Item 19 2023-01225 Missing Middle Housing Study Preliminary Recommendations & Considerations for Draft 2040 General Plan Proposed Floor Area Ratios PART 1 — Sacramento City Council, October 24, 2023

City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2023-01225 10/24/2023 Public Hearing Item 19.

Missing Middle Housing Study: Preliminary Recommendations and Considerations for the Draft 2040 General Plan Proposed Floor Area Ratios
File ID: 2023-01225
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Review and comment on the Missing Middle Housing Study’s Preliminary Recommendations and Considerations for the Draft 2040 General Plan Proposed Floor Area Ratios.

Contact: Nguyen Nguyen, Associate Planner, (916) 808-1964, [email protected]; Matt Hertel, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager, (916) 808-7158, [email protected], Community Development Department
Presenter: Nguyen Nguyen, Associate Planner, (916) 808-1964, [email protected], Community Development Department; Alex Steinberger, Managing Partner, Cascadia Partners (MMH Study consultant)
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis and Background
2-Self-Guided Online Workshop Boards
3-Summary of MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations
4-Map of Proposed MMH Districts
5-Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Factsheets
6-Report 2 of Study: MMH Attainability and Livability Analysis 7-Report 1 of Study: MMH Informational Report
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: In January 2021, City Council directed staff to proceed with 10 Key Strategies as part of the 2040 General Plan Update. Subsequently, in 2022, the City was awarded a grant from the State and administered by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments to initiate the Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Study (Study). The Study will provide recommendations for how the City can thoughtfully implement the 2040 General Plan Key Strategy to “permit a greater array of housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in existing single-unit neighborhoods.” Missing Middle Housing (MMH) is a range of small multi-unit housing types that are neighborhood- or

Page 1 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-01225 10/24/2023 Public Hearing Item 19.
house-scale, which helps them to blend in well with the fabric of existing neighborhoods, and are often found in walkable areas. This study is particularly focused on ADUs (accessory dwelling units), duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, and small homes on small lots. MMH types are ‘middle’ in form and scale between that of single-family houses and larger apartment buildings. With smaller units, MMH can provide housing at price points more attainable to ‘middle’-income individuals and households.

Over the past year, the project team’s focus has been on developing preliminary recommendations to allow a greater array of housing types throughout Sacramento, working with other City departments, to ensure that they are responsive to community input as well as the analysis conducted to date.

Staff is collecting input on these recommendations through a Self-Guided Online Workshop ( sacramentommh.konveio.com) that was launched on October 5 and will remain open until November

3. The community feedback received in Phase 1 of the study (Information Sharing and Gathering) has helped to shape the engagement framework for Phase 2 (Solutions and Recommendations).

Residents emphasized the importance of open space, trees, compatibility, attainability, and addressing displacement risk. These considerations can be encapsulated by the following three key questions, which the preliminary recommendations strive to be responsive to:

1. What could MMH look like in Sacramento?

2. Will it be lower-cost and attainable?

3. How can the City promote home-ownership and address potential displacement through MMH?
One of the study’s key reports, the MMH Attainability & Livability Analysis (Report), is available on the project website (www.cityofsacramento.org/MMH) and is included with this staff report as Attachment

6. This Report discusses key regulatory considerations for implementation, the feasibility and attainability of different MMH types, and characteristics that contribute to the livability of MMH.

During the presentation, staff will present an overview of the preliminary recommendations and how they thoughtfully respond to key considerations raised by the community (see Attachments 2 to 4).

These recommendations are ‘preliminary’ in nature, with a few being shared as high-level concepts.

Input from the community, Planning and Design Commission, and City Council will help to shape the specific details for many of these recommendations.

As part of the presentation, staff will also share thoughts on how the proposed Missing Middle approach is reflective of the feedback received on the draft 2040 General Plan regarding increasing maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) near high-frequency transit stops and could be an effective way to help advance the City’s sustainability goals and transit-oriented development (TOD) policies.

Staff is seeking feedback from the City Council to help shape the Study’s final recommendations and

Page 2 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-01225 10/24/2023 Public Hearing Item 19.
potential revisions to the draft 2040 General Plan proposed maximum floor area ratios (FARs), including the incorporation of a FAR sliding scale and a Missing Middle Housing district approach.

More information on the work completed in the Study’s earlier phase can be found in the background section of this report. Staff developed a series of MMH Factsheets to provide a concise overview of key information that was covered in the Study’s Phase 1, which is included as Attachment 5.

Next Steps
A self-guided online workshop (sacramentommh.konveio.com) on the Study’s preliminary recommendations is available for public participation until November 3. To encourage community input, staff held an in-person event on October 4 and is hosting two webinars on October 5 & 19, providing opportunities for community members to chat with the project team about the recommendations. Staff also presented the preliminary recommendations to the Planning and Design Commission on October 12. The feedback will help shape the final recommendations that will be shared at the conclusion of this study.

Findings of this study will be shared as four key reports:
1) MMH Informational Report - Attachment 7 (also available on project website) 2) MMH Attainability & Livability Analysis - Attachment 6 (also available on project website) 3) Displacement Risk Assessment - in progress
4) MMH Zoning and Design Recommendations - in progress
After the conclusion of the Study, following the adoption of the 2040 General Plan, staff will implement the Study’s final recommendations through amendments to the City’s Planning & Development Code.

Policy Considerations: This Study is exploring ways that the City can thoughtfully implement one of the 2040 General Plan 10 Key Strategies approved by Council in January 2021 to “permit a greater array of housing types in existing single-unit neighborhoods.” This key strategy is consistent with the 2040 General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles adopted by Council in November 2019.

Additionally, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, adopted by Council in December 2021, includes the following policy under Goal 4, Advancing Equity and Inclusion, related to increasing the availability of housing for more residents at various income levels:

H-4.1 Expand Housing Types Throughout the City. The City shall take meaningful actions to allow for a greater array of housing types throughout the city to create more inclusive and equitable neighborhoods and to affirmatively further fair housing.

Economic Impacts: Allowing a greater array of housing types in existing single-unit neighborhoods will increase lower-cost housing options and reduce regulatory barriers to the overall production of

Page 3 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-01225 10/24/2023 Public Hearing Item 19.
housing. It can also support neighborhood development by enabling incremental housing development at the ‘missing middle’ scale that can be taken on by local homeowners and entrepreneurs, which can empower local homeowners and builders to reinvest in our communities and provide much-needed housing. It also provides economic opportunities for homeowners in the city to house multi-generational households or earn passive retirement income. By promoting the creation of a greater variety of housing types, MMH can foster a more diverse and dynamic community with benefits for both residents and local businesses.

Additionally, implementing MMH has the potential to increase housing affordability by creating a broader range of attainable options for residents, such as seniors, students, and multi-generational housing. There has been a downward trend in average household size and an increasing number of elderly residents on a fixed income who need affordable age-friendly housing options as they retire and downsize. MMH will allow the market to respond to this growing need. Increasing the availability and attainability of housing will improve the ability for all residents to better their economic situations, reduce poverty and homelessness, and promote social integration.

Environmental Considerations: The informational update in this report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it is an administrative activity that does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(4) and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3).

Sustainability: A sustainable community should provide a variety of housing options for current and future households. Increasing housing production and attainability, particularly near high-frequency transit stops, will assist in creating a sustainable Sacramento and provide a platform for sustainable economic growth. Additionally, by being smaller in design and requiring less energy to heat and cool, MMH are more energy efficient than their larger single-family counterparts. Missing Middle Housing has the potential to reduce further sprawling development patterns and support low-carbon modes of transport, while also blending into the fabric of existing neighborhoods.

Commission/Committee Action: An overview of the City’s Missing Middle Housing (MMH) initiative was presented to the Planning and Design Commission on December 1, 2022, where staff shared baseline information on MMH as well as a summary of outreach findings from the study’s Phase 1 engagement events. On October 12, 2023, the Planning and Design Commission provided their review and comments on the Study’s preliminary recommendations, as well as their input on Missing Middle considerations for the draft 2040 General Plan proposed floor area ratios (FARs).

Rationale for Recommendation: The City continues to look at ways to reduce regulatory barriers and costs for new housing developments, while pursuing new sources of local, state and federal affordable housing funding. These combined efforts will increase the availability of housing for more

Page 4 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-01225 10/24/2023 Public Hearing Item 19.
residents at various income levels. City Council has directed staff to proceed with the 2040 General Plan Key Strategy “to permit a greater array of housing types in existing single-unit neighborhoods.” Input from the City Council is being sought to guide and ensure that this effort and the subsequent development of zoning and design recommendations are responsive to the City’s housing, climate, and equity goals.

Financial Considerations: No financial considerations pertain to this review and comment item.

This study is funded by the State’s Regional Early Action Planning grant, administered by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments to help accelerate the production of housing.

Background
The Study aims to inform conversation around Missing Middle Housing (MMH) and should be considered as part of a broader community discussion on housing solutions and the many other City housing-focused strategies. This initiative includes extensive citywide engagement and analysis to ultimately develop land use, design, and policy recommendations for citywide implementation of a Missing Middle Housing strategy. Several factsheets on MMH that provide a concise overview of key information that was covered in Phase 1 of the Study have been included as Attachment 5.

