Sacramento City Council
November 28, 2023

City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2023-01524 11/28/2023 Discussion Item 18.
2040 General Plan Update: Revised Missing Middle Housing (MMH) & Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Approach
File ID: 2023-01524
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Pass a Motion authorizing the City Manager or City Manager’s designee to: 1) Revise the draft 2040 General Plan Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Diagram to increase the maximum FAR from 1 to 2 in areas within a half-mile walking distance of existing high-frequency bus stops and existing and planned light rail stations, and 2) Proceed with a revised Missing Middle Housing (MMH) approach that regulates the building form through the 2040 General Plan FARs and the single-unit and duplex dwelling zone standards found in the Planning & Development Code (including but not limited to required setback areas, height and lot coverage limits, and bulk control).

Contact: Nguyen Nguyen, Associate Planner, (916) 808-1964, [email protected]; Matt Hertel, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager, (916) 808-7158, [email protected], Community Development Department
Presenter: Nguyen Nguyen, Associate Planner, (916) 808-1964, [email protected], Community Development Department
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Map of Proposed Maximum FAR Increases from 1 to 2 Within a Half-Mile Walking Distance of High -Frequency Transit
3-Revised Draft 2040 General Plan Maximum FAR Diagram
4-Revised Sliding Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Scale & Related 2040 General Plan Draft Policies 5-Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study’s Preliminary Recommendations Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: In 2019, the City initiated a multi-year process to comprehensively update the Sacramento General Plan and Climate Action Plan, collectively referred to as the 2040 General Plan Update. On April 28, 2023, draft 2040 General Plan Update documents were released for public review and comment. The draft 2040 General Plan was made available for public review through October 10, 2023, and was presented to the City Council on August 22, 2023, for review and comment. Staff is currently working on preparing the final 2040 General Plan documents for the

File ID: 2023-01524 11/28/2023 Discussion Item 18.

Planning & Design Commission and City Council adoption hearings slated for early 2024.

One of the key strategies of the 2040 General Plan approved by City Council on January 19, 2021, is to “permit a greater array of housing types in existing single-unit neighborhoods.” In 2022, the City initiated the Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Study (Study), which provides recommendations for how the City can thoughtfully implement this key strategy. More detailed information on the work completed thus far for this Study can be found in the background section of this report.

On October 5, 2023, a Self-Guided Online Workshop (sacramentommh.konveio.com) was launched to gather community input on the Study’s preliminary recommendations. To encourage community input, staff held an in-person event on October 4 and hosted two webinars on October 5 & 19, providing opportunities for community members to chat with the project team about the recommendations. The Online Workshop was available until November 5 and received nearly 300 comments. On October 12, 2023, staff presented the preliminary recommendations to the Planning & Design Commission (Commission) for their review and comment. On October 24, 2023, staff sought feedback from City Council on the Study’s preliminary approach and recommendations.

The most frequently raised issue during the public comment period was concern about establishing MMH districts with unit cap tiers that limited the number of primary and accessory dwelling units that could be constructed to either 4, 6, or 8. Commenters generally requested the removal of MMH districts and unit caps and instead rely on maximum floor area ratios (FARs) and development standards to regulate building size and height, to address building form and without limiting the number of units allowed in the building. It is important to note that some residents continued to express concern regarding neighborhood compatibility, open space needs, impact on trees, and attainability of new housing created from this MMH strategy. A table of comments received on the Study’s preliminary recommendations can be found in Attachment 5.

The Draft 2040 General Plan land use framework includes maximum floor area ratios (FARs) that are used to determine the amount of building square footage that can be constructed on a parcel. As part of the Missing Middle Housing Study’s preliminary recommendations, a sliding FAR scale is proposed by which a single-unit dwelling in the single-unit and duplex dwelling zones (R-1, R-1A, R-1B, and R- 2), would be allowed a maximum FAR of 0.4, and increments of additional building area would be granted proportionally to the number of units proposed on a site. The implementation of a sliding FAR scale is important to ensure that the production of smaller, more attainable units is incentivized, while disincentivizing the production of larger, expensive single-unit dwellings. Both the removal of unit caps and the sliding scale FAR are important components of a strategy to incentivize the development of more attainable middle-income housing types. A revised sliding FAR scale (Attachment 4) and related policies will be integrated into the 2040 General Plan’s land use framework.

During the August 22 and October 24, 2023, meetings, City Council’s feedback indicated a desire to

File ID: 2023-01524 11/28/2023 Discussion Item 18.
allow higher intensity development of at least a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2 within a half-mile walking distance of existing and planned high-frequency transit as well as support for a revised Missing Middle Housing approach that regulates building form and scale rather than the number of units in the building. High-frequency transit provides service intervals of 15 minutes or less. For your reference, Attachment 2 shows a map of all parcels located within a half-mile walking distance of existing and planned high-frequency transit stops, currently assigned a maximum FAR of 1, that would be increased to 2 under this recommendation (approximately 17,000 parcels in total). The highlighted areas on the map include parcels zoned for both single-unit and duplex dwellings (R-1, R- 1A, R-1B, R-2) as well as multi-unit dwellings, commercial, and mixed-uses. Attachment 3 is the revised draft of the 2040 General Plan Maximum FAR Diagram, reflecting this change.

Staff is seeking confirmation from City Council to proceed with the proposed revisions to the 2040 General Plan FAR and MMH approach. Staff will use the direction given by City Council during this meeting to prepare the final 2040 General Plan in advance of the adoption hearings in early 2024, as well as to guide the development of ordinances and code amendments for implementation of MMH upon the City Council’s adoption of the 2040 General Plan.

Next Steps
The Draft 2040 General Plan, Draft Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP), and Final Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be presented to City Council at the end of February 2024 for adoption. If confirmed by City Council, the proposed revisions to the 2040 General Plan maximum FAR will be incorporated into the draft plan, and proposed revisions to the MMH approach will be developed further in the Study’s final recommendation report. After the conclusion of the Study, and following the adoption of the 2040 General Plan, staff will implement the Study’s final recommendations through amendments to the City’s Planning and Development Code.

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

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

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

Economic Impacts: Allowing a greater array of housing types in existing single-unit and duplex

File ID: 2023-01524 11/28/2023 Discussion Item 18.
dwelling neighborhoods will increase lower-cost housing options and reduce regulatory barriers to the overall production of housing. It can also support neighborhood development by enabling incremental housing development at the ‘missing middle’ scale that can be taken on by local homeowners and entrepreneurs, which can empower local homeowners and builders to reinvest in our communities and provide much-needed housing. It also provides economic opportunities for homeowners in the city to house multi-generational households or earn passive retirement income. By promoting the creation of a greater variety of housing types, MMH can foster a more diverse and dynamic community with benefits for both residents and local businesses.

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

Environmental Considerations: The proposed actions involve planning and administrative activities of the City. The City is reviewing and revising its General Plan, a required action by state planning law, as well as the Master Environmental Impact Report (Master EIR).

Preparation of the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP), and Master EIR are activities that are consistent with state planning law and CEQA requirements. An analysis of the potential impacts on the environment that could occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the 2040 General Plan and CAAP will be included in the Master EIR that will be prepared and presented to the community and City Council during the adoption hearings. The actions in this report are exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(5), 15060(c), and 15262.

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

Commission/Committee Action: On October 12, 2023, the Planning and Design Commission reviewed the Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Study’s preliminary recommendations and provided their comments, including input on MMH considerations for the draft 2040 General Plan proposed floor area ratios (FARs). The Commission expressed a general desire to prioritize housing

File ID: 2023-01524 11/28/2023 Discussion Item 18.
production, simplify the proposed MMH approach by removing unit caps and MMH tiers, and revise the draft 2040 General Plan to ensure that a maximum floor area ratio of at least 2 is proposed within a half-mile walking distance of high-frequency transit stops.

Rationale for Recommendation: The public review draft of the proposed 2040 General Plan was presented to City Council on August 22, 2023. On October 24, 2023, staff sought feedback from City Council on the Missing Middle Housing Study’s preliminary approach and recommendations. The input from City Council during these two meetings indicated the desire to allow higher intensity development of at least a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2 within a half-mile walking distance of high- frequency transit stops, as well as support for a revised Missing Middle Housing (MMH) approach that regulates building form and scale rather than the number of units in the building. Staff is seeking confirmation from City Council to proceed with the proposed revisions to the 2040 General Plan FAR and MMH approach. Staff will use the direction given by City Council during this meeting to prepare the final 2040 General Plan in advance of the adoption hearings in early 2024, as well as to guide the development of ordinances and code amendments for implementation of MMH upon the City Council’s adoption of the 2040 General Plan.

Financial Considerations: Not applicable.

Background
In January 2021, City Council directed staff to proceed with 10 Key Strategies as part of the 2040 General Plan Update. Subsequently, in 2022, the City was awarded a grant from the State and administered by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments to initiate the Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Study (Study). The Study will provide recommendations for how the City can thoughtfully implement the 2040 General Plan Key Strategy to “permit a greater array of housing types in existing single-unit neighborhoods.”
Missing Middle Housing (MMH) is a range of small multi-unit housing types that are neighborhood- or house-scale, which helps them to blend in well with the fabric of existing neighborhoods and are often found in walkable areas. This study is particularly focused on ADUs (accessory dwelling units), duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage/bungalow courts, and small homes on small lots. MMH types are ‘middle’ in form and scale between that of single-family houses and larger apartment buildings.

With smaller units, MMH can provide housing at price points more attainable to ‘middle’-income individuals and households.

