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 10:05 AM
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: ANDY ZORIO
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 9:56 AM
To: Mahan, Matt
Cc: City Clerk
District 10
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 Mayor Mahan and Councilmember Casey:
My name is Andrew Zorio. I am a 20-year San Jose District 1 O resident and voter. I urge the City Council to REJECT the Task Force recommendation for citywide Missing Middle up-zoning.
Already-existing requirements make this recommendation unnecessary, and will remove necessary in-place controls that will damage our neighborhoods.
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 harm our neighborhoods.
Please use your vote to stick to already-existing state minimums and protect San Jose's residential communities.
Respectfully,
Andy Zorio
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Almaden Valley
mandated by the state - should NOT be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider the future.
The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. With no requirement of onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflict on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods, increase traffic and pedestrian accidents, further aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further strain police, fire and other city resources.
Hence, I strongly oppose this recommendation, and respectfully urge you to reconsider this recommendation.
Respectfully,
Supriya Rao
San Jose Resident.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.
Thank you for considering my concerns,
James Aldridge
Resident of District 3
"We must be willing to let go of the life we planned so as to have the life that is waiting for us." – Joseph Campbell
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Until the City of San Jose drastically improves infrastructure and public transportation, requires city employees to carpool, bike or use public transportation to work I will continue to oppose all no parking requirement housing proposals in the City of San Jose. Vote NO on advancing this proposal. Thank you,
Jolynn Spinelli
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
In addition, this 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 José'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.
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.
Please following the medical profession's maxim: FIRST, DO NO HARM. VOTE NO! Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gerald Giles
Neighborhood Association President
District Leadership Board Member
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Vote in favor of our Neighborhoods - Vote Against the Task Force recommendations!!!
Thank you for your consideration,
RICH CROWLEY
District 10 Homeowner since 1970
cell/text
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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.
Kelly Johnson
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Thank you,
Richard Larsen
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Irene Williams Hewitt
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
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,
Robert Shaffer, Homeowner
Ace
San Jose, CA 95125
I hope for the sake of the decent people left in the town that you will refrain from passing this incredibly destructive proposal. Not to mention that you will eventually be accountable to God for your destructive policies and mismanagement of His blessings.
Sincerely,
Nancy Rao
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3, Coalition Letter in Support for Expanding Allowable Uses on Public/Quasi Public (PQP) School and Faith Institution Properties
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 11:22 AM
To Agendadesk
® 1 attachment (189 KB)
8 16 26 Final PQP Coalitio n Letter.pdf;
From: Alison Cingolani
Sent: Friday, August 14,
a
illos
eter
an,
oley,
ohen, David
ndelas, Domingo
Casey, George
Joshua lshimatsu
Subject: RE: Agenda Item 10.3, Coalition Letter in Support for Expanding Allowable Uses on Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) School and Faith Institution Properties
[External Email. Do not open !inks or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, and Councilmembers, Please see attached our coalition letter signed by school leaders, faith communities, housing advocates, and community-serving organizations in strong support of removing barriers and expanding permitted community serving uses on school and faith properties designated Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) citywide.
As steep declines in student enrollment and congregational participation challenge the financial sustainability of school districts and faith communities and change how these institutions need to use their land, they need a clear, flexible, and timely path to retain ownership, leverage their land for long-term sustainability, and continue serving as community anchors. Expanding permitted uses would preserve local discretion while giving school districts, faith institutions, and their communities the flexibility to
August 14, 2026
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
RE: Agenda Item 10.3, Coalition Letter in Support for Expanding Allowable Uses on Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) School and Faith Institution Properties Dear Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, and Councilmembers, We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our strong support for removing barriers and expanding the allowable, permitted uses citywide on all school and faith institution properties, designated Public/Quasi-Public (PQP), as part of the General Plan Four-Year Review. Specifically, we recommend that Council, on all school and faith land citywide, remove the current 25% requirement for permanent supportive housing (PSH) and allow affordable housing development, education and public workforce housing development, and community-serving uses ministerially, ending the proposed requirement for a long and expensive general plan amendment or special use permit.
We oppose the approach recommended by staff, which maintains existing barriers to housing and would limit the expansion of allowable community-serving uses to some sites but not others. We believe this could unintentionally interfere with the difficult decisions school districts and faith congregations must make in close partnership with their communities.
