Santa Rosa planners present missing‑middle housing overlay; board and public raise parking, affordability and preservation questions

Santa Rosa planning staff presented proposed regulations to implement a missing‑middle housing zoning overlay and asked the Design Review and Preservation Board for feedback before the item goes to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Amy Nicholson, supervising planner, said the study session focused on “the regulations that would implement the missing middle housing zoning district” and described an optional combining district that would allow additional units on qualifying lots so long as projects meet specific form‑based development standards.

The proposal would create two overlay zones—“small” and “medium”—that allow building types such as duplexes, fourplexes, courtyard buildings and townhouses. Nicholson said units would generally be smaller than conventional single‑family homes (roughly 800–1,000 square feet on average), require less visible frontage parking with spaces located at the rear of lots, and emphasize shared public or private open space. She also said parcels in five of the city’s eight historic preservation districts are proposed for inclusion and would remain subject to existing landmark alteration permit requirements.

Why it matters: the overlay is intended to add “gentle density” and more yard‑level housing options in walkable neighborhoods without up‑zoning downtown mixed‑use areas. Supporters said the typologies can expand supply of smaller, lower‑cost units and increase neighborhood walkability. Opponents and several board members raised concerns about parking, long‑term affordability and legal limits on condominium ownership.

Key details

• Optional overlay and timeline: Nicholson said the overlay would be optional for property owners and that staff intends to bring the proposal to the Planning Commission on September 11 and to City Council on October 21; if adopted as proposed, she said the ordinance would take effect about 31 days after council action.

• Unit size and form: staff described “small” units commonly about 800–1,000 square feet and “medium” types allowing slightly larger multiplexes. Development standards emphasize a regulated building form (height, maximum width/depth, frontage types) rather than specific architectural styles.

• Parking and street interaction: the code de‑emphasizes visible front‑yard parking and favors rear parking or shared parking solutions; board members and the public said reduced parking requirements could aggravate street parking in some neighborhoods.

• Historic preservation: Nicholson said projects inside preservation districts would still require landmark alteration permits and remain subject to the Secretary of the Interior standards where applicable.

Public comment and board discussion

Two members of the public who spoke during the study session expressed support. Janice Korman said, “I think this is a great project,” and Mariana Aguilar asked whether the regulations were already approved; Nicholson replied, “No. Nothing has been approved yet. We are seeking feedback from this board before we go to the Planning Commission.”

Board members gave detailed feedback. Architect and board member Drew cautioned that condominium ownership carries state legal risks: “Condominiums have been kind of a dirty word in California,” he said, describing the liability and litigation risks that can affect condominium projects. Other board members and members of the public urged more clarity on minimum lot dimensions, asked whether the city could offer incentives or fee reductions to encourage use of the overlay, and pressed staff on whether courtyard and cottage court building types could be emphasized to provide protected play areas for children.

Community engagement and next steps

Nicholson said the work began in 2021 with consultant Opticos, which mapped where missing‑middle housing already exists and where walkability, transit access and general‑plan designations make the overlay appropriate. Staff mailed notices to owners identified as potential candidates and held multiple workshops. She asked the board to forward substantive feedback before staff takes the proposal to the Planning Commission and Council.

Nicholson offered to follow up with residents on specific lot‑size questions by phone or email and reiterated the schedule for formal review by the Planning Commission and City Council.