Letters from the Public - 5 of 14 — San Jose City Council, August 18, 2026

Outl ook
FW: "Augu st 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middl e Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 9:14 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Ronna Shpall
Sent: Thursday, Auqus
To: Ortiz, Peter
Anthony
Kamei, R
Casey, G
Doming Doan, Bien <
Michael City Clerk
Subject: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
I oppose the" Missing Middle Proposal."
Ronna Shpall
Learn why this is important at
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outl ook
FW: Vote on densifying neighborhoods
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 9:18 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Stetkevich
Sent: Thursday, A g s
To: City Clerk
Subject: Vote on densifying neighborhoods
[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 imr;iortant Dear Mayor and City C~
Please vote no on the Planning Commission plan to density residential neighborhoods in San Jose. Their plan is haphazard and severe and will harm residential neighborhood s throughout the city. Find a way to compromise that would blend in with single family zones and would match the scale,height and setbacks of typical houses. I believe this is possible.

Sincerely
lhor Stetkevich
Cory resident
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: We oppose dense housing in R-1 neighborhoods in San Jose From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 10:06 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Timothy Lavelle <
Sent: Thursday, Auqust 13,
To: City Clerk District 6
Subject: We oppose dense housing in R-1 neighborhoods in San Jose [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: City Council Meeting, 8/18, Item 10.3 (General Plan) From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 10:06 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Tobin Gilman
Sent: Thursday, Auqus
To: City Clerk
District1 <
<
Subject: City Council Meeting, 8/18, Item 10.3 (General Plan) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] I've been following the city's steady path toward eliminating single family zoning since 2020 when the Envision 2040 General Plan Task force first proposed "Opportunity Housing." That proposal was preempted by SB9 and related bills that have been signed into law at the state level.

It's disappointing that city leaders on the council and Intergovernmental Relations bureaucrats who pay lip service to the notion of local control over zoning and planning have done nothing to push back against draconian state mandates.

Only one council member over the past 6 years has lifted a finger to fight for local control. As a former board member of Families & Homes, I'd like publicly express my gratitude to former CM Dev Davis for her efforts to try and prevent the destruction of single family neighborhoods.

Council member Davis was only CM who vocally opposed SB9, and the only one to sponsor a memo urging the council to support a 2022 statewide ballot initiative that would have preserved local control over zoning and planning decisions.

CM Davis also coordinated the citywide signature gathering effort for that initiative and spent a number of chilly November and December afternoons gathering signatures in front of shopping centers with Families & Homes volunteers. We appreciate that.

If this council had joined CM Davis and been willing to stand up to Sacramento in defense of our neighborhoods, this afternoon’s discussion on standards for implementing extreme housing densification might never have been necessary.

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

Outlook
FW: 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal" From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 10:07 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Grace Vaccaro
Sent: Thursday, Augus
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Subject: 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal" Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from-· learn whY. th is is imJ;!ortant I am totally against this p~menta l to the neighborhood, Parking, congestion, safety, ect.

What are you thinking? Are you thinking?
I think I will buy the property next to you and build one of these units. How would you like that? Yom home values would be dramatically affected.

Please reconsider your proposal.

It's a good JifeJ
Grace Vaccaro
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Oppose The General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 10:08 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe----
From: Peter Soule
Sent: Thursday, Auqus
To: City Clerk
Cc: Jan Soule Peter Soule
Subject: Oppose The General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httQs://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don 't often get email from
httQs://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
August 13th 2026
Dear San Jose City Clerk:

Learn why this is important at
I strongly oppose The General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal.

I am opposed to this measure that allows 3-story apartment building on land that is zoned R-1. It allows a large 3-story apartment building with no on-site parking, drastically reduced setbacks, no pubic input, no hearing, no Planning Commission or Council vote. It is a violation of the public trust. We bought our homes with R-1 zoning with the understanding that that would continue. But now you want to take that away from us homeowners!
Please vote no on this measure!
Peter and Jan Soule
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Jeff Santucci - Winchester Boulevard Corridor - Item 10.3, August 18, 2026 City Council Page 1 August 13, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
San Jose City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, California 95113
Re: Item 10.3, File 26-852, General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework, Winchester Boulevard Corridor land use and zoning changes (staff recommendation 1.a.iii, Exhibit A), City Council hearing August 18, 2026
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
I am writing regarding the General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework scheduled for Council action on August 18, 2026, specifically the proposed land use and zoning changes for the Winchester Boulevard Corridor that the Planning Commission considered on June 24. I wrote to Councilmember Casey's office on these points on August 3 and am submitting this letter to the Clerk for the record.

I am a longtime resident of the Cory neighborhood. My perspective comes from the construction side. I have spent roughly thirty years scheduling high-density multifamily projects for Bay Area general contractors.

I support adding housing along Winchester. What a parcel faces, and what sits on it today, should inform how it is designated. Based on those conditions, some of the proposed designations appear appropriately calibrated and others warrant revision.

The Planning Commission forwarded no recommendation on this item. On June 24, the motion to approve the staff recommendation as written failed 5-6. A motion to replace Urban Residential with Mixed Use Neighborhood on all seven parcels, which would have established the same 50 du/ac and five-story limit I recommend, also failed 5-6. Two additional motions addressing 826 N. Winchester failed 3-8 and 5-6. Council is therefore receiving a divided record and will need to determine the appropriate parcel-level density and height limits directly.

The two designations would meet at 50 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission approved Items 1.a.i and 1.a.ii by an 11-0 vote, recommending that Mixed Use Neighborhood be revised to 20 to 50 du/ac at four to five stories and Urban Residential to 50 to 95 du/ac. Mixed Use Neighborhood would therefore allow substantial redevelopment at a scale better suited to the size, configuration, and surrounding conditions of these parcels.

During the Commission discussion, staff was asked to compare the two designations on a one-acre parcel assuming a 50 percent density bonus. Staff estimated approximately 100 dwelling units under Mixed Use Neighborhood and approximately 200 under Urban Residential. The same state density bonus framework applies regardless of which base Council selects. The base density is the figure Council controls in this decision.

Santana Terrace, at 190 N. Winchester Boulevard in Santa Clara, shows what is achievable at the upper end of Mixed Use Neighborhood. Completed in 2020, it contains 92 units at 49.5 du/ac. It demonstrates that Mixed Use Neighborhood can support substantial multifamily housing at essentially the boundary Jeff Santucci - Winchester Boulevard Corridor - Item 10.3, August 18, 2026 City Council Page 2 between the two designations.

Seven parcels in the Winchester package are proposed for Urban Residential. Six of those seven carry Neighborhood/Community Commercial designations today, and one is designated Residential Neighborhood at 8 du/ac. In each case Urban Residential is a substantial jump from the current designation. Mixed Use Neighborhood is the proportionate step, and it still adds significant capacity on every one of these parcels. My comments address the seven in four groups.

