RULES COMMITTEE: 9/2/2026
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 26-305
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: August 26, 2026
August 20, 2026 - August 27, 2026
ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Letters from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Letters from the Public
1. Letter from RK, received August 20, 2026, regarding: Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee Written Comment.
2. Letter from Hung Dao, received August 21, 2026, regarding: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle.
3. Letter from Mike Wagner, received August 22, 2026, regarding: SJACS – Audit.
4. Letter from Julinda LeDee, received August 22, 2026, regarding: Data Center Input for San Jose; New Federal rules on Water use reduction for CA.
5. Letter from Raul Rincon, received August 23, 2026, regarding: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.
6. Letter from Akos Szoboszlay, received August 24, 2026, regarding: Written input Agenda item "Open Forum" for 8/25/2026 Council meeting.
____________________________
Toni J. Taber, MMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
8124126, 4:14 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook Outlook
Fw: Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee Written Comment From Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 8/21/2026 10:59 AM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 3:22 PM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee Written Comment From: PSFSScom m ittee < PSFSSCom m ittee@sa njoseca. gov> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 2:38 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee Written Comment Hi,
We received the email below in the PSFSS Committee Meeting email inbox. This is not related to any items on today's agenda, so we are forwarding to you for follow up as appropriate.
Thank you,
Becki
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 4:19 AM
To: PSFSScommittee <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee Written Comment [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
important
. Learn why this is
Public Comment to the San Jose City
Council - No One Voted for This
https:lloutlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1 hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M... 1/4 Public Record: 1
Surveillance System
Members of the San José City Council,
I am extremely disgusted by the surveillance expansion described in the City’s plans.
San José is moving toward a system involving hundreds of automated license plate readers, more than a thousand public cameras, a thousand private cameras integrated into City systems, hundreds of shopping-mall cameras, automated red-light enforcement, automated speed enforcement, and a centralized Real Time Intelligence Center tying these systems together.
No one voted for this.
The residents of San José were never asked whether they wanted to live under this kind of surveillance network.
There was no citywide vote asking residents whether they wanted hundreds of license plate readers recording vehicles throughout the city. There was no vote asking whether residents wanted 1,000 privately owned cameras connected to police surveillance infrastructure. There was no vote asking whether hundreds of cameras at a shopping mall should be integrated into the Real Time Intelligence Center. And there was no vote asking residents whether they wanted automated speed cameras, red-light cameras, retail surveillance feeds, ALPR data, and government-operated cameras progressively connected into one larger system.
Instead, these systems have been introduced piece by piece through contracts, budget decisions, pilot programs, staff reports, work plans, and individual Council actions.
That is a mockery of meaningful public consent.
But lack of consent is not the only problem.
The problem is the mission creep.
Systems sold to the public for one purpose do not stay confined to that purpose. ALPRs defended as tools for serious crime and stolen vehicles are now being discussed for illegaldumping enforcement and other City functions. Private retail and shopping-mall cameras are being pulled into police intelligence infrastructure. Once the network exists, every new use becomes easier to justify simply because the infrastructure is already there.
The problem is the gaslighting.
Residents raise fundamental objections to mass surveillance, and instead of addressing those objections, the response is another retention limit, another audit, another policy revision, another promise that access will be controlled, or another explanation of all the good the technology supposedly can do.
Those responses evade the actual issue.
Many residents are not asking for a better-managed surveillance network. They are saying they do not want the network.
8/24/26, 4:14 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 2/4 Reducing ALPR retention from 365 days to 30 days does not answer an objection to indiscriminate collection. Adding an audit does not answer an objection to putting innocent people into a searchable surveillance system. Calling something a “public safety tool” does not make the privacy and civil-liberties consequences disappear.
The problem is also the flat-out refusal to listen to what constituents are telling the City.
The public response to the last major Flock discussion should have been a warning. The correspondence submitted to the City was approximately 60/40 against Flock.
