Letters from the Public - 4 of 14 — San Jose City Council, August 18, 2026

Outlook
FW: The Housing Element & General Plan
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/7/2026 3:10 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Jeffrey Berg <je~
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2026 3:08 PM
To: Cohen, David Or •
han,
Pam
Subject: The Housing Element & General Plan
Tordillos, Anthony
Casey, George
Candelas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam whx this is imp011ant Dear Mayor Mahan & Councilmembe rs:

I am asking you to protect San Jose's many iconic and wonder ful single-family neighborhoods. You are in a unique position to influence proposed changes and amendments to the City's General Plan, specifically the Housing Element that would result in substantial 'up-zoning' and densification across the city. I understand that in addition to private and public pressure campaigns, you are also subject to considerable governmental/bureaucratic pressure to 'fix' a perceived local, state and nation-wide housing crisis. However, densifying our beautiful, family-friendly neighborhoods is not the answer. Taking Local control away from residents is not the answer. And allowing these projects to move forward 'by-right ' with no consideratio n of adjacent property owners and neighbors is not the answer. Furthermore , the lack of parking standards and dramatic increased loads to our existing infrastructure creates additional burdens and costs. Private spaces will dwindle dramatically as setbacks reduce and building heights go up. However noble these goals are expressed, it is hard to understand how this course of action could result in any true benefit to existing, and future, homeowners.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jeffrey T. Berg
San Jose Resident
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outloo k
FW: Council Agenda Item : 10.3 General Plan Four Year Review Policy Framework Date 08/18/2026 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/ 10/2026 7:32 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Aure lia Sanchez
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2
To: City Clerk
District7
District l
District 6
Subject: Council Agenda Item : 10.3 General Plan Four Year Review Policy Framewor k Date 08/ 18/2026 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Honorable Mayor and Council members,
I live in District 3 and am very concerned about learning about the recent "Missing Middle Housing Policy" that will be heard by council on August 18, 2026. This is a housing policy that mostly will impact District 3 residents because the city will mostly concentrate adding apartments and duplexes to four areas that have the most R-1 zoning. If I understand correctly the four neighborhoods being targeted are Naglee, Rosemary Gardens, Roosevelt Park and Hyde Park.

Please note District 3 is a district that has always taken the "hits" for our city regarding supportive housing, affordable housing, residential care homes and now added to this bucket list is housing that will destroy single family neighborhoods. District 3 residents have not been advised by our Council member about this policy in any of his newsletters or via email to neighborhood leaders. Some of the other council members have had community meetings explaining this new planned housing policy and I hope that our Mayor and council member hold a meeting explaining the impact this housing policy will have on the quality of life for downtown core residents and nearby neighborhoods like mine. Below are some reasons I feel this policy before being implemented needs discussion by downtown residents for solutions on how to make this work for the hard working families in district 3 and why there should be no rush to implement or approve this type of housing that might be in the works. 1) Our city and many other cities in our area have always complained that the ration of jobs to housing hurts us because housing takes up a large portion of our budget for services while cities like Mt. View have more money because that is where the jobs are. Please note there are many layoffs being done by our county, state and city due to budget deficits. Inflation is high This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. and layoffs in the tech industry keeps growing and many people are looking for work especially people who have just graduated from college. My point who can afford this new housing?

2)The no parking requirements approved in 2024 will hurt residential neighborhoods that already find it difficult to park and in many cases leads to complaints and fights between neighbors and visitors, I know I have had to call the police regarding vehicles blocking my driveway.

3)Many of our parks, schools, infrastructure suffer because our city and county have no money.

Adding more residents that require more services in our city is a recipe for blight and crime.

Our police and fire are already stretched thin so my question is how is our city going to handle more calls for services. Lastly, developers and many nonprofits who are building homes will want fees waived and will ask that the city supplement rent like the city did with the Fay apartments. Affordable housing will be pushed and many of these developers pay no property taxes for 50 years etc. If the city wants more housing please do not waive any fees for any type of development and make sure property taxes are not exempt in any housing built. Make sure green space is required and council requires some parking spaces for new development.

Best,
Aurelia Sanchez

Outlook
FW: Regarding housing units per lot
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/10/2026 7:33 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Gary Landi
Sent: Saturday, Au
To: Foley, Pam
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Regarding housing units per lot
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is important For the August 18th meeting please do not consider to increase the number of housing units per lot here in San Jose. Currently even in single family lots where parents and children have vehicles our streets have become crowded and difficult and unsafe to negotiate when driving. The proposed plan will of course only make it much worse.

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

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 To
Sent: Sunday,
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 im1201tant ---------- 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 environmenta l 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: 8/18/2026 Mtg item 10.3 - Oppose Winchester Corridor rezoning to UR (max of MUN instead) From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/10/2026 7:37 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michele Hittleman
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 20
To: City Clerk
Subject: 8/18/2026 Mtg item 10.3 - Oppose Winchester Corridor rezoning to UR (max of MUN instead) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and City Council Members,
I care about the Cory neighborhood residents-those living in the current Cory housing and those who would move into any proposed new structures -- and I care about the businesses along Forest and Winchester, how they contribute to the quality of life, and the tax revenue they bring to the city. Rezoning the "Winchester Corridor" to anything other than Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) would have serious negative consequences. It is not smart planning, and cannot be justified with the arguments that were presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting on June 24 (which I attended as a member of the public).

Cory neighborhood includes apartment dwellers, young adults living with their parents, multigenerational families, renters of houses, renters of ADUs (we have many ADUs!), and renters of rooms inside houses. We have babies/toddlers, children, teens and adults of all ages. And we have businesses along Forest Ave. and along Winchester Blvd.

Rezoning to Urban Residential will have an outcome of converting successful businesses to pure residential, which contradicts San Jose's goal of preserving the business tax base that is already too low. Cory residents value and patronize these businesses.

Why weren't the businesses in the affected zone consulted by the city? I personally spoke with the owner of Forest Tailoring who was shocked and not aware, and he said his relative who owns Burger Barn was also not aware. Other neighbors consulted other businesses in the affected zone, and none of them were aware, and all were against it! MUN would be a better option. It would have a better chance at preserving thriving community businesses such as the Forest Tailoring (which has been in business with the same owner for 30 years who told me he wants to continue operating there!), New Krungthai Restaurant, Burger Barn, Baskin Robbins, Anette’s Hair Salon, and others. The commer cial vacancy rate in this
area is very low compared to average vacancy rates in San Jose.

We cannot count on builders to provide adequate parking even when it’s in their own best interest. Lack of adequate parking for residents and their guests fuels immense frustration and often leads to anger and negativity in the neighborhood, wastes time and resources, and causes additional pollution. Real stories illustrating this have been showing up as posts on the NextDoor app for several years, since the parking mandates for construction were removed in San Jose.

