San Jose Planning Commission General Plan 4-Year Review Meeting – June 3, 2026
San Jose Planning Commission General Plan 4-Year Review Meeting – June 3, 2026
The Planning Commission, serving as the task force for the seventh of eight meetings of the 2025–2026 General Plan 4-Year Review, heard updates on outreach efforts, residential capacity analyses, and site-specific recommendations along the Winchester Boulevard and Alameda corridors, as well as a review of the Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC) designation. The meeting included extensive public testimony and commissioner discussion, with no formal votes taken; staff will incorporate feedback into recommendations for the final task force meeting on June 17 and the Planning Commission meeting on June 24.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Liana Allah (third-generation resident, Cory neighborhood) opposed large multi-story apartments on North Winchester, citing traffic, parking, and safety concerns.
- Greg Carlson (Concerned Quarry Neighbors) questioned the compatibility of structures over four stories on Winchester and suggested a Willow Glen–style model with tree-lined streets, bike lanes, and controlled traffic.
- Ken Hindleman (Cory neighborhood) argued that the Winchester corridor should not be singled out for urban residential density; he recommended Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MUN) zoning instead, citing state density bonus provisions that could further increase density and worsen congestion.
- Rob Swerk (Principal Planner, VTA) reported that VTA owns about 20 TOD sites in San Jose, with potential for over 6,000 housing units (including 2,400 affordable). He highlighted recent groundbreaking and ribbon-cuttings at BART and light rail stations, and requested continued collaboration on Cerroni and Santa Teresa sites.
- Benjamin White (resident whose parcel faces Winchester) opposed the proposed 85-foot height limit, concerned it could be exceeded through state bonuses; he also noted that increased density alone does not guarantee affordability.
- Alison Cingalani (Director of Policy, SV@home) urged the task force to recommend expanding permitted uses on all PQP school lands citywide (except high fire risk areas), citing a 27% drop in public elementary school enrollment (nearly 18,000 students) over the past decade and the need for school districts to leverage land for affordable housing and community uses.
- Kelly Arardi (Director of Entitlements, VCI) supported staff’s recommendation for Urban Residential (UR) with 85-foot height limits on parcels near Valley Fair, acknowledging the influence of SB 79 and the importance of local planning discretion.
- Kevin Golden (Valley Fair resident for 50+ years) opposed the 85-foot buildings on Winchester, referencing past community opposition to the 826 North Winchester proposal and arguing such density harms existing neighborhoods.
Discussion Items
- Outreach Update (Ruth Cueto, Deputy Director of Planning): Staff conducted four in-person open houses in April–May 2026, using plain-language boards, mapping exhibits, and interactive activities. They worked with Winter Consulting and two CBOs (Vietnamese Volunteer Foundation, Los Amigos de Guadalupe) to engage underrepresented communities. An online platform received about 260 comments in multiple languages. Additionally, the Office of Racial and Social Equity held focus groups with the disability community and the San José for All advisory group. Presentations were made to the Youth Commission and neighborhood groups (Almaden Valley Community Association, District 6 Leadership Group, etc.). Staff also met with VTA to discuss TOD potential at Cerroni and Santa Teresa sites; the Cerroni site will be folded into the North San Jose Housing 2.0 work plan.
- Residential Capacity Analysis – SB 79 Impact on Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) Sites (Sanhita Ghosha, Supervising Planner): Staff evaluated SB 79 (effective July 1, 2026) on 1,243 NCC parcels (745 acres) within ½ mile of transit stops. Using criteria from the 6-cycle Housing Element (parcel size, existing use, FAR ≤0.2), they narrowed to non-residential parcels of 0.5–2.0 acres (vacant, parking, underutilized). Potential unit yield: about 1,900–6,600 units at minimum density of 30 du/ac and medium density of 100 du/ac. For comparison, all non-residential NCC parcels in that size range could yield up to 18,800 units. Staff noted this is a theoretical estimate and actual production will vary.
- Winchester Boulevard Corridor (Laura Moore, Planner): Staff conducted a site-by-site analysis of 20 NCC sites between Newhall and Forest Avenue. The corridor has very low commercial vacancy (0.6% over 10 years) but two long-vacant locations. Recommendations: change land use designations on five sites with existing residential to match density (Mixed-Use Neighborhood or Residential Neighborhood); for commercial/office sites between Forest and Fernwood (including 826 N. Winchester), change to Urban Residential with 85-foot max height (consistent with Valley Fair Urban Village Plan, which allows up to 85 ft, versus UR’s normal 135 ft). Public feedback showed mixed support, with emphasis on moderate density, preserving commercial space, and addressing traffic.
- Alameda Corridor (Laura Moore): Analysis of 73 NCC sites between I-880 and Pershing Avenue. Buildings are mostly pre-1981, many historically designated. Office vacancy rates are low (6.6% last 5 years, 3.1% over 5–10 years) versus citywide 13.8% and 9.2%, respectively. Limited infill opportunities. Staff recommended increasing density at 1860 The Alameda (Rose Garden Inn) to Urban Residential, and designating only the parking lot portion of the YMCA site (1541 The Alameda) for Urban Residential.
- Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC) Designation Analysis (David Fall, Planner): Citywide, 779 MUC parcels (218 acres), median size 6,000 sq ft. 56% of acreage is in designated growth areas. Staff categorized MUC parcels into three groups: within urban villages (41% of acreage), corridor-based sites outside urban villages (e.g., Keyes St., S. First St. – very low vacancy 0.27%), and dispersed isolated parcels (larger, median 0.78 acres). Key findings: MUC has not delivered mixed-use as intended due to small parcel sizes and state density bonus loopholes allowing waiver of commercial requirements. Staff recommended a site-by-site approach for considering redesignation to residential, prioritizing larger parcels, transit access, and underutilization while preserving viable commercial corridors.
