Outlook
FW: Public Comment - Item Item 10.3 - General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (August 18, 2026 Agenda)
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 2026 9:17 AM
To Agendadesk
® 1 attachme nt (783 KB)
Screenshot 2026 08 16 151259jpg;
From: Greg Rip
Sent: Monday,
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment - Item Item 10.3 - General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (August 18, 2026 Agenda)
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Item 10.3 - General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (Council Agenda, August 18, 2026; File 26-852)
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers ,
I'd like to thank the Planning staff, the Planning Commission, and the members of the Council who have put so much work into this General Plan Four-Year Review. As a San Jose resident , I'm writing to share my views on some parts of Item 10.3: primarily neighborhood corner stores in Resident ial Neighborhood (RN) areas, and how new housing density should be distributed relative to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and transit access.
First, I Support small-scale corner stores and neighborhood retail in RN districts.
I support directing staff to return with options for allowing small-scale, neighborhood-serving commercial uses such as corner stores, cafes, and similar low-impact businesses on appropriate sites within Residential Neighborhood areas, as recommended in the August 13 memo from Mayor Mahan , Vice Mayor Foley, and Councilmembers Campos, Cohen, and Casey, and further specified in the August 14 memo from Councilmembers Tordillos and Kamei.
Today these uses are concentrated almost entirely on major corridors, which works against the goal of walkable, complete neighborhoods where daily needs are close to home. I love where I live in Midtown San Jose because it does have both smaller commercial streets away from the major corridors and also has corner stores.
I also support the safeguard proposed by Councilmembers Tordillos and Kamei: any corner- store program should explicitly prohibit new Off-Sale Alcohol and Tobacco Retail licenses in RN areas. That guardrail lets the City expand neighborhood-serving retail without inviting the land uses that most concern residents.
This direction is well-grounded in existing General Plan policy:
VN-1.3 already calls for encouraging development and maintenance of compatible neighborhood retail and services within walking distance of residences.
VN-1.15 directs the City to develop and implement policies, design guidelines, and regulations that facilitate small-scale, compatible neighborhood-serving retail in existing neighborhoods.
Goal VN-3 and its policies support improving residents' access to healthful food, which corner stores and small grocers can help deliver in underserved areas.
LU-5.1, LU-5.2, and LU5.3 support promoting new neighborhood-serving commercial uses as part of building complete, mixed-use communities.
LU-5.10 already directs the City to apply extra scrutiny to new off-sale alcohol locations, which is consistent with excluding those uses from a new RN corner-store program.
Second, I support directing additional housing density to low and average-VMT areas, and keep it out of high VMT areas, except within walking distance of transit stations.
The staff memo (Christopher Burton, August 5) and the Planning Commission's 9–2 recommendation would raise Residential Neighborhood density from 8 to 32 DU/AC citywide, with no VMT-based limitation. Councilmembers Candelas, Ortiz, and Mulcahy proposed narrowing that by prohibiting small multifamily projects in Immitigable High-VMT areas, Moderate Fire Severity Zones, Planned Developments, and Area Specific Plans.
I'd like the Council to go further on the VMT piece than the Candelas/Ortiz/Mulcahy memo does. Based on the City's own 2021 per-capita VMT map (attached and here:
https://csj.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/interactivelegend/index.html? appid=148b83cbf734426c93213082d62e7145), I support directing the added RN density to areas that are Below Threshold or at the City Average for per-capita VMT, and excluding it from both Mitigable and Immitigable high-VMT areas, not just the Immitigable tier. Building more housing without cars in areas that are already generating above-average driving works against the General Plan's own VMT-reduction and multi-modal transportation goals.
At the same time, I don't think that exclusion should be absolute. Consistent with the idea of California's SB 79, I support carving out an exception that continues to allow the added density within a three-quarter-mile walkshed of a qualifying transit station , even where the underlying parcel
falls in a Mitigable or Immitigable VMT area. High-capacity transit is precisely the tool that lets dense housing exist without generating higher amounts of VMT. It would also provide a buffer between the existing RN neighborhoods and any new density near the transit stations built as part of SB 79.
For the same reason, I support the staff-recommended increase to Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) density, from up to 30 DU/AC to 20-50 DU/AC, and the corresponding increase to Urban Residential (UR) minimum density. MUN parcels are generally located along established corridors and closer to existing amenities and transit than the typical RN parcel, so this increase is consistent with, rather than in tension with, directing added density to areas that can actually support it without worsening VMT. •
•
•
•
•
This approach is directly supported by existing General Plan policy and the Plan's own VMT framework:
Goal TR-9 commits the City to reducing VMT per service population 20% by 2030 and 45% by 2040 from 2017 levels; steering new density away from high-VMT parts of the city and toward low-VMT, transit-served areas is how that goal gets met rather than undermined.
TR-1.1 and TR-1.3 call for accommodating non-automobile travel modes and substantially increasing the share of trips made by means other than the single-occupant vehicle, which are outcomes best achieved by pairing density with transit access rather than spreading it evenly regardless of VMT.
LU-10.3 directs the City to develop residential and mixed-use-designated land adjacent to major transit facilities, which is the policy basis for the SB 79 transit-walkshed exception I'm asking the Council to make.
TR-8.4 directs the City to discourage oversupply of parking during entitlement, which is an approach that only works well where residents have a real non-driving alternative, again pointing toward transit-adjacent sites for the added density.
Major Strategy #3 (Focused Growth) and Major Strategy #5 (Urban Villages) both reflect the Plan's core premise that new capacity should be concentrated where infrastructure and transit can support it, rather than distributed uniformly across every VMT tier.
Third, I support several other items as consistent with these priorities.
A few other proposals in the memos point in the same direction of more housing supply without adding VMT or working against the General Plan's own goals. I'd encourage the Council to adopt them as well:
Transit-hub height step-down downtown. I support the Tordillos/Kamei proposal to pilot a 45-foot, four-story missing middle height allowance within 0.75 miles of Tier 1 and Tier 2 transit hubs in and around downtown, easing the transition from the 55-foot Tier 2 limit to the 35-foot RN limit. It applies the same transit-proximity logic I'm asking the Council to use for VMT generally.
Defer Local Transit Urban Village plans within SB 79 buffer zones, paired with a commercial overlay. Staff's recommendation to hold off on individual Urban Village plans where SB 79 will already set density and height, while adding an overlay to protect long- term commercial and employment capacity, is a sensible way to avoid duplicative planning work in areas where the State has already acted.
A local density bonus program for missing middle, in lieu of State Density Bonus Law. I support the Tordillos/Kamei proposal to let the City offer a ministerial local density bonus pathway, matching the unit yield allowed under state law, in exchange for adherence to City-set objective standards for height, open space, and neighborhood compatibility. This adds supply while keeping the City's ability to shape how that supply gets built.
An additional General Plan Amendment cycle. I support the Candelas/Ortiz/Mulcahy proposal to add a second annual GPA cycle roughly six months apart from the existing one. This is a purely procedural fix that reduces delay for viable housing and mixed-use projects without changing where or how much density is allowed, and it shouldn't be controversial.
Thank you for considering these points as you finalize direction to staff on August 18. I appreciate the Council's continued engagement with residents throughout this Four-Year Review process.
Sincerely,
Greg Ripa
Midtown San Jose (District 6)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r 021 per Capita VMT per Parcel - Interactive Legend Map ' Cl
I 1 +
Per Capita VMT 2021
Simplified
V ~ VMT
~ BdOwT?vesheld
... Not San Jose Jurisd iction
Outlook
FW: 8/18 Council Vote Item 10.3 - Affordable Housing Goals & Challenges From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:14 AM
To Agendadesk
I 2 attachments (2 MB)
Development Cost Study RoundTable 251120 CSJ shortened version 112125 final.pdf; San Jose Affordable Housing Fact Sheet Larger Question.docx; From: Roberta Moore
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Cc:
Subject: 8/18 Council Vote Item 10.3 - Affordable Housing Goals & Challenges [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Honorably Mayor and Councilmembers,
Staff argues that increased density city-wide is needed to create more affordable housing. But increased density does not necessarily produce affordable units.
The City's 2025 Cost of Residential Development Study found higher-density housing types financially infeasible under the conditions studied, with direct construction accounting for approximate ly 69% of total development costs.
If affordable housing is the goal, focus growth where projects have the scale and requiremen ts to produce it. San Jose's Urban Villages have a goal of 25% deed-restricted affordable housing. Under the City's 2026 Inclusionaiy Housing Ordinance changes, projects with 20 or more units are subject to affordable housing requirements, while projects with fewer than 20 units are exempt.
Demolishing an existing home to build a handful of market-rate units does not guarantee a single affordable unit and could eliminate existing lower-cost housing.
Regards,
Roberta Moore
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
GET THE FACTS FIRST
Does citywide Missing Middle density guarantee affordable housing? NO. 1 Density alone does not create affordable housing
• San Jose's lnclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) - not density alone - is the mechanism that requires or funds affordable units in qualifying market-rate projects.
• Projects with fewer than 20 units are exempt from the IHO. The IHO applies to projects with 20 or more units under the January 27, 2026 changes.
2 Small Missing Middle projects may provide zero affordable units • A home can be demolished and replaced with fewer than 20 market-rate units without an IHO requirement for a deed-restricted affordable unit.
• More units do not necessarily mean more affordability. Existing relatively lower-cost housing can be lost even when the total unit count increases.
3 The City's own cost study shows difficult economics
• The 2025 Cost of Residential Development Study found higher-density podium, wrap and tower prototypes financially infeasible under the study assumptions.
• Direct construction costs were approximately 69% of total development costs. The City describes San Jose as a very expensive place to build housing.
4 Urban Villages are explicitly tied to affordable housing • San Jose's Urban Village policy sets a goal that at least 25% of units built in an Urban Village be deed-restricted affordable housing. The City notes this is a goal, not a requirement on every individual project. • Larger projects can be subject to the IHO and Urban Villages can accommodate dedicated affordable developments, including 100% affordable projects.
5 Redevelopment can displace existing renters
• A renter cannot remain in a home while it is being demolished and replaced. If redevelopment requires the unit to be vacated , the household must move elsewhere du ring the project, subject to applicable tenant protections , not ice and relocation requirements.
• Replacement housing does not guarantee the displaced renter can return. The new units may be market rate and may cost more than the prior home.
BOTTOM LINE
If affordable housing is the goal , focus growth where projects have the scale and requirements to produce it. Small market-rate projects do not automatically create affordable housing and may replace existing lower -cost housing.
CITY SOURCES
1. 2025 Cost of Residential Development Study (Nov. 21, 2025) https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpubl isheddocument/126846/638996842360170000
2. City summary of Cost Study findings (Jan. 26, 2026)
https://www.sanjoseca .gov/home/showpublisheddocument/127856/639050312244200000
3. lnclusionary Housing Ordinance changes (approved Jan. 27, 2026) https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government /departments offices/housing/deve lopers/proposed-changes-to- inclusionary-housing-ordinance
4. Housing Production/ Urban Village affordable-housing policy https://www.sanjoseca .gov/your-government/departments offices/housing/deve lopers/affordable-hous ing-plans-pol icies/housing-product ion
COST OF
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT STUDY
City of San Jose Housing Department
November 21, 2025
CITY OF
S~JOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY ~e Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
2 Background
The City of San Jose Housing Department
contracted with CSG Advisors and Economic and
Planning Systems (EPS) to prepare a Residential
Development Cost Study. EPS focused on the cost
of developing market rate housing while CSG
focused on the cost of developing subsidized
affordable housing.
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SrLJCON VALLEY ~(Ii Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL O F SILICON VALLEY
~e Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
4 Important Context
1. The analysis draws from available
public and private data
2. Hypotheticals are created based on
□ Current market performance
□ Project costs in particular areas
of San Jose
□ A varied set of building types
3. Additional data and analysis is
needed to further an understanding
of the hard cost breakdown
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
1. Important tool to understand barriers
to new housing construction
2. Factors within City Control
□ City policy and programs
□ Impact fees
□ Taxes
□ Permitting
3. Factors outside City control
□ Cost of land
□ Market financing
□ Material supply chains
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing ~
• Economic & Planning
5 EPS Study Scope and Purpose
Scope
■ Evaluate the costs and feasibilit y of developing various residential product types in San Jose
- EPS considers 5 "gener ic " higher density housing building types ■ Results provided across 4 "districts " that correspond to MLS zones used in the Park s fee , consi stent w ith previou s Cost of Development studies Purpose
■ Inform City Council and public on economic feasibilit y of housing development in current market
■ Results w ill inform justification of fee w aivers as outlined in Section
14.10.310 in the San Jose Municipal Code {MC)
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing ~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
6 Analytical Framework for Results
■ Data and analysis reflect 2024 - 25 market
conditions
■ Revenue and cost assumptions informed by 3rd -
party sources (e.g., Costar, Redfin, Marshall + Swift)
and local developer data
■ Individual projects will differ from results shown
due to a variety of factors (e.g., location, quality,
developer capability, site conditions, etc.)
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Cost of Development Study - Market Rate Housing ~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
7 Summary of City Pro-Formas
Description
Rentable Sq. Ft. to Total
Building Sq. Ft. Ratio
Avg. Sq. Ft. per Unit
Residential Stories
Estimated Hard Costs
per Unit
per Sq. Ft.