The desired outcomes of this initiative include:
· Develop a place-based, community-vetted approach to enable housing diversity, livability and attainability.
· Empower residents to invest in their community through neighborhood-scale projects that can create generational wealth and produce new housing.
· Increase reliance on local investors and builders to provide much-needed housing that can help build community wealth & ownership over time.
· Establish zoning and design recommendations to enable MMH that is suitable for Sacramento.

Phase 1 Engagement
This Study consists of two phases: Phase 1 - Information Sharing and Gathering, which concluded December 2022, and Phase 2 - Solutions and Recommendations. During Phase 1, the focus was on sharing information about MMH with the community and hearing from residents about potential challenges to implementing MMH. Outreach conducted in this phase included:
· Interviews with the Mayor’s and Councilmembers’ offices, and City leadership (May 2022) · Neighborhood Small Group Meetings (in-person and virtual) with neighborhood leaders, housing advocates, business leaders, representatives from community-based organizations (CBOs), and community partners, for a total of 32 hours of engagement (June 2022) · Meeting with the City’s Housing Policy Working Group for their technical expertise on housing- related challenges (September 2022)

Page 5 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-01225 10/24/2023 Public Hearing Item 19.
· Meeting with the City’s Community Ambassadors (September 2022) · Open House series that consisted of 2 full-day, in-person events and 2 half-day virtual events, including a Saturday session, for a total of 24 public meeting hours (October 2022) · Online questionnaires with self-guided workshop content that was circulated and promoted for 3 weeks (October/November 2022)
Over the course of the open house series and the following three weeks of promotion, the project team received and recorded input from approximately 490 respondents. A summary of Phase 1 outreach findings can be found on the project website.

The project team also engaged with neighborhood groups, community partners, and community- based organizations (CBOs) to encourage participation from under-represented communities. To that end, the two full-day, in-person open house events were held at the 1913 Del Paso venue in North Sacramento and the Florin Creek Recreation Center in South Sacramento in an effort to make the events more accessible to residents from these two under-represented areas of the city. A highlight video of the in-person open house events can be viewed here:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVFssH07HgY>.

Additional Background Information
The following questions and responses help to provide additional background and context to the Key Strategy of the 2040 General Plan and the Missing Middle Housing Implementation Study.

What is Missing Middle Housing (MMH)?
For the purpose of this Study, the term Missing Middle Housing refers to house-scale buildings that contain more than one home such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and bungalow courts, usually built to the same scale as surrounding single-unit homes. These house-scale buildings are ‘middle’ in form and scale, between single-family and large multi-family buildings. They also can deliver homes at price points that are more attainable for ‘middle’-income households, including both rental and entry-level home-ownership opportunities. The reason why they are ‘missing’ is because due to many barriers, including zoning barriers, these housing types have not been produced by the market for many decades. Historically, these types of housing were once common in early cities across America, in fact, over 3,500 duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes exist already throughout Sacramento’s single-unit zones.

Why is this strategy being considered?
Through over two years of outreach for the 2040 General Plan Update, several priorities have risen to the top: climate change, equity, inclusive economic development and, of course, housing availability and affordability. Faced with steep increases in both rent and home prices caused by a severe housing shortage as well as limited housing options available ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Flsg_mzG-M), residents have expressed that they want a city

Page 6 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-01225 10/24/2023 Public Hearing Item 19.
where people of all backgrounds and income levels can afford to live. Sacramento needs a lot more housing, particularly housing that is lower in cost (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOjj3wdDcaY) and more attainable for our residents. For us to meet this tremendous need, we must build more attainable housing types that do not require subsidy, such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, courtyard communities, and small homes on small lots.

These MMH types are not regulated affordable housing, but by naturally being lower in cost than single-family products, can help to house many of our middle-income residents, hence the term ‘missing middle,’ and add to the City’s overall supply of housing ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQGQU0T6NBc). These MMH types are not only more attainable rental options but could also provide opportunities for entry-level homeownership. The majority of the City’s neighborhoods are currently zoned for single-unit homes, the most expensive housing type to own or rent. Because of this lack of options, if you want to live in the City, you are largely limited to buying or renting the most expensive housing type on the market.

Additionally, by restricting the majority of the City’s neighborhoods to one housing type, existing zoning rules reinforce housing and social disparities among our communities ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/exclusionary-zoning-its-effect-on-racial -discrimination-in-the-housing-market/). This strategy will not solve these disparities on its own but would signify a big step towards equity and inclusivity, or at least, remove a significant barrier to achieving that goal. This proposal can also help to create a more sustainable city by providing housing closer to employment, transit, and amenities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. In addition, research have shown that smaller homes carry a smaller carbon footprint than their larger counterparts (
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-16/america-s-supersized-homes-are-making-us- less-energy-efficient).

The cost to rent or own a place in Sacramento has become more expensive. Would these housing types be cheaper?
According to research from Realtor.com, the Sacramento region saw the fifth highest increase in rental prices among the nation’s 50 largest metro areas in 2021 ( https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article257741173.html). By the end of 2021, the median monthly rent in the Sacramento region reached $2,103, an alarming increase of 19.5% from 2020, placing Sacramento’s rents at an equivalent price point as the Washington, D.C., and Seattle metro areas (as of December 2021). A further breakdown of Realtor.com’s data shows that the median monthly rent for a studio apartment in the Sacramento region in 2021 was $1,945; a one-bedroom was $1,973; and a two-bedroom was $2,239. Vacancy rates are extremely low and the demand for housing is significantly greater than supply.

Townhouses typically cost 30 percent less per unit, and apartments 50 percent less, than comparable quality single-family homes (https://www.vtpi.org/ihasc.pdf). Additionally, research indicates that building middle-priced housing increases long-term regional affordability through a process called

Page 7 of 8 ends

File ID: 2023-01225 10/24/2023 Public Hearing Item 19.
filtering - as new market-rate housing is built, higher-income people move into it, leaving behind older housing stock for lower-income people (
https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/100293-how-filtering-increases-housing-affordability). Studies indicate that increasing housing supply will tend to reduce housing prices, particularly over a longer period. You can check out this short video from the Sightline Institute to learn more about the filtering process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQGQU0T6NBc.

The City of Portland found that allowing these smaller units throughout the city could reduce average housing costs by 56% over a 20-year period. As a part of this study, the City will conduct an economic analysis to understand to what extent allowing MMH types will produce more attainable housing options (
https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
08/exhibit_b_volume_3_all_appendices_adopted1_1.pdf).

Does Missing Middle Housing have the potential to help combat the climate crisis? How? Research finds that residential energy use accounts for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States, and that in addition to decarbonizing our energy consumption and increasing the energy efficiency of our homes, fundamental changes to the built form of our communities are necessary to meet global GHG reduction goals ( https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1922205117). These changes include incentivizing smaller homes that have reduced energy demands per capita compared with their larger single-family counterparts (
https://ideas.ted.com/how-to-reduce-home-energy-electricity-consumption-and-emissions/). MMH types are smaller by design and require less energy to heat and cool, making them more energy efficient. By being the “Goldilocks” in terms of scale and size, MMH has the potential to reduce further sprawling development patterns and support low-carbon modes of transport, while also blending into the fabric of existing neighborhoods (
https://www.ted.com/talks/vishaan_chakrabarti_a_vision_of_sustainable_housing_for_all_of_humanit y/transcript?language=en).

Page 8 of 8 ends

Place-Based Analysis
The first step is to understand the "DNA" of Sacramento's neighborhoods, which directly informs MMH recommendations.

What are Context Types?
Context types are a way to map the existing built environment, analyzing existing street and block patterns, connectivity and access to transit, jobs and amenities, built form, use and intensity of development. Context types thus reveal the variety of physical environments existing in Sacramento, and provide a framework for applying Missing Middle Housing (MMH) citywide.

Six context types were identified in Sacramento. Of these, three are highly appropriate for MMH and are the focus of this study.

How did we identify context types?
Compact + Connected
The Compact + Connected
context type includes places
where a person can (easily) walk
or bike to home, work, and to
fulfill most daily needs, including
shopping and recreation.

Transitional
The Transitional context type
includes those places where a
person can walk or bike and a car
is needed for some but not all
daily trips.

Low-Scale Residential
The Low-Scale Residential context
type includes places in which
access to work, recreation, retail,
and other uses typically requires
a car. These areas are not very
supportive of walkability at
present.

The context types are the result of a place-based analysis of existing neighborhoods in Sacramento that included:

For each context type, we asked two
key questions:

Context Types
Downtown Core
Corridors + Centers
Compact + Connected
Transitional
Low-Scale Residential
Large Infill Sites
Families with
Young Children
Larger + Multi-
Generational Families
Couples RoommatesSingles
Retirees +
Empty-Nesters
Seniors
Which household types would typically
choose to live here?
Live-Work
Which MMH types work best?
Triplex
Fourplex
Multiplex
Townhouse
Cottage Court
Courtyard
Building
Multi-Generational
House+ + +
Zoning + Land Use.