That opposition did not emerge because residents suddenly stopped caring about crime or public safety. It happened because constituents are waking up to what is being built around them.
People are seeing the pattern.
One system is approved. Then its purpose expands. Another camera network is added. Private cameras are integrated. Another department discovers a use for the data. Then the City points to safeguards and insists that the concerns have been addressed.
They have not.
The City should not interpret the absence of an earlier public revolt as consent. Most residents were never shown the full architecture being assembled.
A city can make an enormous policy change without ever presenting the actual question to the public if it divides that change into enough smaller administrative decisions. Ten separate votes approving ten pieces of surveillance infrastructure are not equivalent to asking residents:
Do you want San José to build a citywide public-private surveillance network capable of monitoring the movements and activities of ordinary people who are not suspected of any crime?
That is the question the City keeps avoiding.
This is especially disturbing because other California communities are reconsidering or rejecting surveillance technologies while San José continues treating expansion as a measure of progress.
Instead of recognizing growing public opposition, San José appears determined to go further:
more ALPRs, more government cameras, more private cameras, mall-camera integration, more retailers connected to police systems, speed cameras, red-light cameras, and more centralized surveillance.
At what point does this Council acknowledge that residents may simply not want this? The City should not assume that surveillance deployment is the default and that public opposition is merely an implementation problem to be managed.
It is not.
It is a policy disagreement. It is a civil-liberties disagreement. And increasingly, it is a disagreement between what City Hall appears determined to build and what a growing number of constituents actually want.
8/24/26, 4:14 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 3/4 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I strongly support putting major surveillance systems before the voters. If the City believes these systems are necessary, effective, proportionate, and genuinely supported by the public, then it should be willing to make that case openly and allow residents to decide.
Until then, the City should halt further expansion of:
automated license plate readers;
automated speed-enforcement cameras;
automated red-light cameras;
private-camera integration into the RTIC;
shopping-mall and retail-camera integration;
Connect San José surveillance expansion; and
any other system that increases the City's ability to monitor residents who are not suspected of wrongdoing.
The problem is not merely that the government began collecting surveillance data without meaningful public consent.
The problem is that the City keeps expanding the surveillance, keeps finding new uses for it, keeps answering fundamental objections with procedural safeguards, and keeps acting as though growing public opposition is something to work around rather than something to listen to.
The roughly 60/40 opposition to Flock should not be dismissed as noise to be managed while the City continues building. It should be treated as a warning that constituents are paying attention—and that elected officials will ultimately be held accountable for ignoring them.
San José should stop expanding this infrastructure, stop pretending that incremental safeguards resolve the underlying objection, and finally give residents a genuine say in whether this surveillance system should exist at all.
Constituents are waking up to this. The Council should start listening.
RK
8/24/26, 4:14 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 4/4 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
8/24/26, 418 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook Outlook
Fw: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 8/24/2026 8:41 AM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 7:27 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3 - Oppose Missing Middle From: hung dao
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2026 7:43 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
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's recommendation to amend the 4-year General Plan, as outlined in agenda item 10.3 of the August 18 City Council agenda.
Increasing the maximum permitted housing density citywide from 8 to 32 units per acre is an enormous change to the character of our San Jose neighborhoods. I am especially concerned that this would happen without meaningful opportunities for community review or feedback.
This is also not a change that can simply be undone later if it turns out to be unworkable, unpopular, or ineffective. SB 330 makes these types of zoning changes much more difficult to reverse. For something this significant and far-reaching, I believe the community should have the ability to review, weigh in, and reconsider these changes over time.
I am also concerned that this proposal goes beyond what is required by the Housing Element and state law. With no requirement for onsite parking, this could add even more traffic and parking conflicts to neighborhoods that are already dealing with crowded streets. It could also mean less tree cover in neighborhoods that are already getting hotter, while placing additional strain on police, fire, and other city resources. https://outlook.cloud microsoft/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkADhh Yzk3NTk1 L TBmZDAtNDc4 Yi 1 hN2Q0L TZjNmZjNTk5M... 1 /2 Public Record: 2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I strongly urge the Mayor and City Council to reject this recommendation and allow for a more thoughtful process that includes meaningful community input.
