San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026

Outlook
FW: Missing Middle and San Jose Planning considerations From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:30 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Jacqueline A Fahrner
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 1:17 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan ◄
◄
◄
.

Subject: Missing Middle and San Jose Planning considerations strictl
District4
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning framework. I recognize San Jose's need for additional housing, but I do not believe broadly increasing density within established residential neighborhoods is the right solution. The City itself describes Missing Middle housing under consideration as allowing 4 to 10 units, a substantial change from the existing development pattern of many neighborhoods.

My concerns are straightfo1ward. First, significantly increasing allowable density can fundamentally change the character and scale of established residential neighborhoods. Second, adding substantially more households should require careful consideration of the cumulative impacts on parking, traffic, infrastmcture ( critical scarce resources including power and water) and neighborhood services. Third, homeowners have invested significant amounts of their savings and income based in pait on the existing chai·acter and land-use expectations of their neighborhoods and San Jose. Potential impacts on swrn unding homes ai1d prope1ty values deserve seiious consideration before those rules ai·e broadly changed. Addressing the entire population needs to be considered before solving for a specific sub-population.

Housing policy should add housing thoughtfully while respecting the people and neighborhoods already here. I urge you revisit the needs and assess feasible solutions which will protect the San Jose we have invested in, while securing housing for the Inissing Iniddle and lower income constituents.

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.

Jackie Fahrner

Outlook
FW: missing middle
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:30 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Carol Herndon
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 5:13 P
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: missing middle
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't ofte n get email from . Learn whY. this is imP-ortant I am opposed to your Missing Middle, agenda 10.3 part of your Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan.

The City Council, with citizen approval, should decide where multiple housing projects should be. Not left to anyone who wants to profit from this agenda. That is why you were elected, to protect our city. was born and have lived and taught in San Jose for 84 years. I see multiple areas that are left to disintegrate, buildings unoccupied, falling apart. These once were thriving but now could be used for productive development . Example the Burbank Theater on Bascom Ave, which the San Jose City Council voted to annex the property into the city limits! The whole area is abandoned and is a disgrace to our city leaders. You should be working with what you have rather than agenda 10.3, an "easy way out".

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

Outlook
FW: Major Concerns Regarding Cumulative Density Increases Near Dry Creek and Bascom From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:36 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Brian L
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 9:02 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Cc: District 6 City Clerk
Subject: Major Concerns Regarding Cumulative Density Increases Near Dry Creek and Bascom [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. learn morel You don't often get email from-· Learn whY. this is imP.ortant Dear Mayor and City C~,
I am a District 9 resident writing to express my deep concern about the cumulative density increase being concentrated in our neighborhood. It's my understanding you want to increase density even more ... Three adjacent projects at 2350, 2388, and 2375 2395 S. Bascom Ave. total 270 new residential units (123 apa1tments, 64 apa1tments, and an 83-unit senior care facility respectively), all clustered within roughly 500 feet of the Dry Creek neighborhood.

Whatever the me1its of each project individually, no one appears to have evaluated what all three mean together for the residential streets directly behind them. Now, it's our understanding you want to increase density even more! Please stop. Below are the major concerns that are already affecting our neighborhood directly.

1. Dangerous Traffic and Parking Conditions (major concern, directly affecting us now). The 123-unit building at 2350 S. Bascom was approved with only 64 parking spaces, and the other projects are similarly under-parked. Overflow parking is spilling onto our side streets, and cars parked to the corners are blocking sightlines. We have already seen near-misses with pedestrians stepping out from behind parked vehicles.

2. Falling Home Values (major concern, directly affecting us now). Homes on our streets are being reduced and sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than comparable sales earlier this year. While the broader San Jose market has softened, we are seeing it acutely here, and residents' hard-earned equity is at stake. You and your decisions are perceived as a contributing factor.

3. Long-Term Planning Concerns (major concern for our neighborhood's future). Concentrating this much housing on one block, rather than distributing it, locks in impacts for decades. As This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. demographics shift and household formation changes over the next 10 to 20 years, the city should plan flexibly rather than saturate single corridors, and be honest about the cumulative effect on the families already here.

4. Risk of Losing Residents and Small Businesses (major concern for the city). If high-density approvals continue to be stacked on this block without regard for existing residents, my family will seriously consider leaving San Jose, or California, and taking our small business with us.

Small businesses make up 99.9% of all U.S. businesses and account for roughly 43.5% of U.S.

GDP, according to the SBA Office of Advocacy. The city cannot afford to drive them away, and none of you will earn my vote if you do.

I urge you to pause further high-density approvals in our immediate area, commission a cumulative traffic and parking study for the Bascom/Dry Creek block, and implement near-term measures (parking enforcement, daylighting at intersections, residential permit parking) to address the conditions residents are already living with.

Finally, imagine it was you, putting your roots down here for 20 years, witnessing this. No, you would not be happy. Stop it.

Sincerely,
Brian Loudenslager

Outlook
FW: letters from the public. Agenda 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:36 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Carol Herndon
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: letters from the public. Agenda 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP.ortant I am opposed to your Missing Middle, agenda 10.3 part of your Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan.

The City Council, with citizen approval, should decide where multiple housing projects should be. Not left to anyone who wants to profit from this agenda. That is why you were elected, to protect our city. was born and have lived and taught in San Jose for 84 years. I see multiple areas that are left to disintegrate, buildings unoccupied, falling apart. These once were thriving but now could be used for productive development. Example the Burbank Theater on Bascom Ave, which the San Jose City Council voted to annex the property into the city limits! The whole area is abandoned and is a disgrace to our city leaders. You should be working with what you have rather than agenda 10.3, an "easy way out".

Carol Herndon, San Jose resident 84 years.

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

Outl ook
FW: Item 10.3 August 18 City Council : Oppose "Missing Middle" - No Affordable Units Plus Underutilization of Current Affordable Units From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:37 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Sandra Delvin
Sent: Sund
Doan, Bien
casey, George
ulcahy, ichael
Foley, Pam
Subject: Item 10.3 August 18 City Council : Oppose "Missing Mid dle" - No Affordab le Units Plus Underutilization of Current Affordab le Units [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. I earn more) Sandra >
Tordillos, Anthony
to BC_carlos.rosario, BC_melissa.bickford, BC_louis.barocio, BC_dilpreet.bhandal, BC_charles.cantrell, BC_daniel.cao, BC_lawrence casey, BC_aimee bee: concerns.oh
Dear General Plan City Staff and General Task Force Membe rs:

Thank you for your time and participating in the current 4-year review of the General Plan {GP). During t he meeting on May 20, 2026, I promised to send some additiona l information related to my personal comments to you. Items are provided as links or attachments .

1. Claim of Affordabil ity
Statements are made t hat building more housing units will lower their price. If it was a simple supply-and-demand curve or if the build was at significant scale at once, t his might be the case. But the issue may not be a simple supply-and-demand curve nor is it likely that building will occur at scale quickly. There is evidence that there are more factors impacting the pricing of housing.

In 2021, the City contracted with a consultant to study pricing associated with "Opportun ity Housing." In summary, the report showed that four and eight plex units (on a single-fam ily-lot) does .f:WI make housing more affordable. Basically, each unit = same price as the replaced single-fami ly house. This fiscal report was not presented during your GP Task Force meetings, is not on a city website, and nor is it easily located. (See: httgs ://sa nJose.legistar.comNiew.ashx?M=F&1D=10342963&GU ID=44D62EF9-A717- 4f49-871Q-C2A0EA4flfA8 for copy of report that is embedded in an agenda from a 2021 council meeting.) Sick Ci!Y.: Disease, Race, lneguali!Y. and Urban Land (Video Summary: httQs://www.livablecalifornia.org/vancouver-smartest-Qlanner-Rrof-Ratrick-condon-calls-california­ .l!RZOning-a-costly-mistake-2-6-21/) The book and video discusses densification. It further discusses that there was a significant decrease in home ownership as densification increased in Vancouver. (This impacts wealth and generationa l wealth accumulation.]

2. By right building
Personally, my home has a deed restriction preventing the building of a second story over a large section of the land and house. If a second story was built, then it would shade the windows of my neighbor's home (i.e., bathroom, kitchen, and family room).

I am concerned that builders and homeowners may ignore or miss deed restrictions. Thus, a public hearing and/o r notici ng of development is required to assure that errors are not made. Since planning staff may not check deed restrictions, I wou ld recommen d that some public noticing, hearing and time period be allowed so t hat the potentially impacted parti es have the time to review deed restrictions before building begins. This could avoid lawsuits.

