timing requirements under the HAA. If it desires to find that a project is inconsistent with any of its land use standards, it must issue written findings to that effect within 30 to 60 days after a legally complete application is received from the applicant; the ultimate date of your agency’s completeness determination is irrelevant . Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(j)(2)(A), (h)(1). If the applicant has not been timely notified of a purported inconsistency with a local standard, the project is deemed consistent with that standard, and you are permanently foreclosed from determining otherwise. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).

If your agency has determined that a project is consistent with its objective standards, or the project is deemed consistent with such standards, but you nevertheless propose to reject it, you must make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” meaning that the project would have “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A); see Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i)(II). Once again, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(9).

CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSH IP

Page 3 ends

Even if you are able to identify legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, you may only reject the project if “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. ” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting a project, you must consider every conceivable, reasonable measure that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue. At a minimum, you must direct staff to prepare an exhaustive list of potential mitigations based on their professional expertise, and you must review each of these for feasibility. Because your agency must affirmatively prove that no feasible mitigation exists in order to lawfully reject a project, you may not reject a project merely because the applicant has failed to come forward an acceptable mitigation measure; that is your job, not theirs.

The HAA applies to the full range of housing types, including a project to build two or more single-family homes, a project to build a single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit, multifamily projects (both market-rate and income-limited), and mixed-use developments. Gov.

Code § 65589.5(h)(2); see Honchariw v. Cty. of Stanislaus , 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1074-76 (2011). And the Legislature has directed that the HAA be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).

If your agency is out of compliance with the law governing general plan housing elements, it is subject to the “builder’s remedy” provisions in the HAA, which further restrict its ability to disapprove qualifying developments. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6). Your agency may be subject to the builder’s remedy even if its compliance has been certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), if a court later determines that it was actually out of substantial compliance during the period it received a preliminary application or complete application for a qualifying project. For example, your agency may be out of compliance for failing to follow state law provisions restricting lower -income housing site zoning , notwithstanding certification by HCD. New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 111, review denied.

When a locality rejects or downsizes a housing development without complying with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in a writ of mandate action . Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last decade in an effort to increase compliance. Today, a non-profit organization like Californians for Homeownership can sue without the consent of the project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A local agency that is sued to enforce the HAA must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own expense, within 30 days after service of the petition.

Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an enforcement lawsuit brought by a non- profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2).

In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit.

Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B). If a locality has previously been notified by the Attorney General or HCD that an action or inaction would violate a housing reform law, a court must impose at least the minimum fine amount, and if it is a repeating violation, the fine will be quintupled. Gov. Code

CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSH IP

Page 4 ends

§ 65914.2. An applicant cannot be required to indemnify a locality for costs related to litigation under the HAA. Gov. Code § 65914.2(c)(1).

An action brought by an applicant challenging a denial is subject to an expedited judicial review process, with shorter time given to certify the administrative record, and calendar preference in both the trial court and on appeal. C.C.P. § 1094.9.

In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce the HAA:
• In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos , Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site d esign, the unit mix, and the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform. • San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council , Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees. • In 40 Main Street Offices v. City of Los Altos , Santa Clara County Superior Court Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV349845 & 19CV350422, the court determined that Los Altos violated the HAA, among other state housing laws, by failing to identify objective land use criteria to justify denying a mixed -use residential and commercial project. After the City was ordered to pay a $7 million bond, it dropped its appeal in the case. The City was ultimately forced to pay approximately $1 million in delay compensation and attorneys’ fees.
• In Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley , Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG18930003, after the Court of Appeal held that Berkeley had violated state law by denying a 135- unit mixed-use project, the trial court determined that the denial constituted a violation of the HAA. As a result of the HAA violation, the City was responsible for approximately $4 in attorneys’ fees and penalties. • In California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, the Court of Appeal held that San Mateo had improperly applied subjective criteria in denying a housing development project.

The City ultimately agreed to pay $450,000 in the petitioner’s attorneys’ fees. • In Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01107760- CU-WM-CJC, the court ruled that Huntington Beach violated the HAA when it rejected a 48 -unit condominium

CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSH IP

Page 5 ends

project based on vague concerns about health and safety. Following the decision, the City agreed to pay a total of $600,000 in attorneys’ fees to our organization and two other plaintiffs.
• In Yes I n My Back Yard, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, L.A.S.C. Case No. 21STCP03883, the court ruled that Los Angeles violated the HAA in denying a housing development, and ordered the city to pay approximately $240,000 in attorneys’ fees.
• In Janet Jha v. City of Los Angeles , L.A.S.C. Case No. 23STCP03499, the court held that Los Angeles violated the HAA by refusing to process a housing development application based on its erroneous interpretation of state law. After the Court ordered the city to pay a $7.4 million bond, the city abandoned its appeal.