First, we analyzed the
zoning and allowed land
uses under the General
Plan to understand
existing location and
intensity of various
uses, as well as areas of
potential intensification
and growth.

Built Form. The next
step involved the analysis
of the existing physical
character by looking
at prevalent built form
patterns - the intensity
of development, types of
buildings, and mix of uses.

Connectivity + Access
to Amenities. Next, we
examined street and
block sizes, levels of
connectivity, and access
to transit, jobs, schools,
amenities and services
to identify areas that are
walkable and have good
access to resources.

Lot Sizes. Lastly, all
residential parcels were
categorized based on
lot width and depth.

This allowed the team
to identify which MMH
types would fit on each lot
based on typical building
dimensions, access, off-
street parking and other
considerations.

Question 1: What could MMH look like in Sacramento?
Tell us what
you think!
WORKSHOP TWO: CONNECTING THE DOTS

SACRAMENTO

MISSING MIDDLE

HOUSING STUDY
CITY OF SACRAMENTO • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , PLANNING DIVISION WITH OPTICOS DESIGN cityofsacramento.org/mmh
[email protected]
Recommendations:

Built Form
MMH Example: Fourplex + ADU
Question 1: What could MMH look like in Sacramento?
The following built form recommendations for Missing
Middle can ensure that they are compatible in size and
scale with single-unit neighborhoods.

Built Form
Recommendations
Building form, size, orientation,
open space and other aspects of
MMH will be regulated to ensure
neighborhood compatibility,
and that open space and tree
protection will be prioritized.

Preliminary recommendations
for updating the City's existing
development standards to
accommodate MMH types are
listed below and described in the
following boards.

The illustration above
shows a fourplex on a
corner lot in the Land Park
neighborhood. The fourplex
provides additional housing
units but fits seamlessly
into the neighborhood,
similar in size and scale to
the adjacent single-family
houses. The diagram on
the left highlights the key
aspects of built form by
color, that will be regulated
for MMH types.

The recommendations will
regulate building scale and
form but not architectural
style. The illustration to
the left shows the same
fourplex as above, but with
a different architectural
character.

Shared Open Space
Tree Protection and
Planting
Driveway Width
Projection into Front
Setback
Functional Porch as an
Active Frontage
Shared Waste Receptacles
Modified Bulk Control
Envelope
Additional Units with
Street-Facing Entrances
Dormers to Provide More
Usable Roof Space
MMH Districts
Open Space + Tree
Protection
Front Setbacks +
Street Frontages
Minimum Lot Size
Building Envelope
Driveway Design
Waste Collection
Privacy Standards
Approval Process
1 2
3 4
6 8
5 7
9 Tell us what
you think!
WORKSHOP TWO: CONNECTING THE DOTS

SACRAMENTO

MISSING MIDDLE

HOUSING STUDY
CITY OF SACRAMENTO • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , PLANNING DIVISION WITH OPTICOS DESIGN cityofsacramento.org/mmh
[email protected]
Recommendations:

Built Form
What could MMH look like?
Even though MMH
means more units will
be allowed per lot, the
buildings will still be
house-scaled.

House-scale means these new
buildings will be compatible in
scale and form with existing
residences. MMH building
types look very similar to single-
family homes even though
they contain multiple units. To
the right are examples of MMH
types that will be allowed in
each MMH district.

Tier 3 District (6+2)
The Tier 3 District covers a small
portion (0.26 percent) of residential
parcels found in the city's central
core in the Compact + Connected
context type. Areas in this district are
very walkable, within half a mile from
transit, have small to medium-sized
lots with alley access, and are well-
suited to support MMH types such as
a sixplex. This tier will allow up to six
primary units and two ADUs.

Tier 1 District (2+2)
The Tier 1 District covers the majority of
the city's residential neighborhoods (48
percent of the city's residential-zoned
land) and is characterized as the Low-
Scale Residential context type, which
includes single unit neighborhoods
with small to medium-sized lots. Most
areas have limited walkability and
transit access, and a car is typically
needed for daily needs. This district
would allow up to two primary units
and two ADUs.

Tier 2 District (4+2)
Tier 2 District covers the city's Compact
+ Connected and Transitional context
types, areas that are typically walkable,
have good access to amenities and
are within a ten-minute walk (half a
mile) from high-frequency transit.

These areas cover about 31 percent of
residential-zoned land, and typically
have small to medium lots, many with
alley access. These characteristics are
supportive of MMH types such as a
fourplex. This district would allow up to
four primary units and two ADUs.

Missing Middle Housing Districts
■ MMH is proposed to be allowed in the R-1, R-1A, R-1B, and R-2 zoning districts (the focus of the MMH study) in the form of MMH districts. ■ For context, the R-1 zone covers over 70 percent of the City’s residential- zoned land area, and the R-1B zone mostly occurs in the Central City. ■ Three tiers of MMH districts are proposed, with varying development intensity and housing unit caps that respond to the existing context, built environment, level of connectivity and access to jobs, amenities and transit.

The table below shows the relationship between the existing zoning districts and the proposed MMH districts, and compares the number of units currently allowed in each zone with what is being recommended in the corresponding MMH districts.
■ The proposed MMH Districts, reflecting community input on the draft 2040 General Plan, aim to increase housing opportunities within a half-mile walking distance of high-frequency transit stops, presenting a promising strategy for advancing the City's sustainability and transit- oriented development (TOD) objectives. Input received will inform potential revisions to the draft 2040 General Plan, including the incorporation of this recommendation — a MMH district approach.

Question 1: What could MMH look like in Sacramento?
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Proposed MMH
Districts
1 4
(2 primary units + 2
ADUs)
6 (4 primary units + 2
ADUs)
8 (6 primary units + 2
ADUs)
48% of residential-zoned
land in Sacramento

30.8% of residential-zoned
land in Sacramento

0.26% of residential-zoned
land in Sacramento

What is currently
allowed?
1 R-1A R-1 R-1B
4 (2 primary + 2 ADUs)
3 to 4
(1-2 primary + 2 ADUs2)
4 (2 primary + 2 ADUs)
14% 30% 0.26%
R-1 R-2
3 to 4
(1-2 primary + 2 ADUs2)
4 (2 primary + 2 ADUs)
34% 0.5%
R-1B
4 (2 primary + 2 ADUs)

0.3%

1 State law also allows 1 Junior ADU (JADU). The allowed JADU is not included in the table because it is an uncommon unit type that must be contained entirely within a primary dwelling, be no more than 500 square feet, can include an efficiency kitchen and may share bathroom with primary unit.

For more information on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) visit www.adu.cityofsacramento.org 2 On corner and deep lots of 125+ feet or for a Senate Bill 9 (SB9) application, up to 4 units (2 primary + 2 ADUs) are allowed.

Note: Development in historic districts will need to fully comply with the City's Historic District Plans that include standards, guidelines, and criteria consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 0 6,000 12,000 18,0003,000
Feet
Sacramento Missing Middle Housing
Attainability and Livability Analysis
Sacramento, CA
October 2023
Proposed MMH Districts
Legend
Historic Districts
Proposed MMH District
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Transit
Light Rail (Existing)
Light Rail Stations
Future Green Line
Future Light Rail Stations
High-Frequency Bus
Routes (1, 51)
Proposed MMH Districts
Tier 1 District (2+2)
Tier 2 District (4+2)
Tier 3 District (6+2)
Existing Light Rail
Future Green Line
High-Frequency Bus Routes
1 Tell us what
you think!
WORKSHOP TWO: CONNECTING THE DOTS

SACRAMENTO

MISSING MIDDLE

HOUSING STUDY
CITY OF SACRAMENTO • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , PLANNING DIVISION WITH OPTICOS DESIGN cityofsacramento.org/mmh
[email protected]
On-site Open Space
What are the current standards?
■ Single-unit/duplex dwellings do not have open space requirements. ■ For 3+ units, 100 square feet of on-site open space must be provided for each unit beyond the first two units, and setback areas cannot be counted toward open space requirement.
■ Deviations from standards to protect existing trees require a public hearing, which creates uncertainty, adding to project cost and time.

Why is this a barrier for MMH?
The amount of required open space is not a barrier to most MMH, but standards need updating to ensure provision of functional shared open space areas that also encourages tree protection and planting of new trees.

What are the preliminary recommendations?
■ For 3+ units, increase required on-site open space to 125 square feet for each unit beyond the first two units.
■ If a well-sited and functional shared open space is provided measuring at least 10 feet x 20 feet with an acceptable tree canopy (existing or new), setback areas can be counted toward open space area.
■ Provide flexible development standards for the purpose of protecting existing trees to avoid extra requirements for standard deviations.

What are the benefits?
These recommendations encourage more functional, shared open space and promote tree preservation and the planting of new trees, providing shared benefits for residents as well as neighbors.

Question 1: What could MMH look like in Sacramento?
Recommendations:

Built Form
2 Front Setbacks + Street Frontages
What are the current standards?
■ Front setbacks must match those of adjacent buildings in infill conditions. The default front setback required is 20 feet in other cases. ■ Lack of design guidance/incentives for the design of front setbacks. ■ Deviation from standards to protect trees requires a public hearing.