The Study aims to inform conversation around Missing Middle Housing (MMH) and should be considered as part of a broader community discussion on housing solutions and the many other City housing-focused strategies. This initiative includes extensive citywide engagement and analysis to ultimately develop land use, design, and policy recommendations for citywide implementation of a Missing Middle Housing strategy.

File ID: 2023-01524 11/28/2023 Discussion Item 18.

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

Findings of this study will be shared as four key reports:
1) MMH Informational Report - available on project website 2) MMH Attainability & Livability Analysis - available on project website 3) Displacement Risk Assessment - in progress
4) MMH Zoning and Design Recommendations - in progress
Phase 1 Engagement
This Study consists of two phases: Phase 1 - Information Sharing and Gathering, which concluded December 2022, and Phase 2 - Solutions and Recommendations. During Phase 1, the focus was on sharing information about MMH with the community and hearing from residents about potential challenges to implementing MMH. Outreach conducted in this phase included:
· Interviews with the Mayor’s and Councilmembers’ offices, and City leadership (May 2022) · Neighborhood Small Group Meetings (in-person and virtual) with neighborhood leaders, housing advocates, business leaders, representatives from community-based organizations (CBOs), and community partners, for a total of 32 hours of engagement (June 2022) · Meeting with the City’s Housing Policy Working Group for their technical expertise on housing- related challenges (September 2022)
· Meeting with the City’s Community Ambassadors (September 2022) · Open House series that consisted of 2 full-day, in-person events and 2 half-day virtual events, including a Saturday session, for a total of 24 public meeting hours (October 2022) · Online questionnaires with self-guided workshop content that was circulated and promoted for 3 weeks (October/November 2022)
Over the course of the open house series and the following three weeks of promotion, the project team received and recorded input from approximately 490 respondents. A summary of Phase 1 outreach findings can be found on the project website.

The project team also engaged with neighborhood groups, community partners, and community-

File ID: 2023-01524 11/28/2023 Discussion Item 18.
based organizations (CBOs) to encourage participation from under-represented communities. To that end, the two full-day, in-person open house events were held at the 1913 Del Paso venue in North Sacramento and the Florin Creek Recreation Center in South Sacramento in an effort to make the events more accessible to residents from these two under-represented areas of the city. A highlight video of the in-person open house events can be viewed here:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVFssH07HgY>.

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

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

Why is this strategy being considered?
Through over two years of outreach for the 2040 General Plan Update, several priorities have risen to the top: climate change, equity, inclusive economic development and, of course, housing availability and affordability. Faced with steep increases in both rent and home prices caused by a severe housing shortage as well as limited housing options available ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Flsg_mzG-M), residents have expressed that they want a city where people of all backgrounds and income levels can afford to live. Sacramento needs a lot more housing, particularly housing that is lower in cost (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOjj3wdDcaY) and more attainable for our residents. For us to meet this tremendous need, we must build more attainable housing types that do not require subsidy, such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, courtyard communities, and small homes on small lots.

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

File ID: 2023-01524 11/28/2023 Discussion Item 18.
own or rent.

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

!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R !R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R !R!R
!R
!R
!R!R
!R
!R
!R
!R!R!R!R!R
!R!R!R!R
!R !R
!R !R
!R
!R
!R !R
!R !R
!R
!R
!"#$5
!"#$80
!"#$5
!"#$80
¡¢
SU
50 ¡¢
SU
50 )*+,-80
)*+,-80
|}þ99
|}þ160
|}þ99
|}þ99
!R Light Rail Stations
Light Rail Lines
Blue Line
Blue/Gold Line
Blue/Gold/Green Line
DNA-Greenline
Gold Line
Bus Route Line
Bus Route 1 & 51
Street Centerlines
Highways
City of Sacramento Boundary
General Plan Parcels
Multi Unit and Commercial Zones
Increase Max FAR from 1 to 2
Single Unit and Duplex Dwelling Zones (R-1, R-1A, R-1B, R-2) Increase Max FAR from 1 to 2
¯
Created by KMD | 11.13.2023
Increased Maximum FAR from 1 to 2 Within ½ Mile Walking Distance of High-Frequency Transit
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 30.375
Miles
Trib
uteRd
Land
ParkDr
Raley Blvd
Grand Ave
College Town Dr
Capitol Ave
Fair Oaks Blvd
N
orthboroughDr
8Th Ave
Jackson Rd
Elk Grove Florin Rd
Leisure Ln
N
16ThSt
Del Paso Blvd
NorthgateBlvd
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
Arden Way
Seamas Ave
StocktonBlvd
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
24ThSt
Alta Arden Ex py
Marconi Ave
Ha venside
Dr
AzevedoDr
39Th
St
Mck inley Blvd
Don Julio Blvd
Bond Rd
21St St
LongviewDr
Freeport Blvd
Fulton Ave
PowerInnRd
Norwood Ave
SW
attAve
Center Pkwy
Y St
Danbrook D r
19Th St
W
attAve
65ThSt
16Th St
10Th St
9Th St
14Th St
18Th St
17Th St
12Th St
G
reenhaven Dr
Alham
bra Blvd
8Th St
29Th St
26Th St
15Th St
7ThSt
30Th St
Florin Rd
H St
Hovnanian Dr
HillsdaleBlvd
48ThSt
MarysvilleBlvd
Ethan W
ay
A St
Winding Way
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 W
alnutAve
Vallejo Way
13Th St
Pocket Rd
Silver Eagle Rd
43RdAve
Eastern Ave
J St
Bell Ave
L St
La Sierra Dr
Fruitridge Rd
Auburn Blvd
T St
M
issionA
ve
N 7Th St
French Rd
D St
V St
N B St
R St
C St
I St
P StS St
X St
W St
F St
Main Ave
5ThSt
3Rd St
Bridgecross Dr
N Park Dr
Northrop Ave
University Ave
37Th St
14Th Ave
E
CommerceWay
Exposition Blvd
Sims Rd
Bercut Dr
Elsie Ave
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
G
atewayOaksDr
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
El Centro Rd
Railyards Blvd
Redding Ave
U St
W Elkhorn Blvd
24Th Ave
N12Th St
Dayt
on
St
Kern St
Ivy
St
Truxel Rd
Dry Creek Rd
Pinell St
Del Paso Rd
Elvas Ave
Madison Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
N
atom
asCentral Dr
W Stockton Blvd
American River Dr
Kiefer Blvd
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
KarbetW
ay
San Juan Rd
SLand Park
D
r
Garden Hwy
Orange Grove Ave
40Th St
42N
d St
45Th St
Tri Stations Rd
Gerber Rd
Florin
PerkinsRd
Mack Rd
55Th St
47Th St
VineSt
Macon Dr
BrucevilleRd
Pasadena
A
ve
Howe Ave
53Rd Ave
Elkhorn Blvd
Westlake Pkwy
FrontSt
57Th St
Airbase Dr
Big Horn Blvd
7Th Ave
Arena Blvd
Claire AveNatomasBlvd
D
wightRd
Meadowview Rd
A rd en Garden
Franklin Blvd
Cucamonga Ave
6Th
St
49Th
St
88Th St
71St St
DuckhornDr
Bayou Rd
HeritageLn
65Th
StreetExpy
Harvard
St
34Th Ave
Lym
a n Cir
Fee Dr
NBend Dr
Lone Tree Rd
Cedr o
Cir
Ascot Ave
Vinci Ave
Jibboom
St
Terracina Dr
PellDr
W
aterm
an
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
Map LUP-6
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
All Development
/0¦2
I½!"c$
Ad
Source: City of Sacramento, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022 J:\GISData\563 Sacramento\GIS\Pro jects\General Plan Ma ps\Map LUP-6 Maximum Floor Area Ratio FAR – All Develo pment.mxd A½
I½
!"^$
!"c$
/0¦2
AÎ
!"^$
A½
!"c$
012 ½M i l e s
Attachment 4 - Revised Sliding Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Scale and Related Draft 2040 General Plan Policies
Related Draft 2040 General Plan Policies and Implementing Action LUP-3.2 Sliding Floor Area Ratio Scale. Additional building area may increase proportionally to the number of units proposed on a lot, consistent with Figure LUP-5.

LUP-3.3 Allowed Net Building Area for Small Lots. The City shall permit up to 2,000 square feet of net building area per lot or the maximum allowed by the Sliding FAR Scale (Figure LUP-5), whichever is greater.

LUP-3.4 Exemption from Sliding Floor Area Ratio Scale for Remodels and Additions. Remodels and additions to existing single-unit, duplex, and neighborhood-scale multi-unit dwellings are exempt from the limits established by the Sliding Floor Area Ratio Scale (Figure LUP-5).

LUP-A-2 Local Bonus Program. The City shall amend the Planning and Development Code to establish a local bonus program for development projects providing regulated affordable housing, including those with less than 5 units that would not qualify under the state density bonus law (CA Govt Code Sections 65915-65918).

Responsible Entity: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Near-term (2024-2029)

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Current zoning should not be considered — Council has said they want to move away from old exclusionary forms and codes toward a more liberal form-based code Ansel Lundberg
With green space and trees. Pam Btown
Please consider how current zoning reinforeces racist outcomes. Will affluent neigborhoods with higher per capita carbon foot prints and water use be forced to change under this plan? Felipe La Luz We have seen hundreds of new homes and apartments recently built in just the Meadowview and Natomas area alone. If each of those dwellings realistically has a car or two, the roads are going to struggle to handle so many more in a short time period. If this map is implemented in the desired way it would in effect quadruple the residents from what it already has.