If the “Winchester Corridor” is rezoned to Urban Residential, Lack of parking mandates will cause spill-over parking and congestion from hundreds of cars entering and exiting each new building. This wi
ll negatively impact businesses all along Forest Avenue west of 880, and the residential dwellings nearby -- which are already impacted by overflow parking from Valley Fair.

The proposed changes would likely cause these businesses to decline or fail once many customers stop coming because of the congested roads and lack of convenient parking.

Even if the businesses try to tow offending vehicles, it will still be a problem to deal with.

You must also consider that the city has not adequately addressed the parking concerns that Cory neighborhood residents between Forest and Hedding have already voiced repeatedly to the City Council and Planning Dept .

Original houses and duplexes in Cory neighborhood were built modestly. With many of the homes still small and many multi-generational families in Cory, there are often more than 2 cars per household and residents using their garages for purposes other than their cars. Plus, the preponderance of ADUs brings additional cars that need to park in neighborhood. My point her
e is that many Cory neighborhood residents use street parking and already have difficulty doing so in the zone between Hedding and Forest which has been terribly impacted by overflow parking from Valley Fair since they began charging for parking, and even more so since they doubled the cost of that parking earlier this year.

Cory neighborhood has frequent older-adult and disabled pedestrians at the intersections of Hedding & Winchester and Forest & Winchester from adjacent neighborhoods, including from Valley Village Retirement Community, from apartments behind the Walgreens and from apartments in the Agri-hood.

Pedestrian safety for these older-adult and disabled
individuals would be negatively impacted by the increased traffic congestion this proposal will cause.

Cory residents at city meetings have never mentioned they don’t support housing. On the contrary, they have explained how they understand the need for more housing and how challenging i
t is to afford housing in San Jose. MUN would allow for significant units of new housing. Under the proposed new MUN rules, building could be done up 50 dwelling units per acre could be built, and up to 5 stories. If a dev eloper takes advantage of density bonuses, they could potentially double the density to 100 dwelling units per acre. Ev en this is more housing than this area can support!
When the Planning Commission voted on the staff’s proposal, they specifically extracted the Winchester Corridor issue for separate consideration, and the first proposed change by a commissioner was exactly what I am urging you to approve: a proposal to rezone to MUN all This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. the areas that were proposed by the Planning Commission to be designated as Urban Residential. That v ote narrowly failed 5-6.

The Planning Commissioner who stated he had visited/explored the neighborhood prior to the June 24th meeting stated how that exploration caused him to understand 826 Winchester Blvd should not be rezoned to Urban Residential, even with an 85 foot limit! Come and see for yourself the two legs of this L-shaped property surrounded on exterior sides by 1-story homes, with the leg connecting to Winchester being very narrow, and you will realize how this lot cannot support Urban Residential zoning without terrible negative effects.

We understand the need for more housing, but that doesn't justify trying to pack this level of density into Cory neighborhood simply because that is the only neighborhood you are currently considering! T ruly, this is an attack on our neighborhood.

Rezoning in the “Winchester Corridor” to anything other than MUN is not smart planning, and would have serious negative consequences for Cory neighborhood business, its current residents, its future residents, and the residents and businesses from adjacent neighborhoods in the City of Santa Clara. Lik
e so many of us, I am losing faith in city government, but you have the power to stop this madness and convince me that our city government can function more effectively, and I urge you to do so, rather than create damage that can never be undone!
In San Jose, once a property is upzoned, it is practically impossible for it be downzoned.

Sincerely,
Michele Hittleman, resident of Cory neighborhood

Outlook
FW: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/10/2026 7:38 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2026 12:

Subject: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal [External Email. Do not open !inks or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imQortant Cohen, David
To All San Jose City Council members and Mayor Mahan . My Name is Michael Bryant. I am currently the chairman of the Community Action committee for the Rancho Santa Teresa Neighborhood Association . I have been tasked to reach out to you to get information in regard to this upcoming vote on the re-zoning proposal you are considering . Your responses to me will be shared with all homes in our association as well as all the people in Rancho Santa Teresa HOA ( 750 homes approx.) During your summer recess I sent you all an e-mail with 11 questions and comments regarding your upcoming vote on the re-zoning proposal for San Jose. I have not received any response ( other than auto responses saying you were out for the summer break ) . I did discuss this matter directly with George Casey at the August 4th town hall meeting regarding this issue. He suggested that I might get more of a response by sending the questions out in a single question format . So below is the first question I previously sent you in July and I will send the rest behind this e- mail , one at a time over the next few days . Please see if you can get me some answers prior to the August 18 meeting .

Io 2021, the City of San Jose commissioned a consultant's report that concluded that new fom·plexes and eightplexes did not reduce housing costs. The report found that these units sold for approximately the same price pe1· square foot as newly constructed single-family homes. It also found that surrounding single-family home values did not decline. In fact, they increased. Has anything changed since that report was issued? Has this report been updated recently? Will there be rules in yow· new pl'Oposal requiring a certain number of these units to be below market rate / Affo1·dable low income units? Is the goal simply to create mo1·e housing, or will tWs pl'Oposal actually make housing more affordable here in San Jose?
Sincerel y
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Michael Bryant

Outlook
FW: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/10/2026 7:38 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2026 12:

Will the units in these new larger buildings be privatel y owned by individual homeowner's or will they be rentals managed under for pl"Ofit rental corporntions ? How will this affect cwTent HOA's in these established neighborhoods ? .

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

Outloo k
FW: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/10/ 2026 7:38 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2026 1:1
Subject: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal [External Email. Do not open !inks or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Cohen, David
To All San Jose City Council members and Mayor Mahan . My Name is Michael Bryant. I am currently the chairman of the Community Action committee for the Rancho Santa Teresa Neighborhood Association . As I mentioned in a previous e- mail to you all on this Re-zoning subject , I have further questions that I and the RSTNA membership would appreciate answers for prior to the August 18th meeting . This is the 3rd of the 11 questions . I will send more out over the next few days . Please respond as soon as possible.

If these unit s an• built by large for profit rent.al companie s will they cover all the nece ssary infra structure 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 cuITent homeowners in these commnnities ? Sincerely
Michael Bryant
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/10/2026 12:59 PM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 1
Subject: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Cohen, David
cahy, Michael
ity Clerk
To All San Jose City Council members and Mayor Mahan . My Name is Michael Bryant. I am currently the chairman of the Community Action committee for the Rancho Santa Teresa Neighborhood Association . I have been tasked to reach out to you to get information in regard to this upcoming vote on the re-zoning proposal you are considering . Your responses to me will be shared with all homes in our association as well as all the people in Rancho Santa Teresa HOA ( 750 homes approx.)
This is 4th question that was on my original list that was sent to you all in late July. Please respond as soon as possible.

Does this proposal adequately address the additional demands on:
• Water systems
• Electrical capacity
• Sewer systems
• Roads and traffic
• Schools
• Parks
• Police services
• Fire protection
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Emergency medical services
Again ,How will these infrastructure improvements be funded ?( by increased taxes on all residents or by Builders/ Developers ) , and will they be completed before or after higher-density development occurs?

