Sacramento City Council
October 24, 2023

Report 2: Missing Middle Housing
Attainability + Livability Analysis
City of Sacramento
Missing Middle
Housing Study
September 2023
With consultants:

Cascadia Partners
Collaborative Design + Innovation
Unseen Heroes
Konveio
Attainability + Livability
Analysis
Prepared For:

City of Sacramento
Community Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, 3rd Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95811
916.264.5011
Prepared By:

Opticos Design, Inc.
2100 Milvia Street; Suite 125
Berkeley, California 94704
510.558.6957
With Consultants:

Cascadia Partners
1022 NW Marshall St., Suite 380
Portland, OR 97209
971.808.2366
Collaborative Design + Innovation
www.cdiway.net
503.706.4740
Unseen Heroes
3433 Broadway,
Sacramento, CA 95817
916.692.5560
Konveio
www.konveio.io
877.405.9142
2 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 What’s
Inside?
Executive Summary 5
About Missing Middle Housing (MMH) 17
Sacramento's Housing Needs 55
Citywide Place-Based Analysis 69
Testing for Feasibility 99
Zoning and Policy Analysis 143
Appendix 169
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 3 4 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023

CHAPTER
1 Executive
Summary
In this chapter

1.1 What is the Missing Middle Housing Study? 6

1.2 How This Report Informs the MMH Study 8

1.3 How This Report is Organized 10
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 5

1.1 What is the Missing Middle
Housing Study?
Increasing access to more attainable, lower-cost housing has become a priority for many cities across the US, including Sacramento. This study is part of a broader effort to address this urgent housing problem and explore potential solutions.

The Missing Middle Housing (MMH)*
study is an effort to examine how MMH
could be implemented in Sacramento
through thoughtful development and
design regulations. The study's findings
will help the city to respond to the
growing demand for housing choices,
walkable living, and the growing need
for attainable housing at all income
thresholds.

MMH is not a new concept. These
small-scale, multi-family housing types
were common in many American
towns and cities before the 1940's.

Sacramento too has a wide range
of MMH types within its housing
stock, including approximately 3,560
duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes,
in addition to cottage courts, small
courtyard buildings, live-work and
many others.

By encouraging MMH citywide,
Sacramento can expand housing
choice and attainability to meet
the current and future needs of its
residents.

What Is Missing Middle Housing?
Missing Middle Housing is a range
of house-scale building types that
contain more than one housing unit,
have small building footprints, and
are typically no more than two and a
half stories in height.

MMH types are "middle" in form
and scale between that of small
single-family houses and larger
apartment buildings, enabling them
to blend into existing residential
neighborhoods.

With smaller units, MMH can provide
housing at price points attainable to
many middle-income households.

MMH types have important design
characteristics, such as building
orientation, small unit sizes, shared
open spaces, and active frontages,
that differentiate these types
from other small multi-family
development. For more information,
refer to Report 1: Missing Middle
Housing Informational Report.

CLOSER LOOK
*Note:

For purposes of brevity, this
report uses "MMH" as an
abbreviation for Missing
Middle Housing.
ento Missing Middle Housing Study | Workshop One
he Missing Middle Sweet SpotTM
20 criteria for assessing results
2022 Opticos Design, Inc.

Feasibility
Attainability Livability
Place-based
MMH toolkits
based on three
key criteria
Key criteria to assess MMH
are attainability, livability, and
market feasibility. The success
of MMH depends on all three
being met.
6 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 1 — Executive Summary
Why is the MMH study being done?
■ To advance a City Council-approved 2040 General
Plan key strategy. To support the City of Sacramento's
efforts to update its General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the City Council approved a set of key strategies in January 2021. The MMH study was initiated to gain a better understanding of the benefits and
challenges of allowing a greater array of housing types, conduct technical analysis and in-depth community
outreach to craft recommendations for the citywide
implementation of MMH.
■ Develop Sacramento-specific solutions. The MMH
study aims to understand existing conditions and
research case studies and best practices to recommend
solutions that are Sacramento-specific. The study's focus is on MMH but should be considered as part of a broader community discussion on housing solutions and other
housing-focused strategies and planning efforts by the
City of Sacramento (City) to deliver more housing choices. ■ Provide more local control over outcomes. Recent
policy direction and legislation from the state focuses on meeting long-term goals such as increasing housing
supply and affordability across jurisdictions. State laws often enable local jurisdictions to respond with local as well as supplementary policies to achieve these housing goals. As long as minimum requirements are met, local
regulations help to achieve statewide objectives while still allowing the policies and process to be informed by the local context and community input. Sacramento's MMH
strategy is an opportunity for a collaborative process
between the City and residents to shape a local MMH
option, tailored specifically for Sacramento's existing conditions and context.

Desired Outcomes
The desired outcomes of the MMH study
are aligned to meet these City objectives:
■ Increase housing supply and choice,
■ Provide attainable housing options,
■ Allow small-scale, incremental local
housing development that can be
financed by the average homeowner,
■ Provide economic opportunity for
passive retirement income,
■ Create opportunities to house intergenerational households, ■ Reduce racial and socioeconomic
disparities reinforced by single-unit
zoning, and
■ Allow the housing market to respond
to the downward trend in average
household size.

For more information visit:
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/
Community-Development/Planning/
Housing/Missing-Middle-Housing
Permit a greater array of housing
types such as duplexes, triplexes, and
fourplexes (also referred to as Missing
Middle Housing) in existing single-unit
neighborhoods.

Key Strategy, Draft 2040 General Plan
Sacramento City Council, January 19, 2021
Study Methodology
The MMH study follows a sequence
of analysis steps to provide contextsensitive recommendations for enabling MMH citywide. Analysis findings and
recommendations will be shared through
four key reports:
■ Report 1: Missing Middle Housing
Informational Report
■ Report 2: Missing Middle Housing
Attainability + Livability Analysis
(this document)
■ Report 3: Displacement Risk
Assessment
■ Report 4: Missing Middle Housing
Zoning and Policy Recommendations
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 7 Chapter 1 — Executive Summary

1.2 How This Report Informs
the MMH Study
The palette of MMH types
provide a range of "middle"
building types between the
scale of a typical detached
single-unit house and that of
larger residential buildings.

This report, the second of four reports that are key deliverables of the MMH study, summarizes the citywide place-based analysis conducted for Sacramento. The analysis findings will inform the zoning and policy recommendations in Report Four of the study.

The citywide place-based analysis has
several areas of focus:
■ Building on Report One (The Missing
Middle Housing Informational
Report), this report provides in-depth
information about MMH, its defining
characteristics, types of MMH,
typical barriers to developing these
types, and important regulatory
considerations for implementation.
■ It synthesizes the analysis of different
components of the existing built
environment into "context types" that
help to identify areas best suited for
different types of MMH.
■ It includes comprehensive feasibility
analysis through the use of MMH
"test fits" to assess physical fit and
compatibility, financial viability as well
as the attainability of typical MMH
types under current regulatory and
market conditions.
■ The report also identifies key
regulatory and policy barriers
constraining MMH in the the R-1,
R-1A, R-1B and R-2 zoning districts
that are targeted for the MMH study.

By carrying out the analysis described
above, Report Two provides the
foundation for the next stage of the
MMH study, the zoning and policy
recommendations to enable MMH.

As mentioned, this will be the focus of
Report Four.
8 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 1 — Executive Summary
Examples of existing MMH in Sacramento
Photos on this page show examples of MMH that
exist in Sacramento today. MMH types being
considered for Sacramento as part of this study are
from the lower spectrum of the palette of MMH
types, and are similar in scale and character to the
examples shown here.

These house-scale MMH types, with small building
footprints and heights typically not exceeding two
and a half stories, can add diversity to Sacramento's
housing stock. Allowing these types can help meet
current and future housing needs.

Fourplex Courtyard building
Side-by-side duplex
Small multiplex Cottage court
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 9 Chapter 1 — Executive Summary

1.3 How This Report is
Organized
Ch 4
This report summarizes the Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Attainability and Livability Analysis, organized by topic into chapters as shown below. The focus and key findings of each chapter are described in the following pages.

Ch 5 Ch 6
Zoning + Policy
Analysis
Identify standards,
guidelines and other
regulations that
may be constraining
MMH.

Citywide PlaceBased Analysis
Mapping and analysis
of the existing built
environment to
establish context
types for MMH.

Testing for
Feasibility
Lot analysis, design
and feasibility
testing using MMH
prototypes.

Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch 3
Executive
Summary
An overview of the
report's organization
and key findings
from each of the
report chapters.

About Missing
Middle Housing
Detailed discussion
of MMH, including its
definition, types and
key characteristics.

Sacramento's
Housing Needs
A summary of the
City's demographic
profile, changing
housing trends and
how MMH can help.
10 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 1 — Executive Summary
Chapter Two: About Missing Middle Housing
• MMH types have
small- to mediumsized footprints with
building width, depth,
and height similar to a
single-family home.
• MMH works best
in, and helps to
support walkable
environments where
driving for everyday
activities is a choice
but not a necessity.
• MMH responds to
shifting household
demographics
accommodating
a wide range of
household types and
lifestyle choices.
• MMH increases
housing choices
at attainable price
points for both rental
and homeownership
opportunities, and
this can help address
housing inequity.
• MMH promotes
more active, healthy
lifestyles and, with
more pedestrians,
safer neighborhoods.
• MMH supports
compact, sustainable
development which
can help address
climate change.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Existing MMH in Sacramento is seen
in many of its neighborhoods, with a
high concentration in Central City and
surrounding areas.

MMH types are
"middle" in form
and scale between
that of single-family
houses and larger
apartment buildings.

Duplex Triplex
Cottage
Court
This chapter provides an introduction to MMH and the palette of MMH types. It highlights key characteristics and important form, scale and massing attributes unique to these housing types.

MMH is defined as a range of house-scale, multi-family building types that have small building footprints, and are typically no more than two and a half stories in height. MMH types are an effective way to incrementally introduce more housing while respecting the scale of existing residential neighborhoods, because of their compatibility with single-family houses. MMH can advance housing affordability and housing choice to suit changing demographic needs.

To implement MMH thoughtfully, it will be important to regulate certain design and site planning elements through development standards. Elements to consider are the overall size of buildings, or more specifically the maximum building height, width, and depth, as well as lot size and width, frontage standards, provision of open space on the lot, and parking requirements.

Sacramento has many great examples of MMH, particularly in the city's central core. Along with cottage courts, small courtyard buildings, etc., there are more than 3,560 existing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in the city.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 11 Chapter 1 — Executive Summary
This chapter summarizes Sacramento's demographic and housing market conditions that will influence future housing development.

Sacramento's demographics are changing, reflecting national trends. Population data and trends indicate an increase in smaller households, households without children, and an aging population. Along with household configurations, lifestyle choices are evolving as well, with many families looking for alternative housing options to the single-family house. Future housing development will need to accommodate this shift in housing needs and preferences.

Equally important to address are the issues of housing unaffordability and inequity. Housing is becoming increasingly inaccessible, pricing out long-time residents and adding to a growing houselessness crisis.

Adding MMH options will be crucial in meeting the needs of current and future residents and can play a role in "future-proofing" the housing stock. MMH can help provide more attainable housing, helping to address the growing issue of housing unaffordability and houselessness.

Chapter Three: Sacramento's Housing Needs
Above: Housing Opportunity Index, 1991-2020
Right: Houselessness has increased by 19% from
2017-2019, 70% of which are unsheltered.

Below: Regional Housing Needs Allocation for
Sacramento, 2021-2029
Source: www.cityofsacramento.org
• As of 2021, Sacramento
had 197,000 housing
units. 66% of the
existing housing
stock is single-family.
• In 2022, the population
was 525,000, with

2.63 persons per
household. Projections
indicate 140,000 new
residents by 2040.
• In 2021, the median
home sale price was
$385,000 and median
gross rent was $1,435.
52% of the city's
residents are renters.
• To meet stateassigned targets,
Sacramento needs
to produce 45,580
housing units by
2029, averaging 5,700
units annually. For the
past decade, ~2,000
new units have been
produced annually.
• Sacramento has seen
a 44% decrease in
affordability from
2011 to 2020; and
a 19% increase in
houselessness
between 2017 to 2019.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
1991
Index Percentage
2020
12 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 1 — Executive Summary
City of Sacramento Housing Element 2021-2029
The private market has largely been unable to
produce homes affordable to lower-income
households, since affordable rents do not cover the
cost to construct these housing units. Between 2013-
2019, the City constructed an average of 105 lowerincome housing units per year, which represents less than 10 percent of Sacramento’s previous lowerincome housing target.

There are several barriers to developing affordable
housing in Sacramento and in California. A historical
focus on building single family homes and
neighborhoods has made it harder to build housing
for lower-income households throughout the City.

That, coupled with high construction and land costs
and the severe disinvestment in affordable housing
subsidies from the state and federal governments, has
created major challenges to building new affordable
housing. However, the City can play a part in
supporting the production of more affordable
housing units.

As part of California’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, the
City of Sacramento must adequately plan for and
accommodate a total of 16,769 new lower-income
housing units by 2029, which represents 37 percent of
the City’s overall RHNA (See Figure 4-3 below).
 Within that 16,769 figure, 10,463 units should be
affordable to very low-income households making
less than 50 percent AMI, and the remaining 6,306
units should be affordable to low-income
households making between 50-80 percent AMI.
 The allocation is equivalent to producing 2,100
lower-income units annually over the next eight
years.

LOCAL SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
 The Sacramento Housing and
Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) is a Joint
Powers Authority created by the City and
County. In its role as the Housing Authority,
SHRA owns and operates 1,508 public housing
units in the City and an additional 771 in the
other parts of the county. SHRA also administers
over 13,000 Housing Choice Vouchers
throughout Sacramento County. SHRA acts as
the City’s local housing finance agency,
administering local, Federal, and State funding
programs for the provision of affordable housing
and implementing the City’s Mixed Income
Housing Ordinance.
 The Housing Trust Fund Ordinance was
adopted in 1989 to raise local financing for the
construction of affordable housing near new
employment centers. The ordinance established
square footage fees for non-residential
development used to increase the supply of
affordable housing. Since inception through
2019, the fee has generated approximately $50
million.
 The Mixed Income Housing Ordinance
(MIHO) requires an affordable housing impact
fee for new housing units and large subdivisions
to assist with the provision of housing for a
variety of incomes and household types. The
revenue is placed in the citywide Housing Trust
Fund and is used to develop affordable housing
units with the goal of increasing the supply
available for lower-income workers. Since the
City began collecting fees under this ordinance
in 2016, the MIHO has generated over $4.5
million.

Figure 4-3 City of Sacramento RHNA, 2021-2029
Chapter Four: Citywide Place-Based Analysis
This chapter describes place-based analysis as a way of identifying areas with the spatial characteristics that are supportive of MMH.

Place-based analysis examines the key physical characteristics of an area that are important to support the development of MMH. These include location and special attributes such as historic districts, proximity to jobs and amenities, built-form and land use patterns, connectivity and access to transit; and lot sizes and block configurations. The analysis considers existing conditions as well as anticipated growth and planned changes, to understand how different parts of the city are likely to evolve.

This place-based approach establishes six context types in Sacramento that reflect existing development patterns and the physical environment, and can inform future decisions on land use and housing. The six context types are: Downtown, Compact and Connected, Transitional, Low-Scale Residential, Corridors and Centers, and Large Infill Sites.

The place-based analysis helps to ensure that recommendations for implementing MMH are intrinsically tied to the underlying context and the anticipated degree of change. Neighborhoods that already have or can support MMH, with walkable environments and good access to transit and amenities, can be priority areas for implementation. Similarly, there are areas that currently fulfill some but not all the conditions to support MMH. Such areas can benefit from targeted improvements to further support MMH.
• The place-based
analysis "layers" a
number of factors
to define the "DNA"
of the city's distinct
physical environments.
• Most residential
areas are in the R-1,
R-1A, and R2 zoning
districts. 70% of the
residential land is
zoned R-1.
• Most of Sacramento
has a lower-intensity,
mainly single-unit
development pattern.
• The citywide
analysis establishes
six context types.