How are the roads (or power grid, sewer, schools etc.) going to pull that off? Molly Luna My concern is the situation that occurs with parked cars lining both sides of every street. I had a friend visiting here who had never seen Sacramento. She was turned off to ever living here solely because of the traffic and the hassle of navigating streets where you have to literally drive in the middle of them in order to avoid hitting the mirrors, etc. on the parked cars.

This is because people in multiple dwellings and people who share their homes do not have garages for these extra cars. It's dangerous and ugly. If the City thinks that people will ever get rid of their cars, they also believe that the moon is made of green cheese. What a mess this City has become. It was embarrassing when my friend was here. Driving in Sacramento has become a nightmare. Jan Darvas
I'm very confused by the decision to exclude all "corridors + centers" as well as the vast majority of "compact + connected" neighborhoods from tier 3. I fail to understand the distinction between, for example, neighborhoods proximate to broadway/alhambra/folsom/freeport and Boulevard Park unless the goal is to use these categories to perpetuate the longstanding impacts of exclusionary zoning. Ben Raderstorf There is absolutely no reason why East Sacramento and large portions of Land Park should be designated as "transitional" rather "compact and connected" like Midtown, Oak Park, and similar neighborhoods. East Sacramento and Land Park have large enough lots to accommodate MMH, are generally well-served by transit, and have all of the same characteristics as other neighborhoods considered compact and connected. If this is due to the political power of those neighborhoods, it is your job as staff to push for the best places to include MMH, not to accommodate their NIMBY concerns.

Pedro Peterson
Nimby and yimby will both be a mute point. That would imply people even had a backyard let alone be landowners to say "my". The types of people who truly created the problem and the only ones who will benefit from this "solution" they are offering. It's a greenlight opportunity for developers. This will only further create a city of renters at the mercy of their property managements next rent increase. Molly Luna
What could MMH look like in Sacramento? - Built Form Recommendations

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
My neighborhood McKinley Elvas area contains some duplexes, small apartment building and some ADUs. We have also had a lot of smaller homes torn down and replaced with McMansions. I would much prefer to have Missing Middle housing in my neighborhood than enormous single family units.

It would be preferable if we could keep some amount of open space around houses for trees and wildlife since we're so near the river.

Kate Lenox
I do not want to see any densification in my neighborhood. We built in the area we did because of the current zoning. Craig Brown It is important that form, massing and scale be compatible with existing built environment. Project approvals need to be via design review process rather than by ministerial process which doesn't take design issues into consideration. Set back requirements that align with existing set backs also important Karen Jacques Be sure to include former foster youth in your plans; this is where many newly homeless come from, aging out of foster care at 18.

Debra Payne
All of this theorizing about what will increase “affordable” housing is just that - a theory. In reality it will reduce green space, increase traffic and parking on already impacted streets, there is no mandate to upgrade the infrastructure, and there is no mandate that any of this building is “affordable” and no definition of what that threshold is. It will ALL be market rate. It is outrageous that homeowners had absolutely no say about filling our neighborhoods full of apartment or duplex buildings.

There are tons of empty office buildings to convert into living space. There is no need to force people like me to live in a neighborhood full of more cars, noise, with no trees, or any semblance of the life we spent tens of thousands of dollars for. In addition, this tier system will of course impact areas already impacted by industrial areas and neglect by the City of Sacramento because they are lower income. I’ll say it again: the fact that homeowners had no say in any of this is outrageous.

And the only people that are going to gain anything are the banks and developers.

Geraldine Nicholson
Well said Geraldine. Thank you. Michelle

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
The idea of different types of housing (Missing Middle) in neighborhoods is certainly not new. Land Park, East Sac and other older neighborhoods in Sacramento have had, since the beginning, duplexes, fourplexes and some apartment buildings. They are generally on larger lots and have backyards and parking. That's all well and good. But now that those neighborhoods are well established and there's little empty space to build on - the notion of doing away with R-1 and essentially changing the game for all of the residents who live in them is very unfair. They bought into predominately single-family neighborhoods with the expectation that they would stay that way. The idea of having the house next door suddenly morph into an eight-unit rental was not part of the plan. There are so many problems inherent in upzoning established neighborhoods: lack of sufficient infrastructure, crowdedness, loss of privacy, increased traffic and parking issues, more "heat island effect" due to loss of tree canopy, etc. While OPTICOS has addressed some of these problems, there's more than bit of sugar-coating to their solutions. Those of us who have questioned this plan from the start know that the promise of "affordable housing" arising from upzoning is as elusive now as it was then. That’s because developers who buy up properties in Land Park, etc. and revamp them will not be selling (or renting) those units for anything less than market rate. The "crisis" in housing is an economic one - it won't be solved by overbuilding and degrading established neighborhoods.

Zoe
Let me speak to Brown management Rockridge. Miguel Barraza

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
A major flaw in the assessments – and therefore any determinations or recommendations drawn from the assessments -- is that they lack precision and are not sufficiently data-driven to provide valid determinations at a granular level (e.g., parcel, census block). In the context of increasing population density and increased residential structures -- and the associated pressures on city utilities and human health determining infrastructure and built environment there must be quantitative analyses of current conditions – and models/projections of how specific increases (e.g., 5% increase in density/population) would impact infrastructure structure and function, as well as neighborhood function. For example, in a given census block, how would x% change in number of units/people impact the City’s antiquated sewer system (that captures both residential effluent and rain/surface water runoff) and a water delivery system – and what is the threshold where those systems can/cannot manage additional demands and stresses. (Note that potable water delivery was only partially upgraded – even within the same neighborhood on the same block, service was not upgraded to all homes – even when water meters were added.) There is no location-specific consideration of existing traffic density by road segment(s) and traffic patterns -- for the purposes of (a) assessing walkability/safety, (b) local/street-level air pollution, (c) neighborhood-level egress in the case of an emergency (e.g., flood, urban-wildfire scenario), etc. There needs to be consideration of current % impervious surfaces (the data exist) and the implications of reducing pervious ground (by adding units) for heat gain/heat-island effect and for surface- street flooding during extreme precipitation events (e.g., atmospheric rivers) – the two greatest immediate health risks associated with climate change right now in Sacramento (and CA, US, etc.)…risks that are rapidly increasing. NOTE: Redfin, using flood risk data from the nonprofit First Street Foundation and redlining maps from the University of Richmond’s Mapping Inequality project, assessed racial disparities in flood risk across dozens of major metro areas – Sacramento’s redlined/yellowlined neighborhoods (e.g., Gardenland) had the highest flood risk of the top 10 metro areas with the highest risk. Those areas are being targeted for increasing MMH. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-flood-risk-redlining/ Helene G Margolis
These are too close - creates fire hazards js
We have an aging population - how will people with physical disabilities get around? js Work walkability isn't the main issue for a low scale residential area considering we already have multiple transportation options in the city. The true value of the low scale area regarding "walkability" is that it is much safer and for children and elderly to walk and ride (in addition to commuters) in a slower traffic area. In addition to commuting, there are many other important aspects of "walkability" like nature trails, parks and exercise areas that would be pushed out of the city by overdevelopment. If you increase the density, you increase the traffic and therefore decrease pedestrian and cyclist safety.

That will only negatively impact the very walkability that is desired. Molly Luna

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Is there an option for encouraging single family homes that have a smaller footprint. The typcial GI house from the 50's was a great design. 2 beds one bath with a yard. Why don't they build these anymore? I live in one, we had add another bedroom because we have more than one child so some 3 bed 2 bath options would be nice but keep them under 1200 sq feet. A lot of people would buy a smaller house rather than a duplex. Large parts of East Sac fit this profile and these are highly sought after homes.

Candace Briggs
The MMH type does not define a single family home as separate type. I assume the multigenerational house would include this as subset.

Also, the MMH type should take into account homeowners and long term renters on 20-30-40 years as their families change.

Dave Candey
The downtown core is not appropriate to include in the MMH study because current zoning allows greater density than MMH, right? Assume this is also true for corridors and centers, right? and large infill sites not included because not enough of them? Excluding corridors that run through single family neighborhoods, represents loss of a great opportunity - since these corridors are in need of revitalization and could/should be adaptively reused for housing. jackie whitelam If my neighborhood is any indication the classification of transitional is wrong. While one can walk in the residential neighborhood you can't go anywhere else safely for a variety of reasons. It would be impossible to live here without a car.

Lana Moffitt

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Suggestion to Remedy Lack of quantitative assessments and geographic precision and accuracy: Contractors (or City) need to utilize GIS (geographic information system) and highly spatially resolved (e.g., parcel level, census block level) data, and integrate data for existing infrastructure, built environment and factors that are known to impact individual/community health and community resilience – especially in the context of climate crisis. Examples of data: Road segments and traffic density (when available – can potentially use PM2.5 data from PurpleAir dataset), local air quality (e.g., use PurpleAir dataset), sewer lines (old, replaced), water service lines (old, replaced), % impervious surfaces (can predict heat gain and heat island- related health risks, and surface street flooding during extreme precipitation events), tree canopy (can be used to estimate reduced heat-island/heat-health risks, and to determine where additional tree canopy is needed – and where investment in water service infrastructure is needed to support trees). Another set of layers/attributes (data) to add would be census block data for population characteristics (e.g., age groups, % 65 years and older, % living on fixed income, % rentals and/or owner occupied, etc.,) and other locally generated data, e.g., % with school age children and distance to school(s). If necessary, develop City staff capacity or contract with Climate Adaptation/Community Resilience Modelers (e.g., at UC Davis, CSUS) to provide an integrated analysis that provides an accurate baseline set of conditions at the parcel-level and that can provide scenario-based analyses of outcomes (including health, built environment impacts, economic – including likelihood of achieving MMH and/or affordable housing goals).