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
EPS Pro
Forma
Podium
85%
902
5 $449,994
$424
Podium and Wrap
EPS Pro- Sample Sample
Forma Pro- Pro-
Wrap Forma Form a
1 2
85% 85% 85%
902 519 814
5 7 5
$437,994 $327,338 $465,252
$413 $536 $486
Sample
Pro
Forma
3 85%
864
6 $319,666
$315
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing
Tower
EPS Pro- Sample
Forma Pro-
Tower
80%
902
20 $687,068
$610
Forma
4 80%
801
11 $621,762
$621
~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
For-Sale Building Types
Townhome Stacked Flats
Typical Building Characteristics : Typical Building Characteristics :
• 3 - 4 stories • 3 - 4 stories
• Wood frame construction • Wood frame construction
• Integrated parking garage • Integrated parking garage 8 CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Housi ng
Image source: Costar
~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
9 Rental Building Types
Podium
Typical Building Characteristics:
• 6 - 8 stories
• Wood frame construction
over concrete podium
CITYO F ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Typical Building Characteristics :
• 4 - 6 stories
• Wood frame construction
built around concrete
parking structure
Cost of Develop ment Study - Market Rate Housi ng
Tower
-:~ • .. ~ .. •• !::..!:4-
1 Pl'!"''-
,
Typical Building Characteristics:
• 12+ stories
• Steel frame construction
• Podium and / or
subterranean parking
Image source: costa r
~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
Description of Building Types
For Sale Rental
Description Townhome Stacked Flats Podium Wra Tower
Site Acreage 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Housing Units 40 106 172 172 470
Stories 3 4 7 5 22
Program
Density (Units per Acre) 20 53 86 86 235
Avg. Net Sq. Ft. per Unit 1,458 1,118 902 902 902
Net Sq. Ft. 58,313 118,533 155,098 155,098 423,815
Gross Sq. Ft. 72,892 139,450 182,469 182,469 529,769
Floor Area Ratio 0.84 1.60 2.09 2.09 6.08
Parking Format lnteg. Garage lnteg. Garage Podium Structured Underground & Podium
Parking Ratio 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.8
Total Parking Spaces 80 212 172 172 376
CITY OF
~
• Economic & Planning
SANJOSE 1 Systems, Inc.
10 CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY The Economics of Land Use
Cost of Development Study - Market Rate Hous ing
11 Multiple Listing Service (MLS)
Zones
CITYO F ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Cost of Develo pment Study - Market Rate Hous ing
Zones Used:
09: Downtown/
Central
15: West
07B: North
03: South and East
~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
12 Factors That Can Affect Feasibility
■ Key Market Value Considerations :
- Achievable valuation, sale prices and rent schedules
- Mortgage Interest rates
- Land acquisition costs
- Market capitalization rates
■ Key Cost Considerations :
- Labor and material inputs
- Construction financing terms (e.g., interest rates)
- Taxes and fees
- Entitlement streamlining I fast -tracking (not modeled) ■ Consultant sensitivity analysis shows how results might change with improved market conditions
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing ~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
13 Study Results
■ Rationale for tax and fee waivers under Municipal Code Section 14.10.310 varies by product type
- For sale townhomes and stacked flats are positive (less eligible for waivers) - For rent podium, wrap, and towers are negative (may be eligible for waivers) ■ Tax and Fee waivers have and may continue to tip the scales for some projects ■ Development economics varies by location due to differences in asset & liability prices & rents
■ Modest improvement in market conditions can make higher density feasible - Combination of modest increase in rents and/or decline in development costs can make wrap and podium feasible (e.g., 5% - 75% change) CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Tower will require more substantial change in rents and/or development costs to achieve feasibility (e.g., 70% - 35% change)
Cost of Developme nt Study - Market Rate Housing ~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
14 Development Feasibility
Framework
■ Results based on a financial model that incorporates market data (rents, sale prices, construction costs, etc.) to solve for "Residual Land Value" (RLV)
■ RLV represents amount a developer could pay for a site and still have a profitable project.
■ Helps us answer the question:
Is net value of a proposed project (excluding cost of land) equal or greater than existing site value?
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Project
Value -
Project
Costs
(excluding land)
Residual
Land
Value
~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
15 Hard Costs by Building Type
For Sale Rental -----------Description ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Stories 3 4 7 5
Total Housing Units 40 106 172 172
Site Improvement - $10/Site sq. ft.1 $871,200 $871,200 $871,200 $871,200 Hard Costs*
Per GSF $266 $285 $380 $380
Total $19,389,183 $39,743,357 $69,338,103 $69,338,103
Parking Hard Costs
Integrated - $13, 793/space $1,103,440 $2,924,116 $0 $0 Surface - $9,000/space $0 $0 $309,600 $309,600
Structured - $35,000/space $0 $0 $0 $4,816,000
Subterranean - $85,000/space $0 $0 $0 $0
Above Ground Podium - $50,000/space iQ iQ i6,880,000 iQ Total Parking Costs $1,103,440 $2,924,116 $7,189,600 $5,125,600 [1 ] Standard grading and demolition. Excludes unique circumstances such as environmental mitigation.
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
* Hard Cost Breakdown
Materials and Supplies
Labor
65%- 70% of all Hard Costs
30% - 35% of all Hard Costs
Cost of Deve lop ment Study - Market Rate Housi ng
22 470
$871,200
$560
$296,670,752
$0
$0
$0
$15,980,000
ig,400,000
$25,380,000
~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
City Impact Fees and
Construction Taxes
City Impact Fees and Taxes (Rental)
Construction taxes
Parkland in lieu fees
lnclusionary Housing In Lieu Fees
Range Per Unit
$6,400 - $6,800
$11,000 - $20,000
$21,000 - $49,600
% Of Total Unit Costs 5.5% - 10.2%
Total City Impact Fees and Taxes $37,000 - $72,000
CITYOF ~
16 SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY ~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
17 City Development Taxes and Impact
Fees by MLS Zone
Downtown South and
Description West Tower Central North East
lnclusionar:i in-Lieu
Amount (per Net Sq. Ft.) $49.91 $49.91 $49.91 $21.71 $21.71 District West Valley Central Central North Evergreen
Parkland in-Lieu 1
Townhome Amount (per Unit) $21,840 NIA $25,600 $47,040 $14,880 Multifamily Amount (per Unit) $15,440 NIA $18,080 $18,080 $10,480 Tower Amount (per Unit) NIA $10,950 $10,950 NIA NIA
District (MLS Zone) 15-Campbell 9-Downtown 9-Downtown orth San Jose 3-Evergreen School
Amount (per Gross Sq. Ft.) $2.65 $4.79 $4.79 $5.17 $3.11 School District Campbell San Jose San Jose Santa Clara Evergreen Union School Unified School Unified School Unified School School District District District District District
Construction Taxes (per Unit}
Townhome _____ ___________ $12,367
Stacked Flats _____ __________ $8,974
Podium __________________ $6,617
Wrap _______ _ _________ $6,617
~ Tower $7,020
CITYOF ~, · · ,~
SANJOSE ssumes qua 1 Ica I0n or o ar an in- Ieu ee re uc I0n or own ome an mu I amI y proJec s, an --- reduction for Tower projects for providing on-site open space amenities (e.g. balconies, rooftop amenities).
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY .
Cost of Development Study - Market Rate Housing
Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
18 Total Development Taxes and Impact
Fees / Unit By Building Type & Location
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
West Downtown Tower Central North
■ Town home ■ Stacked Flat ■ Podium/ Wrap ■ Tower
~ Note: Includes Construct ion Taxes and lnclusionary, Parkland, and School Impact Fees CITYOF ~, - - ,~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Housi ng
South and East
~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
Other Soft Costs
Average Soft Costs per Unit
For Sale Rental
Stacked
Soft Cost Category Assumption Town home Flats Podium Wrap Tower Architecture and Engineering 4% of Hard Cost $21,364 $16,430 $18,000 $17,520 $27,483 Other Soft Costs 2% of Hard Cost $10,682 $8,215 $9,000 $8,760 $13,741 Permits and Fees 1 % of Hard Cost $5,341 $4,107 $4,500 $4,380 $6,871 Taxes 1 % of Hard Cost $5,341 $4,107 $4,500 $4,380 $6,871 Financing 8% of Hard Cost $40,057 $30,806 $33,750 $32,850 $51,530 Insurance
For-Sale 4 % of Hard Cost $21,364 $16,430 NIA NIA NIA
For-Rent 2% of Hard Cost NIA NIA $9,000 $8,760 $13,741
Marketinq/Leasi nq
For-Sale 5% of Hard Cost $26,705 $20,537 NIA NIA NIA
For-Rent 2% of Hard Cost NIA NIA $9,000 $8,760 $13,741
Developer Fee 4 % of Total Development Cost $30,352 $23,298 $23,778 $23,204 $35,577 Developer Contingency 5% of Total Development Cost $37,940 $29,123 $29,722 $29,005 $44,471 Note : Assumptions are industry standard amounts base d on EPS observations of developer pro-formas.
CITY OF
~
• Economic & Planning
SANJOSE 1 Systems, Inc.
19 CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY The Economics of Land Use
Cost of Development Study - Market Rate Hous ing
20 Citywide Avg. Rents & Sale Prices
- Neighboring City Comparison
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
z $1,800,000
ro
u.. $1,600,000 ""O
Q)
~
$1,400,000 u ro
+-' V)
$1,200,000 ~
Q)
E $1,000,000 0
..c
C $800 ,000 ?;
~ $600 ,000 -Q)
u -~ $400 ,000 Q..
Q)
ro $200 ,000 V)
$0
San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyval e Cupertino Mountain
View
$4,500
$4,000 _
C.
ro
$3,500 ~
..._
$3,000 E
::J
$2,500 =g
Q..
$2,000 i
Q)
$1,500 ~
..c
$1,000 §
$500 ~
$0
■ Townhome (1,500 Sq. Ft.) ■ St acked Flat (1,100 Sq. Ft.) ■ Po d ium / Wrap {800 Sq. Ft.) Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing ~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
21 Key Takeaways - Market Rate Housing
Townhome and stacked flats are feasible under
► current market conditions .
►
►
CITYOF ~
SANJOS-LI
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
,,,
Multifamily (podium, wrap, tower) are infeasible
under current market conditions.
- But fee waivers may make some projects feasible.
~ ~
,.
..
Overall, San Jose remains cost competitive relative
to neighboring jurisdictions.
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing
I~ =,ystems, me.
~ The Economics of Land Use
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL O F SILICON VALLEY
OFFICE TO
RESIDENTIAL
CONVERSIONS
~e Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
23 Key Drivers of Feasibility for
Office to Residential Conversion
1. Building's Physical Attributes
2. Market and Financial Factors
3. Local Regulatory Framework
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing ~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
24 Key Physical Determinants
■ Floorplate depth
■ Window access
■ Floor-to-floor height
ratio
■ Column spacing/
structure rhythm
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
■ Fac;ade / envelope with
operable openings
■ Parking ratio
■ Year built
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing ~
• Economic & Planning
25 Good vs Challenging Candidates
Bank of Italy Building
30 S 1st St (7926)
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
■ Narrow floorplates
support high % of units
on the window line
(fewer interior "dead
zones")
■ Punched , operable
windows on multiple
fa<;ades allow natural
ventilation and
bedroom planning
• Taller ceiling heights
provide flexibility for
residential MEP
distribution and soffits
■ Regular structural grid
makes plumbing stacks
and unit stacking
efficient
■ Strong street presence
supports active ground
floor retail and
place making
Sobrato Tower
488 Almaden Blvd
(2002)
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing
■ Deep floorplates create large
interior areas too far from
windows for viable unit
layouts
■ Curtain wall fa<;ade is costly
to modify and limits operable
windows for ventilation
■ Center-core layout results in
inefficient unit shapes and
long double-loaded corridors
• Lower ceiling heights
(relative to pre-war buildings)
constrain residential system
routing
■ Weak street activation from a
glass-box fa<;ade that doesn 't
support engaging retail
edges.
Image source: Costar
~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
Market and Financial Factors
■ Office building acquisition costs too high to
be feasible
■ Financial condition of existing owner(s)
■ High risk, limited precedent
■ Submarket context matters
CITYOF ~
26 SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing ~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
27 Key Takeaways - Office Conversions
►
►
►
CITYOF ~ ...
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Difficult to make broad conclusion about feasibility
of office-to-residential conversions due to wide
variation in circumstances
Targeted policy interventions can make
some building conversions feasible.
Identifying and quantifying specific opportunities
in San Jose will require additional analysis.
Cost of Deve lopment Study - Market Rate Hous ing ~
• Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
CITY OF
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
S~JOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
29 Interpreting Findings For • • •
Affordable Housing in San lose
►
►
►
►
San Jose's affordable housing costs are consistent
with Bay Area norms
Smaller average units drive higher costs/net square
foot , not higher underlying construction costs
Per-unit costs reflect scale efficiencies and City fee
policies
San Jose represents significant share of affordable
housin ro osed throu hout the Ba Area
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SrLJCON VALLEY Cost of Deve lopment Study- Affordab le Housing Important Context
■ Data sourcing was at time of tax credit application
– Does not reflect cost at financial closing (up to 12 months later) – Does not reflect cost at project completion (up to 24 months later) ■ Tax credit application budgets can vary up to 10% from the actual development costs
– There can be significant variations between estimates made at application submittal and final costs
■ San Jose, because of Santa Clara County Measure A Policy, built smaller units at a h
igher per square foot costs
30 Cost of Development Study - Affordable Housing
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
31 Affordable Housing Dataset
194 new construction developments based upon 2023-2025 tax credit applications Scope of Data
o 194 new construction developments included in the
dataset from available funding applicat ions:
o New construction app licat ion data included for:
o Santa Clara County from 2023-2025 YTD,
comprised of 28 proj ects and 4,298 un its -
providing a robust sample of proposed
deve lop ment activity.
o Bay Area (9-county}, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, and San Diego from 2024-2025
YTD*
Data Collected
o Project details : city/county and
hous ing type (Large Fam ily, Specia l
Needs, Single-room Occupancy
(SRO}, etc.)
o Unit mix: number of un its per
bedroom size, square footage by
bedroom type
o Development budget categories:
ha rd costs, soft costs, fi na nci ng
fees, reserves, deve loper fee, etc.
o 22 additional projects (2016-2022)
were excluded to ma inta in focus
CITYOF ~
on current cost environ
*No new cons t ruct ion app licat ions were sub m itted fo r Marin County in 2024 -2025
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SrLJCON VALLEY Cost of Develop m ent Study - Afforda ble Hous ing 32 Methodology & Key Context
Application-stage data provides a consistent baseline for comparing San Jose to peer metros This analysis uses data from tax credit applications for new construction affordable housing projects across major California metros.