3. Current ly Existing Affordab le Units Remain Empty or are More Expensive that Market Rate Units The Mercury News had an interesting article in mid-2025 on affordable units being vacant and, in some cases, renting for more than market rate units . Not all cities in the Bay Area shared information on their Below Market Rate (BMR) units. The City of San Jose appears to have been one of the cities not sharing.

The article is located here: https://www.mercurt.news.com/2025{05{18/moderate-income-housing-vacant/ Please note that there are interactive charts in the report. I am attaching a version of t he report and selected Santa dara . Again, there was not a report that focused on San Jose but the learnings may be applicable to San Jose.

There are consequences to decisions. And in some cases, our decisions do not effectively resolve t he issues we are trying to address. Although this topic is probably not part of t he GP Task Force it demonstrates that affordable housing rules are not working as intended.

Thank you again for your thoughtfu l considerations of these comments . There are consequences to decisions - often unintended ones. Since the "upzoning" decisions and recommendations that the GP Task Force will be making could result in permanent changes, then caution and restraint should be exercised. The unintended consequences will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

Respectfully,
Sandra Delvin
Note: Article file not attached . But link is provided.

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

Outlook
FW: Item 10.3 at August 18, 2026 city council meeting
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:37 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Jan Helm bolt
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Subject: Item 10.3 at August 18, 2026 city council meeting [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
\Janet Helmbolt
1203 Minnesota Ave.

San Jose, CA 95125
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
. Learn whY. this is imP.ortant
I am writing to you to state that I am completely opposed to the proposal that the density in the all single­ family neighborhoods located in the city of San Jose be increased to 32 dwelling units per acre. I believe that is neither wise nor beneficial for the residents living in these neighborhoods . I live in Willow Glen on a lot which is about 5,000 square feet and find it ABSURD that anyone would propose to place EIGHT RESIDENCES on a property of this size. If this were to happen property values would be destroyed across the whole city. Additionally, the character of each neighborhood would suffer as siingle­ family residents are forced to live next to apartment buildings. Also, I would foresee many, many of the city's trees being cut down to accommodate the developer's perceived needs .

It makes more sense to continue to develop high density housing in downtown San Jose and along the mass transit lines, especially now the developers are no longer required to provide parking .

I respect the idea that San Jose needs more affordable housing, but this proposal is not the way to make that happen . I ask that you do not approve this proposal.

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

Outl ook
FW: I oppose increasing housing density from 8-32 units per acee.

From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:38 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messa e-----
From: Don Naugle
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 1 :10 P
To: The Office of Mavor Matt Mahan
District3 <
City Clerk
Subject: I oppose increasing housing density from 8-32 units per acee. [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httQs://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
>
> Dear Mayor and city council:
>
> I am writing to OPPOSE the Planning Commission recommendation to amend the 4-year General Plan, as described in Agenda Item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda. >
> Quadrupling the maximum permitted housing density city-wide, from 8 to 32 units per acre, while eliminating meaningful community review or feedback, is a drastic and potentially irreversible change to the character of San Jose neighborhoods.
>
> SB 330 prevents this up-zoning from being reversed if it later proves unworkable , unpopular, or ineffective . Permanent, far-reaching zoning changes not otherwise mandated by the state should not be adopted without the ability to reconsider or amend them in the future . >
> This proposal goes beyond both the Housing Element and state requirements . With no requirement for onsite parking , it could increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in neighborhoods that are rapidly heating , further aggravate the city's fiscally challenging jobs -to-housing imbalance, and place additional strain on police, fire, and other city resources.
>
> Respectfully,
> Don Naugle
> Northside Resident
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: High Density land Use Vote
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:46 AM
To Agendadesk
From: KELLEY Hawkins
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: City Clerk
Subject: High Density land Use Vote
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and members of the City Council,
As a 25 year resident and 25 year home owner in San Jose, I am urging you to VOTE NO on the Land Use change of 32 units per acre in the City of San Jose. adamantly oppose the proposal across the entire City of San Jose.

There are pockets of San Jose where this would make sense, but to have a blanket approval for ANY residential property to get developed into high-density housing simply does not work and is very short-sighted.

On my residential street of single family homes, someone could build 10-14 units on a small 7000-8,999 sq. ft. lot? That would significantly impact the look and feel of my street and neighborhood. It would likely lower my property values, too.

Let's talk about parking. This plan does not require driveways or any parking spaces.

That will significantly impact all the neighbors as well.

I support the goals of the Envision San Jose 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 charm of San Jose is that each neighborhood has its own personality. Building high-density apartments in the middle of a residential area just doesn't make sense.

San Jose has lots of land. Put the high-density units where it makes sense. In This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. downtown, next to corridors served by public transportation and near commercial amenities. The General Plan takes this into account with a deliberate and carefully planned strategy rather than imposing increased density in established single-family home neighborhoods where it has never been envisioned. Let's keep the charm of the neighborhoods and pump up commercial areas with high foot traffic.

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

Kelley Hawkins

Outl ook
FW: General Plan 4 Year Review Public Comment: Data Centers From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:47 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Nicole Vidmar
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Subject: General Plan 4 Year Review Public Comment: Data Centers [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't ofte n get email from
Hello,
. Learn whY. this is imP-ortant
For Tuesday's (8/18) 4 year review I would like to submit a public comment that a thorough review process for data centers needs to be included in the general plan. We need to add this critical piece that was not originally included in 2011.

Data centers need to be thoroughl y studied in regard to their impact on the people of San Jose, environmental , health and wellness , air and noise pollution , utility impacts , financial impacts , zoning , etc. This topic must be substantially included in our general plan as San Jose considers data centers.

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

Outlook
FW: COUNCIL AGENDA: 08/18/2026 FILE: 26-852 ITEM: 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:47 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Brenda Dohmen
Sent: Monday, August 1 , 0
To: Mahan, Matt
City Clerk
Subject: COUNCIL AGENDA: 08/18/2026 FILE: 26-852 ITEM: 10.3 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. learn morel Subject: Protecting San Jose's Residential Neighborhoods in the General Plan Four­ Year Review
Dear Mayor Mahan and San Jose City Councilmembers,
We are writing to express strong concern regarding proposed density increases within our Residential Neighborhood (RN) land use designations under the General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework. While meeting state-mandated housing goals is essential , going beyond current state requirements risks undermining the stability, livability, and infrastructure of San Jose's established family oriented residential neighborhoods.

We strongly urge the City Council to limit growth in RN zones strictly to what is required by state law-specifically Senate Bill 9 (up to four units per lot)-while directing higher-density growth adjacent to major transit centers, urban villages as supported by frameworks like SB 79.

Exceeding state minimums in RN zones poses significant unintended consequences for San José:

Infrastructure Capacity Limits: Localized infrastructure is not adequately equipped or developer-funded to handle excessive, unplanned infill density.

Upzoning creates direct strains on emergency response times (Police and Fire), park allocations, power grids, water supply, and aging sewer systems.

Loss of Local Controls and Design Protections: Broad upzoning transitions single-family areas into by-right, developer-driven development. This leads to reduced tree canopy, loss of residential privacy, shading of adjacent yards and solar panels, and the elimination of parking minimums in areas where transit access remains low.

Environmental and Economic Trade-offs: Over-densifying low-density neighborhoods increases localized Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than reducing them, worsens San José’s job-to-housing ratio, and places us at higher density thresholds than neighboring Silicon Valley cities. Furthermore, historical city analysis indicates that market-rate upzoning in RN zones does not automatically yield affordable units.

Irreversible Precedent: Once a permanent General Plan zoning change is enacted, down-zoning becomes legally and practical impossible, permanently altering neighborhood character without providing guaranteed housing affordability.

Urban sprawl: Urban sprawl—higher-density, spread-out residential development—creates significant long-term structural deficits in municipal budgets. While initial home construction can yield short-term permit fees and property taxes, the long-term liabilities required to maintain and service sprawling infrastructure almost always outpace local revenue generation.

With state housing laws continuously evolving, City Planning staff bandwidth should remain focused on directing sustainable, high-density growth near transit nodes where infrastructure and mobility options already exist.

Please protect our residential neighborhoods by capping RN density updates strictly to current state minimums.

Sincerely,

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

Brenda Dohmen
San Jose Resident
Families & Homes San Jose Board Member

Outl ook
FW: August 18th Council Meetin g Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:47 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messa e-----
From: Jason Smith
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2026 9:17 P
To: The Office of Mavor Matt Mahan
District9
Subject: August 18th Council Meeting Item 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council, My name is Jason Smith and I am a 5th generation Californian whose great great grandfather took a leap of faith and traveled to this area on a wagon train in 1849. While my family has resided in the Bay Area since that time, I became a a proud resident of San Jose in 1970 at the age of 4.