Forest Avenue
APNs 274-47-074 and 274-47-075, at 2467-2477 and 2485 Forest Avenue, are a restaurant and a small shopping center facing the Westfield Valley Fair parking structure. The frontage supports added intensity, and I do not raise the same residential interface concern here that I raise elsewhere in this letter. The parcels themselves are small, each well under half an acre. Mixed Use Neighborhood would allow each to redevelop at a scale its dimensions support while still providing substantially higher density within the four- to five-story MUN range. Further down Forest the properties transition to small businesses in converted single-family houses, and those parcels are proposed for no change. I would ask that staff address stand-alone development capacity for each parcel during the zoning ordinance phase.
690 N. Winchester Boulevard
APN 274-47-077 sits opposite Santana Terrace, the 92-unit project built at 49.5 du/ac. Mixed Use Neighborhood is more consistent with the substantial multifamily scale already built directly across the street.
580, 600, and 650 N. Winchester Boulevard
APNs 274-47-069, 274-47-072, and 274-47-076 back onto single-family homes on side streets off Winchester, presenting side and rear fences to the corridor. That is a buffered condition rather than a front-facing one, but it remains a single-family edge, and each of these parcels carries a Neighborhood/Community Commercial designation today. Mixed Use Neighborhood follows that existing pattern and calibrates the intensity to what sits behind it. 826 N. Winchester Boulevard
APN 274-50-061 is the parcel most ready for redevelopment. The existing building is vacant and fire-damaged, and the site has already been the subject of a high-rise proposal that generated substantial neighborhood opposition. The issue is therefore not whether this property should redevelop. It should.

The question is which designation is most likely to produce a project that can move forward. Urban Residential allows the scale that generated strong neighborhood opposition. Mixed Use Neighborhood would allow substantial housing at up to 50 du/ac and five stories, while keeping the project within a range the surrounding neighborhood is more likely to support.

The parcel also has an irregular flag-lot configuration around the recently constructed two-story veterinary building at the corner. Most of its frontage is on W. Hedding Street, directly across from and adjacent to single-family homes, with limited frontage on Winchester Boulevard itself. That is a residential connection rather than a corridor one, and it is the kind of edge Mixed Use Neighborhood is built to work with.

Jeff Santucci - Winchester Boulevard Corridor - Item 10.3, August 18, 2026 City Council Page 3 The parcels immediately adjoining 826 reinforce the point. 824 N. Winchester and the 840-860 N.

Winchester property are both Neighborhood/Community Commercial today, and Exhibit A proposes no change to either. 826 carries the same designation today and is the only one of the three proposed for Urban Residential at 85 feet. It is also the most constrained of the three. The corner property at 824, which is buffered from the single-family homes in part by the 826 flag lot itself, is proposed for no change.

I support using transit access as a reason to add housing in this area. Transit access alone does not explain why these parcels require Urban Residential rather than Mixed Use Neighborhood, since both designations would place substantial new housing within the same corridor and general transit context.

I ask that Council:
1 Cap the seven parcels proposed for Urban Residential at no more than 50 dwelling units per acre and five stories, consistent with the Mixed Use Neighborhood limit: APNs 274-47-069, 274-47-072, 274-47-074, 274-47-075, 274-47-076, 274-47-077, and 274-50-061. 2 If Council is not prepared to apply that limit to all seven parcels, cap APN 274-50-061, 826 N.

Winchester Boulevard, at no more than 50 dwelling units per acre and five stories. The property is ready for redevelopment, but its irregular configuration and the history of opposition to a substantially larger proposal support a scale that can attract broader community support and move forward.
3 Before selecting Urban Residential for any of these parcels, require staff to provide the parcel acreage, realistic housing capacity at the Mixed Use Neighborhood limit and under Urban Residential, and the parcel-specific criteria supporting the additional intensity.

The staff estimate given to the Commission was a citywide illustration on a hypothetical one-acre parcel. Council should have the same comparison for each of these seven parcels at their actual sizes and configurations, along with the criteria that distinguish them from the adjoining properties proposed for no change.

The question is not whether Winchester should accommodate more housing. It should. The question is whether any of these parcels warrants density or height above the Mixed Use Neighborhood limit of 50 dwelling units per acre and five stories.

I have reviewed the staff memorandum and Exhibit A as posted for the August 18 hearing and confirmed the parcel list is unchanged from the June 24 version. I plan to attend the hearing. I am available to any Council office by email or phone if a discussion of the parcel-level analysis would be useful beforehand.

Sincerely,
Jeff Santucci
San Jose, California

We fully endorse the thoughtful and comprehensive recommendations contained in the letter of opposition from our colleagues at VEP Community Association, contents of which are copied below.

Respectfully submitted,

John Leipelt
Chairman
District 2 Neighborhood Leadership Council

cc:

Hon. Rosemary Kamei, District 1
Hon. Pamela Campos, District 2
Hon. Anthony Tordillos, District 3
Hon. David Cohen, District 4
Hon. Peter Ortiz, District 5
Hon. Michael Mulcahy, District 6
Hon. Ben Doan, District 7
Hon. Domingo Candelas, District 8
Hon. Pam Foley, District 9
Hon. George Casey, District 10
Jennifer Maguire, City Manager
Toni Taber, City Clerk

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Text of letter to Council from VEP Community Association)

Letter to Council

Re: Proposed Changes to the General Plan Before City Council

Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Alain Mowad
President
VEP Community Association

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

The City population is currently growing at a very slow pace, if at all. Changes of this magnitude are unnecessary at this time.

2. Upzoning is irreversible
SB330 makes it illegal for a jurisdiction to downzone.

State laws such as SB9, SB79, SB1123, etc., already incentivize the development of housing.

The propose upzoning jeopardize the quality of life for many of the City's long term residents.

3. Poorly deﬁned density bonus waiver process
The current approach leaves waiver decisions ad hoc and vulnerable to inconsistent application. The Council should require clear, objective waiver criteria and a standardized administrative process so that waivers are predictable, transparent, and limited to cases that demonstrably meet the statutory “physically preclude” test.

4. Ministerial approval for major changes is inappropriate.

Allowing ministerial approval for projects that materially change neighborhood scale removes essential discretionary review and public input. Projects that exceed local thresholds for units, height, or massing should require discretionary review so that community impacts can be fully considered and mitigated.

5. Parking
The City's waiving of parking requirements can be an incredible burden on its citizens. Many neighborhoods face parking and trash removal problems. Individuals need their cars to navigate our transit poor City. Council should direct staﬀ to develop parking standards that mitigate the impacts of development while still encouraging alternative means of transportation.

6. Public outreach
The City's outreach program did not match the scale of the changes being proposed. A comprehensive outreach eﬀort was needed to inform the City's residents of the dramatic changes being recommended.

Announcements concerning the General Plan 4-year Review process were not present on the City's website. The City's homepage and the Planning Department's home page should have had banners announcing the General Plan review process. Notifying City residents that dramatic land use changes are being proposed.

Best regards,
Bob Levy
Chair, District 1 Leadership Group

Agenda Item 10.3
Honorable Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers,
The Steering Committee of the District 1 Leadership Group (D1LG) is extremely concerned with the recommendations proposed for the General Plan update. We believe the extensive upzoning being recommended is unnecessary and jeopardizes the quality of life in our neighborhoods. We recognize that the City is facing a housing shortfall and support incentives for housing, but the remedies recommended go too far. Aggressive State legislation (SB9, SB10, SB79, SB1123, SB330, etc.) combined with moderate measures will provide the incentives necessary to encourage development. San Jose's population declined 3% between 2013-2023. We strongly encourage the Council not to implement drastic and irreversible upzoning measures at this time.