Respectfully,
Hung Dao
8/24/26, 4:18 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 2/2 8/24/26, 418 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook Outlook
Fw: SJACS - Audit
From Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 8/24/2026 8:41 AM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 7:28 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: SJACS -Audit
From: M Wagner
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2026 3:37 PM
To: Doan, Bien <[email protected]>
Cc: Fleming, Jonathan <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: RE: SJACS - Audit
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Hello Councilman Doan,
Last Tuesday at the City Council Meeting on August 18th, you asked Matt Loesch if he had completed and implemented the 39 recommendations from the City Audit. Matt Loesch replied, "Yes."
Joe Rois had previously signed off on these implementations at a City Council Meeting back in March. For some reason, you were unaware of this.
Finding #4 of the City Audit created Recommendations #22, #23, #24 that involve re-engaging Cat Rescue. The Santa https://outlook.cloud microsoft/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkADhh Yzk3NTk1 L TBmZDAtNDc4 Yi 1 hN2Q0L TZjNmZjNTk5M... 1 /3 Public Record: 3
Clara Civil Grand Jury report also found the shelter to be ignoring rescue partners and offered Recommendation #2.
And yet, we have only seen 402 Cats/Kittens go to Rescue during the first six-months of this year.
Compare that to only 380 Cats/Kittens going to Rescue during the first six months of 2023.
2023 was a year in which former Deputy Director Jay Terrado admitted that the shelter had "ignored" rescue partners at the December 2023 NSE Committee Meeting.
So once again, you fell prey to the "spin" offered by Matt Loesch.
Staff has clearly not re-engaged with Cat Rescue partners.
The data confirms this.
Thousands of cats and dogs have suffered and died at SJACS under the leadership of Jennifer Maguire, Angel Rios, and Matt Loesch over the last 3.5 years.
And yet not a single SJACS Director has ever been held
accountable and fired. Not a single Director has ever had any disciplinary action taken against them.
Sadly, you've been a member of the NSE Committee for years and have never held anyone accountable either.
Why is that?
Mike Wagner
8/24/26, 4:18 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 2/3 Public Record: 4
The DOI's operating guidelines also encourage the three states to "voluntarily conserve and store at least 700,000 acre-feet of water over the two-year period to protect the system, in addition to the
1.25 million acre-feet per year of reductions."
See full article here: https://abcnews.com/US/federal-government-orders-steep-colorado-river-watercuts/story?id=135856655 According to AI found on 8/22/26:
“AI Overview: Yes, California will still need to rely on groundwater pumping, but its role and volume are actively changing. Groundwater typically supplies about 40% of the state's total water in average years and up to 60% during dry periods.
Current Surface Water Conditions
Strong Reservoirs: Thanks to previous wet winters, major California reservoirs are in solid shape, allowing the state to rely heavily on surface water.
Colorado River Cuts: Federal officials have ordered significant water cuts for California, Arizona, and Nevada. While this means less surface water from the Colorado River, the state is making up the difference through careful management and groundwater reliance.
Snowpack Volatility: While reservoirs are healthy, Sierra Nevada snowpack has melted earlier and faster than in previous years. Less snowpack typically translates to a greater draw on groundwater reserves as the summer progresses.
The Shift to Sustainable Pumping:
SGMA Regulation: California is no longer allowing unrestricted pumping. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires local agencies to end long-term overdraft and balance their basins.
Stricter Limits: Particularly in the Central Valley, local authorities have begun enforcing mandatory reductions, allocations, and pumping fees to prevent land from sinking.
