Letters from the Public - 8 of 14 — San Jose City Council, August 18, 2026

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

More thought needs to go into this problem. The possible unintended consequences to a plan that is irreversible is dangerous.

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

Thank you for hearing my concerns
Sue Williams
San Jose, CA 95125

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

Thank you for considering my concerns.

gor
San Jose 95125

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. on surrounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules are broadly changed. Housing policy should add housing thoughtfully while respecting the people and neighborhoods already here.

I urge you not to advance a blanket citywide approach and to pursue more targeted housing solutions with meaningful neighborhood input. Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Thank you,
Rudy & Jeri Opalk
San Jose, CA 95123

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. transportation. If multi-unit housing is built, neighbors should have the opportunity for input and discussion.

My final concern is aesthetic, which is preserving the agricultural heritage of San Jose.

Our home at 1515 Naglee was originally a farmhouse built in 1906. Homes were moved on to the orchard lands when the Rosicrucian was built, ca.1930's. There were 2 other farmhouses prior to the 1930's development, one still standing at the corner of Naglee/Dana and the other replaced by 2 large single family homes. I understand the need for housing, however, I know our bungalow will likely exist only as long as my family are the stewards.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Noelle Shahin

Follow me on twitter @PaulaMints1
Amazon.com: Paula Mints: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

Remember, the rent we pay to our planet is to take care of it and if we do not meet our obligation the climate will evict us.

From: Paula Mints
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 11:50 AM
To: < >
Subject: FW: Truck parked in front of my house for three monthsHe

Hello Councilperson Foley,

I have a parking compliance concern. As you will see below, a truck has been parked in front of addresses for about three months. It does not move. Parking compliance has done nothing. This is a concern – is the San Jose budget so bad that parking, illegal ﬁreworks (another issue in the neighborhood), etc., are of no concern?

Thank you,
Paula Mints

Stay well, be kind,

Paula Mints
Chief Market Research Analyst
SPV Market Research
www.spvmarketresearch.com
www.paulamspv.com
Follow me on twitter @PaulaMints1
Amazon.com: Paula Mints: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

Remember, the rent we pay to our planet is to take care of it and if we do not meet our obligation the climate will evict us.

From: Paula Mints
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 11:39 AM
To: 'parking.compliance' < >
Subject: RE: Truck parked in front of my house for three monthsHe

Hello,

It has been almost a month since I wrote to you, and the truck is still sitting there, hasn’t moved, and is now being used as a receptacle to store wood. What I see from your message is that San Jose does not have suﬃcient city services to provide parking enforcement etc.

If the car were there one or two weeks, I would not care.

Also, I seriously doubt that parking compliance is proactively patrolling.

Thank you

Stay well, be kind,

Remember, the rent we pay to our planet is to take care of it and if we do not meet our obligation the climate will evict us.

From: parking.compliance < >
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 10:39 AM
To: Paula Mints < >
Subject: Re: Truck parked in front of my house for three monthsHe

Hi Paula,
The Parking Compliance Unit does not have the resources to provide on-demand services, but rather we proactively patrol every city street in a systematic and rotational basis to ensure equitable distribution of our service deliveries. When a safety violation is observed, it will be cited by the oﬃcer. We also proactively patrol for vehicles displaying qualiﬁers for immediate investigation for abatement. For additional concerns, please identify your concern from the list provided below and follow the instructions provided.

As a courtesy, I will alert
the oﬃcer on the next proactive patrol to look into your concern.

Blocked Driveway:

Please contact San Jose Police Department non-emergency by dialing (408) 277-8900. Dispatch will locate an available Parking Compliance, Community Service or Police Oﬃcer to respond to the call for service.