•
Outlook
FW: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question 5 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/10/2026 1 :08 PM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 1:

Subject: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question 5 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Cohen, David
cahy, Michael
ity Clerk
To All San Jose City Council members and Mayor Mahan . My Name is Michael Bryant. I am currently the chairman of the Community Action committee for the Rancho Santa Teresa Neighborhood Association . I have been tasked to reach out to you to get information in regard to this upcoming vote on the re-zoning proposal you are considering . Your responses to me will be shared with all homes in our association as well as all the people in Rancho Santa Teresa HOA ( 750 homes approx.)
This is 5th question that was on my original list that was sent to you all in late July . Please respond as soon as possible.

How will parking and trash collection be add1·essed?
I did not find any meaningful discussion of parking requirements or refuse collection in yow- proposal. These are significant quality-of-life issues for existing neighborhoods. How do propose to deal with these matters? Sincerely
Michael Bryant
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Conversation View August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question 6 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/10/2026 1: 12 PM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 1:

Cohen, David
cahy, Michael
ity Clerk
Subject: Conversation View August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question 6 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel To All San Jose City Council members and Mayor Mahan . My Name is Michael Bryant. I am currently the chairman of the Community Action committee for the Rancho Santa Teresa Neighborhood Association . I have been tasked to reach out to you to get information in regard to this upcoming vote on the re-zoning proposal you are considering . Your responses to me will be shared with all homes in our association as well as all the people in Rancho Santa Teresa HOA ( 750 homes approx.)
This is 6th question that was on my original list that was sent to you all in late July . Please respond as soon as possible.

Could i.nct·eased neighbo1·hood density affect homeowners' insurance costs? Has the City evaluated whether higher-density development could influence fire insurance rates or homeowners' insurance availability ?
Sincerely
Michael Bryant
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Council meeting 18 August 2026 agenda item General Plan From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/11/2026 10:36 AM
Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
From: Lindy Hayes
Sent: Tuesday, August ,
To: City Clerk District 6
Subject: Council meeting 18 August 2026 agenda item General Plan [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 I am writing on behalf of Concerned Cory Neighbors. There are recommendations made for the revision of the General Plan which affect us personally and on which we wish to be heard.

We would like to say at the outset that we are well aware of the tremendous amount of work by, and the evolving thought process of, both the Planning Dept. staff and the Planning Commissioners , as we attended every single one of the Task Force meetings. We also appreciate the difficult task that the City Council faces in trying to manage a large city while trying to comply with ever-changing state mandates.

That being said, there are two areas where we disagree with the staff recommendations. These are also the only two portions which were pulled out for discussion and divided vote by the Planning Commissioners on 24 June 2026. They are:

1. The future of the Winchester corridor;

2. The densification of all residential neighborhoods.

The Winchester corridor
The proposals are to rezone from Neighborhood Commercial to either Urban Residential, with a height limit of 85 feet, or to Mixed Use Neighborhood. This would affect all the small businesses between Beechwood and Fernwood, and a smattering of other properties from Fernwood to Kenwood. The Planning Commissioners were deadlocked on these recommendations. Two of the commissioners, who had made the effort to visit our area, made different and lesser proposals.

We do not favor the neighborhood being ringed by eight-story buildings. We favor keeping the functioning and profitable small businesses which contribute to the tax base. We do not see why the City should create a temptation for commercial landowners to evict small business owners in the hopes of selling to a developer who may erect housing. This is a long-range idea, dependent on the feelings of the current landowner. It is not designed to meet any state deadlines. It is haphazard, and not worthy to be called a plan.

There are vacant and unused properties along the corridor which should be rezoned for housing. We favor Mixed Use Neighborhood zoning for these. That designation is consistent with other developments along Winchester. Plus, we favor a lesser zoning change to start --- once a higher zoning change is granted, it cannot be rescinded in favor of a lesser zoning.

We would point out the obvious: this is earthquake country, where the height of buildings is a serious concern. We pointed out in 2025 that the Winchester corridor is in a liquefaction zone. We have numbers of neighbors who have tried to be good citizens by putting solar panels on their roofs, and who would lose the afternoon sun to large buildings.

The densification of all residential neighborhoods
The proposals are to redefine R-1 zoning, to permit 32 dwelling units per acre and 35 feet of height. The current limits are 8 DU/A and 25 feet.

We think that this is unnecessary. We agree with Planning Commissioner Pierluigi Oliviero, who said on June 24:

I just want to summarize my No vote. I think that what is being proposed, once neighborhoods actually catch on, I think it’s going to potentially generate a lot of mistrust of City Hall, since this is not being done around the country, it’s rare and infrequent, the results are not clear from Minnesota and Oregon that it actually provides affordability and other factors. I think if we were in a situation where the State was doing nothing, never passing a law on housing, that’s a different story. But we have a State that is passing laws left and right, more coming, and I think This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. if we just simply implement State law, we will actually generate more units and in a way that is better for transportation, for the environment, that kind of goes with the basic precepts of the General Plan 2040 where the planning and building of the City is intentional rather than haphazard. Thank you.

There are other parts to the proposal which we vehemently disagree with, particularly the By Right provision. We view this as a Stealth Proposal, which is not in the best interests of the City Council to adopt now. Despite the efforts of the Task Force, most neighborhoods are unaware of the proposed changes and will be outraged to find such changes taking place in their area.

If the Council is persuaded that some densification is necessary, we suggest that the figure be twice rather than quadruple, that the height remain similar, and that other planning processes should be followed. Again, once a higher zoning is granted, it cannot be reduced.

It would be better to start out with a lesser standard. We would point out that the ADU provision, granted previously, has been very popular and useful in the Cory neighborhood.

Lindy Hayes, Concerned Cory Neighbors

Outlook
FW: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question -7 From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/1 1/ 2026 11 :14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 1
Subject: August 18th City council meetin g - Re- Zoning proposal- Question -7 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Cohen, David
os, Pamela
To All San Jose City Council members and Mayor Mahan . My Name is Michael Bryant. I am currently the chairman of the Community Action committee for the Rancho Santa Teresa Neighborhood Association . I have been tasked to reach out to you to get information in regard to this upcoming vote on the re-zoning proposal you are considering . Your responses to me will be shared with all homes in our association as well as all the people in Rancho Santa Teresa HOA ( 750 homes approx.)
This is 7th question that was on my original list that was sent to you all in late July . Please respond as soon as possible.

Have emergency access and evacuation of these additional density neighborhoods been evaluated ? Will our cwTent police, fire, emergency medical, and other municipal services be able to easily access all these additional units in emergencies ? Will the cull'ent evacuation routes accommodate the additional density for wildfire and disaster evacuations ? Sincerely
Michael Bryant
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Conversation View August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question -8 From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/11/ 2026 11 :26 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 1
Cohen, David
os, Pamela
Subject: Conversation View August 18th City counci l meeting - Re- Zoning proposa l- Question -8 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel To All San Jose City Council members and Mayor Mahan . My Name is Michael Bryant. I am currently the chairman of the Community Action committee for the Rancho Santa Teresa Neighborhood Association .I have been tasked to reach out to you to get information in regard to this upcoming vote on the re-zoning proposal you are considering .

