Sacramento City Council
October 24, 2023

What Does MMHReady Mean?
Sacramento's central
core and traditional
neighborhoods are
very walkable and
qualify as MMH
neighborhoods.

Some of the newer
neighborhoods are
characterized by a
development pattern
that is less pedestrianoriented and assumes
automobile use for
most tasks.

In many instances,
these neighborhoods
share similar physical
characteristics as the
MMH neighborhoods.

With improvements
to enable walkability,
these areas can
readily support MMH
types. For this reason,
such neighborhoods
are described as
"MMH-ready".

Examples of
MMH-Ready
Neighborhoods
• East Sacramento
• Land Park
• North Sacramento
• Central City

CLOSER LOOK
Walkability + Types of MMH Neighborhoods
MMH types are most successful
when located in a walkable context.

While MMH types can be built in an
auto-oriented context, it is generally
more difficult to attract the same kind
of buyers or renters, and it may not
deliver the most compact, sustainable
patterns of development. It will thus
not achieve the desired benefits for
residents or builders.

Walkability is important because MMH
types rely on making the most efficient
use of the available space on a lot.

By providing fewer off-street parking
spaces, more space is available to build
additional housing units as well as
provide functional open space. Buyers
and renters of MMH types are willing
to accept smaller units and smaller or
shared backyards for walkable living
with easy access to amenities.

Similar to most cities, Sacramento's
walkable neighborhoods are those
located near its historic core. These
areas, along with its other historic
districts already support many MMH
types. In addition, there are areas
that don't fulfill all the criteria for
walkability at present but are "compact
+ connected" or "transitional" in
character, with the potential to become
more walkable with some focused
improvements. These "MMH-ready"
neighborhoods can be priority areas for
implementing and enabling MMH.

Walkable areas
(already support MMH)
• Small block lengths
• Well-connected street
network with frequent
intersections
• Access to transit and
amenities.
• Tree-lined sidewalks
MMH-ready areas
(potential to support MMH)
• Mix of block lengths, some
larger blocks
• Well-connected street
network
• Some access to transit and
amenities, potential for
improving walkability
Automobile-oriented areas
(not ideal for MMH)
• Typically larger blocks
• Minimally-connected
• Frequent cul-de-sacs
• Single-use areas
• Heavily car-reliant for
everyday trips
Range of Environments Based on Walkability

4.6 Applying Missing Middle
Housing to Sacramento
94 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Important Characteristics for "MMH-Ready" Neighborhoods ■ Smaller block sizes that allow for
better multimodal connectivity and
encourage walkability by providing
more route choices and reducing
the walking distance to get between
destinations. In general, dead-end
streets, cul-de-sacs, and looping
streets diminish an area’s walkability,
while an interconnected grid with
through-streets tend to increase
walkability.
■ Access to bicycle routes provide
an alternative to driving for everyday
destinations too far to walk to. Safe,
convenient, and well-connected
bicycle facilities greatly improve
walkability and support for MMH.
■ Access to amenities and/or mixeduse areas that make it possible to satisfy most daily needs — living,
working, playing, shopping, dining,
worshiping, and socializing — without
needing to leave the neighborhood.

While commuting for work, school,
and special trips may still require
transit or a car, most daily needs
should be accessible within a tenminute walk (half a mile). ■ Appropriate zoning that allows
for a variety of housing types and
encourages compact development to
support walkability.
■ Small to medium lot sizes that
promote house-scale development
and disincentivize large tracts of
identical housing types. Excessive
repetition of building forms leads to
a monotonoous environment not
conducive to walkability..

Proximity to existing or future neighborhood
retail, open space, and civic buildings helps to
support walkable, MMH-Ready Neighborhoods.

How multiple walkable neighborhoods
form a walkable environment around
the intersection of two major streets.

Legend
Center
5 min. Walk
10 min. Walk
Residential
Neighborhood Retail/
Services
Civic/Institutional
Park/Open Space
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 95 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Neighborhood-Scale Walkable Centers
Smaller walkable centers can go a long
way in supporting neighborhood-scale
MMH, particularly in MMH-ready
neighborhoods. These small mixed-use
areas can be easily embedded into or
adjacent to residential neighborhoods
and provide convenient services
for nearby residents. The proximity
to amenities means that multiple
daily needs can be met in a single
trip made by foot, bike, or car. These
neighborhood-scale walkable centers
can serve as nodes of local activity that
help to enliven a neighborhood and
build strong communities.

Vacant underutilized lots can be developed
into neighborhood-scale walkable centers
to support the surrounding neighborhood.

This type of transformation provides a
new local amenity that makes a MMHready neighborhood more attractive for MMH development and infill. Successful
neighborhood-scale walkable centers
should be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. Resulting buildings may
be smaller than those shown in these
examples, depending on the context.

Transformation
to a Neighborhood
Mixed-use Node
Transformation
to a Neighborhood
Main Street
Example of
Existing
Neighborhood
Crossroad
96 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
Existing buildings
Townhouses up to three stories
in height
Four story multiplex on the
corner
Parking is located behind the
buildings and accessed from the
alley
Near-Term Transformation
Underutilized commercial uses with
large parking lot
Existing Conditions
Additional half block develops
with taller multiplexes on
corners, fourplexes and
townhouses
ADUs or maker spaces could
provide affordable work space
and activate the alley.

Long-Term Transformation
Example of a transformation of an
underutilized commercial site to a
walkable mixed-use node.

Incremental Change
Small, incremental changes can be
just as important in the long run as
big, transformative change. As land
use patterns change, opportunities
for mixed-use environments arise. For
instance, in Sacramento, as in most
cities, there are commercial areas,
particularly along major transportation
corridors, with good access to transit
and amenities. Many of these have
under-performing commercial uses,
underutilized parking spaces, or
both. Such areas are prime sites for
transformation over time to mixed-use
nodes. Depending on the context,
these can support a range of MMH
types, including Upper MMH (larger
and taller than typical MMH types) as
well as larger buildings.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 97 Chapter 4 — Citywide Place-Based Analysis
98 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023

CHAPTER
5 Testing for
Feasibility
In this chapter

5.1 Lot Category Analysis 100

5.2 Feasibility + Attainability for Missing Middle Housing 104

5.3 Best Practices for Making MMH Feasible 108

5.4 Test Fits Analysis for Livability, Feasibility + Attainability 112 September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 99

5.1 Lot Category Analysis
Lot Category Analysis
All existing lots in the city allowing
residential uses were analyzed and
categorized on the basis of lot widths
and depths. This exercise is important
because different Missing Middle
Housing (MMH) types have distinct
dimensions that need minimum lot
widths and depths to work effectively,
as discussed in Chapter Two of this
report. The analysis results were then
sorted to identify the most prevalent
sizes in each context type. This
informed the selection of typical lot
sizes for further analysis in the form of
test fits, discussed in Section 5.2 of this
chapter.

For example, the analysis showed that
while there is no single prevalent lot
size in Sacramento, most residential
parcels range from 50 to 60 feet wide
by 100 to 105 feet deep, with 19,095
lots zoned R-1, R-1A, R-1B, or R-2 having
dimensions within this range. Further
analysis revealed that the Compact and
Connected context type has smaller
parcels, with widths ranging from 40
to 50 feet; the Transitional context type
has medium parcels with typical widths
ranging from 50 to 55 feet, and the
Low-Scale Residential context type has
larger parcels ranging from 55 to 60
feet in width.

The map on the facing page shows the
range of lot widths and depths across
Sacramento, and the corresponding
MMH types that fit in these categories
in the legend below. For most building
types including MMH, lot width is
typically a more critical factor than lot
depth. Note that while smaller MMH
types such as duplexes can be built
on larger lots, builders and property
owners may choose to build a MMH
type that matches the development
potential of the lot.

By selecting typical lot sizes for
test fits specific to each context
type, the results generated will
be representative of a repeatable
condition.
100 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
15'-29' W
<150' D
30'-44' W
70'-175' D
45'-64' W
70'-175' D
Townhouse
Duplex, Townhouse
Duplex, Triplex,
Fourplex, Multiplex
Small, Townhouse
Lot Categories MMH Types
Uncategorized Parcel
Existing Light Rail
Proposed Green Line
Light Rail Station + 1/2 Mile
Radius
W=wide, D=deep
Lot Categories MMH Types
65'-99' W
90'-175' D
100'-135' W
100'-250' D
135'-200' W
>200' D
Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex,
Multiplex Small, Multiplex
Large, Courtyard Bldg
Multiplex Large,
Courtyard Bldg, Cottage
Court
Cottage Court
51%
of parcels in the
R-1, R-1A, R-1B,
and R-2 zones
are
40'-65'
wide
and
95'-140'
deep
Lot Categories in Sacramento + MMH Types That Can Fit
For a larger version of this map, refer to Chapter 7 (Appendix) of this report.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 101 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Lot Conditions Tested
Alley Access Driveway Front-Access
40x160
45x120
50x100
100x100
60x105
45x105
80x100
Common Lot Conditions
Lot Size Selection for Test Fits
Based on existing patterns of lot
conditions in the city, seven different
lot sizes were selected for the test fits,
based on several key criteria for MMH.

Lot size and parking access. The
selected lots included a mix of
those with alley access for parking,
as well as those with "front-loaded"
driveways. This was based on location
as well as the prevalent pattern for
parking access. In areas which are
more walkable, with a gridded block
structure and smaller lots, alley access
is more common. In more auto-centric
areas, with winding roads and cul-desacs, front driveway access is more common. Compared to alley-accessed
lots, a lot will need to be wider for the
same building type if front-loaded, to
accommodate a driveway. For example,
the 40x160 lot size with alley access
is a common condition in residential
parcels within Midtown. 50x100 is a
common condition seen throughout
the city, with both alleys and front
driveway access. The 60x105 lot size,
with front driveway access, is common
in residential areas further from the
city's central core, which lack transit
options and are more auto-reliant.

Parking ratios modeled. Each test fit
models parking as well as buildings
on a lot and compares the parking
provided to existing standards. Since
there are several parking districts and
overlays which affect required off-street
parking, most models show as many
parking spaces as can feasibly fit on the
lot with that MMH type.

Zoning districts compared. For most
test fits, the R-1 development standards
are used for comparison, since this
is the most prevalent zoning district.

Other test fits compare to other zoning
districts based on where most lots of
that size are located in the city.
102 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
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
Parking Districts + Parking Requirements in Sacramento
No Minimum Parking Required
as per AB 2097
CBAE (Central Business and Arts &
Entertainment Parking District)
(0 sp/du for multi-family)
Urban Parking District
(0.5 sp/du for multi-family)
Traditional Parking District
(1 sp/du for multi-family)
Suburban Parking District
(1.5 sp/du for multi-family)
How is Parking Regulated in
Sacramento?
In Sacramento, specific parking districts
have been established to ensure
that the amount of parking required
is aligned with the designated land
uses, access to alternate modes of
transportation, and the needs of the
surrounding community. For instance,
areas with a high concentration of
commercial centers, offices, and
active uses do not have parking
requirements (Central Business and
Arts & Entertainment parking district),
whereas residential areas generally
require at least one parking space
per unit (Traditional parking district).

The Urban parking district, which
sits between these two zones, has
parking minimums ranging from
0 to 2 depending on the land use.

Comparatively, the Suburban parking
district, which consists primarily of
single-family neighborhoods, mandates
1 to 2 spaces for most land uses.

The map to the left illustrates the
parking minimums for multi-family
development across all the parking
districts. Additionally, it outlines the
areas where AB2097 applies. Under this
statute, no parking is required for most
development projects situated within
a half-mile walking distance of a major
transit stop.

CLOSER LOOK
Note: these requirements apply to multi-family dwellings of 3 or more units September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 103 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
What is Attainable Housing?
When we say housing is “attainable” for a certain income group, we mean that households within that group could afford to own or rent it without spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent or a mortgage payment.

When we say MMH is attainable to middle-income households, it refers to those earning between 60 percent and 110 percent of the area median income (AMI), adjusted for family size. In Sacramento, this means the following:

MMH represents not just the "middle" building scale and form, but also relates to its "middle" level of affordability. Historically, MMH was designed to be an attainable choice for middle-income families, made possible by smaller unit sizes, efficient use of land, and costsaving design features.

In today’s housing market, builders
and public agencies are able to provide
housing for society’s wealthiest
and, with public subsidy, its lowestincome earners. What is missing is naturally-occurring attainable options
for moderate-income households,
and low-income households that
fall above the income threshold for
subsidized housing. This is largely the
result of housing policy and land use
regulations that make it difficult to
build small, attainable, medium-density
housing such as MMH types. The
result is that those in the middle of
the income spectrum are forced to
overpay for housing, or to compete with
lower-income households for scarce
affordable housing units.

How attainable is MMH in today’s
housing market? This section explores
what is possible given today’s land use
regulations to discover whether MMH is
truly attainable for the middle-income
spectrum.

5.2 Feasibility + Attainability
for Missing Middle Housing

CLOSER LOOK
60% 110%
4-person household $61,320 $102,200 $112,420
3-person household $55,200 $92,000 $101,200
2-person household $49,050 $81,750 $89,925
1-person household $42,930 $71,550 $78,705
Area Median Income
(AMI), 2022
104 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
What is the Status Quo?
Today, single-family houses are the dominant housing type being built in Sacramento’s R-1 and R-2 zones. As the example above shows, a large single-family house is out of the financial reach of most middle-income households. With a sales price of $1.5 million, it requires an annual income of over $375,000 or 340 percent of Sacramento’s AMI for a family of four.

The example above also includes an ADU, which could be rented for $1,920 per month to a single-person household earning $75,000 or 107 percent of Sacramento’s AMI. These are based on observed 2022 real estate trends.

While ADUs are allowed, they still make up a relatively small but growing proportion of total housing units produced. For example: 351 were permitted between 2017 and 2021 compared to over 7,078 singlefamily houses permitted over the same period.

Primary unit size
ADU size
3,000 sf
800 sf
Floor area ratio

0.8 Sale price
For new construction of a
single-unit house with an ADU
$1.5 million
Data from HCD Annual
Housing Element Dashboard.

Attainability assumptions:

SF Home: 4-person AMI
ADU: 1-person AMI.

Cost to build ADU ($320,000)
factored into purchase price.

Mortgage calculation assumes
a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage
at 6 percent interest with a 10
percent down payment.

What is Possible Today: Single Family House + ADU
3,000 sqft
Primary Unit Size
800 sqft
ADU Size
$1.5
million
Sales Price
For new construction of a
single-unit house with an ADU

0.8 Floor-to-Area Ratio
60% 110%
107% 340%
Attainability (% AMI):

Housing production data
source: HCD Annual Housing
Element Dashboard
Attainability assumption:

SF Home: 4-person AMI
ADU: 1-person AMI.

Cost of ADU ($320,000)
factored into purchase
price.

Mortgage calculation
assumes a 30-year fixed-rate
mortgage at 6% interest with
a 10% down payment.

What is the status
quo?
Today, single-family homes are
the dominant housing type
being built in Sacramento’s
one and two-family zones. As
the example above shows, a
large single family home is out
of financial reach for most
middle income households.

With a sales price of $1.5
Million, it requires an annual
income of over $375,000 or
340% of Sacramento’s AMI for a
family of four.

The example above also
includes an ADU, which
could be rented to a single
person household earning
$75,000 or 107% of
Sacramento’s AMI.

While ADUs are allowed,
they still make up a
relatively small but growing
proportion of total housing
units produced. For
example: 370 were
permitted between 2017
and 2021 compared to
over 6,500 single-family
homes permitted over the
same period.

For new construction of a single-family home with an ADU based on current construction costs.

At $1.5 million, a
newly constructed
Single-Unit House
with an ADU is
attainable only to
households earning
340% of area
median income.

What is Possible Today:

A New Single-Family House + ADU
At $1.5 million, a
newly constructed
single-family house
with an ADU is
attainable only to
households earning
340% of the area
median income.

For new construction of a single-family home with an ADU based on current construction costs
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 105 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
MMH Attainability Fourplex Duplex + ADU SF House SF House + ADU Lot Size (square feet) 4,725 4,725 4,725 4,725
Unit Size
(number of primary units)
950 sf
(4 units)
1,300 sf
(2 units)
3,000 sf
(1 unit)
3,000 sf
(1 unit)
ADU Size n/a 1,200 sf n/a 800 sf
FAR 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Monthly Rent / Mortgage $2,195
rent
$2,898
rent
$7,554
mortgage
$9,472
mortgage
ADU Monthly Rent n/a $2,675 n/a $1,919
Percent AMI Needed to Afford 97% 126% 300% 340%
Attainability assumptions:

Land costs of $165,375 with new construction
2022 California HCD AMI $81,750 for 2-person household (fourplex), $92,000 for 3-person household (duplex), $102,200 for 4-person household (SF house), 30-year fixed mortgage of 6% interest and 10% downpayment (for-sale SF house) 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
ADU Monthly Rent n/a $2,675 n/a $1,919
% AMI Needed to Afford 97% 126% 300% 340%
*Attainability based on land costs of $165,375 with new construction; 2022 California HCD AMI $81,750 for 2-person family (fourplex), $92,000 for 3-person family (duplex), $102,200 for 4-person family (SF), 30-year fixed mortgage at 6% interest and 10% down for the SF.