Vehicle Concerns:

The SJ311 portal will triage your concern and direct to the correct department. Once your case has been received, you will receive an email update notifying you what department is working on your concern, as well as the anticipated timeline to resolve the issue. Please note that if the vehicle is occupied, the concern will be directed to the Housing Department as we are unable to impound occupied vehicles. For your convenience, here is the link:
https://311.sanjoseca.gov/

· Vehicle Concerns - If the condition of the vehicle poses a safety hazard or displays other qualiﬁers for abatement, it will be referred for investigation · Vehicle Concerns - We no longer investigate vehicles solely based on the length of time parked in one place.
· Expired Registration - As of July 1, the Parking Compliance Unit has launched a new program aimed at enforcing expired registration. There is no need to report vehicles with expired registration as it requires conﬁrmation through DMV database and we will again be proactively patrolling across the city in a systematic and rotational approach.
· Lived-In Vehicles - Will be directed to the Housing department as the Parking Compliance Unit does not have the authority to impound occupied vehicles - Please use Housings Report an Encampment tool
· Illegal Parking - There is a database for illegal parking that collects the information to be analyzed and provide direction for future enforcement options

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]

SJ311 is not only the most eﬃcient way to report vehicle concerns, but for other concerns as well- such as graﬃti, illegal dumping, potholes, and many more!

If you are currently observing criminal or other illicit activities, please call 911.

Hope this helps!

Parking Compliance
Department of Transportation
City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St, San Jos
é, CA 95113
Oﬃce: 408-534-2910
www.sanjoseca.gov/transportation

From: Paula Mints < >
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 8:45 AM
To: parking.compliance < >
Subject: Truck parked in front of my house for three monthsHe

You don't often get email from . Learn why
this is important
Hello,

The truck in the above picture has been parked in front of for about three months – it is never moved. No one else, including an emergency vehicle, can park there, the street cannot be cleaned. Is there anything the city can do?

Thank you.

Remember, the rent we pay to our planet is to take care of it and if we do not meet our obligation the climate will evict us.

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

Sincerely,
Reza Saadat
San Jose Resident, Homeowner & Voter

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. allow affordable housing development without the current 25% requirement for permanent supportive housing (PSH) in addition to allowing education and public workforce housing development and community-serving uses, ending the proposed requirement for a long and expensive general plan amendment or special use permit.

I appreciate the City Council doing everything you can to make it possible for families with children, elderly, very low-income, working class and middle-class people can live in this city.

There is a lot of fear and NIMBY going around on NextDoor, etc., even messages from Community Associations. But the big picture calls us to try new things, things that have been successful in our cities. I have seen these remedies elsewhere. They enhance neighborhoods, they do not degrade them. They encourage diversity, of ages, incomes and races. Be brave.

Sincerely,

Deborah St. Julien
D2 Resident

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.

Other California cities have taken the time to reassess their housing strategies, engage their communities, and work with the State to secure the time needed to develop sustainable plans for housing growth. San José should do the same. The City should not accept a false choice between rushing forward with an incomplete framework and failing to meet its obligations. With a transparent process and a well-supported request to the State, San José can develop a plan that meets housing requirements while protecting the communities that already call this city home.

San José can and should meet its housing responsibilities. But it should do so with a plan grounded in clear law, reliable data, meaningful environmental review, and an inclusive public process that respects the communities that make this city one of the best and most diverse in our nation.

We respectfully ask the Council to pause this action and direct staff to return with a complete analysis, a balanced range of alternatives, and a robust community-engagement plan.

Respectfully,
Alain Mowad
President, VEP Community Association

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. new housing units were needed are obsolete now, things have changed.

Thanks,
Nelson

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

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Lisa Douglas

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. · Infrastructure impacts are unaddressed. The proposal does not explain how San Jose will meet increased demands on police, fire, roads, traffic management, water supply, and other essential services.

· The Missing Middle Up-Zoning proposal should be put on the ballot to be voted on by the residents of San Jose.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote NO on the “Missing Middle Up-Zoning” proposal.

Thank you for your consideration.

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering the concerns of the people who voted you into office.

Respectfully,

Cynthia Medjoubi

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

Thank you for considering my concerns and those of many other San Jose city residents.

Loretta Krouse
registered voter in San Jose

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

Second, adding substantially more households should require careful consideration of the cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood services.

Third, homeowners have invested significant amounts of their savings and income based in part on the existing character and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods. Potential impacts on surrounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules are broadly changed.

There are currently many opportunities for further high rise development downtown and for development on the many vacant blocks of non-residential locations.

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

This has been a topic of unhappy discussion amongst our neighbors the last few days. All believe this proposal should not advance and each of us will take note of how you vote. As that will inform us as to how we should vote in the next city council election.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Matt Dale

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering our concerns.