Your responses to me will be shared with all homes in our association as well as all the people in Rancho Santa Teresa HOA ( 750 homes approx.)
This is 8th question that was on my original list that was sent to you all in late July . Please respond as soon as possible.

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

Outlook
FW: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question -9 From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/11/ 2026 11 :34 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 1
Subject: August 18th City council meetin g - Re- Zoning proposal- Question -9 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Cohen, David
os, Pamela
To All San Jose City Council members and Mayor Mahan . My Name is Michael Bryant. I am currently the chairman of the Community Action committee for the Rancho Santa Teresa Neighborhood Association .I have been tasked to reach out to you to get information in regard to this upcoming vote on the re-zoning proposal you are considering .

Your responses to me will be shared with all homes in our association as well as all the people in Rancho Santa Teresa HOA ( 750 homes approx.)
This is 9th question that was on my original list that was sent to you all in late July . Please respond as soon as possible.

Are there less disruptive locations where the same housing could be built? Has the city considered areas near transit, commercial co1ridors, shopping centers , and undemsed office prope1ties that have stronger infrastmcture and se1vices , such as more parking ?
Sincerely
Michael Bryant
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, 8/18/26 , Agenda item #10.3 From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/11/2026 2:58 PM
To
From: Maribet Mason
Sent: Tuesday, August 1 ,
To: City Clerk
Cc: Maribet Mason
Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
Subject: San Jose City Council meeting, 8/1 8/26, Agenda item #10.3 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello San Jose City Council,
I understand there will be a vote during the August 18 city council meeting to allow high-density, by-right "missing middle" housing throughout San Jose. I am strongly opposed to this proposal. I feel it would be detrimental to the quality of life for the existing homes in the immediate area. I live near Santana Row and the high rise apartment and condo buildings are too close to the existing homes, privacy is affected, and the sun is blocked from the high buildings. Not to mention the value of our homes are most likely reduced due to the close proximity of the latest apartment building. We tried to fight the builders and expressed our dislikes to the city council but it fell on deaf ears. I don't want something similar to happen in other neighborhoods in the city.

I also read that the proposal did not require the developers to include some sort of parking lot/structure. That would lead to overcrowding of cars on the street, more traffic, and the inability to even find a parking spot for the development and the existing homes. What's worse is that the affected neighborhood doesn't even have a say in a new development and no city council vote is required. The developer can build where ever they want without any opposition .

I'm sure they don't care about the surrounding homes and their quality of life.

The city council should focus more on existing proposed 'Urban Villages' for additional housing.

This sounded like a great plan and should continue to be pursued . If one failed or not live up to expectations , it there should be post mortem to figure out the reasons why it failed and how to fix it in the existing and future locations .

I looked on the State of California website for their estimated population growth in Santa Clara County. State population growth projection is a little less that 3% population growth from 2026 to 2044 and then it starts dropping until 2070. With those numbers, I don't see a need to This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. update the current city plans for housing to add this detrimental proposal. Please rethink and reject this proposal.

Respectfully,
Maribet Mason
A concerned citizen

Outlook
FW: Support for Expanding Housing on All PQP-Designated Sites From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/11/2026 3:11 PM
To Agendadesk
I 1 attachment (100 KB)
Letter to SJ City Counci l re POP Sites 8.11.26.pdf;
From: Matt Gingery
Sent: Tuesday, August 11,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Support for Expanding Housing on All PQP-Designated Sites [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from Leam why this is important Please see attached letter for the record regarding PQP sites.

Thank you
Matt Gingery
Bay West Development
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Matt Gingery
Bay West Development
90 Railway Ave, Campbell CA

August 11, 2026
San José City Council 200 East Santa Clara Street San José, CA 95113 RE: General Plan 4-Year Review — Support for Expanding Housing on All PQP-Designated Sites (August 18, 2026 Hearing)
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge you to direct staff to expand allowable housing uses on all Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)-designated sites in San José — not a limited subset — as part of the General Plan 4-Year Review coming before you on August 18th.

We are currently evaluating several PQP-designated sites in San José for potential development.

Under a broadened PQP housing policy, these sites alone could deliver several hundred units of new housing, including the affordable units that state density bonus law and San José's own inclusionary requirements would generate alongside any market-rate project. This is exactly the kind of shovel-ready capacity the city needs to meet its Housing Element obligations — and it is currently locked up by restrictive land use rules that apply unevenly across sites.

Why a uniform policy matters:
• Scale. San José's PQP-designated land includes underused school and faith parcels across every council district. Enrollment in San José's elementary schools has fallen 27% — nearly 18,000 students — over the past decade, leaving many of these properties underutilized relative to their potential to house families.
• Equity. The Planning Commission's current recommendation would expand permitted uses on only some PQP sites. That approach creates winners and losers among school districts, congregations, and property owners based on factors unrelated to housing need or site suitability, and it invites drawn-out, case-by-case fights instead of a predictable citywide standard.
• Feasibility. A narrow, site-by-site approach discourages investment. Owners and developers cannot reasonably underwrite these projects — or plan the affordable units that come with them — if it is unclear which sites will qualify. A uniform citywide policy gives institutions, owners, and the development community the certainty needed to actually build.

■11

BAYWEST

DEVELOPMENT

I support the position taken by SV@Home and the broader coalition of school, faith, and housing organizations: Council should direct staff to expand permitted community-serving and residential uses across all public school and faith-owned PQP sites — with the reasonable exception of sites in high fire-risk areas — rather than adopting the Planning Commission's more limited, site-specific approach.

I appreciate the Council's attention to this issue and would welcome the opportunity to share more detail on the sites I am evaluating and the housing potential they represent. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Matt Gingery
Ill

BAYWEST

DEVELOPMENT
Outlook
FW: No on Missing Middle housing proposal
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/11/2026 4:58 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Susan Cremins
Sent: Tuesday, August 1 ,
To: City Clerk
Subject: No on Missing Middle housing proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP.ortant I want to clearly state that I oppose the "Missing Middle" housing proposal to be voted on 8/ 18/26. I am seeing San Jose being built up with no regard to safety for emergency evacuations , increase in traffic ( especially since we have lost many lanes due to bicycle lane improvements), increase in crime, lack of parking, lack of space for new enrollment in schools , toll on utilities and changes in the environment for people who chose to live in a less busy, quiet area. Please vote NO on this proposal.

Thank you.