Helene G Margolis
We need to make sure we don't create heat islands. We also need to ensure we don't increase runoff from storms that goes into our combined storm/sewer system.

Kate Lenox
I agree - heat islands, climate change will cause our combined sewer system to overflow. Also, increase density in our housing will decrease green-space, cause more Sewer overflows, car congestion. The street are too narrow and people have too many cars which is a problem on garbage day.

AB
Realistically a bit of drought landscaping is probably what you will get. Trees need more space (to grow and inevitably break) to create a true canopy to combat heat and runoff issues. Also with the increased strain on the power grid there will be more pressure in areas with established canopies (LP, SLP) to scale back to protect power lines. Unless they move them underground but again, the roots may pose a problem there as well? Molly Luna Height of new structure must be same or lower than existing homes to fit in character of area. Dave Candey

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Tree protection is critical. More than 80% of Sacramento's existing tree canopy is on private property. Plot plan and building design should be done with a goal of preserving as many existing trees as possible and to maximize shade to buildings which can significantly lower energy costs. Providing shade to sidewalks and streets are needed to facilitate walking/biking during hot summer months. Some neighborhoods have parkway strips where city trees are already planted or can be planted.

Currently some neighborhoods with parkway strips have canopy trees and some do not. This lack of trees in some neighborhoods is an environmental justice issue that needs to be addressed by the City. If a neighborhood doesn't have a parkway strip (like the one pictured here) , then it is imperative that healthy front yard trees be retained and, if there aren't any front yard trees, that front yard set backs be of sufficient to accommodate a front yard canopy tree.

Karen Jacques
Yes, many poorer and nonwhite neighborhoods are lacking in tree cover. We should be planting in areas such as Meadowview and Del Paso Heights to make summers more bearable and otherwise make our neighborhoods more pleasant places to live.

John Bell
Height of new structure must be same as existing homes in area. Especially in older neighborhoods, new structure must share in character of existing homes.

Dave Candey
Waste containers should match existing neighborhood devices, such as 3 cans in Woodlake. This fits in with character and pickup schedule in neighborhood.

Dave Candey
Please balance FAR with open space requirements that provide green space and requirements for tree planting - not allowing surface parking to qualify.

Stephen Schweigerdt
Waste containers should be same as neighbors, so fit with character and same pickup schedule as existing neighbors Dave Candey After the storms of last year, it seems a little idealistic to think there will be functional space for any substantial tree canopy with even denser housing below. Neither the city nor insurance companies will be eager to manage even more of the financial and clean up costs after another windstorm. More realistically, the tress will be replaced with drought tolerant landscaping which is great for water but creates the perfect conditions for an urban heat island. And isn't that one of the problems that low income neighborhoods have been struggling to address for years? Preserving substantial vegetation should be a quality of life issue for all of our neighborhoods, and that will be sacrificed with excessive development.

Molly Luna
Sorry, but I grew up and lived in Land Park for many years and this building type in not contextural with Land Park. Mixing stucco with wood siding may look good on paper, but is has no context with land park historic homes and screams "developer driven suburban housing". Therefore it will not "fit" into the environment, scale aside. You should be more sensative to historic context if you would like neighborhood acceptance. Mark Rusconi

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
This picture is not an accurate representation of what a fourplex on a corner in Land Park would functionally look like. There is already not a lot of parking and some of the streets are quite narrow with the current houses in the area. Stacking more people in will not create more pedestrians but realistically add another vehicle or two per family that will need to be parked on this street as well as trash cans, leaf piles etc. Molly Luna The drawn examples of MMH here appear very close together. I don’t want to be looking into my neighbors’ bedrooms when I open my blinds. The big trees’ roots would be too close to foundations - not realistic. The main example is on the corner lot which is more conducive to duplexes. Glen Korengold
The side bulk control rules are key to making this happen. I agree with the recommendations in Section 3. Jim Bob Kaufmann The number of units should not be linked to tier based on locations, but rather on the size of the lot and effect of density on the immediate neighborhood. This map looks like red-lining Glen
Let's not consider unit caps on MMH. Form-based codes without density restrictions are better. These tiers are fine for describing where we're at, but it's counter-productive for regulation.

Teresa Ortega
Aside from the traffic, parking and utility strain, let's not forget this city is built on a historic flood plain. Because it is flanked by various rivers and bridges limiting escape routes, any successful evacuation situations are already going to be hard as is.

After the Oroville dam scare, many cities with much more open grids were a mess with people leaving. For instance, in the Greenhaven area where there are many assisted living facilities and limited narrow exits, extra consideration should be given to how to safely evacuate citizens with even more people on the road. Especially if you look at the FEMA maps that estimate how many hours you would need before inundation. Adding four or six more families on multiple lots is going to require some really creative solutions to avoid another Katrina situation or even a potential wildfire situation.

Molly Luna
What about safety from fires? We're told to have a specific clear area and there is increased climate change - homes this close are dangerous and one cigarette, one firework, one spark from wind could disseminate an entire area. js
Also overlooked is safety in the event of an evacuation from a fire or flood. Many of our roads are blocked by rivers and bridges and would struggle to quickly evacuate the residents it currently has. Quadrupling it (or more) is going to be dangerous in an emergency. Molly Luna
Why is the rich downtown/midtown area the lowest tier? It is the most walkable and has great resources and transit. This needs to be zoned for the highest density, not the lowest.

Jenny
I suggest that every area adjacent to light rail and other high frequency transit should at minimum be Tier 3. This otherwise doesn't appear to follow TOD principles or seriously attempt to shift away from car based transport Jeffrey
I agree with this comment. The 4th Ave LRT station especially should be Tier 3. It has groceries, shops, services, and restaurants too. Most trips near this station can be made without a car and the City should enable high density near it.

DC

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
We already have this type of housing in our neighborhoods. With not enough driveways for off street parking. The streets in our neighborhoods are too narrow for more on street parking. Our district is a heat island with excessive air polution. We suffer from a lack of trees in this district compared to other areas of Sacramento. We lack greenspaces in district 2.

Gordon Lew
Woodlake, like Land Park and other areas of single family homes, should be tier 1 blue in map. However, parcels from older neighborhoods may not room for 1 ADU, much less 2 ADU. There needs to be tier 1 subset for 1 or no ADU in planning.

Dave Candey
Lot size varies greatly in this area. Post war houses are usually on larger (deeper) lots. As long as it fits in with the scale of the neighborhood I support MMH. McMansions have been allowed, and they stick out like sore thumbs. The one on our block of small homes built during the war towers over the surrounding homes. Kate Lenox It would be good to have a more detailed version of the map of the city with the 3 proposed Tiers for MMH Districts, that actually shows city streets, at least the major ones, and streets that are boundaries for the districts. Except for the obvious, I can’t tell which neighborhood is which without these landmarks. That would be helpful. Francesca Reitano Using a neighborhood approach like this may create a tradeoff between fairness at the margins and simplicity. It's much simpler to be able to see where a lot is on a map and know exactly what rules apply to it -- but that could create issues that may exacerbate historical inequities. Devin Lavelle
Tier 3 needs to be denser and in many more places. This map feels strangely restrictive. Diana More density needs to be allowed esp in the central city (Tier 3) where the streets are built for it -- and in other areas (Tiers 2, 1). Even my kids agree with that because it's so common sense. It's more efficient, brings more people to our streets ( a welcome thing) it supports transit and other modes of transit (also welcome), shops - everything people *like* in a city! If we hold back on allowing more, and different types, of housing based on fear -- fear that someone's view will be blocked or someone won't be able to conveniently park a car or fear that it's just different from what people can imagine and therefore it's bad ...? -- that's a terrible way to set public policy. The city has a talented planning team, they have hired talented people to help craft a way forward for the growth that is coming whether we build densely or with sprawling patterns. So the question is how to accommodate that growth: build it well, or not well? I vote for "well," which is what a denser plan with lots of different options means -- 'cottage' courtyards, duplexes, SF homes, ADUs, normal, tall apt. buildings - a mix is what most great cities have! I urge city leaders to carry through the original GP vision and not let it be nipped and tucked into a worse- than-average, meh, sprawl-inducing plan because of fear. Diana Does the MMH-district approach, as proposed, meet the intent of producing more attainable housing options and advancing the City’s transit-oriented development objectives? Please provide your thoughts. admin

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Does not go far enough. The proposed density caps seem to oppose the concept of transit-oriented development. For residents to replace a meaningful number of car trips with transit, they need to live near transit. And under this proposal, not enough people will live near transit for sustainable growth in Sacramento. Even if this is a step in the right direction compared to the status quo, I'm concerned about the deviation from FAR-based proposals and I don't want the City to cap its potential and undermine its own ambitious environmental goals with short-sighted incrementalism. Michael Turgeon The basis of this idea is good, but Missing Middle Housing District Tiers should not allow “up to” a certain number of units per lot; the unit allowance should be determined by lot size in each of the District Tiers, not applied to huge swaths of the city. For example, in Tier 2, up to 6 units (4 units + 2 ADUs) should not be “by right,” especially without mandating lot sizes.

Allowing MMH in the wide swaths of each Tier ignores the idea of “transition zones” - ie that higher density could be allowed closer to major corridors in MMH District Tiers, and not throughout the entire Tier. The heart of a neighborhood may more appropriate for Tier 1 standards.

Francesca Reitano
The 2040 General Plan recommends shifting away from unit caps in favor of FAR. I'm concerned the unit-based approach undermines the clear direction from council and the community to allow for more density.

Annie Keys
This is a reasonable concept. I like it.

Please be sure that the higher density areas are well served by available parks. Parks are crucial to offset the lack of yards.