Regards,

Jane and Calvin Breed

The commercial and mixed-use properties along Winchester provide opportunities for local businesses, restaurants, services, offices, and other uses that serve the surrounding community. These uses are an important part of what makes a neighborhood functional and livable. If commercial properties are gradually converted to residential development, the City may permanently lose opportunities for businesses and community services that cannot easily be restored later.

I am not opposed to housing being part of the Winchester Corridor. My concern is maintaining the proper balance. I believe the City should preserve the corridor's commercial and mixed use character rather than adopting policies that could encourage a gradual shift toward predominantly residential development.

Once a commercial property is replaced by housing, that decision is essentially permanent. The City cannot easily recreate the same commercial opportunity later. For that reason, changes to the Winchester Corridor should be approached with great caution and with consideration of the long-term needs of the surrounding community—not simply the number of additional housing units that can be created.

Concerns about broader residential upzoning
I am also concerned about the broader increase in residential density proposed through the General Plan review.

Increasing the number of households in established neighborhoods should require careful consideration of the cumulative effects on traffic, parking, streets, utilities, public services, emergency response, and other infrastructure.

I respectfully ask the City Council to:
·
Reject broad citywide residential upzoning that could substantially change established neighborhoods.
· Preserve Winchester Boulevard as a balanced mixed-use corridor rather than allowing it to become predominantly residential.
· Protect existing commercial opportunities and community-serving uses along Winchester Boulevard.
· Avoid policies that encourage the conversion of valuable commercial and mixed-use properties primarily into residential development.
· Carefully evaluate the cumulative effects of additional density on traffic, parking, infrastructure, and public services.
· Provide residents and local businesses with meaningful opportunities to participate before making changes that could permanently alter their communities.

San Jose can increase its housing supply while also protecting the diversity, character, businesses, and services that make its neighborhoods successful. Housing and commercial development do not have to be an either-or choice.

The City should strive for a balanced approach that provides housing while preserving the commercial and mixed-use areas that existing residents depend upon.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to vote NO on advancing the proposed changes in Agenda Item 10.3, particularly the broad residential upzoning provisions and the proposed changes affecting the Winchester Boulevard Corridor.

Thank you for considering the concerns of San Jose residents.

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

Susan Imae, San Jose Resident

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

No upgrades to utilities (PG&E, water, or sewer systems) or roadways will be required, placing further strain on existing infrastructure.

A 2021 study commissioned by the City itself confirmed that this type of zoning change will NOT produce affordable housing units.

Council members have said they have heard little opposition. That silence should not be mistaken for
consent. Many residents including myself are only now learning how far-reaching and permanent these changes will be. Once written into the zoning code, the character of our residential neighborhoods will be altered
forever, without further public process.

I respectfully ask the Council to reject this proposal. At a minimum, please remove it from any consent
or streamlined calendar so a full public hearing and genuine community discussion can take place.

Thank you for your attention and for listening to the residents who will live with the long-term consequences of this decision.

Sincerely,
Cindy Huang
Resident in District 10

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. · A 2021 study commissioned by the City itself confirmed that this type of zoning change will not produce affordable housing units.

Council members have said they have heard little opposition. That silence should not be mistaken for consent. Many residents are only now learning how far-reaching and permanent these changes will be. Once written into the zoning code, the character of our residential neighborhoods will be altered forever, without further public process.

I respectfully ask the Council to reject this proposal. At a minimum, please remove it from any consent or streamlined calendar so a full public hearing and genuine community discussion can take place.

Thank you for your consideration and for listening to the residents who will live with the long- term consequences of this decision.

Regards,
Weixing

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

Thank you for your time and your service to San Jose.

Sincerely,
Jim McAvoy
District 10 Resident

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

Please VOTE NO on the Residential Land Use High Density change.

Stacy Method
San Jose, CA 95123

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

Please VOTE NO on the Residential Land Use High Density change.

Christy and Tom Wright

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

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

I also believe that large businesses, corporations, and foreign investors should be restricted from buying residential properties in San Jose and Santa Clara as investments. Residential housing should be for the people who actually live here, not treated as an investment vehicle for entities with no stake in our community.