SF Home:
126% 300% 340%
for rent for rent for rent for rent for purchase for purchase for purchase for purchase Fourplex
97%
Attainability (% AMI)

0.8 126%
60% 110%
300% 340%
Duplex + ADU SF House SF House + ADU
Floor-Area
Ratio
MMH Attainability:

Comparing a SF House with a Fourplex and a Duplex + ADU 106 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Assumptions:

Unit sizes:
- ADU = 800 square feet
- Fourplex = 950 square feet
(for each unit)
- Duplex = 1,500 square feet
(for each unit)
- Single-family house = 3,000
square feet.

Mortgage burden based on
a 30-year loan at 6% interest
and 10% downpayment.

Monthly mortgage/rent for
feasibility:
- ADU: $1,920
- Fourplex unit: $2,195
- Duplex unit: $2,900
- Single-family house +
ADU: $9,475
Wage data source:

BLS, mean wage by 6-digit
NAICS code, SacramentoRoseville-Arden-Arcade, CA
(May 2021)
More Attainability Within the Same Envelope
Large single-family houses are out
of reach for most middle-income
households (please refer to pg. 106 for
middle-income thresholds based on
household size). As the chart above
shows, it would require more than a
doctor’s salary to afford this housing
type.

As we add more units within the same
overall building envelope and lot size,
housing can start to become more
attainable to middle-income earners
like police officers and teachers.

The same efficiencies that made
MMH popular and attainable for
middle-income earners in the early
20th century still hold true today. By
reducing unit size and increasing the
number of units within the same
building envelope, MMH is more
attainable by design.

Teacher Police Officer Doctor
Annual Income $74,200 $99,600 $282,300
SF Home Mortgage Burden 153% 114% 40%
Duplex Rent Burden 45% 34% 12%
Fourplex Rent Burden 36% 26% 9%
ADU Rent Burden 31% 23% 8%
How Attainable is Missing Middle Housing?
ADU assumed size is 800
square feet; fourplex unit:
950 square feet; duplex
unit: 1,500 square feet;
single family home: 3,000
square feet.

Mortgage burden based on
a 30-year loan at 6%
interest, 10% down.

Wage data source:

BLS, mean wage by 6-digit
NAICS code,
Sacramento-RosevilleArden-Arcade, CA (May
2021)
More attainability in
the same envelope
Large single-family homes are
out of reach for most
middle-income households.
(Please refer to p. 103 for
middle income thresholds
based on household size.) As
the chart above shows, it
would require more than a
doctor’s salary to afford this
housing type.

As we add more units within
the same overall building
envelope and lot size, housing
can start to become more
attainable to middle income
earners like police officers and
teachers.

The same efficiencies that
made Missing Middle
Housing popular and
attainable for middle
income earners in the early
20th century still hold true
today. By reducing unit size
and increasing the number
of units within the same
building envelope, Missing
Middle Housing is more
attainable by design.

In this section, we
established that Missing
Middle Housing can be
attainable for middle
income households. In the
next, we will explore policy
best practices that help
make Missing Middle
Housing feasible to build.
$74,200
Teacher Police Officer
Annual Income
SF House Mortgage Burden
Duplex Rent Burden
Fourplex Rent Burden
ADU Rent Burden
Doctor
$99,600 $282,300
153%
45%
36%
31%
114%
34%
26%
23%
40%
12%
9%
8%
How Attainable is MMH?
Teacher Police Officer Doctor
Annual Income $74,200 $99,600 $282,300
SF Home Mortgage Burden 153% 114% 40%
Duplex Rent Burden 45% 34% 12%
Fourplex Rent Burden 36% 26% 9%
ADU Rent Burden 31% 23% 8%
How Attainable is Missing Middle Housing?
ADU assumed size is 800
square feet; fourplex unit:
950 square feet; duplex
unit: 1,500 square feet;
single family home: 3,000
square feet.

Mortgage burden based on
a 30-year loan at 6%
interest, 10% down.

Wage data source:

BLS, mean wage by 6-digit
NAICS code,
Sacramento-RosevilleArden-Arcade, CA (May
2021)
More attainability in
the same envelope
Large single-family homes are
out of reach for most
middle-income households.
(Please refer to p. 103 for
middle income thresholds
based on household size.) As
the chart above shows, it
would require more than a
doctor’s salary to afford this
housing type.

As we add more units within
the same overall building
envelope and lot size, housing
can start to become more
attainable to middle income
earners like police officers and
teachers.

The same efficiencies that
made Missing Middle
Housing popular and
attainable for middle
income earners in the early
20th century still hold true
today. By reducing unit size
and increasing the number
of units within the same
building envelope, Missing
Middle Housing is more
attainable by design.

In this section, we
established that Missing
Middle Housing can be
attainable for middle
income households. In the
next, we will explore policy
best practices that help
make Missing Middle
Housing feasible to build.

Mortgage/rent burden is the percentage of income required to pay the mortgage or rent, in this case the amount needed to make a project feasible.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 107 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Since MMH is More Attainable for Middle-Income Households, How Do We Make it More Feasible to Build?
MMH could become an important
source of market-rate housing for a
range of middle-income households
in Sacramento. In order to fulfill that
potential, zoning regulations must
first be adjusted to allow MMH to be
built in a cost-effective manner. These
adjustments could include:
■ Allowing more units. Allowing
builders to build more units within
the same building envelope means
they can increase the revenue a
property can generate, improving
project feasibility.
■ Reducing required parking. Parking
can be costly to build and takes up
valuable space that could be used
for leasable space. This is especially
important for higher-intensity forms
of MMH such as fourplexes and
sixplexes.
■ Limiting the size of detached
single-family. MMH will have to
compete with other forms of housing
for scarce land. Limiting the overall
size of a single-family home can help
to level the playing field in favor of
multi-family residential development.

5.3 Best Practices for Making
MMH Feasible
This section describes some key
strategies that can help promote
the feasibility of MMH types.

What is Financial Feasibility?
Developing housing involves a range
of costs. Builders must pay for land,
materials and labor (hard costs),
taxes and fees (soft costs) and still be
able to justify their investment with
a reasonable rate of return (profit).

When the expected revenue (rent
or sales price) from a project can
cover all of its costs and generate an
acceptable rate of return (generally
ranging from 10-12%), it is considered
financially feasible.

CLOSER LOOK
108 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Making MMH feasible starts with
allowing more housing units to be
built within the same structure. One
of the hallmarks of MMH is that it
provides more housing but within a
similar house-scale form. It does this
by including smaller, more efficientlydesigned units.

This is important for two reasons.

First, smaller units are generally less
expensive to rent or own, creating a
more affordable housing product than
a large single-family home. Second, as
units get smaller, the rent or sales price
that can be charged per square foot
generally increases. However, due to
the smaller sizes of these units, the total
cost per unit is still lower than that of a
large single-family dwelling.

Being able to build multiple units
within the same building envelope
can provide a financial incentive, as
illustrated in the chart below. In all four
examples, the building envelope is the
same at 3,800 square feet. As additional
units are added from left to right, the
individual unit size gets smaller to fit
within the same building envelope.

Because the rents generated per
square foot increase as the units get
smaller, there is an increase in gross
revenue as more units are added. So
in terms of total rental revenue, the
fourplex is more financially viable for
an investor than a single-family house
of the same size. At the same time,
the fourplex provides units at a more
attainable price point for a middleincome renter than the single-family house.

Smaller units generate
higher revenues per square
feet.

Assumptions:

All housing types are
assumed to occur on same
sized lot (4,725 square feet),
with same overall building
area (3,800 square feet).

Two off-street parking spaces
assumed per project.

Allow More Units Best Practice For Feasibility: Allow More Units Making Missing Middle Housing
feasible starts with allowing more
units per structure. One of the
hallmarks of Missing Middle
Housing is that it provides more
housing than detached single
family but within a similar
house-scale form. It does this by
including smaller, more
efficiently-designed units.

This is important for two reasons.

First, smaller units are generally
less expensive to rent or own,
creating a more affordable
housing product than a large
single-family home. (While the
price per square foot may
increase, the total cost for the
unit will still be less than a large
single-family dwelling.)
Second, as units get smaller, the
rent or sales price that can be
charged per square foot
generally increases.

Being able to build more, smaller
units within the same building
envelope can provide a financial
incentive for developers. This is
illustrated in the chart below. In all
four examples, we have the same
building envelope (3,800 square
feet) but we add a unit in each
example from left to right.

As units are added, they become
smaller to fit within the same
building envelope. Because the
rent they generate per square
foot also increases as they get
smaller, there is an increase in
gross revenue as more units are
added.

Smaller units generate higher
revenues per square foot.

Assumptions:

All housing types assumed to
occur on same sized lot (4,725
sqft), with same overall
building area (3,800 sqft).

Two off-street parking spaces
assumed per project.

Gross Rental Revenue, 45' x 105' Lot, 0.8 FAR
Unit Size
Gross Revenue
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 109 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Off-street parking requirements for
residential development, sometimes
called parking ratios, define how many
spaces must be provided for each unit
built. When these requirements are set
too high, they can significantly impact
a project’s financial feasibility or worse -
make it impossible to build.

As more units are added to a site, more
parking spaces are required. Excessive
parking takes away space on the lot
that could be used to provide trees and
open space for the residents. The way
parking is accommodated, whether
through surface parking, a garage, or
underground, also has an impact on
the overall project cost.

This issue becomes particularly
important on very small lots, or for
MMH types with four or more units. As
the chart below shows, parking can
be the difference between a fourplex
that is financially feasible, and one
that requires substantial subsidy to be
feasible.

In the leftmost example, a fourplex is
required to provide two parking spaces
per unit. Due to space constraints,
parking must be accommodated
through internal garages adding cost
to the project and reducing leasable
area. As a result, this project would be
infeasible, or require over $200,000 in
subsidies.

High parking requirements
of two spaces per unit
make a fourplex infeasible,
requiring a large subsidy.

Reduced parking makes it
feasible without subsidy.

Assumptions:
4,725 square feet lot size
@$30/square foot land cost
for all housing types
Construction costs:
$215 per square foot.

Construction costs per
parking space:

Surface: $5,000
Tuck-under: $25,000
Rent per square foot is
assumed constant.

Subsidy/surplus estimated
assuming target internal rate
of return (IRR) of 12 percent
Reduce Parking Requirements
Best Practice For Feasibility: Reduce Parking Requirements Off-street parking requirements
for residential development,
sometimes called parking ratios,
define how many spaces must
be provided for each unit built.

When these requirements are set
too high, they can significantly
impact a project’s financial
feasibility or worse - make it
impossible to build.

As more units are added to a
site, more parking spaces are
required, competing for scarce
buildable area. The way parking
is accommodated, whether
through surface parking, a
garage, or underground, also
has an impact on overall project
cost.

Parking is particularly important on
very small lots, or for Missing
Middle Housing types with four or
more units. As the chart below
shows, parking can be the
difference between a fourplex
that requires substantial subsidy,
and one that is financially
feasible.

In the leftmost example, a
fourplex is required to provide 2
parking spaces per unit. Due to
space constraints, parking must
be accommodated through
internal garages adding cost to
the project and reducing leasable
area. As a result, this project
would be infeasible, or require
over $200,000 in subsidies.

Below: High par
requirements ca
fourplex infeasib
shown by the la
required at 2 sp
unit. As parking
the fourplex bec
feasible.

Chart assumptio
All housing type
to occur on sam
(4,725 sqft). Ren
square foot is as
constant. Subsi
estimated assum
internal rate of r
of 12%.

Best Practice For Feasibility: Reduce Parking Requirements Off-street parking requirements
for residential development,
sometimes called parking ratios,
define how many spaces must
be provided for each unit built.

When these requirements are set
too high, they can significantly
impact a project’s financial
feasibility or worse - make it
impossible to build.

As more units are added to a
site, more parking spaces are
required, competing for scarce
buildable area. The way parking
is accommodated, whether
through surface parking, a
garage, or underground, also
has an impact on overall project
cost.

Parking is particularly important on
very small lots, or for Missing
Middle Housing types with four or
more units. As the chart below
shows, parking can be the
difference between a fourplex
that requires substantial subsidy,
and one that is financially
feasible.

In the leftmost example, a
fourplex is required to provide 2
parking spaces per unit. Due to
space constraints, parking must
be accommodated through
internal garages adding cost to
the project and reducing leasable
area. As a result, this project
would be infeasible, or require
over $200,000 in subsidies.

Below: High parking
requirements can make a
fourplex infeasible, as
shown by the large subsidy
required at 2 spaces per
unit. As parking is reduced,
the fourplex becomes
feasible.

Chart assumptions:

All housing types assumed
to occur on same sized lot
(4,725 sqft). Rent per
square foot is assumed
constant. Subsidy/surplus
estimated assuming target
internal rate of return (IRR)
of 12%.

Project Subsidy/ Surplus by Parking Ratio, 45' x 105' Lot, Fourplex 110 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Limiting the size of singleunit houses cuts out the
least attainable segment
of the housing market and
shifts the market toward
MMH.

Assumptions:
5,200 square feet lot size
@$30/square foot land costs
for all housing types
Construction costs per
parking space:

Surface: $5,000
Tuck-under: $25,000
Construction costs per
square foot:

Single-unit: $170
Duplex: $200
Triplex: $210
Fourplex: $215
Today, limits on single-family house
sizes are set by Sacramento’s Planning
and Development Code and General
Plan. In most of the City’s one and
two-family zoned neighborhoods, this
means, upon adoption of the updated
General Plan, a single-family home will
be allowed to have a floor-to-area ratio
(FAR) of 1.0. For example: on a standard
45’ x 105’ lot, large (and unattainable)
houses could continue to be built - a
4,725 square-foot house will be allowed.

Large homes are not attainable
for most Sacramento households,
but they are financially feasible and
very profitable for builders. Limiting
the ability to build these homes
could prevent the construction of
Sacramento’s least attainable housing
type and shift the market’s focus
toward building smaller structures with
more units.

In the chart shown below, the net
returns (sales price minus cost) of three
housing types are compared: a very
large single-family house, a smaller
single-family house, and a fourplex.

While all three housing types are
feasible, this example shows that a large
home will likely out-compete a fourplex
due to a higher rate of return for the
builder. However, when the maximum
size of a single-unit house is reduced
from 1.0 FAR to 0.5 FAR, the fourplex
becomes the most attractive housing
type to construct, from a builder's
perspective. By eliminating the ability
for builders to build very large singleunit homes, it is possible to level the playing field for MMH.

Limit the Size of Single-Unit Buildings
Limit the Size of Single-Unit Buildings
Today, limits on single-family
house sizes are set by
Sacramento’s Code and General
Plan. In most of the City’s one and
two-family zoned neighborhoods,
this means, upon adoption of the
updated General Plan, a
single-family home will be
allowed to have a floor-to-area
ratio (FAR) of 1.0. For example: on a
standard 45’ x 105’ lot, large (and
unattainable) houses could
continue to be built - a 4,725
square-foot house will be allowed.

Large homes are not attainable
for most Sacramento households,
but they are financially feasible
and very profitable for builders.

Limiting the ability to build these
homes could prevent the
construction of Sacramento’s least
attainable housing type and shift
the market’s focus
toward building smaller structures
with more units.

In the chart shown below, the
internal rate of return (IRR) of five
housing types are compared: a
large single-family house, a smaller
single-family house, a duplex, a
triplex, and a fourplex. This
example shows that a large home
will likely out-compete all other
housing types due to a higher rate
of return for the builder. However,
when the maximum size of a
single-unit house is reduced from

1.0 FAR to 0.4 FAR, the fourplex
becomes the most attractive
housing type to construct, from a
builder's perspective. By
eliminating the ability for builders
to build very large single-unit
homes, it is possible to level the
playing field for MMH.

Limiting the size of singleunit houses cuts out the
least attainable segment
of the housing market and
shifts the market toward
MMH.