1. The upzoning of the Residential Neighborhood District to allow by right up 32 units per acre jeopardizes existing neighborhoods and the quality of life for the City's long term residents
o Existing State laws such as SB9, SB1123, etc. already support additional density within single family residential neighborhoods. o The upzoning in combination with State mandated density bonuses could allow for up to 56 DU/acre. This scale of development is totally inappropriate in the City's single family residential neighborhoods.

2. Upzoning is irreversible
o SB330 makes it illegal for a jurisdiction to downzone. o State laws such as SB9, SB79, SB1123, etc., already incentivize the development of housing.
o The propose upzoning jeopardize the quality of life for many of the City's long term residents.
o The City population is currently growing at a very slow pace, if at all. Changes of this magnitude are unnecessary at this time.

3. Poorly deﬁned density bonus waiver process
o The current approach leaves waiver decisions ad hoc and vulnerable to inconsistent application. The Council should require clear, objective waiver criteria and a standardized administrative process so that waivers are predictable, transparent, and limited to cases that demonstrably meet the statutory “physically preclude” test.

4. Ministerial approval for major changes is inappropriate. o Allowing ministerial approval for projects that materially change neighborhood scale removes essential discretionary review and public input.

Projects that exceed local thresholds for units, height, or massing should require discretionary review so that community impacts can be fully considered and mitigated.

6. Parking
o The City's waiving parking requirements can be an incredible burden on its citizens. Many neighborhoods face parking and trash removal problems. Individuals need their cars to navigate our transit poor City. Council should direct staff to develop parking standards that mitigate the impacts of development while still encouraging alternative means of transportation.

6. Public outreach
o The City's outreach program did not match the scale of the changes being proposed. A comprehensive outreach effort was needed to inform the City's residents of the dramatic changes being recommended.
o Announcements concerning the General Plan 4-year Review process were not present on the City's website. The City's homepage and the Planning Department's home page should have had banners announcing the General Plan review process. Notifying City residents that dramatic land use changes are being proposed.

Best regards,
Bob Levy
Chair, District 1 Leadership Group

1 The Honorable Matt Mahan, Mayor of San José,
and Members of the San José Council
via email, sent Aug. 13, 2026
Subject: August 18, 2026, agenda, Item 10.3: General Plan Update Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
We in the District 6 Neighborhood Leaders Group (D6NLG), a decades-old association of involved community representatives of the numerous District 6 neighborhoods and associations, are dedicated to preserving and enhancing the quality of life in a sustainable and equitable San José. We have a long history of supporting the implementation of the focused residential growth policies of Envision 2040 General Plan.

District 6 is the home to some of the first “transitional growth” neighborhoods – Delmas Park and Midtown – and the first urban villages – The Alameda and West San Carlos. Many of our residential neighborhoods (RN) are sprinkled with “missing middle” structures from 1910 to the 1970s. Infill projects on larger lots have long been integrated into our District.

We believe San José can accommodate additional housing while still maintaining a transparent, predictable, and accountable planning process. Growth and neighborhood preservation are not opposing goals.

1. Significant additional outreach and community participation is needed. Staff’s recommendations are transformative changes that upend the goals and policies of the “Envision 2040” General Plan. The lack of meaningful and comprehensive outreach and community participation about these specific General Plan changes is a major short-coming. From the General Plan itself, “high-quality outreach and community participation
• provides adequate time and opportunities for early engagement when community members may have the greatest ability to impact outcomes;
• seeks to resolve community concerns in advance of a public hearing on a topic; and • offers San José’s diverse community opportunities to shape public policy and land use decisions.”

2. The proposed Housing Element update assumes continued growth, even as San José’s population has stabilized at 0.1% growth. We recognize the City wishes to be prepared for future State Housing Element requirements, but we should do so in a manner that is consistent with the City's General Plan and that allows the City to plan for growth intentionally through focused growth rather than haphazardly. The State of California has passed many housing laws in recent years. Staff’s current efforts have been focused on a possible high RHNA number, but the State will not issue new RHNA numbers until mid-2029 – in an environment of low or no population growth. Staff should prepare a “low RHNA” alternative along with this “high RHNA” plan for community and Council evaluation.

3. Upzoning cannot be withdrawn once approved. We recommend an incremental approach to changes to the General Plan, and to use the biennial General Plan process to make subsequent changes. The City should implement new State laws (SB 9, SB 1123, SB 79 et al) and proactively educate the community and developers on their impacts. If the City simply implements State law, San José will generate housing with more of the units aligned with the transportation and environmental goals in the current General Plan.

4. North Winchester/Forest Ave.: We do not support Urban Residential (UR) at 826 Winchester Blvd. The Envision 2040 General Plan rejected this segment of North Winchester from the Urban Village since it was disconnected from the rest of the boulevard, did not have a major transit stop, and was across from the City of Santa Clara. The specific parcel at 826 is irregular, has a short frontage, and intrudes into a single- family neighborhood. A tower concept was rejected by Council in June 2025 and also drew criticism from the Mayor and Vice Mayor of Santa Clara. “This proposal does not reflect sound, balanced planning for a

Outl ook
FW: Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 3:23 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Sally Grenfell
Sent: Thursday, Auqus 13,
To: City Clerk
Cc: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httQs://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don 't often get email from
httQs://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
I oppose "The Missing Middle" proposal. San Jose may need more housing but this proposal goes above and beyond what the state requires. Make our communities better not worse. Be responsible and do not ruin our city!!
San Jose Voter and tax payer,
Sally Grenfell
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council meeting - agenda item 10.3, file number 26-852 From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 3:23 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Nick Cochran
Sent: Thursday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council meeting - agenda item 10.3, file number 26-852 [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 During the 45 years I've lived in San Jose, there have been many decisions made by the City Council with which I have not agreed but have always been able to understand, if not appreciate, opposing points of view - at least until now.

The planning commission 's recent 9-2 decision to effectively nullify the Envision San Jose 2040 plan by recommending dramatic upzoning UNIFORMLY across ALL residential neighborhoods is dumbfounding , irresponsible and, in my view, a complete abdication of the assenting commissioners ' duty and responsibility to the residents of San Jose.

Quite frankly, I'm ashamed and embarrassed at being put in a position of having to voice my vehement objection to this boneheaded policy recommendation . I don't recall "common sense" being given a leave of absence.

I trust that common sense will return and hereby implore the City Council to UNANIMOUSLY to reject the Planning Commission's recommendation.

Respectfully,
Nicholas C. Cochran
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
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 3:23 PM
To Agendadesk
From: J'Carlin
Sent: Thursday,
To: City Clerk
Cc: The Office f
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
Kamei, Rosemary
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Greetings Mayor Mahan, Council member Kamei, and Council members.

As a retired Urban Planner, I am a long term advocate for urban villages, transit oriented development, and in general appropriate high density housing projects. Agenda item 10.3 is particularly bad urban planning. I even strongly advocate for reduced parking and unbundled parking in larger developments. The no on-site parking requirement in single family neighborhoods is a deal breaker alone. Single family developments have historically planned limited vehicle access and limited street parking. 10.3 is guarantee of horrible neighborhood school hour gridlock. Please delete this Item with prejudice. It has no redeeming features. It will do nothing for the housing supply. Only intelligent high density development will do that.