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

Outlook
FW: No on Missing Middle
From City Clerk
Date Tue 8/11/2026 4:58 PM
To Agendadesk
From: David cremins
Sent: Tuesday, August 1
To: City Clerk
Subject: No on Missing Middle
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP.ortant I want to clearly state that I oppose the "Missing Middle" housing proposal to be voted on 8/ 18/26. I am seeing San Jose being built up with no regard to safety for emergency evacuations , increase in traffic ( especially since we have lost many lanes due to bicycle lane improvements), increase in crime, lack of parking, lack of space for new enrollment in schools , toll on utilities and changes in the environment for people who chose to live in a less busy, quiet area. I used to have access to school swimming pools, tennis comis , fields, tracks and play stmctm·es, yet now most have been fenced off and locked up. And the hillside canal trail from Snell towards Bemal has also been locked with no access for years. Many of the bicycle paths are no longer safe. Please vote NO on this proposal.

Thank you.

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

Outlook
FW: "PERMANENT", city-wide "Missing Middle" housing proposal From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/12/2026 7:51 AM
To Agendadesk
From: ROBERT LOPES
To: Campos, Pamela
Casey, George
Subject: " PERMANENT", city-wide " Missing Middle" housing proposal osemary
Mulcahy, M ichael
Tordillos, Anthony
[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 Over the years, I have ~d more of my rights and freedom being removed by city, county and state politicians. Years ago I was able to build a deck, replace my water heater, choose what type of energy I wanted to use, what type of car I wanted to drive ..... Now I need "Permission" from the government (Permits) or am being "Mandated" how I will live my life. I saw our city council "Select" two new members deciding it was too expensive to allow us to "VOTE" for the replacements.

Now YOU are deciding that we should NOT have single resident ownership. It is obvious that the plan to put multi-story buildings in Single family communities will cause owners to sell their properties. This provides the opportunity for the city to purchase the property and build another multistory unit thus giving the city higher property taxes and "Control" of our lives.

I am sure you will assure that none of these buildings will end up next to you property or in Almaden Valley.

As we drive on Snell Ave and Santa Teresa, we see the three multi story buildings being constructed right next to homes that were built decades ago. These buildings tower over the homes, taking away all privacy that the owners treasured over the years. Thanks to you!!! The reason you have NOT had opposition to this plan is because you have kept it quiet. I happened to receive an email from a friend informing me of your plan to ruin our lives ....

I STRONGLY OPPOSE YOUR "MISSING MIDDLE "PLAN
I hope you will LISTEN to your voters and NOT pass this plan.

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

Bob Lopes

Outlook
FW: City Council Meeting 8.18.26 - Housing Zoning Change From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/ 12/2026 7:52 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent:

To: City C
Cc: 'David'
Subject: City Council Meeting 8.18.26 - Housing Zoning Change [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 imQortant Dear Mayor and Members of the San Jose City Council:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed land use changes that would dramatically increase allowable residential density in San Jose's existing single-family neighborhoods.

I recognize the need for additiona l housing in San Jose. However, increasing the development potential of existing single family lots from one home to potentially 10, 12, 14 or even 16 residential units is an extraordinary change that deserves much more careful consideration.

Of particular concern is the proposal to allow this substantial increase in density without requiring off-street parking. Regardless of whether every future resident owns a vehicle, it is unrealistic to assume that developments containing this many units will generate no additional demand for parking.

In many established neighborhoods, street parking is already limited. The burden would fall on existing residents and surrounding propert ies.

I am also concerned about allowing such a significant transformation of established neighborhoods without individual public hearings or meaningful neighborhood input. A three story multifamily development containing numerous units is fundamentally different in scale and intensity from the single family home it could replace.

This proposal affects neighborhoods throughout San Jose and could permanently change their character. Once these propert ies are entitled for substantially greater residential density, reversing that decision may be extremely difficult.

I urge the Council not to approve this proposal in its current form on August 18. At a minimum, the Council should require additional neighborhood outreach, evaluate reasonable off street parking This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. requirements, and consider more moderate density increases that are compatible with existing neighborhoods. I would also suggest increasing the density in Urban Village areas, sites adjacent to transit , on main roads and utilizing office properties that are no longer in demand but not in established single family neighborhoods
Please slow this process down and give San José residents a meaningful opportunity to understand and comment on a change of this magnitude before making it permanent.

Thank you for your consideration.

David Evans

Outlook
FW: 18 August City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/12/2026 7:56 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Spencer Horowitz
Sent: Wednesday, August 12,
To: City Clerk
Subject: 18 August City Council Agenda Item 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor an~
I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-yeargeneral plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

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

With no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods , further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining Jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

The city housing element can responsibly be met by accelerating the 62 high density Urban Village developments already identified to accommodate the city's population growth.

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

Outlook
FW: OPPOSITION: Winchester Corridor Upzoning (4-Year General Plan Review) From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/12/2026 12:50 PM
To Agendadesk
Cc Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
From: Brisko Household
Sent: Wednesday, August
To: 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 Districtl
Cohen,
Foley, Pam
Some people who received this message don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
As a resident of the Cory neighborhood in District 6, we are writing to urge you to vote NO on the

12.r9posal to rezone the Winchester Boulevard corridor for 8 story 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 story height limit directly threatens the safety and character of the adjacent single family homes in Cory.

Our local infrastructure cannot handle this massive increase in density without proper safeguards. The Winchester corridor already suffers from severe traffic congestion, dangerous pedestrian conditions, and limited park space. Forcing an 8-story 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.

Have a blessed day!
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Respectfully,
William Brisko
Lillian Brisko
San Jose, CA 95128

Outlook
FW: Begging you to not destroy my parent's neighborhood From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/12/2026 1 :OS PM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael Sonsini
Sent: Wednesday, August 12,
To: Foley, Pam
Laver n·,
Cc: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: Begging you to not destroy my parent's neighborhood Hughes, Scott
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is imP.ortant My parents bought their house 60 years ago and like many older residents do not want this kind of development. I really wish the city and county could lobby Sacramento better regarding local issues like this. It's far from fair for hardworking, older tax paying residents. It's bad enough with the hidden high water and garbage bills included in the property taxes among other legislation.

My activism is for my parents and all the older residents who don't have the time or wherewithal to dial in or go down to city hall. You clearly saw the 100 people at Vineland library who were livid that night. There was no parking left and many had to park on side streets. That kind of turnout says something.

The presentation and 1 hour could have been better. Many people told me so. I was quite surprised by the turnout and anger the residents had.

I spoke with a city planner that lives in San Francisco. Many in that department don't even live in the area. This individual had no idea of the high fees for electricity that goes out all the time and sky high water bills. No idea that the residents I speak with hate the road diets, taxes, fees, rules and regulations.

I wrote this in the most diplomatic way I could. Just like addressing city hall regarding the piles of debris and shopping carts filled with trash at Speak and Luccesi right off of Cherry Ave. It's a serious ongoing hazzard. As for this and the upcoming parking increases downtown.

I'm
politely asking you to vote no. We need easier parking not more complicated and expensive.

So many people I know do not go downtown at all and for decades. Key reason. Parking.

Mass transit takes hours to and from on light rail or buses.

I've tried, trust me.

