San Jose staff backs allowing ‘missing middle’ housing at 32 units per acre, with protections and streamlined permits

City planning staff on a General Plan Task Force meeting recommended allowing ‘‘missing middle’’ housing in San Jose by increasing the city’s residential-neighborhood density cap from 8 to 32 dwelling units per acre and pairing that change with new development standards and permitting rules.

Cora McNaughton, a planner with the city, said staff’s analysis shows the RN designation applies to about 85% of land zoned residential and that raising the RN density to 32 units per acre ‘‘strikes a balance between meeting the intent of strategy P35 of the housing element and allowing a level of density that is compatible with existing single family development.’’ She added staff modeled a 40-unit-per-acre option but advised 32 as the preferred middle ground.

Why it matters: staff told the task force that the change would raise the theoretical maximum housing capacity on RN parcels substantially (staff presented a citywide theoretical capacity increase from roughly 432,000 units under current RN rules to an estimated 1.2 million units if parcels built to the proposed standards). Staff cautioned that the theoretical total does not mean all units would be built, noting development standards, owner preferences and market economics limit actual construction.

Key provisions and safeguards: staff proposed a 35-foot, three-story maximum height for most sites, potential rear stepbacks to preserve privacy, adjustments to floor area ratio and parcel-coverage rules, and a possible maximum parcel size for missing middle projects to discourage large consolidated redevelopments. Projects in flood zones, riparian areas, city landmarks or landmark districts would likely remain subject to discretionary review; staff also recommended excluding properties with rent-stabilized or rent-regulated units from being eligible for missing middle redevelopment to protect affordable units.

Permitting and appeals: staff said the intent is to allow a majority of missing-middle projects to proceed ministerially (streamlined, objective review) while retaining discretionary hearings for higher-risk sites. Manhara Sandhu, deputy director of planning, told the task force that appeal timelines vary widely — appeals can take months when environmental review or additional technical analysis is required — and that ministerial processing is a core tool to reduce delay and holding costs for small multifamily projects.

State law interaction: staff flagged Senate Bill 79 (taking effect July 1) as a significant factor because it can supersede local zoning within specified radiuses of major transit stations; where SB 79 applies, its higher densities and heights would preempt some local controls. Staff also referenced Senate Bill 9 and the State Housing Crisis Act (SB 330) when explaining prior changes that have already increased theoretical capacity.

Public reaction and task force debate: public commenters and housing advocates largely supported the framework but urged more ambitious action and additional tools. Allison Singalani of SV@Home urged the task force to pursue adaptive reuse of faith and school sites and noted staff’s preliminary estimate of roughly 500 eligible faith and school parcels citywide. SPUR’s Lori Droste recommended flexibility on setbacks and parking and urged bold allowable densities.

Opponents and concerns: members of the public and some commissioners raised worries about neighborhood character, parking and infrastructure impacts, displacement and whether higher theoretical capacity would translate into actual new homes. Staff acknowledged the uncertainty, noting local experience with ADUs and SB 9 projects shows slower take-up than theoretical models predict.

Next steps: staff will present a formal missing middle recommendation to the Planning Commission on June 24; the commission’s recommendation is expected to go to the City Council on Aug. 18. Staff said an implementation phase would follow, with modeling of specific development standards and further outreach.

The task force took no formal vote on the floor at this meeting; the discussion will continue as staff refines the zoning and implementation details.