I spent my childhood walking through the orchards and neighborhoods of Almaden. I grew up in a number of beautiful suburban neighborhoods where people have always taken pride in the homes they own. I stayed here to attend San Jose State and when it was time to begin my career I chose to stay in the area. I worked extremely hard to be able to buy a home in West San Jose. I've been an active member in the Eden Neighborhood Association for almost 30 years and have collaborated with so many others to make our neighborhood a safe community where we proudly raised our children.

I share all of information to show that San Jose is truly a part of me and vice versa and I want to see the beautiful neighborhoods continue to thrive so future generations can buy a single family home and have the incredible life experience that I and others have worked hard to realize.

Over the past 55 years I’ve watched this town full of orchards grow into Silicon Valley and while I understand that change happens, the “Missing Middle” proposal is a change that goes too far and I am writing in opposition to the proposal.

San Jose may need more housing, but there are better ways to resolve this challenge than to broadly increase population and housing density in established residential single family home neighborhoods.

Allowing 4-10 unit multi-family buildings to be developed in the middle of existing neighborhoods is a drastic change that will only result in congested neighborhoods where parking is insufficient for the increase in population. It will also create more traffic more potential hazards and a greater threat to the safety of those living in the neighborhoods.

Instead of the “Missing Middle” proposal, maybe the city should look at all of the vacant buildings that exist and find ways to redevelop these areas where housing can become a reality without threatening what many of us have worked a lifetime to create.

I urge you to seriously consider the negative impact the “Missing Middle” program will have on the future of San Jose and ask that you vote NO and not move this proposal forward.

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

Outlook
FW: August 18th Council Meeting item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:47 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Roseanne Smith
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
District 10
Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Subject: August 18th Council Meeting item 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. this is im12ortant Dear Major Mayan and Members of the San Jose City Council, The
I am an enthusiastic San Josean in regards to embracing the amazing City of San Jose and all it has to offer. I was born and raised in this city and actively participate in many facets to maintain and improve our city. I am an active ENA member. Have been for 30 years. My Father, Paul J Lipari, Sr., was on a committee to help shape and choose the trees that are now thriving along Winchester BLVD from Campbell to Stevens Creek. And we as a collective family participate in all Italian Festas in San Jose. Make sure the visit next one in Little Italy in October.

We will be cooking for the Tricarico Men's Club.

I share these things only to Segway my strong opposition of moving forward with the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" up zoning framework.

There is not doubt that San Jose needs more housing, but I do not believe broadly increasing density within established residential neighborhoods is a solution. The consideration of allowing 4-10 units is a huge swing and drastic change from the existing pattern of many neighborhoods.

Such a drastic change, I can't even imagine it. My opposing this upzoning is based on first, fundamentally changing the character and scale of established residential neighborhoods. Also, the increase of substantial numbers of households should require careful consideration for impact on parking, traffic, and services we all need in any given neighborhood. I see first hand how the changes to the LynnHaven on Winchester Blvd changed my daily routines in and out those neighborhoods. And finally, home owners invest so much of their savings and regular This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. income to choose and purchase a home based on the style of neighborhood they desire and those expectations and element of home ownership would be gone.

I urge you to please consider all the impacts of this huge and broadly scoped change and not to advance this citywide “Missing Middle” proposal. Please vote NO and not move this proposal forward. We are a resourceful city and I know housing can be attained for its future and with neighborhood input and discussions.

Sincerely,
Roseanne M. Smith
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

Outlook
FW: August 18th Council Meeting
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Joanne Pires
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18th Council Meeting
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council, I am writing as a homeowner on
strongly oppose the recommenda
density.

N. Winchester Boulevard, to
ommodate additional housing
I understand that San Jose has important housing goals and that our city needs to plan for the future.

However, I believe the voices, concerns, and quality of life of the homeowners who have invested in these neighborhoods also need to be considered. There has to be a balance between meeting citywide housing goals and protecting the character, safety, and livability of established residential communities .

My husband and I work extremely hard to afford and maintain our home. Like many homeowners, purchasing a home was not something that came easily. It represents years of work, sacrifice, and investment. The possibility that our neighborhood-and potentially our own property-could be rezoned for substantially greater density is incredibly disheruiening.

What is especially frnstrating is that this feels like yet another major change being imposed on our neighborhood without meanin gful consideration of the cumulative impact on the people who already live here.

We have already experienced the introduction of transitional housing directly in our neighborhood , including a home that houses a significant number of individuals with serious criminal histories.

Regardless of anyone's personal circumstances, placing a high number of residents in an existing single­ family neighborhood has real and measurable impacts. We have seen increased density and parking challenges, and it has changed how comf01table many families feel in their own neighborhood .

Our children and teenagers should be able to walk through their neighborhood, ride their bikes, and spend time outside without their parents constantly worrying about whether it is safe to let them do so independentl y. Yet today, many of us do not feel that sense of security. Adding even more density, This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. residents, and vehicles without adequately addressing parking, traffic, infrastructure, and neighborhood safety will only make these concerns greater.

I ask the Mayor and City Council members to put yourselves in our position for a moment. Imagine working for years to purchase a home in what you believed would be a stable residential neighborhood, only to repeatedly learn that significant changes are being made around you—changes that affect your family's sense of safety, your ability to park near your home, the environment your children grow up in, and potentially the future value and use of your property.

Would you feel that the City was listening to you?
We are not opposed to San José planning for growth or addressing its housing needs. We are asking for responsible planning that does not place the burden disproportionately on existing homeowners and established neighborhoods. Housing goals should not come at the expense of the people and families who already live here.

At a minimum, I ask the City Council to carefully reconsider this rezoning recommendation, fully evaluate the cumulative effects of the changes already occurring in our neighborhood, and meaningfully engage with the homeowners who will be directly affected before moving forward.

Please do not look at our neighborhood simply as additional housing capacity on a map. These are our homes. These are the streets where our children grow up. These are communities in which people have invested their time, money, and lives.

We deserve to have our concerns heard and taken seriously.

I respectfully ask you to oppose the proposed rezoning of our neighborhood and to consider a more balanced approach that addresses San José's housing needs while protecting the safety, stability, and quality of life of existing residential communities.

Sincerely,
Joanne Pires

Outlook
FW: August 18th City Council Agenda-10.3 Oppose
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:48 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe----­
From: Stephanie
Sent: Saturday, Auq s
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18th City Council Agenda- 10.3 Oppose
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
ITEM 10.3
OPPOSE missing middle
Learn why this is important at
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outl ook
FW: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:48 AM
To Agendadesk
From: TIM ZADEL
Sent: Sunda½Aug s
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel San Jose City Council:

Please oppose the Missing Middle Proposal, and any increase beyond state requirements. We are already suffering serious adverse consequences from increased density and we should not make it worse. The proposal is so ridiculous that adjectives fail to properly express what many/most people feel about the issue.

Our housing needs are not nearly severe enough to require this drastic measure, and there are better ways to add housing if needed, such as increasing density in old, run-down, low-density apartment areas, or building more high-rises downtown.

These measures would also significantly increase fire danger! And one such apartment building on the block would make it very difficult to sell another house, except to someone else who wants to build an apartment building. Whole blocks, and then neighborhoods will be ruined, even far from downtown and transit corridors. The city will also lose more of those who pay higher than average taxes.

Thank you,
Tim Zadel
San Jose. CA
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:49 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Josie Supencheck
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Casey, George
C ndelas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from-. Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Dear Members of the City~
I am writing to let you know that I am not in favor about the rapid increase in multi- family homes without the infrastructure needed to support it. Our existing systems - police, fire, roads, water, power, and sewer-are already strained, and adding more multi-family units will only deepen these challenges.

Emergency services are at risk; the city's own study shows we are short fire stations, which affects response times and could cause fire insurance rates increases.

Parking already is an issue. New multi-family unit developments require no on-site parking, pushing vehicles onto already crowded streets. On garbage and recycling days, multi-family unit buildings place multiple carts and dumpsters at the curb
reduces available parking spaces.

I with high regard urge the Council to ensure infrastructure, emergency services, and transportation systems are planned before approving additional Multi-family units. Sustainable growth requires planning that protects both current and future residents.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Josie Su encheck
Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting : General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:57 AM
To Agendadesk
From: SBCGlobal
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Casey, George
C ndelas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting : General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from-· Learn why this is imP-ortant I am a resident of San ~ently opposed to this proposal as it stands. I know you can come up with something better. Indiscriminately and randomly allowing high density housing in single family neighborhoods is just plain crazy; no plan as to where it can be done or for parking, transit, or utilities. It's mind boggling that this proposal is even being considered in its current form.