The dataset captures projected development costs, funding sources, and key details at the time of application such as bedroom and unit mix, building square feet and other key attributes.
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SrLJCON VALLEY
Appl ication data (vs. closed project data) was used to generate a larger sample size for more robust regiona l comparisons.
Projects budgets rep resent amounts at the application stage - costs often increase between application and closing, so actual costs are likely higher for all areas.
Cost of Development Study- Affordable Hous ing
33 Methodology & Key Context Cont.
Application-stage data provides a consistent baseline for comparing San Jose to peer metros ~ Development costs from prior to 2025 were adjusted upward by "1lil 3% per year to allow comparisons in terms of 2025 dollars ~ Acquisition costs were excluded from the analysis because:
V l) these costs are treated inconsistently in CDLAC applications and
2) excluding acquisition provides more consistent comparison to the market rate methodology presented by EPS
~ Reported costs do not include additional fees that may be V triggered by City funding contributions
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SrLJCON VALLEY Cost of Development Study- Affordable Hous ing
CITY OF
AFFORDABLE
DEVELOPMENT
COST FINDINGS
S~JOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
35 San lose in Bay Area Context
$1,050
San Jose
$675,744
-------
San Jose ~
CITYOF ~~ · ·,~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SrLJCON VALLEY
$1,436
Cost Per Net Sq. Ft.
$1,215
$976 $1,006
$1,062 $1,087 $1,141
•
Solano Contra Costa Sonoma San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Cruz Alameda San Francisco Per Unit Cost*
$808,958
$759,663
$829,394 $822,645
$685,620
_ _,$~~~'- -
-- -- --· •
Solano Contra Costa Sonoma San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Cruz Alameda San Francisco (no app lications were submitted for Marin Cou nty in 2024 or 2025YTD) Cost of Development Study- Affordable Housing
Projec t ed
developmen t
cost s across
co unt ies indica t e
t hat bot h unit
size and
developmen t
type drive t ot a I
cost s more t han
geography alone.
*Per Uni t Cost at
applica t ion,
acq uisit ion cost s
excl uded
36 Smaller Units Drive Higher Costs Per
Net Square Foot (NSF)
Cost Per Net Square Foot and Average Unit Size
$1,4 36
• Higher costs per NSF align
with smaller units -
counties with the smallest
average unit sizes tend to
show the highest cost per net
square foot.
• San Jose's costs are
consistent with peers -
development costs generally
track other Bay Area counties
with comparable unit sizes.
• Regional differences are
wide - cost per net square
foot ranges from about $840
in Solano to $1,366 in San
Francisco , underscoring the
Bay Area's construction cost
gradient.
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SrLJCON VALLEY
$1,215
$1,200
$1,050
$1,000
$800
644
$600
$400
$200
$0
San Jose Solano Contra Costa Sonoma San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Cruz Alameda San Francisco (no applicat ions were subm itted for Marin County in 2024 or 2 Cost of Development Study- Affordable Housing
San José Developments Have More
Units and Fewer Bedrooms
Findings from funding
applications:
■ More units per
development:
– 173 units vs. 15
4 in Santa Clara
and 112 Bay Area
a
verage.
■ Fewer Bedrooms:
– 66% of units are
Studios/1-BRs in
San Jos
é vs. 55%
Bay Area.
– 34% 2–3 BRs in
San José vs. 44%
Bay
Area.
City of County of Major Metro Areas
San José Santa Clara Bay Area Sacramento Los Angeles San Diego Total/Avg Total Properties 19 28 70 10 72 28 180
Total Units 3,287 4,298 7,835 1,071 8,203 3,249 20,358
Units Per Project 173 154 112 107 114 116 113
38% 5% 36% 14% 100%
Unit Distribution
by Bedroom
Total Units /
Distribution
of Units
Studios 27% 26% 25% 17% 19% 16% 21%
1-Bedroom 39% 35% 30% 47% 49% 36% 40%
2-Bedroom 22% 24% 26% 21% 21% 26% 23%
3-Bedroom 12% 15% 18% 14% 10% 22% 15%
4-Bedroom 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 1%
San Jose & Santa Clara figures include applications from 2023 to 2025. Data for the Bay Area and Major Metro Areas section includes applications from 2024 to 2025.
37 Cost of Development Study - Affordable Housing
CITYOF ~
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Key Takeaways
Affordable Housing Development
►
►
►
...
Cost of affordable housing development in San Jose
tracks comparable Bay Area counties
High cost per net square foot are driven by smaller
average unit size in San Jose
San Jose represents a large share (42%) of affordable
housing developments planned in the Bay Area
CITYOF ~
3s SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SrLJCON VALLEY Cost of Development Study- Affordable Hous ing
COST OF
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT STUDY
City of San Jose Housing Department
November 21, 2025
CITY OF
S~JOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY ~e Economic & Planning
1 Systems, Inc.
The Economics of Land Use
Outlook
FW: Support Letter for Item 10.3 -General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:06 AM
To Agendadesk
I 1 attachment (101 KB)
SJSV Chamber Support for General Plan Four Year Review Item 10.3.pdf; From: Lennies Gutierrez
Sent: Monday, August 17,
dera, Teddy
I
ocha, Vincent
Subject: Support Letter for Item 10.3 - General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and City Councilmembers ,
On behalf of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, attached is a letter in support of the 8/13 Mayor's memo on the SJ2040 General Plan. Please reach out if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Lennies
BUY YOUR TICKETS! Lennies Gutierrez
Policy Consultant
'\~ft -----BARBECUE
jiiit _ ..
,:.. Sutter He<llth
08/20/2026
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
www.sjchamber .com
Office: 101 W. Santa Clara Street, San Jose, CA95113
Mailing Address: PO Box 149, San Jose, CA 95103
©@@®
This message is from outsi de the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
101 W. Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113 | sjchamber.com | 408-291-5250 |
August 17, 2026
Mayor Matt Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council 200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: Item 10.3 — General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, I write in support of the memorandum from Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, and Councilmembers Campos, Cohen, and Casey regarding the General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework.
The lack of affordable housing is the number one issue our business community identifies as a challenge to doing business in San Jose. Housing costs directly affect employers’ ability to recruit and retain workers, the distances employees must commute, and ultimately our city’s ability to remain competitive. San Jose needs more housing, at more price points, and we need policies that make it possible to actually build it.
We appreciate that the memorandum takes a pragmatic approach to creating that capacity. Studying a range of densities in Residential Neighborhood areas allows the City to understand the impacts and feasibility of different approaches before making a final decision in 2027. The proposed changes to Public/Quasi-Public lands can create additional opportunities for affordable housing, while the exploration of neighborhood-serving commercial uses recognizes that growing neighborhoods also need the small businesses and services that make them vibrant and complete.
We particularly appreciate the broader balance reflected in the General Plan review. San Jose must significantly increase its housing supply while also protecting its ability to grow jobs. Maintaining a strong jobs-to-employed-resident ratio and preserving sufficient employment capacity are critical to San Jose’s long-term economic and fiscal health.
Housing and jobs cannot be viewed independently: our businesses need a workforce that can afford to live here, and our residents need access to good jobs and economic opportunity.
The memorandum also appropriately recognizes the connection between housing policy and protection of employment lands. Maintaining a certified Housing Element is essential not only to meeting San Jose’s housing obligations, but also to preserving local land-use
SanJose
Chamber of Commerce
Serving San Jose and Silicon Valley for 14 O Years
101 W. Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113 | sjchamber.com | 408-291-5250 |
authority and reducing the risk that employment lands could be lost through Builder’s Remedy projects.
San Jose’s economic competitiveness depends on our ability to do both: build substantially more housing that is attainable for our workforce and maintain the employment capacity necessary to grow businesses, jobs, and our tax base. We appreciate the work of City staff, the Planning Commission, the General Plan Task Force, and the Mayor and Councilmembers who have worked to balance these important objectives.
The San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce supports the recommendations contained in the August 13 memorandum and encourages the City Council to approve them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Leah Toeniskoetter
President & CEO
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
SanJose
Chamber of Commerce
Serving San Jose and Silicon Valley for 14 O Years
Outlook
FW: Comment Letter for Inclusion for the 8/18/ 26 City Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 8:59 AM
To Agendadesk
I 1 attachment (330 KB)
VTA Letter to CSJ GP4Year Aug2026 CityCouncil.pdf;
From: Enright, Tonia
Sent: Friday, August 1
To: City Clerk
Cc: O'malley Solis, J
Rocha, Vincent Tran, David
Subject: Comment Letter for Inclusion for the 8/18/26 City Council Meeting [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear City Clerk,
Learn why this is important
VTA would like the attached comment letter included for the Tuesday, August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Item 10.3 regarding File No. 26-852.
Thank you.
Best wishes,
Tonia Nehil Enright
Management Administrative Assistant
Multimodal Planning & Real Estate
Santa Clara Valle Trans ortation Authority
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Docusign Envelope ID: DEBE59BC-2463-8C29-827A-9CA658C70681 ~
anta Clara Val~ey
Transportation
Authority
August 18, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of San Jose
Subject : VTA Comment s on the General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of San Jose's General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework. VTA staff has participated throughout the General Plan Four-Year Review process and previously submitted several comment letters. We have also met numerous times with City staff, and we thank staff for their continued engagement and collaboration on this eff01t.
VTA urges the City Council to adopt the policy framework recommende d by the Planning Commission, including the recommendatio n in the Small Multifamily / Missing Middle Housing catego1y to increase the density in the Residential Neighborhood land use designation from 8 DU/AC to 32 DU/AC.
VTA notes that the City set a progressive direction in adopting its Transit First Policy and removing minimum parking requirements in 2022, and the outcomes of this General Plan Review process should reflect these policies. Building on these policies will help the City meet the standards in MTC's Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy, which is impo1iant for the City to qualify for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) 4 TOC fucentive funding and for VTA to receive regional funding allocations for the BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension.
VTA also reiterates its suppo1i for the path towards allowing residential mixed-use development at the Cerone Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) site, discussed by City staff at the June 3, 2026 Task Force meeting, of folding review of the Cerone site into the No1ih San Jose Housing 2.0 process. While a specific path fo1ward has not yet been identified for VTA's Santa Teresa TOD site, VTA looks fo1ward to continuing to work with City staff to explore oppo1iunities and next steps .
Thank you for your consideration and continued collaboration as the City moves ahead with implementat ion of the General Plan Four-Year Review policy framework.
Sincerely,
Director ofMu ltimodal Planning & Real Estate
Santa Clara Valley Transpo1iation Authority
cc:
City of San Jose: Chris Bruton, Manira Sandhu·, Ruth Cueto, Jerad Ferguson, Sanhita Ghosal VTA: Deborah Dagang, Beverly Greene, Josselyn Hazen, Rob Swierk, Triana Crighton 3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1927
Administration 408-321-5555
Customer Service 408-321-2300 Solut ions that move you
Opinion: San Jose residents deserve a voice in historic land-use decision next week ‘The debate is not about housing versus neighborhoods. It is about how growth should occur and whether residents should have a voice. ’
Sal Pizarro — Bay Area News Group
San Jose City Hall
By Pierluigi Oliverio
PUBLISHED: August 14, 2026 at 3:45 AM PDT | UPDATED: August 14, 2026 at 10:54 AM PDT On Tuesday, the San Jose City Council will consider what may be the most consequential land-use proposal in the city’s history.
The debate is not about housing versus neighborhoods. It is about how growth should occur and whether residents should have a voice in decisions that directly affect their communities.
The Planning Commission voted 9-2 to move the proposal forward. One of the dissenting commissioners actually wanted even greater density. The proposal now heads to the City Council, where the final decision will be made next week.
San Jose already has an ambitious General Plan. Having served on the General Plan Task Force three times during the past two decades, I have witnessed the public process accommodating future growth. The General Plan allows for approximately 400,000 additional residents and directs that growth toward areas with existing infrastructure, transit and employment centers where walking, biking and public transportation are practical options.
The California Legislature has passed numerous laws intended to accelerate housing production, and their impact has not been felt yet due to interest rates. These laws reduce local review, eliminate neighborhood input and diminish the authority of local government.
Additional legislation continues to move through Sacramento that would further reduce General Plans and local decision-making.
However, the proposal being considered by San Jose is not required by state law. It is a discretionary local decision. San Jose is one of a few cities in the country considering such intensity for established single-family neighborhoods.
Under the proposal, a single-family home could be demolished and replaced with as many as 10, 12, 14 or even 16 housing units, up to three stories in height, with no parking requirements and zero public hearings. Residents who have lived next door for decades would have no formal opportunity to provide feedback.
The question before San Jose is not whether to build housing. The question is whether growth should occur through collaboration with neighborhoods or whether communities should simply be expected to absorb dramatic change without input.
There is also a fiscal consideration. San Jose already has one of the most challenging jobs- to-housing imbalances, and housing development not accompanied by sufficient employment growth will further strain city finances.
New residents increase demand for municipal services, while residential development typically generates less tax revenue than commercial and employment-generating uses.
Maintaining a healthy jobs-to-housing ratio is critical to both quality of life and the city’s long-term fiscal sustainability.
Residents should carefully consider the impacts to tree canopy, neighborhood ambiance, commute traffic and parking.
Is it reasonable to compete for increasingly scarce street parking while garages are no longer required?
Perhaps most importantly, this decision is largely irreversible. Under current state law, once zoning capacity is increased, cities do not have the ability to reduce it in the future.
If the policy creates unintended consequences, future councils may find it impossible to restore previous zoning.
That reality makes public awareness essential.
A proposal of this magnitude deserves broad notification. Every resident should have an opportunity to understand what is being considered and how it would impact their neighborhood. A citywide post card mailing or inclusion with annual utility notices provides transparency. Relying on the internet is not sufficient for a decision that would reshape neighborhoods throughout San Jose for generations.
Reasonable people can disagree about the proposal itself. What should not be controversial is ensuring residents are informed and have an opportunity to participate before a decision of this scale is made.
Before the City Council casts its vote on Tuesday, the people of San Jose deserve to know what is at stake and to have their voices heard.
