Letters from the Public — San Jose City Council, October 20, 2026

Outlook
FW: "October 20, 2026, Item 8.1, City Council Meeting - Limit Missing Middle to State Law" From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 10/13/2026 8:42 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Katherine Dyer
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2026 8:41 AM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: "October 20, 2026, Item 8.1, City Council Meeting - limit Missing Middle to State Law" [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 City Council Members,
I respectfully urge the City Council to take the following actions regarding the Missing Middle Housing proposals:

1. Limit ADUs to State Minimum Requirements
AB 956 now allows up to two detached ADUs on qualifying residential lots. I request that the City not expand ADU allowances beyond what state law requires and reject any proposal that would effectively double ADU capacity for Missing Middle housing.

In addition, please revise the current proposal to allow no more ADU per lot than state law, rather than the staff recommendation of 1 ADU per primary unit, which appears to exceed state minimum requirements and dramatically increases neighborhood density and impacts.

2. Do Not Combine SB 9 and SB 1123
The City should not combine SB 9 lot splits with SB 1123 subdivision provisions.

During the General Plan Task Force process and as recently as June 2026, the public was informed that SB 1123 applied to qualifying vacant lots and would not be This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. used in this manner.

The proposal to combine SB 9 and SB 1123 was not clearly disclosed until shortly before the August 18 Council meeting.

Combining these laws is a local policy choice, not a state mandate. Such a significant change should be decided by the City Council after full public discussion, not through staff interpretation.

Given the substantial public opposition expressed during the August 18 meeting, I urge the Council to direct staff to follow the minimum requirements of state law and avoid policies that unnecessarily increase neighborhood density. Otherwise, our current single-family home neighborhoods will be destroyed and no longer safe.

Regards,
Katherine Dyer
Outlook
FW: October 20, 2026, Item 8.1, City Council Meeting - Staff Interpretation of P-35 Is Illogical From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 10/13/2026 1:38 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Melissa Abe
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2026 1:29 PM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: October 20, 2026, Item 8.1, City Council Meeting - Staff Interpretation of P-35 Is Illogical [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 City Council Members,
I urge the City Council to revisit and correct the Planning Department's interpretation of Housing Element Program P-35 ("Missing Middle Housing").

P-35 states allowing " .. . at least 4 units and up to 10 units in locations throughout the city."
"The staff has translated this as" ... at least 32 DU/AC units and up to 80 DU/AC throughout the city" creating outcomes that appear inconsistent with the intent of "missing middle" housing.

Under this interpretation, residential neighborhoods could be assigned densities that equal or exceed those planned for commercial hubs and approach densities reserved for major transit corridors:

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

Neighborhood Villages (commercial hubs): 20-50 DU/AC
P-35 (staff interpretation): 32-80 DU/AC
Urban Residential Corridors (major transit): 50-95 DU/AC While the staff settled on 32 DU/AC, their interpretation of P-35 is incorrect. Their interpretation raises several concerns:

Why should residential neighborhoods start at higher densities than commercial village centers?
Why should single-family areas be considered for densities approaching those planned for major transit corridors?
Does converting a 4-10 unit per-lot concept into an 80 DU/AC zoning designation accurately reflect the intent of Program P-35? And throughout the city does not necessarily mean every parcel in the city. Limitations could be applied.

The commitment should be read as "at least 4 units and up to 10 units per lot". I respectfully request the Council to direct staff to re-evaluate their interpretation and ensure that Missing Middle policies remain consistent with the scale and intent of "Missing Middle."
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Melissa Abe
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outlook
FW: October 20, 2026, Item 8.1, City Council Meeting - Limit Missing Middle to State Law From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 10/13/2026 1:38 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Melissa Abe
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2026 1:35 PM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: October 20, 2026, Item 8.1, City Council Meeting - limit Missing Middle to State Law [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 City Council Members,
I respectfully urge the City Council to take the following actions regarding the Missing Middle Housing proposals:

2. Do Not Combine SB 9 and SB 1123
The City should not combine SB 9 lot splits with SB 1123 subdivision provisions.

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

During the General Plan Task Force process and as recently as June 2026, the public was informed that SB 1123 applied to qualifying vacant lots and would not be used in this manner.

The proposal to combine SB 9 and SB 1123 was not clearly disclosed until shortly before the August 18 Council meeting.

Combining these laws is a local policy choice, not a state mandate. Such a significant change should be decided by the City Council after full public discussion, not through staff interpretation.

Sincerely,
Melissa Abe

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

Why should single-family areas be considered for densities approaching those planned for major transit corridors?
Does converting a 4-10 unit per-lot concept into an 80 DU/AC zoning designation accurately reflect the intent of Program P-35?
And throughout the city does not necessarily mean every parcel in the city. Limitations could be applied.

Sincerely,
Janet Maisen
D2 VEP

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. change should be decided by the City Council after full public discussion, not through staff interpretation.

Sincerely,
Janet Maisen
D2 VEP

Outlook
FW: Policy Clarification Regarding Housing Element Program P-35 ("Missing Middle" Housing Density Calculations)
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/15/2026 11 :04 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
@J 1 attachment (188 KB)
2026 09 24 Ltr to Chirs Burton Incorrect P 35.pdf;
From: Ruth Callahan
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2026 11:01 AM
To: Foley, Pam <[email protected]>
Cc: CAO Main <[email protected]>; Webmaster Manager <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Policy Clarification Regarding Housing Element Program P-35 ("Missing Middle" Housing Density Calculations)
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email :fi-01 .- Learn why this is important Please review the forwarded email and the attached document.

If the city staff can't meet the timetable then we support the request to defer this action until the city manager and the staff have complied with this reasonable request.

Our community encourages you as our representative to support a time-specific hearing for this item so that our working families can attend this critical meeting.

Respectfully,
The Executive Board
Ruth A Callahan, Leader
Crieghton Nolte, Director
Shuping Tien, Director
KooserWoods Neighborhood Association.

Kooser Woods Coalition Representing 1873 Neighbors
San Jose CA 95118
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Families & Homes San Jose <f >
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 9:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: Policy Clarification Regarding Housing Element Program P-35 ("Missing Middle" Housing Density Calculations)
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>, Maguire, Jennifer <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Dear Sirs/Madams:

Several weeks ago, we requested confirmation that the density tables in the attached letter were correct. To date, we have not received a response. Given the upcoming October 20 City Council meeting, we are concerned that this information remains unverified. Are our requests receiving the same level of response as a non profit housing advocate organization or a bargaining unit? The staff memorandum for Agenda Item 8.1 for the October 20 City Council meeting does not include updated density-per-lot-size tables for the 16 DU/AC, 24 DU/AC, and 32 DU/AC alternatives. As a result, neither the public nor the City Council has the information needed to understand the practical differences between these proposals and their impacts on neighborhoods. Without this data, an informed decision is not possible.

In addition, any analysis and charts should reflect the effects of AB 956 and other recent state housing laws that increase residential development potential. Without this information, the cumulative impact of the proposed density changes cannot be fully understood.

We respectfully request that the density tables (primary, ADUs and totals for the 3 stated options) be provided no later than Thursday evening so that we have sufficient time to review and communicate accurate information before the Council meeting.

As a volunteer, citywide organization, we strive to provide fact based information and have generally relied on Planning Department materials in our public communications. However, without the requested tables, it is difficult for stakeholders to meaningfully evaluate the alternatives under consideration. With less than 5 days to provide information to our members, we are requesting a rapid response so that we can inform them.

If this information cannot be provided by early Friday morning, we request that Item 8.1 be deferred until the public and Councilmembers have access to complete and accurate data. We are also concerned that outreach and public awareness regarding this item have been limited relative to the significance of the proposed policy changes.

The Council should not be asked to make long term General Plan decisions without a clear understanding of the differences among the alternatives, at least at an upper level, combined with the cumulative impacts of recent state legislation.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your response.

Regards,
Sandra A. Delvin, PE
Board Member
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Families & Homes San Jose < >
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 8:37 PM
Subject: Policy Clarification Regarding Housing Element Program P-35 ("Missing Middle" Housing Density Calculations)
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>
Cc: Maguire, Jennifer <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Burton,
Please find our letter attached documenting formally our disagreement with the Staff interpretation of P-35.

We are requesting a response back by 9/28/2028 if any of our design density statements in our Table on Pages 2 and 3 are in error.

Thank you for your assistance and consideration in this matter.

Regards,
Sandra A. Delvin, PE
Board Member
--
Families & Homes San José
Email: f
Website: https://www.familieshomessj.org/
-
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F&H Executive Team" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fh-executive[email protected].

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fh-executiveteam/CAB0ToB7Lzdambv_o0xhHC3D86zjrA%2BSrztzH4dACR5P1-1x8rA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -----
0o

FAMILIES&HOMES
San Jose
-----
September 24, 2026
TO: Chris Burton
FROM: Sandra A. Delvin, Board Member
Families and Homes San José
DATE: September 25, 2026
SUBJECT: Policy Clarification Regarding Housing Element Program P-35 ("Missing Middle" Housing Density Calculations)
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY: Close of Business on 9/28/2026 for Density Statement Errors Executive Summary
We write to express significant concern regarding the City staff’s interpretation of Housing Element Program P-35 ("Missing Middle Housing"). Program P-35 establishes an objective to allow "…at least four units and up to 10 units in locations throughout the city" on single-family parcels.

However, in translating this per-lot recommendation into citywide General Plan density parameters, staff has mapped this requirement to a baseline zoning density of 32 to 80 Dwelling Units per Acre (DU/AC).

The staff is interpreting the requirement as “…at least 32 DU/AC and up to 80 DU/AC units in locations throughout the city."
Even proposing or interpreting that “Missing Middle” could be up to 80 DU/AC in standard single-family residential parcels distorts the core objective of Missing Middle housing. It would create severe spatial and planning contradictions relative to the City’s designated commercial corridors. We respectfully request that the Planning Department correct this density misinterpretation. It is obviously in error.

We consider this imperative since the upzoning proposed would be permanent and irreversible.