Antero Rivasplata

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
In general, this map feels like a pretty big step back from the city leaders' stated goals around moving from density based zoning to FAR-based zoning. It seems highly counterproductive that these recommendations are proposing so carefully regulating the number of units in the box, when City Council has stated an explicit goal (and crystal clear instruction to staff) to move towards regulating the size of the box instead. The point of FAR zoning is that floor areas should be the primary limitation on the size of developments, not number of units. This not only continues to carefully regulate number of units, but leaves approximately half the city essentially unchanged from the status quo.

If we do need to continue to regulate number of units *at all*, I strongly recommend moving towards a much more uniform application that does not carve out and protect high-opportunity and transit rich neighborhoods like this mp does, such as applying tier 3 to all areas that are to be zoned at FAR 2.0 or above, or simply moving all unit caps to 6 primary, 4 ADUs. To be clear, the point of FAR-based zoning is not to say that we necessarily expect six-plexes to be built in these neighborhoods, it's simply that the governing restriction should be the size of the lot and the floor area of the project, not the number of units per se. As the rest of this report makes clear, there are still a huge number of other regulations (FAR, setbacks, etc.) that will carefully protect "neighborhood character" -- regulating unit numbers is purely a tool to keep people out and to keep our neighborhoods exclusive. Ben Raderstorf
I don't think we should be considering unit CAPS. The General Plan drafting process has included a form-based code (no density restrictions) for the past three years. These tiers are nice as descriptors, but not as a regulatory structure.

Ansel Lundberg
Why these tiers instead of simpler FARs? Doesnt the general plan use FARs? Jeffrey I am very worried that the unit caps are 1. Too low for anything to pencil and undermines the goals of the general plan and 2.

Exclude the highest resource neighborhoods from changes. The fact tier 3 only allowed in midtown whereas the pocket is excluded from all changes mirrors redlining maps. Connor Finney Not all the lots in a tier are the same size. How will the maximum number of units allowed by adjusted for lot size. It is important to retain space for existing or new trees on all lot sizes, not just on larger lots in a tier Karen Jacques
Why are historic districts so extensive in Sacramento? They prevent real progress in affordable housing from being made. So much of the real accessible ares are designated as historic districts and it's usually wildly inappropriate.

Dorothy
After reviewing the 3 sections, I want to go on record as stating that this whole densification scheme, will go down in history decades from now along with the great freeway debacle of the the 50's and 60's. The Bee will write articles asking what happened to the trees in the City of Trees? What happened to our neighborhoods? Our open spaces? Our parks? How did Sacramento get so crowded, hot and dirty? How did "backyard" become a slur on people who want one? I know that more homes are needed and I accept reasonable development, but, please, lets not throw out what makes Sacramento a great place to live. Glen

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Absolutely! Build better options in the areas that aren't working well without destroying the areas that are. Adding options shouldn't need to take away all the other options. Molly Luna Show me just one new build (built in the last 3 years) that looks like your photos and I will agree. But, I believe the new builds we are currently seeing look more like something from the burbs. Mark Rusconi I don't think we should be considering unit caps on missing middle housing. The General Plan drafting process has included a form-based code (no density restrictions) for the past three years. These tiers are fine as descriptors, but not as a regulatory structure. Brandon Mettler
What is the purpose of keeping low density tiers in this zoning? Why not allow a developer to build at higher densities in every neighborhood in the city if that's what the market (and our housing needs) are calling for? Pedro Peterson San Francisco is dense but not affordable. This won't really help out the people it's intended to, only developers and landlords. That'll just make the divide between the wealthy and struggling lifetime renters even bigger. Molly Luna Tier 1 needs subset for single family home with 1 ADU.

Woodlake, like Land Park and other older communities should be colored blue with some orange in higher density parts of Woodlake 2. Dave Candey
Please consider removing unit caps from these MMH designations and moving towards form based zoning. Form based codes are widely considered to be a more modern approach that balances the housing needs of the city with building standards that are appropriate for each type of neighborhood, while allowing flexibility for developers. Setting unit caps is arbitrary and antiquated. Pedro Peterson
Positive Notes: (1) The report (and to some extent the self-guided webinar) provides definitions for most terms, and for many but not all recommendations the process by which the contractor(s) arrived at their determinations/recommendations. (2) There is reasonable verbal/written consideration of architectural and building scale factors, and verbal/written consideration of new construction needing to be integrated into neighborhoods from a design perspective. (3) Other important neighborhood livability attributes/factors, e.g., Shared Open Space, Tree Protection and Planting, Functional Porch as an Active Frontage, Privacy Standards, -- and Approval Processes, are at least considered – even if cursorily.

See other Bubbles for Major Flaws in Assessments that Ultimately Lead to Unreliable Determinations and Recommendations that will lead to Poor Community Health Outcomes and a City that is Not livable, and Not Resilient to current and future Climatic Conditions.

Helene G Margolis

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Tiers 2 & 3 are already dense due to their location near stores and transportation - small houses on small lots. The idea of more density near jobs and transportation is not a new one. Allowing up to 6 living units on one of these properties creates overcrowding, loss of green space, over-burdened utilities and gridlock (yes, people will still own cars). Glen This building looks like it could belong in any neighborhood and should be permitted anywhere. It should not be excluded to just <1% of residential areas. Jeffrey
Agreed! Would love to see more homes like these throughout Sacramento's diverse, unique neighborhoods. Michael Turgeon We must protect our existing trees and grow our canopy. The age of some of our tree canopy and the need for tree replacement and expanding canopy (especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods lacking canopy) should be of paramount concern in any proposal to add density to residential neighborhoods. 80 percent of the tree canopy is on private land, much of it in residential neighborhoods that are the target areas for Missing Middle Housing (MMH) and Transit-Oriented Development. Due to the high temperatures reached in Sacramento, and in face of climate change and increasing heat, we cannot afford to get this wrong. Francesca Reitano
Tier 3 is beautiful, sustainable, and affordable. It should be allowed in the entire city. Jenny How many stories / floors can ADUs or tiny homes be permited for in Sacramento? Tyler Wunsch We must protect our existing trees and grow our canopy. The age of some of our tree canopy and the need for tree replacement and expanding canopy (especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods lacking canopy) should be of paramount concern in any proposal to add density to residential neighborhoods. 80 percent of the tree canopy is on private land, much of it in residential neighborhoods that are the target areas for Missing Middle Housing (MMH) and Transit-Oriented Development. Due to the high temperatures reached in Sacramento, and in face of climate change and increasing heat, we cannot afford to get this wrong. Francesca Reitano
Mixed use properties build a more vibrant and diserable community. Would be good if MMH included potential for such properies.

Shaun
Candidly, if we are only applying Tier 3 to one quarter of one percent of all residential parcels in the city, that feels like a window dressing more than a serious proposal. If this is the most we can do — again, this just applies to one out of every 400 parcels in the city — that's pretty clear indication that we are not taking the housing crisis seriously enough... Ben Raderstorf Agreed. I'd like to see Tier 3 everywhere. The current plan feels like the product of NIMBYism. Jenny If using the tier-based system there is not NEARLY enough Tier 3 set aside. Plenty of neighborhoods, within and beyond the central city, are capable of sustaining middle density housing.

Annie Keys
Trees and open space are very important to our Sacramento community. I'm glad to see this is being included in the plan.

Trees increase property value and quality of life on many levels.

Candace Briggs

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Being realistic, the child on the tricycle would now be even closer to the street from their front door with more traffic to navigate and probably triple the parked cars on the street than in the photo. If the whole point is to create dense urban housing than why do all of these drawings show sparsely populated low scale residential scenarios? I think it would be much more helpful to showcase the actual desired density scale of residents in a functional way. Molly Luna In a city that charges it's residents thousands to repair cracked sidewalks caused by tree roots, etc. who in their right mind is going to use the now even smaller space to put a tree? Planting a tree where there is room for it is one thing, but to risk paying for a sidewalk (or worse if it cracks the closer new foundation) when a tree does what it's designed to do is a problem.

Most people will probably just settle for drought landscaping and trees will go. Molly Luna Current front porch projections into front setback are NOT working well. They create a cave effect for a neighbor blocking view to street and natural light. They will in effect create a race to the bottom. Beautiful existing streets will become a hodge podge of ins and outs. This is not good and will be worse if it is increaased with new regulations Mark Rusconi I have heard comments from many Woodlake neighbors. The study does not integrate the character of historic neighborhoods and the infrastructure limitations from their time. The study must address this evolution to infill within the constraints and character of the neighbors. Dave Candey
What additional design guidance or standards could help ensure that in exchange for this flexibility, well-designed, functional shared open space (or courtyard) areas are provided?
admin
Counterproductive to increase open space requirements for MMH! That extra 25 square feet may be enough to prevent some projects from moving forward, in which case you'd be stuck with a single family home, which has ample open space that only one family can enjoy. Open space is a public good that should be provided publicly. Courtyards are an amenity that developers and private residents can pay for if they want it.

Michael Turgeon
This is a great idea. Front setbacks are useless. If necessary, regulate lot coverage only, not setbacks. Brandon Mettler If there are no parkway strips for street trees, then there needs to be space for a shade tree in the front yard. It's possible to do a projection and also leave enough space to allow for a tree Karen Jacques
Good concept, but seldomly effective in practice. In fact, this can be a disincentive to higher density development and works against the higher FAR recommendations. Keep in mind that a substantial percentage of new development will be infill and on- site area may be limited. The City needs to find a way to purchase park space and expand its public park system if higher densities are to be enjoyable. Antero Rivasplata
Agreed! Public parks are a much more efficient way for people to recreate than in their own tiny yards.