Although the Council will not be adopting the final ordinances that day, it will decide whether to move forward with the proposed framework.

If approved, City staff will spend the next 12 to 18 months writing the General Plan amendments, zoning regulations, and
implementation ordinances that will bring the policy into effect 9 G
By then, changing course will be much more difficult
San Jose's certified Housing Element allows at least 4 units and up to 10 units on a lot citywide. The framework
recommendation is up to 16+ units per lot.

To meet the Housing Element, we only need to approve
4 units-not 16.
e
The time to influence the policy is BEFORE the framework is approved-not after.

Once the process begins, the City's options become more limited, and residents may have far less opportunity to shape the outcome. e
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
8 Submit your comments
e Attend City Council meetings
0 Contact you, Councilmembers
0 Ten vou, neiQhbors and shar,, this messas,e
- AUGUST18 LJ YOUR VOTE MATTERS.

OUR FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT.

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

Do we need anymore laws, rules and increases for driving or parking? I don't think so. Like I said yesterday the meters not only don't work but the digital screens are very blurred and difficult to read especially with glare from the sun. Meters are designed to issue citations.

People in city government and law enforcement told me so.

I look forward to your reply. You did tell the crowd at Vineland the other night that you answer every email. Like I said, I look forward to your reply.

Mike

Outlook
FW: OPPOSITION: Winchester Corridor Upzoning (4-Year General Plan Review) From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/12/2026 12:50 PM
To Agendadesk
Cc Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
From: Brisko Household
Sent: Wednesday, August
To: 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 Districtl
Cohen,
Foley, Pam
Some people who received this message don't ofte n get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
As a resident of the Cory neighborhood in District 6, we are writing to urge you to vote NO on the

12.r9posal to rezone the Winchester Boulevard corridor for 8 story developments during the August 18th General Plan 4-Year Review.

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.

Have a blessed day!
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Respectfully,
William Brisko
Lillian Brisko
San Jose, CA 95128

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council - Item 10.3 - Support for Planning Staff Recommendations From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/12/2026 2:51 PM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
From: Chris Cardema
Sent: Wednesday, August ,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council - Item 10.3 - Support for Planning Staff Recommendations [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 Mahan an~ San Jose City Council,
My name is Chris Cardema, and I am a homeowner in San Jose's District 8. My partner and I are raising our two children here, and several generations of our family, including her parents and grandmother, also live in San Jose.

Ahead of the Council's August 18 consideration of the General Plan Four-Year Review, I am writing in support of Planning staffs recommendations. These recommendations would direct staff to prepare the General Plan amendments and ordinances necessary to:
• Increase residential capacity, including by updating the Mixed Use Neighborhood and Urban Residential designations and reconsidering selected parcels along Winchester Boulevard and The Alameda.
• Develop a framework for considering housing on appropriate public or quasi-public sites while preserving sufficient land for schools, community facilities and other public needs. • Develop a small multifamily, or "missing middle," housing program with appropriate development standards and protections.
• Update and simplify the City's Urban Village planning strategy. • Maintain the City's existing jobs-to-employed-residents target.

Housing affordability affects families throughout San Jose. We want our children and relatives to have the opportunity to remain close to their families and communities as they grow older, but that will become increasingly difficult unless the City creates more housing opportunities.

I am particularly concerned about the Winchester Boulevard recommendations , which the Planning Commission forwarded without a recommendation. The sites identified by staff are near jobs, businesses, services and major transportation corridors , making them logical locations for additional housing.

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

The proposed Urban Residential designation is already a more moderate alternative to the higher-density Transit Residential designation that was considered. These General Plan changes would establish land-use policy and housing capacity; they would not approve a specific development project.

I respectfully ask the Council to advance Planning staff’s recommendations, including the Urban Residential designation recommended for 826 N. Winchester Boulevard.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Chris Cardema
San José, District 8

Outlook
FW: Title of Email: "August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force" Missing Middle Proposal""
From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/12/2026 3:37 PM
To
From: Pat Blevins
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 3:

To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
Districts
District8
Subject: Title of Email: "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 I am writing to express my complete opposition to the General Plan Task Force "Missing Middle" Proposal. The quality of life here in San Jose is at its lowest point ever.

And this proposal would completely destroy any quality of life for us .. the resident/taxpayer/voters who pay your salaries and expect you to do right by us, the residents of San Jose. This proposal only serves developers and realtors and ?private equity. It in NO way does anything to improve the lives of the residents of San Jose.

I am objecting to the Missing Middle Proposal for the following reasons:
• costs, exceeds densification proposals in other cities and it • exceeds state law and other housing element committment • 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 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.

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

Proposed density exceeds state mandates and housing element committments

exceeds densification proposals in other Bay Area cities.

exacerbates job to housing ratio adversely affecting City finances

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

INCREASES VEHICLE MILES TRAVEL (VMT) (adversely affecting Climate Smart Goals) & DECREASES TREE CANOPY (increasing heat islands) STRAINED INFRASTRUCTURE (water, power, sewer, libraries, parks, police, fire, roads, etc.)
I am asking you to vote NO on the General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal. You have a duty to do right by your constituents and if you are keeping their best interests in mind you will have no other option then to vote NO.

Patricia Blevins

•
•
•
•
•
•
Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Meeting Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/12/2026 3:55 PM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas
City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Meeting 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 It is difficult for me to understand why the Planning Commission would approve such a permanent up-zoning measure for San Jose. It has been shown that such a measure would not have a beneficial impact on housing affordability, nor has it addressed infrastructure costs, which would very much affect neighborhoods with such housing putting stress on existing homes. A City study has recently indicated that the city is three police and fire stations short already. How much will additional homes add to response time?
The measure does not provide for or require parking spaces be made available on the street; driveways and garages may be non-existent. Residential street parking is now very heavy, with current owners often boasting ownership of three or four vehicles per household . Traffic can be difficult even now.

Loss of vegetation due to such building would impact the air we breathe; such loss would have the effect of creating heat islands and decreasing present quality of life.

Please consider the adverse and lasting impact this proposal would have now, and in the future, on long-standing neighborhoods and vote against its passing.

Thank you.

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

Bea Clark

Outlook
FW: Building
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:15 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Lindy Hayes
Sent: Wednesday, Au ust 12,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Building
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant I received this message rom e er arge o. 1s 1s comments on item 10.3 on the August 18 City Council agenda. I am forwarding it at his request. thank you Lindy Hayes ---------- Forwarded messaQe --------
From: Peter Bargetto
Date: Tue, Aug 11, 202 a
Subject: BuildinQ
To:
>
>
Don't ruin your city , the traffic is already too difficult to maneuver, and the congestion doesn't make it enjoyable to raise families in an already busy city ! Water issues , road congestion, and schools will pay the price ! Please consider alternatives! Look what happened to Santa Cruz county ! People are leaving everyday because of many reasons , mainly too expensive and too many people ! Thanks for listening!
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:15 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Janel Caruz
Sent: Wednesday,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn whY. this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and city ~
I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4- year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

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

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods , further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Janel Caruz
SJ Resident in District 6
Outlook
FW: August 18: City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: lloyd Bass
Sent: Wednesday,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18: City Council Agenda Item 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

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

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

Mayor, ask you how this agenda item fits into your "common sense " theme. This could potentially destroy neighborhoods in the rose Garden,
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. area, Willow Glen, Almaden Valley and other neighborhoods. Nothing is said about affordability .