I agree completely with the following argument.

On August 18, the San Jose City Council will vote on a "Missing Middle" proposal that would permanently allow up to 16+ units on single-family lots citywide tied to lot size - beyond any Housing Element commitment or state requirement. It also exceeds the density allowed in single-family neighborhoods elsewhere in Santa Clara County.

The proposal would allow by-right development, eliminate public hearings and neighborhood input, while permitting three-story buildings with no on-site parking requirement.

This sweeping change could worsen San Jose's jobs-to-housing imbalance, increase fiscal pressure on city services and increase traffic, emissions, and vehicle miles traveled-making the City's Climate Smart goals harder to achieve.

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

San José needs more housing, but it also needs responsible planning. The City Council should reject this proposal and pursue housing solutions that protect neighborhoods, strengthen the City's finances, and balances housing with jobs.

Carlin Black
D1 SanJose

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 3:24 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Donna Garbe
Sent: Thursda
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
Ca delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from-· Learn whY. this is imP.ortant I strongly OPPOSE the ~wide "Missing Middle" housing proposal that allows 3-story apartment buildings with 16+ units to be built on any residential lot, with no on-site parking, drastically reduced setbacks, and by-right approval-no public input, no hearings, no Planning Commission or Council vote.

My neighborhood is already being negatively impacted by the volume of ADU's and multiple homes being built on what used to be a single family lot. Parking is very difficult and this new proposal will just continue to make it worse.

Don't destroy our neighborhoods thereby creating a new problem. Overcrowding and property values decreasing.

Please reconsider this detrimental proposal.

Regards,
Donna Garber
Outlook
FW: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning.

From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 3:25 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Heather Lang
Sent: Thursday, Aug
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide "M issing M iddle" upzoning. [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed citywide "Missing Middle 11 upzoning.

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

Please vote NO on this proposal.

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

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Heather
Heather Lange Homes of Intero
Please excuse any typos
Sent from my iPhone

Outlook
Fw: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 4:35 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax:408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Luann Abrahams
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 3:36 PM
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 I am very concerned about this proposal, which would drastically impact quality of life and resale values for many San Jose property owners. It is a short-sighted remedy to a complicated problem. I'm certain most homeowners have no idea the City is considering this. Please do not sign away future opportunities for common-sense solutions by adopting this unprecedented change.

The proposal would allow by-right development , eliminate public hearings and neighborhood input, while permitting three-story buildings with no on-site parking requirement.

San Jose needs more housing, but it also needs responsible planning. The City Council should reject this proposal and pursue housing solutions that protect neighborhoods , strengthen the City's finances , and balances housing with jobs.

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

Luann Abrahams

Outlook
Fw: Opposition to Proposed Citywide "missing middle" upzoning framework From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 4:35 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax:408 -292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Ali Kiehn
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 3:45 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
District2 ◄
◄
◄
strictl
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Citywide "missing middle" upzoning framework [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor Matt Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council, District4
District7
I am writing to express my strong opposition to moving forward with the proposed citywide "missing middle" up zoning framework. I do not believe that broadly increasing density throughout established residential neighborhoods is the appropriate solution. San Jose's own description of the proposal indicates that it could allow for 4 to 10 units, which is a huge departure from the existing development patters found in many neighborhoods.

If passed, increasing density will alter the character, scale and feel of established residential neighbor hoods that were built 50+ years ago. Secondly, accommodating significantly more households requires careful consideration of the cumulative effects on parking, traffic, infrastructure, and neighborhood services. As homeowners, we have invested a lot of money into our homes with the understanding of the existing character and land use. The potential effects on surrounding properties and property values should be carefully evaluated before making such sweeping changes. I keep hearing about how the enrollment in schools is going down and public schools are closing. Is housing actually an issue?
San Jose should seek to create additional housing thoughtfully while also respecting current residents and neighborhoods. I urge the City Council to not pursue a blanket citywide approach.

Please vote NOT on advancing this proposal.

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

Sincerely,
Ali Kiehn

Outlook
FW: High density housing
From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/ 13/2026 4:36 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Shyam Rao
Sent: Thursday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: High density housing
Campo s, Pamela
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imP.ortant Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express concern about the rapid increase in residential density without the infrastructure needed to support it. Our existing systems-libraries , parks, police, fire, roads, water, power, and sewer-are already strained, and adding more units will only deepen these challenges.

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

Parking remains a major issue. New multi-unit developments require no on-site parking, pushing all vehicles onto already crowded streets. I experience this on my street. Vehicles from an apartment building 4 blocks away often resort to parking on my street. On garbage and recycling days, multi-unit buildings place multiple carts and dumpsters at the curb, which may require permanent "No Parking" signage and further reduce available parking.

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

Thank you for your attention.

Outlook
FW: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 4:36 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Sarah Moyle
Sent: Thursday, Au
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Leam why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning.

Housing policy should be thoughtful and balanced, with meaningful consideration given to the homeowners and residents who have invested in these communities. A change of this magnitude should not be implemented broadly without adequate neighborhood input and careful consideration of its long-term impacts. Many San Jose homeowners will be reliant upon the value of their property to support their retirement, which could be substantially negatively impacted by these kinds of infill developments.

Please vote NO on this woosal. I think that you may not have been receiving much negative feedback on this proposal because many of us in San Jose had the understanding that the housing plan the City had submitted and gotten approved by the State had eliminated this kind of zoning violation, and was protecting our single family home neighborhood areas from this. I don't think it has been well advertised that the City was still considering allowing these kinds of high-density properties to be placed within single family home zones.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

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

Sarah Moyles
San Jose, CA 95112

Outlook
FW: NO on proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 4:47 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Holly Stump
Sent: Thursday, Aug s
To: Holly Stump
Subject: NO on proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council , District4
District?
District 10
I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework.

I recognize San Jose's need for additional housing, but I do not believe broadly increasing density within established residential neighborhoods is the right solution. The City itself describes Missing Middle housing under consideration as allowing 4 to 10 units, a substantial change from the existing development pattern of many neighborhoods.

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

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Holly Stump
Outlook
Fw: OPPOSE council agenda item 10.3 General Plan for Four Year Review Policy From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/13/2026 4:35 PM
To Agendadesk
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax:408 -292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Penny Olson
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 3:25 PM
To: City Clerk
District3
District 6
District9
. . . .

Subject: OPPOSE council agenda item 10.3 General Plan for Four Year Review Policy [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and City Councilmembers,
Districtl
District4
District7
District 10
As a San Jose property tax-paying citizen, I urge you to reject the "Missing Middle" proposal because the consequences of this decision will fall directly on residents, taxpayers, and already strained City services. Approving substantially greater density without corresponding requirements for infrastructure, parking, transportation capacity, or fiscal sustainability risks This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. worsening traffic, neighborhood parking, emissions, service demands, and the City’s jobs-to-housing imbalance.