Pierluigi Oliverio is a San Jose Planning Commissioner. He formerly represented District 6 — which includes Willow Glen, Fruitdale and West San Carlos — on the San Jose City Council.
(see page 6 of GP Task Force May 20 Meeting Presentation on Missing Middle)
Overall VTA ridership has recovered to only about 72% of pre-pandemic levels, with most of that recovery occurring on core corridors such as Rapid Bus Routes 500 and 522 and the Blue and Green Light Rail lines serving downtown and North San Jose employment centers. In contrast, suburban routes - the same areas targeted for citywide up-zoning--serving neighborhoods such as Evergreen and Almaden--continue to experience minimal ridership.
(See: Board Correspondence 06_05_26.pdf.)
VTA’s Ridership by Stop data further demonstrates that proximity to a bus stop does not translate into transit use. Even where service exists in outer single-family neighborhoods, ridership remains low because of infrequent service, long travel times, and inconvenient routing. As a result, residents of newly upzoned neighborhoods will continue to rely primarily on automobiles.
The proposed citywide “Missing Middle” up-zoning therefore allows significantly higher residential density in areas where driving is the only practical and statistically observed transportation choice. This will inevitably increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT), localized congestion, and associated greenhouse gas emissions.
Nor can the City rely on VTA to resolve these deficiencies. Two recent Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury reports raised serious concerns about the agency’s performance:
• The grand jury described VTA as the “most expensive and least efficient”
transit system in the nation.
• A separate grand jury report concluded that VTA failed to adequately manage the nearly $13 billion San Jose BART extension.
p y p p y, y y pp
equity and pass wealth to future generations.
Will It Improve Affordability?
Increasing zoning capacity does not guarantee lower housing prices. Research has found that high land, construction, and financing costs can make Missing Middle projects expensive to build, particularly in high-cost markets like San José. In fact, an economic study (report starts on pg. 20) completed in 2021 concluded that four and eight plex units per lot do not make housing more affordable.
The City should estimate the expected rents, sales prices, and affordability of the housing this proposal is likely to produce.
The City Should Complete the Analysis First
Before adopting a permanent citywide zoning change, the City should answer several basic questions:
• How many projects are financially feasible?
• How many units are likely to be built?
• How many will be owner-occupied versus rentals?
• Will the proposal meaningfully improve affordability? • What are the long-term fiscal and infrastructure impacts? These are fundamental planning questions. Until they are answered with evidence, the City cannot demonstrate that the Missing Middle Recommendation will deliver the affordable homeownership opportunities and long-term community benefits that residents have been promised. --Families
and Homes SJ
p p y
services where the cost outweighs the revenue collected." This is the City's own fiscal analysis—not the opinion of housing opponents.
MORE HOUSING WITHOUT MORE JOBS INCREASES FISCAL PRESSURE The Missing Middle proposal expands residential development while providing no corresponding plan for employment growth. At the same time, state policies such as SB 79 could reduce land available for future job-producing commercial development.
As housing grows without matching job growth, the City faces:
Higher demand for police, fire, parks, libraries, roads, and infrastructure.
More commuter traffic and congestion.
Increased infrastructure maintenance costs.
Greater pressure on the General Fund and long-term structural deficits.
Earlier General Plan reports warned that San José's jobs imbalance has already created "significant negative fiscal, environmental and quality of life impacts." A Regional Imbalance
The proposal would place San José at a competitive disadvantage by accommodating substantially more housing while neighboring cities continue to benefit from higher levels of commercial and employment development. This shifts a disproportionate share of regional housing costs onto San José while other cities retain stronger tax bases.
Housing Needs Balance
San José needs more housing—but it also needs fiscal sustainability.
August 16, 2026
The Honorable Matt Mahan, Mayor of San José,
and Members of the San José City Council
200 East Santa Clara Street, San José, CA 95113
Sent via email to mayor and all councilmembers
RE: August 18, 2026 agenda, Item 10.3 — General Plan Update. SUPPORT for the full staff framework, including the Winchester Boulevard upzoning on which the Planning Commission deadlocked, and Urban Residential at 826 N. Winchester Boulevard.
Dear Mayor Mahan and Councilmembers:
I have lived in the Cory Neighborhood for more than twenty years. I serve as Vice President of the Cory Neighborhood Association board; I founded and led the Winchester Neighborhood Action Coalition; I co-chaired the Stevens Creek Advisory Group, which covered the two miles of Stevens Creek Boulevard from Winchester to Lawrence; I serve on the board of NOVAworks; and I am a worker-owner of A Slice of New York, the cooperative pizzeria at 3443 Stevens Creek Boulevard, on this corridor. I write for myself alone — not for any of these organizations.
I will also be candid: on this item I am a minority voice in my own neighborhood, and I know it. I ask you to weigh this letter anyway, because it comes from someone who has spent two decades doing the unglamorous work of this corridor — and because the loudest voices in a room are not always the ones describing the world as it actually is.
The world as it actually is: this corridor is the strongest ground for growth in San José, the growth is already leased, entitled, and under construction — and the only open question is whether the homes come with it.
1. Look at what the market is doing here right now. Westfield Valley Fair, the highest sales-per-square-foot mall in California, anchors this node; Santana Row beside it draws more than 8.5 million visits a year. Santana West's first office building reached one hundred percent leased in early 2026 — PNC Bank took the last suite — while citywide office vacancy exceeds eighteen percent. Demand here is strong enough that former retail space at Santana Row is being converted into offices. Federal Realty is already entitled to build a second Santana West building of similar scale, has a Master Plan Update in environmental review to raise the district's commercial capacity to roughly 2.78 million square feet, and is under construction today on Lot 12: 258 rental homes at six stories, delivering in 2027. None of this is speculative. It is signed leases and poured concrete.
2. Commercial growth without nearby housing multiplies impacts; housing converts them into neighborhood life. Every worker and visitor who cannot live near this node arrives by car, and every square foot of that entitled pipeline compounds the load, year over year. Meanwhile my neighborhood no longer has a grocery store; our transit frequency lags because ridership lags; our pedestrian environment underperforms the density of destinations around it. Residents within walking distance are the only lever that fixes all three at once. That is why the incremental, wait-and-see approach is the costliest option on the table, not the safest one.
3. Break the deadlock in favor of the Winchester upzoning. Your Planning Commission advanced the entire staff framework except the piece closest to the region's strongest demand: buildings up to eight stories on roughly a dozen Winchester Boulevard parcels near Santana Row, most of them one- and two-story frontage today. Eight stories across the street from a fully leased office district and the state's most productive mall is not radical; it is overdue. If eight stories cannot be planned there, the framework has no integrity anywhere in the city. I have said publicly that 20- to 40-story buildings belong near this node — unlike downtown, no FAA ceiling constrains us here. Whatever your comfort level, treat 85 feet as a floor near Valley Fair, not a ceiling.
4. Adopt Urban Residential at 826 N. Winchester. In 2024 a developer proposed a 17-story project there: 135 homes above 16,800 square feet of ground-floor commercial space — including the kind of neighborhood- serving amenities and retail Cory lost when our grocery closed, including a first-of-its-kind rooftop park/restaurant. Policy, not the market, blocked it. The parcel is not “disconnected”; it faces the busiest retail destination in Northern California. Staff's Urban Residential recommendation corrects the designation to match the location, and I urge you to adopt it.
5. On the citywide 32 units per acre, and the argument to wait for the State's next allocation: flat population growth in one of the most expensive housing markets in America is not evidence of low demand — it is evidence of constrained supply. People are not declining to come; they are being priced out. San José must plan for roughly 62,000 homes regardless, and State law — SB 79 among others — is arriving on its own schedule whether the City plans intentionally or not. Adopting the framework now is what “focused, intentional growth” looks like. Deferring the map is not caution; it is drift.
6. A cautionary tale is unfolding across the street, this very month. In Santa Clara, on the old BAREC land at Winchester and Forest — a site I have been involved with since 2003, and whose community vision I helped drive in 2014 — the Agrihood was approved: 361 homes, 181 of them affordable, around a working urban farm.
Two-thirds of it is built and thriving. The final parcel, entitled for 160 mixed-income rental homes at roughly 90 units per acre, goes before the Santa Clara Planning Commission on September 2 with a proposal to cut it to 44 for-sale townhomes at 25 units per acre — on the claim that density does not pencil across from Valley Fair.
That is what happens when a city hesitates on its best-located land: the entitlement gets traded down, and the outcome is locked in for fifty years. Do not let San José's side of this corridor drift the same way. And where the two cities share this node — the boundary runs through a parking lot — I would urge coordination rather than the exchange of objections across the city line. The housing shortage does not respect it.
7. Where my neighbors ask for process quality, I agree with them. The District 6 Neighborhood Leaders Group — whose members I served alongside for years, and whom I respect — is right to ask for real outreach, enforceable objective design standards, and a predictable waiver process. Predictability is pro-housing. But predictability means adopting a clear, ambitious map now and holding everyone to it — not deferring the map and calling the deferral caution.
Please adopt the staff recommendations on Item 10.3 in full — including the Winchester Boulevard upzoning and Urban Residential at 826 N. Winchester — and direct staff to study where additional height near Valley Fair and Santana Row is warranted.
Respectfully,
Kirk Vartan
Cory Neighborhood, San José (District 6)
Vice President, Cory Neighborhood Association board (affiliation for identification only; views are my own) Cc: city clerk
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
The information provided is based on state law, City of San José reports posted online, and the additional sources noted, including CFR, Families & Homes, district leadership, neighborhood group leadership, and online research.
Supporting articles:
San José Spotlight — Waite: Housing proposal is detrimental to our quality of life and San José's fiscal future Mercury News — Opinion: San José residents deserve a voice in a historic land-use decision Opportunity Now — Neighborhood group warns about impact of upzoning on city's vital tree canopy Opportunity Now — Concerns that upzoning will increase traffic and pollution as vehicle miles traveled goes up CalMatters — California RHNA housing and affordable housing progress
1 Central Policy Concern
San José needs more housing. But housing at all costs is not a housing strategy—and giving away development rights citywide is not thoughtful planning.
The question is not whether San José should build more housing. The question is where housing should be built, how much density communities and infrastructure can reasonably support, and whether substantial new development rights should be granted citywide, by right, without parking requirements or meaningful project-level public review.
San José should pursue a measured, evidence-based approach: build where density makes sense, measure the results, address the impacts, and then determine what comes next.
Start with the areas already planned for substantial growth—Urban Villages, SB 79 transit areas, and Mixed-Use Commercial corridors. These areas can provide significant housing capacity while placing new development closer to transit, jobs, services, and amenities.
Before expanding additional density citywide, the City should establish measurable benchmarks and evaluate actual results: housing production, affordability, homeownership, traffic and VMT, infrastructure capacity, schools, parks, police and fire services, displacement, environmental impacts, tree canopy, and neighborhood stability.
A comprehensive housing policy must recognize that more units do not automatically produce affordability or homeownership. Higher density can also bring higher construction costs and development economics that favor market-rate rental projects rather than attainable homes families can purchase.
Citywide by-right upzoning also shifts significant power from residents and the public process to developers and investors. Once development rights are granted and projects are built, reversing course is not possible according to state law.
The consequences will not be shared equally. The residents with the fewest resources may have the least ability to absorb displacement, increased housing costs, parking and transportation impacts, or declining public services.City policy should consider all constituents—not simply those who benefit financially from increased development rights.
San José has alternatives. Rather than turning every neighborhood into part of an untested experiment, focus growth where the General Plan and state law already provide substantial capacity. Test the policy. Measure what actually happens. Fix the problems. Then decide whether additional changes are justified.
San José can build more housing without abandoning thoughtful planning, neighborhood stability, infrastructure capacity, resident participation, or the goal of expanding homeownership.
2 Do not turn an untested policy into a citywide experiment.
Potential Impacts of By-Right High-Density
Development Without Parking Requirements
Too many negative impacts need to be addressed before proceeding with Planning’s proposed plan.
Pat Waite, President of Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility "The proposed plan is full of holes. Development sites would be unpredictable, occurring wherever the developer’s whim finds fit. Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility believes approval of the proposal will negatively affect our quality of life and could be detrimental to the city’s fiscal future."
Refer to his 7/21 article in Spotlight
1. Infrastructure & City Services
• Inadequate Infrastructure Capacity: Existing roads, sewer, water, stormwater, utilities, and other infrastructure may not have been designed to accommodate substantial increases in neighborhood density.
• Financial Strain on the City: Additional residential growth can increase demands on City services and infrastructure. Development should generate sufficient revenue and fees to cover the long-term costs associated with growth rather than shifting those costs to existing taxpayers.
• Infrastructure Costs: Developers should be required to fund their appropriate share of roads, utilities, parks, transportation improvements, and public facilities necessary to support new development.
• Water, Sewer & Stormwater Capacity: Capacity should be evaluated before significant additional development is permitted in existing neighborhoods. • Cumulative Infrastructure Impacts: Project-by-project approvals may fail to adequately address the combined impacts of numerous developments occurring within the same neighborhood.
2. Traffic, Parking & Transportation
• Increased Traffic & Congestion: Additional households can generate additional vehicle trips on residential streets and major corridors.
3 • No Parking Requirements: Eliminating off-street parking requirements does not necessarily eliminate vehicle ownership. Where residents continue to own cars, parking demand may shift onto public streets.
• Loss of Neighborhood Parking: Existing residents may face increased competition for limited curbside parking.
• Emergency Vehicle Access: Congested streets and increased curbside parking may make access more difficult for fire engines, ambulances, police vehicles, and other emergency services.
• Trash & Recycling Conflicts: Increased numbers of trash, recycling, and yard-waste containers can further restrict curb space and interfere with traffic, driveways, sidewalks, and bicycle travel.
• Delivery & Service Vehicles: Higher-density housing generates additional package deliveries, rideshare vehicles, food deliveries, moving trucks, maintenance vehicles, and other demand for limited curb space.
• Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety: Increased traffic, parked vehicles, driveways, delivery activity, and service vehicles may create additional conflicts for pedestrians and cyclists. • Insufficient Public Transit: Higher density in neighborhoods without frequent, reliable transit can leave new residents dependent on automobiles.
