General Plan Task Force Meeting on Missing Middle Housing – May 20, 2026
General Plan Task Force Meeting on Missing Middle Housing – May 20, 2026
The sixth meeting of the General Plan Task Force for the 4-Year Review focused on the proposed missing middle housing policy, which would increase allowed density in residential neighborhood (RN) parcels from 8 to 32 units per acre. Staff presented outreach results, development standards, and a recommendation for a streamlined permitting process. Public comment was divided, and task force members debated density levels, parking, and the inclusion of public/quasi-public (PQP) sites. No formal vote was taken, but staff will incorporate feedback and present a policy framework to the Planning Commission on June 24 and to City Council on August 18.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Alison Cingalani (SV@Home): Expressed support for increasing residential capacity citywide and highlighted adaptive reuse opportunities on faith and public school sites (PQP), noting roughly 500 eligible sites. Urged the task force to consider general plan changes to allow housing on those sites.
- Lori Droste (Spur): Supported staff’s missing middle framework but encouraged a bolder density (e.g., 70 du/acre as in Berkeley) and recommended flexibility on parking, setbacks, and FAR to avoid hindering development.
- Sandra D. (public): Raised concerns that higher density may not improve affordability (citing a 2021 city study), could reduce homeownership and generational wealth, and would strain city services (police, fire). Also worried about deed restrictions not being discovered in ministerial approvals.
- David Hindel (All District Leadership Group): Opposed citywide elimination of single-family zoning, arguing that SB 79 areas alone could meet state requirements. Warned that residents may be surprised by large, parkingless buildings on adjacent lots.
- Robert Wood (SJSU Faculty Union Housing Committee): Endorsed the missing middle approach but argued it is insufficient without addressing growth areas that produce zero housing and the 100+ square miles where housing is illegal. Urged a comprehensive view.
- Larry Ames: Appreciated that riparian, historic, flood, and fire zones would remain discretionary or ineligible. Noted that the report lacked mention of park infrastructure fees and called for collecting fees to maintain parks as density increases.
- Greg Carlson (Concern Quarry Neighbors): Advocated for common-sense development approvals, especially along the Winchester corridor, and asked for consideration of neighborhood integrity for the westerly boundary of the Alameda.
- Sarah Shahanian (developer): Praised the effort to simplify housing law but cited five-month delays for appeal hearings as a major cost burden. Requested faster timelines for frivolous appeals and support for ministerial permits to reduce holding costs.
Discussion Items
- Outreach Summary: Ruth reported that staff spoke with 832 residents through three open houses (April–May) and an ongoing virtual open house. Activities at events included trade-off exercises on height vs. parcel coverage and priorities such as affordability (32%), renter protection (27%), tree canopy (26%), and historic preservation (15%). Multilingual staff were present, and materials were available in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese.
- Missing Middle Housing Proposal (Cora McNaughton): Staff recommended increasing RN density to 32 du/acre, up from 8 du/acre, which would allow 2–6 primary units on 84% of RN parcels (3,000–8,000 sq ft). Theoretical capacity at 32 du/acre is 1.2 million units (vs. 557,000 under SB 9). The proposal includes ministerial permitting for most projects, a 35-foot/3-story height limit, flexible setbacks, FAR, and parcel coverage adjustments. Parking minimums were eliminated citywide in 2023; average parking provided in recent small multifamily projects is 1.6 spaces/unit. For historic properties, discretionary review or a historic report would be required. SB 79 exemption at 40 du/acre was discussed but staff favored 32 du/acre as a balance.
- Density Debate: Commissioners expressed support for 32 du/acre as a reasonable starting point (Young, Barros, Bandal), while Commissioner Cantrell and Cow leaned toward 40 du/acre to maximize potential. Staff noted that actual built densities in recent projects averaged 18 du/acre, and that further economic modeling would be part of future implementation.
