TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND FROM: Mayor Matt Mahan
CITY COUNCIL Vice Mayor Pam Foley
Councilmember Pamela Campos
Councilmember Anthony Tordillos
Councilmember Michael Mulcahy
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: October 16, 2026
Approved Date October 16, 2026
SUBJECT: Citywide Planning Work Plan Prioritization
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve recommendation (a) Adopt the current proposed prioritization of the Citywide Planning work plan through December 2027 based on existing City Council direction with the following modifications:
a. Defer work on “GP 4-Year: Retail in Residential Neighborhood” until after the determination of the Missing Middle densities, and
b. Add the Child Care Policy project to the current work plan.
2. Approve recommendation (b) Direct staff to return in November 2027, and annually thereafter, to prioritize the Citywide Planning work plan through the next 18-month period and,
3. As part of the analysis of Missing Middle densities (16, 24, and 32 du/ac), direct the City Manager to evaluate a tiered approach to density under Housing Element Policy P-35 that calibrates allowable density with access to transit.
a. The evaluation should include consideration of densities above 32 du/ac for Residential Neighborhood (RN) designated sites near the Downtown Core. b. Develop a community outreach and engagement plan related to this work and report this plan through an information memorandum by end of December 2026. c. After completing community outreach work, return to council by end of March 2027 with this updated analysis.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: 10/20/2026
FILE: 26-1079
ITEM: 8.1
BACKGROUND
We support maintaining the Current Proposed Work Plan, as it balances the need to meet state mandates and obligations while responding to Council direction. We recognize that 90 percent of Citywide Planning’s workplan is currently driven by state mandates and requirements. That work protects our local control and our eligibility for state and regional funding. Beyond statemandated work, Council has also directed the Citywide Planning team to advance other local priorities and General Plan goals. One example is making it easier to build affordable housing on Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) land through the 1.5-acre rule and PQP Framework.
Planning is nuanced, and the pattern of development that a policy encourages can vary block by block. Rather than settle on one citywide density for Missing Middle housing, we are directing staff to evaluate a tiered approach within the density analysis Council has already directed under Housing Element Policy P-35. Higher densities would apply near transit, and lower densities in neighborhoods with limited transit access or high fire hazard. This approach can meet our overall housing goals while respecting real differences between neighborhoods. Because it is part of the existing analysis rather than a new study, it gives staff clearer direction to return with the analysis no later than March 2027, without expanding the work plan.
Missing Middle density levels, development standards, and design guidelines will inform the approach to “GP 4-Year: Retail in Residential Neighborhood,” including location of and development standards for new retail uses. It is therefore appropriate to defer work on this project.
Completing state-mandated planning work is necessary for legal obligations and funding.
However, Council policy priorities drive the local solutions that make San José more affordable for families and create opportunities for small businesses. While we acknowledge that this approach will defer some of this work, it does not end it. We remain committed to finding resources to advance priorities such as:
1. Vacant Storefronts Analysis, which would evaluate a ministerial demolition permit to help return long-vacant commercial and industrial sites to productive use.
2. Local Density Bonus Program, which would give Missing Middle projects a local alternative to state density bonus law.
The signers of this memorandum have not had, and will not have, any private conversation with any other member of the City Council, or that member’s staff, concerning any action discussed in the memorandum, and that each signer’s staff members have not had, and have been instructed not to have, any such conversation with any other member of the City Council or that member's staff.