It would also create equity impacts, as options available to one school district, community, or faith congregation may not be available to another. Finally, an uneven approach is likely to accelerate the loss of PQP sites to non-community uses. School districts and faith communities that lack the resources to navigate a lengthy and uncertain approval process may be forced to sell their land outright rather than retain ownership and redevelop it in ways that both strengthen their long-term financial sustainability and continue serving the community.
San José is experiencing profound demographic, economic, and housing changes that are reshaping our communities. Public school enrollment has declined significantly over the past decade, forcing difficult conversations about school consolidation and campus closures. At the same time, many faith communities are adapting to changing congregational needs while continuing to provide essential services, gathering spaces, and support for their neighborhoods.
These institutions have long served as anchors of community life. The General Plan should provide them with the flexibility to continue fulfilling that role as community needs evolve.
Expanding the allowable uses on school and faith properties would not require redevelopment of any site. Rather, it would give schools, congregations, and community partners the ability to pursue locally appropriate solutions that strengthen their institutions and better serve their neighborhoods. Depending on local needs and priorities, these solutions could include educator and workforce housing, affordable family or senior housing, childcare centers, community health services, nonprofit partnerships, neighborhood-serving retail, recreational facilities, cultural spaces, or other community-serving uses. Many of these uses can coexist with land reserved for future school growth.
Providing flexibility is especially important as San José works to address its housing shortage. The city's housing crisis affects every sector of our community. Families with children increasingly struggle to remain in San José, contributing to declining school enrollment. Teachers, nonprofit employees, healthcare workers, and service workers face long commutes because they cannot afford to live near the communities they serve. Older adults often lack housing options that allow them to age within their neighborhoods.
We see this reflected in the more than a third of San José households (more than 112,000 families and individuals) experiencing housing cost burden, paying more than 30% or even more than half their income for housing each month. Meanwhile, our rents and home prices continue to rise while vacancy falls- and when fewer homes are available, San Jose’s lowest income residents are more likely to be pushed into homelessness. The single greatest systemic cause of homelessness- and the largest gap in the system- is the lack of affordable housing.
At the same time, innovative partnerships between faith communities or school districts and local nonprofit organizations, can deliver much-needed and complementary community-serving uses. In May 2026, the Alum Rock Union School District entered an exclusive negotiating agreement with SOMOS Mayfair and the School of Arts and Culture (representing the Si Se Puede Collective) for the potential rebuilding of the former Mexican American Community Services Agency (MACSA) youth center. The community envisions recreating a community center and gym, which would provide youth programs, academic support, cultural programming, mental health services, workforce development, family services, childcare, sports programs and a community gathering space. However, few of these uses are permitted under the current PQP designation.
School and faith institution lands can provide significant opportunities to address these interconnected challenges while preserving community ownership and stewardship of land. Rather than forcing institutions to choose between maintaining underutilized property or selling it outright, the General Plan can create pathways for thoughtful redevelopment through long-term partnerships that allows these organizations to remain community anchors while addressing today's needs.
Importantly, expanding allowable uses is not simply about housing. It is about creating resilient community campuses that can evolve over time. Across the Bay Area, school districts and faith institutions have successfully partnered to develop affordable housing, educator housing, childcare facilities, senior services, health clinics, and other community-serving uses while continuing their core educational and religious missions.
These projects demonstrate that greater flexibility can strengthen the role these institutions play in neighborhood life.
This recommendation also advances one of the central objectives of the General Plan Four-Year Review: identifying opportunities to expand residential capacity. School and faith properties are distributed throughout San José, including neighborhoods where opportunities for additional housing are otherwise limited. Allowing a broader range of residential and mixed-use development on these sites can meaningfully increase housing capacity while ensuring that new development remains rooted in community-serving institutions.
Most importantly, this approach preserves local choice. Expanding allowable uses does not predetermine what will happen on any individual property. Decisions about whether and how to redevelop will continue to be made by school districts, congregations, nonprofit partners, and local communities through established public processes. The General Plan should provide these institutions with options, not constraints, as they plan for their futures.