Of these, the MMH
study will focus on the
Compact + Connected,
Transitional and
Low-Scale Residential
context types.
• Recommendations
to implement MMH
will be calibrated for
each context type to
respect and augment
existing conditions.
• The proposed Draft
2040 General Plan
sets Floor Area
Ratios (FARs), with a
maximum FAR of 1.0
for most residential
areas. This is enough
to enable typical small
and medium MMH
types.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Downtown Core Compact + Connected
Corridors + Centers Transitional
Large Infill Sites Low-Scale Residential
Context types in Sacramento that reflect
existing built form patterns, connectivity, land
uses and intensity of development.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 13 Chapter 1 — Executive Summary
Chapter Five: Testing For Feasibility
This chapter summarizes the "test fit" analysis carried out to evaluate a range of MMH types for physical and financial feasibility, and to identify existing regulatory barriers that must be addressed to enable MMH.

Building on the place-based analysis described in Chapter Four, existing residential lot sizes were analyzed citywide. Since each MMH type has minimum dimensional requirements, this process helps to determine the range of MMH types that can physically fit within existing lot sizes. While no prevalent lot size exists in Sacramento, many are within the minimum width and depth thresholds required to accommodate small and medium MMH types.

Next, a series of "test fits" utilizing real-world MMH prototypes on typical-sized lots helped to identify potential regulatory barriers, as well as evaluate the MMH prototypes for feasibility. This analysis tests for:
• Livability: physical fit, compatibility with existing context and adjacent uses; • Feasibility: viability as rental/for-sale under current market conditions; and • Attainability: potential to deliver housing at price points attainable to middleincome earners. Attainability is defined in this report as a level of affordability.

Typically, attainable housing means that a middle-income household spends less than 30 percent of total household income on rent or mortgage.

The feasibility analysis evaluated 12 test fits as either rental or for-sale products in "static", "emerging", "transitional" and "strong" real estate markets within Sacramento. Under current conditions, MMH is generally more feasible as a rental product. Single-family house conversions were most feasible; and rental MMH with more units, such as sixplexes and fourplexes are more feasible and attainable to middle-income households.
• 51% of existing lots
in the R-1, R-1A,
R-1B, and R-2 zoning
districts are at least
40' wide and 95' deep,
a threshold for many
small and medium
MMH types.
• Feasibility analysis
findings indicate MMH
is generally more
feasible as rental than
for-sale products.
• For-sale triplexes,
fourplexes and cottage
courts were feasible
only in "strong" real
estate sub-markets;
only the fourplex was
attainable at 100% AMI.
• Rental MMH types at
attainable price points
were feasible only in
"strong" sub-markets,
including a sixplex with
2 ADUs, a fourplex and
a single-family house
with 2 rental ADUs.
• Best practices to
increase feasibility for
MMH types are to :
- allow more units
within the same
building envelope,
- remove regulatory
barriers, and
- limit the size of
detached singlefamily units.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Above: How MMH promotes attainability.

Within the same building size (0.8 FAR), smaller
units in a fourplex are attainable as rentals at
60-110% AMI whereas a single-family home is
not, being feasible for-sale only at 300% of AMI.

Missing Middle Housing Attainability: Duplex + ADU / Fourplex 60% 110%
Attainability (% AMI):

Fourplex: Duplex + ADU: SF Home + ADU:

Floor-to-Area
Ratio:

0.8 97%
Fourplex Duplex +
ADU
SF Home SF Home +
ADU
Lot Size (sqft) 4,725 4,725 4,725 4,725
Unit Size (number of units) 950 (4) 1,300 (2) 3,000 (1) 3,000 (1) ADU Size n/a 1,200 n/a 800
FAR .8 .8 .8 .8
Monthly Rent / Mortgage* $2,195 rent
$2,898 rent$7,554
mortgage
$9,472
mortgage
SF Home:
126% 300% 340%
(Rent) for rent (Rent) for rent (For-Sale) for purchase for purchase Fourplex Duplex + ADU
97%
Attainability (% AMI)
126%
60% 110%
300%
SF House Test fit of a fourplex
with 2 ADUs
Lot category analysis
for all residential lots
in Sacramento
14 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 1 — Executive Summary
Chapter Six: Zoning + Policy Analysis
This chapter summarizes the zoning and policy barriers identified for the implementation of MMH citywide, specifically in the R-1, R-1A, R-1B, and R-2 zoning districts (the focus of the MMH study).

Chapter Six examines the limiting factors to MMH identified in the preceding analysis of current regulations and design controls that apply in the R-1, R-1A, R-1B and R-2 zoning districts. It organizes the information by context type to make it easier to assess regulatory constraints in relation to the underlying physical conditions. The three context types considered for the analysis are those that relate to the zoning districts that are the focus of the MMH study:

Compact + Connected, Transitional, and Low-Scale Residential.

The chapter discusses typical regulatory barriers in detail, explaining if and how these are constraining MMH in each context type. A summary list of the identified barriers is shown on the right. Relevant policy documents are also analyzed in this chapter, providing a brief overview of each and identifying potential barriers to enable MMH.

Summary of regulatory
barriers for MMH:
• Maximum units per
lot is a major barrier in
all three context types.
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
is not a barrier.
• Minimum lot area is
a minor barrier in all
three context types.
• Maximum lot
coverage is not a
barrier in any context
type.
• Minimum setbacks
is a major barrier in
Transitional, minor
barrier in other two
context types.
• Maximum height is
not a barrier.
• Bulk control is a major
barrier in all three
context types.
• Minimum parking is
a minor barrier only in
Compact + Connected.
• Driveway standards
a major barrier in all
three context types.
• Tree shading for
parking is a minor
barrier in Transitional,
Compact + Connected.
• Minimum open space
is a major barrier in
Compact + Connected,
minor barrier in other
two context types.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Cottage
Court
Single-Unit Duplex Multiplex
House
Triplex/
Fourplex
Courtyard
Building
Townhouse
160
140
120
100
80 60
40 20
0 Lot Width Dimensions (feet)
R-1, R-2 (62 ft)
R-1, R-2 (all Duplexes, 52 ft)
R-1A (20 ft)
R-1A (38 ft), R-1B (40 ft)
R-1A (25 ft)
Minimum Lot Widths
Mid-Block Lots
Corner Lots
Lots Abutting R-1
Typical Lot Width
Range of MMH Types
Above: Minimum lot widths and MMH
As shown in this graph, minimum lot widths
regulated in the R-1, R-1A, R-1B and R-2 zoning
districts do not align with dimensions of some
MMH types.

Right: Bulk control standards
While effective in controlling massing for singlefamily houses, these standards need to be adjusted to allow all typical MMH types.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 15 Chapter 1 — Executive Summary
16 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023

CHAPTER
2 About
Missing
Middle
Housing
(MMH)
In this chapter

2.1 Missing Middle Housing: An Overview 18

2.2 Palette of Missing Middle Housing Types 20

2.3 Missing Middle Housing: Important Characteristics 34

2.4 Missing Middle Housing in Sacramento 44

2.5 "Almost Missing Middle Housing" 52
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 17

2.1 Missing Middle Housing:

An Overview
This section summarizes the typical characteristics of Missing Middle Housing (MMH). For more information about the benefits of MMH, refer to the Missing Middle Housing Informational Report.

Missing Middle Housing (MMH) is
defined as a range of house-scale
buildings that contain more than
one housing unit, such as duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage
courts, that are similar in scale to a
single-family house.

MMH types help meet the growing
demand for more housing choices
and walkable urban living. MMH also
responds to the shifting household
demographics nationwide and
can meet the need for more
housing choices at different price
points, enhancing both rental and
homeownership opportunities.

MMH is not new to Sacramento. A wide
range of MMH types exist in most of the
city's neighborhoods, including cottage
courts, live-work units, townhouses,
courtyard buildings, multiplexes, and
over 3,560 duplexes, triplexes and
fourplexes. By encouraging MMH
citywide, Sacramento can expand
housing choice and affordability to
meet the current and future needs
of its residents. It can help address
growing housing inequity in the
region, and promote homeownership
and build generational wealth. It is
also a means to strengthen the local
economy as well as respond to climate
change by promoting compact,
infill development to help reduce
dependence on the car.

Note
This report includes
illustrations of all MMH
types including Upper
MMH, for informational and
comparison purposes.

At this time, Sacramento is
considering only the lower
spectrum of MMH types in
most areas of the city.

The Palette of Missing
Middle Housing (MMH)
Types provide a range of
"middle" building types
between the scale of a
typical detached single-unit
house and that of larger
residential buildings.
18 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
■ Small-footprint buildings
MMH types typically have small- to
medium-sized footprints, with a
body width, depth, and height no
larger than a single-unit home.

This size compatibility makes them
a good tool for neighborhood infill.
■ Marketable to many
MMH types look and feel like a
house, not a large building, with
features such as entrances off
a street and not an apartment
hallway. They provide a good fit
for many that are looking for this
"middle" scale of home.
■ Smaller, well-designed units
These multi-family housing types
typically have smaller-sized units
that can help keep development
costs down. Well-designed smaller
units can attract a different market
of buyers and renters whose needs
are currently not being met.
■ Promote walkability
MMH types work best in and
support walkable environments
where driving is a choice but
not a necessity. They promote
more active, healthy lifestyles
and, with more pedestrians, safer
neighborhoods.
■ Create community
MMH types integrate private open
spaces, or shared ones as in a
cottage court, which promotes a
sense of community. These types
also fit a variety of lifestyles, such
as multi-generational, co-living,
etc.
■ Provide local benefits
These housing types gently and
incrementally introduce more
housing without drastic changes
to the neighborhood scale. MMH
can be a way to empower local
residents and builders to invest in
their communities and gain equity.

Typical Characteristics of MMH
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 19 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Fourplex
4 units
Triplex
3 units
Duplex Side-by-Side
2 units
MMH Palette
Duplex Stacked
2 units

2.2 Palette of Missing Middle
Housing Types
The palette of MMH types shown below identifies the ideal lot characteristics for each MMH type. Detailed versions of these types are shown on the following pages.

The minimum dimensions shown
are what each type needs to provide
a high-quality living environment for
residents, and the maximum is the size
beyond which the lots become too
large to deliver the type of compact
development that supports walkable
environments. The minimum sizes
are also influenced by parking access,
whether from an alley or the front of
the lot. For implementing MMH, the
most critical metric to consider is lot
width and the resulting building width,
as these have a greater impact on the
Ideal Characteristics of MMH Types
Vehicular Access Front Rear Front Rear Front Rear Front Rear Max. Height (Stories) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lot Width (ft.) 55' - 75' 40' - 70' 45' - 75' 35' - 70' 45' - 75' 45' - 65' 50' - 75' 50' - 65' Lot Depth (ft.) 100' - 150' 100' - 150' 100' - 150' 100' - 150' 100' - 150' 100' - 150' 100' - 150' 100' - 150' Area of Lot (sf) 5,500 -
11,250
4,400 -
10,500
4,500 -
11,250
3,500 -
10,500
6,000 -
11,250
5,000 -
9,750
6,000 -
11,250
5,000 -
9,750
1 Variation: A larger version of this type is known as the “pocket neighborhood". The lot for this variation is the size of most of a block, and the shared court is much larger, or consists of two or more shared courts. The individual cottages are expanded to include a mix of duplex, triplex and fourplex buildings. 20 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Cottage Court1
5-10 units
Multiplex
6-18 units
Courtyard Building
6-20 units
Townhouse
1 unit
Live-Work
1 unit
quality of the public realm and help
to deliver a more predictable building
form. Lot area can also be used for
regulating MMH, but should not be the
primary factor.

The dimensions shown in the palette
below and on the subsequent pages
are the result of years of on-the-ground
research and design work for private
and public sector clients by Opticos
Design. These dimensions are meant
to be employed as a starting point
and should be calibrated for each
community's existing conditions, lot
patterns, and desired built form.

Front Rear Front Rear Front Rear Front Rear Front Rear

1.5 2.5 (32) 2.5 (32) 2.5 (32) 2.5 (32)
100' - 160' 100' - 150' 60' - 120' 50' - 100' 100' - 135' 85' - 125' n/a 18' - 25' n/a 18' - 25' 150' 150' 100' - 150' 100' - 150' 110' - 150' 110' - 150' n/a 85' - 120' n/a 85' - 120' 15,000 -
24,000
15,000 -
22,500
6,000 -
18,000
5,000 -
15,000
11,000 -
20,250
9,350 -
18,750
n/a 1,530 -
3,000
n/a 1,530 -
3,000
2In more intense neighborhoods, this type can be designed to have a third story, or a portion of a third story, depending on the intended physical elements of the neighborhood.

Note
This report includes illustrations of all
MMH types including Upper MMH, for
informational and comparison purposes.

At this time, Sacramento is considering
only the lower spectrum of MMH types in
most areas of the city.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 21 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Upper MMH is the category of multi-unit buildings taller and deeper than typical MMH, that still fit on the sizes of lots found in a typical single-family neighborhood.

Upper MMH can be used strategically
in areas adjacent to existing or planned
centers and transit hubs, and in higherintensity residential and mixed-use neighborhoods.

While these types are larger than
typical MMH types, and taller at three
to four stories in height, they can be
designed to be compatible with singlefamily buildings. Upper MMH types are helpful to consider especially in areas
with higher land costs since these
types are likely to be more financially
feasible, and can be a way to provide
more attainable units.

The following are best practices to
consider when using Upper MMH:
■ most effective where a greater
degree of change is happening or is
desired;
■ use in transition areas of a
neighborhood to connect to more
intense nodes, mixed-use centers
and/or transit centers;
■ allow more lot coverage and/or
deeper building footprints than for
typical MMH; and
■ require rear setbacks based on
prevalent rear setbacks in the
neighborhood (up to a maximum of
20 feet).

Upper Missing Middle
Housing Types
Note
This report includes
illustrations of all MMH
types including Upper
MMH, for informational and
comparison purposes.

At this time, Sacramento is
considering only the lower
spectrum of MMH types in
most areas of the city. Upper
MMH, if considered, will have
focused application only in
certain areas such as the
Central City.
22 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Upper MMH; Multiplex Large
(7-18 units), Athens, GA
Upper MMH
Located along corridors and edges of neighborhoods where larger buildings are appropriate; or as effective transitions from higher-intensity built environments to lower-intensity neighborhoods.

Upper MMH types have slightly larger footprints and
additional height as compared to typical MMH.

MMH
Located within and along edges of low-to-moderate intensity, "house-scale" residential neighborhoods.

MMH; Duplex Side-by-Side
(2 units), Iowa City, IA
7 Comparing MMH + Upper MMH
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 23 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Duplex Side-by-Side
Number of
Primary Units
Vehicular Access
Front Rear
2 Lot Width (ft.) 50' - 75' 40' - 70'
Lot Depth (ft.) 100' - 150' 100' - 150'
Description
A small- to medium-sized
building that consists of
two dwelling units next to
each other, both of which
face and are entered from
the street.

A variation of this is the
"front-to-back" duplex.

This variation and the sideby-side building type are
meant to provide two units
within the footprint of a
single-unit building. These
are distinct from the nonrecommended practice of
attaching two single-unit
houses to form two
attached units. This latter
approach often results in
a building that is larger
and is out of scale with its
single-unit neighbors.

Duplex Side-by-Side
Typical MMH Types
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
An ADU can be located
above the garage to
provide an additional unit
separate from the main
building.
24 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Duplex Stacked
Number of
Primary Units
Vehicular Access
Front Rear
2 Lot Width (ft.) 45' - 75 35' - 70'
Lot Depth (ft.) 100' - 150' 100' - 150'
Description
A small- to medium-sized
building that consists
of two stacked dwelling
units, one on top of the
other, both of which face
and are entered from the
street.

Duplex Stacked
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
An ADU can be located
above the garage to
provide an additional unit
separate from the main
building.

Typical MMH Types
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 25 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Description
A medium-sized building
that consists of three
units: typically two on
the ground floor and one
above with a shared entry
from the street and one
from the side yard.

Triplex
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
An ADU can be located
above the garage to
provide an additional unit
separate from the main
building.

Triplex
Number of
Primary Units
Vehicular Access
Front Rear
3 Lot Width (ft.) 45' - 75' 45' - 65'
Lot Depth (ft.) 115' - 150' 100' - 150'
Typical MMH Types
26 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Fourplex
Description
A medium-sized building
that consists of four units:
typically two on the
ground floor and up to two
above with a shared entry
from the street.

Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
An ADU can be located
above the garage to provide
an additional unit separate
from the main building.