Assumptions:
5,200 square feet lot size
@ $30/square foot land costs
assumed for all housing
types
Per parking space
construction costs:

Surface: $5,000
Tuck-under: $25,000
Construction costs per
square foot:

Single-unit: $170
Duplex: $ 200
Triplex: $210
Fourplex: $215

17.2%
IRR 15.6%
IRR 13.5%
IRR 13.0%
IRR
1 FAR
1,300 Sqft/unit
$450,000/unit
118% MFI
.8 FAR
1,387 Sqft/unit
$475,000/unit
125% MFI
.6 FAR
1,560 Sqft/unit
$525,000/unit
138% MFI
.4 FAR
2,080 sqft/unit
$650,000/unit
171% MFI

FOURPLEX TRIPLEX DUPLEX SINGLE

DWELLING

24.0%
IRR
.7 FAR
3,500 Sqft/unit
$1,200,000/unit
316% MFI
SINGLE

DWELLING
Internal Rate of Return by building type + FAR
Internal Rate of Return by Building Type + FAR
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 111 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility

5.4 Test Fits Analysis for
Livability, Feasibility +
Attainability
This section illustrates the process
of testing various MMH prototypes
on typical lot sizes for compatible
physical form, financial feasibility
and attainability.

Context-Specific Design Testing on Typical Lot Sizes
The first step in the test fit process
involves the design testing of typical
MMH building prototypes on selected
lot configurations. This is a critical step
in evaluating the following aspects of a
viable housing project:
■ Compatible physical form with
the existing context and desired
neighborhood scale.
■ Regulatory barriers that may need
to be addressed to enable desired
MMH types depending on the zoning
and other regulations that apply in
each context type.

The test fits were performed for a
selection of MMH types on typical lot
sizes seen in each context type. MMH
types were selected from a range of
appropriate types identified for each
context type, as discussed in Section

4.5 of Chapter Four of this report. Since
specific MMH types have inherent
minimum dimensions, the test fits
reveal the impacts and limitations
of lot width and lot depth toward
building size and off-street parking.

The test fit process seeks to optimize
the unit count, off-street parking
count and usable open space for a
given lot size and the desired building
scale and form.

Since this process involves actual
building types and site and parking
layouts, the results are more precise
than numeric calculations based only
on density or floor area ratio (FAR)
calculations.

Step 1: Test Fit Potential Build-Outs
112 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Step 2: Test Financial Feasibility
Iterative Process for Feasibility + Attainability
The second step in the test fit process
involves evaluating the financial
performance of the development program
achieved in each test fit for both rental
and for-sale market conditions. Feasibility
is assessed on the basis of the following
metrics:
■ Financial feasibility of the selected
MMH types within each context type,
■ Attainability of the feasible types for
middle-income earners in Sacramento.

This step includes determining housing
"sub-markets" or tiers for both rental and
for-sale products, as well as pro-forma
analysis to assess if the project can provide
a positive return on a typical builder's
investment.

An iterative process was followed for the
test fits, using two rounds of design and
feasibility analysis. For each round, the
development program achieved from the
test was analyzed for financial feasibility by
the economist team, following the steps
outlined below.

Step 1: Prototype Benchmarking
1A: Estimate market value of land
1B: Gather market data for achievable
residential rental and sales prices by
housing sub-market
1C: Calibrate sale and rental building
prototype pro-formas
1D: Calculate minimum feasible rental
rate and sales price for each prototype on
each of the selected lots
1E: Map the ratio of maximum achievable
price to minimum feasible price on each
parcel
Step 2: Sensitivity Testing
2A: Chart residual land value (RLV) for
benchmark prototype
2B: Chart RLV for additional prototypes
2C: Judge feasibility of additional
prototypes relative to the benchmark
2D: Adjust prototypes till desired
feasibility is achieved
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 113 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility

01. Side-by-Side Duplex + ADU
This test fit uses a 45 feet by
105 feet lot with front parking
access, a common condition
in the Transitional and LowScale Residential contexts.

The form and scale achieved
in this test fit make this MMH
type appropriate for the city's
lower-intensity residential
neighborhoods.

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1 development
standards, since that is the
most prevalent zoning district.

The Suburban Parking District,
Traditional Parking District and
AB 2097 parking requirements
are considered because this lot
size occurs in parts of the city
where these apply.

The test fit as shown would
require a few modifications
to existing R-1 standards. The
primary barrier preventing
this type from being built
as shown are the City's bulk
control standards. The
driveway setback required by
§ 17.508.040.J is also a barrier.

For parcels within the R-1A,
R-1B, and R-2 zones, this test fit
complies with the number of
units allowed; in R-1, a duplex
on a non-corner lot is allowed
only under SB 9.

Lot size: 45'x105' (4,725 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Front driveway
Units shown: 2 primary units + 1 ADU (3 total)
Parking shown: 2 spaces
Compared to R-1 development standards
Test Fits
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1
Standards
# of Units (du) 2 Primary
+ 1 ADU1
1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 28 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,020 sf
(22%)
40% or 2,500 sf
Avg Unit Size2 1,148 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.66 1.03
Parking 2 sp 0/2 sp min.4
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.5
Side setback 3 ft 3 ft min.

Rear setback 15 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 10 ft min.

Driveway setback 1 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 45 ft 52 ft min.

Lot depth 105 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 4,725 sf 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 100 sf/du Not required
Bulk control Not met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
None Not required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 Duplexes allowed in the R-1 zone under SB 9.
2 Average unit size calculated excluding 528 sf ADU.
3 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
4 Suburban parking district requires 1 sp/du, Traditional parking district requires 1 sp/du, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas. No parking
required for ADUs.
5 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.
45'
105'
Street
105'
45'
Parking space
114 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
This test fit uses a 45 feet by
120 feet lot with alley access, a
common condition seen in the
Compact + Connected context.

This test fit demonstrates how
a homeowner could add two
ADUs to an existing singlefamily house.

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1 development
standards, since that is the
most prevalent zoning district.

The Traditional Parking District
and the AB 2097 parking
requirements are considered
because this lot size occurs in
several areas of the city where
these apply.

This test fit mostly complies
with current regulations,
assuming the two-story
house at the front of the
lot is pre-existing. As with
many two-story residential
buildings in Sacramento's
historic neighborhoods, the
City's bulk control standards
would prevent such a house
from being built on this lot
today, and the minimum lot
width required would prevent
such a lot from being newly
subdivided.

02. Single-Unit House + Two ADUs
Lot size: 45'x120' (5,400 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Alley
Units shown: 1 primary unit + 2 ADUs (3 total)
Parking shown: 2 spaces
Compared to R-1 development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1
Standards
# of Units (du) 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 23 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,538 sf
(28%)
40% or 2,500 sf
Unit Sizes 2,000 sf.

ADUs =
748 sf,
590 sf
Not regulated
FAR 0.62 1.01
Parking 2 sp 0/1 sp min.2
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.3
Side setback 3 ft 3 ft min.

Rear setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 45 ft 52 ft min.

Lot depth 120 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 5,400 sf 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 100 sf/du Not required
Bulk control Not met4 Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
None Not Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Traditional parking district requires 1 sp/du, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas. No
parking required for ADUs.
3 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.
4 Existing house does not comply with contemporary
bulk control standards; added units do not violate
bulk control.
45'
120'
Street
Alley
120'
45'
Parking space
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 115 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fits
This test fit uses a 45 feet by
120 feet lot with alley access,
a common condition in the
Compact + Connected context.

This test fit demonstrates how
additional units can be provided
within a built form compatible
with single-family houses. This
MMH type is appropriate for
walkable, transit-connected,
amenity-rich areas.

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1 development
standards, since that is the
most prevalent zoning district.

The Traditional Parking District
and the AB 2097 parking
requirements are considered
because this lot size occurs in
several parts of the city where
these districts apply.

The primary barrier preventing
this type from being built is the
number of units permitted,
bulk control standards, and
the minimum lot width
required. Note that the city
allows new construction on a
legally-established lot that does
not meet current minimum
dimensions, as long as the
remaining zoning standards are
followed.

03. Triplex
Lot size: 45'x120' (5,400 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Alley
Units shown: 3 primary units, no ADU (3 total)
Parking shown: 3 spaces
Compared to R-1 development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1
Standards
# of Units (du) 3 Primary 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 28 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,140 sf
(21%)
40% or 2,500 sf
Avg Unit Size 1,003 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.63 1.01
Parking 3 sp 0/3 sp min.2
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.3
Side setback 5 ft 3 ft min.4
Rear setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 45 ft 52 ft min.

Lot depth 120 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 5,400 sf 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Traditional parking district requires 1 sp/du, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.
3 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.
4 Because the lot is below the zone's minimum lot
width, minimum side setback is reduced from 5' to 3'.
45'
120'
Street
Alley
120'
45'
Parking space
116 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
This test fit uses a 50 feet by
100 feet lot with front parking
access, a common condition in
the Transitional and Low-Scale
Residential contexts. This test fit
demonstrates house-scale infill
with MMH in typical residential
neighborhoods.

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1 development
standards, since that is the
most prevalent zoning district.

The Suburban Parking District,
Traditional Parking District
and the AB 2097 parking
requirements are considered
because this lot size occurs in
several parts of the city where
these apply.

Several of the existing R-1
standards are not met by
this test fit. It exceeds the
permitted number of units
and does not meet bulk
control standards, minimum
lot size requirements, the
minimum required front
setback, buffer between
building and parking area
to the rear, and the driveway
width and setback required
by § 17.508. A site of this size
cannot accommodate a 24 foot
wide "commercial driveway,"
as required for more than two
units.

04. Triplex
Lot size: 50'x100' (5,000 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Front driveway
Units shown: 3 primary units, no ADU (3 total)
Parking shown: 3 spaces
Compared to R-1 development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1
Standards
# of Units (du) 3 Primary 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 28 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,140 sf
(21%)
40% or 2,500 sf
Avg Unit Size 1,003 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.68 1.01
Parking 3 sp + 2 sp
on-street
0/3/5 sp min.2
Front setback 15 ft 20 ft min.3
Side setback 3 ft 3 ft min.4
Rear setback 15 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 24 ft min.

Driveway setback 1 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 50 ft 52 ft min.

Lot depth 100 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 5,000 sf 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits
parking minimums in many areas.
3 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.
4 Because the lot is below the zone's minimum lot
width, minimum side setback is reduced from 5' to 3'.
50'
100'
Street
100'
50'
Parking space
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 117 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fits
This test fit uses a 60 feet by
105 feet lot with front parking
access, a common condition in
the Transitional and Low-Scale
Residential contexts.This test
fit demonstrates how housescale MMH can blend in with
existing single-unit houses by
modifying a few standards in
the R-1 zoning district.

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1 development
standards, since that is the
most prevalent zoning district.

The Suburban Parking District,
Traditional Parking District
and the AB 2097 parking
requirements are considered
because this lot occurs in
several parts of the city where
these apply.

The primary barriers preventing
this type from being built
are the number of units
permitted, bulk control
standards, the minimum front
setback, and the driveway
width and setback required
by § 17.508. A site of this size
cannot accommodate a 24 foot
wide "commercial driveway,"
as required for more than two
units.

05. Fourplex
Lot size: 60'x105' (6,300 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Front driveway
Units shown: 4 primary units, no ADU (4 total)
Parking shown: 4 spaces + 2 on-street
Compared to R-1 development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1
Standards
# of Units (du) 4 primary 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 32 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,720 sf
(27%)
40% or 2,500 sf
Avg Unit Size 1,097 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.82 1.01
Parking 4 sp + 2
on-street
0/4/6 sp min.2
Front setback 15 ft 20 ft min.3
Side setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Rear setback 15 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 24 ft min.

Driveway setback 1 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 60 ft 52 ft min.

Lot depth 105 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 6,300 sf 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits
parking minimums in many areas.
3 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.
60'
105'
Street
105'
60'
Parking space
118 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
This test fit uses a 50 feet by
100 feet lot with alley access,
a common condition in the
Compact + Connected and
Transitional contexts. This test
fit demonstrates how housescale MMH can blend in with
existing single-unit houses by
modifying a few standards in
the R-1 zoning district.

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1 development
standards, since that is the
most prevalent zoning district.

The Suburban Parking District,
Traditional Parking District
and the AB 2097 parking
requirements are considered
because this lot occurs in
several parts of the city where
these districts apply.

The primary barriers preventing
this type from being built
are the number of units
permitted, lot width and area
and bulk control standards.

Because the lot is narrower
than the minimum width
required by the zone, existing
regulations allow the side
setback to be reduced from
five feet to three feet; this
enables older, narrower lots
to accommodate housing
types that would otherwise be
unbuildable.

06. Fourplex
Lot size: 50'x100' (5,000 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Alley
Units shown: 4 primary units, no ADU (4 total)
Parking shown: 4 spaces + 2 on-street
Compared to R-1 development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1
Standards
# of Units (du) 4
Primary
1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 22.5 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,624 sf
(32%)
40% or 2,500 sf
Avg Unit Size 690 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.65 1.01
Parking 4 sp + 2
on-street
0/4/6 sp min.2
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.3
Side setback 5 ft 3 ft min.4
Rear setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 50 ft 52 ft min.

Lot depth 100 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 5,000 sf 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits
parking minimums in many areas.
3 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.
4 Because the lot is below the zone's minimum lot
width, minimum side setback is reduced from 5' to 3'.
50'
100'
Alley
Street
100'
50'
Parking space
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 119 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fits
This test fit assumes that two
50-feet wide lots adjacent to
each other can be acquired
by a builder. The two parcels
are modeled and tested as
individual lots, rather than one
combined lot. This lot size, with
an alley condition, is common
in the Compact + Connected
and Transitional contexts.

This model demonstrates
how smaller, detached units
can be clustered around a
shared green space to provide
additional housing choices. .

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1 development
standards, since that is the
most prevalent zoning district.

The Suburban Parking District,
Traditional Parking District
and the AB 2097 parking
requirements are considered
because this lot occurs in
several parts of the city where
these districts apply.

The primary barriers preventing
this type from being built
are the number of units
permitted, the minimum
required buffer between
building and parking,
minimum front setback, lot
width and minimum lot area.

07. Cottage Court
Lot size: 2x50'x100' (2x5,000 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Alley
Units shown: 3 primary units per lot, no ADU (6 total)
Parking shown: 3 spaces per lot (6 total) + 4 on-street Compared to R-1 development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1
Standards
# of Units (du) 31
Primary
1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 19 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,584 sf
(16%)
40% or 2,500
sf1
Avg Unit Size 528 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.32 1.02
Parking 3 sp + 2
on-street1
0/3/3 sp min.1,3
Front setback 9 ft 20 ft min.4
Side setback 3 ft 3 ft min.5
Rear setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 50 ft1 52 ft min.

Lot depth 100 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 5,000 sf1 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 Per 50x100 parcel.
2 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
3 Traditional and Suburban parking districts require
1 sp/du, but AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in
many areas.
4 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.
5 Because each lot is below the zone's minimum lot
width, minimum side setback is reduced from 5' to 3'.

Parking space
Alley
100'
50'
100'
50'
50'
100'
Street
50'
120 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Parking space
This test fit assumes that two
50-feet wide lots adjacent to
each other can be acquired
by a builder and developed
as one project. This model
demonstrates how smaller,
detached units can be
clustered around a shared
green space to provide
additional housing choices. .

This test fit assumes a front
driveway for access, a condition
common in the Transitional and
Low-Scale Residential contexts.

R-1 development standards
are considered, along with the
Suburban Parking District,
Traditional Parking District
and the AB 2097 parking
requirements because this lot
size occurs in several parts of
the city where these apply.

The primary barriers preventing
this type from being built
are the number of units
permitted, bulk control
standards, minimum front
setback, parking lot tree
shading requirements, and
minimum required buffer
between building and
parking. The driveway width
and setback required by §

17.508 are also barriers; a site of
this size cannot accommodate
a 24 foot wide "commercial
driveway," as required for more
than two units.

08. Cottage Court
Lot size: 100'x100' (10,000 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Front driveway
Units shown: 6 primary units, no ADU
Parking shown: 6 spaces + 3 on-street
Compared to R-1 development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1
Standards
# of Units (du) 6 Primary 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 19 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 3,476 sf
(35%)
40% or 2,500 sf
Unit Sizes 1,056 sf +
484 sf
Not regulated
FAR 0.52 1.01
Parking 6 sp + 3
on-street
0/6/6 sp min.2
Front setback 9 ft 20 ft min.3
Side setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Rear setback 5 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 24 ft min.

Driveway setback 1 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 100 ft 52 ft min.

Lot depth 100 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 10,000 sf 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
Not met Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits
parking minimums in many areas.
3 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.

