Santa Rosa design review board trained on Rosenberg rules; missing‑middle housing item will need full board

The Design Review and Preservation Board of the City of Santa Rosa received a procedural training on Rosenberg’s Rules of Order and related meeting rules, and staff told members a forthcoming citywide “missing middle” housing proposal will likely require a full board because many members may have conflicts of interest.

The training was led by Ashley Crocker, assistant city attorney, and Susie Murray, supervising planner and staff liaison to the board. Crocker described Rosenberg’s Rules as an adopted, simplified alternative to Robert’s Rules intended to “establish order and process” and help boards run efficient meetings. Murray told members the city will need a full board present for the missing‑middle item because “just about everybody on the board is gonna live within 500 feet of some property that’s affected by this,” creating the potential for recusals.

Why it matters: The guidance addresses how the board must manage recusals, ex parte contacts and quorum during quasi‑judicial reviews. If many members must recuse, the board could be left without a quorum and unable to take action, which would affect scheduling and the timeline for any design‑related approvals tied to the missing‑middle policy.

Crocker, identified as the assistant city attorney who staffs planning bodies, walked members through core points of Rosenberg’s procedure: the requirement that a quorum (four members for this board) be present to conduct business; the difference between an abstention and a recusal; the duty to disclose ex parte contacts in quasi‑judicial proceedings; and common motion types including amendments, substitute motions and the frequently used “friendly amendment.” She also reviewed public‑comment practice and vote reporting requirements, noting the public should be told whether a vote is appealable and that appeals generally must be filed within 10 days.

On recusals and conflicts, Crocker said recused members must leave the chambers, do not count toward a quorum and are precluded from participating. Murray explained the missing‑middle review is citywide in scope and could affect many properties unevenly, creating the specific conflict scenario. Murray said staff will provide a longer explanation in advance of that agenda item and that the board may need to select which members will hear and vote on particular cases by drawing names if necessary.

The board was told practical meeting mechanics as applied locally: public commenters generally have three minutes, chairs may limit time if many speakers attend, roll‑call votes will be announced with tallies, and a tie vote fails. Crocker advised members who miss an item may be permitted to vote at a continued hearing only after they have watched the entire recording of the earlier proceeding and disclose that they have done so.

Murray also asked members to respond to scheduling queries for June meeting dates; staff said the city will be closed for Juneteenth, and the board may meet June 5 or the fourth Thursday, June 26, to avoid the holiday. Murray said the June 5 meeting will include nominations for vice chair and a representative to the Waterways Advisory Committee and reiterated that a full board will be needed for the missing‑middle agenda item.

No formal votes or final actions on land‑use items were recorded at this meeting. Public comment was opened and closed with no speakers in chambers.

Looking ahead: staff will circulate training materials and a longer conflict‑of‑interest explanation; the board will consider nominations at the next meeting and await materials related to the missing‑middle housing proposal so members understand the potential recusals and how the board will handle them.