To: Chris Burton
September 25, 2026

Page 2 of 7 ends

The Technical & Spatial Miscalculation

1. Mathematical Extrapolation vs. Lot Reality:

A standard single-family lot in San José averages approximately 0.125 acres (1/8th of an acre). Placing 4 to 10 units on a lot of this size translates mathematically to 32 to 80 DU/AC. Translating a target meant for an individual parcel into a broad, blanket land-use designation fails to account for lot scale, setbacks, and neighborhood context.

2. Spatial Scale:

At the upper end an 80 DU/AC designation permits 80 primary structural units on a single acre of land—a footprint equivalent to an American football field (excluding end zones).

3. Compounding Effect of State ADU Laws:

Because state law excludes Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs (JADUs) from standard density caps, allowing up to 10 primary units per parcel could double the actual built intensity on site, pushing effective physical development far beyond the intended scope of “gentle” infill.

Policy Inconsistencies & Land Use Contradictions
The staff’s density interpretation for P-35 creates stark planning contradictions when compared against the density frameworks approved for commercial hubs and transit corridors during the August 18, 2026, General Plan Review at City Council:

Designation Approved or Proposed Density
Range
Neighborhood Villages (Commercial Hubs) 20 to 50 DU/AC
Program P-35 Residential Infill (Staff
Interpretation)
32 to 80 DU/AC (range as read by Staff
in P-35)
~========:l::::::===I ========!
~-l~I __
To: Chris Burton
September 25, 2026

Page 3 of 7 ends

Designation Approved or Proposed Density
Range
Urban Residential Corridors (Major Transit) 50 to 95 DU/AC This interpretation introduces critical policy contradictions that require attention and correction:
• Inverted Density Hierarchy: Why would lower density limits (starting at 20 DU/AC) be assigned to commercial Neighborhood Villages while starting quiet residential neighborhoods at a higher baseline of 32 DU/AC?
• Inappropriate Building Scale: What is the planning rationale for even considering or proposing in the Housing Element an upper limit of 80 DU/AC in single-family residential areas—a scale that exceeds commercial Neighborhood Villages (50 DU/AC) and rivals major urban transit corridors (95 DU/AC)? • Misalignment with Missing Middle Intent: Missing Middle housing is intended to provide gentle, neighborhood-scale transitions (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, and courtyard apartments), not land-use density allowances equivalent to multi-story mid-rise structures.

San Jose’s Planning Staff “Missing Middle” Proposal Significantly Exceeds those of Other Santa Clara Cities
We were unable to locate any Santa Clary County city that made housing element commitments close to the staff’s incorrect interpretation of our P-35. Attachment A provides a summary of some of the Santa Clara County cities Missing Middle commitments.

Possible Resolution
We would suggest leveraging SB 9 for the Missing Middle P-35 Commitment. In December 2021, the City Council passed an ordinance that capped SB 9 units to 4 units per lot. If that had not occurred, Ms. Martina Davis demonstrated that up to 10 units could be allowed when including ADUs and JADUs.
~========!l::::::===I ==
To: Chris Burton
September 25, 2026

Page 4 of 7 ends

We would suggest that an ordinance be passed that would define the maximum number of units for smaller lots at 4 units. And gradually increase the number of total units up to 10 (including ADUs) for larger lots.

This suggestion does the following:

1. This would fulfill P-35 statements if it was correctly read as at least four units per lot and up to 10 units per lot in locations throughout the city”

2. Requires no General Plan update thus minimizes staff workload

3. Allows the leveraging of the standard ADUs already approved by the City (which can be considered an incentive)

4. Still maintains an attestation of ownership.

State lawmakers added the ownership requirement to protect single-family neighborhoods from institutional speculation, preventing corporate investors and private equity firms from buying properties en masse, splitting lots, and building rental portfolios. The staff’s current proposal does not protect our neighborhoods from institutional speculation.

5. Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) does not override Homeowners Association (HOA) rules or private Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

On the SB 9 application there are specific questions to address these items. It is our understanding that the 32 DU/AC would not override CCRs; but there is no evidence that the application would address these items. And there has been no clear statement that HOA rules could not be overridden. This may result in increased civil litigation.

6. While this change is probably not reversable, if it is a mistake, it will not be as drastic as the staff’s current citywide upzoning proposals.

Key Questions for Staff Consideration

1. Strategic Consistency: How does the Planning Department justify stating that the Housing Element for Missing Middle high-end density caps exceed caps to interior To: Chris Burton
September 25, 2026
residential neighborhoods (80 DU/AC) than to commercial focal points intended to absorb growth (50 DU/AC)?

2. Alternative Mechanisms: Can the City comply with Program P-35 by utilizing parcelspecific unit caps or form-based standards rather than applying a sweeping upzoning across the entire City in residential zones?
Requested Action
We urge the Planning Department to re-evaluate the density interpretation of Program P-35.

We recommend that the logical reading of P-35 is at least four units per lot and up to 10 units per lot in locations throughout the city.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this critical planning matter. If any of the density designations cited in the table on Pages 2 and 3 are in error, please notify us by close of business September 28t h.

Respectfully,
Sandra A. Delvin, PE
Board Member
Families & Homes San Jose
0o

FAMILIES&HOMES
San Jo s e
Website: https://www.familieshomessj.org/
cc: City Manager Jennifer Maguire
Leland Wilcox, Assistant City Manager
Attachment A

Page 5 of 7 ends

To: Chris Burton
September 25, 2026

Page 6 of 7 ends

Attachment A
Other Santa Clara County City Missing Middle Housing Element Commitments In San José’s 6th Cycle (2023–2031) Housing Element, Program 35 (Small Multifamily Housing) known as “Missing Middle” housing.—in historically single-family areas to encourage "missing middle" housing options.

In Palo Alto, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Fremont, the equivalent commitments that promote small multifamily and missing middle housing in their certified 6th Cycle Housing Elements are structured under the following programs:

Palo Alto
• Corresponding Policy/Program: Program H1.4 / Program H4.3 (Missing Middle & Small Multi-Unit Infill)
• Commitment Summary: Expand missing middle housing opportunities (duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) across low-density residential zones. • Key Actions & Commitments:
o Modify objective development standards (such as floor area ratios, setback restrictions, and height limits) to remove barriers to small multifamily configurations.
o Implement state SB 9 provisions alongside local code updates to facilitate duplex subdivisions and multi-unit infill on single-family lots.

Cupertino
• Corresponding Policy/Program: Strategy HE-1.3.6 / Gentle Density Program • Commitment Summary: Encourage missing middle duplexes and small multifamily housing in single-family residential neighborhoods. • Key Actions & Commitments:
o Allow duplexes and small multi-unit infill on corner lots and parcels adjacent to commercial/mixed-use corridors.
o Reduce parking minimums for missing middle developments (e.g., lowering requirements to two covered and two uncovered spaces per project).

To: Chris Burton
September 25, 2026

Page 7 of 7 ends

Santa Clara
Corresponding Policy/Program: Missing Middle & Diverse Housing Infill Program (aligned with Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative framework) • Commitment Summary: Promote diverse middle-density housing options (duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and courtyard clusters) in residential districts. • Key Actions & Commitments:
o Update municipal code to establish objective design standards specifically tailored for missing middle housing configurations.
o Streamline architectural review and processing timelines for small-scale multi-unit developments.

Fremont
• Corresponding Policy/Program: Program 1.M / Infill & Gentle Density Policies • Commitment Summary: Support opportunities for small multi-family properties (typically 2 to 12 units) and missing middle housing types in transit-rich and singlefamily infill areas. • Key Actions & Commitments:
o Establish ministerial and streamlined review paths for small multi-family infill projects under local zoning codes.
o Adjust height, lot coverage, and setback constraints to ensure small-scale multi-family developments remain economically viable. In California 6th Cycle (2023–2031) certified Housing Elements, local jurisdictions address small multifamily and "missing middle" housing (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, small lot subdivisions, and gentle density infill) through specific programs and policy commitments:

Outlook
FW: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 10:55 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Chetan Kulkarni
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 10:35 AM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <M [email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits [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 Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed citywide upzoning and density increases in San Jose's established residential neighborhoods. I urge the City to maintain current residential neighborhood density at 8 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC) and halt further densification until the City can actually manage the gridlock, transit failures, and degraded infrastructure already crippling daily life for existing tax paying residents.

State mandates like AB 956 already double permitted detached ADUs, continually piling density onto residential parcels without local input. Proposing to double (16 DU/AC) or triple (24 DU/AC) base densities-on top of exempt ADUs-is detached from the physical reality on the ground.

More fundamental ly, I must ask: Why is City Hall so eager to cater to future growth while actively diminishing the living conditions, safety, and time of the residents who already live, work, and pay taxes here?
Every day, San Jose residents face mounting municipal failures that this proposed upzoning will only exacerbate:

1. Gridlocked Freeways and Choked Corridors: Highways 85 and 87 are already deadlocked during peak hours. Thousands of residents spend their mornings and evenings trapped in This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. bumper-to-bumper traffic, losing valuable creative energy, personal health, and irreplaceable family time just trying to get across town. Our local surface streets are crumbling and equally congested. Rushing to add thousands of new units without expanding arterial road capacity will turn an existing blockade into a permanent standstill.

2. Unviable and Neglected Public Transit: Pro-density advocates routinely claim new residents will simply use public transit, but that ignores reality. Riding the VTA light rail often requires navigating severe blight, erratic behavior, and safety concerns related to unmanaged homelessness at stations and on trains. Meanwhile, Caltrain’s rigid schedules and limited stops fail to serve the flexible, multi-stop demands of working families. Until public transit is truly safe, clean, fast, and reliable, adding density simply dumps more private vehicles onto gridlocked roads.

3. Pervasive Blight, Crime, and Street Deterioration: Neighborhoods across San José are dealing with deteriorating pavement, chronic illegal dumping, pervasive trash along corridors, and rising concerns over vehicle break-ins and property crime. Our police force and basic maintenance services are already stretched beyond capacity and not able to support even the existing citizens.