I am very much in favor of increasing the amount of higher density housing in San Jose, but please, you can come up with something much better than this almost-anything-goes proposal with no checks and balances of any kind. I believe that this proposal, if implemented, would cause many more problems than it would solve.

Please rethink this and do NOT approve this bad proposal.

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

Outl ook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting item# 10.3 - Strongly Oppose "General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:58 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Wen Taur Pang
Sent: Sunday, August 1 , 0
To: Ortiz, Peter
Cc: City Clerk
Cohen, David
Campos, Pamela
Mahan, Matt
Tord illos, Anthon y
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
Ca delas, Domingo
M ulcahy, M ichael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting item# 10.3 - Strongly Oppose "General Plan Task Force M issing M iddle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from - · Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Honorable Mayor an~members ,
I am writing as a concerned San Jose resident to strongly urge you to vote NO on the permanent , city-
wide "Missing Middle" housing proposal scheduled for August 18.

This proposal goes far beyond any state mandate. No other city in Santa Clara County is implementing
such sweeping , permanent upzoning. It would allow 3-story apartment buildings with 16 or more units
on virtually any residential lot, with drastically reduced setbacks , no on-site parking requirements , and
by-right approval. Once adopted , these projects would require no public hearings , no Planning
Commission review, and no City Council vote. When construction begins , the project will already be fully
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. approved—with zero opportunity for neighborhood input.

The consequences are serious and irreversible:

1. The upzoning is permanent and cannot be undone.

2. With no on-site parking required, additional cars will park on already- crowded city streets.

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

4. 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.

Sincerely,
A District 10 Resident in Almaden
Andrew Pang

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting item# 10.3 - Strongly Oppose "General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:58 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Xi Gao
Sent: Sunday, A g
To: Foley, Pam City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting item# 10.3 - Strongly Oppose "General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from- · Learn whY. th is is im12ortant San Jose City Mayor and ~rs,
I am writing to you as a concerned Santa Clara county resident to express my opposition to the San Jose housing element plan. I strongly urge you not to de-zone the ingle-family residential area to allow a single family home be replaced by high density multilevel apartments. Please vote NO on the pe1manent, city wide "Missing Middle" housing proposal.

Such plan will irreversibly forever change the character of our neighborhoods to something we don't recognize, and will be detrimental to our society and our American way of life.

Prior study commissioned by the City itself concluded that this type of zoning change will not produce affordable housing units. The real issue is high cost of living caused by state government's bad policies.

The matter needs to be discussed in public hearings, neighborhood townhalls and etc. Please start holding these discussions.

Best regards,
Xi
Santa Clara county
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting item# 10.3 - Strongly Oppose "General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:58 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Alice Kao- Fullpockets
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 202
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting item# 10.3 - Strongly Oppose "General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
Importance: High
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel To SJ Mayor and city councils,
I am writing as a concerned San Jose resident strongly urging you to vote NO on the permanent, city-wide 11 Missing Middle" housing proposal scheduled for August 18.

I just found out about this proposed plan, and I was shocked by the scope of its intent to destroy San Jose single family home neighborhood as we know it.

It baffled me why San Jose planning commission and special task force would go far beyond any state mandate and propose such sweeping permanent upzoning on single family neighborhood when there is NO lack of spaces in San Jose to provide additional apartment buildings if you choose. The clear examples are blocks and blocks of vacant old high-tech commercial buildings sitting out there in North San Jose with ZERO productive use that could be a much better candidates for rezoning for such a purpose.

Finally, I'm deeply concerned by this haphazard approach of massive upzoning without considering its serious irreversible long-term consequences such as:
• The upzoning is permanent and cannot be undone. It permanently destroys the existing neighborhood. • With no on-site parking required, additional cars will park on already-crowded city streets. • No upgrades to utilities (PG&E, water, or sewer systems) or roadways will be required, placing further strain on existing infrastructure.

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.

This massive upzoning also took away the neighborhood’s future rights for input before a project is approved next to them. So, why are you all doing this?

I respectfully ask the Council to reject this nonsensical and poorly thought-out proposal! Your reputation and legacy are on the line! Do you want to be remembered as the city councils who permanent destroyed San Jose’s nice single-family neighborhoods including the one you and your family are living now, or do you want to be remembered as the city councils who protected the beautiful San Jose neighborhood from being transformed into a hodge pudge of chaotic apartment buildings and single family homes intermixing everywhere which even 3 rd
world countries are doing their best to avoid?

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

Vote NO on Missing Middle Proposal!

Regards,

Alice

•
Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:59 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Nzhou Hong
Sent: Monday, Augus
Cc: City Clerk
Cohen, David
Campos, Pamela
Mahan, Matt
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
. Learn whY. this is imP.ortant
I am writing as a concerned San Jose resident to strongly urge you to vote NO on the permanent, citywide "Missing Middle" housing proposal scheduled for August 18.

This proposal goes far beyond any state mandate. No other city in Santa Clara County is implementing such sweeping, permanent upzoning. It would allow 3-story apartment buildings with 16 or more units on virtually any residential lot, with drastically reduced setbacks, no on-site parking requirements, and by-right approval. Once adopted, these projects would require no public hearings, no Planning Commission review, and no City Council vote. When construction begins, the project will already be fully approved - with zero opportunity for neighborhood input.

The consequences are serious and irreversible:
o The upzoning is permanent and cannot be undone.
o With no on-site parking required, additional cars will park on already-crowded city streets. o No upgrades to utilities (PG&E, water, or sewer systems) or roadways will be required, placing further strain on existing infrastructure.
o 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.

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

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.

Nalin Z

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:59 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Lufan Chen
Sent:Sunda½Augu s
To: Ortiz, Peter Cohen, David
Campos, Pamela
Mahan, Matt
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn whY. this is imgortant Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
We are writing as concerned San Jose residents to strongly urge you to vote NO on the permanent, city-wide "Missing Middle" housing proposal scheduled for August 18. This proposal goes far beyond any state mandates. No other city in Santa Clara County is implementing such sweeping, permanent upzoning. It would allow 3-story apartment buildings with 16 or more units on virtually any residential lot, with drastically reduced setbacks, no on-site parking requirements, and by-right approval. Once adopted, these projects would require no public hearings, no Planning Commission review, and no City Council vote. When construction begins, the project will already be fully approved-with zero opportunity for neighborhood input. We are not sure that this would be a legal proposal if it is getting approved by the city without all San Jose residents being well notified publicly about the proposal contents and being giving sufficient time to discuss among the residents since we would not have learned this proposal 2 days ago if we were not told by a friend privately.

The consequences are serious and irreversible:
o The upzoning is permanent and cannot be undone.
o With no on-site parking required, additional cars will park on already-crowded city streets. o No upgrades to utilities (PG&E, water, or sewer systems) or roadways will be required, placing further strain on existing infrastructure.

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.

We 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

Best regards,

Lufan Chen and Dongmei Tang

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Item 10.3: Strong Opposition to the Permanent "Missing Middle " Upzoning
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:59 AM
To Agendadesk
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - Item 10.3: Strong Opposition to the Permanent "Missing Middle" Upzoning
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am a San Jose resident writing to urge you in the strongest terms to vote no on the permanent, citywide 11 Missing Middle" housing proposal scheduled for August 18.

This measure is not a modest adjustment required by state law. No other city in Santa Clara County is adopting anything this sweeping or irreversible. If approved, it would allow three-story buildings with 16 or more units on essentially any residential lot, with sharply reduced setbacks, no requirement for on-site parking, and by-right approval. Once the ordinance is in place, these projects would bypass public hearings, Planning Commission review, and any further City Council vote. By the time neighbors see construction, the decision would already be final.

The results would be lasting:
• The zoning change is permanent and cannot later be rolled back. • Eliminating on-site parking requirements will push more cars onto streets that are already congested. • No corresponding upgrades to utilities, water, sewer, or roadways would be required, adding pressure to infrastructure that is already stretched.
• A 2021 study commissioned by the City itself found that this approach does not deliver affordable housing.

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

Some Council members have noted limited public opposition. That quiet should not be read as agreement. Many residents are only now realizing how far-reaching and permanent these changes would be. Once written into the zoning code, the character of our residential neighborhoods would be altered without further public process.

I ask you to reject the proposal outright. At the very least, remove it from any consent or streamlined calendar so a full public hearing and real community discussion can occur.

Thank you for considering the long-term impact this decision will have on the people who live here.