Fourplex
Number of
Primary Units
Vehicular Access
Front Rear
4 Lot Width (ft.) 50' - 75' 50' - 65'
Lot Depth (ft.) 100' - 150' 100' - 150'
Typical MMH Types
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 27 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Description
A series of small, detached
buildings (typically five to
ten) on a lot arranged to
define a shared court that
is typically perpendicular
to the street. The shared
court takes the place of a
private rear yard and is an
important communityenhancing element.

A larger version of this
type is known as the
“pocket neighborhood".

This type differs from the
cottage court primarily
by site size. Typically, the
pocket neighborhood is
on a site at least twice as
large as the cottage court,
has larger dwellings and
a variety of housing types
(single-unit house, duplex,
etc.).

Cottage Court
Cottage Court
Number of
Primary Units
Vehicular Access
Front Rear
5-10 Lot Width (ft.) 100 ' - 160' 100' - 150'
Lot Depth (ft.) 150' 150'
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
An ADU can be located
above the garage to
provide an additional unit
separate from the main
building.

Typical MMH Types
28 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Description
A medium-sized building
that consists of six to 18
side-by-side and/or stacked
dwelling units, typically
with one shared entry or
individual entries along the
front and sometimes along
one or both sides.

This type contains two
sub-categories: "multiplex
small" (six to 10 units) and
"multiplex large" (seven to
18 units). The large multiplex
has focused application In
more intense environments,
and can have a third story.

Multiplex
Multiplex
Number of
Primary Units
Vehicular Access
Front Rear
6-18 Lot Width (ft.) 60' - 75' (or 120')* 50' - 65' (or 100')* Lot Depth (ft.) 100' - 150' 100' - 150'
* To accommodate a Multiplex Large
Note
This report includes illustrations
of all MMH types including
Upper MMH, for informational
and comparison purposes.

At this time, Sacramento is
only contemplating the lower
spectrum of MMH types in most
areas of the city.

Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
An ADU (or multiple ADUs)
can be provided as allowed
by the city's zoning code to
provide additional housing.

Typical MMH Types
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 29 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Description
A medium to large-sized
building or up to three
small to medium-sized
detached buildings
consisting of multiple
side-by-side and/or
stacked dwelling units
arranged around a shared
courtyard. Dwellings
are accessed from the
courtyard. Typically, each
unit has its own individual
entry or shares a common
entry with up to three
units. In more intense
neighborhoods, this type
can have a third story.

Courtyard Building
Courtyard Building
Number of
Primary Units
Vehicular Access
Front Rear
6-20 Lot Width (ft.) 100' - 135' 85' - 125'
Lot Depth (ft.) 110' - 150' 110' - 150'
Note
This report includes illustrations
of all MMH types including
Upper MMH, for informational
and comparison purposes.

At this time, Sacramento is
only contemplating the lower
spectrum of MMH types in most
areas of the city.

Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
An ADU (or multiple
ADUs) can be provided
as allowed by the city's
zoning code, and can be
located above the garage
to provide additional
housing.

Typical MMH Types
30 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Live-Work
Number of
Primary Units
Vehicular Access
Front Rear
1 Lot Width (ft.) n/a 18' - 25'
Lot Depth (ft.) n/a 85' - 120'
Description
A small- to medium-sized
attached or detached
building consisting of one
dwelling unit above or
behind a flexible ground
floor space for residential,
service, or retail uses. Both
the primary ground-floor flex
space and the second unit
are owned by one entity.

These types can function in a
variety of built environments.

They fit well into residential
neighborhoods, and several
of these can be arranged
as an attached group to
resemble a neighborhoodscale main street building.

Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
An ADU can be located
above the garage to provide
an additional unit separate
from the main building.

Live-Work
Typical MMH Types
Key
Flex space
Dwelling unit
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 31 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Townhouse
Description
A small- to medium-sized
building with one dwelling
that is attached to other
townhouses in an array.

Depending on the context,
townhouses can be
designed as house-form
(two to four attached twostory units) or block-form
(four to six attached units,
up to three stories tall)
depending on its location
in a lower-intensity (houseform) or a higher-intensity (block-form) environment.

A more intense version of
this type is the “townhouse
flat” that divides the
building vertically into two
to three flats.

Townhouse
Number of
Primary Units
Vehicular Access
Front Rear
1 Lot Width (ft.) n/a 18' - 25'
Lot Depth (ft.) n/a 85' - 120'
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
An ADU can be located
above the garage shown
in the main graphic to
provide an additional unit
separate from the main
building.

Typical MMH Types
32 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Other Housing Types
Innovation + Future-Proofing the Housing Stock
Apart from the types discussed in this section, there are also a variety of innovative multi-family housing configurations that MMH can support and augment.

These types, such as co-housing, co-living, etc. can support a wider range of household types and lifestyle choices. They can provide an inherent flexibility to how buildings can adapt and evolve over time, and in effect "future-proof" the city's housing stock.

A housing option to consider in order to meet changing
demographics and housing needs is the multi-generational house, in which two or three families could be accommodated within one overall building footprint.

Multi-generational House
Several attached housing units on a single lot
that allow multiple generations to have both
separate and shared living space.

Micro-units
Very small studio units (under
400 sf) in an apartment
configuration.

Co-housing
One-to-two story residential
buildings with common spaces
designed for communal use.

Co-living
Three-to-four story buildings
with units that share a kitchen
and other communal living
spaces.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 33 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)

2.3 Missing Middle Housing:

Important Characteristics
MMH is not a new building concept. It is a range of house-scale building types that exist in cities and towns across the country1 .

These types were a fundamental part of pre-1940s neighborhoods, and many examples exist in Sacramento today.

MMH types have several important
physical characteristics, that include:
■ Height. Typically two to two and
a half stories, with the half story
indicating a finished attic. A third
story can be allowed, typically for
Upper MMH types, with careful
consideration of form and scale
impacts on the surrounding built
environment.
■ Multiple units per building. Typically
two to six units, with a maximum of 12
units per building. Upper MMH have
a maximum of 19 units per building.

At this time, Sacramento is only
contemplating the lower spectrum of
MMH types in most areas of the city.
■ Footprint. Typical main body width
of 50 to 60 feet along the street and
up to 80 feet overall when secondary
"wings" are included.
■ Off-street parking. Recommended
no more than one off-street parking
space per unit. Detached parking
structures can help to maintain a
house-scale form for the primary
building in neighborhoods that have
houses with narrower widths.
■ On-site open space. Private open
space is not needed and should
not be required. Instead, a shared
open space could be provided in
the form of a rear yard, a wide side
yard, or a courtyard. While the shared
open space may be smaller than
on a typical single-family lot, careful
attention to design can create an
attractive, well-functioning shared
amenity. Open space on a lot is also
important for achieving the city's
urban tree canopy goals by providing
space for planting new trees and
preserving existing ones.
■ Driveways. Driveway design for
MMH types should match the
neighborhood context on a per-lot
basis. Often, zoning codes do not
differentiate between small-scale
and larger multi-family types and
require wide driveways for all multifamily, similar in size to commercial driveways. This often makes MMH
infeasible on infill lots. If no alley is
present, single-aisle driveways (similar
in width to driveways for single-family
houses) are recommended to make
these types more feasible, and to
avoid building frontages dominated
by parking.
1 Source: "Missing Middle
Housing: Thinking Big and
Building Small to Respond
to Today's Housing Crisis",
by Dan Parolek, Island
Press
34 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
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” Important Elements to Regulate through Zoning
For the successful application of MMH types, zoning and/or other applicable standards need to calibrate the following characteristics that relate to the scale and form of the building, its placement on the lot, and the relationship between the building and the adjacent public realm design. These are listed below and discussed in more detail in the following pages.
■ Building Form and Scale
Overall building size, including maximum height, width, and depth. ■ Frontages
The relationship between the building's primary facade and the adjacent street or public space (public realm).
■ Lot Width
A regulating tool to prevent out-of-scale buildings by coordinating the building type with existing lot widths.
■ Parking
Best practices on parking location and minimum requirements to encourage a pedestrian-focused environment and promote active transportation. ■ Open Space
Shared open space on a lot with minimum design criteria defined for it to be a functional space, providing greenery and trees where feasible.

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
Important Design Characteristics of MMH
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 35 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Building Form + Scale
Sacramento Missing Middle Housing Study | Workshop One
“Middle” in two different ways
Elements of Building Form
The physical form of a building - its
shape and size and its placement on
a lot - is an important consideration
when adding multi-family
housing within existing residential
neighborhoods. This is important to
ensure that the new building types
expand housing choices while also
maintaining compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood.

Building types are the basic increment
of design and development. When
planning for additional housing, it is
important to consider the scale and
form of the built outcome and how it
would complement what is existing in
that area.

MMH includes a range of building
types varying in scale and intensity to
match the context in which they may
be applied. Broadly speaking, buildings
can be categorized into house-scale
and block-scale buildings. The facing
page provides a summary description
of these types. MMH types have unique
physical characteristics that make them
typically house-scaled. MMH types
such as townhouses and live-work can
function well in both house-scale and
block-scale environments, depending
on how these types are arranged.

To envision more predictable outcomes
and provide implementation that is
coordinated with existing conditions,
the Missing Middle Housing study
relies on real-world "test fits" of different
housing types on typical-sized lots so
that the results are based on actual
site conditions in Sacramento and thus
offer a more accurate representation.

Refer to Chapter Five of this report for
more information.

Building Form
Each MMH type has
building dimensions
that are specific to it,
and based on accurate
internal layouts. This
allows these housing
types to yield more
predictable outcomes.
36 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
"House-Scale" + "Block-Scale"
Explained
Buildings can be broadly categorized
into two groups: house-scale and
block-scale.

House-scale buildings are those that
match the size and scale of a typical
house in terms of building footprint,
form, height and architectural details.

This category includes single-family
houses as well as most MMH types
such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
cottage courts, small multiplexes
and courtyard buildings. Heights
are typically two to three stories, and
building widths range from 25 feet to a
maximum of 75 feet.

Block-scale buildings are those that
are individually as large as a block or
most of a block; or, when arranged
together along a street, appear as
long as most or all of a block. MMH
examples include larger multiplexes,
townhouses, live-work, etc.

As the diagrams on this page show,
house-scale buildings are typically
associated with lower-intensity,
more residential environments
and block-scale buildings typically
occur in higher-intensity, mixed-use
environments.

Single-family
House
Duplex
Triplex/Fourplex
Courtyard Building
Cottage Court
Townhouse (Small)
Multiplex (Large)
Townhouse (Large)
or Live-Work
Main Street
Building
House-scale
Block-scale
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 37 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Neighborhood Environment
Porch Projecting
Plan View Section View
Porch Engaged Stoop Projecting Stoop Engaged
Common MMH Frontages
What is a "Frontage"?
A frontage is the component of a
building that provides an important
transition and interface between the
public realm (street and sidewalk) and
the private realm (building facade).

The intent of regulating frontages is to
ensure that, after a building is located
on its lot, its interface with the public
realm and the transition between the
two is designed to be pedestrianscaled and to encourage walkability.

The names of the frontage types
depicted below indicate their particular
configuration or function and are
based on examples found in cities
across the country. Some frontage
types may be more common than
others in Sacramento, and the most
representative types can be identified
by an on-the-ground survey.

Why are Frontages Important
for MMH?
MMH types are house-scale and
generally look like they could be a large
single-family house. Frontage types
used for single-family houses, such as
porches and stoops, help MMH types
contribute to the residential look and
feel of the neighborhood.

A strong sense of community is an
important benefit that MMH provides
to a neighborhood, and frontage types
play a key role in this by reinforcing
pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and
walkability.

Buildings with blank facades or entries
that are not visible from the street
can appear impersonal. Creating
clear, distinct entryways with room for
socializing reinforces the neighborhood
scale of MMH types and provides
for a more convivial and welcoming
streetscape.

Frontages
Spectrum of Frontage Types
Source: Form Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Builders by Daniel Parolek AIA, Karen Parolek, Paul C. Crawford FAICP, Island Press

CLOSER LOOK
38 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Mixed-Use Environment
Dooryard Forecourt Terrace Shopfront
Less Common MMH Frontages
Important Features to Regulate
The detailed regulations for
frontage types should be based
on measurements from good local
precedents to ensure they are
appropriate. For instance, setting the
correct minimum depth for stoops
and porches is extremely important
to ensure that they are actually usable,
look like they are from the area, and
that they improve the public/private
interface by providing residents with a
place to sit outside where they can also
greet their neighbors.

Setback ROW Setback
Line
ROW
Line
Street Street
Width of porch
Depth of porch
Height above
sidewalk
Minimum width for
pedestrian access
Regulating Frontages:

An Example of a Porch
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 39 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
The Palette of MMH Types with Typical Lot Widths
Duplex Side-by-Side
40'-75'
Duplex Stacked
35'-75'
Triplex
45'-75'
Fourplex
50'-75'
The palette
shows ideal lot
width ranges for
each MMH type.

These can be
calibrated based
on existing lot
conditions.

Importance of Lot Width
Often, development standards regulate
using lot area as a way to reinforce
maximum allowed density in residential
neighborhoods. This approach prevents
some housing choices from being built
that may be physically compatible with
single-family houses.

Lot width can be a more effective
regulation than lot area. This is primarily
because while a project can comply
with the minimum lot area it can still
result in a building that is too large for
its context. This can happen even with
lower-intensity housing types such as
a duplex that is allowed to fill up the
building envelope and create a building
that is within the density limits, but is
larger than the houses around it.

In contrast, regulating by lot width
allows for MMH types while providing
standards for maximum building
footprint that are coordinated with
existing lot widths.

Typical Lot Widths for MMH
The chart on the facing page shows the
ideal lot width ranges for each MMH
type based on the building footprint of
the specific MMH type, and whether
vehicular access is from an alley or from
the front of the lot.

Lot Width
40 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Cottage Court
100'-160'
Cottage
Court
Duplex Triplex Fourplex Multiplex Courtyard
Building
Townhouse Live/
Work
feet
160
140
120
100
80 60
40 20
0 160
100
75 120
18 120
18 135
85 40
75 50
75 45
120
50 Courtyard Building
85'-135'
Multiplex
50'-120'
Townhouse
18'-25'
Live/ Work
18'-25'
Lot Width Ranges for Typical MMH Types
Note
Width ranges of up to 120'
for townhouses and livework are assuming multiple
attached housing units.

Best practices limit these
to a set or "run" of four to
six attached units before a
massing break is required.

Illustrations of Upper
MMH in this report are
for informational and
comparison purposes. At
this time, Sacramento is only
contemplating the lower
spectrum of MMH types in
most areas of the city.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 41 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
The Cost of
Parking (2020
figures)
Surface Parking
$1,500 to $5,000
Surface Parking with
Roof
$5,000 to $10,000
Garage Parking
$25,000 to $50,000
Costs are per parking
space and inclusive of
land costs. The costs
shown here are US
national averages.

Source: RS Means, www.
rsmeans.com

CLOSER LOOK
Parking Requirements
Parking Design + Location
Parking requirements (the number
of required off-street parking spaces)
can greatly impact the feasibility of
MMH, and is one of the most common
barriers to enabling MMH. These
building types rely on the efficient use
of available space on a lot for housing.

For this reason, parking requirements
can quickly become a barrier, with
parking spaces taking up space on a
lot that could be used for housing or
shared open space and trees.

The example below shows how parking
requirements can be a barrier to
allowing MMH on typical lots. In this
example, no parking requirements
would enable a fourplex on even a
small, 50-foot wide lot but when the
requirement is of two parking spaces
per housing unit, most smaller lots
would not be able to accommodate
the fourplex because of the required
parking spaces and access driveways.

Apart from requiring space, parking
also is a barrier because of the cost of
providing parking, particularly if it is an
enclosed space. The cost of providing
parking can be as much as $50,000
per space, which can quickly impact
the feasibility of many MMH and other
housing projects.

Parking requirements should be
coordinated to existing conditions, such
as available street parking, proximity
to transit and alternate transportation
modes. Best practices advocate for
removing parking minimums, and even
setting parking maximums, particularly
in areas where alternate mobility
options are available.

Parking Considerations for MMH
■ Require only the optimal amount of
off-street parking, not exceeding one
space per housing unit.
■ Regulate parking location and design
on the lot to create a pedestrianfriendly street and building frontage.

Parking should be at the rear of the
lot, and the front facade of buildings
should feature entrances and
windows rather than garage doors.
■ Provide guidance on materials to
prevent and mitigate issues such as
untreated stormwater runoff and the
urban heat island effect.

