San José staff proposes citywide shift to allow small multifamily housing, raising neighborhood density to 32 units/acre
Loading...
Summary
City planning staff recommended a citywide policy to permit small multifamily 'missing‑middle' housing without subdivision and raise residential neighborhood density from 8 to 32 units per acre, citing state laws (SB 9, SB 1123) and examples from other cities; staff will return with refined concepts after outreach.
City planning staff on April 1 told the San José Planning Commission working group they will recommend allowing small multifamily ‘‘missing‑middle’’ buildings across residential neighborhoods and creating a ministerial permit path so properties would not need to subdivide to add multiple primary units.
"The recommendation of staff is to establish a pathway for development of primary units on single‑family parcels, without the need to subdivide the property, and to set a process for ministerial permitting," principal planner Cora Rutcueto told the working group. "The base of this is to increase density from 8 units per acre to 32 units per acre in neighborhood residential designations across the city."
Why it matters: Staff said the change would allow at least four primary units on a typical 6,000‑square‑foot lot and could speed small multifamily production that state laws already make possible in many cases. Staff framed the proposal as a policy to expand housing choices at a scale compatible with single‑family streets and to distribute housing growth citywide rather than concentrating it in a few districts.
State law context: Rutcueto reviewed SB 9 and SB 1123 as background. She said SB 9 permits up to four units on a single‑family lot through duplex plus ADU configurations or subdivision, while SB 1123 (effective last July) allows subdivision of qualifying vacant lots into up to 10 parcels with a 1,200‑square‑foot minimum for resulting parcels and a roughly 20‑unit/acre density floor. "This is key context for any policy changes San José decides to make," she said.
Implementation and safeguards: Staff emphasized design standards, anti‑displacement measures and monitoring as part of implementation. Rutcueto noted overlap with other statewide tools such as density bonus provisions and replacement requirements for demolished units. "The increase in production should not come at the expense of social and racial equity," she said, and recommended developing standards and anti‑displacement protections alongside any code changes.
Comparative experience: The presentation cited other cities that have already adopted missing‑middle regulations or objective development standards, including Sacramento and Berkeley, and noted that Sacramento had received a significant number of applications under its ordinance.
Next steps: Staff said they will carry the concept to public outreach events in April and May, refine the proposal based on feedback and return to the working group with a more detailed concept and analysis (including unit‑count estimates and feasibility work) at a follow‑up meeting scheduled for May 20.
What stayed unresolved: Staff did not provide a citywide projection of net new units at this meeting; commissioners asked staff to return with that analysis. Commissioners also asked for follow‑up detail on parking, potential buffer approaches around urban villages, and feasibility for different parcel sizes. Rutcueto said those analyses would be part of the next meeting’s materials.
The working group took no formal vote; the item will return with outreach results and a refined proposal.