Prioritizing Recharge: When heavy rains occur, the state is heavily focused on capturing excess stormwater to actively refill and recharge underground aquifers, rather than just pulling water out.
While groundwater remains the crucial backbone for drinking water and agriculture, pumping is becoming heavily regulated and capped to protect reserves for the future. “ However, pumping too much ground water causes the land to sink according to this article. This has regional impacts, according to the Newsweek article below:
“As droughts become more frequent and water demand continues to grow, researchers say protecting groundwater reserves could prove critical to the future of California's agricultural heartland and the broader U.S. food supply,” according to this Newsweek reporting excerpt from this article:
https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-where-california-is-quickly-sinking-amid-us-water-crisis12312393 Also quoting from KQED article “HAGER: “Yeah, the reaction has been mostly positive, but with an asterisk. The 20% cut is actually pretty welcome news for Arizona, California and Nevada. The federal government said it has the authority to cut their water up to 40%. Those states negotiated with the feds to avoid that worst case scenario. Arizona said that would be catastrophic for its people and economy. So this is a small sigh of relief. But these rules only last for two years, and those bigger cuts could be necessary by then.” This quote is from NPR article: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/21/nx-s1- 5940071/a-new-colorado-river-plan-means-big-water-cuts-for-some-states It seems like playing a pin ball machine game with all of the laws & rules and restrictions on what can be done and the pressure you are getting from Big Business. Unfortunately, more reliance on ground 8/24/26, 4:17 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 2/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. water pumping creates it's own array of problems with ground sinking and impacts on agriculture, etc.
Santa Clara County and San Jose, CA seriously needs to put the brakes on the Data Centers as it appears to be “self-mutilating”.
Also rather than putting taxpayers money toward a new jail/prison, we need to be putting our money into how to survive with less water and higher cost of water. If more money was put into schools and a program for scientists, the students could come up with sustainable solutions.
Finally, food for thought, why can't our City Government re-purpose buildings to meet the needs of more housing. If we are getting less access to water for citizens, then we certainly should not be creating more footprint.
Thank you
Paula
8/24/26, 4:17 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 3/3 8/24/26, 4 17 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook Outlook
Fw: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.
From Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 8/24/2026 8:39 AM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 7:30 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: August 18 City Council Agenda Item 10.3.
From: RPRincon
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2026 4:27 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
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 imf2ortant I, Raul Rincon opose th~ow building multiple dwellings on a single residential lot within our city.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. https://outlook.cloud microsoft/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkADhh Yzk3NTk1 L TBmZDAtNDc4 Yi 1 hN2Q0L TZjNmZjNTk5M... 1 /1 Public Record: 5
8/26/26, 12:28 PM lnbox - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook Outlook
Fw: Written input Agenda item "Open Forum" for 8/25/2026 Council meeting.
From Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Date Wed 8/26/2026 11 :41 AM
To Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> ® 1 attachment (166 KB)
Mahan.pdf;
From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 7:32 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Written input Agenda item "Open Forum" for 8/25/2026 Council meeting.
From: Akos Szoboszlay
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 11:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Written input Agenda item "Open Forum" for 8/25/2026 Council meeting. [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Hello,
Learn why this is important
Here is my written input for Agenda item "Open Forum" for 8/25/2026 Council meeting:
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
The subject line is:
Request repeal of the blanket prohibition of pedestrians from expressways (11.32.070) https://outlook.cloud microsoft/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkADhh Yzk3NTk1 L TBmZDAtNDc4 Yi 1 hN2Q0L TZjNmZjNTk5M... 1 /2 Public Record: 6
Thanks,
Akos Szoboszlay
8/26/26, 12:28 PM Inbox - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5M… 2/2 To: San Jose City Council Repeal blanket pedestrian prohibition Page of 1 5 To: Mayor Mahan and City Council of San Jose
From: Akos Szoboszlay, former President, Modern Transit Society (existed, 1971 to 2011) Date: Aug. 11 and Aug. 25, 2026
Subject: Request repeal of the blanket prohibition of pedestrians from expressways (11.32.070) Upload: This letter is also uploaded as a pdf file to: ModernTransit.org/2026/Mahan.pdf .