Why is this a barrier for MMH?
■ Under current standards, front setbacks can take up almost 20 percent of an infill lot, preventing optimal use of the lot. ■ Public hearings add to project costs and timeline.

What are the preliminary recommendations?
■ Reduce the default minimum front setback of 20 feet by 25 to 50 percent. ■ Maintain requirement for infill buildings to align with neighboring buildings but allow projections into front setback for a portion of the façade if frontage amenities are provided, such as a 6-foot-deep front porch, new shade tree, etc. ■ Allow larger projection for corner lots with similar conditions, but with greater incentives for planting trees in the side setback area in the side setback area (typically 12.5 feet wide).
■ Provide flexible development standards for the purpose of protecting existing trees which can help to avoid extra requirements for deviations from standards.

What are the benefits?
These recommendations encourage good façade design, active frontages and street- facing entrances that foster everyday interaction with neighbors. This helps to build a sense of community and enhances safety.
3 Proposed Recommendations for
Open Space + Tree Protection
Provide flexible
standards to
facilitate tree
preservation
Shared open space
created by increasing
open space requirement
Setback used for
creating functional open
space with tree plantings
Proposed projection
into front setback,
with an active street
frontage
Tell us what
you think!
WORKSHOP TWO: CONNECTING THE DOTS

SACRAMENTO

MISSING MIDDLE

HOUSING STUDY
CITY OF SACRAMENTO • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , PLANNING DIVISION WITH OPTICOS DESIGN cityofsacramento.org/mmh
[email protected]
Question 1: What could MMH look like in Sacramento?
Recommendations:

Built Form
Minimum Lot Size
What are the current standards?
The current required standards for lot width and area are shown below:

Why is this a barrier for MMH?
Minimum lot width and area regulations limit for-sale townhouse and small homes. In these areas high land and construction costs are already limiting ownership opportunities for middle-income earners and working class families.

What are the preliminary recommendations?
■ Allow lots as small as 1,300 square feet for homes of 1,000 square feet or less, to promote more attainable and entry-level homeownership opportunities.

Note: The significance of this recommendation is covered in more detail under "Question 3: How can the City promote homeownership and address potential displacement through Missing Middle?".

What are the benefits?
This recommendation would allow smaller homes on smaller lots, promoting housing attainability and can create new home-ownership opportunities, particularly new lower-barrier, entry-level housing products, that are not allowed with current zoning rules.
4 Examples of cottage courts in Sacramento
Small-Lot Development
Existing single-family home
New small-lot development
Shared open space and easement
5 Building Envelope: Bulk Control and Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
What are the current standards?
■ Single-unit and duplex dwellings are required to fit within a bulk control “tent” that aims to avoid out-of-scale massing by requiring upper stories to be set back.

Projections such as dormers are allowed within limits.
■ Floor Area Ratios (FARs) currently apply only on mixed-use and non-residential projects.

Why is this a barrier for MMH?
Many MMH types are two-storied structures without the upper story being set back. This is because they have efficient internal layouts that help keep these types house-scaled with small building footprints. The internal layouts may not work for many MMH types if the current bulk control tent is not adjusted.

What are the preliminary recommendations?
■ Implement modified bulk control for MMH with 3+ units that aims to be less restrictive than existing rules, while still promoting human-scale building design through requirements such as minor wall offsets, material changes, and high standards for articulation of large façades. For existing single-unit and duplex dwellings, maintain existing bulk control limitations.
■ Allow exemptions for townhouses and semi-detached dwellings on the zero- lot line side, as well as for small homes on small lots. ■ As proposed in the draft 2040 General Plan, maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) would also be applied on residential projects, which limits how much floor space a building can have based on the size of the property. Additionally, a Sliding Scale FAR approach is proposed, covered in more detail under "Question 2:

Will it be lower-cost and attainable?".
■ No changes are proposed to the current height limit, maximum allowed lot coverage, and side and rear setback requirements.

What are the benefits?
Adjusting the bulk control tent will allow more cost-efficient and attainable MMH types to be built in Sacramento's residential neighborhoods.

Building Envelope: Bulk
Control and Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Existing bulk
control tent
Existing bulk control tent for
single-unit and duplex dwellings
Even though MMH types
are house-scaled and
similar in scale to single-
unit homes, the second
story can protrude from the
current "tent", particularly on
narrower parcels.

MMH (Duplex) + 2 ADUs
Tell us what
you think!
WORKSHOP TWO: CONNECTING THE DOTS

SACRAMENTO

MISSING MIDDLE

Built Form
Driveway Design
What are the current standards?
Any development with more than two primary units requires a 24-foot wide "commercial” driveway.

Why is this a barrier for MMH?
Most infill lots are not wide enough to fit a 24-foot driveway alongside a house- scale MMH building.

What are the preliminary recommendations?
■ General proposal to redefine residential/commercial driveways based on number of on-site parking spaces rather than number of housing units. ■ Consider allowing a residential driveway for small MMH types and explore ways to reduce required minimum driveway width for larger MMH types. ■ The Missing Middle Housing Study is not proposing changes to the off-street parking requirements. Revisions to parking requirements will be addressed through the 2040 General Plan and Revisions to Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements Study, currently underway.

What are the benefits?
Applying "residential" driveway standards in lieu of "commercial" driveway standards will allow MMH on narrow infill lots. For larger multi-family projects, current driveway standards would continue to apply.
6 Waste Collection

What are the concerns?
There are concerns about waste collection for
MMH. At present, each unit must have their own
garbage and recycling cans, however, one can for
organic waste can be shared among units on the
same property.

What are the preliminary
recommendations?
■ Allow the sharing of larger garbage and
recycling front-load bins for up to four primary
dwelling units on the same parcel as long
as minimum capacities and on-site storage
requirements for garbage, recycling, and organics
are met, and the property is serviced adequately.

Note: Individual project conditions will vary based
on review by Recycling and Solid Waste staff.

What can be the benefit?
It can help streamline waste collection for MMH.
7 Approval Process

What are the concerns?
There are concerns about adequate community
review and input for MMH projects.

What are the preliminary
recommendations?
■ A discretionary design review process will be
required for MMH projects, allowing opportunity
for community input.

Note: Development in historic districts or
landmark properties will still need to comply
with the City's Historic District Plans that include
standards, guidelines and criteria consistent with
the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties. These standards
help to guide development within the historic
parts of the city.

What can be the benefit?
Community residents will be able to provide
their input on the design and site layout of MMH
projects..
9 Privacy Standards

What are the concerns?
There are concerns about the potential loss of
privacy.

What are the preliminary
recommendations?
■ Review and update privacy standards found in
the Citywide Infill Housing Design Standards for
clarity and objective review.
■ Specify strategies that may be used to meet
the objectives of the standards (for example
frosted glass, higher window sills, criteria for
"screening," offsetting windows from adjacent
building windows, exterior louvres, use of plantings,
etc.)
What can be the benefit?
These standards will help to maintain the privacy of
neighborhood residents.
8 Narrower driveways are
appropriate for small house-
scaled MMH types
Tell us what
you think!
WORKSHOP TWO: CONNECTING THE DOTS

SACRAMENTO

MISSING MIDDLE

HOUSING STUDY
CITY OF SACRAMENTO • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , PLANNING DIVISION WITH OPTICOS DESIGN cityofsacramento.org/mmh
[email protected]
What are the preliminary recommendations?
■ Reduce the maximum FAR allowed for new single-unit dwellings, calibrating to limit the largest and most expensive single-family products. ■ Incrementally increase allowed FAR for each additional primary unit of an MMH type provided on the lot. Proposed FAR thresholds are informed by local context, including typical existing lot sizes and neighborhood context.

How could this apply in Sacramento?
A sliding scale FAR could be regulated through the proposed MMH Districts, with each district setting intensity limits on both the maximum number of units per parcel and FAR thresholds. The number of units allowed and the FAR thresholds should be paired in a way that encourages smaller, and therefore, more attainable units. Input received will inform potential revisions to the draft 2040 General Plan's maximum floor area ratios (FARs), including the incorporation of this recommendation — a sliding scale FAR.

Question 2: Will MMH be lower-cost and attainable?
Sliding Scale FAR
Tier 1 District
(2 + 2)
Tier 2 District
(4 + 2)
Tier 3 District
(6 + 2)
Regulating with a sliding scale FAR can help level the playing field and produce attainable Missing Middle Housing types.

What is FAR and how is it
calculated?
Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, measures the ratio of the total square footage of a building to the total area of the lot that the building is located on. An FAR of 1.0 means that the building has the same square footage as its lot - but the building square footage may be spread over multiple floors.

Source: The City of Sacramento
Why should we regulate FAR?
Allowing single-family products and Missing Middle Housing (MMH) to be built to the same set of standards assumes they exist on a level playing field. Unfortunately, this is not the case in most American cities. MMH projects cost more to build and face greater permitting and financing challenges than single-family products.