Respectfully,
Robert Edwards

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 9:59 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe-----
From: Fe
Sent: Sun
To: Tordillos,
Cohen, David <
Kamei, Rosema
Casey, Georqe
Domingo
Michael
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Meeting - General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Learn why this is important at
Our family are long term Willow Glen residents and we oppose the proposal to increase residential density in single-family neighborhoods to 32 units per acre across the entire City of San Jose. We do not believe this approach is wise, necessary, or beneficial to the long -term quality of life that residents value and expect.

We support the goals of Envision San Jose 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 priorities 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 Jose, North San Jose, 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,
Cliff Wang and Felicia Wong
"The joys of the table belong equally to all ages, conditions, countries and times; they mix with all other pleasures, and remain the last to console us for their loss."    -Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:00 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Kelly Baker
Sent:Sunda½Aug s
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't ofte n get email from . Learn whY. this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to respectfully and strongly urge you to reject the proposed changes to San Jose's residential zoning.

Increasing allowable density to 32 units per acre-with buildings up to three stories, no on-site parking requirement, and potentially up to 12 units replacing a typical single-family home-is a profound and permanent change to our neighborhoods. Changes of this magnitude deserve meaningful community consent, not an administrative process that leaves neighboring residents with little or no opportunity for input.

Most importantly, this proposal is discretionary. It is not required by state or federal law or by the City's Housing Element. San Jose's existing General Plan already provides substantial capacity for future growth, while recent state housing laws have created significant additional opportunities for higher­ density development, particularly near transit.

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

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

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

There is no justification for imposing another sweeping layer of density on established residential neighborhoods without first demonstrating a clear need for it and fully evaluating its impacts on parking, traffic, infrastructure, neighborhood character, and existing residents.

I am also deeply concerned about continuing to study variants of this proposal for an implementation vote during the 2027 holiday season, when public attention and participation are predictably lower.

Please do not spend additional staff time or taxpayer dollars pursuing versions of a policy that has generated substantial community opposition.

Because state law may make these zoning changes extremely difficult or impossible to reverse once adopted, the Council should exercise particular caution before permanently surrendering local control over our neighborhoods.

Please drop the proposed “Missing Middle” zoning changes entirely and preserve meaningful neighborhood participation in decisions that fundamentally affect where we live.

Thank you for listening to San José residents and for voting NO on this proposal.

Sincerely,
Kelly Baker
Lifelong San Jose Resident

Outl ook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/ 2026 10:00 AM
To Agendadesk
From: julie meador
Sent: Sunday, August 1 ,
To: Ortiz, Peter Cohen, David
Campos, Pamela
Mahan, Matt
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anth ony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
M ulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middl e Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't ofte n get email from - · Learn whY. this is im12ortant Strongly oppose this m~nd reasonable parking and infrastructure (energy, water) must be part of the planning equation, along with preservation of quality of life in our neighborhoods - meaning avoiding over crowding and congestion. I am not confident these elements have or will be adequately addressed.

Real life examP-le: We have a high rise in our neighborhood with parking provision for only for 50% of residents. This was allowed because there is a single transit bus across the street that supposedly will service the transportation needs of the residents. With respect, get real! We all know these residents will not be utilizing a transit bus to get to work or run errands - it's not practical! Also, where will the 50% without a designated space park? Finally, it's pretty appalling that these "missing middle" plans are not being broadly communicated and discussed with the community! Where is the transparency? Julie
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:00 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Raymond White
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
Ca delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. this is im12ortant No No No!

1. permanent, city-wide "Missing Middle" housing proposal

2. that allows 3-story apartment buildings

3. with 16+ units

4. on any residential lot,

5. with no on-site parking,

6. drastically reduced setbacks, and

7. by-right approval-no public input, no hearings , no Planning Commission or Council vote.

People don't want to live in such "accommodations!
People don't want to live near the consequences of such "housing"! No parking means no cars,
which means no mobility to reach jobs (or welfare outlets).

Better plan on a higher ratio of cops to residents.

Residents won't be happy or well-adjusted people.

Raymond R. White, Ph.D.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:00 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Cher Kooiman
Sent: Sunday, August 1 ,
To: Ortiz, Peter
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. this is imP-ortant City council members,
As a long time resident and tax payer of San Jose, I strongly oppose this proposal to allow up to 16+ units on residential lots. We do not have a parking area to accommodate this in my neighborhood , and it would increase noise and light pollution, as well as the safety of our children and pets in our yards with increased traffic in the area. This is not a good long term solution to the housing situation in San Jose.

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

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:00 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Message-----
From: Charles Korstad
Sent: Sunday, Auqust 16, 2
To: Ortiz, Peter
Anthony
Kamei, R
Casey, G
Doming Doan, Bien <
Michael City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don 't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
To San Jose City Council
I absolutely oppose this proposal to modify zoning to allow increased number of homes on a land parcel.

Also, I hope you do rezone the IBM Almaden land to be open space! Regards,
Charles Korstad
Sent from my iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - OPPOSE General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:00 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Cynthia Freedman
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2
To: Mahan, Matt City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - OPPOSE General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from
Greetings,
. Learn why this is imP-ortant
Please OPPOSE the "Missing Middle" proposal by the Plannin g Commission.

This will lead to haphazard and chaotic development with no consideration with what is reasonable and with what are the needs of a neighborhood .

It does NOT encourage home ownership, only corporate ownership. We need single-family homes that are more affordable and residents can take pride in.

The existing General Plan can meet San Jose's housing goals without this horrible proposal.

Please vote NO!
Thank you,
Cynthia Freedman
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:00 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Liliana Ramos
Sent: Friday, August 1 , 2
Cohen, David
Campos, Pamela
Mahan, Matt
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't ofte n get email from
Council Members:
. Learn why this is im12ortant
I don't live in San Jose, but my 92 year old mother does. She lives in East San Jose. I can't imagine how unsafe and confused she would feel if apartment buildings were built next to the home that she has lived in for decades. In addition, it's already hard to find parking in her neighborhood , adding these apartment units with no parking is going to increase the stress that people experience to find parking. Without safety measures, these individuals expose themselves to being attacked as they walk to their home from their car that could potentially be parked blocks away; as well as their vehicles being vandalized.

Although I'm the type of person that believes in helping people have a better life, I don't believe that changing the zoning laws to include having 3 story apartments with 16+ units next to regular homes is the answer.

It also seems unfair that homeowners have to follow the property line setback rules for their ADUs, but the owners of the apartment buildings don't. In addition, this decreases the chance for young people to purchase homes and increases the over population in schools. It increases the chances of rich people to buy properties to increase their revenue without any concern for the neighborhood and the citizens of San Jose.

As far as parking, in a regular neighborhood , people have more than one vehicle since rent and mortgages require two or more incomes. There is not enough street parking as it is in a typical This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. neighborhood.

How would council members feel about moving into one of these proposed units or live next door to them and not having enough space for their own vehicles. Plus making more dangerous for children playing outside their homes.

This plan decreases the quality of life for San Jose citizens. Please don't do this.

Respectfully,

Liliana Ramos

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:01 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Laura Toller Gardner
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 20
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. this is im12ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and City Council Members:

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

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, while eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible
change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective . Permanent and far-
reaching zoning changes not otherwise mandated by the state-should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

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

In the strongest way possible I urge you to vote NO on the General Plan Task Force Missing Middle proposal at the August 18 meeting This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. and instead work toward housing policies that preserve community input and address infrastructure and parking needs responsibly.

Thank you for having the courage to protect our beautiful city and residents, now and long into the foreseeable future.

Respectfully,

Laura Toller Gardner

"True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.” ~ Rev., Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Outlook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:01 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Susan Noda
Sent: Sunday, Augus 16,
Doan, Bien
City Clerk
Subject: RE: August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 Tordillos, Anthony
Kamei, Rosemary
Casey, George
delas, Domingo
Mulcahy, Michael
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from- · Learn whY. this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and City C~
We just heard about the proposal going before the City Council this Tuesday. We received two emails on Thursday, five days before this vote happens.

There seems to be so much we don't know. It seems as if transparency is lacking and if we had been following this all along and/or were retired we would be able to understand what is going on. We were very shocked with the emails and frustrated as we looked over the City Council's agenda. There seems to be so much we don't know. It seems as if transparency is lacking? We live in Council Member Bien Dean's district that borders on Council Member Domingo Candelas's district. There are many immigrant families and families of color who are working hard just to keep living in this valley. They don't have time to look into this, yet it will have a huge impact on all of us.

We are writing to oppose the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-year general plan (agenda item 10.3). Which eliminates any possible community review or feedback.

