Letters Received Post Meeting — San Jose City Council, August 18, 2026

Outlook
FW: Email letter for all city council members
From Taber, Toni
Date Tue 8/ 18/2026 8:56 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Spencer Kent
Sent: Tuesday, August
To: Taber, Toni
Subject: Email letter for all city council membe rs
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Hi Toni,
. Learn whY. this is imP-ortant
Please forward the following letter to all city council members.

Thank you for your help!
Dear San Jose City Council Members, My name is Spencer Kent, 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:• 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.• 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. • Insufficient infrastructure planning - The proposal appears to focus heavily on increasing housing density without adequately addressing the infrastructure 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.• 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 contribute to housing affordability, the proposal may increase development while failing to achieve its intended housing availability and affordability objectives. • Potential long-term and This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. unintended consequences - Once significant changes to neighborhood development patterns are approved and implemented, they may be extremely difficult to reverse. I believe the City should carefully evaluate the long-term consequences and potential unintended impacts before making permanent changes to established neighborhoods. For these reasons, I strongly 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, infrastructure, public services, traffic, livability, and housing affordability. I believe San José 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 infrastructure and services necessary to support sustainable growth and maintain a high quality of life for all residents. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Spencer Kent
47 Year resident, homeowner and business owner

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/19/2026 7:36 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Ramin Naimi
Sent: Tuesday, 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 ofte n get email from . Learn whY. this is im1;1ortant 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 IO. 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 otherwise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or reconsider in future .

The proposal exceeds both Housing Element and State Laws. There is no requirement for onsite parking , this recommendation will increase traffic and parking conflicts on San Jose's already crowded streets, reduce tree cover in rapidly heating neighborhoods , fu11her aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio , and further burden strained police, fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully ,
RaminNaimi
Outlook
FW: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning.

From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/19/2026 7:37 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Heather Lang
Sent: Tuesday, Augu
To: The Office
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide "Missing Middle" upzoning. [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Some people who received this message don 't ofte n get email from Thank you, Leilani.
. Learn why this is imgortant
I appreciate your thoughtful response and the additional information about what Mayor Mahan is work ing to accomplish. I am particularly encouraged to hear that he is advocating for appropriate density levels, on-site parking where permitted, consideration of fire risk, and other meaningful guardrails to protect our existing neighborhoods.

I understand that San Jose needs more housing, and I support thoughtfully creating opportunities for more housing. My concern is making sure we do not solve one problem by creating significant new problems for the neighborhoods and homeowners already here.

I live in Naglee Park, where we already have a mix of single-family homes and multi-unit housing that has coexisted within the character of this historic neighborhood for many years. I think that distinction is important .

There is a significant difference between thoughtfully adding housing that fits within an established neighborhood and allowing substantially higher-density development on small residential lots without adequate consideration for parking, traffic, privacy, infrastructure, neighborhood character, and the homes immediately surrounding it.

Many of our properties are already on relatively small lots. Our yards and the privacy between homes may be modest, but they are an important part of the livability and value of these properties. A large multi-unit development towering over a neighbor ing home could substantially change that experience. That is very different from locating higher-density housing along major corridors and other areas better suited to accommodate the additional residents, vehicles, and activity .

Homeowners have worked hard and invested significant portions of their savings and income into these homes. I believe protecting the reasonable enjoyment and long-term value of those properties needs to remain part of this conversation as San Jose works to meet its housing obligations .

I appreciate Mayor Mahan recognizing that this should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Please encourage him to continue pushing for strong, neighborhood-spec ific guardrails as this moves forward . Naglee Park and San You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important José’s other established residential neighborhoods are exactly why those protections matter.

Thank you again for listening and for keeping me informed as the process continues.