Some of the common hurdles include:
- Higher project-wide development impact fees
- More complex permitting processes
- Higher build cost per square foot
- Limited financing options
- Lack of builders experienced in these types
What can a "sliding scale" FAR achieve?
Sliding scale FAR calibrates the assigned maximum FAR to the number of units on the parcel. For example, a fourplex would receive a higher FAR allowance than a single-family product, ensuring smaller, more attainable unit sizes. This makes the fourplex project more financially feasible, and creates incentives for small- scale builders to consider building more attainable MMH types such as triplexes and fourplexes, rather than only single-family products. Regulating FAR to allow a higher leasable area for MMH than that allowed for a single-family product can help make MMH types more feasible and more likely to be built in Sacramento.

Recommendation: Sliding Scale FAR in Sacramento
"Level Playing Field" "Actual Playing Field"
What happens if FAR
is regulated the same,
regardless of building type?
What happens if FAR is
regulated on a sliding scale?
Source: Cascadia Partners
Source: Cascadia Partners
Note: Units per parcel includes ADUs, which are excluded from FAR calculation due to state ADU law. FAR calculation includes non- habitable spaces such as garages.

Tell us what
you think!
WORKSHOP TWO: CONNECTING THE DOTS

SACRAMENTO

MISSING MIDDLE

HOUSING STUDY
CITY OF SACRAMENTO • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , PLANNING DIVISION WITH OPTICOS DESIGN cityofsacramento.org/mmh
[email protected]
What are the preliminary recommendations?
■ A Local Affordability Bonus Program that would
provide incentives for MMH projects with four or less primary units to include long-term, regulated affordable units.
■ This program would encourage builders to incorporate regulated affordable units and/or accept tenants with Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) with incentives such as bonus market-rate units or FAR.

The program would require the affordable units to be deed-restricted at an affordable income level (60-80% of Area Median Income) for a certain number of years (from 10-30 years).
■ Staff is introducing this recommendation as a broad, conceptual idea and is not making specific recommendations at this point. The specific details of the MMH Bonus Program will be shaped by the input received.

Local Bonus Program
Missing Middle is more attainable by design, but can we encourage even deeper affordability?
Recommendation: Local Bonus Program A local affordability bonus program targeted at
MMH projects with four
or less primary units can
encourage more MMH
types and also help produce
long-term, deed-restricted
affordable housing units".

Question 2: Will MMH be lower-cost and attainable?
More attainable by design
Missing Middle Housing (MMH) types are in the
"middle" in terms of building scale and form, but
it also provides a "middle level of affordability".

Historically, MMH was designed to be an attainable
option for middle-income and working class
families. This “middle attainability” was possible
because of smaller unit sizes, efficient use of
land, and cost-saving design features.

As the chart to the right shows, middle housing
types are feasible to build with rents that are
affordable to a broad spectrum of middle-
income households, all without subsidy. But are
there other things the City can do to encourage
even deeper affordability?
Additional incentives, such as bonus programs
are one potential tool. Note that at present,
incentives to build regulated affordable units under
California’s state-mandated Density Bonus Law
apply only to projects with five or more primary
units, leaving out most projects that fall within the
"missing middle" scale.

Could a Missing Middle Housing bonus
program be effective in Sacramento?
As the City of Sacramento explores the potential of a local bonus program specifically targeted at Missing Middle Housing, it is helpful to look for success stories in other parts of the state. In San Diego, recent changes to the City's zoning rules now allow property owners to build more ADUs than permitted by state law in exchange for also building income-restricted units. For every income-restricted ADU a property owner builds in addition to what the state allows, they are able to build one additional market-rate ADU. The program has been so successful, that over the course of its first year, nearly 300 income-restricted ADUs were produced.
295
253
147
Income-
Restricted
Bonus ADUs
Bonus ADUs
Base ADUs
(allowed by
state law)
ADUs in Projects With Bonus
Units, San Diego
(January 20221 - November 2022)
How do bonus programs work?
Bonus programs work by enabling property owners to build more than the General Plan or zoning allows (a bonus) if they provide some amount of income-restricted housing (a set-aside). Bonuses can take many forms including additional units or FARs. Set-asides can also take many forms including requiring income-restricted units, accessible units, or additional public open space. If structured properly, a bonus program can help produce mixed-income housing with no public subsidy.

Attainability Report Assumptions: 2022 California HCD AMI $81,750 for 2-person household (fourplex); $92,000 for 3-person household (duplex); $102,200 for 4-person household, 30-year fixed mortgage of 6% interest and 10% down payment (SF house) Tell us what
you think!
WORKSHOP TWO: CONNECTING THE DOTS

SACRAMENTO

MISSING MIDDLE

HOUSING STUDY
CITY OF SACRAMENTO • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , PLANNING DIVISION WITH OPTICOS DESIGN cityofsacramento.org/mmh
[email protected]
Source: The Uprooted Project
$
$
$
$
2) To address potential displacement:
■ Implement a Sliding Scale Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) approach to help support the production
of MMH, providing residents with more attainable
housing options.
■ Provide a Local Affordability Bonus Program
to help produce regulated affordable housing,
ensuring deeper levels of affordability in the long-
term. The FAR Sliding Scale and Local Bonus
Program recommendations are covered in more
detail in "Question 2: Will MMH be lower-cost and
attainable?"
■ Establish project requirements related to
tenant-occupied housing to protect and preserve
existing affordable housing. For example, MMH
projects would not be able to demolish units:
occupied by tenants within the previous year; units
subject to a regulatory agreement, etc.

New Homeownership
Displacement pressure can be addressed through a
Missing Middle strategy that creates new homeownership
opportunities, while preserving existing affordable housing.

Question 3: How can the City promote homeownership
and address potential displacement through MMH?
The City is considering the following actions:
1) To promote more homeownership
opportunities:
■ Allow lots as small as 1,300 square feet for homes
1,000 square feet or less.

Recommendations: Create New Homeownership Opportunities + Protect and Preserve Existing Affordable Housing

47% of Sacramento
households rent
their homes.

More opportunities for homeownership
Homeownership is a critical wealth-building tool that helps residents resist displacement pressures2. Creating more opportunities for attainable ownership housing could allow more renters to transition into owning a home. Missing Middle Housing has a role to play in this effort.

It is financially feasible to build for-sale Missing Middle Housing at much lower price points than typical detached single-family product, particularly if smaller homes on smaller lots are allowed. This is largely due to more efficient use of land and smaller unit sizes. By enabling opportunities for more attainable homeownership, it is possible that Missing Middle Housing could help existing renters transition to homeownership and provide more attainable homeownership opportunities in the community.

Wealth Building for Homeowners and Community
Existing homeowners, particularly those on fixed incomes, could become susceptible to displacement due to predatory investment practices, upkeep costs, and even modest increases in property taxes. The zoning changes being considered by the City would allow homeowners to more easily adapt their properties into Missing Middle Housing through ADUs or other renovations. These opportunities could help homeowners offset other costs, build additional resistance to displacement, and keep wealth in the community.

As the cost of land continues to rise, reducing the
City's minimum lot dimensions will help encourage
cottages, tiny homes (anchored or mobile), and
modular, pre-fab homes sited on small lots that
can provide new lower-barrier homeownership
opportunities. The City is contemplating allowing
lots as small as 1,300 square feet for homes 1,000
square feet and smaller.

Research suggests that certain characteristics make
households more suceptible to displacement if market
pressures increase1. The City of Sacramento is working to understand where concentrations of these characteristics exist so they can work proactively to minimize
displacement risk. Missing Middle Housing is one tool that can help stabilize existing home owners and creates new homeownership opportunities for renters.

Who is vulnerable to displacement?

1. Lisa K. Bates, PhD , "Gentrification and Displacement Study: implementing an equitable inclusive development strategy in the context of gentrification" (City of Portland, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, 2013)

2. Angela Hanks, Danyelle Solomon, and Christian E. Weller, “Systematic Inequality: How America’s Structural Racism Helped Create the Black-White Wealth Gap” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2018) 3) Longer-Term Efforts to Address
Broader Barriers to MMH Attainability:

The City will advocate for state-level changes to the
California Residential Building Code to reduce
onerous requirements on small-scale residential
construction, and the Condominium Liability Law
to reduce risk for condominium development, a key
source of entry-level homeownership opportunity.
■ Explore changes to City’s Condominium
Conversion Ordinance to help facilitate rent-to-own
financing models, which also implements Housing
Element Program H35.
■ Explore the expansion of City’s development
fee deferral program to include projects at the
'missing middle' scale.

Tell us what
you think!
WORKSHOP TWO: CONNECTING THE DOTS

SACRAMENTO

MISSING MIDDLE

HOUSING STUDY
CITY OF SACRAMENTO • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , PLANNING DIVISION WITH OPTICOS DESIGN cityofsacramento.org/mmh
[email protected]
We need your feedback!
Please let us know your level of support for the preliminary MMH recommendations under Questions 1, 2 and 3. Remember to provide feedback through the Self-Guided Online Workshop! DON'T MISS THESE UPCOMING EVENTS! Register on the
website below to get details.

Oct 5, 5.30 pm: Zoom Orientation on Recommendations under Question 1 Oct 19, 5.30 pm: Zoom Orientation on Recommendations under Questions 2+3

I AGREE WITH

ENOUGH OF THE

RECOMMENDATIONS

TO SUPPORT THE

DIRECTION OF THE
MMH STUDY.