Fourplex with
no required
parking
Fourplex with
one parking
space
required
per unit
Fourplex with
two parking
spaces
required
per unit
Parking Requirements + Feasibility
42 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Open Space Example: Cottage Court
Recommended minimum 20' width
for shared open space, building
entrances from open space
Open space oriented to street,
parking at the rear of the lot
RT
Open Space
Benefits of Open Space
Open space is essential to encourage
active and healthy lifestyles, allow
people to connect with nature, increase
tree canopy in communities, and help
mitigate the effects of climate change.

Open space is an important attribute
of MMH types, and is provided as both
shared and/or private open space on
the lot. Well-designed open spaces can
create an inviting place for residents to
relax and interact, allow for community
gathering, provide greenery and trees;
and in addition also help to activate the
adjacent street and public realm.

Open Space Design
Considerations for MMH
■ Design open spaces to function as
semi-private/private/shared spaces
depending on the MMH type.
■ Protect existing trees on the lot to the
extent feasible, and provide space for
new trees.
■ For narrower front or side setbacks,
consider uses such as native gardens,
swales for stormwater treatment, etc.
■ Utilize lighter-colored and permeable
materials for hardscaped areas.
■ Use landscaping to define building
entrances and access.
■ In MMH types with more units, such
as a cottage court or courtyard
building, the open space serves
as the main gathering place. It is
important to design the space to be
usable (and ideally multi-functional),
place it in a central location, and
orient surrounding building facades
and entrances to frame it. Frontages
such as dooryards, stoops and
porches can be used to make the
open space inviting and encourage
interaction.
■ In the case of larger sites, the design
of open spaces should consider
existing mature trees and natural
features such as creeks, and integrate
them into the site layout.

Building frontage and entrance face street
Front setback landscaped, pathways reinforce
pedestrian entrances
Shade trees and green infrastructure
Open Space Best Practices for MMH
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 43 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)

2.4 Missing Middle Housing
in Sacramento
Like most cities built before the 1940’s, Sacramento includes many examples of MMH types, found primarily in the city's historic core (Central City) and adjacent neighborhoods.

In many American cities, including
Sacramento, MMH was traditionally
built near downtowns and job centers
to provide affordable housing options
for workers. The map on the facing
page shows the general location
of MMH types across Sacramento
neighborhoods, including the
locations of 3,560 duplexes, triplexes,
and fourplexes* across the city's
neighborhoods. As the map shows,
many MMH types are located within
the city's historic districts. New MMH
proposed in these areas will need to
fully comply with the city's Historic
District Plan that include standards,
guidelines and criteria consistent
with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. MMH involving a landmark
parcel will also need to comply with
the U.S. Secretary of the Interior
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties as interpreted by city historic
preservation staff or potentially the
Preservation Commission.
* Note: This number does not
include the other types of
MMH such as cottage courts,
live-work, courtyard building,
and small multiplexes that
can be found in many parts
of the city.

Courtyard Building
Central City
Cottage Court
Land Park
Triplex
Fruitridge Broadway (Oak Park)
Multiplex (Small)
East Sacramento
Duplex
Land Park
Duplex
East Sacramento (Elmhurst)
44 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Existing MMH in
Sacramento
City Boundary
Community
Plan Areas
Existing Historic
Districts
Areas of High
Concentration
of Existing MMH
Parcels
Duplex
Triplex
Fourplex
Note: This map shows
only the documented
duplexes, triplexes and
fourplexes in the City's
single-unit and duplex
dwelling zoning districts.

In addition, there are
other types of MMH such
as cottage courts, livework, courtyard building,
and small multiplexes
that can be found in
other parts of the City,
including the historic
districts.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 45 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
North Natomas
Duplex 0 parcels
Triplex 0 parcels
Fourplex 0 parcels
East Sacramento
Duplex 445 parcels
Triplex 3 parcels
Fourplex 32 parcels
South Natomas
Duplex 50 parcels
Triplex 0 parcels
Fourplex 6 parcels
Land Park
Duplex 583 parcels
Triplex 12 parcels
Fourplex 7 parcels
Central City
Duplex 168 parcels
Triplex 27 parcels
Fourplex 90 parcels
Pocket
Duplex 623 parcels
Triplex 1 parcels
Fourplex 7 parcels
Existing Duplexes, Triplexes + Fourplexes in Sacramento's Residential Neighborhoods by Community Plan Area
Note: This map only shows MMH examples
in the single-unit and duplex dwelling
zones. Many more MMH types exist in the
Central City's multi-unit dwelling zones
and historic districts.

Duplex Triplex Fourplex
Duplex Triplex Fourplex
46 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
North Sacramento
Duplex 337 parcels
Triplex 15 parcels
Fourplex 32 parcels
Fruitridge
Duplex 624 parcels
Triplex 12 parcels
Fourplex 10 parcels
Arden Arcade
Duplex 52 parcels
Triplex 0 parcels
Fourplex 0 parcels
South Area
Duplex 414 parcels
Triplex 1 parcels
Fourplex 9 parcels
Note: These maps show
only the documented
duplexes, triplexes and
fourplexes in the City's
single-unit and duplex
dwelling zoning districts.

In addition, there are
other types of MMH such
as cottage courts, livework, courtyard building,
and small multiplexes
that can be found in
other parts of the City,
including the historic
districts.

Duplex Triplex Fourplex
Duplex Triplex Fourplex
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 47 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Duplex
Side-by-Side
2 units
Duplex Stacked
2 units
Fourplex
4 units
Triplex
3 units
MMH Examples from Sacramento
48 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Cottage Court
6-10 units
Note: Sacramento's historic districts have many MMH exemplars, and can accommodate new MMH types in compliance with historic preservation requirements and design review.

Multiplex
6-18 units
Courtyard
Building
6-20 units
Live-Work
1 unit
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 49 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
Taking an inventory of existing MMH
types is the first step in creating
building type standards. Many MMH
types may be non-conforming with
existing zoning, or may have been
converted into other uses such as
offices, or a duplex converted into a
large single-family home. A walking
tour or other on-the-ground research
can help identify such examples.

The number of mailboxes, electrical
and gas meters, as well as window
type/composition on the facade can
indicate a MMH type.

Existing MMH types can provide
guidance for calibrating development
standards. Measuring lot dimensions,
building footprints, frontage details,
parking configurations, building
height, location of units within the
buildings, and location of building
and/or unit entrances can help to
define the unique characteristics of
MMH types in Sacramento.

Photo documentation can also
help to inform standards, as well
as providing examples of intended
building form and scale that can
inform infill and new development.

0.558.6957 © 2019 Opticos Design, Inc. 2100 Milvia St, Ste 125 | Berkeley, CA 94704 UR SEPTEMBER 2019 – APA CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE – MISSING MIDDLE NEIGHBORHOOD WALKING TOUR visit missingmiddlehousing.com
E-1
R-3
C-M
PR/S-D-3
C-2
R-3
R-4/S-D-3
A-2/S-D-3
S-D-3
R-1
SP-5
R-3/S-D-3
A-2
OM-1/S-D-3
PR
C-1/S-D-3
R-4/S-D-3
R-1
M-1/S-D-3
HC/S-D-3
PR
E-3
R-4
E-2
E-2
OC/S-D-3
P
HRC-2/S-D-3
C-2
PUD-3.0/S-D-3
PUD-0.67
C-2/S-D-3
R-3/S-D-3
C-P
E-1
E-1/PUD
R-2/S-D-3
R-3/S-D-3
PR
C-P
C-P
PR
C-2/S-D-3
PR
HRC-2/
S-P-2/
S-D-3
A-2
A-2
A-1
A-2
A-1
PR
! R-1/S-D-3
!
HRC-2/S-D-3
! E-1/S-D-3
A-1
R-2
A-1
! PR
A-1
A-1
PR
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
C-P
!
PR E-3
C-2
C-2
! PR
C-M
! PR
! PR/S-D-3
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
PR/S-D-3 !
!
OM-1/
SP-2/
S-D-3 PR/S-D-3
PR/S-D-3
! OC/
HRC-2/
S-D-3
HC/
S-D-3
PR/S-D-3
3 C-2
C-2
M-1
HRC-1/S-D-3
! R-3/S-D-3
E-1
E-1
E-1
!
OC/HRC-2/S-D-3
! PR
COUNTY
! C-P
! C-P
! C-P
!
E-1/PUD
!
HRC-2/SP-1/S-D-3
PR
OC/HRC-2/S-D-3
! PR
E-3/
S-D-3
HRC-1/SP-1/S-D-3
HRC-1/S-D-3
HRC-1/S-D-3
M-1/S-D-3 R-4/S-D-3
! R-4/S-D-3
! HC/S-D-3
El Estero
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Santa Barbara
Bowl
Sheffield Reservoir
Santa Barbara
High School
Santa Barbara
Jr. High School
Franklin
Elementary
Santa Barbara
City College
Cleveland
Elementary
Ortega
Park
Pershing
Park
West Beach Chase Palm Park
East Beach
SB
Zoo
Montecito Country Club
Franceschi
Park
Parma Park
Hale Park
El Presidio
dbetter Beach
State St
Andre Clark
Bird Refuge
P a c i f i c O c e a n
State St
hapala St
E Cabrillo Bl
E Cota St
Hot Springs Rd
E Haley St
Santa Barbara St
E Mountain Dr
Garden St
E Gutierrez St
Laguna St
Summit Rd
N Alisos St
Ashley Rd
Eucalyptus Hill Rd
Hill Rd
Mission Ridge Rd
Alston R d
Olive Mill Rd
E Montecito St
u St
E De La Guerra St
E Ortega St
E Mason St
Conej o Rd
Old Coast Hwy
E Canon Perdido St
Olive St
Barker Pass Rd
Middle Rd
S Salinas St
Hillcrest Rd
N Soledad St
Sycamore Canyon Rd
E Yanonali St
N Voluntario St
Channel Dr
Coast Village Rd
E Carrillo St
Las Alturas Rd
gueroa St
Cacique St
Carpinteria St
S Canada St
Butterfly Ln
Picacho Ln
Mesa Rd
N Quarantina St
N Nopal St
Camino Viejo Rd
Roble Ln
S Milpas St
Quinientos St
Ninos Dr
Alameda Padre Serra
W Haley St
hill Ln
Garcia Rd
Unnamed St
Riven Rock R d
Canon View Rd
Cold Springs Rd
Cedar Ln
Cowles Rd
Spring St
Woodley Rd
El Cielito Rd
Banana Rd
Oak Rd
Nicholas Ln
Paterna Rd
Parra Grande Ln
S Alisos St
s Ln
Scenic Dr
High Rd
Rametto Rd
J imeno Rd
to St
S Voluntario St
Ayala Ln
Westmont Rd
Glenview Rd
El Rancho Rd
Cielito Ln
Gray Av
Indio Muerto St
Skyview Dr
Coast Village Ci
Pitos St
Bond Av
Arcady Rd
Oriole Rd
Cota Ln
Medio R d
Arbolado Rd
Clifton St
W Yanonali St
La Paz Rd
Dover Rd
Golf Rd
Sierra Vista Rd
N Milpas St
Fairway Rd
N Salinas St
Sunrise Hill L n
Ferrelo Rd
Punta Gorda St
Circle Dr
Chase Dr
Stearns Wharf
N Calle Cesar Chavez
Reddick St
a Vista Av
Woodland Dr
La VistaGrande
Vine Av
Danielson Rd
Chelham Wy
Maceta Ln
Carrillo Rd
Loma Media Rd
Via Ali cia
Nopalitos Wy
Lou Dillon Ln
Virginia Rd
Cima Linda Ln
Alphonse St
Rockwood Dr
Fig Av
O rizaba Ln
Camino Alto Rd
Franc eschi Rd
N Jameson Ln
Dulzura Dr
Kna pp D r
Paso Robles Dr
Rubio Rd
Drexel Dr
School House Rd
Chiquita Rd
Santa Elena Ln
Helena Av
De La Guerra Rd
Lowe
Knoll Circle Dr
Owen Rd
Dawlish Pl
Salinas Pl
Rose Av
Overlook L n
Lanai Rd
Pico Av
Santa Ynez St
E Pepper Ln
S Calle Cesar Chavez
Santo Tomas Ln
Crestvie w Ln
Brook Ln
H ot Springs Ln
Union Av
Indian Ln
Seaview Dr
Garden Ln
High Ridge Ln
Salsipuedes St
Monte Cristo Ln
Paseo Ferrelo
Via Encanto
Alee da Ln
Wilson Av
Alston Pl
Palm Av
Liberty St
Orizaba Rd
Edison Av
Oak Springs Ln
e
Harmon St
Alcala Ln
Ridgeview Ln
Olive Mill Ln
Theater Ln
Casitas Rd
Coron a da C i
Por La Mar Ci
Calle Bello
Stoddard Ln
Spring Rd
Philinda Av
anchita Pl
Green Meadows Rd
Diana Rd
Terrace Rd
Del Parque Dr
M eadow Ln
Niel Park St
Mellifont Av
W Mason St
Eucalyptus Hill Dr
Dover Hill Rd
N Canada St
Bregante Ln
Deerpath Rd
Lowena Dr
Ensenada St
Palm Tree Ln
Alta Vista Rd
W Pepper Ln
Dinsmore Ln
Eleven Oaks Ln
Cielo Ln
Rosemary Ln
Newton Rd
Kimball Av
Richardson Av
Rincon Vista Rd
Formosa Rd
Rock bridge Rd
Jennings Av
Augus ta Ln
Las Alturas Ci
Soledad Av
Ealand Pl
Parker Wy
Cl over Ln
Citrus Av
Summit Ln
Ashley Av
Alston Ln
Norman Ln
Fairwood Ln
n Av
S Olive St
Presidio Av
N Milpas St
Unnamed St
Butterfly Ln
Santa Barbara St
W Gutierrez St
Unna med St
N Nopal St
Mountain Dr
N Canada St
Unnamed St
Cold Springs R
Unnamed St
Channel Dr
W Cota St
Dr
Anacapa St
Olive St
E Yanonali St
Bath St
E Figueroa St
Unnamed St
W Mason St
E Ortega St
Overlook Ln
Chapala St
E Montecito St
Unnamed St
and Av
Unnamed St
N Nopal St
Map prepared by City of Santa Barbara, Planning Division, AJN, March, 2016 NAD 1983 State Plane
California V FIPS 0405 (Feet)
C-2 - Commercial
C-L - Limited Commercial
C-M - Commercial-Manufacturing
C-O - Medical Office
C-P - Restricted Commercial
HC - Harbor Commercial
HRC - Hotel and Related Commerce
M-1 - Light Manufacturing
OC - Ocean Related Commerce
OM-1 - Ocean Oriented Light Manufacturing
PR - Parks and Recreation
R-O - Restricted Office
Overlay Zones
C-X - Research and Development
P-D - Planned Development
PUD - Planned Unit Development
SP - Specific Plan
S-D-1 - Special District Zone 1 (San Roque)
S-D-2 - Special District Zone 2 (Upper State)
S-D-3 - Special District Zone 3 (Coastal Zone)
S-H - Senior Housing
HWMF - Hazardous Waste Management Facility
City of Santa Barbara
Zoning Map
0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200 650 Feet
1:14,000
:
(Not Including Airport)
Zone Changes Adopted as of 6/25/2013
Santa Barbara City Council Resolution No. 13-055
Sample Documentation
Neighborhood Context
Several neighborhoods in Sacramento
offer examples of MMH intermixed with
single-family houses. One such block
from the Curtis Park neighborhood, as
shown on the facing page, provides an
example of a range of housing types
on the same block, and demonstrates
how a walkable context with access
to amenities can allow MMH to be
successful.

The block includes single-family houses,
a cottage court, several duplexes, a few
ADUs, and a live-work building which
is currently under construction at the
end of the block near other commercial
uses. This block is a great example of
how MMH blends into existing housescale neighborhoods.

HOW TO IDENTIFY BUILDING TYPES IN SACRAMENTO
Above: Walking Tours
are an effective way of
understanding existing MMH
within a neighborhood or
area.