If these impacts result in higher costs, declining service levels, or additional financial burdens on taxpayers, the Council will be accountable for having approved a permanent citywide policy without adequate safeguards. Once widespread redevelopment occurs, its effects on neighborhoods and infrastructure cannot simply be undone by a future Council
.

Please reject this proposal and insist on a housing strategy that adds housing while protecting San José’s fiscal health, infrastructure, and long-term quality of life.

Sincerely,
Penny Olson
A Concerned San José Property Taxpayer

Outl ook
FW: NO Missing Middle Upzoning
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:37 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Natasha Orozco
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 5:13 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
◄
◄
.

Subject: NO Missing Middle Upzoning
strictl
District4
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is imP-ortant Dear Mayor Mahan an em ers o e an ose City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework. I recognize San Jose's need for additional housing, but I do not believe broadly increasing density within established residential neighborhoods is the right solution. The City itself describes Missing Middle housing under consideration as allowing 4 to 10 units, a substantial change from the existing development pattern of many neighborhoods. My concerns are straightforward. First, significantly increasing allowable density can fundamentally change the character and scale of established residential neighborhoods. Second, adding substantially more households should require careful consideration of the cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood services. Third, homeowners have invested significant amounts of their savings and income based in part on the existing character and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods. Potential impacts on surrounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules are broadly changed. Housing policy should add housing thoughtfully while respecting the people and neighborhoods already here. I urge you not to advance a blanket citywide approach and to pursue more targeted housing solutions with meaningful neighborhood input. Please vote NO on advancing this proposal. Thank you for considering my concerns.

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

Outlook
FW: "August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middl e Proposal"
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:38 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Jaysh Rao
Sent: Thursday, A g s
Cohen, David
Campos, Pamela
Mahan, Matt
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: "August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal" [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is imgortant Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express concern about the rapid increase in residential density without the infrastructure needed to support it. Our existing systems-libraries, parks, police, fire, roads, water, power, and sewer-are already strained, and adding more units will only deepen these challenges.

Parking remains a major issue. New multi-unit developments require no on-site parking, pushing all vehicles onto already crowded streets. On garbage and recycling days, multi-unit buildings place multiple carts and dumpsters at the curb, which may require permanent "No Parking " signage and further reduce available parking.

I respectfully urge the Council to ensure infrastructure, emergency services, and transportation systems are expanded before approving additional density.

Sustainable growth requires planning that protects both current and future residents.

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

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Jayshree Reddy

Outlook
FW:: Request to Require Parking as a Condition of Approval for New Housing From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:39 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Andrea Ator
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 6:20 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
◄
◄
.
strictl
District4
Subject: Re: : Request to Require Parking as a Condition of Approval for New Housing [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 For clarity, this is reque~n Missing Middle framework.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Thursday, August 13, 2026, 6: 11 PM, Andrea Ator- > wrote:

Dear Mayor and San Jose City Council,
I am writing to strongly oppose new housing developments being approved with zero parking, and to respectfully request that you use your authority to require parking and to limit the# of stories to 3 as it will lead to overcrowding.

I understand the need to address housing affordability, but zero-parking developments are creating serious and preventable problems for our workers, businesses , neighborhoods, and for public safety.

1. It harms residents who drive for a living.

Many residents in our community work as Uber and Lyft drivers. This is their livelihood. If their building provides no parking , where are they supposed to park their own car? Without a place to park, they cannot work.

2. It prevents landscapers and other essential workers from doing their jobs.

Our neighborhoods depend on landscapers and other service providers who arrive with trucks, trailers, and equipment. When developments have no on- site parking, everyone is forced onto the street and our streets become completely full. Landscapers cannot park, cannot unload their tools, and cannot work.

3. It creates problems for home maintenance and harms our green spaces.

When streets are overcrowded, residents have nowhere to place their yard trimmings and green waste bins for pickup. Over time, people will stop maintaining and landscaping their homes because they cannot get service.

This means fewer trees and less grass, which ruins the natural beauty of our neighborhoods and removes habitat that birds, bees, and wildlife depend on.

4. It will cause city tax revenue to go down.

When small businesses, landscapers, and drivers cannot do their jobs because there is nowhere to park, they lose income. When they lose income, the city loses sales tax and business tax revenue. This policy directly hurts local businesses and reduces the funding for city services.

5. It is pushing parking into business lots and creating conflict and vandalism.

As documented in a recent article, residents from zero-parking developments are now forced to park at nearby businesses like Black Angus because they have no other option. As a result, Black Angus customers are unable to park.

This has led to irate and frustrated residents and patrons, confrontations, and vandalism. Our local businesses should not have to pay the price for housing that was built without parking.

6. The City Council still has the power to act.

I understand that the State no longer requires a parking mandate for certain housing. However, even though the State does not require it, you as our City Council still have the authority to make adequate parking a requirement or a clause in the development agreement before you approve a project. You can make parking a condition of approval to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our community. I am asking you to please exercise that authority.

We can and should support affordable housing while also requiring responsible, common-sense parking. I urge you to include a parking requirement in every development contract going forward.

Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.

Sincerely,
Andrea Ator
Outlook
FW: 8/18/2026 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 10.3 Missing Middle General Plan Recommendation
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:39 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Hope Jukl
Sent: Thursday, A g s
To: City Clerk
Subject: 8/18/2026 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 10.3 Missing Middle General Plan Recommendation [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 name is Hope Jukl, an~e San Jose resident and voter. I urge the Mayor and City Council to REJECT the Task Force recommendation for citywide Missing Middle up-zoning. State mandates under SB 79 and Urban Village plans already meet our regional housing goals. Unchecked, 'by right' up-zoning with zero parking requirements and zero public oversight will strain our infrastructure, increase fire safety risks, and haim our neighborhoods. Stick to state minimums and protect San Jose's residential communitie s."
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Missing in the middle
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:39 AM
To Agendadesk
Subject: Missing in the middle
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Hello All-
. Learn whY. th is is imi;iortant
I am writing to you about your disgusting proposed "missing in the middle" housing plan. I live in Willow Glen and chose to live in that area because it is traditionally a single family housing neighborhood. It is already being destroyed by the current permitting laws, developers building apartment complexes where duplexes were, mcmansions that take up every possible square footage of the lot that stick out like sore thumbs and several homes when one once stood.These mcmansions are taking away any privacy of the neighboring residents who already live there, many for decades. They now have windows looking into their house or yards and have their own house or yard due to the mcmansions outside lights every where lighting up bedrooms, living rooms, etc like the 4th of July. This neighborhood is already suffering with this and then there is the extra traffic and the idiots that come with it on our narrow roads. Now you think you want to ruin our traditional single family home neighborhoods with apartment building where ever the spirit moves you to put one? NO. Again , those of us who live here do so because we chose to live in a single family dwelling neighborhood, not one full of apartment buildings. Do you want want next to your home? Do you want the extra traffic and the noise that comes with them? I'd bet not.

San Jose is one of the most expensive places to live in the country. I'd bet Willow Glen is at the top of San Jose's most expensive neighborhoods list. The residents here do not pay top dollar to be next to or surrounded by apartment buildings.