Hello Mayor Mahan and Council Members,
As President of the Modern Transit Society, I led the efforts, starting in 1987, that resulted in the BOS (County Board of Supervisors) voting to require facilities along expressways for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit patrons. These are arterial roads that were re-named “Expressway” in the 1960s and 1970s. County Roads Department's highway staff repeatedly fought against these facilities. The BOS also rejected all attempts of highway staff to impose prohibitions of nonmotorists from these roads. I compiled a one-page table of these BOS actions, and another page of excerpted quotes of these. Here is the link to both pages:
ModernTransit.org/BOSvotesQuotes.pdf
I lead the effort for these BOS actions. I also successfully led the repeal of San Jose’s blanket prohibition of bicyclists on expressways, in 1989, despite bike lanes existing on all expressways (which were called “shoulders” by staff). The vote was 11 to 0, despite vigorous SJ DOT opposition. Councilmember Jim Beall was very helpful in this regard. Jim also helped with the BOS action of 2006 [see above link] when he was Supervisor.
In the County, there are 6 rail transit stations directly on expressways, and 3 more are about a block away. All 9 transit stations require expressway use for some or most access. Two of these stations are on Capitol Expressway, Capitol Light Rail Station and Eastridge Transit Center (under construction for rail transit). Alum Rock Station is about a block away. Furthermore, all bus lines crossing expressways have bus stops at the expressways so that transit patrons can use expressways. One of our members lived two blocks from Capitol Light Rail station, but was “Prohibited” from using transit because he did not own a car to drive into the park-and-ride lot, two blocks away.
I forced removal of Pedestrians Bicycles and Equestrians Prohibited signs, prohibiting access for transit patrons and other pedestrians, on Capitol Expressway in 1997, despite the San Jose ordinance prohibiting them. State law gave no authority to prohibit pedestrians from expressways. This forced sign removal also forced County Roads’ highway staff to construct sidewalks/paths, which, at my effort, were already required by the BOS in their 1991 action. (Others did likewise on Almaden and Montague Expressways, and in other cities.) To: San Jose City Council Repeal blanket pedestrian prohibition Page of 2 5 At my request as President of the Modern Transit Society (which existed from 1971 to 2011), the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) required the following along all expressways:
• bike lanes (in 1989, with technical details added in the 2003 County Expressway Plan) • pedestrian paths along the “entire expressway system” (1991) • trimming of shrubs at intersection corners for pedestrian safety (1991 and 2003) • pedestrian use of expressway bridges (1991)
• approved sidewalks along all expressways, usually on both sides of the road, as shown on Sidewalk Maps for each expressway (part of the 2008 County Expressway Plan).
All nine BOS votes in this regard, and excerpted quotes, are listed in above link. A Timeline of Capitol Expressway history is in the Appendix.
Unfortunately, County Roads Department has refused to comply with BOS requirements for safety and facilities because “that would encourage pedestrian to violate the City ordinance.” This has resulted in many deaths of pedestrians, and destruction of facilities. My two slide shows prove these facts at these links. No narration is needed:
ModernTransit.org/2025/Background.pdf for background and BOS requirements.
ModernTransit.org/2025/KillAndDestroy.pdf has 3 kill sites and 5 destroy sites in San Jose, all caused by the City ordinance prohibiting pedestrians.
The SJ BPAC voted unanimously to ask City Council to repeal 11.32.070, in January 2025. They wrote a letter to City Council, and approved it.
