Staff recommends permitting small multifamily citywide, proposing 32 units per acre and ministerial approvals

City planning staff on March 26 proposed allowing small multifamily development across San Joses Residential Neighborhood land use designation, recommending an increase in allowable density from 8 to 32 dwelling units per acre and a ministerial (non-discretionary) permitting track to speed project approvals.

The recommendation, presented by Cora McNaughton of city planning, aims to permit primary multifamily units on single-family parcels without requiring subdivision under state laws such as SB 9 or SB 1123. McNaughton said the change is intended to simplify the current mix of state pathways, reduce permitting complexity for smaller projects and expand the types of for-sale and rental housing available in neighborhoods throughout the city.

Staff framed the proposal as part of the general plans housing element (strategy p.35). The presentation outlined how state laws already enable higher densities in many single-family zones: SB 9 allows up to four units on qualifying parcels (for example, a duplex plus up to two ADUs or a parcel split into two lots) and SB 1123 creates a pathway for subdivisions of up to 10 parcels on eligible sites. Staff reported San Jose has received 19 SB 9 duplex applications (six approved) and 73 parcel-split applications (32 approved) since SB 9 took effect locally.

Under the staff concept, a typical 6,000-square-foot parcel would be eligible for four primary units, and state ADU rules would still permit one ADU per primary unit (up to a maximum in law). Staff also noted the state density-bonus framework remains available for projects of five or more units, potentially adding additional units when projects include affordable units.

The presentation compared approaches in other cities: Berkeleys missing-middle ordinance (staff corrected a memo error to note Berkeley allows up to 70 units per acre under its rules), Sacramentos ordinance (which staff said removes a local maximum and sets objective development standards) and examples from Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis. Staff said local constraints that make small multifamily projects difficult include R-1 zoning rules that prohibit multifamily, strict local development standards (height limits, 20-foot setbacks), and uncertainty about how state laws are implemented at the local level.

Public commenters at the meeting largely supported the staff direction but pressed for additional protections and interim measures. Robert Wood, chair of the San Jose State California Faculty Associations housing committee, praised the staff approach and urged more staffing and a longer review timeline to get substantive changes implemented. Developer Jia Li asked the task force to recommend an interim ordinance using the SB 1123 threshold (19.8 units per acre) so projects could move ahead while the general-plan amendment and CEQA review proceed. Several speakers urged stronger anti-displacement measures, fee changes to help small builders, and robust outreach to underrepresented groups.

Robert Zwerk, principal planner at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), told the task force VTA staff supports the ministerial-processing approach, saying it is consistent with transit goals to increase ridership and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Community members including neighborhood association representatives asked staff to consider protections for long-standing neighborhoods and to evaluate potential infrastructure impacts, such as parking, sewer capacity and tree canopy.

Commissioners used the discussion to probe feasibility and design questions. Commissioner Bajo (addressing staff during the discussion) praised the memo and asked whether the proposed density would "pencil out" for developers; staff said they plan to return with financial-feasibility analysis and could model higher density options. Commissioners also asked staff to analyze parking outcomes under post-2023 parking reforms (the city has removed parking minimums), the scope of displacement risk and the trade-offs between citywide versus village-by-village buffer approaches. Several commissioners asked staff to return with an analysis of a 40 units-per-acre scenario and possible sliding scales by parcel size.

Staff recommended next steps that include continued public outreach (open houses planned for April and May and targeted focus groups for youth and disability communities organized with the Office of Racial and Social Equity) and a follow-up task force meeting focused on missing-middle policy details on May 20. McNaughton said the proposal would be refined based on public and task force feedback and that staff would bring additional analysis on feasibility, parking practices used in recent post-2023 developments, and potential interim policy options.

No formal action or vote was taken at the meeting; the task force adjourned after commissioner discussion and requests for follow-up analysis.