- Task Force Discussion: Commissioners generally supported staff’s analysis but expressed concerns about specific Winchester recommendations.
- Commissioner Bandal proposed changing the six Winchester parcels recommended for UR to Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MUN) instead, arguing that preserving thriving commercial uses is important and that the UR designation could undermine community support. Staff noted that UR would yield ~295 units, while MUN would yield ~155 units.
- Commissioner Oliverio questioned the feasibility of redeveloping rent-controlled sites and the cost implications of height increases. He also inquired about “by right” approvals for small businesses, which staff said is outside the current scope.
- Commissioner Cao asked for a visual GIS tool to see parcels; staff said they would explore adding an SB 79 layer to an existing mapping tool.
- Commissioner Young supported staff’s approach, emphasizing the critical need for housing capacity and warning that without change, affordability will worsen. He noted the task force’s role is advisory to the City Council.
- Commissioner Casey found the staff recommendation reasonable given walkability to Valley Fair/Santana Row, though he acknowledged traffic concerns.
- Commissioner Cantrell felt the community’s willingness to accept moderate density should be honored, and that MUN might be a compromise.
- Commissioner Escobar remarked that the community had shown a willingness to compromise in the past and felt changing to UR was a “betrayal” of that trust.
- Commissioner Nguyen shared her personal story of relying on rent control to stay in San Jose, underscoring the need for housing production.
- Commissioner Oliverio also raised concerns about the city’s data center permits and the lack of housing for workers.
- No formal motion was made; staff confirmed they will capture all comments and present refined recommendations at the June 17 task force meeting and the June 24 Planning Commission meeting, where a vote will occur.
Key Outcomes
- No votes were taken at this meeting. The task force will meet again on June 17, 2026, for further discussion, and the Planning Commission will hold a final meeting on June 24, 2026, to adopt recommendations to the City Council.
- Staff direction: To consider commissioner comments, particularly the request by Commissioner Bandal to substitute Mixed-Use Neighborhood for Urban Residential on six Winchester parcels, and to prepare a final recommendation package.
- Next steps: Staff will develop a GIS visualization of SB 79–impacted parcels, refine capacity numbers, and incorporate public feedback. The June 24 meeting will use a consent-calendar style for efficiency.
- Pending items: Review of the online open house summary (260+ comments) and further work on PQP school lands, as urged by SV@home.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. My name is Carlos Rosario, and I'm the chair of the Planning Commission. Welcome to the seventh out of eight meetings of the 20 and 25, 2026 General Plan 4-year review. For this four-year review, the planning commission will serve as the task force. Please remember churnal cell phones, the parking validation machine for the garage underneath City Hall is located near the entrance. Agendas and a sign-up sheet are available in the back as well. We will start with the roll call. Commissioner Barroso is not here yet. Commissioner Bondal, not here. He's back there. Oh, all right. Commissioner Kentrell. Here. Commissioner Cao. Here. Commissioner Casey here. Commissioner Escobar. Here. Commissioner Nguyen. Here. Commissioner Oliverio. Here. Commissioner Young. And I am here. That makes nine of us. Please note that the public comment is listed as item number five on the agenda and will take place before task force discussion. You can fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician in the back. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two meetings. In response to public comment, the planning commission is, the task force is limited to the following options. Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public or requesting staff to report back at a matter of subsequent meeting. With that, I will hand it over to staff to begin the meeting with agenda item number two, agenda overview. Thank you, Commissioner. We will share our presentation shortly. So we will quickly go over the agenda. So the next item is going to be an update on outreach efforts, followed by the residential capacity analysis and recommendations. We will then have public comment and task force discussion. The outreach and engagement plan for the four-year review staff conducted four in-person open houses in April and May, held at various locations throughout the city. As much as possible, information was presented using plain language through informational boards, mapping exhibits, and interactive activities designed to gather input on the strategies. Planning staff worked with an engagement consultant, winter consulting, and the Office of Racial and Social Equity to execute these four events. Winter Consulting also partnered with two local community-based organizations, Vietnamese Volunteer Voluntary Foundation, and Los Amigos de Guadalupe, to support engagement and participation from underrepresented and underserved communities. These events were promoted through the project website, targeted social media posts, and email announcements, and was amplified through emails from council offices, the parks, recreation, neighborhood services, neighborhood engagement team, and the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits. In addition to the feedback received on each policy area, there were general themes heard across the four events, support for mixed-use neighborhoods with amenities, the need for deeply affordable housing, and increasing increasing transit options where we plan for growth. In addition to the in-person open houses, staff launched an online platform for the virtual open house. The picture on the left is a snippet from the website showing the Spanish version of the urban village station and a comment in Spanish calling for tenant protections and support for mid-density housing. The virtual open house was open for comments from mid-April through late May, and we received approximately 260 comments in multiple languages. A summary of that feedback will be presented at the next task force meeting. An effort led by the Office of Racial and Social Equity. Two of the focus group meetings were with the disability community, and one was conducted with San Jose for All, the advisory group to the Office of Racial and Social Equity. The current advisory group members span across the various council districts, socioeconomic backgrounds, and cultural communities. These members are also connected to the disabled community, LGBTQ community, and immigrant community.
openpublica.com