Also, why is there a setback? That is usable and expensive space. Many historic cities on the east coast do not have setbacks.

Jenny

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Adding my emphatic agreement with Antero's and Jenny's statements. In particular, imposing open space requirements on 3+ units is too onerous and will stifle small-lot densification. Consider, at a minimum, increasing this requirement to only apply to developments that are 10+ units.

DC
We are going to be dealing with increasing heat and increasing heat island effect. These infill projects need to provide adequate space for existing trees where possible and for new trees if the location of existing trees makes it impossible to preserve them. (Every effort should be made to preserve rather than replace) Predictions are for much heavier rains alternating with drought and there needs to be some space on all lots where water can be absorbed instead of running off. It would also be good to have hardscape that is permeable. I agree about the City needing to find ways to purchase additional park space. The more dense neighborhoods become, the more park space and also space for community gardens is needed.

Karen Jacques
Many streets, especially the almost 50ft wide ones in midtown, can be narrowed to create more open space. This is a much better option than requiring private open space because the city already owns this land and many roads in Sacramento are incredibly dangerous because of their width. Austin
If we're talking about the Missing Middle, I thought the purpose is to let those unable to afford single family homes to still live in neighborhoods with yards and such. You seem to be referring to apartment living.

Glen
Glen, that is the honest truth. Low income neighborhoods struggle with heat islands and lack of good outdoor space so instead of improving them, we will functionally turn the areas with a tree canopy and outdoor space into a giant apartment complex. Instead of destroying the last green areas of the former city of trees, why aren't we focusing on making the areas that need it most better?? Molly Luna
Want to make the point that pitting trees/greenery against setbacks is a false choice. We can have minimum setbacks to maximize space AND trees/greenery. And large setbacks don't guarantee trees.

Diana
I grew up in an apt bldg with an "open space" in back and no one ever used it because it was so not good. Instead I used the park and so did everyone else. Instead of tying a requirement for a small amount of green space/open space to every unit (which could be a death knell for development) and result in weird spaces), how about a greenspace fee that helps develop citywide parks/green spaces? Diana
An urban heat island and lack of safe runoff areas are just a few of the reasons trees and plants are more than just decorations. Charging people a fee to have access to them is pretty restrictive. Remember that this city was built on the value of it's agricultural contributions. To turn it into a cementscape would be a tragic mistake.

Molly Luna
Do not regulate lot coverage on an absolute basis. Retain the existing lot coverage maximum limits, which should be bumped up for MMH - perhaps 80%+.

Brandon Mettler

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Open space is important for trees, and green space to allow storm water to seep into and replenish our underground aquifer, rather than flow down hardscape into storm drains. Francesca Reitano Reducing setback requirements is a good idea, as they don't really do anything other than waste space Sean L'Estrange I'm very concerned by the idea of adding new barriers and restrictions on MMH, such as increasing the green space requirement beyond the existing requirements. (And with requirements that do not apply to single-family. If we want a green space requirement, it should be consistent, regardless of how many units are in a project.) The entire purpose of these recommendations is to make MMH projects easier, not harder. While tree canopy in the city is certainly important, the reality is, housing should come first — no one is sleeping in the streets or their cars because of our failure to ensure sufficient green space. More importantly, this feels off base to me in terms of what makes Sacramento such an urban forest — we can build housing AND have more trees. Some of the greenest parts of the city (midtown, boulevard park, southside) are *also* some of the densest and least on-lot greenspace. That's because in those neighborhoods we have emphasized trees in the medians and streets, not in back yards. We should be doing the same here and prioritizing trees, not grass.

Ben Raderstorf
I live in the Central City and am very familiar with its wonderful street tree canopy. These are city owned trees planted in parkways that are city owned space and they are wonderful. That said, I also want to see requirements for space for backyard trees and common open space in all neighborhoods identified for MMH, including those in the Central City. Trees provide multiple ecological benefits, including reducing urban heat island effect and energy costs. Open space helps absorb rainwater which is important in dealing with the increasingly heavy rains that scientists are predicting due to climate change.

Karen Jacques
In neighborhoods that do not have a wide landscape strip the front yard setback should be large enough to accommodate a large canopy street tree.

Seamus Laffey
So 3 living units would only need !0'x10' of open space. Would all the tenants fit in that space standing? Add a few flower pots and forget it!
Glen
There should be a process whereby the city makes sure that a tree or trees are actually planted in the open space in order to receive the flexibility exemption. This would be of benefit to all and would fulfill the purpose of the exemption.

Francesca Reitano
Why even have a default minimum setback? In fact, what about having the minimum setback be maybe 90 percent of the shortest setback distance on the block. Over time this will enable the neighborhood to incrementally reduce setback space while not having an excessively uneven appearance. DC
Setback isn't ideal for growing food, something many middle income families have to do to offset costs. Set forward with greater backyard space would be idea.

Shaun
I agree about space for growing food Karen Jacques

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
The problem with allowing setback areas to count toward open space is that front setbacks need to be large enough for existing trees or tree plantings that shade the streets and sidewalks, especially in areas where there are no park/parking strip public right-of-way spaces to plant city trees. This is especially a problem in disadvantaged areas lacking street trees and places to plant city trees. Street tree shade is also necessary for active mobility, the use of which will be increased with state and city policies discouraging the ownership and use of automobiles. The flexible development standards will have to include protecting our street trees, as well as places to plant them. Francesca Reitano Do not regulate lot coverage on an absolute basis. Retain the existing lot coverage maximum limits, which should be bumped up for MMH - perhaps 80%+.

Ansel Lundberg
Setbacks should be no more than 10 feet from the existing sidewalk and should require shade trees. My neighborhood in Oak Park has homes 10 - 15 feet from the sidewalk and it works fine. Large front yards are wasted space.

Robert Snider
Not adequate space for most trees. Bill Motmans
This is a great idea. Front setbacks are useless. If necessary, regulate lot coverage only, not setbacks. Ansel Lundberg Inadequate - open space should be at least 25 % of lot coverage. Green space is critical for human health, providing nature based solutions, and compatibility with surrounding urban uses.

Stephen Schweigerdt
This proposal has a close relation to the Urban Forest Master Plan. The draft UFMP will be reviewed by the stakeholder advisory committee in November and December, and this proposal and the UFMP should be integrated and articulated. More granular detail of this proposal for city staff and the stakeholder advisory committee would be helpful so that it could provide input. Francesca Reitano
Reducing setbacks a little bit can make sense but not completely. Having wide open neighborhoods provide a since of space and safety. It allows for larger shade trees. Having front yards promotes community. It encourages walking, kids playing, and people gathering. Candace Briggs
Let's not regulate lot coverage on an absolute basis. We should keep the existing lot coverage limits, which could be bumped up for MMH to about 80%.

Teresa Ortega
Agreed! Front setbacks don't help make our city more walkable or livable. Regulating lot coverage could make sense but not setbacks.

Teresa Ortega

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Front setbacks need to be large enough for existing trees or tree plantings that shade the streets and sidewalks, especially in areas where there are no park/parking strip public right-of-way spaces to plant city trees. This is especially a problem in disadvantaged areas lacking street trees and places to plant city trees, and is an equity issue. Street tree shade is also necessary for active mobility, the use of which will be increased with state and city policies discouraging the ownership and use of automobiles. The setback standards will have to include protecting our street trees, as well as places to plant them.

Perhaps a flexible standard is needed here to accommodate street trees and tree plantings that shade the streets and sidewalks.

Francesca Reitano
I am happy that protecting existing trees and growing our canopy by planting more trees, is part of this concept. Sacramento has an issue with heat, and climate change is turning up the heat. We cannot ignore the climate benefits of trees - air quality, capturing pollution, shade and heat reduction (less air conditioning), and green spaces that allow stormwater to drain into our aquifer.

Francesca Reitano
What are additional frontage amenities that should be incentivized in exchange for this flexibility? admin The current "tent" standards are not particularly helpful, particularly for increased density (that is the goal, right?). More height as a basic standard is desireable. Opportunities for immediate neighbors who feel impacted to respond.

Peter S
Keeping building footprints small and building two stories (one unit on top of another) is a way to preserve more open space, including space for trees. I have no problem with eliminating the existing bulk control tent as a way to make it easier to do this. Karen Jacques
As someone who lived in Seattle when they did this it is not going to go well. By the time we left we had a three story townhome built next to our 1200 foot single story home. Now they are everywhere in that neighborhood and parking is a lost cause.

Molly Luna
Yes, please maintain height limits. No one wants to have a house looming over their backyard or blocking all their sunlight. It disrupts the scale of the neighborhood.

Candace Briggs
We should consider increasing height limits! There's a middle ground between mega apartment towers and the non-existent skylines of most residential neighborhoods. Could make a huge difference in how many new MMH projects will actually get built. And better views! Michael Turgeon
Love cottage courts! Great place to live if you want to build a community with your neighbors while still maintaining the benefits of a single family home. Large homes on large lots can be very isolating.

Michael Turgeon
This is a great idea. Minimum lot sizes are an unnecessary restriction that severely limit housing affordability in for-sale products.

Brandon Mettler

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
If this happens we need to have set backs and/or lot coverage maximums. Otherwise you get houses right up next to each other with no space between. If you have a small lot, you should have an equally small house. Candace Briggs Smaller homes on smaller lots could work, as long as there are appropriate setbacks to avoid clustering of homes/units (which would have the potential to create excessive hardscape and urban heat islands), and so long as existing trees are preserved, space for planting trees, and green space to allow stormwater to flow into the underground aquifer. The home should fit the lot, and should not be 1,000 square feet by right. Francesca Reitano These minimums are too low, and I support the below recommendation to further lower these minimums Jeffrey Sorry -- typo, that should say: These minimums are too HIGH, and I support the below recommendation to further lower these minimums
Jeffrey
This whole idea seems like a waste. Especially post Covid when most likely downtowns will be a thing of the past in regards to remote work. Trying to cram housing with density is absurd.