Alley
100'
50'
100'
50'
50'
100'
Street
50'
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 121 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fits
This test fit uses a 50 feet by
100 feet lot with alley access,
a common condition in the
Compact + Connected and
Transitional contexts. The test fit
demonstrates house-scale infill
appropriate for many residential
neighborhoods, particularly
in areas with good access to
transit and amenities.

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1 development
standards, since that is the
most prevalent zoning district.

The Suburban Parking District,
Traditional Parking District
and the AB 2097 parking
requirements are considered
because this lot size occurs in
several parts of the city where
these apply.

The primary barriers preventing
this type from being built
are the number of units
permitted, bulk control
standards, the maximum
FAR proposed in the 2040
General Plan, the Suburban
district parking requirements,
the minimum front setback
and minimum open space
requirements.

09. Sixplex
Lot size: 50'x100' (5,000 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Alley
Units shown: 6 primary units, no ADU (6 total)
Parking shown: 5 spaces + 2 on-street
Compared to R-1 development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1
Standards
# of Units (du) 6 Primary 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 30 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 2,200 sf
(44%)
40% or 2,500 sf
Avg Unit Size 935 sf Not regulated
FAR 1.32 1.01
Parking 5 sp + 2
on-street
0/6/9 sp min.2
Front setback 15 ft 20 ft min.3
Side setback 3 ft 3 ft min.

Rear setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 50 ft 52 ft min.

Lot depth 100 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 5,000 sf 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 50 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits
parking minimums in many areas.
3 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.

Street
100'
50'
Alley
50'
100'
Parking space
122 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
This test fit uses a 60 feet by
105 feet lot with front parking
access, a common condition in
the Transitional and Low-Scale
Residential contexts. The test fit
demonstrates house-scale infill
appropriate for many residential
neighborhoods, particularly in
areas with access to amenities.

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1 development
standards, since that is the
most prevalent zoning district.

The Suburban Parking District,
Traditional Parking District
and the AB 2097 parking
requirements are considered
because this lot size occurs in
several parts of the city where
these apply.

The primary barriers preventing
this type from being built
are the number of units
permitted, bulk control
standards, the minimum front
setback, and the minimum
open space. The driveway
width and setback required by
§ 17.508 are also barriers; a site of
this size cannot accommodate
a 24 foot wide "commercial
driveway," as required for more
than two units.

10. Fourplex + Two ADUs
Lot size: 60'x105' (6,300 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Front driveway
Units shown: 4 primary units + 2 ADUs (6 total)
Parking shown: 4 spaces + 2 on-street
Compared to R-2 development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-2
Standards
# of Units (du) 4 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
2 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 32 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,976 sf
(31%)
40% or 2,500 sf
Avg Unit Size1 1,097 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.99 1.02
Parking 4 sp + 2
on-street
0/4/6 sp min.4
Front setback 15 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback5 5 ft 5 ft min.

Rear setback5 15 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 24 ft min.

Driveway setback 1 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 60 ft 52 ft min.

Lot depth 105 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 6,300 sf 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 0 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
None Not Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 Average unit size calculated without ADUs
2 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
3 Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits
parking minimums in many areas.
4 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.
5 Setback requirements are reduced for ADUs.
60'
105'
Alley
Street
105'
60'
Parking space
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 123 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fits
Note:

Historical preservation standards and
considerations will need to be complied with
and all projects affecting historic districts will
be required to undergo a historic preservation
design review process.

This test fit uses a 40 feet by
160 feet lot with alley access,
a common condition in
Midtown, and in the Compact
+ Connected context. The
test fit demonstrates a more
intense MMH type, with a
scale and form appropriate for
this context, that can increase
housing choice in walkable,
transit-connected, and
amenity-rich areas of the city.

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1B development
standards prevalent in the
central core. AB 2097 applies
in this area, with no minimum
parking required.

The primary barriers to building
this type are the number of
units permitted, bulk control
standards, the minimum front
setback, parking lot shading
requirements, the minimum
required buffer between
building and parking, and the
minimum open space.

11. Eightplex
Lot size: 40'x160' (6,400 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Alley
Units shown: 8 primary units, no ADU (8 total)
Parking shown: 4 spaces + 2 on-street
Compared to R-1B development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1B
Standards
# of Units (du) 8 Primary 2 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 32 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 3,335 sf
(52%)
60%
Avg Unit Size 1,063 sf Not regulated
FAR 1.56 2.01
Parking 4 sp 0sp min.2
Front setback 10 ft 20 ft min.3
Side setback 5 ft 3 ft min.

Rear setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 40 ft 40 ft min.

Lot depth 160 ft 80 ft min.

Lot area 6,400 sf 3,200 sf min.

Open Space 90 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
Not met Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Urban parking district requires .5 sp/du, but AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in this area
3 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.

Street
100'
60'
Alley
40'
160'
Parking space
124 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
This test fit uses a 50 feet by
100 feet lot with alley access,
a common condition in
the Compact + Connected
and Transitional contexts.

This model demonstrates
how greater intensity,
where appropriate, can be
accomplished by modifying a
few standards in the R-1 zone.

The test fit's build-out is
compared to R-1 develoment
standards, since that is the
most prevalent zoning district.

Suburban Parking District,
Traditional Parking District
and the AB 2097 parking
requirements are considered
because this lot size occurs in
several parts of the city where
these apply.

The primary barriers preventing
this type from being built
are the number of units
permitted, bulk control
standards, the Suburban
district parking requirements,
the maximum FAR, and the
minimum front setback.

12. Sixplex + Two ADUs
Lot size: 50'x100' (5,000 sq ft lot area)
Parking access: Alley
Units shown: 6 primary units + 2 ADUs (8 total)
Parking shown: 4 spaces + 2 on-street
Compared to R-1 development standards
Test Fit Build-Out
Shown in
Test Fit
Existing R-1
Standards
# of Units (du) 6 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 30 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,736 sf
(35%)
40% or 2,500 sf
Avg Unit Size1 666 sf Not regulated
FAR 1.13 1.02
Parking 4 sp + 2
on-street
0/6/9 sp min.3
Front setback 10 ft 20 ft min.4
Side setback5 5 ft 3 ft min.

Rear setback5 5 ft 5 ft min.

Lot width 50 ft 52 ft min.

Lot depth 100 ft 100 ft min.

Lot area 5,000 sf 5,200 sf min.

Open Space 0 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Tree shading for
parking spaces
None Not Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 Average unit size calculated without ADUs
2 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
3 Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits
parking minimums in many areas.
4 Must match closest existing building(s) on the block; 20' min. if none exist.
5 Setback requirements are reduced for ADUs.

Alley
Street
100'
50'
50'
100'
Parking space
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 125 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fit Build-Out
Test Fit R-1 Stds.
# of Units (du) 4 Primary 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 20 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 2,160 sf
(40%)
40% or
2,500 sf
Avg. Unit Size 918 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.8 1.01
Parking 4 sp 0/4sp min.2
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback 3.5 ft 3 ft min.

Rear setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Shaded parking Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Traditional parking district requires 1 sp/du, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.

This test fit meets all standards except number of
units per lot and bulk control standards.

Other Test Fits Note: these test fits were part of the physical compatibility and regulatory analysis, but not evaluated for financial feasibility. These are being included here to provide additional information.

Test Fit Build-Out
Test Fit R-1 Stds.
# of Units (du) 4 Primary 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 22 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 2,150 sf
(34%)
40% or
2,500 sf
Avg.Unit Size 914 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.68 1.01
Parking 4 sp + 2 onstreet0/4/6 sp min.2
Front setback 10 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Rear setback 15 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 24 ft min.

Driveway setback 1 ft 5 ft min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Shaded parking Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/ du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.

This test fit does not meet the permitted number
of units per lot, bulk control standards, front
setback, driveway width and setback per § 17.508,
or Suburban District parking requirements.
105'
60'
120'
45'

13. Fourplex
45'x120'; Alley Access

14. Fourplex
60'x105'; Front
Driveway Access
126 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fit Build-Out
Test Fit R-1 Stds.
# of Units (du) 4 Primary 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 22.5 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,600 sf
(25%)
40% or
2,500 sf
Avg.Unit Size 680 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.51 1.01
Parking 6 sp + 1 onstreet0/4/6 sp min.2
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Rear setback 15 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 24 ft min.

Driveway setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Open Space 50 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Shaded parking Not met Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/ du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.

This test fit does not meet the permitted number
of units per lot, bulk control standards, minimum
driveway width, parking lot shading requirements,
or minimum open space requirements.

Test Fit Build-Out
Test Fit R-1 Stds.
# of Units (du) 4 Primary 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 22 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 2,170 sf
(34%)
40% or
2,500 sf
Avg.Unit Size 914 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.82 1.01
Parking 4 sp + 2 onstreet0/4/6 sp min.2
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Rear setback 15 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 24 ft min.

Driveway setback 1 ft 5 ft min.

Open Space 0 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Shaded parking Not met Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/ du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.

This test fit does not meet the permitted number
of units per lot, bulk control standards, minimum
driveway width and setback per § 17.508, parking
lot shading or minimum open space requirements.
60'
105'
60'
105'

15. Fourplex
60'x105'; Front Driveway
Access

16. Fourplex
60'x105'; Front Driveway
Access
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 127 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Other Test Fits
Test Fit Build-Out
Test Fit R-1 Stds.
# of Units (du) 3 Primary
+ 1 ADU
1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 23 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,327 sf
(25%)
40% or
2,500 sf
Avg. Unit Size 752 sf1 Not regulated
FAR 0.59 1.02
Parking 3 sp 0/3 sp min.3
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback 3 ft 3 ft min.

Rear setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Shaded parking Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 Average unit size calculated without considering ADUs. 2As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
3 Traditional parking district requires 1 sp/du, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.

This test fit meets all standards except number of
units per lot and bulk control standards.
45'
120'
80'
100'
Test Fit Build-Out
Test Fit R-1A Stds.
# of Units (du) 2 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
2 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 28 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,276 sf
(16%)
50%
Avg.Unit Size 1,148 sf + 528 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.42 1.01
Parking 4 sp 0/2/3 sp min.2
Front setback 12 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback 5 ft 0 ft min.

Rear setback 5 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 10 ft min.

Driveway setback 3.5 ft 5 ft min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Shaded parking Not met Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/ du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.

This test fit meets R-1A standards except minimum
front and rear setbacks, bulk control standards,
buffer between building and parking, parking lot
shading and driveway setback per § 17.508.040.J.

Note: these test fits were part of the physical compatibility and regulatory analysis, but not evaluated for financial feasibility. These are being included here to provide additional information.

17. Triplex + ADU
45'x120'; Alley Access

18. Cottage Court + Duplex
80'x100'; Front Driveway
Access
128 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fit Build-Out
Test Fit R-1 Stds.
# of Units (du) 2 Primary1 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 28 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 1,020 sf
(22%)
40% or
2,500 sf
Avg.Unit Size 1,148 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.55 1.02
Parking 2 sp 0/2/2 sp min.3
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback 3 ft 3 ft min.

Rear setback 15 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 10 ft min.

Driveway setback 1 ft 5 ft min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Shaded parking Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 Duplexes are allowed in the R-1 zone under SB 9 provisions. 2As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
3Suburban and Traditional parking districts require 1.5 sp/ du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.

This test fit does not meet the permitted number of
units per lot, bulk control standards, or minimum
driveway setback per § 17.508.040.J.

Test Fit Build-Out
Test Fit R-1 Stds.
# of Units (du) 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 30 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 2,335 sf
(37%)
40% or
2,500 sf
Avg.Unit Size1 2,230 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.77 1.02
Parking 1 sp 1 sp min.3
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Rear setback 15 ft 15 ft min.

Driveway width 10 ft 10 ft min.

Driveway setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Met Required
Shaded parking None Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 Average unit size calculated without considering ADUs. 2As proposed in the 2040 General Plan
3Suburban parking districts require 1.5 sp/du and 1 sp/du, respectively, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.
4 Setback requirements are reduced for ADUs
This test fit meets all R-1 standards.
60'
105'
45'
105'

19. Duplex
45'x105'; Front Driveway
Access

20. Single-Unit + Two ADUs
60'x105'; Front Driveway
Access
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 129 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Other Test Fits
40'
160'
Test Fit Build-Out
Test Fit R-1B Stds.
# of Units (du) 6 Primary 2 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 22 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 2,685 sf
(42%)
60%
Avg. Unit Size 652 sf + 1,304 sf Not regulated
FAR 0.84 2.0 1
Parking 3 sp + 1 onstreet0/6 sp min.2
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback 5 ft 3 ft min.

Rear setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Shaded parking Provided Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Traditional parking district requires 1 sp/du, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.

This test fit meets all standards except the number
of units per lot, bulk control standards, and the
Traditional District parking requirement.

Test Fit Build-Out
Test Fit R-1 Stds.
# of Units (du) 4 Primary 1 Primary
+ 2 ADUs
Height 20 ft 35 ft
Lot Coverage 2,570 sf
(48%)
40% or
2500 sf
Avg.Unit Size 899 sf + 1,362
sf
Not regulated
FAR 0.95 1.01
Parking 1 sp
on- street
0/4 sp min.2
Front setback 20 ft 20 ft min.

Side setback 5 ft 3 ft min.

Rear setback 5 ft 5 ft min.

Open Space 100 sf/du 100 sf/du
Bulk control Not met Required
Shaded parking None Not Required
Bold text indicates test fit standards that deviate from current standards.
1 As proposed in the 2040 General Plan.
2 Traditional parking district requires 1 sp/du, and AB 2097 prohibits parking minimums in many areas.

This test fit does not meet the permitted number
of units per lot, max lot coverage, bulk control
standards, or the Traditional District parking
requirement.

Note: these test fits were part of the physical compatibility and regulatory analysis, but not evaluated for financial feasibility. These are being included here to provide additional information.
45'
120'

21. Sixplex
40'x160'; Alley Access

22. Two Duplexes
45'x120'; Alley Access
130 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
This page left blank intentionally.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 131 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fits: Compatibility by Context Type
Compact +
Connected
Transitional Low-Scale Residential
01 Side-by-Side
Duplex + ADU with
Front Driveway
Access
02 Single-Unit
House + Two ADUs
with Alley Access
03 Triplex with
Alley Access
04 Triplex with
Front Driveway
Access
05 Fourplex with
Front Driveway
Access
06 Fourplex with
Alley Access
07 Cottage Court
with Alley Access
08 Cottage
Court with Front
Driveway Access
09 Sixplex with
Alley Access
10 Fourplex + Two
ADUs with Front
Driveway Access
11 Eightplex with
Alley Access
12 Sixplex + Two
ADUs with Alley
Access
Test Fits Summary: Context Types
This table summarizes the appropriateness of each test fit for each context type. This determination of "appropriateness" is done on the basis of the level of connectivity and walkability, the lot size used for the test fits, and parking access (the presence or lack of an alley).

Key
Test fit is not
appropriate for context
Test fit is appropriate
for context
132 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Additional Test Fits: Compatibility by Context Type
Compact +
Connected
Transitional Low-Scale Residential
13 Fourplex with
Alley Access
14 Fourplex with
Front Driveway
Access
15 Fourplex with
Front Driveway
Access
16 Fourplex with
Front Driveway
Access
17 Triplex + ADU
with Alley Access
18 Cottage Court +
Duplex with Front
Driveway Access
19 Duplex with
Front Driveway
Access
20 Single-unit
House + Two
ADUs with Front
Driveway Access
21 Sixplex with
Alley Access
22 Two Duplexes
with Alley Access
Key
Test fit is not
appropriate for context
Test fit is appropriate
for context
Additional test fits were carried out to further test the findings from the initial round of 12 test fits. The appropriateness of these test fits are summarized below.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 133 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Financial Feasibility Testing for Test Fits
Sub-Markets Identified in Sacramento by Zip Code: For-Sale Rental and For-Sale
Sub-Markets
Analyzing data from
Costar and real estate
sites such as Redfin, the
team economist identified
sub-markets for both
rental and for-sale housing
in Sacramento, grouped
by zip code as shown
in the maps on these
pages. Four sub-markets
were identified for each
category, ranging from
static to strong. Note that
the market strengths
for rental and for-sale do
not always overlap by zip
code - for example, some
areas that are "static" rental
markets are "transitional"
or "emerging" markets for
home sales.