A livable city cannot be built on slogans and reckless upzoning. Before City Hall approves sweeping density increases that overwhelm our neighborhood streets, parking, sewer networks (blossom hill and blossom ave intersection have been choked for past 1 yr) , and emergency services, it must deliver on the foundational basics: functional roads, safe and clean public transit, and well-maintained neighborhoods.

Please allow existing state housing laws time to work, study the actual cumulative strain on our transit corridors, and prioritize the real quality of life of the people who call San José home today.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Chetan K
Blosson Valley, D10
San José, CA, 95123
Outlook
FW: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 10:56 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Robert Forbes
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 10:47 AM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits [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 Cou ~
I urge the City to maintain current residential neighborhood density at 8 DU/AC and fully evaluate the impact of recent state housing laws before adopting additional Missing Middle upzoning.

Recent, and anticipated future, state laws continue to increase housing capacity in residential neighborhoods. For example, AB 956 allows eligible properties to have two detached ADUs instead of one, representing a 100% increase in the number of detached ADUs permitted.

A proposed tripling of density to 24 DU/AC represents a 200% increase. (And the impact is even greater since ADUs are not included in density numbers.) Even doubling density to 16 DU/AC is a major change with significant implications for neighborhoods, infrastructure, parking, traffic, schools, and public services.

Please allow existing state housing laws time to work before imposing additional citywide density increases in residential neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

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

Sincerely, Robert Forbes
Outlook
FW: Submittal of Comments on Agenda Item No. 8.1/lnformational Memo From Christopher Burton Regarding East Side of Monterey Road Corridor Study
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 10:56 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
® 1 attachment (157 KB)
SKM C251i26101609540.pdf;
From: Chris Marchese
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 10:07 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: ; Chris Marchese
Norm Matteoni
Subject: Submittal of Comments on Agenda Item No. 8.1/lnformational Memo From Christopher Burton Regarding East Side of Monterey Road Corridor Study
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Good Morning City Clerk-
. Learn why this is important
Please accept our attached comments and include them in the agenda for the upcoming meeting for Tuesday October 20, 2026.

Many Thanks I
Respectfully Submitted,
Ken Saso and Chris Marchese
From:

Sent: Friday, Octob
To: Chris Marchese
Subject: Message from KM_C251i
>
Re: East Siije •Monterey Road Corridor Study; Agenda Item No. 8.1 /Tuesday October 2o. 2026 October 16, 2026
Dear Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council Members:

Next month will mark 7 years since the SJ City Council commissioned a study to address the unique circumstances of the East Side Monterey Road Corridor, as part of the General Plan Update, focusing on Coyote Valley.

BACKGROUND
The Council recognized that this corridor was improved, starting at the north with numerous structures in the Village of Coyote, and then proceeding south with a charter school, two RV parks, contractor and storage yards, homes, and industrial buildings situated on relatively small parcels below the recommended A-40-acre minimum, then proposed and adopted for the Coyote Valley.

The Council suspended the 40-acre minimum for this area pending a special study to provide uses other than agriculture, except that housing was not on the table. There-was a mix of County and City land within the corridor. To quote the Mayor's Memorandum of November 12, 2021, Staff was directed to return to the Council with a budget and "expeditious timeline to conduct a study of expanded recreational and commercial uses for properties east of Monterey Road." The Council recognized that these lands were distinct from the Coyote Valley for several physical reasons:
• Annexed and zoned in the early 1960s and paying City taxes ever since. • Lack of agricultural viability.
• Mostly made up of 5, 7-and 11-acre parcels, except for Two large parcels. • The physical barrier from lands to the west by the Monterey Road median and adjacent rail Line.
• Numerous existing uses throughout the East Side of Monterey Road Corridor.

That study was suspended in 2025 without delivery of any new designated uses. As the Director of Planning advises the Council: The Study remains an action item in the General Plan in part to fulfill a funding gap in the budget of 2025-2026. The affected property owners are cognizant of the City's budget concerns but ask that this study be reserved for future action and not forgotten.

FRUSTRATION OF OWNERS
There remains frustration on the part of the long-standing owners; we are not developers . but long standing generational land owners and have continually offered to work cooperatively with the City.

Nonetheless, they set forth their concerns for the record:
1) The purpose of the study was intended to identify the existing conditions along the Monterey Corridor, to recommend a list of potential uses that would be complementary to the existing uses and to the future of the southern gateway to San Jose; thereby setting the stage for subsequently rezoning the properties within the study area. An abandonment of the study does not meet t he Council's original direction and leaves those landowners in limbo. 2) At the initiation of the study, the staff recommended that the properties in the study area be rezoned to a Planned Development wherein the then existing Agricultural designation would be modified to reduce the minimum parcel size from 20 acres to 40 acres. lt is the property owners perspective that the staff's recommendation was based on the fact that they were aware that one owner has submitted a General Plan amendment in 2018 requesting consideration of a land use designation that would allow residential uses, and several owners had submitted Preliminary Review applications in 2021 identifying several different land uses that the owner's believed were compatible with the conditions along the Corridor and with the existing conditions in mid and south Coyote Valley.
3) At the time of the Council's approval of the staff recommended down zoning of the properties within the corridor, the stated intention was that the rezoning was intended to be temporary until the completion of the study wherein the study would contain recommendations for new uses that could then form that basis for the Council's approval of a new zoning designation for properties within the study area. The failure to complete the study has thus created a situation in which the property owners are now worse off than prior to the initiation of the study. 4) The Open Space advocacy groups believe that there is a public benefit to not allowing any properties along the East Side of the Monterey Road Corridor; to develop in the future with any uses that are not agricultural uses. The owners of the property within the Corridor submitted three studies to the staff and staff's consultant that identity that agriculture is no longer economically viable. One can now suggest that in abandoning the Corridor study, without identifying additional uses in the Corridor, the City has now essentially colluded with those advocacy groups and devalued the lands within the Corridor. If in fact there is an overwhelming public benefit from not allowing any future development of the properties within the Corridor, then the properties should be required to be acquired at a fair and equitable value, as was done in the acquisition of the Brandenburg and Sobrato properties.
5) Staff did not have the skill set necessary to lead the study. This created a situation in which they could not work with the property owners and other advocacy groups to create an acceptable list of uses, as directed by the Council. This then resulted in the staff recommending abandoning the study by offering it up to reduce the then FY Department budget. 6) Since the suspension of the study, one of the two orchards - Borrello's cherry orchard has been uprooted, and the Marchese cherry orchard has failed to deliver a crop to market for three years, do to climate change. This may be the next orchard to be removed. Ken Saso who had a fruit stand and a family supported orchard, no longer operates the fruit stand and has only a few trees for family use.
7) The corridor property owners were annexed in the 1960s, assessed for services, the funds of which were diverted to IBM in the 1970s for the establishment of its lab on Bailey Avenue; and they continue to pay taxes.

The landowner's which comprise the East Side Monterey Road Corridor Study respectfully request the following:

In the work plan now before the Council, and in future work plans presented to the Council, the Coyote Valley Corridor Study should be specifically identified on both the Citywide Planning Project List and all accompanying graphics and notated that it is not completed and should be as soon as reasonably possible.

The owners have shown forbearance and again ask that the study and initial work undertaken not be terminated; but allowed to continue to be reserved for future consideration and action in the very near future.

Please do not forget about us and the southern gateway to the City of San Jose. We have been literally waiting decades for something substantive to happen along this very unique and important gateway corridor to our Great City of San Jose.

Respectfully Submitted,
Ken Saso and Chris Marchese
Outlook
FW: Item 8.1 at the 10/20/26 city council meeting - reject alternative 1, focus on the general plan, and other concerns
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 10:56 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Chris Wilder
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 9:23 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District! <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; Districts <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Agendadesk <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Item 8.1 at the 10/20/26 city council meeting - reject alternative 1, focus on the general plan, and other concerns
[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 San Jose Mayor a~embers,
I'm a lifelong San Jose resident and have serious concerns about the Planning Department's recommendations in agenda item 8.1, especially with Alternative 1.

The recommendations in Alternative 1 disregard the direction given by council at the 8/18/26 city council meeting. Instead of exploring a variety of densities at different locations and in different contexts, the Planning Department has instead decided to choose which density to study, a blanket density that is greater than needed under any state laws and disregards the numerous concerns expressed by the public verbally and in writing, and by city council members, at the 8/18/26 council meeting.

Additionally, according to the memo, no additional communitY. engagement was conducted to get to the decision P-resented in Alternative 1. The public at large very likely isn't aware of the drastic impacts that this decision, especially Alternative 1, will have on them. It's likely that most residents of San Jose are not aware of this at all.

The recommendations in Alternative 1, along with many of those in the current work plan, will harm San Jose in many ways, such as

1. increasing driving: dense sprawl, in the end, is still sprawl. We need smart growth, not generalized growth, to deal with this issue
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

2. furthering San Jose's jobs-housing imbalance, eroding San Jose's tax base, and cementing San Jose as the bedroom community for the region

3. creating myriad safety and infrastructure challenges, including increased traffic that endangers children and seniors, difficulty providing city services and much needed infrastructure, and diminished emergency response time

4. the city turning its back on community voices heard in prior planning and commitments made to the community when passing its general plan
Please reject the Planning Department's Alternative 1 recommendation. San Jose residents should not have blanket upzoning placed on them with such little notice or say. It's very disheartening to see the recommendations in Alternate 1 since they are not what Council approved, are out of line with San Jose's general plan, and have not been shared with the public in any meaningful way.

As a lifelong San Jose resident, it would have been great to see the city stick with the general plan as it accommodates current residents and future growth well, and went through a vigorous community process with meaningful opportunities for community input. In the current picture, I prefer Alternative 2 over the other options, but urge the Council to soundly reject Alternative 1.

It's still unclear to me why the Planning Department wants to go beyond state requirements and what the urgency here is. Many questions about the rushed timeline, the need for the massive amount of proposed density, what neighboring cities are doing, and other questions from council members and the public on 8/18 were left unanswered.

It should also be pointed out that nowhere in the documents is mention of restoring parking minimums at new developments, which, based on the 8/18 council meeting, is a clear community priority and, it seems, a priority of the council as well.