Best regards,
Heather Lange

Heather Lange | Realtor |
Heather Lange Homes

From: Mayor's Oﬃce < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 4:25 PM
To: Heather Lange < >
Subject: RE: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide “Missing Middle” upzoning.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Heather,
Thanks for reaching out to Mayor Matt. He understands your concerns and has worked with a few colleagues to bring forward a memo that modiﬁes the staﬀ recommendation. Speciﬁcally, the Mayor is asking staﬀ to look at a range of densities in residential neighborhoods, including lower densities where appropriate, on-site parking requirements where allowed by state law, ensuring that the total unit count is inclusive of ADUs, and incorporation of ﬁre risk into the ﬁnal zoning updates. As a South San Jose resident who spends a tremendous amount of time sitting in traﬃc, the Mayor understands the importance of thinking holistically about housing, jobs, amenities, mobility, infrastructure and other community needs.

That said, it is important to know that the City must comply with new State laws and the policies we committed to implement when we certiﬁed our legally mandated Housing Element. Failure to follow state law would decertify our Housing Element, and re-open “Builder’s Remedy” in San Jose, which is a state law that allows developers to build housing anywhere they want, by right (meaning no Council approval). San Jose has already lost precious job- creation land due to Builder’s Remedy. It is also important to know that existing State law (SB 9) allows property owners to build up to 4 units per residential lot, which means by default a developer can build up to 32 units to the acre in most parts of the City.

The Mayor’s approach is to create guardrails and limits that protect existing communities from unintended consequences while complying with State law and creating opportunities for new homes and families in our city.

We will keep you updated as the policy-making process proceeds. Currently, a ﬁnal vote on these updated policies would take place in about 18 months, so we are still at the front-end of this process, but you are absolutely right to weigh in now when the Council is giving our initial direction to city staﬀ.

If you’d like to advocate directly to the state for greater clarity on what is required, we hope you will reach out to Housing and Community Development staﬀ at: ;
---------
Thanks again,
Leilani
The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan
--------------- Original Message ---------------
From: Heather Lange [
Sent: 8/13/2026, 3:12 PM
To: ; ; ; ;
; ; ; ;
; ;
Cc:

Subject: Strongly oppose the proposed citywide “Missing Middle” upzoning.

Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the San José City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed citywide “Missing Middle” upzoning.

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

Housing policy should be thoughtful and balanced, with meaningful consideration given to the homeowners and residents who have invested in these communities. A change of this magnitude should not be implemented broadly without adequate neighborhood input and careful consideration of its long term impacts.

Please vote NO on this proposal.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Heather

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

Outlook
FW:: Request to Require Parking as a Condition of Approval for New Housing From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/19/2026 7:37 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Andrea Ator
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 4:56 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan .
◄
◄
◄
istr ictl
Subject: Re: : Request to Require Parking as a Condition of Approval for New Housing [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - - Learn why this is imP-ortant hi again - I just realize~the number of stories. I wish to be allowed. It should be two not three as this is a residential area and they would be in line with what is already in place thank you for your time.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Thursday, August 13, 2026, 6: 19 PM, Andrea Ator- > wrote:

For clarity, this is requesting for NO vote on Missing Middle framework.

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

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

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

1. It harms residents who drive for a living.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Andrea Ator

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Outlook
FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/19/2026 7:39 AM
To Agendadesk
From: pingz~
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 10:40 PM
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 imJ;!ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning c01mnission 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 prevent s any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective . Pe1manent and far-reaching zoning change s not otherwise mandated by the state should not be undertaken without the ability to amend or recon sider 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 fuither burden strained police , fire, and other city resource s.

Respectfully ,
Ping Zhang
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachm ents from untrust ed sources. • Outlook
FW: Eliminating Parking and overcrowding San Jose! Protect Our Neighborhood.