Static
Emerging
Transitional
Strong
Sales Score
(Sales price per square foot)
Source: Redfin, Costar
134 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Sub-Markets Identified in Sacramento by Zip Code: Rental Static
Emerging
Transitional
Strong
Rents Score
(Rents per square foot)
Source: Redfin, Costar
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 135 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fits Feasibility: For-Sale
Feasibility of Selected Test Fits as
For-Sale Products Feasibility Testing Summary
12 test fits were analyzed for financial feasibility
as either rental or for-sale products, depending
on the product type and context where that type
is likely to occur. Some MMH types were tested
as both rental and for-sale products. Note that
real estate markets are constantly evolving and
products currently not feasible may become
feasible in the near term. The charts also include
Area Median Income (AMI) information based on
the MMH type and size (number of bedrooms,
etc) that affect how attainable the type may
be. Note that an MMH type may be attainable
in AMI terms based on size and type, but may
not be feasible under current market conditions
because of factors such as construction costs.

Feasibility of MMH: For-Sale
The chart to the right highlights the viability of
the selected test fits as for-sale products:
■ Test Fit 04. Triplex [3 total units]
50'x100' lot | 3 pkg. spaces | 0.68 FAR
1,003 sf avg. unit size | 3-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 05. Fourplex [4 total units]
60'x105' lot | 4 pkg. spaces | 0.82 FAR
1,097 sf avg. unit size | 4-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 06. Fourplex [4 total units]
50'x100' lot | 4 pkg. spaces | 0.65 FAR
690 sf avg. unit size | 3-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 08. Cottage Court [6 total units]
100'x100' lot | 6 pkg. spaces | 0.52 FAR
1,056, 484 sf avg. unit sizes | 3-person
household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.

Minimum Feasible Sales Price/ Sq Ft
Static Market Sales Price
Emerging Malket Sales Price
Transitional Market Sales Price
Strong Market Sales Price
Sales Price by Sub-Market
Source: Redfin, Costar
136 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Household size determined by unit size,
@ 400 square feet per person
Source: 2022 HUD Income Limits
Household size
1 2
3 4
$71,550
$81,750
$92,000
$102,200
Median Income
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 137 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fits Feasibility: Rental
Feasibility of Selected Test Fits as
Rental Products Feasibility of MMH: Rental
The chart to the right highlights the viability
of the selected test fits as rental products. The
minimum feasible rent is compared to existing
rent thresholds in strong, static, emerging and
transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 01. Side-by-Side Duplex + 1 ADU
[3 total units]
45'x105' lot | 2 pkg. spaces | 0.66 FAR
1,148 sf avg. unit size | 3-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 02. Single-Unit House + 2 ADUs
[3 total units]
45'x120' lot | 2 pkg. spaces | 0.62 FAR | 2,000,
748, 590 sf unit sizes | 2-person household
Feasible in strong markets but not in static
and emerging markets; nearly feasible in
transitional markets.
■ Test Fit 03. Triplex [3 total units]
45'x120' lot | 3 pkg. spaces | 0.63 FAR
1,003 sf avg. unit size | 3-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging, and transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 05. Fourplex [4 total units]
60'x105' lot | 4 pkg. spaces | 0.82 FAR
1,097 sf avg. unit size | 4-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 06. Fourplex [4 total units]
50'x100' lot | 4 pkg. spaces | 0.65 FAR
690 sf avg. unit size | 3-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 07. Cottage Court [6 total units]
2 of 50'x100' lots | 6 pkg. spaces | 0.32 FAR |
528 sf avg. unit size | 2-person household
Minimum feasible rent is above all market rates;
not currently feasible.

Minimum Feasible Rent/ Sq Ft
Static Market Rent
Emerging Malket Rent
Transitional Market Rent
Strong Market Rent
Rents by Sub-Market
Source: Redfin, Costar
138 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Household size determined by unit size,
@ 400 square feet per person
Source: 2022 HUD Income Limits
Household size
1 2
3 4
$71,550
$81,750
$92,000
$102,200
Median Income
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 139 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Test Fits Feasibility: Rental (contd.)
Feasibility of Selected Test Fits as
■ Test Fit 09. Sixplex [6 total units] Rental Products
50'x100' lot | 5 pkg. spaces | 1.32 FAR
935 sf avg. unit size | 3-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 10. Fourplex + 2 ADUs [6 total units]
60'x105' lot | 4 pkg. spaces | 0.99 FAR
1,097 sf avg. unit size | 3-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 11. Eightplex [8 total units]
40'x160' lot | 4 pkg. spaces | 1.56 FAR
1,063 sf avg. unit size | 3-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.
■ Test Fit 12. Sixplex + 2 ADUs [8 total units]
50'x100' lot | 4 pkg. spaces | 1.13 FAR
666 sf avg. unit size | 3-person household
Feasible in strong but not feasible in static,
emerging and transitional sub-markets.

Minimum Feasible Rent/ Sq Ft
Static Market Rent
Emerging Malket Rent
Transitional Market Rent
Strong Market Rent
Rents by Sub-Market
Source: Redfin, Costar
140 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Note:

The chart below is the same as on the previous page, it is repeated here for clarity Household size determined by unit size,
@ 400 square feet per person
Source: 2022 HUD Income Limits
Household size
1 2
3 4
$71,550
$81,750
$92,000
$102,200
Median Income
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 141 Chapter 5 — Testing for Feasibility
Tr bi u te Rd
Land ParkDr
Raley Blvd
Grand Ave
CollegeTown Dr
Capitol Ave
Northborough Dr
8Th Ave
Leisure Ln
N 16Th St
Del Paso Blvd
Northgate B vl d
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
Arden Way
Seamas Ave
Stockton Blvd
35Th Ave
59Th St
E Levee Rd
Q St
K St
Broadway
El Ca
Richards Blvd
Riverside Blvd
Power Line Rd
Club Center Dr
Rio Linda Blvd
dbridge Dr
24Th St
Alta Arden Expy
Ha ve nside Dr
Azevedo Dr
39Th St
Mck inley Blvd
21St St
Freeport Blvd
Norwood Ave
Y St
Danbrook D r
19Th St
65Th St
16Th St
10Th St
9Th St
14Th St
18Th St
17Th St
12Th St
Green h aven Dr
Alhambra Blvd
8Th St
29Th St
26Th St
15Th St
7Th St
30Th St
Florin Rd
H St
Hov nanian Dr
48Th St
Marysville Blvd
Ethan Way
E St
G St
Regency ParkCir
W El Camino Ave
47Th Ave
H
Cottage Wa
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Silver Eagle Rd
43Rd Ave
J St
Bell Ave
L St
Fruitridge Rd
T St
N 7Th St
D St
V St
N B St
R St
C St
I St
P St
S St
X St
W St
F St
Main Ave
5Th St
3Rd St
N Park Dr
Univ ersity Ave
37Th St
14Th Ave
E CommerceWay
Exposition Blvd
Bercut Dr
G a tewayOaks Dr
Gloria Dr
El Centro Rd
Railyards Blvd
Redding Ave
U St
24Th Ave
N 12Th St
Dayton St
Kern St
vI y St
Truxel Rd
Dry Creek Rd
Pinell St
Del Paso Rd
Elvas Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
Natomas Centra l Dr
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
KarbetWay
San Juan Rd
S Land P ark Dr
Garden Hwy
40Th St
42Nd St
45Th St
Tri Stat
55Th St
47Th St
Vine St
Howe Ave
53Rd Ave
Westlake Pkwy
Front St
57Th St
7Th Ave
Arena Blvd
N
Claire Ave atomas Blvd
Arden Garden
Franklin Blvd
CucamongaAve
6Th St
49Th St
71St St
Duckhorn Dr
Bayou Rd
Heritag e Ln
65Th Street Expy
Harv a rd St
34Th Ave
m
yL
a n Cir
Fee Dr
N Ben d Dr
Cedr o
ri C
Ascot Ave
Vinci Ave
Jib boom St
Terracina Dr
Pell Dr
Sorento Rd
!"c$ I½
Ad
A½
/0¦2
!"^$
A½
!"c$
142 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023

CHAPTER
6 Zoning
and Policy
Analysis
In this chapter

6.1 Zoning Barriers to Housing Diversity 144

6.2 Limiting Factors to Missing Middle Housing, Explained 152

6.3 Policy Analysis for Missing Middle Housing 164
Fair Oaks Blvd
Jackson Rd
amino Ave
Folsom Blvd
Elder Creek Rd
y
Marconi Ave
Longview Dr
Fulton Ave
SWatt Ave
Watt Ave
Hillsdale Blvd
A St
WindingWay
Roseville Rd
La Riviera Dr
Edison Ave
Engle Rd
Hurley Way
ay Walnut Av e
Eastern Ave
La Sierra Dr
Auburn Blvd
Mission Ave
ench Rd
Northrop Ave
Madison Ave
American River Dr
Kiefer Blvd
Orange Grove Ave
ations Rd
Florin Perk ni s Rd
Pasa dena A ve
Airbase Dr
88Th St
Hedge Ave
/0¦2
I½
!"c$
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 143 Corridors +
Centers
Large Infill
Sites
Compact + Transitional
Connected
Downtown
Core
Low-Scale
Residential
Context Types identified
in Sacramento. For more
information, refer to Chapter
Four of this report.

6.1 Zoning Barriers to
Housing Diversity
How do Sacramento's Context Types Influence Regulatory Analysis? As previously discussed in Chapter Four,
each of the six context types identified
in Sacramento has distinct physical
characteristics, and the Missing Middle
Housing (MMH) types proposed should
complement the existing form, scale
and character of the built environment.

The Compact + Connected,
Transitional, and Low-Scale
Residential contexts are the focus
areas for different MMH types since
these three contexts have the zoning
districts this study focuses on (namely
R-1, R-1A, R-1B, and R-2) and have
consistent patterns of lot sizes which
can be tested for repeatable scenarios.

Since the goal of the MMH Study is to
enable MMH in the R-1, R-1A, R-1B and
R-2 zoning districts, the current zoning
regulations must be first examined to
understand how to enable the desired
housing types. Each MMH type has
a range of lot sizes, building heights,
setbacks and parking conditions in
which they can fit. Through comparing
the typical requirements of these
MMH types to what is allowed by
current regulations, the barriers to
providing more of these housing
options can become evident. This in
turn, will inform recommendations as
part of this study.

To achieve the desired MMH types
identified for each context type
in Sacramento, applicable zoning
standards and other regulations
must be studied to identify barriers.
144 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Critical Regulations to Potentially Limit MMH Types
Although Sacramento's R-1, R-1A, R-1B
and R-2 zoning districts regulate many
aspects of development, there are
certain standards that are more critical
than others in enabling MMH types.

The following standards were analyzed
to evaluate if they could support the
envisioned MMH for each context type:
■ Maximum units per lot. The total
number of units (including primary
and ADU units) permitted on a lot.
■ Maximum floor area ratio (FAR)*.

The maximum floor area that can be
built on a lot, expressed as a ratio of
built-up floor area to lot area.
■ Minimum lot size. The minimum
area (in square feet) and lot width
(in feet) required to develop new
housing on a lot. To a lesser degree,
lot depth can be limiting as well.
■ Maximum lot coverage. The
percentage of a lot's area that may be
occupied by the building footprint.
■ Minimum setbacks. The minimum
distance a building, parking and
driveway must be set back from the
front, side or rear property lot lines.
■ Maximum height. The maximum
allowed vertical dimension for a
building, in feet or number of stories.
■ Bulk control standards. In the R-1,
R-1A, R-1B, and R-2 zoning districts,
Sacramento places limitations on
where the building's volume may be
placed to minimize its visual impact.
■ Minimum open space. The
minimum amount (in square feet) of
open space required per unit.
■ Minimum off-street parking. The
minimum number of parking spaces
required on a lot, per dwelling unit.
■ Driveway standards. Required
driveway width and placement.
■ Tree shading requirement. Tree
shading is required in Sacramento for
unenclosed parking.
■ Housing types. Types of residential
and/or mixed-use buildings allowed
and their regulations.

The tables on the following pages
summarize the analysis for these
regulatory barriers by context type, and
the subsequent pages provide further
explanation.

Barriers to MMH may
include the lack of
regulatory standards that
recognize these smallscale multi-unit buildings
as distinct from larger
residential buildings..

Source: Opticos Design.
* Note:

The maximum FAR values used in this report are
based on the new land use intensity standards
proposed in the Draft 2040 General Plan.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 145 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Matrix of Analysis: Compact + Connected
Key
Standard is a
significant limiting
factor to MMH
Standard is a minor
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard enables
MMH and is not a
limiting factor
Summary of Regulatory Analysis for MMH: Compact + Connected Context Type R-1 R-1A R-1B R-2
Max Number of
Units (du/lot)
Max. FAR*
Min. Lot Size
Max. Lot Coverage
Min. Front Setback
Min. Side Setback
Min. Rear Setback
Max. Height
Bulk Control
Standards
Min. Open Space
Parking: Urban
Parking District - -
Parking: Traditional
Parking District
Parking: Suburban
Parking District -
Driveway Standards
This table reviews the residential zoning regulations that apply within the Compact + Connected context type and identifies those that are limiting the desired range of MMH types from being built. Considering how amenity-rich, transit-connected, and walkable this context is, a maximum of eight units on a lot (including primary units and ADUs) is considered as the upper limit for MMH types. Based on the test fits in Chapter Five that tested the desired range of MMH types on commonly occurring lot sizes within this context type, the regulations that limited the MMH test fits from being built have been summarized by zoning district below.

Note:

Parking is frequently a
major barrier to MMH. In
Sacramento, since there
are several parking districts
with different parking
requirements, the impacts
on MMH vary. While the test
fits include parking, it would
not be a requirement in
areas where AB 2097 applies,
as shown in the map on the
facing page.
*As proposed by the Draft
2040 General Plan.
146 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
R-1
R-1A
R-1B
R-2
Context Type
Boundary
Compact + Connected Context Type:

Residential Zones (Relevant to MMH Study)
No Minimum Parking per AB 2097
Central Business and Arts & Entertainment
District Parking District (0 sp/du for multi-family)
Urban Parking District
(0.5 sp/du for multi-family)
Traditional Parking District
(1 sp/du for multi-family)
Suburban Parking District
(1.5 sp/du for multi-family)
Compact + Connected Context Type:

Parking Requirements
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 147 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Summary of Regulatory Analysis for MMH: Transitional Context Type R-1 R-1A R-1B** R-2
Max Number of
Units (du/lot) -
Max. FAR* -
Min. Lot Size -
Max. Lot Coverage -
Min. Front Setback -
Min. Side Setback -
Min. Rear Setback -
Max. Height -
Bulk Control
Standards -
Min. Open Space -
Parking: Urban
Parking District - - - -
Parking: Traditional
Parking District -
Parking: Suburban
Parking District -
Driveway Standards -
Matrix of Analysis: Transitional
Key
Standard is a
significant limiting
factor to MMH
Standard is a minor
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard enables
MMH and is not a
limiting factor
This table reviews the residential zoning regulations that apply within the Transitional context type and identifies those that are limiting the desired range of MMH types from being built. Considering that this context type is amenity-rich and has some access to transit, a maximum of six units on a lot (including primary units and ADUs) is considered as the upper limit for MMH types. Based on the test fits in Chapter Five that tested the desired range of MMH types on commonly occurring lot sizes within this context type, the regulations that limited the MMH test fits from being built have been summarized by zoning district below.

Note:

Parking is frequently a
major barrier to MMH. In
Sacramento, since there
are several parking districts
with different parking
requirements, the impacts
on MMH vary. While the test
fits include parking, it would
not be a requirement in
areas where AB 2097 applies,
as shown in the map on the
facing page.
*As proposed by the Draft
2040 General Plan.
** R-1B is not mapped within
the Transitional context type.
148 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
No Minimum Parking per AB 2097
Central Business and Arts & Entertainment
District Parking District (0 sp/du for multi-family)
Urban Parking District
(0.5 sp/du for multi-family)
Traditional Parking District
(1 sp/du for multi-family)
Suburban Parking District
(1.5 sp/du for multi-family)
Transitional Context Type:

Parking Requirements
R-1
R-1A
R-1B
R-2
Context Type
Boundary
Transitional Context Type:

Residential Zones (Relevant to MMH Study)
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 149 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Summary of Regulatory Analysis for MMH: Low-Scale Residential Context Type R-1 R-1A R-1B** R-2
Max. Number of
Units (du/lot) -
Max. FAR* -
Min. Lot Size -
Max. Lot Coverage -
Min. Front Setback -
Min. Side Setback -
Min. Rear Setback -
Max. Height -
Bulk Control
Standards -
Min. Open Space -
Parking: Urban
Parking District - - - -
Parking: Traditional
Parking District -
Parking: Suburban
Parking District -
Driveway Standards -
Matrix of Analysis: Low-Scale Residential
Key
Standard is a
significant limiting
factor to MMH
Standard is a minor
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard enables
MMH (not a limiting
factor)
Note:

Parking is frequently a
major barrier to MMH. In
Sacramento, since there
are several parking districts
with different parking
requirements, the impacts
on MMH vary. While the test
fits include parking, it would
not be a requirement in
areas where AB 2097 applies,
as shown in the map on the
facing page.
*As proposed by the Draft
2040 General Plan.
** R-1B is not mapped within
the Low-Scale Residential
context type.