Also, people are leaving California by the hundreds of thousands because of it's insane laws and policies (like this one) and there are already countless large high density housing projects that have been and are being built in the city/county. Just who do you think you are going to get to live in these apartment complexes? I have friends all around the world and NO ONE wants to move to California because of ridiculous plans like your "meet in the middle".

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

I'll be blunt and risk being tacky, take your "missing in the middle" plans and stick them where the sun doesn't shine. Leave our neighborhoods alone. Is that clear enough for you?

Sincerely,

Karen Oie
34 year resident of San Jose/Willow Glen

Outlook
FW: housing reasonably or unreasonably
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:39 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Suzanne Morrone
Sent: Thursday, Auqust 13,
Gvatua, Alexander
The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: housing reasonably or unreasonably
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
We all agree we need more housing, but how do we retain the integrity of our older, unique neighborhoods while planning for reasonable growth?
City
I completely and utterly oppose the plan that will allow multi -story building being plopped down in the middle of residential areas without allowing input from the residents, without taking parking. without the tree canopy, and many other important environmental issues into consideration. Once destroyed, these things can not be regained.

Do not vote to move forward without allowing US, the people who have voted you in, to have a voice.

I completely oppose this plan that is coming before you on Tuesday.

Thank you for considering my viewpoint.

Suzanne Morrone
District 3
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted Outlook
FW: Oppose Missing middle upzoning
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:39 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Neelakandan Rajesh
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 20
To: District 6 City Clerk
Subject: Oppose Missing middle upzoning
[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 Hi,
My name is Rajesh, Neelakandan living at
"missing middle upzoning" propositions th . :u •• - .•• San Jose, CA 95126. I oppose the
n August 17-18
Thanks
Rajesh
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: A Snapshot from Councilmember Kamei
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/ 2026 7:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Donna Blink
Sent: Thursday, Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: A Snapshot from Councilmember Kamei
[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 Please make sure this ~e record as opposing the upzoning of residential lots as part of the August 18 Council Meeting / Four Year Review Task Force.

Thank you,
Donna Blink
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Donna Blink
Date: Auqust 13, 20
To:

SubJec: e:

Rosemary
>
rom Councilmember Kamei
In reviewing your email and the upcoming council actions, I don't see any explanation about the Four Year Review Task Force on the August 18 agenda. This is a huge item that impact us and should have been called out to us.

As I understand it there is an agenda item to discuss/vote on the Planning Commission proposal to all upzoning on residential lots up to 8-10 units on a std. 6,500 sq foot lot. With no input from immediate neighbors and no requirement for off street parking.

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

This proposal is totally unreasonable and should not be allowed. We do not have the infrastructure to suppose this high density housing, would impact outlets urban canopy, and seriously impact our neighborhoods.

I am not no growth, but this proposal needs some thought as to what could work for everyone and not just allow massive 3 story developments to be built next to single family one story homes.

I hope you will be voting for your residents and vote no on this outrageous proposal.

Donna Blink

Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 2, 2026, at 8:02 AM, Rosemary Kamei
< >

Outlook
FW: Helping neighborhoods
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: betty kabanek
Sent: Thursday, Augus
To: City Clerk
Subject: Helping neighbor hoods
[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 representatives ,
Please get more neighborhood involvement in deciding the future of our neighborhoods .

Splitting up lots, not requiring additional parking and zoning changes can lead to the deterioration of the quality of life that we expected when we bought our homes.

Thank you,
Betty Kabanek
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: strong opposition to the high-density land-use proposal From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Becki Kriege
Sent: Thursday, Aug s
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Kamei, Rosemary
Subject: strong opposition to the high-density land-use 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 imi;iortant Dear Rosemary,
I regularly read your monthly "Snapshot" newsletter for District 1. So, I was surprised to learn about the very important San Jose Council vote on Tuesday in the MercurY-, News . Your newsletter has a bullet point that says: General Plan Four Year Review Task Force Recommendations on 8/18/26. I did not realize that on Tuesday, you would be voting on something that will drastically impact our neighborhoods.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the high density land use proposal scheduled for a vote this coming Tuesday. While addressing housing availability in San Jose is an important goal, this specific proposal bypasses neighborhood input, strains municipal resources, and permanently alters the character of our communities without proper public transparency.

I am in favor of high-density housing in areas zoned for commercial use that have the infrastructure to support this type of housing. My street already has limited street parking and if the amount of times I spot a sewer clean up truck on my street are any evidence, our 60+ year old homes have sewer systems that can barely support the people that are here.

Before casting your vote on Tuesday, I strongly urge you to reject this proposal and ensure that any future land use policy is developed collaboratively alongside the residents who live here.

Thank you for your time, service, and consideration of our community's future.

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

District 1
San Jose

Outlook
FW: strong opposition to the high-density land-use proposal From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:40 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Becki Kriege
Sent: Thursday, Aug s
To: Mahan, Matt
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: strong opposition to the high-density land-use 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 imi;iortant Dear Mayor Mahan,.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the high-dens ity land-use proposal scheduled for a vote this coming Tuesday. While addressing housing availability in San Jose is an important goal, this specific proposal bypasses neighborhood input, strains municipal resources, and permanently alters the character of our communities without proper public transparency.

I am in favor of high density housing in areas zoned for comme rcial use that have the infrastructure to support this type of housing. My street already has limited street parking and if the amount of times I spot a sewer clean up truck on my street are any evidence, our 60+ year old homes have sewer systems that can barely support the people that are here.

Before casting your vote on Tuesday, I strongly urge you to reject this proposal and ensure that any future land-use policy is developed collaborat ively alongside the residents who live here.

Thank you for your time, service, and considerat ion of our community's future.

Respectfully,
Becki Kriege
District 1
San Jose
Outl ook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/ 14/ 2026 7:40 AM
To Agendadesk
M ulcahy, M ichael City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force M issing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. I earn more) You don't often get email from • I earn wh¥ this is impgrtant Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council members,
Campos, Pamela
casey, George
I am writing to express my opposition to the high-density land-use proposal. I am not apposed to high-density housing per se, but this proposal will ruin our existing and wonderful family friendly neighborhoods.

Please reject the proposa l on Tuesday and ensure future land-use decisions are developed collaboratively with residents.

My family roots go back 6 generations in the City of San Jose. My Great-Great Grand father owned a brewery on North San Pedro and Basset Street (photo below). This city is my home.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mike Kriege
San Jose, CA 95129

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

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:41 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Camille DaRocha
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 20
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn whY. this is im12ortant I understand that you w~ry apartment buildings with 16+ units to be built on any residential lot!?!
Will one of those stories be a parking garage?? For the 16+ cars you would be bringing into our neighborhood?
This is too much. The second story neighbor already looks into my backyard. 3 stories will be even worse.

And block the sun for our solar panels!
Camille
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 Fri 8/14/2026 7:41 AM
To Agendadesk
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 im12ortant Dear Mayor and City~
Kamei,
Casey, George
Mulcahy, Michael
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.

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

Bea Clark

Outlook
FW: Vote no on missing middle upzoning
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:41 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Carey Pleasant
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 20
To: City Clerk
Subject: Vote no on missing middle upzoning
[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 Vote no on missing mid~
I would like to go on record that I am requesting a no vote on the Missing Middle upzoning. It has the potential to ruin the character and charm of existing neighborhoods and parking is the biggest issue.