Please indicate where more
work is needed.

I AGREE WITH THE

RECOMMENDATIONS

AND SUPPORT THE

DIRECTION OF THE
MMH STUDY.

I'M NOT WILLING TO

SUPPORT THE MMH

RECOMENDATIONS AS
THEY STAND.

Tell us what
you think!
Please scan the QR code or visit the link below to provide feedback on the recommendations.
cityofsacramento.org/mmh
WORKSHOP TWO: CONNECTING THE DOTS

SACRAMENTO

MISSING MIDDLE

HOUSING STUDY
CITY OF SACRAMENTO • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , PLANNING DIVISION WITH OPTICOS DESIGN cityofsacramento.org/mmh
[email protected]
Atch. 3: Summary of MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations Key Question 1: What could MMH look like in Sacramento? (9 recommendations)

1) Missing Middle Housing Districts
Preliminary Recommendation:

Establish 3 MMH districts that would apply over the City’s 4 single-unit and duplex dwelling zones: R-1, R-1A, R- 1B, and R-2 zones. For context, the R-1 zone covers over 70% of the City’s residential-zoned land area, and the R- 1B zone is mostly used in the Central City. Three tiers of MMH districts are proposed, with varying development intensity and housing unit caps that respond to the existing context, built environment, level of connectivity and access to jobs, amenities and transit. Please also refer to Attachment 5-Map of Proposed MMH Districts.

The proposed MMH Districts, reflecting community input on the draft 2040 General Plan, aim to increase housing opportunities within a half-mile walking distance of high-frequency transit stops, presenting a promising strategy for advancing the City's sustainability and transit-oriented development (TOD) objectives.

Input received will inform potential revisions to the draft 2040 General Plan, including the incorporation of this recommendation — a MMH district approach.

Below is a table comparing the unit caps proposed for each MMH district and what is currently allowed in each zone:

Proposed MMH Districts1 What’s Currently Allowed1
Tier 1

47.9% of
residential- zoned
land area
4 (2 primary units + 2 ADUs)
R-1

33.9%
3 to 4
(1-2 primary + 2 ADUs)2
R-1A
14%
4 (2 primary + 2 ADUs)
Tier 2

30.6% of
residential-zoned
land area
6 (4 primary units + 2 ADUs)
R-1

29.9%
3 to 4
(1-2 primary + 2 ADUs)2
R-1B (in historic district)

0.27%
4 (2 primary + 2 ADUs)
R-2

0.51%
4 (2 primary + 2 ADUs)
Tier 3

0.26% of
residential-zoned
land area
8 (6 primary units + 2 ADUs)

R-1B (not in historic district)

0.26%
4 (2 primary + 2 ADUs)
1State law also allows 1 Junior ADU (JADU). The allowed JADU is not included in the table because it is an uncommon unit type that must be contained entirely within a primary dwelling, be no more than 500 square feet, can include an efficiency kitchen, and may share bathroom with primary unit.
2On corner & deep lots of 125+ feet or through a Senate Bill 9 (SB9) application, up to 4 units (2 primary + 2 ADUs) is allowed.

Atch. 3: Summary of MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations 2) Provision of On-Site Open Space and Tree Protection
Preliminary Recommendations:
a) For 3+ units, increase required on-site open space to 125 square feet for each unit beyond the first two units.
b) If a well-sited and functional shared open space area measuring at least 10' x 20’ with an acceptable tree canopy (existing or new) is provided, setback areas can be counted toward open space area. o Staff would be interested to hear input on additional design guidance or standards that can help ensure well-designed, functional shared open space (or courtyard) areas in exchange for this flexibility.
c) Provide flexible development standards for the purpose of protecting existing trees which can help to avoid extra requirements for standard deviations.

Community Benefits:

These recommendations encourage the provision of functional shared open space areas (or courtyards) for residents, while also promoting the protection and planting of tree canopy in our neighborhoods, providing shared benefits for residents as well as neighbors. Requiring adequate open space can also serve to regulate the potential building mass in a similar fashion to setback requirements.

Current Open Space Requirements:
• Single-unit and duplex dwellings do not have open space requirements, as setback areas provide adequate open space.
• For 3+ units, 100 square feet of on-site open space must be provided for each unit beyond the first two units, however, setback areas cannot be counted toward this open space requirement. • Deviations from standards to protect existing trees require a public hearing, which creates uncertainty and adds to project cost and time.

3) Front Setback and Active Street Frontages
Preliminary Recommendations:
a) Reduce the default minimum front setback of 20 ft by 25-50%, considering parcel size. b) Maintain requirement for infill buildings to match adjacent buildings but allow projections into front setback area for a portion of the façade if frontage amenities such as a 6’-deep front porch, new shade tree, etc. are included.
o Staff would be interested to hear input on additional frontage amenities that could be incentivized in exchange for this flexibility.
c) Allow larger projection for corner lots with similar conditions, but greater incentive for planting trees in the side-street setback area (typically 12.5’ wide). d) Provide flexible development standards for the purpose of protecting existing trees which can help to avoid extra requirements for standard deviations.

Atch. 3: Summary of MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations Community Benefits:

These recommendations encourage good façade design, active frontages and street-facing entrances that foster everyday interaction with neighbors. This helps to build a sense of community and enhances safety.

Current Requirements:
• Front setbacks must match those of adjacent buildings in infill conditions. In other cases, the default front setback required is 20 feet.
• Lack of guidance/incentives for the design of functional/active uses of front setback areas. • Deviation from standards to protect trees requires a public hearing.

4) Building Envelope: Bulk Control and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Preliminary Recommendations:
a) Implement modified bulk control for MMH with 3+ units that aims to be less restrictive than existing rules, while still promoting human-scale building design through requirements such as minor wall offsets, material changes, and high standards for articulation of large façades. o Maintain existing dwelling bulk control limitations for single-unit and duplex dwellings. b) Allow exemptions for townhouses and semi-detached dwellings on the zero-lot line side, as well as small homes on small lots.
c) As proposed in the draft 2040 General Plan, maximum Floor Area Ratios (FAR) would also be applied on residential projects, which limits how much floor space a building can have based on the size of the property.
o Additionally, a Sliding Scale FAR approach is proposed, which will be covered in more detail under ‘Question 2: Will it be lower-cost and attainable?’. d) No changes proposed to the current height limit, maximum allowed lot coverage, and side and rear setback requirements.

Current Requirements:
 Single-unit and duplex dwellings are required to fit within a bulk control “tent” aiming to avoid out- of-scale massing by requiring greater setbacks for upper stories. Projections such as dormers are allowed within limits.
 Floor Area Ratios (FARs) currently apply only on mixed-use and non-residential projects.

5) Minimum Lot Size and Dimensions
Preliminary Recommendation:
a) Allow lots as small as 1,300 square feet with homes 1,000 square feet or less to promote more attainable and entry-level homeownership opportunities. o The significance of this recommendation is covered in more detail below under ‘Key Question 3:

How can the City promote homeownership and address potential displacement through Missing Middle?’.

Atch. 3: Summary of MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations Community Benefits:

This recommendation would allow smaller homes on smaller lots, promoting housing attainability and can create new home-ownership opportunities, particularly new lower-barrier, entry-level housing products, that are not allowed with current zoning rules.

6) Driveway Design
Preliminary Recommendations:
a) General proposal to redefine residential/commercial driveways based on number of on-site parking spaces rather than number of housing units.
b) Consider allowing a residential driveway for small MMH types and explore ways to reduce the required minimum driveway width for larger MMH types.
c) This study is not proposing changes to existing off-street parking requirements. Revisions to parking requirements will be addressed through the 2040 General Plan and Revisions to Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements Study, currently underway.

7) Waste Collection
Preliminary Recommendation:
a) Allow the sharing of larger garbage and recycling front-load bins for up to 4 primary dwelling units on the same parcel as long as minimum capacities and on-site storage requirements for garbage, recycling, and organics are met, and the property is serviced adequately. o Note: Individual project conditions will vary based on review by Recycling and Solid Waste staff.

8) Design Standards for Privacy
Preliminary Recommendation:
a) Review and update privacy standards found in the Citywide Infill Housing Design Standards for clarity and objective review.
o Specify strategies that may be used to meet the objectives of the standards (for example, frosted glass, higher sills, criteria for "screening," offsetting windows from adjacent building windows, exterior louvres, use of plant material, etc.).

9) Approval Process
Preliminary Recommendation:
a) A discretionary design review process will be required, allowing opportunity for community residents to provide their input on the design and site layout of MMH projects. o Note: Development in historic districts or landmark properties will still need to comply with the City's Historic District Plans that include standards, guidelines, and criteria consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties that help to guide development within the historic parts of the city.