This table reviews the residential zoning regulations that apply within the Low-Scale Residential context type and identifies those that are limiting the desired range of MMH types from being built. Considering the existing auto-reliant single-family neighborhoods in this context type, a maximum of four units on a lot (including both primary units and ADUs) is considered as the upper limit for MMH types. Based on the test fits in Chapter Five that tested the desired range of MMH types on commonly occurring lot sizes within this context type, the regulations that limited the MMH test fits from being built have been summarized by zoning district below.
150 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
No Minimum Parking per AB 2097
Central Business and Arts & Entertainment
District Parking District (0 sp/du for multi-family)
Urban Parking District
(0.5 sp/du for multi-family)
Traditional Parking District
(1 sp/du for multi-family)
Suburban Parking District
(1.5 sp/du for multi-family)
Low-Scale Residential Context Type:

Parking Requirements
R-1
R-1A
R-1B
R-2
Context Type
Boundary
Low-Scale Residential Context Type:

Residential Zones (Relevant to MMH Study)
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 151 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis

6.2 Limiting Factors to
Missing Middle Housing,
Explained
Single-Unit (or Single-Family) + Duplex Zoning Districts In January of 2021, as a part of the 2040
General Plan update, the Sacramento
City Council approved ten "key
strategies", several of which aim to
boost housing production. The first key
strategy is to permit a greater array of
housing types, specifically looking at
MMH. This study focuses on enabling
MMH in single-unit residential areas
which account for about 70 percent of
the city's residential land.

The following zoning districts are
being considered for the initial
implementation of MMH:
■ R-1
■ R-1A
■ R-1B
■ R-2
These low-intensity residential zones
currently allow single-unit houses and
duplexes. R-1A, R-1B and R-2 permit
duplexes on all lots and R-1, which
formerly only permitted duplexes on
corner lots and deep through-lots,
now also permits duplexes on all lots
following the passage of SB 9. Under SB
9, while all R-1 lots can have up to two
units, the City is currently not allowing
additional ADUs if a property owner has
already utilized SB9. However, this may
change in the near future.

Although permitting additional MMH
types will be the first step to enabling
more housing choices in Sacramento,
existing development standards and
other regulations may be limiting the
development of MMH, and would
need to be analyzed and changes
recommended as part of the Missing
Middle Housing study.

In Section 6.1, existing regulations
of these four zoning districts were
analyzed according to the proposed
MMH types for each context type, and
summarized. This section includes a
discussion on how these regulations
can limit MMH from being built.

This section describes the key
regulatory factors that can limit
MMH in Sacramento. These barriers
will be addressed in the MMH
recommendations for the study.
152 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Units per Lot
Units per Lot
The current standards in R-1 permit a
maximum of a single-unit house with
two accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
on a typical lot. R-1 also currently allows
duplex dwellings on corner lots or on
through-lots 125 feet or more in depth.

R-1A, R-1B and R-2 permit a maximum
of a duplex with two ADUs.

Although regulating by building type,
rather than density, is a good strategy
to permit more predictable built
results, the number of units currently
permitted per lot is limiting for MMH.

Compact + Connected
In this context type, the current
number of units permitted per lot is
too low in each of the zoning districts.

Given the proximity to amenities and
transit, as well as the walkable and
connected block structure of this
context type, allowing up to eight
units on a lot is appropriate for the
existing scale and form of the built
environment. By limiting the number of
units per lot to three or four, the existing
zoning is posing a significant barrier to
MMH, and to greater housing choice
and attainability.

Transitional
In this context, the current number of
units permitted per lot is too low in
each zoning district. While this context
type is less walkable than the Compact
+ Connected, it does have proximity
to amenities and transit, and has the
potential for transformation into a more
walkable context. Allowing up to six
units on a lot is appropriate, considering
the scale and form of existing buildings.

The current limitation of three or four
units on a lot prevents this context from
achieving its full potential.

Low-Scale Residential
In this context type, the current
number of units permitted per lot
is very low in each zoning district.

Even though this context type is less
walkable and more car-reliant, it will be
beneficial to increase housing choice
by allowing up to four units on a lot.

Although current standards allow up to
four units in three of the zones, the R-1
zone does not currently allow up to four
units on a lot. The majority of corner
lots and deep through-lots do allow
duplex dwellings and two ADUs.

Note that when referring to units on
a lot, the number is intended as the
total number of units, inclusive of both
primary and accessory dwelling units.

For example, a recommended total
of four units on a lot could be met
with one fourplex, or a duplex and two
ADUs.

Key
Standard is
a significant
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard is a
minor limiting
factor to MMH
Standard enables
MMH and is not a
limiting factor
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 153 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

CLOSER LOOK
Why can units per lot conflict with FAR?
By using FAR as a regulation, a
zoning district can better control
the massing of a building to fit in
with the existing context.

If units per lot and density were
not being used to regulate, and
FAR was the only regulation, this
could allow smaller, attainable
units to be built within the allowed
massing instead of fewer, larger,
more expensive units. Permitting a
moderate to large FAR but limiting
the number of units per lot could
could result in larger, and less
attainable, units.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
The Draft 2040 General Plan
recommends an FAR limit of 1.0 or most
lots within the four zoning districts.

However, some areas, including those
in Midtown and along major corridors
are anticipated to have maximum
FARs of 2.0 and 4.0. These limits may
be exceeded by state density bonus
projects that include affordable units.

Compact + Connected
In this context type, most of the R-1B
zoned lots are anticipated to have a
maximum FAR of 2.0 while a maximum
FAR of 1.0 is recommended for most
other lots in this context type.

The proposed FAR for the R-1B zoned
lots, located primarily in Midtown,
generally exceeds what is needed to
provide eight units per lot. It is worth
noting that if the limit on units per lot
is not increased, especially in an area
with a maximum FAR of 2.0, the result
may be very large units offered at a
premium in order to achieve financial
feasibility, given the higher land costs
in this part of the city. In the rest of this
context type, the proposed maximum
FAR of 1.0 enables all but a few of the
more intense test fits—but even these
would be possible in select locations
within the context type.

Transitional
In this context type, most of the lots
are anticipated to have a maximum
FAR of 1.0, with a few areas adjacent to
corridors having a maximum FAR of 2.0.

Of the test fits with six units or less, only
one exceeded an FAR of 1.0, meaning
that FAR is generally not a significant
barrier to MMH in this context. More
intense projects, with FARs exceeding

1.0, will be enabled near corridors.

Low-Scale Residential
FAR will not pose a barrier to the lowerintensity MMH types appropriate for this context.

Key
Standard is
a significant
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard is a
minor limiting
factor to MMH
Standard enables
MMH and is not a
limiting factor
154 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
8 Units

0.6 FAR
4 Units

0.6 FAR
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
Tr bi u te Rd
Land ParkDr
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
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
48Th St
Marysville Blvd
Ethan Way
WindingW
E St
G St
Brookfield Dr
La Riviera Dr
W El Camino Ave
Edison Ave
Eng
47Th Ave
Hurley Way
Cottage Way
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
Silver Eagle Rd
43Rd Ave
Eastern Ave
J St
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
Pi
Elvas Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
Centra l Dr
W StocktonBlvd
American River Dr
Kiefer Blvd
N 10Th St
KarbetWay
San Juan Rd
S Land P ark Dr
Garden Hwy
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
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
Dr
Heritag e Ln
65Th Street Expy
Harv a rd St
34Th Ave
Fee Dr
Cedr o
ri C
Jib boom St
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
!"^$
/0¦2
AÎ
A½
!"c$
0 ½ 1
FAR and Unit Size
As shown by the diagrams above, the
same FAR can result in fewer larger units
or more smaller units, if restrictions on
number of units is removed.
2 Units

0.6 FAR
1 Unit

0.6 FAR
Proposed Draft 2040 General Plan Maximum FARs
Map Source: City of Sacramento, Draft 2040 General Plan For a larger version of this map, refer to Chapter 7 (Appendix) of this report.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 155 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Lot Size Standards
Lot Size
Although lot size standards typically
apply when new lots are created rather
than to existing lots, these standards
are still important to understand
and how they may influence the
development of MMH. Sacramento
does not require older, legally-platted
lots to conform to current minimum
lot widths, which facilitates infill
development. On the other hand, these
minimums are a barrier to subdividing
properties for fee-simple townhouses,
even in a zone like R-1A that is
otherwise set up to enable townhouse
development.

In general, lot width is a more effective
regulation than lot area, primarily
because a project can comply with the
minimum lot area while still resulting
in a building that is too large for its
context or might not physically fit on
the lot. In contrast, regulating by lot
width enables building types to be
better coordinated with the underlying
context and fit in better with adjacent
structures.

Existing lot area requirements for R-1
and R-2 are minimums of 5,200 square
feet for mid-block lots and 6,200 square
feet for corner lots. R-1A requires a
minimum lot area of 2,900 square feet
per dwelling unit and R-1B requires a
minimum of 3,200 square feet.

In the R-1 and R-2 zones current
minimum lot widths range from 52 feet
to 62 feet. The minimum lot widths in
R-1A range from 20 to 38 feet and the
minimum lot width in R-1B is 40 feet.

Compact + Connected
In this context, the minimum lot areas
and lot widths in R-1 and R-2 are slightly
high considering that some types, such
as a duplex, can be built on smaller
lots—but since minimum dimensions
are waived for existing lots, MMH infill is
enabled. In the R-1A zone, the per-unit
minimum lot area is very limiting for
this context. The minimum lot width for
the R-1A and the minimum lot width
and lot area for R-1B allow the desired
MMH types in this context.

Transitional
Similar to the Compact + Connected
context, in the Transitional context, the
minimum lot areas and lot widths in
R-1 and R-2 are slightly high but since
minimum dimensions are waived for
existing lots, MMH infill is enabled. In
the R-1A zone, the per-unit minimum
lot area is very limiting for this context.

The minimum lot width for the R-1A
and the minimum lot width and area
for R-1B allow the desired MMH types in
this context.

Low-Scale Residential
The minimum lot areas and lot widths
in the R-1, R-1B, and R-2 zones allow
the desired MMH types in this context.

Although the minimum lot widths
in R-1A are conducive to MMH, the
per-unit minimum lot area in R-1A is a
barrier to MMH in this context.

Overall, this standard is a limiting factor
to MMH in some cases, but is not
extremely limiting.

Key
Standard is
a significant
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard is a
minor limiting
factor to MMH
Standard enables
MMH and is not a
limiting factor
156 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
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 in R-1, R-1A, R-1B, and R-2, Compared to Typical Lot Width Ranges of MMH Types
Maximum Lot Coverage
R-1 and R-2 limit maximum lot
coverage to 40 percent of the lot or
2,500 square feet, whichever is greater,
provided that lot coverage does not
exceed 50 percent. The maximum
lot coverage is 50 percent in R-1A and
60 percent in R-1B. ADUs only count
towards lot coverage beyond the first
800 square feet.

Compact + Connected
Lot coverage was not a barrier in the
test fits and does not impede MMH.

Transitional
Lot coverage was not a barrier in the
test fits and does not impede MMH.

Low-Scale Residential
Lot coverage was not a barrier in the
test fits and does not impede MMH.

Minimum Lot Widths
Mid-Block Lots
Corner Lots
Lots Abutting R-1
Typical Lot Width
Range of MMH Types
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 157 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Building Envelope Standards
Minimum Setbacks
For infill projects in the R-1, R-1A, R-1B,
and R-2 zones, front setbacks must
match the setbacks of neighboring
buildings. In the absence of existing
neighboring buildings to which the
setback can be matched, the front
setback defaults to 20 feet minimum.

For R-1 and R-1B, the minimum side
setback is five feet (or three feet if the
lot is less than the minimum lot width).

For R-1A and R-2, there is no minimum
side setback unless the lot abuts an
R-1 or R-1B zone or a lot containing a
detached, single-unit dwelling, in which
case the minimum setback is five feet.

This allows for attached and semidetached homes in R-1A and R-2.

Compact + Connected
A 20-foot front setback would be
unnecessarily large for this context and
would prevent several of the test fits
from providing sufficient shared open
space in the rear of the lot. However, in
many cases the shallower setbacks of
neighboring buildings in this context
enable a more reasonable front setback
of 10 to 15 feet.

Transitional
The front setbacks in this context are
typically large enough (at 20 feet or
more) to pose an obstacle to MMH
development. Several test fits could not
meet the front setback requirement
while also providing some amount of
shared open space in the rear of the
lot. The front setback limits the space
available in the rear for increased
parking and open space needs. Side
setbacks were not a barrier for any of
the test fits.

Low-Scale Residential
The front setbacks in this context are
slightly large. Some test fits had to
provide less than the required front
setback to accommodate needed
parking in the rear. Side setbacks
were not a barrier for any of the test
fits, although attached, fee-simple
townhouse units would need an
exception to side setbacks, as provided
in R-1A and R-2, in order to be built
by-right in the R-1 zone.

Key
Standard is
a significant
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard is a
minor limiting
factor to MMH
Standard enables
MMH and is not a
limiting factor
Maximum Height
All four zones in this category have
maximum height limits of 35 feet.

Compact + Connected
The maximum height was not a barrier
for any of the test fits and does not
pose a barrier to MMH.

Transitional
The maximum height was not a barrier
for any of the test fits and does not
pose a barrier to MMH.

Low-Scale Residential
The maximum height was not a barrier
for any of the test fits and does not
pose a barrier to MMH.
158 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
What is a Building
Envelope?
A building envelope is the
outermost defined limits of
where a building can fit on
a lot. Minimum setbacks,
height limits, and bulk
control standards create
limits on where a building
can be located and how it
can be shaped.

CLOSER LOOK
Bulk Control Standards
Sacramento has adopted bulk control
standards to reduce the visual impact
of infill construction in lower-intensity
neighborhoods. Effectively, any
building height above the first story
requires side setbacks equivalent
to the additional height, as well as a
commensurate increase to the front
setback. This results in a tapered
building envelope that allows more
height toward the center of the lot and
less toward the edges.

Compact + Connected
Accommodating up to eight units
on a typical Sacramento lot requires
a building of at least two stories, with
a footprint between 30 and 50 feet
wide. The narrow lots in this context,
however, make it practically impossible
to fit such a building within the bulk
control envelope, meaning that the
bulk control standards are a significant
barrier to MMH.

Transitional
Accommodating up to six units on
a typical Sacramento lot requires a
building of at least two stories, with a
footprint between 30 and 40 feet wide.

This is difficult to achieve within the
bulk control envelope in this context,
especially when a driveway must be
included, meaning that the bulk control
standards are a significant barrier to
MMH.

Low-Scale Residential
Even four units on a typical Sacramento
lot require a building of at least two
stories, with a footprint over 30 feet
wide. This is difficult to achieve within
the bulk control envelope on typical
lots in this context, especially when a
driveway must be included. This means
that the bulk control standards are a
significant barrier to MMH.

Key
Standard is
a significant
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard is a
minor limiting
factor to MMH
Standard enables
MMH and is not a
limiting factor
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 159 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Parking Standards
(Below) How Parking Count
and Access Impact Housing
Source: Opticos Design
Parking Spaces Required
Parking requirements in Sacramento
depend on the type of residential use
and the parking district in which a lot is
located. The Central Business and Arts
& Entertainment, Urban, Traditional,
and Suburban districts require parking
ratios of 0 spaces, 0.5 spaces, 1 space,
and 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for
multi-unit residential units and 0
spaces, 1 space, 1 space, and 1 space
per dwelling unit for single-unit houses
and duplexes, respectively. On-street
parking may count toward these totals
(with an administrative parking permit),
and ADUs do not have any minimum
parking requirements. The recent state
law, AB 2097, also removes minimum
parking requirements for areas within
half a mile of a major transit stop.

Compact + Connected
Although the Urban and Traditional
parking districts and lots without a
parking minimum according to AB
2097 enable MMH types across most of
this area, the Suburban parking district
limits the intensity of MMH that can
be built in areas with small lots located
further from the central core and from
transit.

Transitional
Lots without a parking minimum
according to AB 2097 enable the
desired MMH types in this context. The
Traditional parking district can enable
up to six units, although this may
require taking advantage of on-street
parking to supplement the limited
number of spaces that can fit on the
lot. The Suburban parking district's
required ratio makes six units on a lot
achievable if two are ADUs (and thus
exempt from parking requirements).