We respectfully urge the Council to remove barriers and advance a citywide expansion of allowable uses on PQP-designated school and faith institution properties. Doing so will strengthen schools, support faith communities, expand housing opportunities, preserve valuable community assets, and help ensure that these institutions can continue serving San José residents for generations to come.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director, SV@Home
Victor Vasquez
Co-Executive Director, SOMOS Mayfair
Silicon Valley Young Democrats
Samantha Blewis
Pastor, St. Paul’s United Methodist Church
Deborah St. Julien
President, Board of Directors, Urban Sanctuary, San Jose
Jorge Pacheco Jr
Trustee, Santa Clara County Office of Education
Maimona Afzal Berta
Trustee, Santa Clara County Office of Education
Raeena Lari
Trustee, Santa Clara County Office of Education
Minh Pham
Clerk of the Board, Alum Rock Union School District
Jaria Jaug
School Board President, Berryessa Union School District
Evelyne Keomian-Wood
Founder/ Executive Director, Karat School Project KSP
Frances Herbert
School Board President, Oak Grove School District
Sujata Srivastava
Chief of Policy, SPUR
Poncho Guevara
Executive Director, Sacred Heart Community Service
Jeremy Barousse
Trustee, Evergreen School District
Don Taylor
Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
Kyra Kazantzis
Executive Director, Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits
Maritza Maldonado
Executive Director, Amigos de Guadalupe Center for Justice and Empowerment
Sandy Perry
Board Member, South Bay Community Land Trust
Alex Shoor
Executive Director, Catalyze Silicon Valley
Lori Katcher
Lead Organizer, Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Santa Clara County
Heather Hood
Enterprise Community Partners, Northern California
Sujatha Venkatraman
West Valley Community Services
Theresa Do, Matt Savage, & David Naczycz
Co-Leads, San Jose YIMBY
Elisa Orona
Partnership for the Bay’s Future
Gabriel Manrique
Community Organizer, Latinos United for a New America (LUNA)
Terrell Pina
Executive Director, Opportunities for Change
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
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.
Daniel Schumacher
San Jose, CA 95120
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Pruneridge in the morning traffic. Nobody wants more cars on these roads. It’s not safe and it’s not sustainable.
So how to get more apartment units into San Jose? Currently downtown San Jose has an office vacancy rate of about 30%. Why don’t the city investigate the possibility of converting some of this space into apartments. Bringing high-rise apartments into a single-family neighborhood is not a rational strategy. Building more apartments into downtown where there are more transportation options already in place, is.
Sincerely,
Anne Valta
Outlook
Fw: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.
From City Clerk
Date Fri 8/14/2026 2:40 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 om- service? Yorn- feedback is appreciated!
From:
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 2:38 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 oppose the proposed change of zoning which would allow up to 10 units on a 6000 square foot lot in any residential area of San Jose.
We dont have space on our streets for the number of cars that would bring, we dont even have streets big enough for all the additional traffic and we dont have the proper utilities in place. We are already being told to ration our water and electricity usage.
This proposal is not a good one. I would not vote for anyone who thinks that it is.
Rosanne Mastrangioli
Sent from AOL on Android
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. neighborhoods, and they have the right to conserve and protect it. The potential impacts of the "upzoning proposal" on surrounding homes and property values deserves serious consideration before the rules are broadly changed.
Housing policy should add housing thoughtfully while respecting the existing residents and neighborhoods. I urge you to not advance the blanket, citywide approach, but rather, pursue targeted housing solutions developed with meaningful neighborhood input. Please vote NO on advancing the current proposal!
Thank you for considering my concerns,
Tom Wilson
San Jose, CA 95127
August 14, 2026
Via Electronic Submission
Honorable Mayor Matt Mahan and Members of the City Council City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (File 26-852; Item 10.3)
Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers:
BIA Bay Area appreciates the City's sustained work on the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan Four-Year Review. We support the framework's central goal of expanding housing opportunities and commend staff for proposing higher residential capacity, a citywide missing-middle program, and a more efficient Urban Village strategy. These reforms can help San Jose address its housing shortage, meet future Housing Element obligations, and broaden the range of homes available to working families.
We respectfully urge the Council to approve the framework with additional implementation direction. Land-use capacity produces housing only when it is paired with objective standards, economically feasible requirements, predictable approvals, and timely implementation. The Council's action should ensure that the next phase converts theoretical capacity into sites on which homes can actually be financed, entitled, and built.
Residential capacity and Winchester Boulevard
BIA supports the proposed density hierarchy: up to 32 DU/AC in Residential Neighborhood, 20- 50 DU/AC in Mixed Use Neighborhood, and 50-95 DU/AC in Urban Residential. We also support staff's original Urban Residential recommendations for the Winchester Boulevard sites, including 826 N. Winchester Boulevard. Staff's analysis shows that the seven proposed UR sites could accommodate approximately 114-220 units, compared with 44-114 units under MUN.