The lack of onsite parking issue really troubles us as we live down the street from a condo development and even though there is parking included in that development , many, many cars line the street all the way down to our home. Many of you live in nice neighborhoods and don't have to worry about getting a parking spot in front of your home when you come home from work or over the weekend.

We would like to ask to table this until a later date so more clarity and transparency can be brought out as to what areas of land SPECIFICALLY are going to be rezoned or changed over. This is not right.

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

Respectfully,
The Nodas

Outl ook
FW: Council Agenda Item 10.3
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:01 AM
To Agendadesk
From: j im carter
Sent: Monday, Aug st
To: City Clerk
Subject: Council Agenda Item 10.3
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from - · Learn whY. th is is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and Memb~cil
I am asking you to reject the proposal from the planning commission and stick with the recommendations of the existing Envision San Jose 2040 plan. This is a discretionary decision that directly affects the quality of life for the citizens and their families for decades to come.

My neighbors and myself want to live in San Jose because neighborhoods reflect a desirable quality of life not found in other large metropolitan cities. As a born and raised citizen of San Jose I have witnessed many changes throughout my decades living in this wonderful city.

You as the governing body can decide at today's council meeting that you can preserve the quality by rejecting the proposal from the planning commission. This proposal goes too far in recommending more units per acre than the state of California is recommending. I am in favor of recommendations for the current 2040 plan, those recommendations suggest housing should be built along transit corridors and in urban villages planned for growth that will increase housing without congesting neighborhoods.

I urge you to reject the current proposal suggested by the planning commission.

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

Outl ook
FW: August 18, 2026 City Council - Item 10.3 - Support for Planning Staff Recommendation s From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:01 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messa e----­
From: Taylor Jenks
Sent: Monday, Auo s 17, 2026
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18, 2026 City Council - Item 10.3 - Support for Planning Staff Recommendations [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >] [You don't often get email from
httP.s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Learn why this is important at
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council, I am writing as an individual in support of the Planning staff recommendations for Item 10.3, the General Plan Four-Year Review.

I work at Santana Row, and I see how difficult it can be for service workers and other employees to afford to live near where they work. San Jose needs more housing options , including affordable homes, near major job centers.

I also hope the City can continue creating more walkable neighborhoods with better transportation options, so that people do not need to rely on cars for every trip . Santana Row demonstrates the value of a place where people can live, work, shop, and spend time in the same area.

I encourage the Council to support the Planning staff recommendations and help create more housing opportunities near jobs , services, and transit.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Taylor Jenks
Writing as an individual
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 Item 10.3: Urgent Request: Protecting San Jose Residential Neighborhoods From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:01 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Families & Homes San Jose
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 9:49
To: Kamei, Rosemary
Candelas, Domingo
Cc: City Clerk
Casey, George
Ortiz, Peter
Anthony Tordillos
Subject: August 18 Item 10.3: Urgent Request: Protecting San Jose Residential Neighborhoods [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear Honorable Mayor an
. Learn whY. this is imP-ortant
Subject: Urgent Request Regarding Agenda Item 10.3: Protecting San Jose Residential Neighborhoods
Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
Thank you for your time and dedication regarding the Policy Framework for the General Plan Four-Year Review on the August 18th agenda. We appreciate your efforts to navigate San Jose's housing future. As voting homeowners, we do not have corporate lobbyists or developer resources-our Council members are our primary voice at City Hall.

We urge you to stick strictly to existing state housing laws for Residential Neighborhoods (RNs) and remove expanded "Missing Middle" up-zoning from Item 10.3.

We strongly urge the Council to protect our single-family neighborhoods through the following actions:

Maintain Existing RN Density Limits: Abide to the minimum allowed by state law. SB 9 already allows up to 4 units per initial lot. Also, SB9 allows cities to maintain the limit the number of units to 4 units including ADUs. Do not direct staff to expend limited municipal resources and Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) studying 16, 24, or 32 units per acre in established RN zones if they are not the minimum required by laws and the Housing Element. Under SB 330, downzoning is virtually impossible once approved—this decision is irreversible.

Capitalize on Existing High-Density Corridors: San José does not need to over- upzone low-density neighborhoods to meet state Housing Element goals. State legislation like SB 79 already targets over 40,000 parcels across 56+ transit stops for high-density development (5–7 stories, up to 120 units/acre)—yielding a significant capacity. Focus higher-density "Missing Middle" housing (up to 10 units) strictly along major thoroughfares and designated Urban Villages.

Enforce Off-Street Parking Protections: Protect neighborhood livability by establishing clear minimum off-street parking standards in all RN areas with low transit access, utilizing full state allowance. SB 9 caps the number of on-site parking a 1 per unit.

Require Discretionary Review: Ensure any proposed projects exceeding SB 9 baseline standards require discretionary review rather than ministerial ("by-right") approval.

Clarify Staff Mandates: Require staff to provide clarity to the public and you the precise maximum unit count (with and without ADUs/JADUs) per lot required by state law and our housing element. This should be required before any work is authorized. Also, public outreach on this issue going forward must be improved. Study sessions and other community sessions should be advertised and communicated at the same level as recycling communications from the City. Council members should also publicize events in their newsletters.

Advocate for Local Control: Direct San José’s Intergovernmental Relations team to partner with state legislators to restore municipal land-use authority back to local communities and pause additional housing bills until we understand the impact of what is already occurred.

San José is already carrying the regional heavy lifting for housing production. We ask you to vote carefully on August 18th to preserve our city, infrastructure, and quality of life in our residential neighborhoods and all areas of the city.

Respectfully,

Brenda Dohmen & Sandra Delvin
Board Members
-
Families & Homes San José
•
•
•
•
•
•
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Website: https://www.familieshomessj.org/

FAMILIES&HOMES
San Jose
Outlook
FW: August 18 Council Meeting, Item 10.3, General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:02 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Lance Danbe
Sent: Friday, August 1
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 Council Meeting , Item 10.3, General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Citizen Input regarding
. Learn whY. this is imi;iortant
August 18 agenda item 10.3 General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework (b) Small Multifamily/Missing Middle Housing:
(i) Increase the density in the Residential Neighborhood land use designation from 8 DU/AC to 32 DU/AC; To The Honorable Matt Mahan and Councilmembers,
What could be more sensible, effective, fair etc. then major strategy 3, focused growth, of the existing general plan which "stlictly limits new residential development through neighborhood infill to preserve and enhance the quality of existing neighborhoods. " If the August 18 vote passes and allows by-right permitting throughout San Jose, then the unintended consequences will surely ove1whehn us and anger eve1yone. What is the point of having a planning staff if they merely need to review a checklist to approve building and pe1mitting fees, regardless of the concerns of affected neighborhoods and the impact on future city budgets. There is no safeguard against projects that are incompatible with smTounding residences. There is no process for analyzing the increased service demands such development would have on the demand for city and county services, no way to protect San Jose's fragile financial stability.

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

I long ago became suspicious when national candidates and leaders tell me they want what is good for the American people. And that's because they only think about tomorrow, not next year, next decade and beyond. Short term and social media ready content seem to drive all that they say. We elect you guys to think ahead. Please vote no on August 18 and show us that you are using common sense and have thought ahead for the good of San Jose citizens.

Houses come and go, but trust is a very hard thing to rebuild.

Regards,
Lance Danbe

Outl ook
FW: August 18 2026 Agenda Item: Missing Middle
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:02 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Ruth Callahan
Sent: Friday, August 1 , 2
To: City Clerk Foley, Pam
Subject: August 18 2026 Agenda Item : Missing Middle
Webmaster Ma nager
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from
To whom it may concern:
. Learn whY. th is is im12ortant
The KooserWoods Coalition Neighborhood Association summarily opposes any further infill in the Kooser Dentwood Southbridge neighborhoods.

The 1371 Kooser Apartments on the ChuckECheese parking lot is a massive building.

It towers over our single-story , single-family homes and blocks the sunlight.

We have been marginilized in the 1990's by the State, County, and City building SR 85.

The SR 85 soundwall is the back yard property line on Dentwood Dr from the Russo Pedestrian Overpass to Meridian Ave.
200 families and their homes were bulldozed to build the right of way. 200 families lost their friends, schoolmates , and the school they had previously attended. The wall has been a constant struggle due to the state's refusal to police the encampments that have lived behind us since it opened.

The City of San Jose has officially abandoned Russo Park. It's dirt now. Sadly, Mathew Queveda , from the Mayors office has told me that the 'City has written 'it' off.

In 2018, plans were proposed for an 8 story PSH (Permanent Supportive Housing) 100% Section 8 apartment building in our single-story, single-family home neighborhood. Accord ing to the Housing Dept, 45% of the units will be for the homeless. Fifty-five are for rapid rehousing.