Dense housing makes sense near transit hubs not in the middle of a residential neighborhood because the City doesn’t have a robust transit system.

Respectfully,
Lloyd Bass

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Elvira Rascov
Sent: Wednesday, Au ust 12,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and city~
I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4- year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

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

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

Outlook
FW: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question -10 From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 7:

Cohen, David
Subject: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question -10 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel To All San Jose City Council members and Mayor Mahan . My Name is Michael Bryant. I am currently the chairman of the Community Action committee for the Rancho Santa Teresa Neighborhood Association .I have been tasked to reach out to you to get information in regard to this upcoming vote on the re-zoning proposa l you are considering .

Your responses to me will be shared with all homes in our association as well as all the people in Rancho Santa Teresa HOA ( 750 homes approx.)
This is 10th question that was on my original list that was sent to you all in late July . Please respond as soon as possible.

Would the council consider presenting this as 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? I am suggesting a test program over a 3 year period and using other means that use new land or existing under used commercial property to make up the difference in needed units to meet the state standards ?
Sincerely
Michael Bryant
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Augu st 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:16 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Kristin Steenberg
Sent: Wednesday, Auqust 12,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear Mayor Mahan and City Council,
Learn why this is important at
This note is to register my vehement opposition to the General Plan to quadruple density limits in our residential neighborhoods .

I purchased my home in San Jose in 1976. Though the prices were less then, so were the paychecks. As a full time teacher in Oak Grove School District, I earned $12K a year. Purchasing my home necessitated working a second job and often skipping meals. But the sacrifices were worth it to me to be able to live in my quiet Cambrian neighborhood .

The density being proposed will eliminate the quiet serenity, lovely views of the mountains , it will cram our curbs with parked cars and garbage cans, put further water restrictions on us all, cut down our beautiful life-giving trees, invade our privacy, and invite the crime that density breeds, etc. All the things that people like myself scrimped and saved for to be able to live in the suburbs will be destroyed.

Your plan does not seem to take into account that we live in a perpetual drought, nor that there are no parking provisions made for quadruple the amount of cars it could bring into our neighborhoods, or for the strain on our police and fire departments .

The city should use downtown, commercial corridors and areas near available and frequently used transit. I feel your plan does not guarantee affordable housing. Instead it will increase land values and make permanent changes that take away the charm of our established neighborhoods.

Vote down this radical plan now.

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

Outlook
FW: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question -11 From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Michael & Sandra Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 8:0
Cohen, David
Subject: August 18th City council meeting - Re- Zoning proposal- Question -11 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel To All San Jose City Council members and Mayor Mahan . My Name is Michael Bryant. I am currently the chairman of the Community Action committee for the Rancho Santa Teresa Neighborhood Association .I have been tasked to reach out to you to get information in regard to this upcoming vote on the re-zoning proposal you are considering .

Your responses to me will be shared with all homes in our association as well as all the people in Rancho Santa Teresa HOA ( 750 homes approx.)
This is 11th question that was on my original list that was sent to you all in late July . Please respond as soon as possible. I will see you all on August 18th at the meeting .

Impacts on Existing Homeowners
How will construction of three-story buildings within established single-family neighborhoods affect current residents during and after constrnction?
If an existing home becomes sun ounded by taller buildings, what will be the long-tenn impacts on:
• Privacy
• Sunlight
• Noise
• Property enjoyment
• Property values
• Existing rooftop solar systems that may become shaded This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

These are important quality-of-life considerations that deserve careful evaluation.

A Personal Perspective
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, I find myself asking whether this proposal adequately considers the interests of the residents who have invested decades in building and maintaining these neighborhoods.

These are the questions that concern me most. Before I could support a proposal of this magnitude, I would want clear, transparent, and evidence-based answers to each of them.

To be clear, this is not
intended as an endorsement of, or opposition to, the proposal. Rather, it is a request for complete, transparent information so I and all the other residents of the South San Jose & Santa Teresa neighborhoods can make informed decisions based on facts rather than assumptions.

Sincerely

Michael Bryant

Outlook
FW: Augu st 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:16 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Sue Ross
Sent: Wednesda ,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from-· Learn why this is imQortant Dear Mayor and city~
I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4- year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes-not otherwise mandated by the state-should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

Respectfully
Susan Ross
Sue Ross I Allied ASID I ID G
Susan Ross Interiors
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/ 13/2026 7:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Chris Reynolds
Sent: Wedne sday, August 12,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Dear Mayor and City Councilmembe rs,
I am writing to oppose the Planning Commission recommendation to amend the General Plan, as described in Item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.

I am not opposed to San Jose building more housing or increasing density where it can be sensibly accommodated. My concern is that this proposal combines a very substantial city wide increase in permitted density with no parking minimums and inadequate mechanisms to ensure that infrastructure and public services keep pace with the development it enables.

Increasing maximum permitted density from 8 to 32 units per acre across residential neighborhoods is an extraordinarily consequent ial change. It should be accompanied by careful planning for the cumulat ive impact on streets, parking, util ities, schools, tree canopy, police and fire services, and other publ ic infrastructure.

Instead, the proposal appears to separate the right to add substantial density from any meaningful assessment of whether a particu lar neighborhood has the resources and infrastructu re to accommodate it. Eliminating parking requirements compounds this problem. Whatever the long term goal of reducing car dependence, many San Jose households today still depend on cars for work, school and everyday life. Add ing substant ially more households while requiring no corresponding provision for parking does not eliminate those vehicles. In many neighborhoods, it simply moves them onto already constrained publ ic streets.

The comb ination is particularly concerning because these impacts are cumulative. One development may be manageable, but there appears to be no effective mechanism for saying that a street, neighborhood or piece of infrastructure has reached its practical capacity and that further density This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. should wait for additional investment. That is not sensible urban planning. It is increasing development capacity while removing many of the tools needed to manage the consequences.

I am also deeply concerned about the permanence of this decision. If, as has been explained regarding SB 330, San Jose would subsequently be constrained from reducing the residential capacity created by this upzoning, the Council should apply an exceptionally high standard before approving it. If the policy produces severe parking problems, infrastructure constraints, loss of tree canopy, inadequate emergency service capacity or other unintended consequences, future residents and councils need to retain meaningful options to address them.

San Jose can and should accommodate additional housing, but growth needs to be planned alongside the infrastructure and services required to support it. A city-wide policy that dramatically increases development capacity, requires no onsite parking and provides insufficient ability to respond to cumulative neighborhood impacts risks producing precisely the opposite of good planning.