From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/19/2026 9:04 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Joy Ramsauer
Sent: Wednesday, Au st 1 , 2 8:5 AM
To: Districtl City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Eliminating Parking and overcrowding San Jose! Protect Our Neighborhood . [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 Council member Kamei, I
live on in District 1. I am writing
to urge you to VOTE NO on the
Envision San Jose 2040 Task
Force Citywide up-zoning
proposal tomorrow. With the
ongoing Santana Row expansion
already bringing heavy density and
traffic to our immediate borders,
our quiet interior residential blocks
cannot handle additional multi-unit
zoning. This permanent "by-right"
rule will destroy our single-family
neighborhood character and
overwhelm our streets with cars
due to the lack of on-site parking
requirements. Please protect our
neighborhood and vote against this
proposal.

We are already being overwhelmed
with apartments built on Bascom
and are experiencing parking
problems in front of my own
house. We have lived here since
2004. We were told that it would
be very difficult to get parking
permits. Apartments are causing
overwhelming car parking inside
our courts.

Also, forgot to mention the
Apartment buildings already
exisiting on our Whitethorn side as
well. Some of them have 3 to 4
cars each. This is also causing the
problem.

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

Can you please tell me how I can
get parking permits for only our
court?
Please do allow this happen.

Respectfully yours, Joy Ramsauer
San Jose, CA
95128

Outlook
FW: Saying no to amending the 4-year general plan (as described in item 10.3) From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/19/2026 12:23 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Yasamin Shamshiri
Sent: Wednesday, August 1 , 2
To: City Clerk
Subject: Saying no to amend ing the 4-year general plan (as described in 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 imJ;!ortant Dear Mayor and city council:

I am writing to OPPOSE the planning c01mnission 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 prevent s any reversal of this up-zoning if it later proves to be unworkable , unpopular or ineffective . Pe1manent 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 fuither burden strained police , fire, and other city resources.

Respectfully ,
Azizeh Alavirandjba1u
This message is from outsid e the City email system. Do not open links or atta chments from untrust ed sources.

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 Council Meeting From City Clerk
Date Wed 8/19/2026 12:56 PM
To Agendadesk
From: Priscilla Joyce
Sent: Wednesday, Au
To: Districtl
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT: Public Comment Opposing Citywide Up-Zoning - Item on 8/18 Council Meeting [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is imQortant Dear Council Member Kamei,
I live District 1. I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force Citywide up zoning proposal tomorrow.

With the ongoing and planned El Paseo and Costco projects already bringing heavy density and traffic to our neighborhoods, our quiet residential blocks cannot handle additional multi unit zoning.

This permanent "by right" rule will destroy our single family neighborhood character, overwhelm our schools, and flood our streets with cars due to the lack of on site parking requirements. This is not a NIMBY issue it is a practical, safety, quality of life issue. Our infrastructure simply cannot handle this type of expansion.

Please protect our neighborhood and vote against this proposal.

Respectfully yours,
Priscilla Joyce
an Jose, CA
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 Thu 8/20/2026 8:38 AM
To Agendadesk
From: Irene Kane
Sent: Thursday, Aug s 2 ,
To: City Clerk
Subject: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Learn whY. th is is imr;iortant 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 neighborhoods , fu1ther aggravate San Jose's fiscally draining jobs-to-housing ratio, and fu1ther burden strained police, fire, water/sewer systems and other city resources.

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

Irene Kane

center had used 30 million, gallons through improperly managed water connections. This is one of many companies, making promises of using our water responsibly and are then found, unreliable.

In Oregon, a google data center was had publicly described as ‘climate-conscious’, only to have public water-use records show they had used at least 355.1 million gallons of water, and sued local journalists when the information was highlighted to the community, as it showed the failure of their word. Clearly these words are not viable for water management.

You are asking the community to share a life source, with a computer so it doesn’t melt. We are seeing communities across the nation, unable to fight forest fires due to lack of water pressure near data centers. District 2, has seen many fires in its time, can the city guarantee it will protect its citizens in time of tragedy?
On the topic of noise pollution and cardiovascular health:

The standard threshold of safe noise exposure until it poses a risk to hearing is about 85 dB. For reference a 90-megawatt center is 90 to 96 dB. The CDC noise guide states the maximum safe workplace limit for 8 hour days is 85dB. At 88dB that drops to 4 hours, and at 91dB it drops to two. A financial trade of income, is not comparable to the safety of people.