Refer to Does a Home without Parking Really Improve Quality of Life? Fay Apartments at .3 parking spaces per unit. Calle de Mundo at .5 parking spaces per unit.
Hoffman Via Monte Neighborhoods at 3 parking spaces per unit.
3. Public Safety, Crime & Blight
• Increased Demand for Police Services: Population growth can increase demands on police, code enforcement, and other City services.
• Fire & Emergency Response: Additional population and development should be accompanied by sufficient fire stations, equipment, personnel, and emergency-response capacity.
• Crime & Blight Concerns: Residents are concerned that increased population without corresponding increases in City services could contribute to problems involving vandalism, litter, illegal dumping, property maintenance, and neighborhood blight. • Emergency Access: Increased street congestion and curbside parking could interfere with emergency response, particularly on narrow residential streets.
The Hoffman Via Monte neighborhood provides an example of how much it takes to keep a 21 DU/AC neighborhood safe.
4. Environment, Climate & Sustainability
4 • Potential Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): Adding density in locations far from jobs, services, and frequent transit may increase automobile dependence and VMT. • Conflict With Climate Goals: Development patterns that increase driving and congestion could make achieving the City's climate objectives more difficult. • Loss of Tree Canopy: Redevelopment may remove mature trees that provide shade, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and neighborhood cooling. • Urban Heat-Island Effects: Loss of trees and landscaped areas combined with additional buildings and hard surfaces can increase neighborhood temperatures. • Loss of Green Space: Larger building footprints can reduce yards, gardens, landscaping, and other permeable or planted areas.
• Stormwater Runoff: Increased impervious surfaces can increase runoff unless adequate stormwater-management systems are incorporated.
• Reduced Solar Access: Taller buildings can shade neighboring rooftop solar systems or reduce opportunities for future solar installations.
• Cumulative Environmental Impacts: The combined environmental effects of multiple by-right developments within a neighborhood should be evaluated, rather than considering each parcel in isolation.
5. Housing Affordability, Homeownership & Displacement
• Loss of Homeownership Opportunities: Redevelopment of existing homes into multi- family rental properties could reduce the supply of entry-level homes available for purchase.
• Investor & Developer Acquisition: Increased development potential may encourage investors and developers to compete with families for existing homes. • Loss of Entry-Level Housing: Relatively affordable older homes may become particularly attractive redevelopment opportunities.
• Resident Displacement: Redevelopment can displace existing renters and households when current housing is demolished or substantially altered. • Higher Costs to Return: Displaced residents may face higher rents or other financial barriers if they attempt to return after redevelopment. • Housing Instability: Rapid redevelopment may make it more difficult for long-term residents, particularly lower-income households, to remain in their neighborhoods. • Unequal Neighborhood Impacts: Lower land values may cause redevelopment pressure to be concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods, potentially increasing displacement risks.
• Loss of Generational Wealth Opportunities: Reduced availability of attainable owner- occupied homes can make it more difficult for working families to build equity and generational wealth.
6. Property Values & Homeowner Impacts
5 • Potential Property-Value Impacts: Residents are concerned that substantially larger multi-family buildings immediately adjacent to existing homes could affect their desirability and market value.
• Loss of Natural Light: Taller buildings can cast shadows on neighboring homes, yards, gardens, and outdoor living areas.
• Loss of Views: Larger structures can obstruct existing views and change the visual environment surrounding existing homes.
• Reduced Privacy: Upper-story windows, balconies, decks, and common areas may overlook neighboring homes and backyards.
• Reduced Solar Access: New buildings may shade existing or potential rooftop solar installations.
• Construction Impacts: Residents may experience prolonged noise, dust, vibration, construction traffic, contractor parking, and other disruptions.
For example, Residents in the Kooser neighborhood have reportedly cited declines of approximately $200,000 for some nearby properties since construction of a multi-family project began. This figure should be independently documented before being presented as a demonstrated effect of the project.
7. Neighborhood Character & Quality of Life
• Changes to Neighborhood Scale: Large multi-family buildings adjacent to one- and two-story homes can substantially alter established neighborhood scale. • Building Mass & Height: Taller and wider structures on residential lots can create significant visual and shadow impacts for neighboring properties. • Loss of Privacy: Increased overlooking from upper floors can affect the use and enjoyment of backyards and living spaces.
• Increased Noise: More households, vehicles, deliveries, mechanical equipment, balconies, and common areas can increase neighborhood noise. • Loss of Landscaping & Open Space: Larger building footprints can reduce yards, mature landscaping, and neighborhood greenery.
• Loss of Community Stability: Rapid redevelopment and displacement can disrupt long- standing relationships among neighbors, schools, businesses, community organizations, and families.
• Irreversible Neighborhood Changes: Once existing homes are demolished and replaced by substantially larger buildings, the physical transformation is effectively permanent.
For example, where are people going to put trash for pick-up? How handle with overcrowded parking?
8. Schools, Parks & Community Facilities
6 • School Capacity: Changes in neighborhood population and demographics can affect school enrollment, capacity, and long-term facility planning. • Potential School Closures or Enrollment Shifts: Housing and demographic changes can affect enrollment patterns and should be coordinated with local school districts. • Pressure on Parks: Additional residents increase demand for parks, playgrounds, trails, recreation facilities, and open space.
• Libraries & Community Centers: Population growth can increase demand for libraries, community centers, recreational programs, and other public facilities. • Reduced Amenities Per Resident: Adding population without corresponding investment can reduce the availability of parks and community resources on a per-resident basis.
9. Planning, Zoning & Resident Participation
• Permanent Citywide Zoning Change: A citywide policy could significantly expand development rights across residential neighborhoods for decades. • By-Right Approval: Projects meeting established standards generally receive administrative approval rather than discretionary project-by-project review. • Reduced Public Notice & Participation: Residents may have fewer opportunities to receive notice, participate in hearings, request modifications, or challenge individual projects.
• Loss of Neighborhood-Level Decision-Making: A citywide policy may reduce the City's ability to evaluate development based on the particular circumstances of individual neighborhoods.
• One-Size-Fits-All Planning: Neighborhoods differ significantly in street width, parking availability, transit access, infrastructure, schools, parks, lot sizes, and proximity to employment.
• Insufficient Environmental & Infrastructure Review: Residents are concerned that substantial increases in density should not occur without evaluating cumulative infrastructure and environmental consequences.
• Difficulty Reversing the Policy: Development rights granted through permanent zoning changes may be difficult to reverse, and buildings constructed under those rules will remain even if future policymakers change direction.
10. Jobs, Housing & Long-Term City Planning
• Jobs-to-Housing Imbalance: Adding housing without corresponding employment growth may worsen the imbalance between where residents live and where they work. • Longer Commutes: Housing located far from major employment centers can require residents to travel greater distances to work.
• Greater Automobile Dependence: Density without nearby employment, shopping, services, and transit may result in additional driving rather than reducing it. 7 • Need for Smart-Growth Planning: Housing growth should be coordinated with jobs, transportation, infrastructure, schools, parks, public safety, and environmental objectives.
Does a Home Without Parking Really Improve Quality of Life? The City should not repeat the mistakes of the past on a citywide scale.
The Fay should be a warning. The 336-unit downtown tower was built with approximately
0.3 parking spaces per unit. It subsequently faced severe vacancy and financial distress, demonstrating the risk of assuming residents will simply give up their cars because parking is not provided.
Housing policy must reflect how people actually live—not how planners hope they will live. Imagine a single mother carrying her baby and groceries after parking blocks from home. Eliminating parking does not eliminate cars—it can simply push them onto surrounding streets and shift the burden onto residents and existing neighborhoods.
Traffic, Parking & Transportation
• Increased Traffic & Congestion: Additional households can generate additional vehicle trips on residential streets and major corridors. • No Parking Requirements: Eliminating off-street parking requirements does not necessarily eliminate vehicle ownership. Where residents continue to own cars, parking demand may shift onto public streets.
• Loss of Neighborhood Parking: Existing residents may face increased competition for limited curbside parking.
• Emergency Vehicle Access: Congested streets and increased curbside parking may make access more difficult for fire engines, ambulances, police vehicles, and other emergency services.
• Trash & Recycling Conflicts: More trash, recycling, and yard-waste containers can further restrict curb space and interfere with traffic, driveways, sidewalks, and bicycle travel.
• Delivery & Service Vehicles: Higher-density housing generates additional package deliveries, rideshare vehicles, food deliveries, moving trucks, maintenance vehicles, and other demand for limited curb space.
• Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety: Increased traffic, parked vehicles, driveways, deliveries, and service vehicles may create additional conflicts for pedestrians and cyclists.
• Insufficient Public Transit: Higher density in neighborhoods without frequent, reliable transit can leave residents dependent on automobiles.
Real-World Examples
• The Fay Apartments: approximately 0.3 parking spaces per unit. • Calle del Mundo: approximately 0.5 parking spaces per unit. • Hoffman/Via Monte: approximately 3 parking spaces per unit, including a carport space and street permits—yet residents still experience significant parking problems at less than 21 dwelling units per acre.
• On Blossom Hill, an established On Blossom Hill, a restaurant an established business is losing customers because residents from the building next door are using their parking lot. Not enough parking was included in the development.
If parking is already inadequate in a neighborhood providing approximately three spaces per unit at less than 21 units per acre, what should residents expect at 32 units per acre with no parking requirement?
Parking is only part of the impact. Increased density can also affect traffic, lighting, emergency access, public safety, infrastructure, and police patrol needs. These impacts should be evaluated before substantially increasing density citywide—not after problems emerge.
Build where density makes sense. Require realistic parking. Measure the impacts.
Protect quality of life. Then decide whether more density is warranted.
What they are Proposing
Letters Published (A couple from Corey Neighborhood, but none from Families & Homes or our members):
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/132736/639179131709570 000
Insufficient Resident Outreach and Engagement: In a city of nearly one million people, engaging roughly 1,200 stakeholders—many from the investment, development and building industries—is not meaningful citywide outreach. Residents and established neighborhood associations were largely left out of a decision that could permanently change every neighborhood. Changes of this magnitude demand broad public notice, accurate information, and meaningful resident participation before—not after—decisions are made.
Home Ownership
People Moving to other States for Homeownership = 82% Want to Own a Home.
Evidence (and current density housing being built) shows this policy will favor investor purchase of existing homes which will be torn down to build rentals.
https://www.newsweek.com/dare-to-dream-explore-the-american-dream-index- 12054194
Articles Bad Policy
Pierluigi:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/08/14/opinion-san-jose-residents-deserve-a- voice-in-a-historic-land-use-decision/
Pat Waite:
https://sanjosespotlight.com/waite-housing-proposal-is-detrimental-to-our-quality- of-life-and-san-joses-fiscal-future/
https://www.opportunitynowsv.org/blog/opinion-why-sjs-missing-middle-upzoning- proposal-could-worsen-san-joss-jobs-to-housing-imbalance-exacerbating-citys-fiscal- challenges
https://www.opportunitynowsv.org/blog/neighborhood-group-warns-about-impact- of-upzoning-on-citys-vital-tree-canopy
https://www.opportunitynowsv.org/blog/opinion-concerns-that-upzoning-will- increase-traffic-and-pollution-as-vehicle-miles-traveled-goes-up https://pathseldomtravelled.medium.com/lose-one-affordable-gain-one-costly- 6cfd31492ead
Problems No Parking
Shows developers won’t build enough parking if they do not have to build it and how hard it is on renters and the city’s pocket book:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/san-jose-spotlight-santa-clara-residents- 22386411.php
https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/06/04/are-californians-ready-to-give-up-their- cars-a-san-jose-apartment-tower-put-that-to-the-test/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/05/28/home-san-jose-build-property-economy- house-apartment-affordable-jobs/
1 Analysis of HCD and Housing Element
In the context of local planning and Housing Elements (particularly under California land-use law), "High Opportunity Areas"(also referred to as High Resource or Higher Opportunity Areas) are geographical areas mapped and identified as having strong place-based resources linked to positive economic, educational, and environmental outcomes.
Core Indicators
These areas are designated based on specific community metrics evaluated through state "opportunity maps" (such as the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps). They typically feature:
• Educational Quality: Access to high-performing public schools and early childhood education.
• Economic Mobility: Proximity to high-paying jobs, commercial hubs, low unemployment, and higher median household income.
• Environmental Health: Lower exposure to environmental hazards, pollutants, and heavy industrial uses.
• Community Infrastructure: Good transit connectivity, safe neighborhoods, and well- maintained public infrastructure.
Why It Matters in a Housing Element
The term plays a crucial role in two key parts of a Housing Element:
1. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): State mandates require cities to actively combat historic patterns of segregation and income concentration. Identifying High Opportunity Areas allows cities to target those neighborhoods for affordable housing development so low-income resi dents can access better schools, jobs, and services.
2. Site Inventory & Rezoning Programs: When a local jurisdiction builds its Site Inventory (the list of sites where new housing can be built), state housing departments (such as HCD in California) evaluate whether affordable units are being placed in High Opportunity Areas rather than exclusively in low-income or under-resourced areas.
2 State Law Compared with Missing Middle Proposal
Feature CA State Baseline (Mullin
Standard / AB 2011)
San Jose "Missing Middle"
Proposal
Density
Baseline 30 units / acre 32 units / acre
Primary
Target
Area
Multi-family zones,
commercial corridors, and
specific Housing Element
inventory sites.
All Single-Family / Low-Density
Neighborhoods across the city
(Residential Neighborhood
designation).
Purpose
Establishes the threshold
where housing is deemed
dense enough to
accommodate affordable/low-
income housing for state
targets.
Enables "missing middle" housing
(triplexes, fourplexes, small multi-
family) by-right on standard lot
sizes.
Practical
Math
Typically applied to multi-
family developments or larger
commercial infill parcels.
Tailored so a standard ~6,000 sq
ft suburban lot math cleanly works
out to 4 units.