These sites are near a major Growth Area, transit routes, employment, and commercial amenities and should be planned for their long-term housing potential.
The implementing regulations should preserve access to State Density Bonus Law and include an objective flexibility mechanism where parcel constraints make a minimum density impracticable.
For Mixed Use Commercial sites, the City should use clear, objective redesignation criteria and avoid commercial-space requirements unsupported by demonstrated market demand.
BAY AR EA
II UILO I GI IHUT IIY IU~QC IA lt:IN
PQP lands
BIA supports unlocking housing on appropriate Public/Quasi-Public lands while preserving genuinely needed community facilities. A discretionary, parcel-by-parcel General Plan amendment process, however, will impose uncertainty and cost. We ask Council to direct staff to develop objective eligibility criteria and fixed processing timelines. The framework should allow mixed institutional/residential projects, phased development, inclusion of community serving uses through co-location or replacement. School districts, faith organizations, and other institutional owners should have a practical path to use housing to sustain their core mission and serve their communities.
Missing-middle housing
BIA supports increasing RN density up to 32 DU/AC and creating a ministerial pathway for small multifamily housing. The final development standards must be tested on representative San Jose lots so that setbacks, FAR, lot coverage, access, utilities, tree rules, open-space standards, and design requirements do not erase the allowed yield. The City should avoid discretionary design review, process related permits concurrently, and calibrate impact fees to the scale and marginal impacts of small projects. A range of building forms—including duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, townhomes, small apartments, and small-lot subdivisions—should be able to use the program.
Urban Villages
BIA supports consolidating plans, standardizing outreach, and relying on the Zoning Code and Citywide Design Standards instead of creating unique standards for each Urban Village. Because 46 Urban Villages remain unplanned, the City should also adopt an interim by-right pathway for residential and mixed-use projects while planning is pending or deferred. Plan deadlines should include automatic fallback zoning, and any commercial overlay should be based on documented demand and allow flexible uses, phased delivery, and conversion of persistently vacant space.
Deferring plans in SB 79 areas should not defer local housing opportunities.
Jobs-to-employed residents ratio
If Council retains the 1.1 J/ER target, its motion should clarify that the ratio is an aspirational citywide monitoring metric—not a basis to deny or downzone housing, require unsupported commercial space, sequence housing behind job growth, or delay entitlements. Housing and employment goals can advance together without using one as a barrier to the other.
Implementation and accountability
The staff report anticipates final General Plan and ordinance actions in approximately December 2027. We request quarterly implementation milestones, early publication of draft standards, public prototype and feasibility testing, and an interim entitlement framework. We also ask the City to convene a technical stakeholder group that includes market-rate and affordable builders, architects, engineers, lenders, institutional landowners, and housing advocates. Annual reporting should distinguish nominal capacity from realistically developable capacity and track applications, approval time, fees, entitled units, and completed homes.
With these directions, the Four-Year Review can become a durable housing-production program rather than a capacity exercise. BIA Bay Area looks forward to working with the City on implementing regulations that are objective, predictable, and financially workable.
Sincerely,
Patricia Sausedo, Director
Government Affairs South Bay
BIA Bay Area
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 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 should never be implemented. Never.
This proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. Why would the council even consider going beyond state mandated requirements when we can't even responsibly meet our existing goals?
With these new proposed projects, there is no requirement for onsite parking.
Additionally, 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.
This is a terrible idea. Please do not consider implementing it.
Respectfully,
Marni Kamzan
District 3
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Eric (Rick) Simons
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. people who are coming in are coming for free stuff.
Cynthia Riordan
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
San Jose Resident
Re: Agenda Item 10.3 – General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework, File 26-852 Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San José City Council, I am writing as a San José resident to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes being considered as part of the General Plan Four-Year Review, particularly the proposed increases in residential density and the proposed changes affecting the Winchester Boulevard Corridor.
I understand that San José has a significant need for additional housing, and I support responsible efforts to provide housing in appropriate locations. However, I do not believe that substantially increasing residential density throughout established neighborhoods is the right solution. Changes of this magnitude can permanently affect the scale, character, traffic patterns, parking, infrastructure, and quality of life in neighborhoods that have developed over many years.