Below: Documentation
of MMH types by studying
building heights and
footprint size.
50 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
MMH in Curtis Park,
Sacramento
Cottage Court
Duplex
Other Multi-family
(non-MMH)
ADU
Live-Work (under
construction)
Cottage Court
Live-Work
Duplex
Duplex
Example of a MMH Neighborhood: Curtis Park
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 51 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)

2.5 "Almost Missing Middle
Housing"
Where MMH is located and how it is oriented to public streets and spaces is critical for creating and supporting walkable neighborhoods with a mix of incomes and housing choices.

Getting it Right
MMH is more than just a number of
units fitted into a house-scale building
form. Getting public realm design
details right is critical for making
neighborhoods walkable and for
encouraging community support for
new housing.

It is important that MMH types
demonstrate good design so that
they can be perceived as benefitting
the architectural quality of a
neighborhood. MMH buildings with
high-quality frontages and housescale building form and architectural details contribute positively to a
neighborhood’s public realm, and
complement high-quality, pedestrianoriented street and sidewalk design.

Not Quite Right
The examples on the facing page
provide much-needed housing and
at first glance may seem to fit some
criteria for MMH, but while these
buildings are generally house-scaled,
or close to house-scale, they lack
other qualities of MMH that are very
important to create and support
walkable environments. These are
examples of design features to avoid
when designing MMH:
• Location of parking at the front of the
lot and building frontages that are
not pedestrian-friendly;
• Lack of easily identifiable entrances,
street-facing windows, and/
or frontages such as porches or
stoops mean that they may not
be contextually appropriate in
Sacramento neighborhoods where
those types of building details
constitute an important element of
the physical form; and
• Lack of diversity of building types
on a block creates monotonous
environments. MMH works most
effectively when a variety of housing
types are mixed along a block.

Refer to Section 2.3
of this chapter for an
explanation of the
physical characteristics
of MMH types.
52 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
These are NOT MMH
• 3 stories, lot coverage more than 50 percent
• No articulation of ground floor frontage
• Street frontage dominated by parking
• No shared usable open space
Criteria of MMH
In a walkable context
Multiple units
House-scale building
Pedestrian-oriented frontage
Parking in rear of lot
Usable open space
Example 1
Criteria of MMH
In a walkable context
Multiple units
House-scale building
Pedestrian-oriented frontage
Parking in rear of lot
Usable open space
• 2 stories, approximately 50 percent lot coverage
• Ground floor with no street-facing windows
• Frontage dominated by parking, driveway
• Some shared open space at rear but no trees (paved)
Example 2
• Limited pedestrian access
• Driveway location does not create pedestrian-friendly public realm • Frontage dominated by parking, driveway
• Rear shared open space
Example 3
Criteria of MMH
In a walkable context
Multiple units
House-scale building
Pedestrian-oriented frontage
Parking in rear of lot
Usable open space
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 53 Chapter 2 — About Missing Middle Housing (MMH)
54 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023

CHAPTER
3 Sacramento's
Housing
Needs
In this chapter

3.1 National Demographic + Housing Trends 56

3.2 Housing in Sacramento Today 58

3.3 The Need + Desire for More Housing Choices 64
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 55

3.1 National Demographic +
Housing Trends
"Triple-bottom-line" benefits of
walkable environments:

1. Improved physical health and mental well-being of residents;

2. Environmental stewardship; and

3. Economic benefits.

Key national trends point to MMH as an essential strategy for communities to spur reinvestment and housing production.

A Changing Population
National demographic trends indicate
changing housing preferences and
needs.
■ According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, in 2022, 30 percent of all
households were single-person
households1
. This trend is anticipated
to increase as household sizes are
changing. By 2030, 75 percent of
U.S. households are anticipated not
to have children.
■ Americans are also aging. The ratio
of the senior population has been
increasing steadily, and by 2050 one
in every five U.S. households will
be over 65 years of age.
■ Another key trend is that of ethnicity.

By 2050, 29 percent of the
population will be Latino.

These key demographic shifts signal a
pressing need to create more diverse
housing types to fit our changing
lifestyles and housing needs better.

Recent surveys reveal that a significant
percentage of the population prefers
alternate housing types to single-family
houses. Millennials, baby boomers,
and single-person households are
growing segments of the population
and prefer a small house with a small
yard that is easy to maintain. The two
fastest-growing demographic groups
- millennials and baby boomers - want
to live in more walkable neighborhoods
and seek alternate housing options2.

Seniors and retirees are another
growing segment of the population.

Nearly 10,000 baby boomers retire
every day3. Half of them have no
retirement savings and are dependent
on their social security payments for
their expenses. With the average social
service monthly payment being only
about $1,340, the need for smaller,
more affordable, and attainable
housing choices is increasing.

Sources:
1 U.S. Census Bureau
2 American Planning
Association
3 www.home.one
4 NAIOP Commercial
Real Estate Development
Association
56 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
Housing Needs Are Changing Nationwide
Demand for Walkable Living
In addition to changing demographics, there is a
growing change in housing preferences. There is a
20 to 35 percent gap between the demand and
supply of walkable urban living choices created
by the limited variety of housing products being
delivered in the housing market.

According to recent surveys by the National
Association of Realtors (NAR), 60 percent of the
population favors living in neighborhoods with
a walkable mix of houses and stores rather than
neighborhoods that require driving between home,
work, and play. Office tenants, too, prefer locations in walkable environments over typical suburban office
parks by a ratio of 4:14.

Inadequate Housing Choices
For the past 75 years, the U.S. has primarily been
building detached single-family houses and mid-rise
or high-rise apartments without addressing the
market needs between these two ends of the housing
spectrum. With an estimated shortage of 3 million
units in the U.S., the demand for small-lot and
attached housing units still needs to be met.

Meeting this demand and addressing our changing
housing preferences will require a concerted effort
by jurisdictions, financing institutions, and the
development community. MMH can be a key
strategy to address the current housing market
imbalance and further housing attainability
nationwide.

Growing Demand for Walkability + Housing Choices
Single Family
39%
Mobile Homes
2%
Multifamily
15%
Condos
10%
Townhomes
34%
Millennials (25-34)
59% Looking for MMH
Single Family
71%
Mobile Homes
2%
Multifamily
7%
Condos
9%
Townhomes
11%
Baby Boomers (55-64)
27% Looking for MMH
Single Family
39%
Mobile Homes
2%
Multifamily
15%
Condos
10%
Townhomes
34%
Millennials (25-34)
59% Looking for MMH
Single Family
71%
Mobile Homes
2%
Multifamily
7%
Condos
9%
Townhomes
11%
Baby Boomers (55-64)
27 percent of baby boomers and 59 percent of 27% Looking for MMH millennials are seeking new housing options such
as MMH types.

Source: www.realtor.com
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 57 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs

3.2 Housing in Sacramento
Today
Existing Housing Types
Sacramento has nearly 200,000
housing units. While larger residential
and mixed-use buildings are seen
in Central City and adjacent areas,
66 percent of the housing stock is
in single-family houses, the most
prevalent housing type seen across the
city's residential neighborhoods.

Missing Middle Housing (MMH) is found
in most of the city's Community Plan
Areas, and the highest concentration
can be seen in neighborhoods in and
adjacent to the central core. The range
of MMH types found in Sacramento
includes cottage courts, townhouses,
live-work, small courtyard buildings,
multiplexes, and over 3,560 duplexes,
triplexes, and fourplexes*, as
discussed in Chapter Two of this report.

Housing Conditions
The tables on the facing page show
a snapshot of existing housing in
Sacramento. As mentioned earlier,
most of the housing stock is singlefamily houses, which is the most expensive housing type to rent or
purchase. Historically, home sale prices
and rents in Sacramento have been
more affordable than in other places
in the region, but this is changing.

Housing affordability has become
a major issue for most residents,
and like many cities in the region,
Sacramento is also facing a growing
crisis of houselessness (also called
homelessness).

MMH can be one of the solutions
to consider for providing greater
housing access at all rental and forsale housing prices.

Development Patterns
Sacramento's development
patterns today are predominantly in the form of low-rise single-family neighborhoods.

Source: Google Earth
58 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), City of
Sacramento Housing Element 2021-2029
197,000
total number of
housing units
in Sacramento
(2021).
66%
of existing (2021)
housing stock
is single-unit.

Single-Unit Zoning in Sacramento
Map source: The Othering & Belonging Institute, www.belonging.berkeley.edu Single-Unit Residential
Other Residential
Non-Residential/Other Use
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 59 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
140,000
new Sacramento
residents anticipated
by 2040.

Local Demographics + Housing Market Trends
Sacramento has a population of 525,000, according to
the U.S. Census (2021). According to the Sacramento
Area Council of Governments (SACOG), the City of
Sacramento is projected to continue adding new
residents at about 1.1 percent per year. If this rate
is realized, the City will add about 140,000 new
residents by 2040.

Sacramento's population is currently more diverse
than the county or region, and this trend will continue.

In 2018, nearly 68 percent of the population included
persons of color (compared to 55 percent for the
county). In the future, these population trends will
continue, and the fastest-growing segment of the
population is expected to be persons of age 65 to

74. In contrast, the population of age 24 and under
will reduce.

The "health" of a housing market is often indicated
by vacancy rates, with a balanced housing market
having vacancy rates of 2 to 3 percent for owneroccupied and 6 to 7 percent for rental units. According to the Sacramento Housing Element of 2021-2029,
Sacramento had a low overall vacancy rate of 6.5
percent in 2018 (4.2 percent for rental and 1.2 percent for ownership units). This suggests that Sacramento
has a tight housing market with limited owneroccupied and rental housing availability.

Overall, housing development in the coming decades
will need to respond to these changing demographics
and related housing needs.

Sacramento's Changing Population
525,000
Sacramento's
population (2022).

2.63 persons per
household.

Sacramento's Population by Age Group
60 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
average annual new housing units over 2,000 past decade. new housing units needed annually to 5,700 meet RHNA targets. 45,580
new housing units
needed by 2029
(RHNA Cycle 6).
homeowner vacancy rate of 1.2
percent and rental vacancy rate Very low of 4.4 percent. median gross monthly rent $1,435 (U.S. Census, 2021).
median home sale price in $385,000 Sacramento (U.S. Census, 2021).

Sacramento's Current + Future Housing Needs
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S.

Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)
Homeownership Rates (2021)
52%
are renters.
48%
homeowners.

Housing Market Conditions (2021)
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 61 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
As Amended December 14, 2021 Page 25
There are several barriers to developing affordable
housing in Sacramento and in California. A historical
focus on building single family homes and
neighborhoods has made it harder to build housing
for lower-income households throughout the City.

That, coupled with high construction and land costs
and the severe disinvestment in affordable housing
subsidies from the state and federal governments, has
created major challenges to building new affordable
housing. However, the City can play a part in
supporting the production of more affordable
housing units.

As part of California’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, the
City of Sacramento must adequately plan for and
accommodate a total of 16,769 new lower-income
housing units by 2029, which represents 37 percent of
the City’s overall RHNA (See Figure 4-3 below).
 Within that 16,769 figure, 10,463 units should be
affordable to very low-income households making
less than 50 percent AMI, and the remaining 6,306
units should be affordable to low-income
households making between 50-80 percent AMI.
 The allocation is equivalent to producing 2,100
lower-income units annually over the next eight
years.
units in the City and an additional 771 in the
other parts of the county. SHRA also administers
over 13,000 Housing Choice Vouchers
throughout Sacramento County. SHRA acts as
the City’s local housing finance agency,
administering local, Federal, and State funding
programs for the provision of affordable housing
and implementing the City’s Mixed Income
Housing Ordinance.
 The Housing Trust Fund Ordinance was
adopted in 1989 to raise local financing for the
construction of affordable housing near new
employment centers. The ordinance established
square footage fees for non-residential
development used to increase the supply of
affordable housing. Since inception through
2019, the fee has generated approximately $50
million.
 The Mixed Income Housing Ordinance
(MIHO) requires an affordable housing impact
fee for new housing units and large subdivisions
to assist with the provision of housing for a
variety of incomes and household types. The
revenue is placed in the citywide Housing Trust
Fund and is used to develop affordable housing
units with the goal of increasing the supply
available for lower-income workers. Since the
City began collecting fees under this ordinance
in 2016, the MIHO has generated over $4.5
million.

Figure 4-3 City of Sacramento RHNA, 2021-2029 Housing Needed in Sacramento (Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021-2029) Housing Attainability
A key measure in housing attainability is the Housing
Opportunity Index, which assesses the affordability
of ownership housing and reflects the percentage
of homes that households earning the area median
income can afford. In Sacramento, this has decreased
from 83 percent in 2011 to 39 percent in 2020 — a
reduction of 44 percent.

Renters are typically impacted more than
homeowners by volatility in the housing market,
seen in rapid increases in rents or sale prices. With
52 percent of its residents as renters, Sacramento
is potentially vulnerable to displacement and
gentrification brought about by rising housing costs.

Rising housing costs also impact the rate at which
much-needed subsidized housing can be built.

Also, the Sacramento region, like many other parts of
the state, is experiencing a houselessness crisis (also called homelessness). From 2017 to 2019, Sacramento
saw a 19 percent increase in people experiencing
houselessness, with an estimated 10,000 to 11,000
residents being houselessness in 2019. Of these
people, nearly 70 percent were unsheltered, and 12
percent were children under 18.

By all metrics, housing is becoming less attainable in
Sacramento. MMH can help bridge the affordability
gap by adding more attainable housing choices to
the market without a subsidy.

Housing Affordability in Sacramento
Sacramento's Housing
Opportunity Index
44%
decrease
in housing
affordability,
2011 to 2020.

Housing Opportunity Index
City of Sacramento, 1991-2020
Source: Sacramento Housing Element
2021-2029, www.cityofsacramento.org
of households are
at low, very low,
or extremely low
income levels.
50%
of households
spend > 30% of
their income on
housing.
39%
of residents are
renters. Rents
increased by 19%
from 2021-22.
52%
62 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
Attachment 2-2022 Housing Production Summary
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Figure 1: City of Sacramento Housing Production (2006-2022) Very Low Deed Restricted Very Low Non-Deed Restricted Low Deed Restricted Low Non-Deed Restricted Moderate Deed Restricted Moderate Non-Deed Restricted Above Moderate Houselessness in Sacramento
Housing Production in Sacramento (2006-2022)
$450,000
cost on average to build a
regulated affordable housing
unit.
16,769
lower-income units needed
by 2029 (RHNA Cycle 6).

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 63 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
Different households have different
housing needs.

While no two households are alike,
considering the unique needs of
Sacramentans from all walks of life will
help us plan housing for everyone.

I'm 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.

We are roommates.

We're looking for a threebedroom unit with space
to host. We're not into
yard work and do not
need a backyard.

We are retirees.

We need a smaller home
that is easier to maintain.

We prefer to avoid driving
and be close to stores and
parks.

We are a couple.

We're looking to rent a small
home where we can get to
know our neighbors. We
want to be able to walk to
shops and restaurants. A
shared garden will be lovely!

3.3 The Need + Desire for
More Housing Choices
64 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
Housing needs vary not just by household
size and composition but also among the
same household over time. The snapshots
below illustrate the unique housing needs
of different household types in Sacramento
based on their varied lifestyles and housing
preferences.

We are a multi-generational family.

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

We are a small family.

We don't need a large house but
would love a small backyard for
our kids and dog. It would be
great to walk or bike our kids to
school!
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 65 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
Which Household Types Can MMH Benefit?
Baby Boomers
As baby boomers get older,
downsizing to MMH takes
away the burden of caring for
a large yard, allows living with
less driving, and opens up the
potential for supplementary
income.

Entry-Level Buyers
MMH offers smaller, more
affordable units and, thus,
more attainable paths to
homeownership for entry-level
buyers.

Millennials + Gen Z
The younger generations
frequently look for transit-rich,
walkable housing options
to avoid the burden of car
ownership and to have good
access to amenities.

Small Families
Single-person households
and small families can benefit
from smaller housing options,
particularly ownership models,
to build equity. These types are
often missing in most housing
markets.

Working Middle Class
For the working middle class,
the price of rent is often a
large burden. MMH can help
provide more attainable
housing options for a variety of
household types and sizes.