Thanks so much,
Carey
.. .This message was sent by iCarey ... and I am Googley! ! So excuse any spellcheck over-ride enands ... j/k .... enors :) This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outl ook
FW: Stop San Jose's Middl e Upzonin g
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:41 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Crystal Speed
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 9:23 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
◄
◄
.

Subject : Stop San Jose's Middle Upzoning
strictl
District4
[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 Mahan ancr?vTenibersoTTFiesa'n Jose City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework. I recognize San Jose's need for additional housing, but I do not believe broadly increasing density within established residential neighborhoods is the right solution. The City itself describes Missing Middle housing under consideration as allowing 4 to 10 units, a substantial change from the existing development pattern of many neighborhoods. My concerns are straightforward. Adding substantially more households should require careful consideration of the cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood services. Potential impacts on surrounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules are broadly changed. Housing policy should add housing thoughtfully while respecting the people and neighborhoods already here. I urge you not to advance a blanket citywide approach and to pursue more targeted housing solutions with meaningful neighborhood input. Please vote NO on advancing this proposal. Thank you for considering my concerns.

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

Out look
FW: Missing middle vote
From Gty Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:42 AM
To Agendadesk
From: david jenkins
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 9:59 PM
To: City Clerk -
Subject: Missing middle vote
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. I earn mqre) You don't often get email from
HELLO:
. Learn why this is important
I oppose what you all are voting on August 18 termed as the "missing middle" zoning 'modification'- please do not vote for this. Thank you.

David Jenkins
Realtor/lntero
Outl ook
FW: City Council Vote on "Missing Middle " Housing Proposal on Augu st 18th From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:42 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe-----
From: Bob Heihn
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 10:37 P
To: The Office of Mavor Matt Mahan
< t
Subject: City Council Vote on "Missing Middle" Housing Proposal on August 18th [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
I understand the City Council will be voting on the Missing Middle Housing Proposal on August 18th.

As a 54 year resident of San Jose, I am asking, no pleading, with you to protect the residential neighborhoods of San Jose by voting against this proposal. While it is recognized San Jose needs more housing it needs to be accomplished by "responsible" planning and not by the recommendations in this proposal.

If approved, this proposal will do far more harm than good . Please do not approve this proposal.

Thank you,
Bob Heihn
Outl ook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:42 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Arlene Lopes
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 20
To: Mulcahy, Michael
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn whY. this is im12ortant I understand that in gen~uncil members have not heard opposition to this proposal. I was advised by a personal friend of this proposal. I was so enraged that I started telling everyone I have been talking to about it. As of writing this email, I have not yet spoken to anyone who has even heard about it. I have been able to inform them. As the word gets out, you may be hearing more opposition. We citizens cannot oppose something that we are not advised about prior to the vote. We all are aware that once the city council votes something in there will be no deleting it. People will find out when this happens next door to them. Think about your own neighborhood and how this would impact the area.

Has anyone on the council even thought about the inability for police, fire, and ambulance to be able to service the community. With so many units and no onsite parking, the streets will be full of parked cars there will be no place for emergency vehicles to travel in neighborhoods. Up to 16 units on a residential lot will more than likely need a minimum of 1 assigned parking space per unit. We do not have adequate public transit to meet transportation needs for the population these units will create. As an example, I personally do not feel safe on the VTA light rail system and no longer use it. The streets in single family residence areas are so narrow they barely accommodate the parking needs for the existing single family homes.

Another issue is gas, electric, and water supplies. Currently we are all supposed to be frugal in our use of these utilities and now the city council is proposing to allow thousands of more units in San Jose to multiply the need for more utilities. We already have so many data centers and more planned in our south San Jose area that require major amounts of these utilities.

Please vote NO on the "Missing Middle" housing proposal on August 18.

Outlook
FW: Oppose Citywide Missing Middle Upzoning - August 18 Agenda Item From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 7:42 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message----
From: Christina Kennaday
Sent: Friday, Auqust 14, 20
To: City Clerk
Subject: Oppose Citywide Missing Middle Upzoning - August 18 Agenda Item [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
Dear Vice Mayor Foley, Mayor Mahan, and Members of the City Council, I am writing as a resident of District 9 (Cambrian area, near Cherry Ave) to express my opposition to the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning coming before Council on August 18, 2026.

While I recognize San Jose faces real housing pressure and state-mandated production targets, I have serious concerns about the current proposal as written:

1. Density increase is too aggressive. Raising allowable density from 8 to 32 units per acre in neighborhoods built around single-family homes is a 4x jump. A typical 6,000-8,000 sq ft lot on a street like Cherry Ave could see 4-10 units where one home stands today. This is a dramatic change with no phased approach or pilot program to evaluate impacts first.

2. By-right, ministerial approval removes public input. Allowing these projects to bypass public hearings and be approved administratively strips residents of any meaningful voice in developments that directly affect their block, their light, their privacy, and their property.

3. Infrastructure has not kept pace. Streets, storm drains, water and sewer capacity, and school enrollment in neighborhoods like Cambrian were designed for single-family density. The proposal includes no corresponding infrastructure investment plan or capacity analysis before allowing dramatically denser development by right.

4. Parking. Removing parking requirements in neighborhoods with limited transit access will push overflow parking onto already-narrow residential streets, creating safety issues for pedestrians, cyclists, and emergency vehicle access.

5. Jobs-housing imbalance. San Jose's jobs-to-employed-resident ratio is already the lowest among major Silicon Valley cities. Adding significant residential capacity without a parallel plan for employment growth risks worsening the city's long-term fiscal position, not improving it.

6. Neighborhood character and equity of process. Established neighborhoods that have invested in their communities for decades deserve a genuine seat at the table, not a policy that treats blanket upzoning as the default and public hearings as the exception.

I am not opposed to more housing in San Jose. I support smart, transit-oriented density in Urban Villages and along transit corridors, consistent with the City's original Envision 2040 framework. But a blanket, by-right citywide upzoning of single-family neighborhoods, without infrastructure planning, public review, or a phased pilot, is the wrong approach.

I respectfully ask that you vote no on the Missing Middle policy framework as currently proposed on August 18, and instead direct staff to return with a more targeted, infrastructure-informed plan that preserves meaningful public review for projects in existing single-family neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time and for representing our district's interests.

Sincerely,
Christina Kennaday
San Jose, CA 95118
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: "Middle Missing"
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 8:07 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Arlene Pedroia
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: "Middle M issing"
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 imP-ortant Dear Mayor Mahan an~n Jose City Council,
I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework.

I recognize San Jose's need for additional housing, but I do not believe broadly increasing density within established residential neighborhoods is the right solution. The City itself describes Missing Middle housing under consideration as allowing 4 to 1 0 units, a substantial change from the existing development pattern of many neighborhoods.

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

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Regards,
Arlene Pedroia
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 8:07 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Patty McNeil
Sent: Friday, August 1
To: City Clerk
Cc: Doan, Bien
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. th is is imi;iortant Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the 4-year General Plan, as outlined in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.

Increasing the maximum pe1mitted housing density citywide from 8 to 32 units per acre is an enormous change to the character of our San Jose neighborhoods. I am especially concerned that this would happen without meaningful opportunities for community review or feedback.