The council should resolve to not allow densities that go beyond state requirements, to focus growth into urban villages and other general plan growth areas, and to do everything in its power to regain local land use control from the state.

Sincerely,
Christian Wilder
40 year resident
District 6
Outlook
FW: Keep Residential Neighborhood density at 8 DU/ AC
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 11 :07 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Linda Smestad
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 10:58 AM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: Keep Residential Neighborhood density at 8 DU/AC [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 Counc~
I am urging the City, that I have resided in for over 60 years and own a local business, to maintain current residential neighborhood density at 8 DU/AC and fully evaluate the impact of recent state housing laws before adopting additional Missing Middle upzoning.

A proposed tripling of density to 24 DU/AC represents a 200% increase. Even doubling density to 16 DU/AC is a major change with significant implication for neighborhoods, infrastructure, parking, traffic, schools, and public services.

Please allow existing state housing laws time to work before imposing additional citywide density increases in residential neighborhoods.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Linda Smestad
Investment House, LLC
~ 95155
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 11 : 10 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: pattersonSent: Friday, October 16, 2026 11:08 AM To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <M [email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc:

Please allow existing state housing laws time to work before imposing additional citywide density increases in residential neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

Res pectfu I ly,
Don Patterson
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

San Jose, CA 95120
Outlook
FW: 10/20/ 2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 1:43 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Karen Todd
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 1:20 PM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits [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 Councilmembers,
I urge the City to maintain current residential neighborhood density at 8 DU/ AC and fully evaluate the impact of recent state housing laws before adopting additional Missing Middle upzoning.

A proposed tripling of density to 24 DU/ AC represents a 200% increase. (And the impact is even greater since ADUs are not included in density numbers.) Even doubling density to 16 DU/ AC is a major change with significant implications for neighborhoods, infrast:Iucture, parking, ti·affic, schools, and public services.

Please allow existing state housing laws time to work before imposing additional citywide density increases in residential neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

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

Outlook
FW: Opinion on dense housing
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 2:43 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Eileen McMahon
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 1:33 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Opinion on dense housing
t>
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email frot ,. Learn why this is imP.ortant Having been born and raised in Willow Glen, I am mystified that our city council would consider allowing thi s dense housing change. My family home on Lupton Avenue was sold in 2010. The new owners tore down the large home. Thi s was expected as new owners are entitled to build their dream home. It would be devastating if my next door neighbor sold their home and 8 buildings replaced their single family home. Please express our love of our single family homes. Do not change our neighborhood.

Thank you,
Eileen McMahon
San Jose, 95125
Eileen McMahon
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Zoning 8.1
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 2:43 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: John J Bradley
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 1 :27 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Zoning 8.1
[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 ]
. Learn why this is important at
Please DO NOT increase zoning for more units without neighborhood input and sufficient parking and opportunities to hear from the community directly impacted!! Warm Regards
John
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Item 8.1
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 2:45 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Messaqe-----
From: Bill Eagen
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 12:51 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 8.1
>
[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 ]
. Learn why this is important at
I am against this measure as a long time resident. It does not reduce congestion or parking concerns.

William Eagen
Sent from my iPhone
*This email was sent by an educator or staff member at Cambrian School District < http://www.cambriansd.org/>. This message is intended solely for the named recipient(s). This email and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you.* This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: URGENT: Item 8.1 on City Council 's 10/20 agenda.

From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 2:46 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Giles
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 11:46 AM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Cc: Councilmember Rosemary Kamei <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: URGENT: Item 8.1 on City Council's 10/20 agenda. [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Ms. Taber and City Council Members,
I am alarmed to hear that the City Council is considering the Planning Department's new alternatives to the one approved by Council at its 8/18 meeting. The 8/18 resolution stated that the Planning Department and Planning Commission would continue to study the housing density issue until a final decision would be made in December 2027. It also promised rigorous public engagement on the density issue which is vital to the preservation of single-family-home neighborhoods throughout San Jose.

There is no need to restrict the Planning Department's study to a new alternative. There is no need to go beyond what the state requires. Decertification of the Housing Element is a "red herring." All density issues should remain viable and the city should remind the State that its study efforts are reasonable and necessary.

I urge the Council to retain and implement its 8/18 guidance; make no blanket re-zoning decisions; vigorously execute the Urban Village concept; be mindful of the value and beauty of our single-family-home neighborhoods; maintain a high-level of transparency on the density issue; and staunchly defend its Housing Element from any State objections. Please proceed with caution.

Thank you!
Respectfully,
Gerald & Susan Giles
Residents of District One
Outlook
FW: Changes to city zoning codes
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 2:46 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Gregory Murphy
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 11:44 AM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Changes to city zoning codes
[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 City Clerk Taber,
I am a resident of San Jose and the owner of a single-family home; unlike most of my peers, I am writing to encourage the City Council to be pre-emptive and increase the number of units allowed on the average R-8 parcel (5,000 - 5,999 sq ft) to 8 units.

Our housing supply is severely constrained, and it is placing a drag on our local economy.

Increasing supply is the best response to increased demand. The "housing premium" that middle class workers must pay limits their spending on non-housing expenses, and forces them to live farther from work. That means less spend available for new local businesses to grow, and more traffic congestion.

With interest rates and construction costs high and likely to rise for the next few years, we need to do all we can to remove artificial restrictions that limit developers flexibility in finding new ways to make housing profitably.

II Greqorv Murphy
II San Jose, CA 95126
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 10-20-26 mtg: 8.1 - Single Family home zoning change- a horrible idea From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 2:46 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Carole Correa
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 11:00 AM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]> Subject: 10-20-26 mtg: 8.1 - Single Family home zoning change- a horrible idea [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 Hello Pam Foley and SJ City Council.

As life long San Jose residents and 21 + year homeowners, we are writing to express our extreme concern with the proposed change to single family zoning rules (item 8.1 at October 20 meeting.)
No matter the fact that we worked our whole lives to be able to afford a single family home in a single family zoned neighborhood, this is a terrible idea for other reasons as well.

The city is already well on track to increase housing units without shoving them into single family neighborhoods without necessary infrastructure improvements. Parking, schools, traffic are already overburdened in most SJ single family neighborhoods, and this zoning change will only make it worse.

And the elimination of any and all public hearings for neighbors to provide feedback is incredibly alarming.

This is an extreme, needless, and poorly conceived measure. Please continue with the city's existing general plan, and let the new state housing laws run their course before inserting this damaging zoning change into the mix.

Thank you.

Carole and Al Morris
San Jose
District 9
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Outlook
FW: written public comment on Item 8.1 Citywide Planning Work Plan Prioritization From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 2:54 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
~ 1 attachment (140 KB)
CSJ item 8.1 planning work plan childcare public comment MRT 10162026.pdf; From: Matthew Tinsley
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 2:51 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: written public comment on Item 8.1 Citywide Planning Work Plan Prioritization [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Dear Clerk,
. Learn why this is important
Please find attached written public comment from Dr David Toston, County Superintendent of Schools, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education, on Item 8.1 Citywide Planning Work Plan Prioritization.

Best, Matt Tinsley
Santa Clara County
Office of Education
Matthew Tinsley, Ph.D.

Director, Education Initiatives & Policies
Executive Services Division
Santa Clara County Office of Education
1290 Ridder Park Drive MC 243
San Jose, CA 95131 2304

INVESTING FOR -
fflMPACT
Maximizer Input Strategic Relator Ideation
Pronouns: he/ him/ his
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

October 16, 2026
RE: Item 8.1: Citywide Planning Work Plan Prioritization Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE), I appreciate the leadership of the Mayor and coauthors in recommending that the Child Care Policy project be added to the Citywide Planning Work Plan, and respectfully urge the Council to approve that recommendation. The proposed addition recognizes the important role that childcare and early learning play in supporting children, families, employers, and the broader community.

SCCOE works closely with early learning providers, school districts, families, and community partners to support children's development from birth through adulthood. Through our early learning, inclusion, quality improvement, and family support initiatives, we see firsthand the consequences of inadequate access to licensed childcare and preschool opportunities. Many San José families, particularly those living in historically underserved neighborhoods, continue to face significant challenges finding affordable, high-quality care close to home or work. These challenges are especially acute for infants and toddlers, dual-language learners, children with disabilities, and families with nontraditional work schedules.

The proposed Child Care Policy project offers an important opportunity to address one of the most persistent barriers facing providers: the availability of suitable sites and the regulatory challenges associated with opening or expanding childcare programs. Modernizing local policies and expanding opportunities for childcare facilities can help increase capacity in communities where demand substantially exceeds supply. SCCOE views childcare and early learning as essential community infrastructure. Access to quality early childhood programs promotes school readiness, supports working families, strengthens local workforce participation, and contributes to long-term educational and economic success. As San José continues to plan for housing and economic growth, it is equally important to plan for the childcare capacity needed to support that growth.

I therefore support the recommendation to add the Child Care Policy project to the Citywide Planning Work Plan and encourage the Council to advance these efforts as part of the City's commitment to children, families, and educational opportunity. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Dr. David Toston, Snr.

County Superintendent of Schools
Santa Clara County Office of Education
I} Santa Clara County Office of Education
"""wiiir"' Dr. David M. Toston, Sr. f County Superintendent of Schools County Board of Education: Maimona Afzal Berta, Victoria Chon, Raeena Lari, Jorge Pacheco Jr, Don Rocha, Jessica Speiser, Tara Sreekrishnan 1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2304 (408) 453-6500 www.sccoe.org Transforming Education through Leadership, Service, and Advocacy Outlook
FW: Single family home zoning changes
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 4:34 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Therese Gordon
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 4:32 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Single family home zoning changes
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Hello mister Taber,
Learn why this is imP.ortant
I am writing to implore you to please do not pass this zoning change! There are plenty of people leaving the area and your zoning changes are way way way too extreme! You're going to kill our neighborhoods and our home values. So please please listen to us. And do not change these zoning, changes.

Sincerely,
Therese Gordon
Get Outlook for Android
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 5:03 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Marduke Yousefpor
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 4:40 PM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits [External Email. Do not open !inks or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from . Leam why this is impo1iant Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge the City to maintain current residential neighborhood density at 8 DU/AC and fully evaluate the impact of recent state housing laws before adopting additional Missing Middle upzoning.

Recent, and anticipated future, state laws continue to increase housing capacity in residential neighborhoods. For example, AB 956 allows eligible properties to have two detached AD Us instead of one, representing a 100% increase in the number of detached ADUs permitted.

Please allow existing state housing laws time to work before imposing additional citywide density increases in residential neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

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

Sincerely,
Outlook
FW: item 8.1.

From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 9:25 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Christine Junge
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 8:48 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: item 8.1.
[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 Hello,
Please foiward this message to the city council and mayor. It is regarding item 8.1. to be discussed next week.

As a resident of San Jose, I would like to back the idea of making no changes at this time and instead continuing with the city's existing general plan to increase density in strategic areas adjacent to transit, not in areas where established neighborhoods would be disrupted.

Kindly,
Christine Junge
1!!11125
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Item 8.1 @ 10/20/26 City Council Meeting - Opposition To Increase Allowed ADU's Per Acre From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 9:25 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: George Jeffers
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 8:22 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 8.1@ 10/20/26 City Council Meeting - Opposition To Increase Allowed ADU's Per Acre [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 To San Jose City Council,
In regards to your upcoming vote on increasing the allowed number of ADU's per acre (Missing Middle Housing, Agenda Item 8.1 at the 10/20/26 City Council Meeting) I object to any such changes.

I have lived in San Jose for about 20 years of which 15 are next to Paul Moore Park. We have crazy traffic, overcrowding, struggling resource yet the city keeps approving additional housing which negatively impacts our quality of life and property values. For example, just look at the large buildings on Bascom and nightmare coming to Cambrian Plaza.

It is unethical to allow such changes without adequate input from and consideration of those impacted.

I cannot imagine my lot with 8-10 housing units (Primary+ ADU). Parking is already very tight and infrastructure is for houses built roughly 60 to 70 years ago! If I wanted neighbors all around me then I would not have moved to this area of San Jose.

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

Outlook
FW: Oct 20, 2026 city council meeting, item 8.1
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 9:25 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Richard Mandel
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 8:12 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Oct 20, 2026 city council meeting, item 8.1
[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 City Councilmembers and Mayor,
I am in favor of making no changes and instead continue with the city's existing general plan.

Since the city's existing general plan which already accommodates an additional 400,000 population growth by focusing new density in strategic areas adjacent to transit while simultaneously protecting neighborhoods. The additional 400,000 population growth has already been approved for San Jose without making this discretionary and extreme zoning change.

Sincerely,
Richard Mandel, District 10
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: San Jose City council meeting - item 8.1
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/16/2026 9:25 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Mary Ellen G
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2026 5:11 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: San Jose City council meeting - item 8.1
[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 do not vote for changes in single family house zoning. Keep our neighborhoods and our single family homes just the way they are. We already have to encounter heavy traffic from all the new apartment buildings. The current plan allows for 400,000 population growth, that is enough for now. If we start building multiple homes on a single family plot people will leave San Jose. The parking and beauty of our neighborhoods will be forever lost. We love our neighborhoods so please leave them alone.

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

Outlook
FW: Item 8.1
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 1 :37 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Becky Durstenfeld
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2026 9:41 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 8.1
[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 We are very disappoint~ear that the city council is voting on single family house zoning changes without letting us know. We are opposed to higher density in our single family neighborhood, especially with no consideration for infrastructure, parking, etc.

Please vote NO!
Thank you.

Becky and Bob Durstenfeld
McLaughlin Corridor
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Item 81
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 1 :37 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: M Hanisch
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2026 6:56 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 81
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - . Learn why this is imf;?ortant My position: I am adam~item which would allow multiple unit dwellings on property which has always been zoned for single family residences. There are many areas in San Jose that are industrial or business properties which are not currently in use. These areas should be used for multiple family buildings before any consideration is given to allowing such structures in single family neighborhoods.

Why does my opinion matter?
I am an 81 year resident in this city. I love it here. It's not the small town it was, but I love what it has been and still is in many ways. One of the most important factors that keeps our neighborhoods great for families is that we still have a small town feel where we know our neighbors and do not have the stress that increased density brings. If you do away with that, you will find that the nature, the stress, the values of the city will fall apart.

I have been a school teacher here for over 30 years, a long time volunteer with County Parks, and member of one of San Jose's oldest churches. You need to listen to some of us who have years of experience and understand what our great city needs.

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

Outlook
FW: item 8.1
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 1 :37 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Steve Heidenreich
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2026 11:15 AM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: item 8.1
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
SJ City Council,
. Learn why this is imP-ortant
re: item 8.1
When I read about this issue, the first thought was that you need to plan for the long term when you consider this. Then, I read that parking is not addressed in this item. You need to write some regulation that provides parking requirements based on estimated occupancy. In other words, how many buildings? How many bedrooms? require commensurate parking.

I also read that there is a requirement eliminating any and all public hearings to allow neighbors to provide feedback. It seems to me you're putting up a barrier between yourselves and your constituents. You want to push this through and not hear how it affects the people who will have to live with whatever changes happen.

In 2011 , the long range plan, (Envision San Jose 2040) was implemented. This was supposed to provide some kind of stability so businesses and people had some stable framework within which to make plans. Now you want to change that.
anyway, that's my opinion. You're welcome to it.

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

Outlook
FW: Against Increasing Housing Density
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/ 19/2026 1 :37 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Ra ndy Enos
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2026 7:27 AM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Against Increasing Housing Density
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<ht!Qs:/faka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification>) [You don't often get email from
Hi Toni,
Learn why this is important at .!ll!J:!s:/faka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ) My apologies. I forgot to add that my email below is in reference to item 8.1 on the Tuesday October 20, 2026 City Council Meeting agenda.

Sincerely,
Randy Enos
On Oct 18, 2026, at 7:23AM, Randy Enos
Hi Toni,
> wrote:

I also plan on attending the City Council meeting on October 20, 2026 that will include this topic. I am against the increased housing density outlined in the attached chart.

I suggest making no changes and instead continuing with the city's existing general plan which already accommodates an additional 400,000 population growth by focusing new density in strategic areas adjacent to transit while simultaneously protecting neighborhoods. An additional 400,000 population growth has already been approved for San Jose without making this discretionary and extreme zoning change.

The State of California has passed dozens of new laws regarding housing which will continue to impact cities by overriding local government and neighborhoods. Let's let these state laws run their course first before the city council makes a permanent discretionary decision which will be irreversible since existing state laws do not allow density to be reduced even if everyone agrees it was a mistake.

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

Units Allowed by Parcel Size, RN Density Max= 32 DU/ AC 84%
Parcel area 0-2,999 3,000- 5,000- 6,000- 7,000- 8,000- 9,000- 10,891+ (square feet) 4,999 5,999 6,999 7,999 8,999 10,890 Parcel area 0-.07 .07-.11 .11-.14 .14-.16 .16-.18 .18-.21 .21-.25 .25+ (acres) Share of RN 6% 22% 40% 13% 9% 4% 3 3 parcels
Primary units 1-2 2-4 4 4-5 5-6 7 6-8 8+ allowed
ADUs allowed 2 2-4 4 4-5 5-6 7 6-8 8
Total units 3-4 4-8 8 8-10 10-12 14 12-16 16+ allowed
Outlook
FW: Do Not Green Light Increased Housing Density in Neighborhoods That Does Not Conisder Parking and Prohibits Neighborhood Input
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 1 :38 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Macleod
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2026 3:58 AM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Do Not Green Light Increased Housing Density in Neighborhoods That Does Not Conisder Parking and Prohibits Neighborhood Input
[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 ]
To the City Council Clerk,
Learn why this is important at
I am urging that the City Council vote not to proceed with zoning changes that would allow 3 story high density housing in single family home neighborhoods. The proposal being voted upon On Tuesday January 20, 2026 contains absolutely no provisions that mandate parking sufficient to accommodate such dwellings, and bans public or neighborhood input when such housing is under consideration before being built.

I am strongly opposed to this zoning change, but I am even more concerned about the City Council's attempt to ram through this proposal without sufficient public input. The City Council represented that this proposal would not come up for consideration again until well into 2027. Now it is scheduled - without explanation - in just two days, on Tuesday, January 21, 2026. One gets the feeling that this is a foregone conclusion wherein public opposition will not be thoughtfully considered. A quiet neighborhood could become a traffic ridden space with no parking for homeowners in front of their own homes. Such a significant impact on what is often hard working family's safe haven and most valuable asset is directly harmful to those families, and without sufficient parking, does not adequately serve the residents of the new units either.

Please forward this email to the entire council, and especially my District 9 council woman, Pam Foley, with whom I am sorely disappointed for voting in favor of proceeding with this harmful and ill conceived proposal.

Thank you,
Linda MacLeod
District 9 resident
San Jose, CA. 95124
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Item 8.1
From Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 1 :38 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: jdeghue~
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 3:47 PM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 8.1
[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 Make no changes and instead continue with the city's existing general plan which already accommodates an additional 400,000 population growth by focusing new density in strategic areas adjacent to transit while simultaneously protecting neighborhoods. Stop trying to ruin our neighborhoods by adding multistory buildings with no parking space requirements. There is already a plan in place, communities hate what you are doing, we have to live with the consequences of your bad decision, but are you listening? Additionally, the voters should have the final say not you. Put it on the ballot!!!!! Jennifer Deghuee
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:20 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Brenda Dahmen
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 1:00 AM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits [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 Council~
Maintain Baseline Neighborhood Density at 8 DU/AC- Protect Our Residential Communities from Over-Densification
I urge the City to maintain cunent residential neighborhood density at 8 DU/ AC and to fully evaluate the cumulative impact of recent state housing laws before adopting any additional "Missing Middle" upzomng.

Our neighborhoods are quiet, close-knit, safe, and family-oriented-qualities that attract residents who want a stable bedroom community. They are not testing grounds for aggressive urban experimentation or speculative development.

Proposed density increases to 16, 24, or 32 DU/AC in single-family residential zones fundamentally misread the nature of our neighborhoods. A tripling of density to 24 DU/AC represents a staggering 200% increase, and the real-world impact is even more severe because accesso1y dwelling units are excluded from these density calculations. Even doubling density to 16 DU/AC introduces massive stmctural changes with permanent implications for local infrastmcture, street parking, traffic flow, and public safety services.

State housing policy is already heavily shifting the baseline. For instance, legislation like AB 956 allows eligible propeliies to constmct up to two detached AD Us, representing a major expansion of capacity on individual parcels. When combined with existing mles, single-family neighborhoods are already absorbing substantial organic growth with SB9 & 10 and soon SB79 near transit.

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

Before imposing additional, heavy-handed citywide density increases that risk altering the fabric of our community, the City must allow these existing state housing laws time to take effect and be properly measured and studied.

Local government should be responsive to the taxpayers and residents who live here, invest here, and bear the day-to-day consequences of municipal decisions—not driven by outside pressures or top-down mandates. I respectfully ask that you listen to your constituents, honor the stability of our established residential areas, and preserve our current 8 DU/AC standard in San Jose, our hometown.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and dedication to representing the people of our community.

Sincerely,
Brenda Dohmen
San Jose Resident
Families & Homes San Jose Board Member
Outlook
FW: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limit From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:21 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Susan T.

Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 8:25 AM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <M [email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limit [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 Counc~
I urge the City to maintain current residential neighborhood density at 8 DU/AC and fully evaluate the impact of recent state housing laws before adopting additional Missing Middle upzoning.

Please allow existing state housing laws time to work before imposing additional citywide density increases in residential neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Susan Tran
Outlook
FW: 10/20/ 2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:21 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: W. John Guineau
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 9:38 AM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits [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 . Learn whY. this is imgortant Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I urge the City to maintain current residential neighborhood density at 8 DU/AC and fully evaluate the impact of recent state housing laws before adopting additional Missing Middle upzoning.

Please allow existing state housing laws time to work before imposing additional citywide density increases in residential neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

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

Sincerely,
John Guineau
San Jose
Outlook
FW: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:21 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Tim Droz
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 9:53 AM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <M [email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits [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 Councilmembers,
I urge the City to maintain current residential neighborhood density at 8 DU/AC and fully evaluate the impact of recent state housing laws before adopting additional Missing Middle upzoning.

Please allow existing state housing laws time to work before imposing additional citywide density increases in residential neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Tim Droz
Outlook
FW: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:21 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: judycha >
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 2:34 PM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; M ulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from
Mayor and Councilmembers:

Learn why this is im12ortant
I urge the City to maintain current residential neighborhood density at 8 DU/ AC and fully evaluate the impact of recent state housing laws before adopting additional Missing Middle upzoning. A proposed tripling of density to 24 DU/ AC represents a 200% increase. Please allow existing state housing laws time to work before imposing additional citywide density increases in residential neighborhood. It is anticipated that further state laws will address housing density. There is no need to jump so far ahead. Please stick with 8 DU/AC (plus ADUs) and see what happens. Thank you.

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

Outlook
FW: Item 8.1 Please base neighborhood density on state requirements From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:21 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Don Chamberlin
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 3:17 PM
To: Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; M ulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]> Subject: Item 8.1 Please base neighborhood density on state requirements [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 Ma
ln this
yor
week's
and C
meeting,
ounci lmem
please
--
do not vote for more residential density than that required by state law. The increased density will have a devastating impact on parking and local services (mail, garbage pickup, street cleaning, etc.). We have no reason to make this impact worse than the state requirement. We should comply with state laws and observe their effect before adopting more radical proposals. For the sake of our city, please listen to the appeals of your constituents.
-Donald Chamberlin
District 10
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:22 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Janet Boeninger
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 5:17 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel ----- Forwarded Message-----
From: Janet Boeninger ~ >
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 at 04:3 5: 14 PM PDT
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,

1. Fam and Homes Message

2. J. Boeninger Message

1.FAM&HOMES. I urge the City to maintain current residential neighborhood density at 8 DU/ AC and fully evaluate the impact of recent state housing laws before adopting additional Missing Middle upzoning.

A proposed tripling of density to 24 DU/ AC represents a 200% increase. (And the impact is even greater since ADUs are not included in density numbers.) Even doubling density to 16 DU/ AC is a major change with significant implications for neighborhoods, infrastructure, parking, traffic, schools, and public services.

Please allow existing state housing laws time to work before imposing additional citywide density increases in residential neighborhood.

Thank you,
SJ Families and Homes Organization
*********************************************************************************************************

2. J. Boeninger I agree with Above Comments from SJ Families and Homes Organization.

My Comments:

As a 'PRACTICAL' Matter the Density number needs to allow for 'A LIVABLE ENVIRONMENT' ON THE UPZONED LOT.I assume your goal is to create stable mixed neighborhoods of rental missing middle and owned/rental single family homes.

In any case, UPZONED LOTS SHOULD HAVE BASIC AMENITIES: room for people to walk on sidewalks to destinations on the property, vegetation and trees planted on the property for greenery and peaceful setting. Good construction: Double paned windows, insulation between units for quietness and good heating/cooling. Safety to keep kids out of the street. Property managers need to maintain these units to high standard. These are 'market rental' units. They are competing with other units with parking on the lot, which is the preferable amenity for most renters. (more convenient to find your car for busy people).

Everyone assumes dense housing is built to help builders make a profit by building more housing. It can have negative impact if carried too far. Failure to keep upzoned rental units competitive with other rental units in the city is critical to keeping these units rented at market rate and well maintained. It is critical to have these units fit in with other single family housing in the neighgorhood. If living conditions are TOO DENSE/CROWDED for middle-class standards the entire single-family neighborhood may devalue causing single-families to sell/flee which creates more rental property and fewer single-family homes to purchase which should still be an option. If upzoned housing devalues it may require rental assistance subsidies further devaluing the neighgorhood. These are real possibilities to be considrered. Any nearby single family housing will devalue as well, losing equity all around. -The questions from San Jose Single Family Home Owners: What will the quality of life be once several homes on your block are upzoned?
-What will the value of your home be once homes on your block re upzoned? -Will property taxes increase once homes on your block are upzoned? Upzoned lots next to you are taxed at higher rate because they have more residential units on lot? -What ratio of upzoned homes to single family homes would you like after 5 years?
-Who will own the new upzoned housing? Corporate Entities? -Is there any advice for single family homeowners in San Jose to navigate this change?
Thank you.

Janet Boeninger, Mbr SJ Families & Homes
Outlook
FW: October 20, Item 8.1: Preserve the San Jose 2040 General Plan and Respect Community Input From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:22 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Chris Reynolds
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 5:21 PM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <M [email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: October 20, Item 8.1: Preserve the San Jose 2040 General Plan and Respect Community Input [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 Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong concern about the direction of the Missing Middle housing proposal, particularly the apparent willingness of Planning staff to pursue substantial increases in residential density without a coherent, evidence-based plan for how those changes would benefit San Jose.

The Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan was developed through an extensive process of public consultation and established a considered vision for the city's growth. It sought to balance housing development with infrastructure, transport, employment, neighbourhood character and quality of life. I am increasingly concerned that this vision is being undermined through piecemeal changes to residential zoning, driven more by an ideological commitment to density than by a comprehensive assessment of where growth is appropriate and how it can be supported.

The substantial public opposition expressed at the August 18 Council meeting should have prompted a serious reconsideration of the underlying policy. Instead, Planning staff recommended studying only 24 dwelling units per acre, effectively excluding the existing 8 DU/AC framework and other alternatives from consideration. This gives the troubling impression that public consultation is being treated as an obstacle to overcome rather than a meaningful input into policy.

Increasing density is not, in itself, a housing strategy. Density should be the outcome of thoughtful urban planning, not its starting assumption. Any proposal to substantially change established This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. residential neighbourhoods must demonstrate how the resulting growth will be supported by transport, schools, utilities, emergency services and other infrastructure. It must also account for the significant additional development capacity already enabled by California state law.

I appreciate the Councilmembers who have pushed back against the narrow staff recommendation, particularly those supporting the Candelas, Casey, Ortiz and Cohen memorandum, which explicitly calls for consideration of retaining existing densities in areas with limited transit access.

I urge the Council to:

1. Retain 8 DU/AC as an explicit option, particularly in established residential neighbourhoods without substantial transit infrastructure.

2. Require Planning staff to demonstrate how proposed density changes align with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, rather than progressively undermining its underlying principles.

3. Demand a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of infrastructure capacity, traffic, public services and the cumulative effects of existing state housing legislation before considering further upzoning.

4. Ensure that future public consultation is genuinely capable of changing policy outcomes, rather than simply validating decisions that appear to have already been made.

I am not opposed to housing development or sensible increases in density. San José needs more homes, and well-planned development in appropriate locations should be encouraged. But the city also owes its residents consistency, transparency and respect for the long-term planning framework on which they have relied.

The General Plan should be a meaningful commitment to the city’s future, not a document that can be incrementally disregarded whenever it conflicts with the Planning Department’s preferred policy direction.

I ask the Council to resist blanket upzoning, preserve the existing 8 DU/AC option, and insist that any changes emerge from a coherent citywide plan that genuinely reflects the wishes of San José residents.

Sincerely,
Chris Reynolds
San José Resident, District 10
Outlook
FW: October 20 2026 City Council Meeting: Item 8.1
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:22 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Kit Reed
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2026 7:05 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: October 20 2026 City Council Meeting: Item 8.1 [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 To Mayor and City Cou~
We are 36 and 4 7 year residents os District 1 . The past few years we have made an effort to be informed about the way San Jose decisions are made and how it operates. Here are our concerns about the possible October 20 decision on "Missing Middle" rezoning.

Lack of Notification
We only learned of this pending vote via a neighborhood association (not even my own) post on Facebook. Reading the October 20 agenda, Item 8.1 gives no indication of the possible pending decision which San Jose itself says will affect 85% of the city. This overall lack of information for residents is also very concerning because the timing has drastically changed from late 2027 to now. I've seen more city information on changing the name of a city park.

Discretionary Irreversible Decision
This decision is discretionary, not based on California law. Once made it is irreversible. How can you justify leaving San Jose residents uninformed about such an important City Council vote happening so much sooner than we were told at the August meeting? This is simply not the fair or right thing to do. I've seen more information from the city on changing the name of a park.

City Chart
The chart showing number of units allowed per lot size leaves out important information for residents:

1. zero parking requirements

2. three stories allowed

3. elimination of fill public hearings for neighbor feedback

4. no mention of affordability for any new housing in this proposal.

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

San Jose has a reputation for long ignoring historical buildings and sites, usually tearing them down. This blanket rezoning again ignores the ambiance and dynamics of unique architecture, specific neighborhoods and communities within the city. Why? As our elected City Council representatives, how do you justify irreversible decisions without fully informed residents?
Last question. How will all residents be informed of the October 20 decision? Catherine Reed
Charles Reed
San Jose 95117
Outlook
FW: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Stay with 8 DU/AC From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:22 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: ahamilton >
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2026 8:41 AM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Stay with 8 DU/AC [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 Learn whY. this is imgortant Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I do not believe additional upzoning is necessary to meet San Jose's RHNA obligations. Existing State laws (ie, SB 79), provide substantial opportunities to increase housing capacity.
8 DU/AC should remain the option for ALL neighborhoods.

I live in a neighborhood of 1.3- 2.0 million dollar houses - withOUT many ADUs our street is ***already*** filled with cars at night and weekends BECAUSE many adult children moved home (3 to my immediate right) OR rentals have 3- 4 adults (four to my immediate left)with visiting overnight guests.

We paid for our homes and maintain this area as our home. These houses are very close to not being worth the current market rate because when you can't put out your garbage carts or be able to invite guests over because the streets are so full of cars already you question WHY? If I wanted congestion would have bought elsewhere.

There are VTA stations near us — they aren’t the answer —the Bay Area is not NYC , you need a car to get to all the places modern live requires. Especially if one has children- grandchildren.

When the millionaires tax takes effect and we have to pay every year on unrealized gains think we’ll stay? (Yes MILLIONaire since it drops down without a future vote, the State just has to say - we want more money and grab it)
Detroit didn’t happen over night. First you run businesses and jobs out - California is doing a fabulous top tier job of that . Then you add rule after rule to make everyday life uncomfortable or overly expensive ( get rid of cheap tires, make replacing a hot water heater a $ 10,000 multi month project ) Please Reject the Staff recommendation to study only the 24 DU/AC option.

KEEP 8 DU/AC as a base for ALL Residential Neighborhoods.

Recognize that broad citywide upzoning is not appropriate. KEEP 8 DU/AC as a base for ALL Residential Neighborhoods.

Acknowledge the need for additional public outreach.

However, future outreach must be comprehensive and include ALL districts.

Staff and Councilmembers should work together to ensure broad community awareness and participation.

Significant concerns remain regarding the Missing Middle P-35 proposal and any permanent upzoning:

1. The State continues to enact one-size-fits-all housing laws that increase development capacity. San José should not exceed State mandates (Beginning January 1, 2027, State law will allow additional ADUs on many residential lots. SB 79 creates substantial upzoning opportunities near transit and affects 40,000 + parcels in San José.)

2. The City's Housing Element P-35 commitment has been interpreted too broadly and unrealistically. Existing State laws, including SB 9, already allow increases in housing density. The State's approval of the Housing Element focused on expanding incentives for Missing Middle housing, not requiring permanent citywide upzoning.

The City's emphasis should be on incentives rather than blanket rezoning even in a tiered manner.
•
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

3. Any density framework tied to transit should also consider the long-term viability and funding of transit systems. Assumptions about future transit service should be realistic and not rely on projects that may face funding, cost, or schedule uncertainties.

Sincerely,
District 2 resident A.Hamilton
Outlook
FW: Item 8.1 on San Jose City Council Agenda on 10/20/2026 From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:23 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Alain Mowad
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2026 12:39 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; District! <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; Dist ricts <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District? <[email protected]>; Dist rict8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 8.1 on San Jose City Council Agenda on 10/20/2026 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:

I am writing on behalf of the VEP Community Association regarding the October 16 memorandum on CilY.Y:lide Planning Work Plan Prioritization. signed by Mayor Matt Mahan. Vice Mayor Pam Foley, Councilmember Pamela Campos. Councilmember Anthony Tordillos and Councilmember Michael Mulcahy and scheduled for consideration as part of item 8.1 on the Council agenda for October 20th.

We support increasing San Jose"s housing supply, including higher-density housing in locations where residents have strong access to jobs. services. and effective public transportation. We also support evaluating a tiered approach rather than applying a single Missing Middle density across very different neighborhoods.

Our concern is that Recommendation 3 does not clearly define the boundaries of the Downtown Core or explain how the City would distinguish residential neighborhoods near rail stations from downtown and major regional rail or intermodal hubs when assigning density tiers. Not all neighborhoods near light-rail or heavy-rail stations are high-opportunity areas with strong access to jobs. education. services. and other daily needs. While station proximity is relevant. it should not. by itself. justify assigning a neighborhood to the highest locally proposed density tier. The City should assess whether available transit service provides meaningful access to these opportunities. rather than relying solely on distance from a station.

I respectfully request that Council amend its direction to staff in four ways:

First, prioritize the highest locally proposed density tiers in the Downtown Core, major regional rail and intermodal station areas, and
other adopted transit-rich growth areas. These locations should be central to the evaluation of densities above 32 dwelling units per acre.

Second, require a more meaningful assessment of transit accessibility. The analysis should consider service frequency and reliability,
access to employment and daily needs, safe walking connections, and infrastructure capacity. For example, proximity to a VTA light-rail station alone should not automatically place an otherwise residential neighborhood in the highest local density tier, as the light-rail mostly does not conveniently connect people with the places they work, requiring bus transfers or other means of transportation.

Third, clearly distinguish state requirements from discretionary City policy. Residents should be able to understand which development
allowances already apply under state law and which additional changes Council is considering. We are not requesting an exemption from applicable state requirements.

Fourth, present mapped alternatives before recommending adoption. These should include a downtown- and regional-transit-focused alternative,
with an assessment of housing capacity, development feasibility, infrastructure needs, and consistency with P-35 and fair-housing obligations. The community engagement process should include neighborhood associations, renters, homeowners, prospective residents, and transit users.

Finally, the City should clearly distinguish between increasing housing supply and ensuring housing affordability. Higher allowable densities can create opportunities for additional homes, but they do not, on their own, guarantee rents or purchase prices that are affordable to lower- and middle-income households. New market-rate housing may remain beyond the reach of many residents, even as it contributes to the broader housing supply.

As the City discusses changes to the Housing Element, it should explain how proposed density increases would advance affordability goals and what additional measures would be needed. A comprehensive approach should address construction and labor costs, streamline permitting and unnecessary procedural barriers, and strengthen coordination among City, County, State, and Federal governments to support affordable housing through funding, incentives, and other targeted programs.

The goal should be not simply to allow more homes, but to expand housing choices that residents at a range of income levels can realistically afford.

We recognize that meeting San José’s housing needs requires opportunities in more than one part of the city. Our request is not to stop housing production or move every new home downtown. Rather, it is to •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ensure that the scale and design of additional development reflect meaningful differences in accessibility, infrastructure, and neighborhood conditions. Each neighborhood has distinct characteristics that contribute to San Jose's identity, and this contributes to our diversity and strength as a City. This effort should thoughtfully integrate new housing while preserving the qualities that make each community unique. This approach can accommodate growth while maintaining a credible path to meeting the City's housing commitments.

Please support the tiered analysis with these clearer criteria and public-review requirements.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Alain Mowad
President, VEP Community Association
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: URGENT PLEA: Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits! (ITEM 8.1) From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:24 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Susan Noda
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2026 5:32 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: URGENT PLEA: Please Maintain Existing Neighborhood Density Limits! (ITEM 8.1) [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 Councilmembe~ Clerk,
We do not believe additional upzoning is necessary to meet San Jose's RHNA obligations. Existing State laws (ie, SB 79), provide substantial opportunities to increase housing capacity. However, at a minimum, 8 DU/AC should remain an available option within any tiered density framework for neighborhoods.

We appreciate that a majority of the Council:

1. Rejects the Staff recommendation to study only the 24 DU/AC option.

2. Supports a density approach, with higher densities focused near major transit corridors and reliable transit service. (i.e, "Smart Growth") • However, any tiered density framework should include 8 DU/AC as an option for Residential Neighborhoods.

3. Recognizes that broad citywide upzoning is not appropriate.

4. Acknowledges the need for additional public outreach. • However, future outreach must be comprehensive and include ALL districts.

Staff and Councilmembers should work together to ensure broad community awareness and participation.

Significant concerns remain regarding the Missing Middle P-35 proposal and any permanent upzoning:

1. The State continues to enact one-size-fits-all housing laws that increase development capacity. San Jose should not exceed State mandates (Beginning This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

January 1, 2027, State law will allow additional ADUs on many residential lots. SB 79 creates substantial upzoning opportunities near transit and affects 40,000 + parcels in San José.)

The City's emphasis should be on incentives rather than blanket rezoning even in a tiered manner.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, take into account the impact this will directly have especially on traffic and parking on our poorer neighborhoods not near transit areas whose streets are already narrow and overcrowded. Thank you.

Sincerely,
The Nodas
Outlook
FW: City Council: Item 8.1 Stay with 8 DU/AC/ Support Candelas, Casey, Ortiz, and Cohen Memo.

From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:24 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Dave Hedges
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2026 8:06 PM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: ; Dave Hedges >
Subject: City Council: Item 8.1 Stay with 8 DU/AC/ Support Candelas, Casey, Ortiz, and Cohen Memo. [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 . Learn why this is imP-ortant Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I do not believe additional upzoning is necessary to meet San Jose's RHNA obligations. Existing State laws (ie, SB 79), provide substantial opportunities to increase housing capacity. However, at a minimum, 8 DU/AC should remain an available option within any tiered density framework for neighborhoods.

I appreciate that a majority of the Council:

1. Rejects the Staff recommendation to study only the 24 DU/AC option.

3. Recognizes that broad citywide upzoning is not appropriate.

4. Acknowledges the need for additional public outreach. • However, future outreach must be comprehensive and include ALL districts.

Staff and Councilmembers should work together to ensure broad community awareness and participation.

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

Significant concerns remain regarding the Missing Middle P-35 proposal and any permanent upzoning:

The City's emphasis should be on incentives rather than blanket rezoning even in a tiered manner.

Thanks,
Dave Hedges
, San Jose, CA
Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 8.1 for October 20, 2026 Council Meeting: Please Keep Parking Requirements and Current Single-Family Zoning
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:24 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Keely Elizabeth Berg >
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2026 12:08 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 8.1 for October 20, 2026 Council Meeting: Please Keep Parking Requirements and Current Single-Family Zoning
[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,
Thank you for your service to San Jose and for taking the time to read letters and hear from residents. I know these decisions are not easy, and I appreciate the chance to share my concerns about the proposed density changes in single-family neighborhoods described in the Staff Memo and the Mayor's Memo.

Parking and traffic are already a daily struggle, and this proposal would make both much worse.

Many of our streets are already full. Residentscircle the block for parking, guests have nowhere to park, and delivery trucks, service vehicles, and emergency access already compete for narrow roads.

Removing parking requirements for new homes does not remove the cars. It puts them on the street in front of existing neighbors, who have no way to absorb them.

San Jose is not a walkable city. Our neighborhoods were built around driving, and daily errands, school drop-offs, medical appointments, and commutes all depend on a car. For most families, getting by without one isn't realistic.

Public transit does not change that today. Routes are disconnected, buses and trains don't run often enough to rely on, and a 15-minute car trip can take over an hour by transit with transfers. Families cannot count on a system that reliably gets them to work, school, or the grocery store. Until transit is frequent, connected, and dependable, new housing without parking will mean more cars on the same streets, more congestion at our intersections, and more frustration for the people who already live here.

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

Other concerns
Our General Plan already plans for major growth. It accommodates 400,000 additional residents and was vetted with the public. Slow construction right now reflects high interest rates and building costs, not a flaw in our zoning.

State housing laws need time to work. California has passed many new housing laws, and we have not yet seen their full effect.

Three-story buildings next to single-story homes raise concerns about privacy, shade, and neighborhood character.

Public hearings matter. Removing them takes away residents’ voices, and state law doesn't require them. Many of you campaigned on listening to neighbors, and I hope you will honor that, while still working on ways to build wisely in San Jose.

The proposal has no owner-occupancy requirement. That makes it easier for speculative developers than for homeowners. Owner-initiated options, like programs that help seniors age in place by building an ADU, would better serve existing residents.

I respectfully ask the Council to keep the current General Plan and the recent Housing Element updates, and to keep parking requirements in place. Please do not move forward with these changes until transit, parking, and traffic conditions can truly support them. Choosing the status quo would also free up planning staff time for other pressing city priorities.

Thank you again for your time, your service, and your willingness to listen to residents across every neighborhood in San Jose.

Sincerely,
Keely Elizabeth Berg
San Jose, 95136
•
•
•
•
•
Outlook
FW: Urgent .... 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Stay with 8 DU/AC or Support Candelas, Casey, Ortiz, and Cohen Memo.

From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:24 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Dr. JC Wang
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2026 1:41 AM
To: Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <M [email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Urgent .... 10/20/2026: City Council: Item 8.1 Stay w ith 8 DU/AC or Support Candelas, Casey, Ortiz, and Cohen Memo.
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't often get email from - . Learn why this is imf;!ortant Dear Mayor and Council~ believe additional upzoning is necessa1y to meet San Jose's RHNA obligations. Existing State laws (ie, SB 79), provide substantial opp01tunities to increase housing capacity. However, at a minimum, 8 DU/ AC should remain an available option within any tiered density framework for neighborhoods. I appreciate that a majority of the Council: 1. Rejects the Staff recommendation to study only the 24 DU/ AC option. 2. Supports a density approach, with higher densities focused near major transit corridors and reliable transit service. (i.e, "Smart Growth") However, any tiered density framework should include 8 DU/AC as a option for Residential Neighborhoods. 3.

Recognizes that broad citywide upzoning is not appropriate. 4. Acknowledges the need for additional public outreach. However, future outreach must be comprehensive and include ALL districts. Staff and Councilmembers should work together to ensure broad community awareness and participation.

Significant concerns remain regarding the Missing Middle P-35 proposal and any pe1manent upzoning: 1.

The State continues to enact one-size-fits-all housing laws that increase development capacity. San Jose should not exceed State mandates (Beginning January 1, 2027, State law will allow additional ADUs on many residential lots. SB 79 creates substantial upzoning opp01tunities near transit and affects 40,000 + parcels in San Jose.) 2. The City's Housing Element P-35 commitment has been interpreted too broadly and unrealistically. Existing State laws, including SB 9, already allow increases in housing density. The State's approval of the Housing Element focused on expanding incentives for Missing Middle housing, not requiring permanent citywide upzoning. The City's emphasis should be on incentives rather than blanket rezoning even in a tiered manner. 3. Any density framework tied to transit should also consider the long-term viability and funding of transit systems. Assumptions about future transit service should be realistic and not rely on projects that may face funding, cost, or schedule uncertainties. Sincerely, This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dr. JC Wang
San Jose,
Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 8.1 for October 20, 2026
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:24 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Carrie Genise
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2026 4:38 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 8.1 for October 20, 2026
[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;lortant Subject: Agenda Item 8.1 fo1· 10-20-26 Opposition to Proposed Single-Family Neighborhood Density Changes Dea1· Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Regarding proposed density changes in single-family neighborhoods, I respectfully opposes these changes for the following reasons:

1. San Jose Already Has an Aggressive, Vetted G1·owth Plan:

San Jose's current General Plan already accommodates a population growth of 400,000 residents. This plan was carefully vetted with the public. The City cannot control national or global economic conditions-such as high interest rates, elevated construction costs, and tight lending markets. Dropping a well-designed, community-backed plan simply because current macro-economic factors are temporarily slowing housing construction is ill-advised.

2. State Laws Need Time to Take Effect:

The State of California has passed dozens of new housing laws in recent months and dozens more the past few years. The full impact of these legislative changes has not yet been felt due to current national economic headwinds, not a flaw in local zoning.

3. HCD Mandates Are Out of Touch:

State Housing and Community Development (HCD) targets do not reflect local realities. For example, within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region-encompassing 19 million people across 197 jurisdictions-only a fraction of cities met their RHNA goals. A compliance rate under 2% highlights systemic flaws in state-level mandates. With a new Governor taking office in
January, state housing policies and HCD oversight may well shift.

4. Ze1·0 Parking Requirements Are Un1·ealistic:

Eliminating parking minimums in single-family neighborhoods will severely impact street parking, traffic flow, and neighborhood accessibility.

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

5. Out-of-Scale Design:

Permitting three-story structures directly adjacent to traditional single-family homes creates intrusive visual shadows, privacy concerns, and severe aesthetic mismatches.

6. Discretionary Elimination of Public Hearings Undermines Community Trust:

Stripping away public hearings—whether before the City Council, Planning Commission, or Director—contradicts the campaign promises every current made to involve residents and value neighborhood input. Silencing public participation permanently removes the voice of residents. State law does not require elimination of public hearings.

7. Proposal Favors Speculative Developers Over Homeowners:

Unlike state legislation like SB 9, this proposal lacks owner-occupancy requirements. Rather than forcing developer-driven density, San Jose should pursue owner-initiated solutions. For instance, Alameda County offers a program that helps seniors age in place by loaning funds for ADU construction; the senior moves into the ADU and repays the loan through a lot split and home sale.

Conclusion & Recommendation
I recommend following the option to maintain the status quo—retaining the existing General Plan alongside the significant updates already made in the recent Housing Element.

I urge you to stick with the current General Plan and honor your commitment to listen to the residents who elected you. Thank you for your service and your willingness to not dismiss the concerns over quality of life for existing residents throughout all neighborhoods in San Jose regardless of zip code.

Sincerely,
Carrie Genise
Sent from my iPhone
Outlook
FW: Density change for residential areas
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:24 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Messaqe-----
From: Kris Franz < >
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2026 5:13 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Density change for residential areas
[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 ]
. Learn why this is important at
I implore the City council to NOT INCREASE the number of units per acre in San Jose. We do not have the infrastructure to support the masses of population proposed. The roads are already at service Level F and our streets and neighborhood streets are being impacted. By limiting parking spaces per unit you are creating a parking nightmare and potential violence caused by frustration. We do not have decent public transportation to support limiting cars.

We do not have enough power, police and fire support and water.

STOP RUINING SAN JOSE. IMPROVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE DECIMATING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, Kirsten Franz
Resident since 1971
Sent from my iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Agenda Item 8.1 for October 20, 2026 Council Meeting From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 7:25 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Mike Harrigan
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2026 6:34 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 8.1 for October 20, 2026 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 imgortant Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
As a home owner and resident of Willow Glen I support of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association position on the proposed single-family neighborhood density changes. I urge you to stick with the current General Plan and honor your commitment to listen to the residents who elected you.

Regards,
Michael Harriqan
, San Jose, CA 95125
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
FW: Do not increase density! Agenda 8.1
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/19/2026 8:26 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Messaqe-----
From: Deb Duvall >
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2026 8:25 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Do not increase density! Agenda 8.1
[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 ]
. Learn why this is important at
Please do not increase the density, how will it be supported adequately for water, electricity, etc . We already have streets over crowded with more cars the impact traffic, parking and it's not safe. It's a more costly decision than just making more profits by crowding more housing on smaller lots. I am totally against this!
Deborah Duvall
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

San Jose City CouncilOctober 20, 2026

San Jose City Council
October 20, 2026