Long term exposure doesn’t just affect hearing, affects the cardiovascular system. Exposure to 90 decibels for long stretches of time can cause vascular strain. This happens because the body recognizes loud noise as a threat, causing strain on the nervous system and stimulating adrenaline and cortisol spikes. The will cause high blood pressure, increased risk to: heart disease, coronary artery disestablished, heart attacks and strokes. This will cause direct health impacts that are deadly.

These vibrations will also mask essential ecosystem communications from coyotes, birds and many other animals and insects local to the area. Noise pollution causes lower rates of seedling successes from trees, and deters pollinators.

On the concern of heat pollution:

A recent study from the Centre for AI, Trust and Governance at the University of Sydney found that the use of AI could lead to the deaths of millions of bees. AI related emissions from data centers increase the average temperatures surrounding them that can persist up to 30 miles. Bee and other pollinators are highly sensitive to changes in temperatures. This could mean areas that surround coyote creek, critical pathways for wildlife and neighborhood greenery could die from the lack of pollinators. This will affect not only our local fauna, it will affect our air quality directly as plants provide oxygen but it will also affect the market value of our area for home owners and buyers.

Areas that lack fauna, will only increase the surrounding heat. Bare areas that lack trees and plants create heat islands. These heat islands have been found to increase the temperature by up to 16 degrees as found by a group at the university of Cambridge. These barren spaces are also prone to bad drainage, causing standing water which can cause flooding and muddy soils .

On the concern for energy usage:

The amount of energy these cluster of data centers will use is more energy than our city has ever seen.

The city of San Jose has stated that it would like to be, ‘the world capital for data centers.’ I find this claim to be reckless, as we currently lack the infrastructure for this market to be sustainable and co exist beside community hubs. This location is one of many. The topic of creating infrastructure for the Ai economy currently excludes residents. It is reported by Americas largest utility that Americans can be experiencing black outs by next year due to rising energy demand.

Our local population represents only a small fraction of the users that would benefit from this facility, yet we face the burden of cons of living so close to it. The rate design, interconnection costs and infrastructure funding plan are often left undefined. Taking a company’s words are not sufficient. Once these are approved and built, we the people, are left to indirectly foot the bill for increased power consumption through higher rates and grid upgrade costs just for one massive consumer.

For example in the state of Virginia, regulators had to create a special large-load class specifically for data centers because of the high rate cost allocation complaints.

Promises of renewable power cannot be a guarantee onsite when renewables cannot meet demand.

Projects rely on grid power, such as diesel backup generators or other fossil fuels that bring emissions, heat, noise and impact air-quality to the surrounding area. An example of such is in Memphis Tennessee, xAI reportedly needed to add 35 methane gas turbines totaling 422 megawatts. Reuters reported environmental groups had said the facility would become the largest polluter within the area of toxic NOx gases, which can irritate lungs, eyes and even produce acid rain .

We have also seen within Lake Tahoe that 50,000 Californians will lose power to data centers next year because billionaires decided profits mattered over people. Can the city guarantee this will not happen? There is no law protecting residents from this.

On the topic of the city’s concern of financial gain:

This planning is reckless from every foreseeable angle from infrastructure, environmental, and housing market wise. These facilities don’t guarantee a large amount of jobs to the local residents. These buildings often have small teams when these can easily be locations of a warehouse or commercial districts that can provide large teams operating these establishments. It certainly doesn’t account for the Ai market bubble burst, that is estimated to be worse than the dotcom market crash. If the city wants to guarantee income and bring in money for the city with it’s community and eliminate deficits, it would act accordingly and responsibly and take a rule out of New York City’s executive budget. Tax the rich, by taxing those living outside the city with a second home worth more than 5 million, reducing tax credits that benefit the rich without affecting middle and lower class families and their resources. It is possible, New York has proven so.