Currently, the County Roads’ highway staff is doing “feasibility studies” for expressways. All bike lanes, sidewalks, paths and bus stops are feasible on expressways, and were approved in the 2003 and 2008 County Expressway Plans. If they would not be feasible, the BOS would never have approved them. These “studies” are actually an attempt by highway staff to eliminate many or most of these facilities to usurp the right-of-way of bicyclists, pedestrians and transit patrons to obtain more vehicular traffic lanes. (They want 10 lanes of car traffic on Lawrence Expressway, for example.) Highway staff of the County has been using propaganda to do exactly that, in their speeches and reports. In fact, they have already started destroying bike lanes, sidewalks and paths to construct double-left-turn and right-turn-only lanes at the same location, thus usurping bike lanes and sidewalks/paths for two additional traffic lanes. The slide shows prove this within San Jose. (More destructions occurred in other cities.) It is urgent to repeal the ordinance, in order to stop highway staff from wasting more time trying to eliminate these facilities from expressways. Their ATP (Active Transportation Plan) eliminates all bike lanes and half the sidewalks from expressways, by forcing 28-mph e-bikes to use the same “shared-use path” as children and dogs. However, all sentences that “sunset” prior Plans were removed from the ATP by the BOS (on June 3, 2025) at my and other advocates’ efforts. Therefore, the current requirements for sidewalks and bike lanes, as stated in the 2003 To: San Jose City Council Repeal blanket pedestrian prohibition Page of 3 5 and 2008 Plans, are still the current requirements. Highway staff will try to delete these in the “feasibility studies,” according to their propaganda. This would force needless expressway crossings that greatly increase pedestrian KSI (Killed or Seriously Insured), and also increase bicyclist crashes, as shown in the slide show.
Please place on the City Council agenda the complete repeal of 11.32.070. This repeal would help achieve constructing the required pedestrian facilities. I have said for decades, if you want pedestrian facilities, repeal the pedestrian prohibition first. (My forcing the removal of all Pedestrians Prohibited signs on Capitol Expressway and elsewhere resulted in sidewalk construction.) Otherwise, County highway staff will put all their effort into fighting against repeal, rather than complying with pedestrian facility requirements, because it is cheapest and easiest for them to post Pedestrians Prohibited signs, and pretend that no pedestrians exist on the road. This is a fallacy, as prohibitions have never eliminated pedestrians, only reduced their numbers. This is proven in the slide show, showing photos of pedestrians (including transit patrons) walking past Pedestrians Prohibited signs. Again, highway staff’s attempt to eliminate bike lanes and half the sidewalks from expressways, shown in their ATP, would greatly increase KSI, if implemented.
The BOS requires sidewalks and bike lanes, without regard for any ordinance prohibiting their use. Sadly, highway staff and city traffic staffs have pretended otherwise, with the result that people have been killed. In fact, they often used highway staff’s non-compliance with BOS safety requirements as their argument for prohibiting pedestrians.
Can I show this slide show to you or your staff ? [Links B and K, below.] This is the quickest way to comprehend the impact of your prohibiting ordinance. I am now retired as an electrical engineer in the local electronics industry, so I am free almost any day or time. I have also written a full report on this topic with more details. [Link FR, below.] Sincerely,
Akos Szoboszlay
Phone:
Email:
To: San Jose City Council Repeal blanket pedestrian prohibition Page of 4 5 Links
This letter: ModernTransit.org/2026/Mahan.pdf
Link FR: Full Report, Repeal San Jose ordinance # 11.32.070:
ModernTransit.org/2025/SJrepeal.pdf
Slide shows. No narration is needed.
Link B: ModernTransit.org/2025/Background.pdf for background and BOS requirements.
Link K: ModernTransit.org/2025/KillAndDestroy.pdf shows 3 kill sites and 5 destroy sites in San Jose, caused by the City ordinance prohibiting pedestrians.