Atch. 3: Summary of MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations Key Question 2: Will it be lower-cost and attainable? (2 recommendations)

1) Sliding Scale Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Allowing single-family products and MMH to be built to the same set of standards assumes they exist on a level playing field. Unfortunately, this is not the case in most American cities. MMH projects cost more to build and face greater permitting and financing challenges than single-family products. Some of the common barriers include:
 Higher project-wide development impact fees
 More complex permitting processes
 Higher build cost per square foot
 Lack of builders experienced in building these housing types  Limited financing options
A sliding scale FAR calibrates the assigned maximum FAR to the number of units on the parcel. For example, a fourplex would receive a higher FAR allowance than a single-family product, ensuring smaller, more attainable unit sizes. This makes the fourplex project more financially feasible and creates incentives for small-scale builders to consider building more attainable MMH types such as triplexes and fourplexes, rather than only single-family products. Regulating FAR to allow a higher building area for MMH than that allowed for a single- family product can help make MMH types more feasible and more likely to be built in Sacramento.

Input received will inform potential revisions to the draft 2040 General Plan's maximum floor area ratios (FARs), including the incorporation of this recommendation — a sliding scale FAR.

Atch. 3: Summary of MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations Preliminary Recommendations:
a) Reduce the maximum FAR allowed for new single-unit dwellings, calibrating to limit the largest and most expensive single-family products.
b) Incrementally increase allowed FAR for each additional primary unit of an MMH type provided on the parcel. Proposed FAR thresholds were informed by local context, including typical existing lot sizes and neighborhood context.

Note: Units per parcel includes ADUs, which are excluded from FAR calculation due to state laws pertaining to ADUs. FAR calculation includes non-habitable spaces such as garages.

Atch. 3: Summary of MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations 2) Local MMH Bonus Program for Deeper Affordability
Housing at the ‘missing middle’ scale produces units that are more affordable than large or newly constructed single-family products. MMH types are in the "middle" in terms of building scale and form, but it also provides a "middle level of affordability". Historically, MMH was designed to be an attainable option for middle-income and working class families. This “middle attainability” was possible because of smaller unit sizes, efficient use of land, and cost-saving design features.

Is there a way that the City can encourage MMH projects to produce even deeper affordability? At present, incentives to build regulated affordable units under California’s state-mandated Density Bonus Law applies only to projects with 5 or more primary units, leaving out projects that fall within the ‘missing middle’ scale. A local MMH bonus program can help produce long-term, regulated affordable housing. If structured properly, a bonus program can help produce mixed-income housing with no public subsidy.

As the City of Sacramento explores the potential of a local bonus program specifically targeted at Missing Middle Housing, it is helpful to look for success stories in other parts of the state. In San Diego, recent changes to the City's zoning rules now allow property owners to build more ADUs than permitted by state law in exchange for also building income-restricted units. For every income-restricted ADU a property owner builds in addition to what the state allows, they can build one additional market-rate ADU. The program has been very successful and over the course of its first year, nearly 300 income-restricted ADUs were produced.

Preliminary Recommendations:
a) A local affordability bonus program that would provide incentives for MMH projects with four or less primary units to include long-term, regulated affordable units. b) This program would encourage builders to incorporate regulated affordable units and/or accept tenants with Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) with incentives such as bonus market-rate units or FAR. The program would require the affordable units to be deed-restricted at an affordable income level (60-80% of Area Median Income) for a certain number of years (from 10-30 years). c) Staff is introducing this recommendation as a broad, conceptual idea and is not making specific recommendations at this point. The specific details of the MMH Bonus Program will be shaped by the input received.

Atch. 3: Summary of MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations Key Question 3: How can the City promote homeownership and address potential displacement through Missing Middle?

Displacement pressure can be addressed through a Missing Middle strategy that creates new homeownership opportunities, while preserving existing affordable housing. MMH is one tool that can help stabilize existing home owners and creates new homeownership opportunities for renters.

Homeownership is a critical wealth-building tool that helps residents resist displacement pressures. Creating more opportunities for attainable ownership housing could allow more renters to transition into owning a home.

MMH has a role to play in this effort. It is financially feasible to build for-sale MMH at much lower price points than typical detached single-family products. This is largely due to more efficient use of land and smaller unit sizes. By enabling opportunities for more attainable homeownership, it is possible that Missing Middle Housing could help existing renters transition to homeownership and provide more attainable homeownership opportunities in the community.

Existing homeowners, particularly those on fixed incomes, could become susceptible to displacement due to predatory investment practices, upkeep costs, and even modest increases in property taxes. The zoning changes being considered by the City would allow homeowners to more easily adapt their properties into Missing Middle Housing through ADUs or other renovations and build equity. These opportunities could help homeowners offset other costs, build additional resistance to displacement, and keep wealth in the community.

Preliminary Recommendations:
1) To Promote More Homeownership Opportunities:

As the cost of land continues to rise, reducing minimum required lot size will help encourage cottages, tiny homes (anchored or mobile), modular, and pre-fab homes sited on small lots that can create new lower-barrier, entry-level homeownership opportunities.
a) Reduce required minimum lot dimensions including area, width, and depth, and allow lots as small as 1,300 square feet with homes 1,000 square feet or less. 2) To Address Potential Displacement:

The 3 P’s of anti-displacement are ‘Produce, Preserve, and Protect’. The Missing Middle strategy has the potential to produce more attainable housing options (as well as income-restricted housing options with a local MMH bonus program), while also preserving existing affordable housing and protecting existing tenants.

Produce More Affordable Homes:
a) Implement a Sliding Scale Floor Area Ratio (FAR) approach to help support the production of MMH, providing residents with more attainable housing options. b) Provide a Local MMH Bonus Program to help produce regulated affordable housing, ensuring deeper levels of affordability long-term.
o The Sliding Scale FAR and Local Bonus Program recommendations are covered in more detail in ‘Question 2: Will it be lower-cost and attainable?’.

Atch. 3: Summary of MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations Protect & Preserve Existing Affordable Housing:
a) Establish application requirements to preserve existing affordable housing and protect existing tenants.
o For example, projects wishing to utilize the MMH application cannot reduce the total number of dwelling units on the site and would not be able to demolish units that are: 1) occupied by a tenant within the previous year or 2) subject to an affordable housing regulatory agreement. 3) Longer-Term Efforts to Address Broader Barriers to MMH Attainability:
a) The City will advocate for state-level changes to the:
a. California Residential Building Code to reduce onerous requirements on small-scale residential construction, and
b. Condominium Liability Law to reduce risk for condominium development, a key source of entry-level homeownership opportunity.
b) Explore modifications to City’s Condominium Conversion Ordinance to help facilitate rent-to-own financing models, which also implements Housing Element Program H35. c) Expand City’s development fee deferral program to include projects at the ‘missing middle’ scale. 0 6,000 12,000 18,0003,000
Feet
Sacramento Missing Middle Housing
Attainability and Livability Analysis
Sacramento, CA
October 2023
Proposed MMH Districts
Legend
Historic Districts
Proposed MMH District
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Transit
Light Rail (Existing)
Light Rail Stations
Future Green Line
Future Light Rail Stations
High-Frequency Bus
Routes (1, 51)
DID YOU KNOW?
Sacramento has many
examples of Missing
Middle types across its
neighborhoods, as shown
in the images to the
right. These include
cottage courts, small
multiplexes and court-
yard buildings, and over
3,560 duplex, triplex and
fourplex buildings.

What is Missing Middle
Housing (MMH) and
what does it look like?
What is Missing Middle
“Middle” in several ways
MMH types are “middle” in scale and
form between typical single-family
houses and larger multi-family build-
ings. With more modest-sized units,
they also are more attainable to
middle-income households.

Why are they “missing”?
For the past 50-60 years, zoning
codes in many cities have restricted
MMH. The housing market has
prioritized building single-unit
homes, creating ﬁnancing and other
hurdles to delivering MMH types.

MMH is not a new concept.

These types were common and can
be found in most pre-WW II towns
and cities across the US. Historically,
MMH types have provided more
attainable housing options and a path
towards homeownership.

MMH is a range of small multi-unit
building types, often found in walkable
areas, that are similar in scale to a
single-family house.

Townhouse
Fourplex
Accessory Dwelling UnitCottage Court
Duplex
Triplex
Atch. 5-Missing Middle Housing
Factsheets
Expand housing access and
homeownership opportunities.

MMH types ﬁt a wide range of
household types, lifestyle choices
and income levels. They can be
attainable for many groups and
pave the way to homeownership.

Increase housing choice
compatible with existing
neighborhoods. MMH adds
housing while respecting the
scale of existing neighborhoods.

MMH types can be added incre-
mentally over time, such as an
ADU to an existing home, or
duplexes on small inﬁll parcels.

Promote more walkable,
safer, healthier communities.

MMH supports walkable access
to shops, amenities and services
and an active, healthy lifestyle.

Shared open spaces and build-
ing design promote everyday
interaction between neighbors.

MMH types support diverse
household types as well as
aging-in-place for seniors.

Support sustainability. MMH
types feature smaller, well-de-
signed units that have a lower
carbon footprint. They support
compact, mixed-use develop-
ment patterns with reduced
commutes, that can help
respond to climate change.

Attract and support local
businesses. By adding a larger
and more diverse customer
base, MMH helps support exist-
ing and new local businesses
with more frequent foot-trafﬁc.