My primary concern is the Winchester Boulevard Corridor I believe Winchester Boulevard should remain a balanced and vibrant mixed-use corridor, with commercial, residential, and community-serving uses existing alongside one another. This balance is important to the surrounding neighborhoods and to San José as a whole.
I am particularly concerned about the proposed changes to certain parcels along the Winchester Boulevard Corridor and the potential long-term effect of allowing more of these properties to transition toward residential development.
Winchester should not become simply another housing corridor.
The commercial and mixed-use properties along Winchester provide opportunities for local businesses, restaurants, services, offices, and other uses that serve the surrounding community. These uses are an important part of what makes a neighborhood functional and livable. If commercial properties are gradually converted to residential development, the City may permanently lose opportunities for businesses and community services that cannot easily be restored later.
I am not opposed to housing being part of the Winchester Corridor. My concern is maintaining the proper balance. I believe the City should preserve the corridor's commercial and mixed-use character rather than adopting policies that could encourage a gradual shift toward predominantly residential development.
Once a commercial property is replaced by housing, that decision is essentially permanent. The City cannot easily recreate the same commercial opportunity later. For that reason, changes to the Winchester Corridor should be approached with great caution and with consideration of the long-term needs of the surrounding community—not simply the number of additional housing units that can be created.
Concerns about broader residential upzoning
I am also concerned about the broader increase in residential density proposed through the General Plan review.
Increasing the number of households in established neighborhoods should require careful consideration of the cumulative effects on traffic, parking, streets, utilities, public services, emergency response, and other infrastructure. These impacts should be evaluated carefully for each neighborhood and corridor rather than assuming that substantially greater density is appropriate throughout the City.
Many San José homeowners have invested significant portions of their savings in their homes with reasonable expectations about the character and land-use patterns of their neighborhoods. Major changes to those expectations deserve careful consideration and meaningful participation from the residents and businesses who will be affected.
I respectfully ask the City Council to:
Reject broad citywide residential upzoning that could substantially change established neighborhoods.
Preserve Winchester Boulevard as a balanced mixed-use corridor rather than allowing it to become predominantly residential.
Protect existing commercial opportunities and community-serving uses along Winchester Boulevard. Avoid policies that encourage the conversion of valuable commercial and mixed-use properties primarily into residential development.
Carefully evaluate the cumulative effects of additional density on traffic, parking, infrastructure, and public services.
Provide residents and local businesses with meaningful opportunities to participate before making changes that could permanently alter their communities.
San José can increase its housing supply while also protecting the diversity, character, businesses, and services that make its neighborhoods successful. Housing and commercial development do not have to be an either-or choice. The City should strive for a balanced approach that provides housing while preserving the commercial and mixed-use areas that existing residents depend upon.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to vote NO on advancing the proposed changes in Agenda Item 10.3, particularly the broad residential upzoning provisions and the proposed changes affecting the Winchester Boulevard Corridor.
Thank you for considering the concerns of San José residents.
Sincerely,
Indrani Samarawickrama
San José Resident
Agenda 26-852
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
Our names are Bruce and Sarah Aseltine, we are 41-year San José homeowners (residents), and active voters residing in District 10.
We are writing to express our strong opposition in regards to Agenda 26-852 - recommendation to permanently up-zone single-family residential parcels across San José up to 32 units per acre (+ADUs).
We respectfully urge the City Council to vote to completely REJECT and eliminate the "Missing Middle" framework from the Envision 2040 General Plan Update at your August 18, 2026 council meeting.
Instilling blanket, citywide up-zoning strips local control, bypasses public input, and it harms local neighborhoods. We purchased our home in 1986 zoned as an SFR (single family residence) and we want it to stay that way.
Please consider the following:
1. Being San Jose residents for over 41 years, We know that San Jose has a lot of land that can be used for multi-units and should not be encroaching in existing established SFR neighborhoods.
San José Can Meet State Housing Goals Without Up-Zoning California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) mandates and state laws like SB 79 already provide capacity for over 62,000 potential units concentrated along major transit corridors and designated Urban Villages. San José can comfortably meet its housing targets without forcing high-density development into quiet interior neighborhoods, nor should it overreach beyond what state law requires. Being San Jose residents for over 41 years, We know that San Jose has a lot of land that can be used for multi-units and should not be encroaching in existing established SFR neighborhoods.
2. We all know, from experience, that adding increased multi-dwelling units does not make them “Affordable”. The rents, and values are simply too high in our city.