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Patty McNeil
Outlook
FW: VOTE NO - August 18 Vote on Permanent, City-Wide "Missing Middle" proposal From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 8:19 AM
To Agendadesk
From: moncrie~ <moncrie~
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 8:14 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Cc: Cathy Moncrieff <moncrie
◄
◄
◄
.
strictl
District4
Subject: VOTE NO - August 18 Vote on Permanent, City-Wide "Missing Middle" proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is im12ortant DearSanJoseleade~,
This email is to communicate our disapproval of the pending August 18 vote on the "Missing Middle" proposal that would permanently allow up to 16+ units on single family lots citywide tied to lot size without any public hearings and neighborhood input.

As a 30+ year San Jose/ Willow Glen home owner of 2 homes, we recognize the need for affordable housing, but our streets, sewers, water, infrastructure that would be affected do not support this type of development.

We already have neighborhoods, including ours, where there is no street parking, despite houses having driveways to park in. With the recent increase in high rises built near Highway 87, traffic has increased dramatically and makes it difficult getting on and off the freeways.

We have constant sewer issues in the 5 mile radius around our homes. Sewer trucks are regularly called out to pump the street sewer due to back up, etc.

I'm asking you as a San Jose resident and home owner to vote no on this proposal.

We support more affordable housing, but it needs to responsibly planned with proper city resources and parking.

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

The City Council should reject this proposal and pursue housing solutions that protect neighborhoods, strengthen the City's finances, and balances housing with jobs.

We pay high taxes in San Jose to protect our neighborhoods, property values and more. We the tax payers need to have your support in what we know is right for our neighborhoods.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

Catherine Moncrieff, Homeowner
San Jose, CA 95125

Outlook
FW: VOTE NO - August 18 Vote on Permanent, City-Wide "Missing Middle" proposal From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 8:19 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Catherine Shaffer <catherinesha~
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 8:14 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Clerk
◄
◄
◄
.

Cc: catherineshaffer <cather inesha~
strictl
District4
Subject: VOTE NO - August 18 Vote on Permanent, City-Wide " Missing Middle " proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Dear San Jose Leaders,
This email is to communicate our disapproval of the pending August 18 vote on the "Missing Middle" proposal that would permanently allow up to 16+ units on single-family lots citywide tied to lot size without any public hearings and neighborhood input.

As a 30+ year San Jose I Willow Glen home owner of 2 homes, we recognize the need for affordable housing, but our streets, sewers, water, infrastructure that would be affected do not support this type of development.

We already have neighborhoods , including ours, where there is no street parking, despite houses having driveways to park in. With the recent increase in high rises built near Highway 87, traffic has increased dramatically and makes it difficult getting on and off the freeways.

We have constant sewer issues in the 5 mile radius around our homes. Sewer trucks are regularly called out to pump the street sewer due to back up, etc.

I'm asking you as a San Jose resident and home owner to vote no on this proposal.

We support more affordable housing, but it needs to responsibly planned with proper city resources and parking.

The City Council should reject this proposal and pursue housing solutions that protect neighborhoods , strengthen the City's finances, and balances housing with jobs.

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

We pay high taxes in San Jose to protect our neighborhoods, property values and more. We the tax payers need to have your support in what we know is right for our neighborhoods.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

Catherine Shaffer Homeowner

Outlook
FW: 6 Days Left: Missing Middle Vote: Send/Resend Emails to City Clerk NOW From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 8:33 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Higareda, Armando
Sent: Friday, August 14, 20
To: City Clerk
Subject: RE: 6 Days Left: Missing Middle Vote: Send/Resend Emails to City Clerk NOW [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 Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the 4-year General Plan, as outlined in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.

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

I strongly urge the Mayor and City Council to reject this recommendation and allow for a more thoughtful process that includes meaningful community input. This and other decisions to narrow street creating more gridlock will change my future voting preferences.

Respectfully,
(Armando Higareda)
Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 8:33 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Woody Barrett
Sent: Friday, August 1 , 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n 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.

Respectfully,
Harry Barrett
San Jose resident district 7
Sent from my iPhone
Outlook
FW: Opposition to Proposed Housing Ordinance (August 18 Council Meeting) From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 8:45 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Ema Martin
Sent: Friday, August 1 , 2
To: City Clerk
Cc: District 6
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Housing Ordinance (August 18 Council Meeting) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is im12ortant Dear San Jose City Clerk, Councilmember Mulcahy, and Members of the City Council, I am writing to formally register my opposition to the proposed zoning ordinance regarding the multi-family housing density limits (32 units/acre) scheduled for review.

Please be clear that I fully support increasing our local housing supply. However, I strongly believe that high-density housing projects without parking required should be built exclusively along major transit thoroughfares, and not inside established single-family neighborhoods.

The complete lack of parking requirements within this proposal will destroy single-family neighborhoods. It is a flawed assumption that residence of these proposed new high density communities in single-family neighborhoods will rely on public transit or rideshare. Unless you can somehow force people to take public transit (which I don't believe you can or should), this proposal will force residents to fight for limited parking spots along city streets, causing extreme congestion. Furthermore, this influx of cars will make our residential streets significantly more dangerous for children playing outside.

I ask that you vote no on this ordinance and protect the safety and layout of our family neighborhoods.

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

Emma M
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 8:55 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Marty Halpern
Sent: Friday, August 1 , 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the 4-year General Plan, as outlined in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.

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

Respectfully,
Martin Halpern
Who has been residing in his San Jose home since 1983.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 8:55 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Diane Halpern
Sent: Friday, August 1
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
Dear Mayor and City Council:
. Learn whY. th is is im12ortant
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,
Diane Halpern
San Jose 95121
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Missing Middle housing issue
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 9:01 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent: Friday, August 1 , 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: Missing Middle housing issue
[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 To The City Clerk,
I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework. I recognize San Jose's need for additional housing, but I do not believe broadly increasing density within established residential neighborhoods is the right solution. The city itself describes Missing Middle housing under consideration as allowing 4 to 10 units, a substantial change from the existing development pattern of many neighborhoods.

1. Significantly increasing allowable density can fundamentally change the character and scale of established residential neighborhoods.

2. Parking needs to be mandated in any additional housing projects. It is wrong to impact existing homeowners with reducing spots that have been available to them.

3. Infrastructure considerations including roads and neighborhood services need to be included in the decision.

4. Ruining neighborhoods impacts the value homeowners have in their properties. Impacts on surrounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules changed. Housing policy should add housing thoughtfully while respecting the people and neighborhoods already here.

I would assume that if this issue were on the ballot, it would be rejected heartily. If you represent your constituents, you should vote NO on this proposal.

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

Outl ook
FW: Augu st 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppo se General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 9:39 AM
To Agendadesk
From: (null) (null)
Sent: Friday, August 1 , 2
Cohen, David
Campos, Pamela
Mahan, Matt
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
Ca delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. this is im12ortant To my (District 2) Councilmember Pamela Campos, all other SJ councilmembers and Mayor Mahan,
I urge you to oppose the General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal.

Thank you for your consideration,
Charlie Friedericks
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

San Jose City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026