Empower local residents
and builders. MMH can be a
way for local residents to add a
unit to their homes to house
extended family, or to earn
rental income. MMH can pro-
vide small “starter homes” to
enable transitioning from rent-
ing to owning a home. MMH
types don’t need specialized
construction technology and
can provide opportunities for
local small-scale builders.

What beneﬁts can
MMH provide?
What beneﬁts can
Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
provide a wide range of beneﬁts
that can help build resilient
neighborhoods with a strong
sense of community.

Designed to promote walkability and safety.

MMH types have “active frontages” or, in other words,
entrances and windows oriented to the street to encourage everyday interaction and safety through “eyes on the street”.

Primer 1 - page 2
Missing Middle Housing
(MMH) design features
for residential areas
MMH types have distinct physical
characteristics that make them
compatible with single-family houses
in residential areas.

Height typically 1 to 2.5* stories
Small to medium building footprint
Multiple units within same building footprint
Entrances face the street
Open space (private/shared) and trees
Parking placed at rear of lot
*0.5 story indicates a usable attic
Design Characteristics of MMH
The palette of MMH includes a wide range of housing types, ranging from duplexes, townhouses and cottage courts to larger multiplexes and courtyard buildings. For Sacramento, small and medium-scale MMH types are proposed, that are “house-scaled”, have 2 to 6 units, and are appropriate for residential neighborhoods.

Important characteristics of MMH include:

We are a family with
young kids. We don’t need
a large house but would
love a small backyard for
our kids and dog. It’ll be
great if we could walk or
bike our kids to school!
We are a couple.

We’re looking to rent a
small home where we
know our neighbors.

We want to be able to
walk to shops and
restaurants. A shared
garden will be lovely!
We are retirees.

We need a smaller home
that is easier to maintain.

We prefer not to drive and
would like to be close to
stores and parks.

We are roommates.

We need a three-bed-
room unit with space to
host. We are not into
yard work, and do not
need a backyard.

We are a multi-generational family.

We need room for three generations to
live together. Grandma and grandpa
would like their own space such as an
ADU, but still be steps away from their
kids and grandkids and be present in
the family’s daily life.

I am a single person.

I’m just starting my
career and can’t afford
high rent. I need a
small studio that's
bikeable to downtown
where I work.

Can MMH help meet
Sacramento’s housing
needs?
Can MMH help meet
Primer 2- page 1
Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
can be a way to increase housing
choice and attainability for
Sacramento residents.

Who would beneﬁt from MMH?
- Aging adults, retirees and others looking
to downsize
- Single-person households, couples
and small families
- Multi-generational and large families
- Roommates and co-living groups
- Entry-level homebuyers
- Working middle-class
- Renters looking for more options
- Small-scale builders

197,000 housing units out of
which 66% is single-family.
45% of residents are renters.

Rents increased by 19% from
2021 to 2022. Renters are
more likely to get displaced
when housing costs rise
faster than wages.
50% of Sacramento house-
holds are at low, very low, or
extremely low income levels.

From 2010-2018, Sacramento’s
population increased by 6% ,
including a 43% increase in
population aged 65-74 and a
3% decrease in population
aged 24 and below.
39% of Sacramento
households in 2021
spent more than 30%
of total household
income on housing.

Source: Sacramento Housing Element 2021-2029,
www.cityofsacramento.org
44%
decrease in
housing a/uniFB00ordability
from 2011 to 2020
Housing Opportunity Index,
City of Sacramento, 1991-2020
What Sacramento has today
Sources: US Census Bureau, City of Sacramento
Housing Element 2021-2029.

How Sacramento is changing
Source: Sacramento Housing Element 2021-2029,
www.cityofsacramento.org
Can MMH help meet
Sacramento’s housing
needs?
What Sacramento will need
Source: Sacramento Housing Element 2021-2029,
www.cityofsacramento.org
140,000
new residents by 2040
45,580
new housing units by 2029
to meet state-allocated
targets
To meet this target, we need to
build 5,700 new housing units each
year. In 2022, only 2,250 new units
were produced, less than half of
what is needed.

Can MMH help meet
Sacramento’s demographics and
housing needs are changing. MMH
can help increase housing choice
and attainability.

What locations in
Sacramento are suitable for
the development of Missing
Middle Housing (MMH)?
Why do we need a city-wide analysis?
In Sacramento, we see a variety of development
patterns with distinct physical characteristics.

For example, Central City looks and feels different
from Land Park or Pocket. Analyzing characteris-
tics such as connectivity, built form patterns, mix of
uses, and access to transit and amenities in differ-
ent parts of Sacramento helps us determine the
"degree of change" for each area, to incrementally
introduce MMH types that are appropriate for the
existing context.

What did the analysis ﬁnd?
Like many other cities, Sacramento has walkable
neighborhoods near the historic core. These areas
are already home to and support many MMH
types. Many other areas are "compact and con-
nected" with the potential to support a variety of
MMH. Other areas such as “transitional” and
“low-scale residential” environments will need a
more nuanced approach to implementing MMH.

Citywide place-based
analysis
Downtown
Core
Context types
identiﬁed in
Sacramento
Compact +
Connected
Corridors +
Centers
Transitional Low-Scale
Residential
Large Inﬁll
Sites
The city-wide analysis classiﬁes Sacramento's existing built environment into six distinct “context types”. The colors of the circle outlines below relate to the map above.

Citywide place-based

The example above shows a Cottage Court built on a 100 ft x 100 ft lot with an alley for parking access. While the built form is compatible with existing single-family homes, it exceeds the allowed number of units and required front setbacks for this lot.

Next, the test ﬁt’s development program is analyzed from the perspective of a builder or investor, to see if it is ﬁnancially feasible under current market conditions. Note that often a project may be more feasible
with larger units, but those
units will be at a higher price
point and not be attainable to
most middle-income earners.

The test ﬁt will be calibrated to
hit the MMH “sweet spot” of
feasibility, attainability and
livability, and this will inform
future regulations for MMH.

Analyzing factors that
are limiting Missing
Middle Housing (MMH)
What does a “test ﬁt” do?
A test ﬁt explores whether it is possible to build
MMH under current regulations and whether the
development will be feasible and attainable. It helps
identify what needs to change to make MMH types
viable to build.

Analyzing factors that
What makes a project viable?
Three key factors will be used to
assess the viability or “success” of
MMH in Sacramento:

Is the physical form compatible?
Compatibility in scale and form with
existing homes in the neighborhood
is a key factor of success for MMH
implementation.

Is it ﬁnancially feasible?
Financial analysis will evaluate if a
project will generate enough
revenue to cover project costs, meet
ﬁnancial obligations (such as paying
back a construction loan) and
provide a return on the builder’s
investment.

Is it attainable?
To promote housing access and to
address rising housing unaffordabili-
ty, MMH needs to be attainable for
the average middle-income
household in Sacramento. MMH
types feature smaller units and
require no specialized construction
techniques, making them more
“affordable by design” than many
other building types.
viable to build.
100'
100'
The example above shows a
Cottage Court
viable to build.
10 0
'
20 22 Op ticos Design, Inc.

Feasibility
Attainability Livability
What regulatory and development
challenges must be addressed to make
MMH ﬁnancially feasible, attainable to
middle-income earners and be physically
compatible with residential areas?
How has community
input from Phase One
informed Phase Two?
This study's ﬁnal recommendations will
inform code revision efforts that will take
place in late Spring of 2024, after the
2040 General Plan is adopted by Council.

Key Strategy, 2040
General Plan Update,
Sacramento City Council,
January 19, 2021
Permit a greater array
of housing types such
as duplexes, triplexes,
fourplexes, and
bungalow courts in
existing single-unit
neighborhoods.
3 Key Questions
Phase Two Engagement Framework
In Phase One, residents emphasized the importance of
open space, trees, compatibility, attainability and
addressing displacement risk. This feedback has helped
to shape Phase Two's engagement framework.

The preliminary recommendations presented in this
workshop will strive to answer three key questions.

What could MMH look like?
We will recommend design standards and
development requirements to ensure
predictable built outcomes.

Will it be lower-cost and
attainable?
We will recommend incentives to boost the
production of attainable as well as regulated
affordable units.

How can the City promote
homeownership and address
potential displacement
through MMH?
We will recommend strategies and incentives
that can promote ownership and reduce
displacement risk.

Phase 1 Community
Engagement
In-Person + Virtual
Report 1: Research
MMH Informational Report
January 2021
Fall 2022
Phase 2 Community
Engagement
In-Person + Virtual
Report 3: Analysis
Displacement Risk Assessment
Report 4:

Recommendations
MMH Zoning + Design
Recommendations
Report 2: Analysis
MMH Livability + Attainability
Analysis
Summer/Fall 2023
Early 2024
Mid/Late 2024
Spring/Summer 2023
Council Approval of
Key Strategy
2040 General Plan
Public Review
2040 General Plan
Adoption
Amend Planning +
Development Code
to Permit MMH Citywide
General
Plan
General
Plan
Phase 1
Information Sharing + Input Gathering
Phase 2
Solutions + Recommendations

Sacramento City CouncilOctober 24, 2023

Sacramento City Council
October 24, 2023