1. What is the California "30 Units/Acre" Law?
Under California Housing Element Law (specifically California Government Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B)), 30 units per acre is known as the "Mullin Density" or the state's default density standard for metropolitan counties.
• How It Works: When local cities outline their Housing Elements (the 8-year state-mandated plans to accommodate regional housing targets), state law assumes that any site zoned for at least 30 units per acre is dense enough to feasibility build lower-income (affordable) housing without requiring individual site financial feasibility studies. • Rezoning Trigger: If a city fails to identify sufficient land to meet its affordable housing targets, state law mandates that the city must rezone specific sites to allow at least 30 units/acre by-right.
• Commercial & Mixed-Use Laws: Other recent state legislation (such as AB 2011) uses 30 units/acre as the baseline density threshold for allowing by-right residential housing on commercial or office-zoned corridors.
3 2. San Jose Planning Commission Proposal (32 Units/Acre) San Jose city planning staff recommended a broad local policy to enable "Missing Middle" housing citywide by raising allowable density in single-family ("Residential Neighborhood") designations from 8 units per acre to 32 units per acre. • What It Permits: On a typical 6,000-square-foot single-family lot, a density limit of 32 units per acre translates directly to 4 primary housing units (e.g., a fourplex or small rowhouses) by-right.
• Key Mechanisms:
o No Parcel Split Required: Unlike state laws like SB 9 (which requires subdividing a lot into two separate parcels to build up to 4 total units), San Jose's 32-unit/acre proposal allows multiple primary units to be built on a single, un-subdivided parcel. o Ministerial Permitting: Projects fitting within these rules would receive fast-tracked, objective ("ministerial") approval without requiring lengthy public hearings or discretionary reviews.
o ADUs in Addition: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) could still be added on top of primary units where state law permits.
August 12, 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
The Willow Glen Neighborhood Association, which has been actively serving our community for more than 50 years, opposes the proposal to increase residential density in single-family neighborhoods to 32 units per acre across the entire City of San José. We do not believe this approach is wise, necessary, or beneficial to the long-term quality of life that residents value and expect.
The Willow Glen Neighborhood Association supports the goals of Envision San José 2040, which anticipated significant population growth of 400,000 people and was developed through extensive community engagement and public input. The General Plan provides a thoughtful framework for accommodating future growth while preserving the character and economic vitality of the city.
The existing General Plan prioritizes the preservation of industrial and commercial lands that generate the tax revenues necessary to fund city services and support city staff. It also seeks to improve the jobs-to-housing balance by strategically locating new housing in areas specifically planned for growth, including Downtown San José, North San José, Urban Villages, and corridors served by Fixed Rail and Bus Rapid Transit. These areas are better suited to support higher-density housing, transit use, walkability, and access to commercial amenities. They represent a deliberate and carefully planned strategy rather than imposing increased density in established neighborhoods where it has never been envisioned.
In recent years, actions by the California Legislature and Governor have significantly reduced opportunities for neighborhood input on many new development projects.
Planning staff can attest to the numerous state laws that have eliminated local discretion and accelerated housing approvals. We believe these legislative changes will result in substantially more housing production than was contemplated when the General Plan was adopted. Given these circumstances, we question the necessity of this proposal and believe it should be removed from consideration as it is a discretionary decision rather than mandated.
We understand and share the desire to expand housing opportunities and address affordability challenges. However, the City has limited ability to influence the primary factors affecting housing production, including interest rates, construction material costs, labor costs, and land values. Great cities are shaped through thoughtful planning and disciplined implementation. Sometimes patience is required to ensure growth occurs in the right locations and in a manner consistent with long-term community goals.
While the Planning Commission approved this proposal, it is important to remember that commissioners are appointed, not elected. As elected representatives, you have a unique responsibility to understand and represent the concerns of your constituents. We respectfully ask that you carefully consider the views of existing San José residents and the community-supported vision embodied in the General Plan before making a decision on this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Willow Glen Neighborhood Association
Potential Housing Capacity of 260 Mixed Use Commercial
Sites in San Jose
San Jose staff identified approximately 260 Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) parcels located within Urban Villages. Those parcels total approximately 87 acres: about 85 acres in planned Urban Villages plus about 2 acres in unplanned Urban Villages. San Jose staff document.
Staff has not published a single unit-yield number for all 260 parcels because the proposed framework would evaluate and redesignate MUC parcels site by site. The August 18 Council proposal directs staff to modify the General Plan designation and zoning of MUC parcels using specified criteria, with detailed amendments to come later. August 18 Council memo.
Using the approximately 87 acres identified by staff, the following table shows the theoretical housing capacity at several illustrative residential densities:
Density Potential Units on 87 Acres
30 units/acre 2,610 units
50 units/acre 4,350 units
75 units/acre 6,525 units
95 units/acre 8,265 units
100 units/acre 8,700 units
140 units/acre 12,180 units
160 units/acre 13,920 units
State Density Bonus law can push the numbers higher on qualifying projects. In the current Council memo, San Jose staff gave an example in which a one-acre parcel with a 50% density bonus could yield approximately 100 units under Mixed Use Neighborhood and approximately 200 units under Urban Residential. See Council memo.
As an order-of-magnitude calculation, the 260 MUC parcels could therefore represent roughly 4,000-14,000 base units, depending on their eventual designations, and potentially more where applicable density bonuses or other state laws increase allowable development.
This is not a San Jose staff forecast that all
260 parcels will redevelop. It is a mathematical capacity illustration based on the acreage and example densities.
Staff also states that these 260 MUC parcels represent about 41% of all MUC acreage and notes that many contain active commercial uses, while small parcel sizes may require property assembly before redevelopment. San Jose staff document.
Sources:
City of San Jose staff document - MUC parcels
San Jose City Council memorandum
City of San Jose staff document - MUC analysis
San Jose General Plan & Housing Element:
HCD and State-Law Compliance
Bottom line: San Jose's 2023-2031 Housing Element is currently HCD-certified. HCD found it in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law on January 29, 2024. Therefore, it would not be accurate to say that the Housing Element as a whole is presently noncompliant.
1. San Jose previously was not in substantial compliance HCD found earlier versions deficient. HCD's March 19, 2024 enforcement letter states that San Jose's adopted Housing Element was not in substantial compliance from February 1, 2023 through January 28, 2024. HCD identified needed revisions involving governmental constraints, affirmatively furthering fair housing, and the sites inventory. After further revisions, HCD found the Housing Element substantially compliant as of January 29, 2024.
2. Certification does not end the City's implementation obligations Certification means the Housing Element met the statutory standard at the time of HCD's determination. The City must still timely and effectively implement the programs and commitments in the certified element. HCD specifically stated that it would actively monitor implementation of Housing Element programs. Failure to implement required programs can therefore create later compliance issues even though the element is certified.
3. HCD certification does not itself establish a requirement for citywide Missing Middle upzoning
The fact that HCD certified San Jose's Housing Element does not, by itself, establish that state law requires San Jose to increase density throughout all single-family neighborhoods. A claim that a particular citywide density proposal is legally required should be tied to a specific statute, HCD directive, Housing Element program, or other enforceable state requirement.
4. State law requires adequate sites and implementation - not unlimited additional capacity
Housing Element Law requires jurisdictions to identify adequate sites and establish programs sufficient to accommodate their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), including housing at required income levels. San Jose's 2023-2031 RHNA is 62,200 units. Whether additional density is legally necessary therefore depends on the City's existing capacity, site inventory, implementation commitments, subsequent state laws, and any applicable HCD requirements.
5. The key Council question
Before approving additional permanent citywide development rights, the City can be asked to identify exactly which changes are required by state law or HCD and which changes are discretionary City policy choices. Those are not the same thing.
Suggested framing for Council
San Jose already has an HCD-certified Housing Element. Before permanently increasing development rights citywide, the City should identify precisely what additional density is legally required by state law or necessary to maintain HCD compliance. If existing state-law capacity, Housing Element sites, planned growth areas, and existing General Plan capacity satisfy the City's legal obligations, additional citywide density should be evaluated transparently as a policy choice rather than characterized as an HCD or state mandate.
Primary sources
California HCD, January 29, 2024 letter: City of San Jose 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element. California HCD, March 19, 2024 Notice of Potential Violation regarding San Jose builder's-remedy applications. City of San Jose, 2023-2031 Housing Element webpage and certification announcement. California HCD, Housing Element Compliance guidance.
San Jose SB 79: Three Station Areas
According to San Jose's January 2026 SB 79 analysis, the theoretical SB 79 housing capacity for the three station areas is:
Station area SB 79 capacity
Berryessa BART 57,996 units
Tamien Station 33,717 units
Snell Light Rail 37,153 units
TOTAL 128,866 units
These are capacity estimates, not projected construction. The City's table compares what zoning could theoretically accommodate under SB 79.
Existing capacity in the same three areas
Station area Existing capacity
Berryessa 59,001 units
Tamien 10,434 units
Snell 3,233 units
TOTAL 72,668 units
SB 79 produces 128,866 units of theoretical capacity across the three, with a net increase over existing capacity of 56,198 units.
From: Alain Mowad
Subject: Fwd: City Council 08/18/2026 Meeting, Agenda Item 10.3 Date: August 16, 2026 at 2:37 PM
To: Roberta Moore
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Alain Mowad <
Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 2:19 PM
Subject: City Council 08/18/2026 Meeting, Agenda Item 10.3 To: Mahan, Matt < The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <
< < Councilmember Sergio Jimenez
< Pamela Campos < < Tordillos,
Anthony < < <
< Ortiz, Peter < <
< < Doan, Bien <
< < < Foley, Pam
< Johnny Khamis < <
<
Cc: Heidi Racherla < Lisa Sanchez < JANET MAISEN
< Shaun short < Gill Parveen < Jaysh Rao
<
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of City Council,
The VEP Community Association respectfully urges the Council not to advance the proposed General Plan framework on August 18.
We understand the City faces real pressure to maintain a certified Housing Element and comply with state housing laws, including SB 79. We also understand the concern that failing to act could risk Housing Element decertification and reduce the City’s local control over land-use decisions.
But those risks make it even more important to get this right, not to move ahead without a clear, complete analysis and meaningful community input.
The current proposal contemplates significant changes to residential neighborhood densities, parking, neighborhood commercial areas, public/quasi-public sites, and urban villages. These changes could have far-reaching consequences for established communities, infrastructure, traffic, parking, public services, and neighborhood character.
Just as concerning, the framework was developed with limited engagement from the broader residential community. Much of the engagement has focused on pro-housing organizations and other advocacy or lobbying groups, while many directly affected neighborhoods have not had a meaningful opportunity to shape the framework before it reaches Council.
That is not consistent with San José’s longstanding commitment to civic engagement. Community participation has been a cornerstone of this City’s planning process, particularly when decisions may fundamentally affect neighborhoods for decades to come. Residents should be partners in developing the alternatives, not merely invited to comment after the policy direction has been set.
Before establishing this framework, the City and Planning Department should return to the drawing board and provide a thorough, public analysis of:
What state law, HCD requirements, and the certified Housing Element actually require; The minimum changes necessary to maintain Housing Element certification; How SB 79 and other state laws may help meet San José’s housing obligations; Whether 16, 24, or 32 dwelling units per acre are truly necessary; The cumulative impacts on neighborhoods, infrastructure, traffic, parking, schools, water, and public safety; and How the City can meet its obligations without unnecessarily upending established communities.
The City should then conduct a genuine, citywide community-engagement process that includes residents, neighborhood organizations, business owners, and other directly affected stakeholders, not only organized housing advocates.
Matt Mahan 2021 Statements | Page 1
MATT MAHAN ON CITYWIDE UPZONING & DENSITY
What He Said in 2021 About Traffic, Transit, Displacement & Neighborhood Upzoning August 3, 2021 - “Smart Growth is San Jose’s Best Future” Then-Councilmember Matt Mahan argued against San Jose’s proposed Opportunity Housing, which he characterized as “a blanket upzoning of all neighborhoods in the city.”
TRAFFIC & SUBURBAN DENSITY
“Increasing density in the periphery of the city would be an environmental disaster in the long run.” Mahan warned that putting more housing in outlying neighborhoods would put more cars on the road, potentially creating unprecedented traffic congestion. He specifically argued that San Jose’s suburban neighborhoods did not have sufficient public-transit infrastructure to support this additional density.
DON’T DENSIFY NEIGHBORHOODS WITHOUT TRANSIT
Mahan argued that increasing density in areas without adequate transit would increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and transportation-related greenhouse-gas emissions.
“Until transit infrastructure and service levels catch up, we should not densify neighborhoods on the edges of our city.”
He cited air quality, health and climate change as reasons.
DISPLACEMENT & SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT
Mahan also warned that blanket upzoning could disproportionately affect lower-income neighborhoods. He argued that allowing fourplex development throughout lower-density neighborhoods could make less-expensive homes especially attractive to speculative developers for demolition and redevelopment. “We need structured, smart growth, not more opportunities for displacement.” He further cautioned that poorly designed upzoning policies could produce greater segregation and displacement rather than solving those problems.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mahan warned that suburban infrastructure was already strained. He pointed to transportation planning that projected little investment in alternative transportation infrastructure in many San Jose neighborhoods. “Our housing plan should do the same.”
HIS ALTERNATIVE: PUT DENSITY WHERE TRANSIT & INFRASTRUCTURE EXIST Mahan did not argue against building more housing. Instead, he proposed concentrating higher-density housing in San Jose’s urban core and transit corridors, particularly designated Urban Villages.
He said these areas could provide “density with less gridlock, housing with less displacement, and growth with less contribution to climate change.”
His proposal, Smart Growth San Jose, focused development where jobs, retail, transit and infrastructure could better support it rather than broadly scattering higher-density redevelopment throughout existing lower-density neighborhoods.
SELECTED 2021 STATEMENTS
“Increasing density in the periphery of the city would be an environmental disaster in the long run.” Matt Mahan 2021 Statements | Page 2
“Until transit infrastructure and service levels catch up, we should not densify neighborhoods on the edges of our city.”
“We need structured, smart growth, not more opportunities for displacement.”