Jason
Smaller lots are a must. Land costs are a barrier to starting MMH projects. Peter S This is a great idea. Minimum lot sizes are an unnecessary restriction that severely limit housing affordability in for-sale products.

Ansel Lundberg
I support smaller houses on smaller lots because they will be more affordable. That said, there needs to be some minimum lot size relative to house size to allow for green space/tree space. The new small-lot development shown in the diagram works because it allows for some open space
Karen Jacques
This is a benefit for more than just entry level home buyers. This would also be beneficial for folks wanting to down size and stay in their current neighborhood.

PATTY WAIT
Great idea! We don't need minimum lot sizes, and they reduce housing affordability. Teresa Ortega So if multiple units are sharing larger garbage and recycling bins, who will functionally roll those out to the street. Will they take turns or will WM have to stop and do it? Also, where will those larger bins fit on the street with more cars parked and narrower driveways? That seems like it will add more work for WM and even less parking. Molly Luna So just where will each unit put their waste cans on collection day with smaller driveways, and more crowded street parking? Molly Luna
This analysis does not consider leaf season, leaf collection with the size of our tree canopy. The leaves are placed on the street for pickup. Leaves cannot be picked up when vehicles park on, or too close to, leaf piles in the street. Many Tier 2 neighborhoods have a higher percentage of tree canopy. Francesca Reitano

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
This seems beneficial in theory, but in reality you will still have crying babies, barking dogs, loud music and the normal sounds of everyday living happening much closer to each other. Add in limited room for garbage and parking and you're just asking for neighborly strife before long. It's why a little distance when possible has been a helpful tool for residents throughout the history of cities. I have lived in multiple dense and sparse settings and each has trade offs. But to assume that urban options and space are not important, is not being a very honest observer of mankind and it's variety of needs.

Molly Luna
will there be any updates to setbacks? A lot of single family lots of a 20ft front yard setback, while you'll see old 4-plex or 6- plex buildings are built with a 5 ft setback
TOM
You can have pages and pages of rules and regulations, but none of that changes the fact the many of us bought a single family house on one lot because that was how we wanted to live. Changing the nature of a neighborhood is unfair.

Lois Ann Rosenberg
Who specifically is concerned about loss of privacy? Apartments are very common and I have lived in in them most of my adult life. It seems that existing privacy/design standards for apartments should suffice. Though sound insulation is a must for shared walls/floors! Jenny
I have lived in many apartments as well and that's a good option to have. But it should be one option of many. There is a reason some people prefer places that have a little more nature or quiet. To force every space to functionally be like an apartment is not fair to people's situations. If people have genuine choices that are unique to their circumstances then we have a win. If everyone is forced into the same little box that would be a loss for all, except the developers. Molly Luna

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
The MMH proposal will ultimately fail to reach its lofty and unrealistic goals. It is a feel-good plan to allow the City Council and the social/housing do-gooder industry a way to say, “We are doing something.” There will be no meaningful additional affordable housing, just the bare minimum to get a building plan through planning.

The majority of buildings- homes (for sale and rent), multi-plex and apartments will be market rate. Developers want to make money. City leaders don’t have to care about making or saving money. Their plans rely on other people’s money.

In addition, stop using “redlining” as an excuse for upzoning. Much of what is proposed is aimed at increasing rental units rather than homes for sale. If the City Council wants to promote wealth building then there needs to be more homes for sale to individuals and families. Be serious about promoting opportunities for generational wealth building.

Sacramento needs reasonably priced 1000 to 1500 square foot starter homes. They can be on small lots with yards or small lots (both types with parking) with community green areas. To help speed-up the process the Planning/Building Department should consider preparing a list of preapproved designs which allow for a builder to make simple cosmetic adjustments for buyers.

Just set up basic outlines, reduce red-tape and drastically reduce building fees then let the market decide what gets built.

R. Harrison
Too many people in a small space will cause conflict. Jam a bunch of tiny living units in a small space, minimize green space, ignore room for kids to play and there will be problems. These assumptions of how many units will fit in a given space, no matter what the strategies, are wishful thinking with no base in reality. Glen If it's hard enough for people to cooperate under the same roof, I can only imagine how that's going to work when barking dogs, loud music and unmoved trash cans start to interfere with normal life.

Molly Luna
This is an important consideration, and I’m glad the city is looking at it. Privacy is connected to peace of mind, safe spaces, security and other personal considerations. If the city is going to add density and preserve green space and existing trees, buildings with multiple units will have to go up, ie add stories. Francesca Reitano Historical districts can be overly restrictive and should be secondary to the need for infill and the proposed zoning changes.

The proposed zoning is very compatible with historic districts when done sensitively. the infill build along alleys over the last decade have enlivened and made my historic neighborhood safer and more interesting and increased home ownership.

Deborah Condon
Look at the development at 55th & T. Not affordable, as well as intrusive to the surrounding homes. No yard space whatsoever. One garage for what could be as many as six potential vehicle drivers.

Bill Motmans

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
No discretionary review. Make very clear guidelines about what's permitted and step out the way. All you have to do is look at the history of red-lining and neighborhood-level racial and economic segregation here and in cities throughout our country to know what it leads to. Most folks don't set out to be 'exclusionary' but that's what discretionary approvals aggregate to in the end. Diana
I don't think a discretionary process is necessary for something like missing middle housing since a few new housing units would be a relatively small impact. At the same time, a discretionary process could make it much harder to build new housing.

Sean L'Estrange
I'm very concerned about the idea of introducing a discretionary process. We should maintaining ministerial approvals for housing projects. Otherwise, we are all but guaranteeing that MMH will only be built in areas with the least vocal neighbors, which is historically areas with fewer resources or a history of redlining.

San Francisco and Los Angeles have seen how discretionary processes can be weaponized against new housing. We cannot afford to replicate their mistakes. Ben Raderstorf
I agree with all of the comments in this section; the College of New Urbanism, and numerous other reputable smart-growth organizations are all about form-based codes. At the end of the day, this distinction might not matter if applications for development are submitted under SB 330, however, the SB 330 route is not generally understood by non-lawyers, and it could ultimately expire in 2030. Objective, form-based codes are the way to go. Robin Baral Can the driveway actually be eliminated entirely? What if the tenants don't have cars and chose to bike, walk and take transit? This is valuable space that can be transformed. Instead of a heat island can be a garden or nice pathway Tyler Wunsch Agreed! Investing in transit will reduce traffic. Investing in personal car infrastructure will not. Jenny It takes valuable time to bike or use public transit, and renters do not often have that luxury. Please keep the driveways.

Julie
and others do not have the luxury of a car. Or even a house. Reducing the need for car centric design can lead to more homes and more open space as well. It also induces demand for better transit and bike infrastructure. Also removing a driveway requirement will not suddenly make all driveways disappear. This is about giving options Austin The green space idea (in lieu of driveways) is nice. However, the reality is that most people do have cars, and streets in neighborhoods are becoming increasingly crowded and difficult to maneuver. Keep driveways AND back yards. Win-win! Zoe

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
MMH planning reviews must be standard design reviews. Ministerial reviews, especially for new, denser housing types, would decimate our tree canopy and would not provide for input from citizens or flexibility for MMH design standards to be adhered to. Appropriate form and scale, sense of place, neighborhood character and other MMH elements would be thrown by the wayside as they could not be imposed without rigorous, objective standards that need to be tested over time.

Ministerial reviews are problematic for preserving and growing tree canopy and open space, and are a foe of tree protection.

Once a project is approved ministerially, after it is essentially a “done deal,” the tree removal permit is then applied for. A lot of work, time and money goes into a project approval, depending upon the size of the project. Once a project gets that far, people literally don’t want trees to stand in the way. (This has been a problem, for example, in the SB 35 ministerial review process.) Under standard review, tree removals are part of a more holistic design approval process. The argument for building housing over preserving and growing our tree canopy as a climate action policy is overblown. Trees are a sure bet. They have shaded our homes, streets and public spaces for over a century.

Francesca Reitano
The urban heat island is a major problem that underserved areas struggle to address. Why instead of destroying the healthy canopies we do have in this city aren't we investing in growing stronger canopies in areas that need it most? Molly Luna
The statement is made that the impacts on on-street parking and how that will be managed is outside the scope of the MMH study and will be addressed in the 2040 General Plan. I suggest more is needed here because dependent upon the number of lots that are densified thru implementation of the MMH Study, the capacity for on-street parking could be exceeded - the way this can be addressed is by implementing a parking sticker program limiting the number of on-street stickers per lot. jackie whitelam
Agreed, parking is a very real issue for considering the residents quality of life and should absolutely be addressed. And the only issue with the sticker solution is that it makes it very difficult for visitors and caregivers etc. to have reasonable access to the residents. Molly Luna
Do not include a discretionary process. This introduces legal risk and uncertainty for new homes. We should set the rules as a community and then allow projects to be approved if they meet a checklist of standards set out by the city.

Brandon Mettler
Housing should always include parking, not everyone wants to or can take public transportation. The proposal makes sense. A standard parking spot is only 8' feet wide so a 25' foot driveway seems excessive.