Small-Scale Builders
MMH projects are smaller
in scale and do not need
specialized construction, which
lowers overall development
costs. With favorable financing,
MMH can provide development
opportunities for smallscale and local builders, also
boosting the local economy.
66 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
This page intentionally left blank
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 67 Chapter 3 — Sacramento's Housing Needs
68 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023

CHAPTER
4 Citywide
Place-Based
Analysis
In this chapter

4.1 Methodology of Place-Based Analysis 70

4.2 Land Use + Zoning 72

4.3 Connectivity + Amenities 74

4.4 Built Form 76

4.5 Context Types in Sacramento 80

4.6 Applying Missing Middle Housing to Sacramento 94
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 69

4.1 Methodology of
Place-Based Analysis
Why a Place-Based Approach?
A "place-based approach" is informed
by the characteristics that make a
"place" unique — a location distinct
from the surrounding areas. Although
many factors may influence an area's
unique sense of place, the place-based
approach focuses primarily on the
physical characteristics such as street
patterns, built form, and intensity of
development. This analysis is a careful
balance of quantitative and qualitative
analysis, which is essential in defining
the unique characteristics of a place.

Key physical characteristics combine
to form distinct development
patterns across the city and region.

These "ingredients" help define the
"DNA" of a place and are studied as
part of the place-based analysis. These
include:
• location and relation to other areas,
special attributes such as historic
districts;
• existing urban form, building scales,
and building height;
• existing and future land uses,
including anticipated growth;
• existing connectivity and transit;
• building size, scale, and form; and
• lot size and configuration.

Distinct patterns of physical form can
be observed across the residential parts
of Sacramento. The street network can
range from a well-connected regular
grid to winding cul-de-sacs. Houses can
be located closer together or spaced
farther apart. Front yards can be large,
small, or non-existent. Analyzing these
characteristics at different places
across Sacramento helps to establish
various "degrees of change"; ways
to incrementally add suitable housing
typologies within neighborhoods to
add housing diversity.

The place-based analysis provides an
understanding of the potential capacity
to add more housing while enhancing
the existing built environment. It, in
turn, helps to make development
standards and regulations more
effective since they can be tailored
to existing residential patterns. The
place-based analysis yields built
outcomes that are more predictable
and in harmony with the existing built
characteristics of a place.
70 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Methodology
The place-based analysis provides
context-sensitive strategies for
enabling Missing Middle Housing
(MMH) citywide. The analysis follows
five key steps summarized in the
flowchart to the right.

The process assesses land use,
development patterns, access to
amenities, and levels of connectivity
to arrive at context types that are a
composite of the existing physical
environment and can inform future
land use and housing patterns. The
entire city of Sacramento is examined
to identify existing context types.

With the context types, a critical step
in the analysis is evaluating the pattern
of existing lot widths and depths. This
step helps establish the range of MMH
types accommodated in each lot
category. This lot category analysis is
described in Chapter Five: Testing for
Feasibility.

Based on the identified context types
and findings from the lot categories
analysis, specific MMH types are
analyzed for physical fit and financial
feasibility through proforma analysis
on selected lots across the city. The
feasibility assessment is targeted
with housing attainability in mind to
ensure that the housing enabled is
not just feasible to build, but also
attainable for Sacramento residents.

Zoning + Land Use
Zoning and allowed land uses
under the Draft 2040 General
Plan are analyzed as a first step to
understand existing conditions,
the location and intensity of
various uses, and anticipated areas
of intensification and growth.

Connectivity + Amenities
Walkable access to amenities and
resources is an important criteria
for MMH. The next step in the
analysis examines street and block
sizes, levels of connectivity, and
access to transit, amenities, and
services.

Built Form + Existing MMH
The next step in understanding
the existing physical character
is to look at prevalent built
form patterns, the intensity of
development, types of buildings,
and mix of uses.

Context Types
Layering the information from
the above steps helps to establish
context types citywide. Context
types synthesize existing physical
conditions, applicable regulations,
and degree of walkability. This
step helps define the MMH types
suitable for each context type.

Lot Categories Analysis
In the final step, all residential
parcels are categorized based on
lot width and depth to identify
which MMH types would fit on
each lot. This is determined by
considering factors such as typical
building dimensions, access, and
off-street parking.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 71 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis

4.2 Land Use + Zoning
homes needed
by 2029 to meet
RHNA target
45k
approximate
number of
residential
parcels
197k
of total
residential land is
zoned R1
70%
Key Findings
■ Zoning. Most residential areas
fall under the R-1 and R2 zoning
categories. The target zoning districts
for the MMH study are R-1, R-1A, R-1B
and R-2. These are typically lowerintensity residential neighborhoods where MMH types can be added to
promote housing choice without
drastically altering the built scale of
the neighborhood. R-1 is the most
prevalent zone, covering nearly 70
percent of Sacramento's residentialzoned land.
■ Land uses. Allowed land uses in
the target R-1, R-1A, R-1B and R-2
zoning districts include the proposed
"Neighborhood" and "Residential
Mixed Use" land use designations,
which are compatible with typical
MMH types.
■ Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA). Sacramento needs to add
45,580 new housing units by 2029 to
meet its share of the state-mandated
Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
■ Housing market conditions. The
housing market is competitive,
indicated by rising home sale prices
and monthly rents, and lower
vacancy rates than surrounding areas.

Zoning + Allowed Land Uses in Draft 2040 General Plan
The intensity and pattern of future development is set by the City's General Plan and regulated through zoning. MMH is one of the City's key strategies to implement the Draft 2040 General Plan vision of promoting housing access and affordability and in meeting its regional housing targets set by the state. The Draft 2040 General Plan is proposing floor area ratio (FAR) thresholds to regulate development intensity. If adopted, the Planning and Development Code will be updated to be aligned with the new land use regulatory framework. For the MMH study, understanding the characteristics of existing residential areas is a starting point for the analysis.

Permit a greater array of housing types such as
duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes (also referred
to as Missing Middle Housing) in existing singlefamily neighborhoods.

Key Strategy, Draft 2040 General Plan
Sacramento City Council, January 19, 2021
Source: City of
Sacramento Housing
Element 2021-2029.
72 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Tr bi u te Rd
Land ParkDr
Raley Blvd
Grand Ave
CollegeTown Dr
Capitol Ave
Fair Oaks Blvd
Northborough Dr
8Th Ave
Jackson Rd Elk Grove Florin Rd
Leisure Ln
N 16Th St
Del Paso Blvd
Northgate B vl d
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
Arden Way
Seamas Ave
Stockton Blvd
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
59Th St
E Levee Rd
Q St
K St
Broadway
El Camino Ave
Richards Blvd
Calvine Rd
Riverside Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Power Line Rd
Elder Creek Rd
Club Center Dr
Rio Linda Blvd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Alta Arden Expy
Marconi Ave
Ha ve nside Dr
Azevedo Dr
39Th St
Mck inley Blvd
Don Julio Blvd
Bond Rd
21St St
Longview Dr
Freeport Blvd
Fulton Ave
Power Inn Rd
Norwood Ave
SWatt Ave
Cen ter Pkwy
Y St
Danbrook D r
19Th St
Watt Ave
65Th St
16Th St
10Th St 9Th St
14Th St
18Th St 17Th St
12Th St
Green h aven Dr
Alhambra Blvd
8Th St
29Th St
26Th St
15Th St
7Th St
30Th St
Florin Rd
H St
Hov nanian Dr
Hillsdale Blvd
48Th St
Marysville Blvd
Ethan Way
A St
WindingWay
E St
G St
Roseville Rd
Brookfield Dr
La Riviera Dr
Regency ParkCir
W El Camino Ave
Edison Ave
Engle Rd
47Th Ave
Hurley Way
Cottage Way Walnut Av e
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
Silver Eagle Rd
43Rd Ave
Eastern Ave
J St
Bell Ave
L St
La Sierra Dr
Fruitridge Rd
Auburn Blvd
T St
Mission Ave
N 7Th St
French Rd
D St
V St
N B St
R St
C St
I St
P St
S St
X St
W St
F St
Main Ave
5Th St
3Rd St
Bridgecross Dr
N Park Dr
Northrop Ave
Univ ersity Ave
37Th St
14Th Ave
E CommerceWay
Exposition Blvd
Sims Rd
Bercut Dr
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
G a tewayOaks Dr
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
El Centro Rd
Railyards Blvd
Redding Ave
U St
W Elkhorn Blvd
24Th Ave
N 12Th St
Dayton St
Kern St
vI y St
Truxel Rd
Dry Creek Rd
Pinell St
Del Paso Rd
Elvas Ave
Madison Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
Natomas Centra l Dr
W StocktonBlvd
American River Dr
Kiefer Blvd
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
KarbetWay
San Juan Rd
S Land P ark Dr
Garden Hwy
Orange Grove Ave
40Th St
42Nd St
45Th St
Tri Stations Rd
Gerber Rd
Florin Perk ni s Rd
Mack Rd
55Th St
47Th St
Vine St
Macon Dr
Brucevi lle Rd
Pasa dena A ve
Howe Ave
53Rd Ave
Elkhorn Blvd
Westlake Pkwy
Front St
57Th St
Airbase Dr
Big Horn Blvd
7Th Ave
Arena Blvd
N
Claire Ave atomas Blvd
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Arden Garden
Franklin Blvd
CucamongaAve
6Th St
49Th St
71St St
88Th St
Duckhorn Dr
Bayou Rd
Heritag e Ln
65Th Street Expy
Harv a rd St
34Th Ave
m
yL
a n Cir
Fee Dr
N Ben d Dr
Lone Tree Rd
Cedr o
ri C
Ascot Ave
Vinci Ave
Jib boom St
Terracina Dr
Pell Dr
Waterman Rd
Sorento Rd
Hedge Ave
Proposed Land Uses
Rural Residential
Neighborhood
Residential Mixed-Use
Office Mixed-Use
Commercial Mixed-Use
Employment Mixed-Use
Industrial Mixed-Use
Public/Quasi-Public
Parks and Recreation
Open Space
Light Rail Station: Existing
Light Rail Station: Proposed
Light Rail Transit: Existing
Light Rail Transit: Proposed
Sacramento City Limit
Planning Area
Special Study Area
Sphere of Influence
Water
General Plan Land Use
/0¦2
!"c$ I½
Ad
Source: City of Sacramento, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022
J:\GISData\563_Sacramento\GIS\Data_Shared\CityofSac\GeneralPlanMaps\042523\Map LUP-5 General Plan Land Use.mxd A½
I½
!"^$
!"c$
/0¦2
AÎ
!"^$
A½
!"c$
0 ½ 1 2 Miles
R-1
R-1A
R-1B
R-2
Zoning Districts Targeted for Initial
Implementation of MMH
For a larger version of this map, refer to
Chapter 7 (Appendix) of this report.

Rural Residential
Neighborhood
Residential Mixed Use
Office Mixed Use
Commercial Mixed Use
Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Designations
For a larger version of this map, refer to Chapter 7 (Appendix) of this report.

Employment Mixed Use
Industrial Mixed Use
Public/Quasi Public
Parks and Recreation
Open Space
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 73 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis

4.3 Connectivity + Amenities Watt Ave Fruitridge Rd
Folsom Blvd
Franklin Blvd
Garden Hwy
Auburn Blvd
Power Inn Rd
Gerber Rd
Stockton Blvd
P St
Howe Ave
El Camino Ave
Q St
Roseville Rd
Sheldon Rd
Calvine Rd
Fair Oaks Blvd
Broadway X St
Del Paso Rd
Garfield Ave
I St
Marconi Ave
Freeport Blvd
Kiefer Blvd
W St
Fulton Ave
Bradshaw Rd
S Watt Ave
Truxel Rd
Elder Creek Rd
Bell Ave
Eastern Ave
Walnut Ave
Madison Ave
Mack Rd
W Elkhorn Blvd
Northgate Blvd
47Th Ave
Center Pkwy
21St St
L St 16Th St
9Th St N St
Cosumnes R iver Blvd
W El Camino Ave
El Centro Rd
Arden Way
E Commerce Way
Elk Grove Florin Rd
Norwood Ave
Florin Perkins Rd
Bruceville Rd
5Th St
15Th St
3Rd St
Power Line Rd
Arena Blvd
Raley Blvd
Del Paso Blvd
19Th St
Hillsdale Blvd
Elkhorn Blvd
29Th St
Natomas Blvd
Bader Rd
65Th Street Expy
Meadowview Rd
J St
Routier Rd
Sims Rd
Florin Rd
Exposition Blvd
12Th St
Marysville Blvd
Richards Blvd
65Th S t
N Market Blvd
A St
Main Ave
Waterman Rd
French Rd
Alhambra Blvd
59Th St
San Juan Rd
Greenback Ln
Caymus Dr Don Ju lio Blvd
Auberry Dr
Sutterville Rd
Brown Rd
Vineyard Rd
Riverside Blvd
N 12Th St
Munroe St Elsie Ave
Pocket Rd
Short Rd
12Th Ave
Spengler Dr
Seamas Ave
Ethan Way
Viking Dr
Four Seasons Dr
H St
Airbase Dr
I Street Brg
Brockenhurst Dr
Big Horn Blvd
Florin Rd Waterman Rd
Auburn Blvd
Sims Rd
Bradshaw Rd
65Th St
Bradshaw Rd
Sutterville Rd
·|}þ160

SOUTH AREA

ARDEN ARCADE

FRUITRIDGE/BROADWAY
POCKET

NORTH NATOMAS

NORTH SACRAMENTO

LAND PARK

SOUTH NATOMAS

EAST SACRAMENTO

CENTRAL CITY
·|}þ99
·|}þ99
)*+,-80
!"#$5
!"#$5
(/50
!"#$80
TCAC Opportunity Areas
Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource (Rapidly
Changing)
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation & Poverty
Missing/Insufficient Data
Master Planned Community
(Future High Resource)
Racially or Ethnically
Concentrated Areas of
Poverty (R/ECAP)
Community Plan Area
City Limits
Planned Lower Income Units
Lower Income Unit Sites
[
N
O
R
T
H
0 1 2
Miles 1 in = 1 mi 20200015.01 GIS 004 Source: CA Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 2021, adapted by Ascent. is the average
length of a city
block in historic
central grid
365'
of residentialzoned land within
walking distance
of transit
41%
Key Findings
■ Compact, walkable and wellconnected development patterns exist in Central City and adjacent
areas, with more regular street
and block grids. Block sizes and
orientation vary widely across
most other neighborhoods.
■ Existing transit, particularly the
light rail network and its planned
extension, can be leveraged to
allow more housing including
MMH with less (or no) parking.
■ Distribution of employment and
amenities such as schools, retail
and services plays a key role in
supporting walkable environments
where MMH can work best.

Connectivity Patterns + Access to Resources
MMH often relies on lower parking ratios to optimize available space on a lot for housing units and shared open space, rather than on excessive parking. Thus, there is a direct relationship between how walkable a place is (whether a car is essential for most day-to-day trips) and the palette of MMH types that can work there. Walkability was analyzed through studying street connectivity, block size, and access to transit and amenities. Existing "highresource" and "low-resource" areas also provide guidance for future MMH strategies.

Source: City of Sacramento
Housing Element 2021-2029.

Higher resource areas offer
better chances at economic
advancement, educational
attainment, and good physical
and mental health.

Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource
(Rapidly Changing)
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation +
Poverty
Lower-Income Units
Planned Lower-Income Units
Racially or Ethnically
Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Areas 74 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
AB 2097 prohibits a
public agency from
requiring any minimum
parking within a 1/2 mile
of transit.

AB 2097, adopted on Aug 29, 2022
Light Rail Station
Light Rail (Existing)
Light Rail (Planned)
Proposed 2040 Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT)
Street Connectivity + Access to Transit and Amenities
For a larger version of this map, refer to Chapter 7 (Appendix) of this report. 1/2 mile Distance from Light
Rail Stations and HighFrequency Transit
Schools
Major Employment Nodes
Central City has good transit
access and high connectivity
with frequent intersections and
small blocks.

Many residential neighborhoods
benefit from access to light rail.

Low-intensity residential
neighborhoods with a variety of
block sizes, served by a highfrequency bus route.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 75 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis

4.4 Built Form
stories typical of
most residential
buildings
1-2
of residential lots
are zoned for only
single-family
70%
existing duplexes,
triplexes and
fourplexes
3,560
■ A higher occurrence of block-scale
(attached) buildings and mixed-use
is seen in Central City and adjacent
areas. This area also has the city's
tallest structures.
■ Transition areas around the central
core of the city, along transportation
corridors, and around employment
nodes follow a similar development
pattern, though at lower intensity.
■ The majority of Sacramento has
a low-intensity, mainly single-use
development pattern, with limited
housing variety within the singlefamily residential neighborhoods. ■ Existing MMH types exist across
most neighborhoods, with a high
concentration in and around the
city's central core, and in historic
districts such as Alkali Flat, Old/New
Washington School.
■ The Draft 2040 General Plan
sets Floor Area Ratios (FARs) and
minimum residential densities for
different areas within Sacramento,
that will determine future built form.