This building will be across the street from the Montessori School.

Now, Roselynn Hughly, Deputy Director of the City Manager's office has declared that minister ial right along the SR 85 sound wall for massive infill projects.

This is targeted racial and socio-economic discrimination.

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

We are prepared to stop any further incursion by the authoritarian rule of the unelected city staff.

We oppose this missing middle action because our neighborhood already has mixed use.

We have the Meridian Villas, townhomes on Dentwood.

We have two-story duplexes on Stanwood and Dellwood.

We will have an 8-story PSH section 8 housing unit on Dellwood and Stanwood.

We will not permit any further incursion into our neighborhood and we are prepared to litigate any further infill.

Kooser Woods Coalition Representing 1873 Neighbors
San Jose CA 95118
https://www.kooserwoods.com/
@kwc95118

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 10.3 -General Plan Four-Year Review/ Missing Middle Housing From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:02 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Axel Streichardt
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2
To: District 10
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 10.3 - General Plan Four-Year Review/ Missing Middle Housing [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don 't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is im12ortant Dear Councilmember Casey, Mayor Mahan and Members of the San Jose City Council, I am a San Jose resident, and I am writing to ask you to oppose the proposed Missing Middle Housing changes in Agenda Item 10.3, particularly any policy that would broadly allow three-story, higher-density development within existing residential neighborhoods.

I support creating more housing in San Jose, but I do not believe the solution is to substantially increase density throughout established residential neighborhoods without considering the character, infrastructure, parking, traffic, privacy, and quality-of-life impacts on the people who already live there.

Higher-density housing makes sense along major transit corridors, near commercial areas, and within designated Urban Villages. Applying significantly higher density broadly across existing neighborhoods is a very different policy decision and deserves much more careful consideration and direct input from affected residents.

I am particularly concerned about allowing buildings up to three stories next to existing one- and two­ story homes. Such development can have a major impact on privacy, sunlight, backyard use, parking, and the overall character of a neighborhood.

Please do not move forward with a blanket citywide approach. I ask the Council to reject or significantly revise the Missing Middle Housing portion of Item 10.3 and instead focus additional housing density in locations where the infrastructure, transit, and surrounding land uses can better support it.

Please ensure that San Jose homeowners and residents have a meaningful voice before changes of this magnitude are made to their neighborhoods.

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

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,
Axel Streichardt
District 10 resident
--
Axel Streichardt

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.

From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:03 AM
To Agendadesk
From: PAT BRAUN
Sent: Friday, August 1
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. this is im12ortant I heartily oppose the San Jose City Council voting affirmatively to move forward with a proposed change in zoning that will forever alter single-family neighborhoods. If approved, up to 10 residential units could be built on a typical 6,000 tt2 parcel. No parking would be required, and 3-story structures would be allowed on ANY residential lot in San Jose. This will affect every neighborhood in the city.

Further, this development would be "by right," meaning that it would be approved without any input from neighbors or the community.

The resulting increases in traffic, utility usage, demands on police and fire services, and loss of trees in neighborhoods would be significant.

The Board of Directors of the Santa Teresa Foothills Neighbo rhood Association has voted unanimously to oppose this measure . When will it stop?
Sincerely, Pat Braun
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: "Missing Middle" Housing Proposal
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:03 AM
To Agendadesk
From: HARALD MYNSTER
To: Districts
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: "Missing Middle" Housing Proposal
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Please vote no on the City wide "MissingMiddle" housing proposal that will allow substantial change to housing units on Residential lots.

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

Outlook
FW: Agenda item 26-852
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:03 AM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe----­
From: Peg Keena
Sent: Friday,
To: Dis • The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan
Clerk
Subject: Agenda item 26-852
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more< httQs://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification >]
[You don 't often get email from
httQs://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Dear Mayor Mahan and Representative Kamari
Learn why this is important at
City
I am writing to strongly oppose moving forward with the proposed citywide "M issing Middle" upzoning framework.

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

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

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

Please vote NO on advancing this proposal.

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

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:03 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Alex Picard
Sent: Monday, Aug st
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

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

Quad1upling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking, this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhood s, fu1ther aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully,
Alexandra Picard
Outlook
FW: Opposing the Proposed "Missing Middle" Housing Plan (August 18 City Council Agenda Item

10.3)
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:03 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Mike Chen
Sent: Monday, Aug
To: City Clerk
Cc: Mike Chen
Taber, Toni
Subject: Opposing the Proposed "Missing Middle" Housing Plan (August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from-· Learn why this is imgortant Dear San Jose City Coun~,
My name is Mike Chen, and I am a long-time resident of San Jose. I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the proposed "Missing Middle" housing plan scheduled for discussion at the August 18 San Jose City Council meeting.

While I understand and support the City's goal of addressing its housing needs, I believe this proposal , as currently written, does not adequately consider the broader impact on all San Jose residents , including those who live in established single-family neighborhoods.

My primary concerns are as follows:

1. Insufficient consideration of existing neighborhoods: The proposal does not appear to adequately consider the interests and concerns of residents living in existing single-family neighborhoods, many of whom have invested in and built their lives in these communities.

2. Lack of comprehensive development planning: Increasing housing density across neighborhoods should be accompanied by thoughtful, area-specific planning. Indiscriminately increasing density, including in established single-family neighborhoods, without sufficient consideration of each area's existing conditions could create significant challenges.

3. Insufficient infrastructure planning: The proposal appears to focus heavily on increasing housing density without adequately addressing the infrastmcture and public services needed to support that growth. These include roads and traffic capacity, parking, parks and open space, electricity, water and sewer systems, schools, police and fire services, emergency response , waste management, public transportation , and more.

4. Questionable impact on housing affordability: I am concerned that increasing density alone will not necessarily result in more affordable housing for San Jose residents. Without addressing the broader factors that conti·ibute to housing affordability, the proposal may increase development while failing to achieve its intended housing availability and affordabi lity objectives.

5. Potential long-term and unintended consequences: Once significant changes to neighborhood development patterns are approved and implemented, they may be exti·emely difficult to reverse. I believe the City should carefully evaluate the long-tenn consequences and potential unintended impacts before making pennanent changes to established neighborhoods.

For these reasons, I sti·ongly urge the City Council not to approve the Missing Middle proposal in its current form . Instead, I respectfully ask the Council to take additional time to evaluate the proposal comprehensively, including its impacts on existing neighborhoods, infrasti11cture, public services, ti·affic, livability, and housing affordabi lity.

I believe San Jose can and should pursue meaningful solutions to its housing challenges, but those solutions should balance the need for additional housing with the City's ability to provide the infrasti11cture and services necessaiy to suppo1t sustainable growth and maintain a high quality of life for all residents.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could shai·e my comments with the San Jose City Council members prior to the August 18 meeting.

Thank you for your time and consideratio n.

Best regai·ds,
Mike Chen
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

Outl ook
FW: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:04 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Karen Ruth & Michael Hoffman
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 9:54 AM
To:

Subject: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - · Learn whY. this is imP-ortant Do not vote for this, loo~om oted item to the detriment of San Jose citizens .

Michael Hoffman
San Jose Voter
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outl ook
FW: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:04 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Karen & Michael
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 9:51 AM
To:

Subject: "August 18, 2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose General Plan Task Force Missing Middle Proposal"
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
This is an absurd plan, do not vote for this.

Karen Ruth
San Jose voter
. Learn whY. th is is im12ortant
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:05 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Justin Madsen
Sent: Monday, August
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

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

Quadrupling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods. SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable, unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

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

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

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/2026 10:07 AM
To Agendadesk
From: David Conti
Sent: Monday, Aug st
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is im12ortant Dear Mayor and City Council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning commission recommendation to amend the 4-yea1· general plan, as described in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 council agenda.

Quadrupling the maximum permitted housing density from 8 to 32 units per acre, city-wide, eliminating any possibility for community review or feedback , is a drastic and irreversible change to the community fabric of our San Jose neighborhoods . SB330 prevents any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective. Permanent and far-reaching zoning changes not othe1wise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future.

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

Respectfully,
David Conti
Outlook
FW: August 18 city council meeting - oppose general plan task force missing middle proposal From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:13 AM
To Agendadesk
I 1 attachment (101 KB)
General Plan TaskForce Mssing Middle Proposal.pdf;
From: charles yu
Sent: Monday, Aug s
Mulcahy, Michael
Cc: City Clerk
Tordillos, Anthony
Subject: August 18 city council meeting - oppose general plan task force missing middle proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

Learn why this is important
I am writing as a concerned San Jose resident to strongly urge you to vote NO on the permanent, citywide "Missing Middle" housing proposal scheduled for consideration on August 18.