In conclusion:

While these disastrous effects are a possibility, a possibility is not fair to our community, the children at the playground down the trail, the animals and insects that depend on our creeks as a highway, and the families that reside in the neighborhood. I am firmly against the 5977 silver creek valley rd proposal and others like it. I oppose it, and I am asking the city council to help us survive the data center boom. We cannot drink or breathe money.

I am requesting, that consideration for an approval of these data centers be halted until the public is provided with any numbers that this will prove this will not affect them on a daily scale and on an environmental scale in seasons of drought. And if the possibility this does move forward, to demand a push for hard water caps, along with steep penalty if this facility cannot properly manage their water use and pollution outputs. We need protections against corporations.

Thank you for listening and for considering the very real impact this could have on families like mine.

Best,
Alex

--
Alexandra D. Froehlich Hankinson, M.A.

Outlook
FW: Vote NO on the housing proposal August 18 - please!! From City Clerk
Date Thu 8/20/2026 10:22 AM
To Agendadesk
From:

Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 10:19 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan .

Cc: 'Erin Mannas'
◄
◄
◄
Subject: Vote NO on the housing proposal August 18 - please!! istrictl
You don't often get email from . Leam whx this is itnP-ortant Dear Mayor Mahan and Council Member Tordillos,
I am a 30 year resident of downtown San Jose, and I implore you to vote NO to the "missing middle" proposal on August 18.

I do understand that we urgently need more affordable housing. I am not a "NIMBY" as a rule. Mixed neighborhoods can be more vibrant and welcoming than cookie cutter subdivisions. But this proposal simply throws all the rules out without any regard for the serious consequences.

There are a whole list of reasons why the clear majority of residents think this proposal is a bad idea. My biggest concern is P-arking. I live in an R2 neighborhood, and there is already a shortage of street parking even though current rules require every lot to have parking spaces. If th is proposal goes forward, I cannot imagine where anyone will park! Its simply not sustainable. {And sure, we can dream of a day when everyone rides their bike, but don't bet San Jose's future on that please!)
My heart goes out to women who have to park blocks away from home late at night and walk alone in the dark.

Double parked delivery trucks already create an obstacle course and safety hazard on a lot of streets because there is no where for them to pull over. As do garbage bins on garbage day because there is no curb space.

Personally I have a large driveway so I can accommodate a friend or two if they come to visit, but what will a resident of a 3 story, 16 unit, 0 parking space building do with the ir own car, their friend's car, or their Door Dash delilvery driver 's car?
This proposal recklessly eliminates rules that were thoughtfully established over decades. Yes, we need more housing, but please do it more thoughtfully . We have already recently allowed up to fou r housing units on an Rl lot. How is that going? If not much is happening, why not? How about modifying this "missing middle" proposal to incrementally allow density increases, not just open up the entire city to three story, 16 unit buildings? And most importantly, please please add requirements for parking spaces! Love cars or hate cars, they ARE a part of our society for the foreseeable future, and parking spaces are as important to our infrastructure as electr icity and garbage trucks.

P .S. – this is my ﬁrst letter to the City Council. How did I do? Can you at least let me know it was read?

Please vote NO on August 18, and bring a better solution forward that merits a yes vote in the near future.

Sincerely,
Erin Mannas

Outlook
FW: Land proposal , agenda item 10.3
Fro m City Clerk
Date Thu 8/20/2026 1 :29 PM
To Agendadesk
----- Original Messaqe-----
From: Risa quon
Sent: Thursday, Auqus 2 ,
To: City Clerk
Subject: Land proposal, agenda item 10.3
[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 council,
Learn why this is important at
I am a resident and am opposed to this land proposa l. Unfortunately, you may have already meet.

Please let me know the outcome and note my oppos ition .

Thank you,
Risa Quon
95123
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

San Jose City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

San Jose City Council
August 18, 2026