Built Form Patterns + Intensity of Development
The existing patterns of built form in Sacramento can be understood by studying patterns of building footprints (detached or "house-scale" and attached or "block-scale"), the existing number of units per lot (singlefamily or multi-family environments) and building heights. MMH works best in walkable, mixed-use environments but many low-rise, less intense environments can also be adapted to support MMH types. In this regard, looking at future growth projections as set by the Sacramento Draft 2040 General Plan also provides guidance on which parts of the city should be the focus of initial MMH implementation.

Key Findings
Many residential
neighborhoods
have a pattern of
detached, housescale, small and
medium-footprint
buildings in long
blocks, with some
curvilinear streets.

The Central City,
in contrast, has a
pattern of short
blocks with higher
connectivity; and
building footprints
that range from
medium to large,
and a mix of house
and block-scale.

Examples of Existing Patterns of Built Form
76 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Community Plan
Areas
Existing Historic
Districts
Building Footprints
Duplex
Triplex
Fourplex
Ã
Ã
Ã
Ã
Ã
Ã
Ã
à Ã
Ã
Ã
Ã
Ã
Ã
Ã
à à à Ã
Ã
ÃÃ ÃÃ
à Ã
Ã
Ã
Ã
Ã
Township 9 Park Site
Sutter's Landing
Regional Park
O'neil Field
C.k.

Mcclatchy
Park
William
Land Golf
Course
American
River
Parkway
William
Land Regional
Park
Capitol Park
Tiscornia
Park
Sacramento
Historic Old
City Cemetery
Vista Park
Discovery
Park
Oak
Park
Tbd
William
Mckinley
Park
Southside
Park
American River
Sacramento River
(/50
(/50
!"#$5
*)+,-80
*)+,-80
·|þ}99
·|160 þ}
14Th Ave
Stockton Blvd
9Th St
10Th St
Capitol Mall
8Th St
Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
16Th St
15Th St
I St
N St
L St
J St
Leisure Ln
Folsom Blvd
Capitol Ave
Exposition Blvd
K St
5Th St
2Nd Ave
Land Park Dr
Broadway
Sutterville Rd
24Th St
Riverside Blvd
34Th St
I Street Brg
N B St
19Th St
Freeport Blvd
Tribute Rd
24Th St
T St
Franklin Blvd
Canterbury Rd
P St
51St St
N 16Th St
Northgate Blvd
39Th St
3Rd St
12Th Ave
Tower
Brg
Alhambra Blvd
H St
T St
Sutterville Rd
E St
Elvas Ave
21St St
51S
Q St
K St
Richards Blvd
C St
N 12Th St
Del Paso Blvd
W St
X St
Mckinley Blvd
Vallejo Way
39Th St
7Th St
30Th St
29Th St
Donner Way
12Th AvenueByp
G St
24Th
St
H St
Television
Cir C St
F St
Front St
39Th
St
Vallejo Way
Fee D
T St T St Royal Oaks Dr
Jibboom St
N 7Th St
1 2
4 5
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 17
6 19
3 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
45 46
47 48
City of Sacramento
Historic Districts
± 0 0.5 1
Miles
Historic Districts
No Stage Listed
Adopted
Survey Accepted
Survey In Progress
Surveyed
District Name District Number District Name District Number District Name District Number District Name District N Existing Built Form +
Location of Duplexes,
Triplexes and Fourplexes
For a larger version of this
map, refer to Chapter 7
(Appendix) of this report.

Sacramento's Historic
Districts have high concentrations of MMH.

Source: City of Sacramento.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 77 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Existing Built Form
The maps below show some key aspects of built
form that are relevant to MMH. R-1, R-1A, R1B and
R-2 zoning districts, the initial focus areas for MMH
implementation, allow 35 feet as the maximum
allowed building height, which is enough to
accommodate small and medium MMH types.

Analyzing the existing number of housing units per lot
helps provide an understanding of single-family and
multi-family environments. While the R-1, R-1A, R-1B
and R-2 zoning districts typically have one to two units on each lot, there are small clusters of higher-intensity multi-family within these zoning districts as well.

Maximum Allowed Building Heights
in R-1, R-1A, R-1B + R-2 Zoning Districts
For a larger version of this map, refer to Chapter 7
(Appendix) of this report.
35 ft.

Existing Number of Units Per Lot
in R-1, R-1A, R-1B + R-2 Zoning Districts
For a larger version of this map, refer to Chapter 7
(Appendix) of this report.
0-1
2-4
5-12
13-24
25+
78 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Draft 2040 General Plan + Future Built Form
Tr bi u te Rd
Land ParkDr
Raley Blvd
Grand Ave
CollegeTown Dr
Capitol Ave
Fair Oaks Blvd
Northborough Dr
8Th Ave
Jackson Rd Elk Grove Florin Rd
Leisure Ln
N 16Th St
Del Paso Blvd
Northgate B vl d
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
Arden Way
Seamas Ave
Stockton Blvd
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
59Th St
E Levee Rd
Q St
K St
Broadway
El Camino Ave
Richards Blvd
Calvine Rd
Riverside Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Power Line Rd
Elder Creek Rd
Club Center Dr
Rio Linda Blvd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Alta Arden Expy
Marconi Ave
Ha ve nside Dr
Azevedo Dr
39Th St
Mck inley Blvd
Don Julio Blvd
Bond Rd
21St St
Longview Dr
Freeport Blvd
Fulton Ave
Power Inn Rd
Norwood Ave
SWatt Ave
Cen ter Pkwy
Y St
Danbrook D r
19Th St
Watt Ave
65Th St
16Th St
10Th St 9Th St
14Th St
18Th St 17Th St
12Th St
Green h aven Dr
Alhambra Blvd
8Th St
29Th St
26Th St
15Th St
7Th St
30Th St
Florin Rd
H St
Hov nanian Dr
Hillsdale Blvd
48Th St
Marysville Blvd
Ethan Way
A St
WindingWay
E St
G St
Roseville Rd
Brookfield Dr
La Riviera Dr
Regency ParkCir
W El Camino Ave
Edison Ave
Engle Rd
47Th Ave
Hurley Way
Cottage Way Walnut Av e
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
Silver Eagle Rd
43Rd Ave
Eastern Ave
J St
Bell Ave
L St
La Sierra Dr
Fruitridge Rd
Auburn Blvd
T St
Mission Ave
N 7Th St
French Rd
D St
V St
N B St
R St
C St
I St
P St
S St
X St
W St
F St
Main Ave
5Th St
3Rd St
Bridgecross Dr
N Park Dr
Northrop Ave
Univ ersity Ave
37Th St
14Th Ave
E CommerceWay
Exposition Blvd
Sims Rd
Bercut Dr
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
G a tewayOaks Dr
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
El Centro Rd
Railyards Blvd
Redding Ave
U St
W Elkhorn Blvd
24Th Ave
N 12Th St
Dayton St
Kern St
vI y St
Truxel Rd
Dry Creek Rd
Pinell St
Del Paso Rd
Elvas Ave
Madison Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
Natomas Centra l Dr
W StocktonBlvd
American River Dr
Kiefer Blvd
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
KarbetWay
San Juan Rd
S Land P ark Dr
Garden Hwy
Orange Grove Ave
40Th St
42Nd St
45Th St
Tri Stations Rd
Gerber Rd
Florin Perk ni s Rd
Mack Rd
55Th St
47Th St
Vine St
Macon Dr
Brucevi lle Rd
Pasa dena A ve
Howe Ave
53Rd Ave
Elkhorn Blvd
Westlake Pkwy
Front St
57Th St
Airbase Dr
Big Horn Blvd
7Th Ave
Arena Blvd
N
Claire Ave atomas Blvd
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Arden Garden
Franklin Blvd
CucamongaAve
6Th St
49Th St
71St St
88Th St
Duckhorn Dr
Bayou Rd
Heritag e Ln
65Th Street Expy
Harv a rd St
34Th Ave
m
yL
a n Cir
Fee Dr
N Ben d Dr
Lone Tree Rd
Cedr o
ri C
Ascot Ave
Vinci Ave
Jib boom St
Terracina Dr
Pell Dr
Waterman Rd
Sorento Rd
Hedge Ave
Dwelling Units (per acre)

0.25 3
7 8
12 15
18 20
24 32
33 61
Light Rail Station: Existing
Light Rail Station: Proposed
Light Rail Transit: Existing
Light Rail Transit: Proposed
Sacramento City Limit
Planning Area
Sphere of Influence
Water
Minimum Residential Density
/0¦2
!"c$ I½
Ad
Source: City of Sacramento, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022
J:\GISData\563_Sacramento\GIS\Data_Shared\CityofSac\GeneralPlanMaps\042523\Map LUP-8 Minimum Residential Density.mxd A½
I½
!"^$
!"c$
/0¦2
AÎ
!"^$
A½
!"c$
0 ½ 1 2 Miles
Land ParkDr
Capitol Ave
8Th Ave
N 16Th St
gate Blvd
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
Seamas Ave
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
E Levee Rd
Q St
K St
Richards Blvd
Riverside Blvd
Windbridge Dr
2 4Th St
Ha ve nside Dr
Azevedo Dr
21St St
Freeport Blvd
19Th St
16Th St
10Th St
9Th St
14Th St
18Th St
17Th St
12Th St
Green h aven Dr
8Th St
29Th
26Th St
15Th St
7Th St
E St
G St
W El Camino Ave
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
43Rd Av e
L
N 7Th St
D St
V St
N B St
R St
C St
I St
P St
S St
X St
W St
F St
5Th St
3Rd St
Bercut Dr
G a tewayOaks Dr
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River
El Centro Rd
Railyards Blvd
N 12Th St
Truxel Rd
Natomas Centr a l Dr
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
KarbetWay
San Juan Rd
S Land P a rk Dr
Garden Hwy
Vine St
Front St
7Th Ave
Arena Blvd
Meadowview Rd
Arden Ga
6Th St
uckhorn Dr
34Th Ave
Cedr o
ri C
Jib boom St
Pell Dr
Dwelling Units (per acre)

0.25 3
7 12
15 18
24 32
61 Existing Light Rail Station
Proposed Light Rail Station
Light Rail
Proposed Green Line Extension
Sacramento City Limit
Policy Area
Sphere of Influence
Water
!"c$ I½
Source: City of Sacramento, 2020; Dyett and Bhatia, 2020 J:\GISData\563_Sacramento\GIS\Projects\_Opp Sites Overall\Minimum_ResidentialDensities_122222.mxd A½
!"^$
A½
!"c$
Tr bi u te Rd
Land ParkDr
Ral
Grand Ave
CollegeTown Dr
Capitol Ave
Fair Oaks Blvd
8Th Ave
Jackson Rd Elk Grove Florin Rd
Leisure Ln
N 16Th St
Del Paso Blvd
Northgate B vl d
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
Arden Way
Seamas Ave
Stockton Blvd
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
59Th St
E Levee Rd
Q St
K St
Broadway
El Camino Ave
Richards Blvd
Calvine Rd
Riverside Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Elder Creek Rd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Alta Arden Expy
Marconi Ave
Ha ve nside Dr
Azevedo Dr
39Th St
Mck inley Blvd
Bond Rd
21St St
Longview Dr
Freeport Blvd
Fulton Ave
Power Inn Rd
Norwood Ave
SWatt Ave
Cen ter Pkwy
Y St
19Th St
Watt Ave
65Th St
16Th St
10Th St
9Th St
14Th St
18Th St
17Th St
12Th St
Green h aven Dr
Alhambra Blvd
8Th St
29Th St
26Th St
15Th St
7Th St
30Th St
Florin Rd
H St
Hov nanian Dr
48Th St
Marysville Blvd
Ethan Way
Winding
E St
G St
Brookfield Dr
La Riviera Dr
W El Camino Ave
Edison Ave
En
47Th Ave
Hurley Way
Cottage Way
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
Silver Eagle Rd
43Rd Ave
Eastern Ave
J St
Bell Ave
L St
La Sierra Dr
Fruitridge Rd
Auburn Blvd
T St
Mission Ave
N 7Th St
French Rd
D St
V St
N B St
R St
C St
I St
P St
S St
X St
W St
F St
5Th St
3Rd St
Northrop Ave
Univ ersity Ave
37Th St
14Th Ave
Exposition Blvd
Sims Rd
Bercut Dr
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
G a tewayOaks Dr
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
El Centro Rd
Railyards Blvd
Redding Ave
U St
24Th Ave
N 12Th St
Dayton St
Kern St
vI y St
Truxel Rd
Pinell St
Elvas Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
Natomas Centra l Dr
W StocktonBlvd
American River Dr
Kiefer Blvd
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
KarbetWay
San Juan Rd
S Land P ark Dr
Garden Hwy
Orange Grove Ave
40Th St
42Nd St
45Th St
Tri Stations Rd
Gerber Rd
Florin Perk ni s Rd
Mack Rd
55Th St
47Th St
Vine St
Brucevi lle Rd
Pasa dena A ve
Howe Ave
53Rd Ave
Front St
57Th St
Big Horn Blvd
7Th Ave
Arena Blvd
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Arden Garden
Franklin Blvd
CucamongaAve
6Th St
49Th St
71St St
88Th St
Duckhorn Dr
Heritag e Ln
65Th Street Expy
Harv a rd St
34Th Ave
Fee Dr
Cedr o
ri C
Jib boom St
Terracina Dr
Pell Dr
Hedge Ave
Maximum Allowed FAR

1.0 2.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 8.0

10.0 15.0

N/A FAR
Light Rail Station: Existing
Light Rail Station: Proposed
Light Rail Transit: Existing
Light Rail Transit: Proposed
Sacramento City Limit
Planning Area
Sphere of Influence
Water
/0¦2
!"c$ I½
Ad
Source: City of Sacramento, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022
J:\GISData\563_Sacramento\GIS\Data_Shared\CityofSac\GeneralPlanMaps\042523\Map LUP-6 Maximum Floor Area Ratio FAR – All Development.mxd A½
!"^$
!"c$
/0¦2
AÎ
A½
!"c$
0 ½ 1
Proposed Draft 2040 General Plan Maximum FARs
Map Source: City of Sacramento, Draft 2040 General Plan For a larger version, refer to Chapter 7 (Appendix)
Proposed Draft 2040 General Plan Minimum Residential Density Map Source: City of Sacramento, Draft 2040 General Plan For a larger version, refer to Chapter 7 (Appendix)
Tr bi u te Rd
Land ParkDr
Raley Blvd
Grand Ave
CollegeTown Dr
Capitol Ave
Fair Oaks Blvd
Northborough Dr
8Th Ave
Jackson Rd Elk Grove Florin Rd
Leisure Ln
N 16Th St
Del Paso Blvd
Northgate B vl d
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
Arden Way
Seamas Ave
Stockton Blvd
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
59Th St
E Levee Rd
Q St
K St
Broadway
El Camino Ave
Richards Blvd
Calvine Rd
Riverside Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Power Line Rd
Elder Creek Rd
Club Center Dr
Rio Linda Blvd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Alta Arden Expy
Marconi Ave
Ha ve nside Dr
Azevedo Dr
39Th St
Mck inley Blvd
Don Julio Blvd
Bond Rd
21St St
Longview Dr
Freeport Blvd
Fulton Ave
Power Inn Rd
Norwood Ave
SWatt Ave
Cen ter Pkwy
Y St
Danbrook D r
19Th St
Watt Ave
65Th St
16Th St
10Th St 9Th St
14Th St
18Th St 17Th St
12Th St
Green h aven Dr
Alhambra Blvd
8Th St
29Th St
26Th St
15Th St
7Th St
30Th St
Florin Rd
H St
Hov nanian Dr
Hillsdale Blvd
48Th St
Marysville Blvd
Ethan Way
A St
WindingWay
E St
G St
Roseville Rd
Brookfield Dr
La Riviera Dr
Regency ParkCir
W El Camino Ave
Edison Ave
Engle Rd
47Th Ave
Hurley Way
Cottage Way Walnut Av e
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
Silver Eagle Rd
43Rd Ave
Eastern Ave
J St
Bell Ave
L St
La Sierra Dr
Fruitridge Rd
Auburn Blvd
T St
Mission Ave
N 7Th St
French Rd
D St
V St
N B St
R St
C St
I St
P St
S St
X St
W St
F St
Main Ave
5Th St
3Rd St
Bridgecross Dr
N Park Dr
Northrop Ave
Univ ersity Ave
37Th St
14Th Ave
E CommerceWay
Exposition Blvd
Sims Rd
Bercut Dr
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
G a tewayOaks Dr
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
El Centro Rd
Railyards Blvd
Redding Ave
U St
W Elkhorn Blvd
24Th Ave
N 12Th St
Dayton St
Kern St
vI y St
Truxel Rd
Dry Creek Rd
Pinell St
Del Paso Rd
Elvas Ave
Madison Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
Natomas Centra l Dr
W StocktonBlvd
American River Dr
Kiefer Blvd
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
KarbetWay
San Juan Rd
S Land P ark Dr
Garden Hwy
Orange Grove Ave
40Th St
42Nd St
45Th St
Tri Stations Rd
Gerber Rd
Florin Perk ni s Rd
Mack Rd
55Th St
47Th St
Vine St
Macon Dr
Brucevi lle Rd
Pasa dena A ve
Howe Ave
53Rd Ave
Elkhorn Blvd
Westlake Pkwy
Front St
57Th St
Airbase Dr
Big Horn Blvd
7Th Ave
Arena Blvd
N
Claire Ave atomas Blvd
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Arden Garden
Franklin Blvd
CucamongaAve
6Th St
49Th St
71St St
88Th St
Duckhorn Dr
Bayou Rd
Heritag e Ln
65Th Street Expy
Harv a rd St
34Th Ave
m
yL
a n Cir
Fee Dr
N Ben d Dr
Lone Tree Rd
Cedr o
ri C
Ascot Ave
Vinci Ave
Jib boom St
Terracina Dr
Pell Dr
Waterman Rd
Sorento Rd
Hedge Ave
Maximum Allowed FAR