3. Please consider that lack of egress for emergency vehicles and such as this impacts the neighborhoods greatly.
4. The electric grid is being overloaded as it is, let alone adding multi units and Data centers being planned: We also need to consider the loss of Off-Street Parking & Charging: Permitting multi-unit structures, with zero off-street parking, is a parking nightmare for residents and even emergency vehicles. Adding grid retrofitting will add costs entirely onto the City and PG&E, which as we all know will be passed onto the homeowners.
5. Increased congestion into our neighborhoods will be excessive.
6. Eliminating the public’s voice for, or against, any specific projects considered is not right. If an individual wants to build a second story, typically a neighbor would be allowed to have a say, let alone multi-dwelling units into SFR zoning. Our established residential neighborhoods must be protected. I urge you to listen to your constituents on August 18th by voting to REJECT the Missing Middle up-zoning framework and directing staff to align exclusively with minimum state mandates. Your constituents will remember come election day. Thank you for your service to San José and your consideration of this critical matter.
Sincerely, Bruce and Sarah Aseltine San José Residents & 41 year Homeowners
Agenda 26-852
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
Our names are Bruce and Sarah Aseltine, we are 41-year San José homeowners (residents), and active voters residing in District 10.
We are writing to express our strong opposition in regards to Agenda 26-852 - recommendation to permanently up-zone single-family residential parcels across San José up to 32 units per acre (+ADUs).
We respectfully urge the City Council to vote to completely REJECT and eliminate the "Missing Middle" framework from the Envision 2040 General Plan Update at your August 18, 2026 council meeting.
Instilling blanket, citywide up-zoning strips local control, bypasses public input, and it harms local neighborhoods. We purchased our home in 1986 zoned as an SFR (single family residence) and we want it to stay that way.
Please consider the following:
1. Being San Jose residents for over 41 years, We know that San Jose has a lot of land that can be used for multi-units and should not be encroaching in existing established SFR neighborhoods.
San José Can Meet State Housing Goals Without Up-Zoning California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) mandates and state laws like SB 79 already provide capacity for over 62,000 potential units concentrated along major transit corridors and designated Urban Villages. San José can comfortably meet its housing targets without forcing high-density development into quiet interior neighborhoods, nor should it overreach beyond what state law requires. Being San Jose residents for over 41 years, We know that San Jose has a lot of land that can be used for multi-units and should not be encroaching in existing established SFR neighborhoods.
2. We all know, from experience, that adding increased multi-dwelling units does not make them “Affordable”. The rents, and values are simply too high in our city.
3. Please consider that lack of egress for emergency vehicles and such as this impacts the neighborhoods greatly.
4. The electric grid is being overloaded as it is, let alone adding multi units and Data centers being planned: We also need to consider the loss of Off-Street Parking & Charging: Permitting multi-unit structures, with zero off-street parking, is a parking nightmare for residents and even emergency vehicles. Adding grid retrofitting will add costs entirely onto the City and PG&E, which as we all know will be passed onto the homeowners.
5. Increased congestion into our neighborhoods will be excessive.
6. Eliminating the public’s voice for, or against, any specific projects considered is not right. If an individual wants to build a second story, typically a neighbor would be allowed to have a say, let alone multi-dwelling units into SFR zoning. Our established residential neighborhoods must be protected. I urge you to listen to your constituents on August 18th by voting to REJECT the Missing Middle up-zoning framework and directing staff to align exclusively with minimum state mandates. Your constituents will remember come election day. Thank you for your service to San José and your consideration of this critical matter.
Sincerely, Bruce and Sarah Aseltine San José Residents & 41 year Homeowners
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Attached is a letter from SV@Home urging the City Council to retain the proposed 32 dwelling units per acre density in R-1 areas and take additional steps to facilitate missing middle housing citywide, and to not apply new parking minimums.
San José has made a commitment through its Housing Element to expand opportunities for smaller-scale, neighborhood-serving housing, and the General Plan 4-Year Review is an important opportunity to make that commitment real. At a time when housing development remains extraordinarily challenging, we urge the Council to maintain the proposed density and avoid adding requirements such as minimum parking that would undermine the feasibility of these homes.
Thank you for your consideration and for your continued leadership on housing affordability. We look forward to continuing to work with you to make more housing choices possible across San José.
In community,
Alison Cingolani, AICP
Director of Policy
Become a Member | Donate