Lots which do not have an alley will be
more limiting for MMH because of the
added space needed for the driveway
and backup space.

Low-Scale Residential
The Traditional parking district and lots
without a parking minimum according
to AB 2097 enable the desired MMH
types in this context. Although the
Suburban parking district—which
covers most of this context—requires six
spaces for four units, in most cases this
can be achieved by including on-street
parking or by substituting ADUs for
primary units.

Key
Standard is
a significant
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard is a
minor limiting
factor to MMH
Standard enables
MMH and is not a
limiting factor
No parking required
Fourplex can fit on a small lot
Density achieved: 54 du/ac
1 parking sp/unit (alley access)
Fourplex needs a deeper lot
Density achieved: 41 du/ac
1 parking sp/unit (front driveway access)
Fourplex needs a deeper, wider lot
Density achieved: 25 du/ac
160 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Driveway Dimensions +
Placement
In Sacramento, multi-unit dwellings
(three units or more) must be served by
a commercial driveway at least 24 feet
wide (for two-way traffic). For residential
driveways (serving two units or fewer),
the minimum driveway width is 10 feet.

The flared driveway entry must be at
least five feet from the property line of
an abutting residential property. The
parking area must be a minimum of 20
feet from the right-of-way line. Parking
areas cannot encroach into front or
street side setbacks, but can encroach
into side and rear setbacks.

Compact + Connected
The commercial driveway requirement
for three to eight units is unachievable
on typical lots in this context, especially
in combination with the side setback
for driveway entries, particularly on
narrower lots. This is a significant barrier
to MMH on sites without alleys.

Transitional
The commercial driveway requirement
for three to six units is unachievable on
typical lots in this context, especially
in combination with the side setback
for driveway entries, particularly on
narrower lots. This is a significant barrier
to MMH on sites without alleys.

Low-Scale Residential
The commercial driveway requirement
for three to four units is unachievable
on typical lots in this context, especially
in combination with the side setback
for driveway entries. Driveways are
generally required in this context type,
since alleys are rare.

Parking Requirements
No Minimum Parking per AB 2097
Central Business and Arts & Entertainment District
Parking District (0 sp/du for multi-family)
Urban Parking District
(0.5 sp/du for multi-family)
Traditional Parking District
(1 sp/du for multi-family)
Suburban Parking District
(1.5 sp/du for multi-family)
Driveway Standards
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 161 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Tree Shading Standards for Parking
City of Sacramento Parking Lot Tree Shading
Design and Maintenance Guidelines
Tree Shading Requirement EXHIBIT A
In Sacramento, at least 50%
of uncovered parking areas
must be shaded by trees. The
assumed amount of shading
provided depends on tree
species and placement.

Key
Standard is
a significant
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard is a
minor limiting
factor to MMH
Standard enables
MMH and is not a
limiting factor
Tree Shading for Parking Lots
Sacramento requires that uncovered
parking areas be at least 50 percent
shaded by trees 15 years after the
development is completed. The
specifications for how this is calculated
can be found in the City's Parking Lot
Tree Shading Design and Maintenance
Guidelines.

Compact + Connected
Due to the narrow lot dimensions in this
context, at least one test fit was unable
to provide the required tree shading for
surface parking, meaning this standard
is a potential barrier to MMH.

Transitional
Lots without alleys must provide
surface parking spaces, drive aisles to
serve them, and trees to shade both
elements of the parking lot—in addition
to the required open space. A few test
fits were unable to meet all of these
requirements on the site.

Low-Scale Residential
The issues here are similar to those in
the Transitional context. In most cases,
however, on-street parking can enable
lots to supply the required spaces,
meaning that the requirement to shade
off-street spaces is not a barrier.
162 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
Open Space Standards
Key
Standard is
a significant
limiting factor to
MMH
Standard is a
minor limiting
factor to MMH
Standard enables
MMH and is not a
limiting factor
Open Space
In Sacramento, development involving
three units or more requires 100 square
feet of open space per dwelling unit
beyond the minimum required frontyard, side-yard, and rear-yard setbacks.

ADUs do not require additional
open space. MMH types prioritize
shared open spaces, and existing
regulations will need to be adapted to
accommodate additional housing while
also providing usable open space.

Compact + Connected
The minimum open space requirement
is a barrier to some of the MMH types in
this context. Given the smaller lot sizes
in this area, some of the test fits were
unable to provide the required amount
of open space.

Transitional
Because this context type has small lots
without alleys but requires more space
for parking and driveways, several test
fits could not provide sufficient open
space. The combination of open space
minimums with rear parking areas
accessed from the front is a barrier to
MMH in this context.

Low-Scale Residential
As in the Transitional context,
requirements for driveways and
parking prevented several test fits
from providing sufficient open space—
illustrating the tradeoff between the
two features.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 163 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis

6.3 Policy Analysis for
Missing Middle Housing
The following documents were analyzed for potential barriers to the implementation of MMH in Sacramento:
■ Citywide Multi-Unit Dwelling, SingleUnit Dwelling and Duplex Dwelling Design Guidelines.
■ Residential Condominium Conversion
and New Construction Program
■ CEQA exemption for buildings with
up to 6 units
■ City of Sacramento's Title 17 Division
VI Architectural Design and Site
Development Standards
■ Infill Housing Design Standards
■ State Senate Bill 9
■ The City's ADU Ordinance
A brief overview of each policy
document is provided in the following
pages, and potential barriers to MMH
are noted.

Overall, a point to be noted is that
design guidelines are inherently
advisory in nature and do not have
the legal authority of a design
standard. This in itself limits their
applicability and relevance for the built
outcomes.

Recommendations for updating
these policies and guidelines will form
part of the MMH zoning and policy
recommendations.

Understanding the existing policy
and design guidelines is key to
assessing the viability of MMH in
each of the context types that are
the focus of this study.
164 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
■ Single-Unit/Duplex/Multi-Unit
Dwelling Design Guidelines
The Citywide Single-Unit and Duplex
Residential Design Guidelines and the
Multi-Unit Dwelling Design Guidelines
give guidance for residential structures
with the aim to create livable and
inviting environments.

Each document works as a toolkit
of design principles for site design,
scale and massing controls, number
of stories, garages and parking,
architectural elements, relationship to
surroundings, landscaping/lighting/
fencing, accessory structures as well as
architectural character and detailing.

Potential Barriers for MMH:
• The Citywide Single-Unit and Duplex
Residential Design Guidelines include
"bulk control" recommendations
which advise that upper stories of
buildings be stepped back from the
ground floor by a 45 degree angle.

This can be effective in regulating
massing for single-story structures,
but can curtail buildable area for
MMH and would need to be adjusted
to allow all MMH types.
• These Design Guidelines recommend
that new construction maintain
the prevailing front and side yard
setbacks in the area. In many cases,
this can decrease the available
area on the lot for MMH, affecting
feasibility. This guideline would need
to be adjusted to enable MMH on
many smaller lots.
■ Infill Housing Design Standards
The Citywide Infill Housing Design
Standards articulate design principles
and objective design review standards
for housing development projects with
two or more dwelling units, including a
single-unit dwelling with an attached
accessory dwelling unit. These projects
can be either residential-only projects
or part of a mixed-use development in
which the residential use constitutes
at least two-thirds of the total gross
building square footage.

The document works as a toolkit of
design principles and design standards
for site planning, building orientation,
setbacks, parking and circulation,
garages, pedestrian circulation,
landscaping/lighting, accessory
structures and architectural elements.

Potential Barriers for MMH:
• This is not likely a barrier for MMH
infill development, but additional
guidance could be provided as part of
the MMH recommendations.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 165 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
■ City's Local ADU Ordinance
The City of Sacramento allows a total
of two ADUs on a single lot that can be
attached or detached. The maximum
size of a detached ADU is 1,200 square
feet, and the total square footage of
two detached ADUs on the lot shall
not exceed 1,200 square feet. The
State's ADU Standards allow up to
one attached or converted ADU, one
detached ADU, and one junior ADU.

Property owners can either select the
City's Local ADU Ordinance or the
State's ADU Standards.

Potential Barriers for MMH:
• This is not likely to be a barrier for
MMH.
■ Architectural Design and Site
Development Standards
The Architectural Design and Site
Development Standards (Title 17,
Division VI) guide the architectural
design of single-unit houses, duplexes
in R-1 and R-1B zoning districts, corner
lots with single-unit houses and
duplexes, through-lots and potential
projections into required setback areas,
as well as open space requirements for
multi-unit dwellings.

Potential Barriers for MMH:
• These standards include a
recommendation about the
combination of private and common
open space to be provided for new
multi-unit dwellings at a ratio of
100 square feet of open space per
dwelling unit beyond the minimum
required front-yard, side-yard, and
rear-yard setbacks. This could be a
barrier for the larger MMH types and
make them infeasible.
■ Residential Condominium
Conversion and New Construction
Program
In Section 17.716.010 of Title 17,
condominiums and condominium
conversions are regulated in terms
of control and approval, inhabitant
ownership, rental protection, and
physical standards. Section 17.716.050,
"Condominium Conversions" describes
the process of obtaining a conditional
use permit allowing existing structures
that have been previously occupied
and constructed as rental units to be
sold as condominium units.

Potential Barriers for MMH:
• If a building owner of an MMH
wishes to sell a unit to a third party,
the transfer of ownership may be
prohibited.
• Condominium defect liability clauses,
which hold a builder accountable
for construction defects for a period
of ten years, is often a barrier for
MMH. The builder needs to purchase
additional insurance to cover this
requirement, which can affect project
viability.
166 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
■ State Senate Bill 9 and Ministerial
Approval of Two Dwelling Units on
a Lot and Urban Lot Splits.

State Senate Bill 9 (SB9) allows for
housing developments of two dwelling
units in single-family residential zoning
districts. The Ministerial Approval of Two
Dwelling Units on a Lot and Urban Lot
Splits guides the outcomes allowed
under SB9 in terms of height, density,
lot coverage, bulk control, accessory
dwelling units, and other design
standards.

Potential Barriers for MMH:
• SB9 applies to Sacramento's R-1,
the default "single-unit" zone, but it
allows duplexes on corner lots and
on through-lots 125 feet or more in
depth. A recent study by the Terner
Center for Housing Innovation at
the University of California, Berkeley,
estimated that out of 116,000 SB9-
eligible lots, only 6,700 lots may yield
market-feasible units, resulting in a
likely increase of only 9,600 units.

Sources:
www.califaep.org
www.
californialanddevelopment.
com
■ CEQA Exemption
The CEQA Class 32 “Infill” Categorical
Exemptions (CEQA Guideline
Sections 15303 and 15332) exempt
infill development on sites less than
five acres, located within urbanized
areas, from CEQA, provided certain
criteria are met and the project will not
result in any significant traffic, noise,
air quality, or water quality impacts.

This exemption may apply to to “new
construction or conversion of small
structures” for a single-unit house in
a residential zone or up to three in
an urban area. For multi-family, this
exemption covers up to four units
for residential and six units or less
for residential and urban areas. This
exemption can provide opportunities
for small-scale builders and
homeowners.

Potential Barriers for MMH:
• The CEQA exemption is likely to
exempt most MMH projects unless
the project is in a historic district
or has similar designation, is in an
environmentally sensitive area, or
does not meet any of the other
prescribed exemption criteria. Thus it
will not be a barrier for MMH.
• If a ministerial review process is
adopted for approving MMH in
Sacramento, it will exempt such
projects from CEQA requirements as
per CEQA Guidelines Section 15268.

September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 167 Chapter 6 — Zoning and Policy Analysis
168 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023

CHAPTER
7 Appendix
In this chapter
Zoning Districts Targeted for Initial Implementation of MMH 170 Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Designations 172
Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Areas 174 Street Connectivity + Access to Transit and Amenities 176 Draft 2040 General Plan Proposed Maximum Allowed FAR 178 Draft 2040 General Plan Proposed Minimum Residential Densities 180 Existing Built Form + Location of Duplexes, Triplexes, Fourplexes 182 Allowed Maximum Building Heights 184
Existing Number of Units Per Lot 186
Context Types in Sacramento 188
Lot Categories in Sacramento 190
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 169 Zoning Districts Targeted
for Initial Implementation
of MMH
R-1
R-1A
R-1B
R-2
Legend
170 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Scale 1" = 6000'
0 6000' 1200'
N
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 171 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Trib u te Rd
Raley Blvd
Grand Ave
Northborough Dr
Leisure Ln
1 N T6 h St
Del Paso Blvd
Northgate Blvd
Arden Way
E Levee Rd
El Camino Ave
Richards Blvd
dR eni L re woP
Club Center Dr
Rio Linda Blvd
Alta Arden Expy
Marconi Ave
Azevedo Dr
Don uJ l oi Blvd
Longview Dr
Fulton Ave
Norwood Ave
Danbrook D r
12Th St
T7 h t S
Hov nanian Dr
Hillsda el B vl d
Mary vs il el B vl d
Ethan Way
A St
W ni d ni gWay
Rosevil el Rd
Regency ParkCir
W El Cam ni o Ave
Edison Ave
Engle Rd
Hurley Way
Cottage Way Walnut Av e
Silver Eagle Rd
Eastern Ave
Bell Ave
Auburn Blvd
Mission Ave
N 7Th St
N B St
Main Ave
t
B
r di gecross Dr
N Park Dr
E CommerceWay
Exposition Blvd
tu
cre B Dr
G a tewayOaks Dr
El Centro Rd
Rai yl ards Blvd
W Elkhorn Blvd
N 12Th St
Dayton St
Kern St
tS yvI
Truxel Rd
Dry Creek Rd
Pinell St
Del Paso Rd
Madison Ave
Natomas Centra l Dr
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
San uJ an Rd
Garden Hwy
Orange Grove Ave
Tri Stat oi ns Rd
Vine St
Macon Dr
Pasa dena A ve
Elkhorn Blvd
Westlake Pkwy
Airbase Dr
Arena Blvd
Claire Ave Na ot m s a dvl B
Arden Garden
hT6 t S
Duckhorn Dr
Bayou Rd
Heritag e nL
Harv a t S dr
Ly m a n Cir
Fee Dr
N Ben d Dr
Lone Tree Rd
Cedr
C
o
ir
Ascot Ave
Vinci Ave
Jib boom St
Terracina Dr
Pell Dr
oS er ot n dR
General Plan Land Use
¦/02
Ad
A½
!"c$
¦/02
!"^$
!"c$
Draft 2040 General Plan
Land Use Designations
Elk Grove Florin Rd
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
Calvine Rd
Riverside Blvd
Elder Creek Rd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Ha ve nside Dr
Bond R
Freeport Blvd
Power Inn Rd
Cen ter Pkwy
Green h aven Dr
Florin Rd
Brookfield Dr
47Th Ave
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
43Rd Ave
French Rd
Sims Rd
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
W StocktonBlvd
Gerber Rd
Mack Rd
Brucevi lle Rd
53Rd Ave
Big Horn Blvd
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Franklin Blvd
71S
88T
34Th 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
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 !"^$
AÎ
0 ½ 1
172 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
naL d aP kr Dr
CollegeTown Dr
Capitol Ave
Fair Oaks Blvd
8Th Ave
Jackson Rd
Elk Grove Florin Rd
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
Seamas Ave
Stockton Blvd
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
hT95 t S
Q St
K St
Broadway
Calvine Rd
Rivers di e Blvd
Folsom B vl d
Elder Creek Rd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Ha ve s n edi r D
93 hT
M
t S
ck ni ley Blvd
Bond Rd
21St St
Freeport Blvd
Power Inn Rd
SWatt Ave
Cen ter Pkwy
Y St
19Th St
Watt Ave
hT56 tS
16Th St
10Th St
9Th St
14Th St
18Th St
17Th St
Green h aven Dr
Alhambra Blvd
8Th St
29Th St
26Th St
15Th St
30Th St
Flor ni Rd
H St
T84 S h t
E St
G St
Brookf ei dl Dr
La Riviera Dr
47Th Ave
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
43Rd Ave
J St
L St
La S ei rra Dr
Fruitridge Rd
T St
French Rd
D St
V St
R St
C St
I St
P St
S St
X St
W St
F St
T5 h St
3Rd St
Northrop Ave
Univ ersity Ave
37Th St
14Th Ave
Sims Rd
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
Redding Ave
U St
24Th Ave
Elvas Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
W StocktonBlvd
Amer ci an R vi er Dr
Kiefer Blvd
ra K Wt eb ya
aLS nd P ar Dk r
40Th St
42Nd St
45Th St
Gerber Rd
Florin Perkins Rd
Mack Rd
55Th St
47Th St
Brucevi lle Rd
Howe Ave
53Rd Ave
rF no t t S
57Th St
Big Horn B vl d
7Th Ave
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Franklin Blvd
CucamongaAve
49Th St
88Th St
71St St
ypxE t eertS hT56
34Th Ave
Waterman Rd
Hedge Ave
Land Uses
ral Residential
ghborhoodidential Mixed-Use
ice Mixed-Use
mmercial Mixed-Useployment Mixed-Use
ustrial Mixed-Use
lic/Quasi-Public
ks and Recreationen Space
Light Rail Station: ExistingLight Rail Station: ProposedLight Rail Transit: ExistingLight Rail Transit: ProposedSacramento City LimitPlanning AreaSpecial Study AreaSphere of InfluenceWater I½
!"c$
cramento
2020; Dyett & Bhatia
2022
I½
!"^$
AÎ
!"c$
A½
0 1 2 ½ Miles
Scale 1" = 6000'0 6000' 1200'
N
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 173 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Watt Ave
Auburn Blvd
Howe Ave
El Camino Ave
Roseville Rd
Fair Oaks Blvd
Del Paso Rd
Garfield Ave
Marconi Ave
Fulton Ave
Truxel Rd
Bell Ave
Eastern Ave
Walnut Ave
Madison Ave
W Elkhorn Blvd
Northgate Blvd
W
El Camino Ave
El Centro Rd
Arden Way
E Commerce Way
Norwood Ave
Power Line Rd
Arena Blvd
Raley Blvd
Del Paso Blvd
Hil sl da el l B dv
Elkhorn Blvd
Natomas Blvd
Exposit oi n Blvd
M r a sy lli v Be dvl
Richards Blvd
N Market Blvd
A St
Main Ave
San Juan Rd
Greenback
Ln
Don Ju l oi B vl d
N 12Th St
Ethan Way
Airbase Dr
Auburn Blvd
160
}þ|·