1.0 2.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 8.0

10.0 15.0

N/A FAR
Light Rail Station: Existing
Light Rail Station: Proposed
Light Rail Transit: Existing
Light Rail Transit: Proposed
Sacramento City Limit
Planning Area
Sphere of Influence
Water
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) –
All Development
/0¦2
!"c$ I½
Ad
Source: City of Sacramento, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022
J:\GISData\563_Sacramento\GIS\Data_Shared\CityofSac\GeneralPlanMaps\042523\Map LUP-6 Maximum Floor Area Ratio FAR – All Development.mxd A½
I½
!"^$
!"c$
/0¦2
AÎ
!"^$
A½
!"c$
0 ½ 1 2 Miles
The proposed Draft 2040 General Plan aims to
regulate residential development intensity using
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as a standard instead
of density (housing units per acre) as a means to
stimulate housing production and promote a variety
of different housing types. The FAR approach will
focus on controlling the size of buildings instead of
the number of housing units within them. Maximum
FAR standards will apply citywide, and TOD areas will
also have minimum FAR standards. Minimum density
standards will also apply, carried over from the 2035
General Plan, with modifications.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 79 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis

4.5 Context Types
in Sacramento
Analysis Methodology
The context types analysis for
Sacramento considered the following:
• Location and surrounding context;
• Lot size and configuration;
• Street and block patterns;
• Multi-modal connectivity and access
to transit;
• Mix of uses and access to everyday
amenities such as schools, jobs, retail
and services; and
• Built form and intensity of
development.

Key Findings
■ Based on the analysis, Sacramento's
built environment was categorized
into six context types, shown on
the map on the facing page and
discussed in the following pages.
■ Strategies for implementing MMH
should be calibrated for each
context type to augment existing
development patterns and be a
"good fit" to prevalent conditions.
■ The context type mapping also
helps to determine areas that are
"MMH-ready" or already containing
MMH or supportive of it, as well
as "potential MMH" areas that are
currently less supportive of MMH
but where focused improvements
in connectivity and land use
infrastructure can make them MMH
neighborhoods in the future.
■ Other city and state policies and
initiatives that relate to housing,
parking and transportation will also
play a key role in determining future
MMH implementation.
■ To determine priority areas for MMH,
the analysis needs to consider
future planned transit, potential
displacement as well as the City's
inventory of vacant and underutilized
sites.

Context types
Context types are a way to map existing built environments considering street and block patterns, lot configurations, connectivity and transit access, mix of uses, built form and development intensity, as well as unique conditions such as historic districts. Context types thus help to clarify the variety of physical environments existing in Sacramento, and provide a framework for the development approach for applying MMH citywide. In Sacramento, based on the analysis summarized in the preceding pages, six context types were established that can guide the range and intensity of MMH types to be enabled.
80 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Context Types
Downtown
Core
Transitional
Corridors +
Centers
Compact +
Connected
Low-Scale
Residential
Large Infill Sites
Context Types
For a larger version of this map, refer to
Chapter 7 (Appendix) of this report.

Downtown Core
Compact + Connected
Transitional
Corridors + Centers
Low-Scale Residential
Large Infill Sites
Light Rail Station
Light Rail (Existing)
Light Rail (Planned)
Proposed 2040 Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT)
1/2 mile Distance from
Light Rail Stations
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 81 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Downtown Core Context Type
Description
The Downtown Core context type includes the core of the Central City Community Plan Area. This context type has many offices and businesses, and is walkable, bikeable and well-supported by public transit. This area has many of the city's historic districts such as Alkali Flat, Washington School, Cathedral Square, etc. and examples of MMH can be found here, typically medium-intensity, block-scale in character.

The high-intensity form and mix of uses make this context type distinct from other neighborhoods in Sacramento.

Typical Characteristics
■ Connectivity. The Downtown Core context type is very
walkable with good access to jobs, institutions, civic
centers, schools, open spaces and other amenities.
■ Development pattern. Streets are organized in a regular connected grid, creating blocks typically 375 to 400 feet in depth with alleys. Buildings are located close to the edge of the sidewalk, and are oriented to the street.
■ Built form. Buildings are primarily block-scale with
some house-scale structures one to two stories tall in the northern edge of the context type.
■ Zoning and uses. C-2, R-3A, R-4A, C-3, R-5 (multi-unit, commercial).

Summary Characteristics
Connectivity + Walkability
Intersection Density very high
Pedestrian/ Bicycle high
Vehicular moderate
Transit Access high
Block Length short
Transportation Options Supported
Walking highly supported
Biking highly supported
Automobile supported
Transit highly supported
Built Form + Lot Characteristics
Lot Width medium-to-large
Lot Depth varies
Parking Access mainly alley
Building Footprint large
Building Form mainly block-form
82 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Aerial + Street Views
Example of the Downtown Core Context Type: Central City Note that this context type includes a portion but not all of the Central City Community Plan Area Figure Ground Number of Units per Building Residential Zoning Districts (No R-1+R-2 in this context type)
Which MMH Types Work Best in this Context Type?
Given the higher-intensity nature of this context type, and since it does not contain any of the residential zoning districts being considered for the MMH Analysis, the Downtown Core context type is not being considered for MMH types as part of the MMH Analysis. However, existing MMH types do exist in this context type and contribute to the architectural history of this area. While MMH types would physically fit on existing lots, existing regulations and market conditions would likely support larger, more intense residential and mixed-use building typologies.

Which Household Types Would Typically Choose this Context Type? Couples Retirees +
Empty-Nesters
Singles Roommates
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 83 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Compact + Connected Context Type
Description
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. The compact form and mix of uses found in
such places readily support public transit, thereby affording flexibility and multi-modal access. These environments
allow for the use of automobiles but do not require a car to carry out most daily activities.

Typical Characteristics
■ Connectivity. Areas in this context type are walkable and are well-connected to neighborhood retail, schools, jobs, services and open space.
■ Development pattern. Streets are organized in a regular grid, creating blocks typically 230 to 375 feet in depth with alleys. Buildings face the street with small setbacks.
■ Built form. Buildings range from house-scale structures one to two stories in height to block-scale, taller structures in blocks closer to the central core of the city.
■ Zoning and uses. R-1B, R-1, C-2, R-3A (single-unit, multiunit, commercial).

Summary Characteristics
Connectivity + Walkability
Intersection Density high
Pedestrian/ Bicycle high
Vehicular moderate
Transit Access high
Block Length mostly short
Transportation Options Supported
Walking highly supported
Biking highly supported
Automobile supported
Transit highly supported
Built Form + Lot Characteristics
Lot Width small
Lot Depth small-to-medium
Parking Access mainly alley, some front-loaded
Building Footprint small-to-medium
Building Form mainly house-form, some block-form
84 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Aerial + Street Views
Families with
Young Children
Larger + MultiGenerational Families
Couples Retirees +
Empty-Nesters
Singles Roommates Seniors
Which MMH Types Work Best in this Context Type?
Which Household Types Would Typically Choose this Context Type? Example of the Compact + Connected Context Type: Fruitridge Figure Ground Number of Units per Building Residential Zoning Districts (R-1+R-2) Triplex Fourplex Cottage Court Multiplex Courtyard Townhouse Building
Multi- Live-Work
Generational
House
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 85 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Transitional Context Type
Description
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. While the street network has great potential for promoting pedestrian and bike connectivity, these areas are still somewhat car-reliant. These areas have great potential to transform into walkable neighborhoods with focused connectivity and built form improvements to enable higher access to nearby amenities.

Typical Characteristics
■ Connectivity. Areas in this context type have moderate levels of connectivity, with some access to transit and/or bike routes.
■ Development pattern. Transitional context type areas
often have a street grid that supports walkability, but the block lengths in these areas are frequently too long, ranging from 680 to 860 feet, that make these areas less walkable than others.
■ Built form. Most structures are house-scale and a
maximum of two to three stories in height.
■ Zoning and uses. Most parcels in these areas are
residentially zoned (R-1), with some neighborhood
amenity uses, such as corner stores or schools at block corners.

Summary Characteristics
Connectivity + Walkability
Intersection Density moderate
Pedestrian/ Bicycle moderate-to-high
Vehicular moderate
Transit Access moderate priority
Block Length long
Transportation Options Supported
Walking somewhat supported
Biking somewhat supported
Automobile supported
Transit somewhat supported
Built Form + Lot Characteristics
Lot Width small
Lot Depth small-to-medium
Parking Access front-loaded, some alley
Building Footprint small-to-medium
Building Form house-form, some block-form
86 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Aerial + Street Views
Families with
Young Children
Larger + MultiGenerational Families
Couples Retirees +
Empty-Nesters
Singles Roommates Seniors
Which MMH Types Work Best in this Context Type?
Which Household Types Would Typically Choose this Context Type? Example of the Transitional Context Type: Land Park
Figure Ground Number of Units per Building Residential Zoning Districts (R-1+R-2) Multi- Duplex Triplex Fourplex Cottage Court Multiplex Townhouse Live-Work Generational
House
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 87 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Corridors + Centers Context Type
Description
The Corridors + Centers context type includes areas along the city's major commercial corridors. These areas often have good access to transit and are well connected to a variety of amenities, including retail and recreation. While there are some bicycle routes, these environments are not very pedestrian-friendly and are mostly accessed by car.

Typical Characteristics
■ Connectivity. Corridors are characterized by a main
arterial with good multimodal access, usually with large commercial uses on either side.
■ Development pattern. Development is typically
characterized by commercial buildings and parking lots.

In many parts of the city, these parking lots take up the majority of the frontage of the parcels along the corridor, making them less walkable and pedestrian-friendly.
■ Built form. Typically, this context type has single-storied commercial buildings with large parking lots in-between. ■ Zoning and uses. Corridors are largely zoned for
commercial uses with small pockets of residential.

Summary Characteristics
Connectivity + Walkability
Intersection Density high along arterials
Pedestrian/ Bicycle low
Vehicular high
Transit Access medium to high
Block Length varies
Transportation Options Supported
Walking somewhat supported
Biking somewhat supported
Automobile supported
Transit supported along most corridors
Built Form + Lot Characteristics
Lot Width small to extra-large (varies)
Lot Depth small to extra-large (varies)
Parking Access front-loaded
Building Footprint small-to-large (varies)
Building Form house-form, some block-form
88 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Aerial + Street Views
Couples Retirees +
Empty-Nesters
Singles Roommates Seniors
Which Household Types Would Typically Choose this Context Type? Which MMH Types Work Best in this Context Type?
This context type can support MMH of various types, including more intense Upper MMH and mixed-use types such as live-work units. However, given that the residential zoning districts being studied for the MMH Analysis rarely occur in this context type, the Corridors + Centers context type is not being considered for MMH types as part of the MMH Analysis.

Example of the Corridors + Centers Context Type: Folsom Blvd. Corridor, East Sacramento Figure Ground Number of Units per Building Residential Zoning Districts (R-1+R-2) September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 89 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Low-Scale Residential Context Type
Description
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, and consist of quieter residential neighborhoods with primarily single-family houses.

Typical Characteristics
■ Connectivity. Access to amenities and daily needs
typically requires a car. Access to transit is not frequent. ■ Development Pattern. Streets follow a pattern of a major arterial or connector street with local streets branching off to neighborhoods. The street layout features winding roads and cul-de-sacs, and there is no regular grid. Alleys are rarely seen in this context type.
■ Built Form. The built form typically consists of one to two-story single-family houses usually with garages in the front, accessed from the street.
■ Zoning and Uses. Low-Scale Residential areas are almost exclusively zoned for single-unit housing, with small
amounts of multi-unit housing and some commercial
uses on major arterials adjacent to neighborhoods.

Summary Characteristics
Connectivity + Walkability
Intersection Density low (loops, cul-de-sacs)
Pedestrian/ Bicycle low
Vehicular high
Transit Access low
Block Length irregular block patterns
Transportation Options Supported
Walking less supported
Biking somewhat supported
Automobile supported
Transit less supported
Built Form + Lot Characteristics
Lot Width medium-to-large
Lot Depth small-to-medium
Parking Access front-loaded
Building Footprint small-to-medium
Building Form house-form
90 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Aerial + Street Views
Families with
Young Children
Larger + MultiGenerational Families
Couples Retirees +
Empty-Nesters
Which MMH Types Work Best in this Context Type?
Which Household Types Would Typically Choose this Context Type? Example of the Low-Scale Residential Context Type: College Glen Figure Ground Number of Units per Building Residential Zoning Districts (R-1+R-2) Multi- Duplex Triplex Fourplex Cottage Court Townhouse
Generational
House
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 91 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Large Infill Sites Context Type
Description
Large Infill Sites include parcels that are large enough to be redeveloped as entire walkable neighborhoods. Examples
of these sites are large vacant parcels, or areas undergoing transformation from one use to another, or areas with very large and underutilized parking lots. These sites pose a great opportunity for development, especially when these sites are near transit or other amenities. These infill sites can be transformed into attractive mixed-use neighborhoods with a variety of MMH types.

Typical Characteristics
■ Connectivity. Parcels in the Large Infill Sites context type typically do not have much internal connectivity, given their nature and former monofunctional use patterns.
■ Development pattern. These sites typically feature a few buildings surrounded by large parking lots.
■ Built form. Buildings are typically one to two stories tall. ■ Zoning and Uses. Uses are typically commercial with a common pattern of strip malls with large parking lots.

Summary Characteristics
Connectivity + Walkability
Intersection Density very low
Pedestrian/ Bicycle low
Vehicular moderate
Transit Access low
Block Length extra long
Transportation Options Supported
Walking less supported
Biking less supported
Automobile supported
Transit less supported
Built Form + Lot Characteristics
Lot Width extra large
Lot Depth extra large
Parking Access front-loaded
Building Footprint large
Building Form vacant, some block-form
92 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Aerial + Street Views
Which MMH Types Work Best in this Context Type?
Because these parcels are large enough to have multiple context types within them, there aren't specific MMH types that can be identified at this time for these areas. Since the Large Infill Sites context type do not contain the residential zoning districts being considered for the MMH Analysis, this context type is not being considered for MMH types at this time. However, such infill sites have tremendous potential to be transformed into vibrant communities in the future with amenities and a mix of housing types including MMH.

Which Household Types Would Typically Choose this Context Type? The household types would vary depending on the nature of the transformation or future use.

Example of the Large Infill Sites Context Type: North Natomas Figure Ground Number of Units per Building Residential Zoning Districts (R-1+R-2) September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 93 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis