Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses allowing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single‑family districts amid strong neighborhood response
Summary
The commission continued a policy discussion on allowing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single‑family districts, an initiative aimed at increasing “missing middle” housing but that prompted sustained neighborhood concern.
The Planning Commission held an extended discussion of draft code changes that would permit duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single‑family residential districts (R‑1/R‑2). The item is a staff‑led initiative and a standing committee on housing has proposed allowing duplexes by building permit subject to standards while leaving triplexes and fourplexes to conditional use review.
Staff said the change is intended to address the “missing middle” identified in the city’s 2020 housing market study, which estimated a multi‑thousand‑unit shortage of affordable and workforce housing over 20 years and found that a large share of the city’s residential land is limited to single‑family use. The committee proposed standards to limit impacts: minimum lot width (for example, 37 feet), driveway width limits, street‑front trees, architectural compatibility, alley access for parking where available, and measures to limit concentration of multiplexes.
The discussion drew broad public comment. Dozens of residents — many from College Hill and Potwin — urged preservation of historic neighborhood character and told commissioners that conversions of older single‑family homes into multi‑unit rentals have, in some cases, led to deterioration, code‑enforcement problems and crime. Speakers said they support accessory dwelling units but opposed blanket up‑zoning that they say would enable absentee landlords to convert owner‑occupied homes into multi‑unit rentals. Supporters of loosening restrictions said allowing more small‑scale multifamily units will increase housing supply and can be structured to favor owner‑occupied or well‑designed infill.
Commissioners discussed alternatives including conditional‑use pathways, concentration limits, historic‑district compatibility standards and whether standards should be ordinance‑level or handled as guidelines within a CUP. Staff and the committee plan follow‑up meetings, additional outreach and another public hearing; no regulatory change was adopted at this meeting.
