During the June 24 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners voted to advance all the staff recommendations, except for a controversial plan to upzone portions of Winchester Boulevard, which deadlocked the body in a series of divided votes.<\/p>\n
The city council is expected to review the proposals Aug.\u00a018.<\/p>\n
At this stage in the years-long general plan review process, the recommendations \u2014 hammered out over 10 months of special meetings \u2014 offer only a framework for guiding future policy deliberations.<\/p>\n
It will still be more than a year before concrete policy changes are actually approved, but several flashpoints have already emerged as the city faces competing demands from residents and housing advocates.<\/p>\n
Multifamily housing\u00a0<\/p>\n
A central question driving this process has been where San Jose should change its zoning to make room for the 62,000 additional homes<\/a> the city must plan for to satisfy its state-mandated housing targets.<\/p>\n Among the most controversial recommendations to increase housing capacity is a proposal to quadruple the density limits for much of the city\u2019s residential neighborhoods. In practice, planners said this will open up these properties, historically zoned for single-family housing, to developments with up to 4 to 10 homes, depending on the lot size. Such \u201cmissing middle<\/a>\u201d housing, as it\u2019s referred to by planners, could run the gamut from duplexes to townhomes to small apartment complexes.<\/p>\n The proposal has worried some residents, who warn many neighborhoods do not have the infrastructure capacity or transit options to absorb so many new homes.<\/p>\n \u201cHow many people want 14-units next door with no parking,\u201d exclaimed one resident during an Almaden neighborhood community meeting held in May. \u201cNobody wants this.\u201d<\/p>\n Housing advocates are pressuring the city from the other direction. In a letter addressed to the planning commission, a coalition of advocacy groups described the proposed upzoning as a move in the right direction. Nevertheless, they warned it would still fall short of what is needed to create projects large enough to actually make financial sense for developers facing spiraling construction costs<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWe go through these exercises, but we\u2019re not always able to respond to what\u2019s happening in the development world,\u201d\u00a0Alex Shoor, executive director of Catalyze SV, told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cUltimately, it\u2019s about the big picture.\u201d<\/p>\n The advocates complain that the proposed planning overhaul also fails to address a number of longstanding issues. In particular, they are urging the city to do more to reform its \u201cUrban Village\u201d strategy, which aims to add more housing by creating dense, walkable neighborhoods, but by many accounts<\/a> has delivered mixed results since it was launched more than a decade ago.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s no question we\u2019re still losing (the fight to get housing built), and lots of questions as to whether these changes will turn the tide,\u201d Shoor said.<\/p>\n New uses for public land\u00a0<\/p>\n Housing advocates<\/a> are also pushing the city to make it easier to build homes on underused public property and institutional land. For example, they argue that plummeting enrollment<\/a> in the city\u2019s public schools could open up a prime opportunity to transform school land into affordable homes<\/a> \u2014 if the city loosened its zoning rules to allow such projects.<\/p>\n The proposals seek to address the issue, asking staff to draw up a framework to change land use designations for properties on a case-by-case basis. But the advocates are demanding more sweeping reforms that would change the rules for all of these properties at once.<\/p>\n \u201cThe recommended approach means that some schools and congregations would have these opportunities while others would not,\u201d Alison Cingolani, director of policy at nonprofit SV@Home, told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cIt could also make it harder for institutions with limited resources to pursue community-serving redevelopment, increasing the likelihood that properties are sold instead of being reinvested to benefit their communities.\u201d<\/p>\n In laying out the policy recommendations during the June planning commission meeting, staff warned that if the city loosens land use controls too much, many neighborhoods could lose crucial community gathering spaces.<\/p>\n \u201cIn order to preserve a suitable inventory of public and private-serving community uses, we recommend a nuanced approach rather than a wholesale change,\u201d Jerad Ferguson, a planner with San Jose\u2019s Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, said during the meeting.<\/p>\n Cory neighbors revolt\u00a0<\/p>\n The fiercest pushback has been directed at a plan to open up several properties along Winchester Boulevard to mid-rise residential construction. Under the proposal, maximum height limits for about a dozen parcels near Santana Row \u2014 mostly one- and two-story buildings that house small businesses \u2014 would increase to eight stories.<\/p>\n![\"In-line](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/interactive-321838904008.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n