The city was ordered to pay approximately $120,000 in attorneys’ fees. • In a series of three cases against the City of Los Angeles, L.A.S.C. Case Nos. 24STCP00524, 24STCP00070, and 24STCP00385, three different trial court judges determined that Los Angeles had violated the HAA by refusing to comply with the terms of its own affordable housing streamlining policy. Between the three cases, the city was ordered to pay over $350,000 in attorneys’ fees. • In Yes in My Back Yard v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 24STCP00524, the court ruled that the City’s finding that an application was incomplete constituted a disapproval under the HAA. The City was ordered to pay over $90,000 in attorneys’ fees.
• In District Square LLC v. City of Los Angeles , L.A.S.C. Case No. 20STCP00654, and Cesar Chavez 888, LLC v. City of Los Angeles et al. , L.A.S.C. Case No.

24STCP01880, the court determined that the city’s purported “health and safety findings” for denying two housing development projects did not meet the requirements in the HAA, determined that the City had acted deliberately and in bad faith, and ordered the projects approved. In the Cesar Chavez 888 matter, the court ordered the city to pay approximately $170,000 in attorneys’ fees. • In 600 Foothill Owner, LP v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, et al. and California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, et al. , Los Angeles Superior Court Case Nos. 23STCP02575 and 23STCP02614, the trial court determined that the City of La Cañada Flintridge had unlawfully rejected a project subject to the HAA. After the City was ordered to pay a $14 million bond, it abandoned its appeal and agreed to pay California Housing Defense Fund nearly $1.3 million in attorneys’ fees. A further fee settlement in the millions of dollars is expected with the applicant, and the city has paid its own attorneys over $2 million to litigate the case.

CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSH IP

Page 6 ends

We urge you to comply with the HAA as you review this project.

Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand

CALIFORN IANS FOR HOMEOWNERSH IP

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. anyone who visited the site — particularly during school hours — could conclude that adding a 12-unit condo project, with a driveway less than 100 feet from Curtner, would do anything but worsen conditions for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and students.

What studies support the opposite conclusion? Who from the city has actually visited the site? Nothing in the record shows that any site-specific traffic or pedestrian safety analysis was conducted. The finding that "traffic access and pedestrian access are adequate" is unsupported by any analysis — and contradicted by reality.

We join many other residents in demanding an independent traffic and safety study before this project moves forward. The city's refusal to conduct one is unacceptable given the clear potential for increased congestion and danger in the surrounding area.

Approving this development without addressing these concerns would be irresponsible, if not unlawful. The Council should not wait for a serious injury — or worse — before acting. If it proceeds despite repeated warnings and without a proper safety study, the Council and the City should expect to be held accountable for the consequences.

We are asking the City Council to:

Halt the proposed development until a comprehensive traffic and safety study is completed.

Directly address the safety concerns residents have raised, rather than dismissing them.

Evaluate vehicle traffic, congestion, pedestrian and cyclist safety, sight lines, driveway access, nearby intersections, and emergency vehicle access.

Make all traffic and safety findings public.

Consider the cumulative impact of this development alongside other existing and proposed projects in the area.

Prioritize public safety and resident interests over development interests.

We strongly urge the Council to oppose the development at 1295 Curtner Avenue unless and until a comprehensive traffic and safety study is completed and these safety concerns are fully resolved, and to more broadly reject proposals and projects that increase density beyond that permitted by established San Jose zoning ordinances and regulations.

Sincerely,

Kendra and Ryan Penhallegon

Sent from my iPad

Approving this development without first adequately addressing these concerns would be irresponsible.

City officials have a duty to exercise sound judgment when the safety of the public is at stake. Residents should not have to fight their own City Council simply to obtain a traffic study.

Please listen to the people you represent. Conduct the traffic study. Address the safety concerns. Do not approve a project first and investigate its consequences later.

If someone is injured because known and repeatedly raised safety concerns were ignored, the public will rightly ask who knew about the risks, who had the authority to act, and who chose not to.

The Council works for the people. Please start listening to them.

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

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

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. improvements were made. The party line and reality do not match up. The city is checking the boxes but not doing the work.

The city listens to developers but not to residents.

Sincerely,
Christine Nguyen

Aug 18, 2026

City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113

Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 1295 Curtner Avenue

By Email:

CC:

Dear San Jose City Council,

The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 12-unit housing development project at 1295 Curtner Avenue, which includes 1 very low income unit and 1 moderate income unit. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the Density Bonus Law (DBL), and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) or reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) unless, again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.

Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a

2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org

thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to two family dwelling use, minimum lot size, front setback, rear setback, height limit,
ﬂoor area ratio, common open space, private open space, lot size limit, lot depth ratio, parking site frontage, tree shading, building entrances, and parking stall spacing. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov.

Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)

Furthermore, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is also eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.66.) Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it

2 of 3

San Jose City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026