ARDEN ARCADE

NORTH NATOMAS

NORTH SACRAMENTO

SOUTH NATOMAS
99}þ|·
80 "!$#
Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC)
Opportunity Areas
Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource
(Rapidly Changing)
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation +
Poverty
Lower-income Units
Planned Lowerincome Units
Racially or Ethnically
Concentrated Areas
of Poverty
Legend
Source: City of Sacramento
174 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Fruitridge Rd
Folsom Blvd
Franklin Blvd
Power Inn Rd
Gerber Rd
Stockton Blvd
P St
Q St
Sheldon Rd
Calvine Rd
Broadway
X St
I St
Freeport Blvd
Kiefer Blvd
W St
Bradshaw Rd
S Watt Ave
Elder Creek Rd
Mack Rd
47Th Ave
Center Pkwy
21St St
L St
16Th St
9Th St N St
Cosumnes R vi er B vl d
Elk Grove Florin Rd
Florin Perkins Rd
Bruceville Rd
5Th St
15Th St
3Rd St
91 hT t S
29Th St
Bader Rd
65Th Street Expy
Meadowview Rd
J St
Routier Rd
Sims Rd
Florin Rd
12Th St
56 Th S t
Waterman Rd
French Rd
Alhambra Blvd
59Th St
Caymus Dr
Auberry Dr
Sutterville Rd
Brown Rd
Vineyard Rd
Riverside Blvd
Munroe St
Elsie Ave
Pocket Rd
Short Rd
12Th Ave
Spengler Dr
Seamas Ave
Viking Dr
Four Seasons Dr
H St
I Street Brg
Brockenhurst Dr
B gi Horn B vl d
Florin Rd
Waterman Rd
Sims Rd
Bradshaw Rd
65Th St
Bradshaw Rd
Sutterville Rd

SOUTH AREA

FRUITRIDGE/BROADWAY
POCKET

LAND PARK

EAST SACRAMENTO

CENTRAL CITY
99}þ|·
80)*+,-
5"!$#
50 (/
pportunity Areas
st Resource
Moderate Resource
Racially or Ethnically
Planned Lower Income Units
Scale 1" = 6000'0 6000' 1200'
N
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 175 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Street Connectivity +
Access to Transit and
Amenities
Light Rail Station
Light Rail (Existing)
Light Rail (Planned)
Proposed 2040 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Community Plan Areas
1/2 mi. Distance from Light Rail Stations
Schools
Major Employment Nodes
Legend
176 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Scale 1" = 6000'
0 6000' 1200'
N
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 177 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Trib u te Rd
Raley Blvd
Grand Ave
Northborough Dr
Leisure Ln
1 N T6 h St
Del Paso Blvd
Northgate Blvd
Arden Way
E Levee Rd
El Camino Ave
Richards Blvd
dR eni L re woP
Club Center Dr
Rio Linda Blvd
Alta Arden Expy
Marconi Ave
Azevedo Dr
Don uJ l oi Blvd
Longview Dr
Fulton Ave
Norwood Ave
Danbrook D r
12Th St
T7 h t S
Hov nanian Dr
Hillsda el B vl d
Mary vs il el B vl d
Ethan Way
A St
W ni d ni gWay
Rosevil el Rd
Regency ParkCir
W El Cam ni o Ave
Edison Ave
Engle Rd
Hurley Way
Cottage Way Walnut Av e
Silver Eagle Rd
Eastern Ave
Bell Ave
Auburn Blvd
Mission Ave
N 7Th St
N B St
Main Ave
B
r di gecross Dr
N Park Dr
E CommerceWay
Exposition Blvd
tu
cre B Dr
G a tewayOaks Dr
El Centro Rd
Rai yl ards Blvd
W Elkhorn Blvd
N 12Th St
Dayton St
Kern St
tS yvI
Truxel Rd
Dry Creek Rd
Pinell St
Del Paso Rd
Madison Ave
Natomas Centra l Dr
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
San uJ an Rd
Garden Hwy
Orange Grove Ave
Tri Stat oi ns Rd
Vine St
Macon Dr
Pasa dena A ve
Elkhorn Blvd
Westlake Pkwy
Airbase Dr
Arena Blvd
Claire Ave Na ot m s a dvl B
Arden Garden
hT6 t S
Duckhorn Dr
Bayou Rd
Heritag e nL
Harv a t S dr
Ly m a n Cir
Fee Dr
N Ben d Dr
Lone Tree Rd
Cedr
C
o
ir
Ascot Ave
Vinci Ave
Jib boom St
Terracina Dr
Pell Dr
oS er ot n dR
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) –
All Development
¦/02
Ad
A½
!"c$
¦/02
!"^$
!"c$
Draft 2040 General Plan
Proposed Maximum
Allowed FAR
Elk Grove Florin Rd
Rush River Dr
Calvine Rd
Riverside Blvd
Elder Creek Rd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Ha ve nside Dr
Freeport Blvd
Power Inn Rd
Cen ter Pkwy
Green h aven Dr
Florin Rd
Brookfield Dr
47Th Ave
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
43Rd Ave
French Rd
Sims Rd
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
W StocktonBlvd
Gerber Rd
Mack Rd
Brucevi lle Rd
53Rd Ave
Big Horn Blvd
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Franklin Blvd
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
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 !"^$
AÎ
0 ½
178 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
naL d aP kr Dr
CollegeTown Dr
Capitol Ave
Fair Oaks Blvd
8Th Ave
Jackson Rd
Elk Grove Florin Rd
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
Seamas Ave
Stockton Blvd
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
hT95 t S
Q St
K St
Broadway
Calvine Rd
Rivers di e Blvd
Folsom B vl d
Elder Creek Rd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Ha ve s n edi r D
93 hT
M
t S
ck ni ley Blvd
Bond Rd
21St St
Freeport Blvd
Power Inn Rd
SWatt Ave
Cen ter Pkwy
Y St
19Th St
Watt Ave
hT56 tS
16Th St
10Th St
9Th St
14Th St
18Th St
17Th St
1 Green h aven Dr
Alhambra Blvd
8Th St
29Th St
26Th St
15Th St
30Th St
Flor ni Rd
H St
T84 S h t
E St
G St
Brookf ei dl Dr
La Riviera Dr
47Th Ave
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
43Rd Ave
J St
L St
La S ei rra Dr
Fruitridge Rd
T St
French Rd
D St
V St
R St
C St
I St
P St
S St
X St
W St
F St
T5 h St
3Rd St
Northrop Ave
Univ ersity Ave
37Th St
14Th Ave
Sims Rd
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
Redding Ave
U St
24Th Ave
Elvas Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
W StocktonBlvd
Amer ci an R vi er Dr
Kiefer Blvd
ra K Wt eb ya
aLS nd P ar Dk r
40Th St
42Nd St
45Th St
Gerber Rd
Florin Perkins Rd
Mack Rd
55Th St
47Th St
Brucevi lle Rd
Howe Ave
53Rd Ave
rF no t t S
57Th St
Big Horn B vl d
7Th Ave
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Franklin Blvd
CucamongaAve
6 49Th St
88Th St
71St St
ypxE t eertS hT56
34Th Ave
Waterman Rd
Hedge Ave
Allowed FAR
00 A FAR
Light Rail Station: ExistingLight Rail Station: ProposedLight Rail Transit: ExistingLight Rail Transit: ProposedSacramento City LimitPlanning AreaSphere of InfluenceWater I½
!"c$
2020
D
& Bh
2022
I½
!"^$
AÎ
!"c$
A½
0 1 2 ½ Miles
Scale 1" = 6000'0 6000' 1200'
N
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 179 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Trib u te Rd
Raley Blvd
Grand Ave
Northborough Dr
Leisure Ln
1 N T6 h St
Del Paso Blvd
Northgate Blvd
Arden Way
E Levee Rd
El Camino Ave
Richards Blvd
dR eni L re woP
Club Center Dr
Rio Linda Blvd
Alta Arden Expy
Marconi Ave
Azevedo Dr
Don uJ l oi Blvd
Longview Dr
Fulton Ave
Norwood Ave
Danbrook D r
12Th St
T7 h t S
Hov nanian Dr
Hillsda el B vl d
Mary vs il el B vl d
Ethan Way
A St
W ni d ni gWay
Rosevil el Rd
Regency ParkCir
W El Cam ni o Ave
Edison Ave
Engle Rd
Hurley Way
Cottage Way Walnut Av e
Silver Eagle Rd
Eastern Ave
Bell Ave
Auburn Blvd
Mission Ave
N 7Th St
N B St
Main Ave
B
r di gecross Dr
N Park Dr
E CommerceWay
Exposition Blvd
tu
cre B Dr
G a tewayOaks Dr
El Centro Rd
Rai yl ards Blvd
W Elkhorn Blvd
N 12Th St
Dayton St
Kern St
tS yvI
Truxel Rd
Dry Creek Rd
Pinell St
Del Paso Rd
Madison Ave
Natomas Centra l Dr
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
San uJ an Rd
Garden Hwy
Orange Grove Ave
Tri Stat oi ns Rd
Vine St
Macon Dr
Pasa dena A ve
Elkhorn Blvd
Westlake Pkwy
Airbase Dr
Arena Blvd
Claire Ave Na ot m s a dvl B
Arden Garden
hT6 t S
Duckhorn Dr
Bayou Rd
Heritag e nL
Harv a t S dr
Ly m a n Cir
Fee Dr
N Ben d Dr
Lone Tree Rd
Cedr
C
o
ir
Ascot Ave
Vinci Ave
Jib boom St
Terracina Dr
Pell Dr
oS er ot n dR
Minimum Residential Density
¦/02
Ad
A½
!"c$
¦/02
!"^$
!"c$
Draft 2040 General Plan
Proposed Minimum
Residential Densities
Elk Grove Florin Rd
Seamas Ave
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
Calvine Rd
Riverside Blvd
Elder Creek Rd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Ha ve nside Dr
Freeport Blvd
Power Inn Rd
Cen ter Pkwy
Green h aven Dr
Florin Rd
Brookfield Dr
47Th Ave
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
43Rd Ave
Fruitridge Rd
French Rd
Sims Rd
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
W StocktonBlvd
Kar
S Land
Gerber Rd
Mack Rd
Brucevi lle Rd
53Rd Ave
Big Horn Blvd
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Franklin Blvd
49Th St
71St St
88Th St
65T
34Th 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
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 !"^$
AÎ
0 ½
180 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
naL d aP kr Dr
CollegeTown Dr
Capitol Ave
Fair Oaks Blvd
8Th Ave
Jackson Rd
Elk Grove Florin Rd
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
Seamas Ave
Stockton Blvd
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
hT95 t S
Q St
K St
Broadway
Calvine Rd
Rivers di e Blvd
Folsom B vl d
Elder Creek Rd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Ha ve s n edi r D
93 hT
M
t S
ck ni ley Blvd
Bond Rd
21St St
Freeport Blvd
Power Inn Rd
SWatt Ave
Cen ter Pkwy
Y St
19Th St
Watt Ave
hT56 tS
16Th St
10Th St
9Th St
14Th St
18Th St
17Th St
1 Green h aven Dr
Alhambra Blvd
8Th St
29Th St
26Th St
15Th St
30Th St
Flor ni Rd
H St
T84 S h t
E St
G St
Brookf ei dl Dr
La Riviera Dr
47Th Ave
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
43Rd Ave
J St
L St
La S ei rra Dr
Fruitridge Rd
T St
French Rd
D St
V St
R St
C St
I St
P St
S St
X St
W St
F St
T5 h St
3Rd St
Northrop Ave
Univ ersity Ave
37Th St
14Th Ave
Sims Rd
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
Redding Ave
U St
24Th Ave
Elvas Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
W StocktonBlvd
Amer ci an R vi er Dr
Kiefer Blvd
ra K Wt eb ya
aLS nd P ar Dk r
40Th St
42Nd St
45Th St
Gerber Rd
Florin Perkins Rd
Mack Rd
55Th St
47Th St
Brucevi lle Rd
Howe Ave
53Rd Ave
rF no t t S
57Th St
Big Horn B vl d
7Th Ave
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Franklin Blvd
CucamongaAve
6 49Th St
88Th St
71St St
ypxE t eertS hT56
34Th Ave
Waterman Rd
Hedge Ave
nits (per acre)
Light Rail Station: ExistingLight Rail Station: ProposedLight Rail Transit: ExistingLight Rail Transit: ProposedSacramento City LimitPlanning AreaSphere of InfluenceWater I½
!"c$
2020
D
& Bh
2022
I½
!"^$
AÎ
!"c$
A½
0 1 2 ½ Miles
Scale 1" = 6000'0 6000' 1200'
N
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 181 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Existing Built Form +
Location of Duplexes,
Triplexes, Fourplexes
Community Plan Areas
Existing Historic Districts
Building Footprints
Duplex
Triplex
Fourplex
Legend
182 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Scale 1" = 6000'
0 6000' 1200'
N
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 183 Chapter 7 — Appendix
35 ft.

Allowed Maximum
Building Heights
R-1, R-1A, R-1B, R-2 Residential Zoning Districts
Legend
184 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Scale 1" = 6000'
0 6000' 1200'
N
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 185 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Existing Number of Units
Per Lot
R-1, R-1A, R-1B, R-2 Residential Zoning Districts
0-1
2-4
5-12
13-24
25+
Legend
186 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Scale 1" = 6000'
0 6000' 1200'
N
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 187 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Light Rail Station
Light Rail (Existing)
Light Rail (Planned)
Rapid Bus
1/2 mile Distance from
Light Rail Stations
Context Types in
Sacramento
Based on Citywide Analysis
Downtown Core
Compact + Connected
Transitional
Corridors + Centers
Low-Scale Residential
Large Infill Sites
Legend
188 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Scale 1" = 6000'
0 6000' 1200'
N
September 2023 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis 189 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Lot Categories in
Sacramento
R-1, R-1A, R-1B + R-2 Residential Zones
Lot Categories in Sacramento + MMH Types That Can Fit
15'-29' W
<150' D
30'-44' W
70'-175' D
45'-64' W
70'-175' D
65'-99' W
90'-175' D
100'-135' W
100'-250' D
135'-200' W
>200' D
Townhouse
Duplex, Townhouse
Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex,
Multiplex Small, Townhouse
Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex,
Multiplex Small, Multiplex
Large, Courtyard Bldg
Multiplex Large, Courtyard
Bldg, Cottage Court
Cottage Court
Lot Categories MMH Types
W=wide, D=deep
Uncategorized Parcel
Existing Light Rail
Proposed Green Line
Light Rail Station + 1/2 Mile
Radius
190 Report 2: Missing Middle Housing Attainability + Livability Analysis September 2023 Chapter 7 — Appendix
Scale 1" = 6000'
0 6000' 1200'
N
With consultants:

Cascadia Partners
Collaborative Design + Innovation
Unseen Heroes
Konveio