San Jose Planning Commission General Plan Task Force Meeting on Small Multifamily Housing - March 4, 2026
San Jose Planning Commission General Plan Task Force Meeting on Small Multifamily Housing - March 4, 2026
The Planning Commission, serving as the General Plan Task Force, held its fourth meeting of the 25-26 General Plan four-year review on March 4, 2026. The meeting focused on the staff proposal to allow small multifamily housing (missing middle) citywide by increasing density from 8 to 32 units per acre in the Residential Neighborhood land use designation. Public comment was moved before task force discussion per a commissioner request. The meeting began at approximately 2:45 PM and adjourned at 8:27 PM.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Robert Wood (Chair, Housing Committee, San Jose State California Faculty Association) expressed appreciation for commissioners who advocated for more housing and supported the 32 units per acre proposal. He urged a comprehensive revision of the General Plan and cautioned that the urban villages process may be too slow. He noted the need for more city planning resources.
- Gia Lee (local real estate developer/builder) strongly supported the ministerial process for small multifamily housing but urged an interim ordinance to allow projects to move forward immediately, citing delays from subdivision requirements. He proposed an interim density cap of 19.8 units per acre (based on SB 1123 threshold) to test standards without waiting for full General Plan amendment.
- Kale Anderson (student) inquired about youth outreach specifics and the composition of focus groups for underrepresented populations.
- Teresa Dow (San Jose YIMBY) expressed excitement about the density increase, encouraged a bolder 40 units per acre to meet RHNA obligations, and asked the city to consider using public/quasi-public land and partnering with school districts for affordable housing.
- Regina Celestin Williams thanked staff for thoughtful work, supported the citywide approach to allow multifamily in high-opportunity areas, and also encouraged 40 units per acre for financial viability and housing variety.
- Robert Swerk (Principal Planner, VTA) supported the recommended strategy, noting it aligns with VTA goals of transit ridership and reduced VMT. He mentioned VTA staff met with city staff to discuss growth areas around bus transit corridors.
- Stephanie Yi (local developer, speaking for a firm with over 300 units in San Jose) strongly urged ministerial approval, noting that current projects take a long time to get permits. She requested expedited processing (e.g., pre-approved plans, concurrent review of parcel maps and building permits) to reduce construction costs.
- Mani Bekele (Policy Officer, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, District 3 resident) highlighted climate benefits of denser housing near transit to reduce car dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. He urged coordination with the Climate Smart San Jose team to meet carbon neutrality by 2030.
- Lisa Chapontier (San Jose Team, California Donut Economics Coalition) supported missing middle housing for its equity benefits, noting historical redlining, and called for policies like form-based codes and affordability requirements to ensure common good.
- Cyrus Jahanian (City Connect Partners) thanked staff for the presentation and asked how density bonus law and design standards would interact with the new zoning. He noted that density bonus law allows concessions and waivers in exchange for affordable units.
- Lindy Hayes (Corey neighborhood resident) asked the city attorney about the precedence of CC&Rs (limiting single-family homes to 25 feet height) versus state law and zoning changes. The city attorney responded that state law and local zoning typically trump CC&Rs, but recommended consulting real estate counsel for her specific situation.
- Sandra Ruby Hu (local builder) recommended impact fee reductions for smaller projects, switching from a per-unit fee structure to a square footage-based structure, and fee deferral to temporary certificate of occupancy to help projects pencil out.
- Ken Hittleman (Winchester Orchard Neighborhood Association) advocated for higher densities along Winchester Boulevard but not extending into R1 neighborhoods behind. He asked for specifics on buffer zones. Staff clarified that the citywide proposal eliminates the need for buffer zones.
- Chris Gian Greco (Vice President, Winchester Orchard Neighborhood Association) expressed concern about the impact of growth on existing residential neighborhoods, noting that neighborhoods like Corey and Winchester Orchard have already been impacted by urban village projects. He requested protections for single-family neighborhoods.
Discussion Items
- Staff Presentation: Cora McNaughton presented the staff recommendation to increase density from 8 to 32 units per acre in the Residential Neighborhood land use designation, allow multifamily use in single-family zoning, and create a ministerial permit process. The proposal would apply citywide, replacing the earlier idea of buffer zones around urban villages. Staff noted that 32 units per acre would allow at least 4 units on a typical 6,000 sq ft parcel, with the possibility of additional ADUs. The presentation included examples from other cities (Sacramento, Berkeley) and a discussion of existing state laws (SB 9, SB 1123) that already allow similar densities but with complex processes.
- Outreach Update: Ruth Guento announced that the team has met with District 1 leadership group, contracted with Winter Consulting for outreach, and is planning open houses in April and May. The Office of Racial and Social Equity is hosting four focus groups: two with the disability community, one with youth, and one with a diverse lived experience group.
- Task Force Discussion:
- Commissioner Bondal praised the memo and presentation, asked about financial feasibility of 32 units/acre, and requested staff to explore 40 units/acre. He noted that the city's inclusionary housing ordinance does not apply to these small projects, but replacement requirements may apply under state law.
- Commissioner Barroso asked about parking: the city removed parking minimums in 2023, but most projects still include parking. He recommended considering a parking minimum for these projects to avoid spillover on streets. Staff will return with data on parking provided in recent SB 9 projects.
- Commissioner Casey questioned whether simply increasing density would unlock development without also addressing process barriers like subdivision requirements. Staff noted that the ministerial process would simplify and speed up approvals.
- Commissioner Young strongly supported the citywide approach, calling it fair and courageous. He emphasized the urgency of the housing crisis and noted that 44% of San Jose units are renter-occupied. He argued that existing homeowners should accept more density to allow workers to live in the city.
- Commissioner Cantrell urged better outreach to all district leadership groups and the All District Leadership Group to ensure residents are informed before final decisions.
- Vice Chair Bickford supported looking at a higher density number (e.g., 40) and suggested a sliding scale based on parcel size (lower density for small parcels, higher for larger parcels) to avoid extreme density on a single acre. He also asked about the feasibility of an interim ordinance to allow projects to proceed while the General Plan amendment is underway. Staff noted legal and environmental review challenges but will explore options for the second meeting.
- Commissioner Burroughs echoed the sliding scale idea and asked staff to consider different density tiers by parcel size.
- Commissioner Casey asked about the interplay of SB 330 replacement requirements with SB 9 and SB 1123. Staff clarified that SB 330 requires replacement of demolished rent-restricted or low-income-occupied units, and SB 9/1123 have additional anti-displacement restrictions.
- Commissioner Bandal requested that the practice of having public comment before task force discussion be made permanent for future meetings.
Key Outcomes
- Task Force Direction: The task force directed staff to:
- Return with a refined proposal that includes analysis of a density of 40 units per acre (instead of 32) and a sliding scale based on parcel size.
- Provide data on parking provided in recent SB 9 and small multifamily projects post-2023 parking reform.
- Explore the feasibility of an interim ordinance to allow early ministerial approvals while the General Plan amendment is in process.
- Investigate financial feasibility and potential displacement impacts of the proposed changes.
- Bring back a more detailed concept for the second meeting on this topic on May 20, 2026.
- Next Steps: Public outreach events will be held in April and May. The task force will receive a refined proposal at the May 20 meeting. The overall General Plan four-year review is expected to conclude by June 17, 2026.
Meeting Transcript
I'm the chair of the Planning Commission of the General Plan Task Force. This is the fourth meeting of the 25-26 General Plan four-year review. And this four-year review, the planning commission will serve as the task force. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. The parking validation machine for the garage under City Hall is located near the entrance. Agendas and assign up sheet are also available in the back. Since there is no flag, we will move on to the roll call. Vice Chair Bickford. Here. Commissioner Barroso. Here. Commissioner Bandal? Here. Commissioner Cantrell. Here. Commissioner Cow. Here. Commissioner Casey? Here. Commissioner Escobar. Here. Commissioner Nguyen. Here. Commissioner Oliverio. Here. Commissioner Young. Here. And then that means there are eight of us here, and we have quorum. Please note the public comment is listed as item number six on the agenda and will take place towards the end of the meeting. There has been a request from the commissioner to move item six to be before item five. So public comment will come before Task Force discussion tonight. So you can so for item number six, which is now going to be before item number five. You can fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes. In response to public comment, the planning commission is limited to the following options responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public or requesting to staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting. With that, I will hand it over to staff to begin the meeting with item number two agenda overview. Actually, is this can I insert for a moment here? Please do, Commissioner Cantrell. Actually, I just want to get a clarification on what items are open for discussion in these study sessions. We were in last week's meeting. However, the item was on the agenda that I was I was asking clarification on. So I just want to be clear that we are we can have yes or no appropriate conversations and expect expect answers from city staff about items that we are questioning in relationship to this planning process. Thank you for the question, Commissioner. Aaron U from the city attorney's office. Yes, broadly speaking. If the for example, if there's a general topic for discussion and there's a specific item or a project within the city that you think is related to that general discussion, you can bring it up. Recognizing that this is a public meeting, that statements being made here may come into play later on if a decision about a specific project comes before this commission in a quasi-judicial sense, and so we want to make sure that statements made about pending projects do not uh give off an appearance of bias or how the commissioner may vote on a certain issue. Uh but again if you have a specific question that it relates to the larger topic that has been noticed, it can be discussed here. Okay. That's fair and acceptable.
openpublica.com