How to greatly improve safety by sign changes
Link SS: Greatly improve expressway Safety by Signs: ModernTransit.org/2025/Signs.pdf Link BL: Politics of Bike Lane signs: ModernTransit.org/2025/BikeLaneSigns.pdf BOS votes, quotes, accomplishments
Link V: BOS Votes (page 1) and Quotes (page 2): ModernTransit.org/BOSvotesQuotes.pdf Link M: Sidewalk Maps for each expressway: ModernTransit.org/expy Select the expressway at top of the page. Now, these Maps can also be downloaded from the County website.
BOS votes to restore the right to use expressways: ModernTransit.org/restore Timeline of expressways events, sorted by County and cities: ModernTransit.org/expy/#timeline County Expressway Plans, a history: ModernTransit.org/expy/ped-element.html Appendix: Capitol Expressway History regarding bicyclists and pedestrians
1970: illegal Pedestrians Bicycles and Equestrians Prohibited signs are posted on Capitol Avenue, despite adding bike lanes (then called “shoulders”) to the road, and not increasing the speed limit. I did not own a car, and as a bicyclist, was impacted by this illegal action. I knew about bike lanes from when I lived in Europe, and that these signs were just discrimination against people not using cars.
1989: At the San Jose City Council, I obtained an 11-0 vote to repeal the bicycle prohibition, despite huge opposition from SJ DOT. Jim Beall put it on the agenda at my request. 1991: The BOS required pedestrian paths, and sidewalks on bridges, along the “entire expressway system”. County highway staff refused to comply because, “that would encourage pedestrians to violate the City ordinance.” This refusal resulted in fatalities, shown in my slide show (link below).
1997: I forced highway staff to remove all Pedestrians Prohibited signs on Capitol, after VTA BPAC (then named County BPAC), at my request, obtained a County Counsel legal opinion stating that the prohibition was illegal. This forced highway staff to comply with the 1991 BOS order. However, they only partly complied, on one side of the road only. This resulted in more fatalities by needless double-crossings of the expressway (also shown in slide show) to reach the sidewalk on the other side of the road.
To: San Jose City Council Repeal blanket pedestrian prohibition Page of 5 5 2005: County highway staff wrote a secret State law, behind the backs of Supervisors and VTA BPAC, that re-imposed prohibitions on expressways, including at 9 transit stations on or near expressways, by giving authority to prohibit both bicyclists and pedestrians from expressways, and any street declared an expressway. The entire Capitol Expressway is legally prohibited to pedestrians for the first time, including use of sidewalks, paths, bike lanes and bus stops.
2006: The BOS voted 5-0 to seek repeal, on 1/10/2006. Jim Beall put it on the agenda, at my request. [See ModernTransit.org/restore ]. Staff never complied. 2008: Highway staff cited their new law to eliminate pedestrians from expressways from the 2008 County Expressway Plan, by lying that sidewalks are dangerous. Highway staff went to all the city BPACs, but lost all the votes. Both the VTA Board and BOS approved sidewalks, shown on Sidewalk Maps for each expressway, and no prohibitions. [See the Sidewalk Maps, links near top of
ModernTransit.org/expy ]
2025: SJ BPAC edited and voted to send the letter to City Council requesting repeal of Code # 11.32.070 that prohibits pedestrians on expressways, on 1/27/2025. 2025: Highway staff tried to eliminate all bike lanes and half the sidewalks from expressways, including from Capitol, in their ATP (Active Transportation Plan). I worked to prevent that, and all “sunset” of prior Plans was deleted from the ATP by the BOS. The ATP was written by a propaganda company which manipulated crash data (details in link below) to make sidewalks and bike lanes appear dangerous by conflating crossing and “going along the road” crashes.
Highway staff completely ignored Vision Zero San Jose that proves there were zero pedestrian KSI (Killed or Seriously Insured) on sidewalks, paths, bike lanes and bus stops on all 23 miles of expressways in San Jose. Vision Zero also shows expressway bike lanes are very safe. Highway staff wants to destroy bike/ped facilities for more car lanes by their false claims.
For a history at the BOS action level, go to Link V.