I urge you to oppose this proposal in its current form, or at minimum to scale it back to something proportionate to the actual state requirement, with real infrastructure and parking safeguards in place.

I would appreciate hearing your position on this before the Council votes.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Howard Walker
Almaden Valley, San Jose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kathy and Michael Tsai

4. in single-dwelling neighborhoods because they value the spaciousness, quiet surroundings, appearance, and strong sense of community these neighborhoods provide. Homeowners have invested significant portions of their income in their properties based, in part,

5. on the existing character and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods. Increasing density in these established neighborhoods will fundamentally change their character. It will alter the look and feel of the community, and diminish the qualities that attracted

6. residents to these neighborhoods in the first place, and could negatively affect property values.

7. 8.

9. 10. Currently, most single-dwelling

11. houses typically have sufficient on-property parking for the number of cars the residents have, keeping the street free of excess cars. The proposal states that there would be a requirement for only one parking space per new unit which will cause significant

12. street parking. As a result, additional vehicles will increase congestion and reduce available parking for existing residents.

13. 3.

4. 5. It

6. is incredibly frustrating when communities feel completely powerless over decisions that reshape their everyday lives and homes. In a democracy, local governance is supposed to prioritize the voices of the people living there, so feeling excluded from that

7. process goes against the expectation of community representation. Why isn’t this brought before the voters?

8. I urge you to vote NO on advancing this proposal and look for better housing solutions with meaningful neighborhood input.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Shelley Giovannini
Evergreen

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

5. They are pushing parking into business lots and creating conflict and vandalism. As documented in a recent article, residents from zero-parking developments are forced to park at nearby businesses because they have no other option. As a result, business customers are unable to park. This leads to irate and frustrated residents and patrons, confrontations, and vandalism. Our local businesses should not have to pay the price for housing that was built without parking.

Please vote NO on Missing Middle and other proposals that increase density without regard to parking requirements.

Sincerely,
Donald Chamberlin, , San Jose 95120 (District 10)

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

Thank you for consideration and positive action

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

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Brett Davis
San Jose Resident for 16 years
District 6
San Jose, CA 95125

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. deserve serious consideration before those rules are
broadly changed.

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Kerry Crawford

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

If zoning is to be changed, why not look at the land that is going to data centers? The city currently has north of 25 data centers consuming land, electricity and water that are needed for additional housing.

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. Residents should carefully consider the impacts to tree canopy, neighborhood ambiance, commute traffic and parking.

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. 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.

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Cathy Kozak

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. ct 9 95125

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

Cindy and Trung Diep

Sent from my iPad

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

San José should pursue smart growth through targeted transit-oriented development and commercial corridor revitalization, rather than a blanket top-down mandate. Housing policy must balance future growth with respect for existing neighborhoods and require meaningful community input.

I urge you to vote NO on advancing the citywide Missing Middle upzoning proposal.

Sincerely,
Phil Boyer

Judy Scally
Homeowner
District 10
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

solutions with meaningful neighborhood input.

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Jennifer Slattery
D1 citizen
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Thank you for considering my concerns.

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

Homeowners have made major financial commitments relying on long-standing zoning standards.

Undermining these zoning protections creates property value uncertainty and disrupts long-term residential security.

San José ought to concentrate density along commercial corridors and near transit hubs, where infrastructure already exists, rather than enforcing a uniform citywide policy. Sound housing strategy requires balancing future construction with respect for established communities and active public engagement.

Please vote NO on the citywide Missing Middle upzoning initiative.

Sincerely,

Steve Weirauch

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

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Karen Elliston

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

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Stephanie Kain Ferrill

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

Thank you for considering my concerns.

UMC

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

Celia Holmes (district 6)

infrastructure and neighborhood services. Third, homeowners have invested significant amounts of their savings and income based in part on the existing character and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods. Potential impacts on surrounding homes and property values deserve serious consideration before those rules are broadly changed.

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

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

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. solutions with meaningful neighborhood input.

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Donald Ray

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

Sincerely,
Nicole Buchwald (San Jose resident for over 20 years)

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

Do you want one of these next door to your house?

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Leslie Sachs

My final concern is aesthetic, which is preserving the agricultural heritage of San Jose.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Noelle Shahin

San Jose City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026