This proposal goes beyond what San Jose is required to do under its existing Housing Element commitments and state housing mandates. There is therefore no justification for rushing into such a broad and potentially irreversible change without stronger safeguards, infrastructure planning and meaningful consideration of neighborhood level capacity.

I respectfully ask the Council to reject the Planning Commission recommendation in Item 10.3 and instead pursue an approach to additional housing that pairs appropriate density with realistic planning for parking, infrastructure, public services and the long-term livability of San Jose’s neighborhoods.

Respectfully,
Chris Reynolds

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Melissa Ab
Sent: Wedn
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from-· Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and City C~
I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

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

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods, further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Melissa Abe
District 1 Resident
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Raluca Abrahami
Sent: Wednesday, August 12,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Dear Mayor and city~
I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4- year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

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

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

Outlook
FW: 8/18/256 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Janet William s
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 20
To: City Clerk Dist rict 10
Subject: 8/18/256 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose M issing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn whY. this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor Mahan & ~
I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda for the following reasons.
• This amendment increase is above what is required by the state. • It eliminates community review & feedback. As each location will have unique settings and needs, it is irresponsible to make a blanket approval for all units. Community review is crucial. City staff & utilities services review is critical. • The plan does not require off-street parking on the site to accommodate the additional drivers per unit. As such, blanket approval will not consider traffic, parking, or VMT impacts.
• I encourage "smart growth" next to public transit corridors. This amendment is not conducive strategic growth but haphazard growth in areas that may not support additional density.
• 8B330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective
• The Grand Jury issued a report on this decline in tree canopy and the city responded at the August 11 City Council meeting. The amendment would negatively impact the City's tree canopy goals.

For these reasons, I urge you to vote against the 4-year plan amendment as described in the August 18 council agenda item 10.3.

Thank you,
Janet Williams
Glider Neighborhood Homeowner
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Sali Schille
Sent: Thursday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn why this is imP-ortant Honorable Mayor and ~rongly oppose agenda item 10.3 for the August 18 meeting. Quadrupling city-wide density to 32 units per acre with no community feedback or future reversal under SB330 permanently harms San Jose neighborhoods , worsens traffic and parking, cuts tree canopy, and overburdens municipal services.

Key Concerns
• Permanent Impact: SB330 locks in these sweeping changes forever. The city cannot fix mistakes later.
• No Public Voice: Eliminating community review removes vital local feedback on major decisions .
• Overburdened Infrastructure: Waiving parking rules worsens crowded streets and traffic.
• Environmental Strain: Losing tree cover makes warming neighborhoods hotter. • City Resources: Strained police, fire, and finances face heavier demands.

Call to Action
• Reject the planning commission recommendation as written. • Protect the current general plan and community review rights.

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

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:17 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent: Thursday,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and San Jose City Council:

I am writing to strongly OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4- year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda. The proposal is irresponsible , unfair and detrimental to the people of San Jose.

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

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking so this irresponsible recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods , further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained utilities (water, power) as well as municipal resources including police and fire.

Please do not pass this reckless recommendation.

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

Denise Leto
30+ Year San Jose Resident

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3 - August 18, 2026 - Public Comment From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:18 AM
To Agendadesk
I 1 attachment (99 KB)
WGNA General Plan Position Paper 8 12 2026.pdf;
From: WGNA
Sent: Thursday,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 10.3 - August 18, 2026 - Public Comment [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
imP-ortant
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Please find attached our position letter.

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

In community,
Maren
Maren Sederquist
Board President
Willow Glen Neighborhood Association (WGNA)
httP-s://www.wgna.net
August 12, 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
The Willow Glen Neighborhood Association, which has been actively serving our community for more than 50 years, opposes the proposal to increase residential density in single-family neighborhoods to 32 units per acre across the entire City of San José. We do not believe this approach is wise, necessary, or beneficial to the long-term quality of life that residents value and expect.

The Willow Glen Neighborhood Association supports the goals of Envision San José 2040 , which anticipated significant population growth of 400,000 people and was developed through extensive community engagement and public input. The General Plan provides a thoughtful framework for accommodating future growth while preserving the character and economic vitality of the city.

The existing General Plan prioritizes the preservation of industrial and commercial lands that generate the tax revenues necessary to fund city services and support city staff. It also seeks to improve the jobs-to-housing balance by strategically locating new housing in areas specifically planned for growth, including Downtown San José, North San José, Urban Villages, and corridors served by Fixed Rail and Bus Rapid Transit. These areas are better suited to support higher-density housing, transit use, walkability, and access to commercial amenities. They represent a deliberate and carefully planned strategy rather than imposing increased density in established neighborhoods where it has never been envisioned.

In recent years, actions by the California Legislature and Governor have significantly reduced opportunities for neighborhood input on many new development projects.

Planning staff can attest to the numerous state laws that have eliminated local discretion and accelerated housing approvals. We believe these legislative changes will result in substantially more housing production than was contemplated when the General Plan was adopted. Given these circumstances, we question the necessity of this proposal and believe it should be removed from consideration as it is a discretionary decision rather than mandated.

We understand and share the desire to expand housing opportunities and address affordability challenges. However, the City has limited ability to influence the primary factors affecting housing production, including interest rates, construction material costs, labor costs, and land values. Great cities are shaped through thoughtful planning and disciplined implementation. Sometimes patience is required to ensure growth occurs in the right locations and in a manner consistent with long-term community goals.

While the Planning Commission approved this proposal, it is important to remember that commissioners are appointed, not elected. As elected representatives, you have a unique responsibility to understand and represent the concerns of your constituents. We respectfully ask that you carefully consider the views of existing San José residents and the community-supported vision embodied in the General Plan before making a decision on this proposal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Willow Glen Neighborhood Association
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 7:23 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Karen Todd
Sent: Thursday, Aug s 13, 20
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from- · Learn whY. this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and city~
We are writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes-not otherwise mandated by the state-should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods, further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

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

Outlook
FW:

From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/ 2026 8:14 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Karen Ross
Sent: Thursday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject:
[External Email. Do not open links or attachmen ts from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Dear Mayor and City C~
I am writing to oppose the planning commission's recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan, as detailed in agenda item 10.3 for the August 18 council agenda.

I empathize with the need to make housing more affordable in San Jose. However, quadrupling the maximum housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre city-wide is extreme. Because SB330 prevents any future reversal of this up-zoning, such far-reaching changes should not be implemented without the ability to reconsider them.

Furthermore , this proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Law requirements. By eliminating onsite parking mandates, it will increase traffic congestion, reduce tree cover in neighborhoods , worsen the city's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and overextend strained police, fire, and city resources.

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

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 9:05 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent: Thursday,
To: City Clerk
Cc: Dunmyer
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is imi;iortant Dear Mayor and city council:

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

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

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods, further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Bill and Judy Dunmyer

San Jose City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026