This proposal goes far beyond any state mandate. No other city in Santa Clara County has implemented such sweeping and permanent upzoning. The proposal would allow three-story apartment buildings containing 16 or more units on virtually any residential lot, with drastically reduced setbacks, no on-site parking requirements, and by-right approval.

Once adopted, qualifying projects would require no public hearings, Planning Commission review, or City Council vote. By the time construction begins, a project would already be fully approved, leaving residents with no meaningful opportunity to provide neighborhood input.

The potential consequences are serious and irreversible:
• The upzoning would be permanent and extremely difficult to reverse. • Without on-site parking requirements, additional vehicles would be forced onto already-crowded city streets.

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

No corresponding upgrades to utilities—including electricity, water, and sewer systems—or roadways would be required, placing further strain on existing infrastructure.

A 2021 study commissioned by the City concluded that this type of zoning change would not produce affordable housing units.

Councilmembers have indicated that they have heard little opposition. However, that silence should not be mistaken for consent. Many residents are only now becoming aware of how broad and permanent these proposed changes would be. Once incorporated into the zoning code, they could alter the character of San José’s residential neighborhoods forever, without any further opportunity for meaningful public participation.

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

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

Respectfully,
Charles Yu
Residence of San Jose

•
•
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

I am writing as a concerned San José resident to strongly urge you to vote NO on the permanent, citywide “Missing Middle” housing proposal scheduled for consideration on August 18.

This proposal goes far beyond any state mandate. No other city in Santa Clara County has implemented such sweeping and permanent upzoning. The proposal would allow three-story apartment buildings containing 16 or more units on virtually any residential lot, with drastically reduced setbacks, no on-site parking requirements, and by-right approval.

Once adopted, qualifying projects would require no public hearings, Planning Commission review, or City Council vote. By the time construction begins, a project would already be fully approved, leaving residents with no meaningful opportunity to provide neighborhood input.

The potential consequences are serious and irreversible:
• The upzoning would be permanent and extremely difficult to reverse. • Without on-site parking requirements, additional vehicles would be forced onto already- crowded city streets.
• No corresponding upgrades to utilities—including electricity, water, and sewer systems—or roadways would be required, placing further strain on existing infrastructure.
• A 2021 study commissioned by the City concluded that this type of zoning change would not produce affordable housing units.

Councilmembers have indicated that they have heard little opposition. However, that silence should not be mistaken for consent. Many residents are only now becoming aware of how broad and permanent these proposed changes would be. Once incorporated into the zoning code, they could alter the character of San José’s residential neighborhoods forever, without any further opportunity for meaningful public participation.

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

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

Respectfully,
Charles Yu
Residence of San Jose

Outlook
FW: 8/18 Council Vote Item 10.3 - Affordable Housing Goals & Challenges From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:14 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 approximately 69% of total development costs.

If affordable housing is the goal, focus growth where projects have the scale and requirement s 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

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 c
osts
– 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 un
its at a higher 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 u
nits vs. 154
in Santa Clara
and
112 Bay Area
average.
■ Fewer Bedrooms:
– 66% of units are
Studios/1-BRs i
n
San José 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

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 lnc lusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) - not density alone - is the mechanism that requires or funds afford able units in qualifying market-rate projects.
• Proj ects with fewe r 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-rest ricted affordable unit.
• More units do not neces sarily mean more affo rdability . 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 Resident ial Devel opment Study found higher-density podium, wrap and tower prototypes financially infeasible under the study assumptions.
• Direct construct ion costs were approximatel y 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 Villa ge be deed- restricted affordable housing. The City notes this is a goal, not a requirement on every individu al project. • Larger projects can be subject to the IHO and Urban Villages can accommodate dedicated affordab le developmen ts, 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 househo ld must move elsewhere during the project , subject to applicable tenant protect ions, not ice and relocat ion 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 Resident ial Develo pment Study (Nov. 21, 2025) https ://www .sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocume nt/126846/638996842360170000

2. City summary of Cost Study findings (Jan. 26, 2026)
https ://www .sanjoseca.gov/hom e/showpublish eddocument/ 127856/639050312244200000

3. lnclu sionary Housing Ordinance changes (approved Jan. 27, 2026) https ://www .sanjoseca .gov/your-government/departme nts­ offic es/housing/developers/proposed-changes-to -inclusionary -housing-ordinance

4. Housing Production / Urban Villa ge affordable-h ousing policy https ://www .sanjoseca.gov/your -government/departments ­ offices/housing/deve lopers/affordab le-housi ng-plans-policies/housing -produc tion Outlook
FW: 8.18 CM meeting General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework Item 10.3 From City Clerk
Date Mon 8/17/202610:21 AM
To Agendadesk
I 1 attachment (1 74 KB)
Letter to SJCC General Plan Four Year Review Policy Framewor k.pdf; From: Patrici a Gardner
Sent: Sunday, August 16,
To: City Clerk
Subject: 8.18 CM meetin g General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework Item 10.3 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from Learn why this is importa nt City Clerk
Please post my attached letter to the City Council regarding August 18, 2026 Council Meeting General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework Item 10.3 Patricia Gardner
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

August 15, 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council
RE: August 18, 2026 Council Meeting General Plan Four-Year Review Policy Framework Item 10.3 As a constituent living in the Cory Neighborhood (San José City Council District 6, State Assembly District 25, and State Senate District 15)—home to Valley Fair, Santana Row, and the Winchester Corridor—I am writing to formally request that the Mayor and City Council pause all pending staƯ recommendations regarding the proposed major modifications to the General Plan.

When you observe the high level of concern being raised by numerous neighborhood groups across the city, it signals a significant breakdown in community engagement—regardless of how staƯ may perceive the outreach eƯort. Proposals with citywide consequences require more than procedural compliance; they demand genuine, accessible dialogue.

There must be more clarity and intentional conversations. Specifically, I urge the City Council to mandate the following before taking any further action:
 Comprehensive Clarity: Provide clear, accessible documentation explaining the exact scope, intent, mapping the long-term community impacts of the proposed General Plan amendments by Council District. (the alphabet soup of acronyms is beyond comprehension)
 District-Level Public Hearings: Require each Councilmember, in collaboration with the City Manager’s OƯice, the Housing Department, and relevant departments, to host dedicated public hearings within their respective districts—similar to the robust public outreach process used for the city's annual budget.
 Neighborhood Association Engagement: Conduct targeted informational sessions directly with impacted neighborhood associations, including the Cory Neighborhood, to allow residents to review the proposals, look at maps and ask questions, and oƯer meaningful feedback. For instance, most Cory Neighborhood residents do not support proposed eight-story housing developments in the Winchester Corridor.

We must have a balanced approach for growth that accommodates employment and housing while preserving the neighborhood character. Due to the significant scale and potential neighborhood impacts of these proposed changes, decisions should not move forward until the city ensures full transparency and community engagement.

I have a long history of advocacy and policy development, and I am befuddled in the rush to take action and nonexistent community engagement in a sweeping general plan change that will impact generations to come.

Sincerely,
Patricia Gardner, Cory Neighborhood Resident
Outlook
FW: Comment for Council meeting 8/18
From Taber, Toni
Date Mon 8/17/2026 3:32 PM
To Agendadesk
Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Clerk
City of San Jose
200 E Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
408-535-1260
The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

From: Meredith Leonard
Sent: Monday, August 17,
To: Taber, Toni
Subject: Comment for Council meeting 8/18
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is imP.ortant Toni, Please forward to member of the City council. Including the Mayor Welcome to Slum Jose.

With the direction San Jose is taking, I fear this is where we am headed.

The City seems increasingly focused on adding housing at any cost, while ignoring the people who already live here. Allowing developers to build multiple-family residences on existing properties without strict requirement s for adequate parking and infrastructure isn't responsible development. It is simply packing more people into existing neighborhoods and expecting residents to deal with the consequences.

What about traffic, emergency access, water, sewer capacity, and other city services? This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

And who benefits? Too often, it appears to be investors and developers who can maximize the number of units and their profits while existing homeowners absorb the impact.

This doesn't seem to be about affordable housing. Show us how these developments will actually create housing affordable to San Jose residents—not simply more units that can be purchased or rented at market rates.

More housing does not automatically mean better housing policy.

We support responsible housing. We do not support turning established neighborhoods into high-density developments seemingly designed primarily to increase developer profits.

San Jose needs smart, sustainable growth that includes adequate infrastructure, parking, and consideration for the neighborhoods that already exist.

Meredith Leonard