SOURCES & ARTICLE LINKS
Matt Mahan, “Smart Growth is San Jose’s Best Future,” August 3, 2021.
Open the original Medium article
Matt Mahan, “San Jose ‘Opportunity Housing’ Plan Creates Growth Nightmare,” San Jose Inside, August 5, 2021.
Open the San Jose Inside article
Note: The 2021 Opportunity Housing proposal and any current San Jose housing proposal should be compared on their specific provisions.
The quotations above document Mahan’s stated 2021 position.
From: Roberta Moore
Subject: Public Comment Lack of Transparency re: General Plan 4-Year Submitted 5/31 Date: May 31, 2026 at 6:34 AM
To: Cueto, Ruth
Gomez, David A
Cc: Matt Mahan Pierluigi Oliverio
Doan, Bien Kolander, Grace
Fleming, Jonathan
Sandra Delvin
Brenda Dohmen Terri Henry Neil Collins
Gina Zari Enrique Navarro-Donnellan Families & Homes San Jose Rashelle Koren
Bcc: Pierluigi Oliverio Roberta Moore
How can the City Council vote on this major zoning change if key stakeholders from every area have not been included in this conversation?
The Planning Department is making a major rezoning recommendation to increase housing. We all want to increase supply of housing in San Jose to improve affordability. The problem is two-fold: This major upzoning can never be undone. The City’s Planning Department has failed to provide transparency to it residents regarding these proposed changes, as follows:
Lack of outreach to residents in at least 7 of the 10 districts.
Lack of outreach to district leadership.
Lack of outreach to business associations.
Buried key information on the website so it is hard to find and harder to share.
Eliminated remote meetings.
The City has 4 in-person meetings scheduled in April and May to get public feedback. They have blatantly bi-passed the single-family neighborhoods that would be impacted the most by this. And, there is a website where you can leave a comment limited to 500 characters. For a MAJOR REZONING change that is not required to comply with pertinent Housing Element P-35.
Interestingly, the City has eliminated the 2 organizations which would have dispersed this information for resident feedback, as follows:
Elimination of the San Jose Neighborhood Groups
Elimination of the large General Plan Task Force with City meetings The City did more for outreach when changing the rent control laws and hiring a Housing Director. Clearly, Rent Control and the Housing Director impacts a fraction of the city’s residents compared with the proposed rezoning being considered by the Planning Department and evaluated only by the Planning Commission and 4 outreach meetings.
Also, the planning department has not been clear on what is being proposed. Their proposal is a moving target that changes faster than we can keep track of it. Different stakeholders are being told different versions of the proposal. Areas of confusion include:
1. Is it the 1 to 7 units per lot as they are showing? Or, is it really as much as 32 units per acre?
2. What are the set backs?
3. Is it only in the red circle areas that are within 1/2 mile of a train station, is it within a major transit corridor, or is it all of San Jose? If in a transit corridor, what does that mean?
4. What would a density of 32 units per acre with no set backs or windows facing someone’s back yard really look like? (3 stories, 4' lot lines, no parking requirement no windows facing back yards, city-wide is what we were told in a meeting with planning staff April 13, 2023)
Per my 5/29 letter: The Planning Department is showing a hybrid of 10 to 18 units per acre in photos they share. But they are proposing 32+ units per acre. The reality is, with the numbers they are using, they are proposing zoning a minimum of Village Cluster or Urban Suburban Homes in every San Jose neighborhood. Imagine this, I am a developer and I buy 4 adjacent 1/4 acre lots. I make the owners an offer they can’t refuse. With the new proposed zoning, I will have the ability (the right) to build an Urban Village anywhere. Attached is a link with the real density being proposed.
htt //jh h /d it
https://jhparch.com/density
We want the city to require the Planning Department to provide transparency to all of San Jose’s residents, as follows:
1. Bring back the General Plan Task Force with 32+ person stakeholders from all the impacted groups. Instead of the very small advisory group.
2. Put the pertinent information on the City’s Website so it is easily found and shared.
3. Inform the leadership of San Jose’s Neighborhood groups by monthly e-mail and at least one direct mail.
4. Hold at least 1 in-person meeting in each of the 10 districts to report proposals and gather feedback.
5. Hold at least 5 web-based meetings to report proposals and gather feedback.
6. Inform Neighborhood leaders, District leadership, and business, housing, rental associations about what is being proposed and ask them to invite their constituents to these meetings.
7. Post the meetings and what is being proposed on Social Media weekly.
8. Notify the City’s residents, through the Mercury News, Spotlight, Opportunity Now SV what is being proposed and invite them to these meetings.
9. Capture the information collected through this outreach and report the findings ACCURATELY back to the community in another 4 in-person meetings where everyone who attend and all major stakeholders are invited to hear the results and the proposed zoning changes that resulted.
10. Accurately depict what the rezoning will look like in a single family neighborhood.
I think this is material and should be shared at the rules committee. This is a significant part of the lack of transparency by the Planning Department.
Roberta Moore
From: Families & Homes San Jose
Subject: Thank You & Additional Comments on Missing Middle Date: August 14, 2026 at 12:16 PM
To: Mahan, Matt Quevedo, Matthew Rocha, Vincent
White, Megan
Cc: Pat Waite David Heindel
Bcc:
Dear Honorable Mayor, Mr. Quevedo, Mr. Rocha. and Ms. White, First, thank you Ms. White for arranging the meeting. It must be difficult to manage so many requests!
Second, thank you all for your time yesterday to discuss some of our concerns and informing us of your perspective. We appreciate your comments. But we have a few clarifications or questions. Hopefully, a quick call or email from someone could explain them, if necessary.
What the Housing Element says vs 32 units/acre?
Housing Element P-35 states:
“Allow missing middle housing of at least 4 units and up to 10 units in locations throughout the city.”
It does not define this as increasing density by 4 times up to 10 times on residential lots currently zoned at 8 units/acre. Is it really possible that the City committed to 32 DU/acre up to 80 DU/acre citywide? Is not 80 DU/acre a higher density for Neighborhood Urban Villages than now?
The commitment is, therefore, obviously 4 units/lot and up to 10 units/lot.
This makes the 32 DU/acre a massive upgrade and 16+/units a significant increase from the Housing Element commitment.
We also reviewed the approval letter from HCD for P-35 Element. It is more focused on
“Program P-35 (Small Multifamily Housing): This program creates new opportunities for missing middle housing typologies. The City commits to incentivizing smaller housing developments across the City in higher-resourced areas, including near its Urban Villages.”
It does not state 32 DU/acre. It is focused more on the incentivizing of the units. It is our view that the proposed General Plan Taskforce/Planning Commission recommendation greatly exceeds any state law or Housing Element commitment.
What does SB9 allow in San Jose?
There was some discussion on SB9. This law allowed cities to approve or not approve the addition of ADUs or JADUs. On December 14, 2021, the City Council voted to cap the number of units at 4. There seems to be confusion that up to 8 or 10
is allowed under SB9 currently in San Jose.
If we do not maintain SB9 as is, then the number of units could increase citywide to 8 or 10 units. It is our understanding that SB9 requires that when a single-family parcel is split into two, neither resulting lot can be smaller than 40% of the original parcel size, and neither lot can be smaller than 1,200 square feet. Because each new lot must be at least 1,200 sq. ft., an original parcel generally must be at least 2,400 square feet to qualify for an SB 9 urban lot split. (Note: Local jurisdictions can allow smaller lot sizes by local ordinance, but they cannot set a minimum larger than 1,200 sq. ft. for the new lots).
We were unable to find a San Jose ordinance that increased the number of units.
Changes were approved in late 2025, but were focused on setback changes, etc. But the number of units did not increase.
Inadequate Outreach
We spoke briefly about inadequate outreach. We have more outreach from the city on ·
Recycling and
· Rate increases for sewer and garbage
than on this permanent densification impacting every resident. Few Councilmembers even sent out email announcements about the Open Houses. And the public outreach focused more on understanding the General Plan versus Learn How We are Upzoning Citywide. The communication was not targeted to get attention or interest.
We will say that when interfacing with the Planning Staff in person, by email, or phone they have been open, transparent, calm, and listening. We have interfaced with Jared Ferguson numerous times. He has been most helpful. We hope that he will be recognized for the professional level of support he has provided.
The 5 City Letter
Thank you for agreeing to review the 5 City Letter we mentioned and contacting the noted mayors. We hope that San José will support their request and work with the California League of Cities. We would ask that this be a priority with the IGR and our paid lobbyists. This “shotgun” approach to housing is impacting local control and our planning staff daily.
Again, thank you all for your time. We saw that your memo was issued this morning.
We have yet to review.
With Respect,
Sandra A. Delvin
Board Member
--
Families & Homes San José
Email:
Website: https://www.familieshomessj.org/
SB 79 Density and Potential Housing Capacity in San
Jose
Summary of state-law density standards and a scenario analysis for the approximately 40,000 San Jose parcels identified as potentially affected by SB 79.
How many units per acre does SB 79 allow?
SB 79 does not establish one uniform density for every parcel. The applicable statutory standards vary according to the qualifying transit stop and a site's distance from it. The highest base standards discussed for qualifying San Jose sites reach 120 dwelling units per acre, with additional statutory provisions potentially increasing capacity for certain sites.
Illustrative SB 79 standard Density
Qualifying lower-density transit area 80 DU/acre
Qualifying higher-density transit area 100 DU/acre
Highest base standard 120 DU/acre
Immediately adjacent qualifying site Potential additional 40 DU/acre State-law source: California Legislature - SB 79.
The approximately 40,000 SB 79 parcels
SB 79 does not assign the same capacity to all 40,000 parcels. Depending on transit tier and distance, statutory density standards can vary. Immediately adjacent qualifying sites may receive additional density, and qualifying projects may also be able to use California's State Density Bonus Law.
Because the parcel count is available but the summed acreage of all approximately 40,000 parcels is not included in this analysis, the following is a scenario range. The assumed average lot sizes are estimating assumptions only - they are not City staff findings.
Assumed average lot 40,000 parcels = acres 120 DU/ac + 50% bonus 160 DU/ac + 50% bonus
0.10 acre 4,000 acres 720,000 960,000
0.15 acre 6,000 acres 1,080,000 1,440,000
0.20 acre 8,000 acres 1,440,000 1,920,000
Scenario conclusion: Under these aggressive theoretical assumptions, gross zoning capacity on the approximately 40,000 parcels could exceed 1 million units. This is not a City of San Jose staff estimate, and it should not be presented as a forecast of actual construction.
A more defensible citywide calculation would sum parcel-specific capacity values from the City's GIS dataset (including any available MAXCAPACITY field), rather than extrapolating from assumed average parcel sizes.
Important distinction: zoning capacity vs. realistic development Theoretical zoning capacity is not the same as the number of homes likely to be built. Actual development depends on parcel assemblage, existing uses, economics, financing, infrastructure, ownership decisions, project feasibility, applicable affordability requirements, and other development standards.
HCD source: California HCD - SB 79 Transit-Oriented Development Housing Element Sites.
HCD development-capacity guidance: Realistic Development Capacity.
Bottom line
SB 79 can authorize very high residential densities on qualifying transit-area parcels. The scenario table demonstrates why the total theoretical capacity of approximately 40,000 affected parcels could be extremely large under aggressive assumptions. However, the strongest citywide number would come from summing the City's parcel-level GIS capacity data rather than relying on assumed average lot sizes.
Sources
California Legislature - SB 79
California HCD - SB 79 Transit-Oriented Development
California HCD - Realistic Development Capacity
San Jos
é Missing Middle & State
Housing Law — Stakeholder
Readout
Bottom line. The evidence reviewed does not show that San José must adopt a citywide 32 du/ac missing-middle amendment to comply with SB 79 or AB 130, or that either law imposes an automatic fine for declining that specific amendment. SB 79 applies directly to qualifying projects near specified transit stops and gives cities several implementation paths. AB 130 primarily changes CEQA and housing- processing rules; it does not itself require citywide missing-middle upzoning. The City can still face meaningful legal and financial exposure in particular circumstances—especially for unlawful denials of qualifying SB 79 projects beginning in 2027—but that is different from a mandate to adopt the proposed citywide General Plan change.
Purpose and scope
San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 1 This readout distinguishes state-law requirements, San Joséʼs adopted Housing Element commitments, and local policy choices in the proposed General Plan Four-Year Review. It also compares the approaches now being pursued by Mountain View, San Francisco, and Palo Alto.
Scope note: This is a policy analysis, not legal advice. The City Attorney should confirm the legal basis, CEQA pathway, and any enforcement exposure for the final ordinance.
Executive findings
SB 79 is
geographically targeted. It governs qualifying housing development within one-half mile of specified high-quality transit stops—not all residential parcels citywide. State standards apply directly if a city does not adopt an implementing ordinance; a citywide General Plan amendment is therefore not the only compliance path.
AB 130 is
a streamlining statute, not a citywide upzoning mandate. It create CEQA exemptions for qualifying infill housing and for rezoning that implemen the schedule of actions in an approved Housing Element. Its applicability to a particular San José amendment depends on whether that action is actually included in the Housing Elementʼs implementation schedule and meets the statuteʼs conditions.
San Joséʼs Housing Element policy P 35 supports a more targeted missing- middle framework than the current citywide concept. P 35 calls for at least four and up to 10 units in locations throughout the City, including high- opportunity areas, with an emphasis on sites adjacent to Urban Villages and along major streets. It also calls for feasibility analysis, design standards, incentives, and Council direction.
The proposed 32 du/ac approach goes beyond P 35ʼs stated unit range and locational emphasis. The Cityʼs May 2026 task-force presentation shows 16+ total units on RN parcels of 10,891 square feet or more when primary units an ADUs are combined, and estimates approximately 1.2 million units of RN capacity. That is a local policy choice requiring its own record—not a direct S 79 command.
San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 2 affordability set-aside of 7% extremely low income, 10% very low income, or 13% lower income, unless a stricter local inclusionary standard applies.
Compliance paths available to a city
Allow the state defaults to operate. No local zoning amendment is required; SB 79 supersedes conflicting local limits for eligible projects.