- Parking: Commissioner Bandal proposed a hybrid approach (parking minimums in high-VMT areas, none in transit-rich zones), but state law preempts minimums within half-mile of high-quality transit. Commissioner Cantrell strongly opposed any return to parking minimums, arguing that parking consumes space that could be used for housing and that the city’s elimination of minimums should stand.
- PQP Sites: Several task force members (Young, Oliverio, Cantrell) urged revisiting PQP sites for housing, but staff reiterated that their recommendation is not to include PQP in this cycle due to SB 79 and the complexity of evaluating land for institutional vs. residential use. A future meeting may address it.
- Financial Feasibility: Commissioner Casey and others questioned whether the density increase alone would spur development, given capital gaps and utility connection costs. Staff acknowledged that the market will adapt over time, similar to the ADU ramp-up. Commissioner Cantrell suggested partnering with CDFIs or credit unions for loan products, and Commissioner Young called for collaboration with OED for economic modeling.
Key Outcomes
- Direction for Staff: The task force broadly supported the recommendation to increase RN density to 32 du/acre, with a strong preference for ministerial permitting to reduce delays and costs. Staff will incorporate feedback and present a policy framework to the Planning Commission on June 24, 2026, and to City Council on August 18, 2026.
- Next Steps: The next task force meeting is June 3 (residential capacity), followed by June 17 (final meeting on urban village strategy and environmental review). The task force will vote on recommendations at the June 17 meeting.
- No Formal Vote: No motions or votes were taken during this meeting. The discussion will inform staff’s final recommendations.
Meeting Transcript
Chair of the Planning Commission and the General Plan Task Force. Welcome to the sixth meeting of the General Plan Task Force General Plan 4 Year Review. For this four-year review, the planning commission will serve as the task force. Remember, 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 a sign up sheet are available in the back as well. So first we'll start with roll call. Vice Chair Bickford is not absent. Commissioner Barossio is absent. Commissioner Bundle. Here. Commissioner Cantrell is not here yet. Commissioner Cow. Here. Commissioner Casey. Commissioner Escobar is not here yet. Commissioner Nguyen is not here yet. Commissioner Oliverio is not here. Commissioner Young. Here. And myself. But we do not need quorum to proceed with this. Is that right? Okay. Please note that public comment is listening as agenda as item number five on the agenda, and we'll take before take place before the task force discussion. You can fill out a speaker 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 staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting. With that, I'll hand it over to staff to begin with agenda item two, the agenda overview. Thank you. After that, we'll take public comment and then the task force discussion. So a brief overview on our efforts with outreach. Through the beginning of May. And uh we held these in three community centers, and the first one was at Viva Calle. We were targeting sort of trying a different approach, going to where we knew we would see and encounter a lot of people. And so this picture here is sort of most of the folks that helped both the consultant team and the staff, folks here at the table as well as other planners that were helping us with the outreach at that event. Just wanted to share a few pictures of each one of the open houses. So overall, we spoke with 832 residents, folks that came in through the city. The majority were through Viva Calle. We had a really good location at Mexican Heritage Plaza where the event, one of the hubs where it started, so we were able to capture a lot of people. Um poster boards. We had roughly 13. Five of those were had sort of an activity to engage people and seek their input. We were uh sure to have multilingual staff in attendance, um, Spanish Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Mandarin speakers to help and ensure that we're able to communicate with our diverse community in San Jose. We were also able to provide packets of the poster boards. The poster boards were in English, but we did provide um packets in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese. And lastly, we um provided activities for children, although I'm sad to say I don't think I saw any children attend. Um but we did have those activities, so it's an adult mostly adults in attendance, as well as you know, light snacks and refreshments since we did hold three of these in the evening. We are continuing with our open house virtually, and we encourage the public to um if they weren't able to attend the open houses, to scan this QR code and give us their feedback and input on our website conveyo, which is the same format, same poster boards and information that we provided in person. It's just a virtual option, and um I um let me see. Well no, I won't be able to share here, but folks can leave tag comments on the different stations and give us their feedback that way.
openpublica.com