Adopt a conforming implementation ordinance. A city may align its code with the statute.
Use permitted exclusions. Limited permanent exclusions are available for sites without a pedestrian path of less than one mile to a TOD stop and, in qualifying jurisdictions, certain industrial employment hubs. Other specified sites can receive temporary treatment through one year after adoption of the 7th-cycle Housing Element.
Adopt a local TOD Alternative Plan. With HCD approval, a city may substitute a locally tailored plan that maintains equivalent total capacity across TOD zones. Subject to specified exceptions, it cannot reduce capacity by more than 50% on an individual site or within a TOD zone, and it cannot increase a site beyond 200% of SB 79 maximum density.
Enforcement clarification.
Beginning January 1, 2027, a denial of an SB 79
compliant project in a high-resource area is rebuttably presumed unlawful and may carry a penalty of $10,000 per unit. That penalty concerns a qualifying project denial; it is not a general fine for failing to adopt citywide missing-middle zoning. HCD also reviews local ordinances and alternative plans and may notify the Attorney General if a city does not address identified noncompliance.
Capacity accounting: SB 79 is additive to the existing pipeline SB 79 became effective on July 1, 2026. It creates a new entitlement path for qualifying future projects near transit; it does not erase already approved, vested under-construction, or otherwise committed development. Existing projects remain subject to their applicable approvals and vesting rules, while a new projec may use SB 79 if it meets the statuteʼs eligibility requirements.
For citywide planning and Housing Element reporting, this means the City should maintain a separate ledger for:
1 entitled or under-construction units; 2 units in
San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 4 the active development pipeline; 3 capacity already identified in the certified Housing Element; and 4 incremental capacity available because of SB 79. Those categories should not be treated as substitutes for one another or double- counted. At the aggregate planning level, SB 79 capacity is additional to the pre- July 1 pipeline; on a specific parcel, however, only one physical project can ultimately be built. The City should disclose its methodology for avoiding both undercounting and double-counting before using SB 79 capacity to justify furthe citywide upzoning.
What AB 130 changes—and what it does not
AB 130 and companion SB 131, effective July 1, 2025, enacted broad CEQA and housing-process reforms.
Qualifying urban infill housing projects may receive a statutory CEQA exemption if they meet detailed location, consistency, environmental, labor, tribal-consultation, and other requirements.
Housing Element rezonings may be CEQA-exempt when they implement the schedule of actions in an approved Housing Element. The exemption can cover actions such as increased density, height, parking reductions, and some single-family-area changes—if they are part of that approved schedule and d not involve excluded natural and protected lands.
AB 130 may therefore make a Housing Element-linked rezoning faster and less vulnerable to CEQA challenge. It does not require San José to adopt a citywide 32 du/ac designation. It does not turn a local preference for additional capacity into an SB 79 mandate. Whether the City can use the Housing Element rezoning exemption for the proposed missing-middle amendment is a fact- and schedule- specific legal question that should be answered in the staff report.
San Joséʼs Housing Element: what is actually
committed
California requires each city to maintain a periodically updated Housing Element that identifies sites, programs, and actions to accommodate its RHNA across income categories. San Joséʼs 2023 2031 Housing Element was certified by HCD and plans for a 62,200-unit RHNA. The Cityʼs environmental record stated that the San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 5 Housing Element update was intended to facilitate development already planned under Envision San José 2040 and would not increase citywide residential capacity beyond what the 2040 General Plan envisioned.
P-35: Small Multifamily Housing
P 35 is particularly relevant because it supplies the adopted policy basis for missing-middle work. The policy calls for:
At least four and up to 10 units in locations throughout the City, including high-opportunity areas;
Locations adjacent to Urban Villages and residential areas along major streets —grand boulevards, city connectors, and main streets;
Use of missing-middle housing as a potential buffer between high-density Urban Village development and adjacent neighborhoods, or on Urban Village parcels unsuitable for higher-intensity development;
Inclusion of typologies in periodic Cost of Residential Development analysis t understand market feasibility;
Council-directed land-use actions, design standards, public education on financing programs, and incentives such as pre-approved plans.
Read-through:
P 35 supports missing-middle housing, but it contemplates a location-sensitive, feasibility-informed, and implementation-supported program.
The text does not itself call for 16+ total units on larger lots or a uniform citywide RN entitlement. If staff relies on P 35 as the justification for the 32 du/ac proposal, the staff record should explain the gap between the policyʼs 4 10-unit framework and the proposalʼs larger-lot outcome.
San José proposal: key decision points
The May 2026 staff presentation recommends raising the Residential Neighborhood designation from 8 to 32 du/ac citywide. It indicates the following potential outcomes and standards:
Topic Staff presentationStakeholder question
Unit yield
3 4 total units on the smallest
lots; 16+ total units on 10,891
How many projects of each type are
financially feasible and expected to
San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 6 Topic Staff presentationStakeholder question
sq.-ft. lots be built?
Capacity
RN capacity estimated at 1.2
million units, versus 432,000
currently
What portion is realistic, affordable,
and needed after accounting for
existing Housing Element capacity?
Form
35-foot maximum height; up to 3
stories; reduced setbacks; higher
FAR and coverage under
exploration
What objective transition, tree-
canopy, privacy, and emergency-
access standards will apply by
location?
Parking and
review
No parking minimum; most
permits ministerial and without a
public hearing
What curb, parking, safety,
infrastructure, and pre-adoption
public-process safeguards replace
project-level discretion?
Suggested illustration / source reference
View the Cityʼs Missing Middle staff presentation, including parcel-size unit-yield tables and development-standard slides. The presentation contains the most useful source illustrations for stakeholder discussions: the 8, 32, and 40 du/ac parcel-size tables; projected-capacity chart; and development-standard diagrams.
View MTCʼs preliminary SB 79 regional TOD map. This is the appropriate source visual for distinguishing the lawʼs transit-based geography from a citywide residential policy.
Bay Area comparison
JurisdictionCurrent approachWhat it demonstratesTiming / status San José
Proposed citywide RN
density increase from 8
to 32 du/ac, alongside
broader General Plan
Four-Year Review work
A broad local
capacity strategy; not
limited to SB 79
station areas
Policy
recommendation
under Council
consideration
Mountain ViewCity Council directed
staff to develop a local
TOD Alternative Plan.
The public discussion
Use of the SB 79
alternative-plan
pathway while
Plan in development;
not adopted in the
sources reviewed
San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 7 JurisdictionCurrent approachWhat it demonstratesTiming / status identifies protection of
registered historic
resources near
downtown as an
objective.
studying site-specific
tradeoffs
San Francisco
Adopted Family Zoning
Plan in December 2025;
enacted SB 79
implementing ordinance
in May 2026 using a TOD
Alternative Plan; HCD
found the enacted plan
compliant in July 2026.
A locally tailored,
HCD-reviewed
alternative can
replace default state
standards while
retaining equivalent
capacity safeguards.
Alternative Plan is
approved and
operative; separate
temporary
exclusions run
through 2032.
Palo Alto
Adopted temporary
historic-resource
exclusions and interim
standards at 50% of SB
79 capacity; staff is also
advancing longer-term
implementation and
housing-growth
planning.
Temporary phasing
can preserve time for
a longer-term plan,
but it is not the same
as an HCD-approved
Alternative Plan.
Temporary measures
run to one year after
the 7th-cycle
Housing Element—
January 31, 2032.
Validation: when do the San Francisco and Palo Alto measures expire?
San Francisco: The claim of a 2031 expiration is not supported. San Franciscoʼs approved TOD Alternative Plan is the local standards framework that replaces SB 79 defaults in the covered area. Its temporary exclusions are a separate mechanism and are described by San Francisco Planning as running from July 2026 to 2032, one year after the Cityʼs next Housing Element is due.
Palo Alto: The Cityʼs August 4, 2026 status update says its historic-resource exclusions and 50%-capacity interim standards apply through one year after adoption of the 7th-cycle Housing Element amendment—January 31, 2032.
Palo Alto is not yet describing these temporary rules as an HCD-approved Alternative Plan.
San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 8 Mountain View: Its contemplated Alternative Plan is likewise not a short-lived “exception” if HCD approves it; an approved local plan replaces the state standards in the area it covers. The temporary exclusion clock is a distinct statutory mechanism.
Stakeholder implications and recommended questions
What is clear
The City must honor state housing law, including SB 79 in qualifying transit areas.
The City has legal choices about how to implement SB 79 locally, subject to statutory capacity protections and HCD review.
The Housing Element supports missing-middle housing, but ties it to location fit, feasibility analysis, design, incentives, and Council direction.
AB 130 can streamline a qualifying rezoning; it does not require the City to choose the broadest available rezoning.
Finding: are San Joséʼs higher-density areas “already saturated”? Finding: not confirmed by the public sources reviewed. The Cityʼs current materials support a narrower conclusion: existing growth areas and Urban Village face significant implementation, phasing, entitlement, and market-delivery constraints. They do not establish that the areas are physically or legally “saturated” with residential capacity.
The available record points the other way in several respects:
The certified 2023 2031 Housing Element was designed to accommodate Sa Joséʼs full 62,200-unit RHNA without increasing residential capacity beyond the 2040 General Plan.
The Cityʼs May 2026 missing-middle presentation identifies very large existin RN capacity—approximately 432,000 units before the proposed increase— and estimates approximately 1.2 million after the proposed change. Those figures describe theoretical capacity, not saturation of higher-density areas.
San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 9 San José has designated 62 Urban Villages, but public City and stakeholder materials indicate that only a minority have adopted plans. The practical constraint identified in the materials is the lengthy, customized Urban Village planning and approval process, not proof that higher-density areas have no remaining capacity.
The Four-Year Review itself includes Urban Village streamlining and residential-capacity work, signaling that the City sees regulatory implementation as a live issue alongside capacity.
Finding: does limited rezoning and permitting capacity help explain the delivery gap?
Likely yes, but it should be tested with permit and entitlement data. If the City has substantial theoretical capacity in higher-density areas but few adopted implementation plans, completed rezonings, or ministerial permits flowing from that capacity, the bottleneck may be conversion of planned capacity into buildable, approvable projects rather than a lack of nominal density. This is consistent with the recordʼs reference to lengthy, customized Urban Village planning and approval processes, but the materials reviewed do not quantify the backlog or establish its relative importance compared with financing, constructio costs, land availability, infrastructure, or market demand.
Potential outcomes if addressed. More predictable, pre-zoned, and ministerial pathways in transit, corridor, Downtown, and Urban Village locations could: 1) shorten entitlement timelines and carrying costs; 2) make more sites financeable and competitive for housing investment; 3) increase near-term production in areas already intended for growth; 4) better align housing with jobs, transit, and services; and 5) reduce the asserted need for a blanket citywide RN upzoning.
The opposite outcome is also possible: streamlined approvals alone may not produce housing where projects remain financially infeasible or infrastructure- constrained. The City should therefore publish a location-by-location scorecard showing zoned capacity, adopted rezoning status, permits issued, entitled and under-construction units, time to approval, market-feasible capacity, and the specific actions needed to unlock delivery.
It is possible that staff has a parcel-specific inventory showing that particular Downtown, station-area, corridor, or Urban Village sites are fully entitled, built out San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 10 infeasible, or unavailable. That evidence was not located in the materials reviewed. If “saturation” is the stated basis for citywide RN upzoning, the City should publish a transparent, site-level analysis that distinguishes: zoned capacity; entitled and under-construction units; projects in the pipeline; vacant and redevelopment-ready sites; market-feasible capacity; infrastructure- constrained sites; and land unavailable because of existing uses or policy restrictions.
The accurate stakeholder position is therefore: the record supports concern tha existing high-density strategies are not converting capacity into housing at the desired pace; it does not yet support the stronger claim that those areas are saturated and therefore require blanket upzoning elsewhere.
What is not yet demonstrated in the sources reviewed
That citywide 32 du/ac is required to avoid an SB 79 or AB 130 penalty.
That higher-density, transit, corridor, Downtown, or Urban Village areas are saturated, rather than constrained by planning, entitlement, feasibility, infrastructure, or delivery barriers.
That the proposed 1.2 million-unit RN capacity has a realistic market-delivery forecast.
That the 32 du/ac approach is necessary to implement P 35 rather than a targeted 4 10-unit strategy near Urban Villages, major streets, and transit.
That the proposal improves jobs-to-employed-residents balance, vehicle- miles traveled, greenhouse-gas emissions, service costs, or infrastructure performance.
That the City has selected the least disruptive compliance path consistent wit SB 79ʼs transit-oriented purpose.
Questions for staff and decision-makers
Which specific
SB 79 zones, stations, tiers, and parcels require local action after the final MTC map is issued?
Why is
a citywide RN amendment preferable to an HCD-reviewable TOD Alternative Plan, a targeted corridor/station strategy, or a phased approach? San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 11 Is the proposed amendment an action in the Housing Elementʼs approved schedule of actions for purposes of AB 130ʼs Housing Element rezoning exemption? If yes, identify the schedule citation and conditions satisfied. What is
the legal source and amount of any asserted fine or penalty avoided by the proposed citywide amendment?
What fe
asibility analysis supports each missing-middle typology and the expected affordability of the resulting homes?
What infrastructure
, fiscal, parking/curb, safety, jobs-housing, VMT, and
greenhouse-gas analysis has been completed at the affected-area level? What objective
standards will protect neighborhood transitions and public services once most projects proceed ministerially?
Source set
San José Housing Element, Chapter 3 / policy P 35 source supplied by stakeholder
San José May 20, 2026 Missing Middle task-force presentation San José 2023 2031 Housing Element environmental-review record MTC, Senate Bill 79 2025 Summary
MTC preliminary SB 79 regional TOD map
ABAG, AB 130 / SB 131 high-level summary
San Francisco Planning, SB 79 implementation
San Francisco Planning, Family Zoning Plan and SB 79 fact sheet Palo Alto, status of temporary SB 79 implementation regulations Mountain View City Council, January 27, 2026 SB 79 / AB 130 study session San José Missing Middle & State Housing Law — Stakeholder Readout 12