Candace Briggs
This seems backward. Ideally, we'd set standards/rules in advance, and then approve using a ministerial process. Discretionary approval sounds like a way to empower the most vocal, even if they do not represent what's best for the neighborhood or others Jeffrey

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Design standards that will disallow clustering of projects adjacent to one another, regardless of whether it is the same builder or multiple builders, are necessary in order to prevent the creation of urban heat islands where they do not now exist.

Avoiding clustering is less about limiting the number of projects and more about location of projects.

Francesca Reitano
Discretionary approval processes are a major setback in progress for the city as it relates to predictability, equity, and need to hit key RHNA goals in a timely manner. This process results in uncertainty and time that we do not have the luxury of taking in a housing crisis. Urge amending this to implement ministerial approval. Annie Keys I oppose ministerial standards for MMH. If buildings are going to blend in with existing neighborhoods, which seems to be a goal of MMH, then there needs to be staff level design review. Buildings last for decades and neighborhoods should not be stuck with buildings that have little or no relation to the built environment around them. Karen Jacques I agree with Ms. Jacques and oppose ministerial standards for MMH. There is nothing in this proposed ordinance that promotes affordable housing the goal that this ordinance purports to solve.

Diane Chase
Discretionary approvals are a bad, bad, idea. Community input is well-intentioned but it is beyond evident from other CA cities how the process has been abused and applied in bad-faith to make new projects cost-prohibitive and to keep out new neighbors. Discriminatory zoning is in theory illegal, but discretionary approvals maintain the de facto segregation that has continued for decades past the infamous redlining maps. Let's adopt clear, workable standards that meet the City's vision for the future, and apply them fairly and predictably. Michael Turgeon The discretionary review process could undermine the whole effort if there are not clear and objective standards for evaluation. Also how is this process constistent with the goal of state law and the City's expressed goals to increase housing opportunities and keeping cost of development as low as possible? Cathy Creswell
How does this impact the existing address framework? Will it be the primary address and then add a 1/2 or a, b, c, or unit 1, 2,

3. etc...

Tyler Wunsch
Do not include a discretionary process. This introduces legal risk and uncertainty for new homes. We should set the rules as a community and then allow projects to be approved if they meet a checklist of standards set out by the city.

Ansel Lundberg
I disapprove of including a discretionary process. Why introduce the legal risk and uncertainty for new builds? We can instead set rules as a community and have projects be approved so long as they meet the checklist of the city's standards. Let's make it easier for Sacramentans to have homes! Teresa Ortega Does a sliding scale Floor Area Ratio (FAR), as proposed, meet the intent of producing more attainable housing options by encouraging smaller unit sizes and offering additional FAR for additional units? Please provide your thoughts. admin
Station 2: Will it be lower-cost and attainable? - Attainability and Ownership Recommendations

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
How about letting the free market dictate cost. Private businesses ought to decide if this project is worth it or not as opposed to the local government trying to “sell” it Jason
I support the general concept of increasing allowed FAR as number of units increases. I agree this is a positive step toward encouraging creation of more smaller, affordable units. DC Can these have rooftops and does the rooftop space count as FAR? That would be wonderful if it did Tyler Wunsch We'll have no effect on climate change and housing affordability will "incremental" increases. Jenny FAR must be balanced with open space requirement as a %. Stephen Schweigerdt There should still be room for the larger FAR new single-units, do not penalize them or reduce them. Larger families, including those where older members can live with young families are needed and a larger house is better for large extended families.

Do not remove this family option. Not ever family wants to put grandma in a tiny house out back, it is not good for caretakers. Deborah Condon
This is a worthy proposal. There is no reason to built the monstrosities I see going up on single-family lots. As long as existing trees are preserved and space is allowed for planting trees, the owner, or a subsequent owner may have land to build an ADU and create more housing. We should be encouraging smaller spaces. This is also a climate consideration. Francesca Reitano A sustainable tree canopy will need a more reasonable amount of growing space than most of these proposals will give. The shade from more units building up will also make urban ground gardening near impossible. So functionally all you will probably have is drought landscaping and rocks, creating an urban heat island for these buildings. Molly Luna There is a new ADU on the street behind a neighbor. It is LARGER than the house - that is not right. Windows on a second story ADU should not be allowed to look into other people’s backyard. We deserve better design guidelines ! AB
while I generally support the direction of not having McMansions - it seems like the argument that MMH can be built in single family neighborhoods because it is of the same scale starts to break down when you use the sliding scale FAR. I'd be interested to hear developers' take (ULI) as to whether they think this would incentivize them to build MMH. Seems to be that in high resource neighborhoods with higher land costs that this would be less likely. Suggest an implementation measure either in MMH or general plan address building MMH on publicly-owned land where the upfront land cost hurdle could be overcome by either writing it down or allowing it to be paid on a long term ground lease. jackie whitelam

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Major Flaw in the Assessments:

There was little or no consideration of sociological factors that directly affect community health and resilience, such as social cohesion and social/neighborhood continuity. The plans/recommendations sets up the city to repeat the same mistakes and atrocities that led to red-lining and disruption of socioeconomically limited but culturally rich and socially cohesive neighborhoods such as Sacramento’s West End multiethnic neighborhood where a high proportion of the African American population resided; it was destroyed when the population was displaced for the developers in the 1930s+. Neighborhoods such as Oak Park, Gardenland, and Del Paso Heights need City strategic investments – not developers (small or large) pushing out locals to make a profit then leave town. Innovative incentive programs need to be devised that support local design-build companies that can provide services to home owners who may choose to add an ADU or another residence on their property – but with permitting dependent on an evidence-based model that accounts for local infrastructure, built environment and social/neighborhood dynamics and living conditions. Helene G Margolis Important to look at what the city might be able to do to incentivize the building of MMH housing that qualifies as affordable.

Perhaps there could be some reduction in City permit fees for affordable units as opposed to market rate units.

Karen Jacques
Council has been very clear throughout the GPU process about the intention to standardize FAR across the city, with FAR 1.0 being the floor in all areas. Is this really proposing going against that and reducing FAR for MMH projects in addition to single- family? Ben Raderstorf
I understand the need for not wanting to overbuild, unit-wise, in car-dependent neighborhoods, but why limit FAR, relative to the same number of units in the better connected neighborhoods? (ie, why isn't 2 units 0.8, across the board?) Devin Lavelle
To meet climate and affordability goals, Sacramento needs to increase the allowable FAR, especially in areas with good transit access and historic exclusionary zoning (ie east sac, land park, etc). FAR should also be increased in areas with some transit.

We can always add more transit. We cannot add more lanes and parking. The transition might be messy, but as Yoda said, "There is no try" for climate change and housing affordability. Jenny Many people seem to think that this will suddenly change the neighborhood overnight. It is going to take awhile and there is no future where we don't increase density if we want to remotely reduce the effects of climate change. This has to be done at some point so why not get it moving now Austin
Important to note that local governments are imposing some of these added challenges (higher fees & permitting challenges).

Maybe that's a practical necessity, given the holistic collection of policy choices California has made, but it's important to at least acknowledge we have choices.

Devin Lavelle
Max FAR for Tier 2 should be greater than 1.0, maybe 1.2 or something. DC

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
This reasoning fails to recognize that there is a reason single family homes were built in the first place, they serve a need that other types of housing do not. I think it is great to have options to fit people's unique situations and needs, but to discriminate an ideal over what all people should live in is narrow minded. There is more of a value in living space, preserving the natural environment and quality of life to consider when talking about homes besides regulating square footage. Options are fine, but punishing one very useful option to encourage the city to become one giant apartment complex is presuming that peoples personal needs have no importance. The biggest flaw with this idea is to force an overhaul of everyone's living choices for a new ideal. It would be so much more practical and helpful to instead focus our energy and money on the underserved areas of the city that live in a heat island or do not have functional housing. Or to build more dense complexes in strategic areas that would serve specific regional needs than to say everyone has to fit into this now. And because the push for this overhaul is so extensive, I find it hard to believe this is about helping people into affordable housing. It seems like a huge green light for developers to make a fortune at the expense of this city's residents and natural environment.

Molly Luna
All FAR values listed in this table are surprisingly low. We need much higher FAR allowances all over, and especially near frequent transit lines.

Jeffrey
Let people live where they want and can afford. Wages-benefits and medical insurance offered by big business is pitiful. Ditto access for all to higher education/trade/tech. Can’t find a sensible reason (station 2) so far but I’ll keep at it.

Brooke Goforth
The need for MMH is clear and important however the move to FAR implies that those building single family houses will now be impacted. We need to allow for smaller lots with lot coverages that are consistent supportive of the MMH goals. If it is still easier and simpler to build single family than also allowing for smaller lots and smaller detached units is also filling a need.

Don't punish one category thinking that it will draw builders and developers to build alternate housing types. Make it work across the board. There are so many creative ways to build non-subsidized affordable housing. It is imperative to bring in design professionals who specialize in high density detached solutions and work through all of the possibilities. Our firm (Studio 81 International Inc.)has been designing all types of housing in all of these categories. FAR is not the best direction for attempting to incentivize building alternate types of housing especially if it is going to detrimentally impact how single family housing is currently built. This approach is narrow minded and the authors need to see how many different ways higher density, smaller units can be developed without affecting traditional development.

Kerrin West
I do not prefer any more regulations. Brooke Goforth
Would a local bonus program that allows additional units and/or FAR, in exchange for income-restricted units, meet the intent of incentivizing long-term affordability without providing a public subsidy? Please provide your thoughts. admin

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
This seems like potentially a great idea. I believe it needs more air time with the community so the impacts are understood. I wonder if it would be choice to participate in the bonus program, and incorporate affordable units or to opt out and build only market rate units. PATTY WAIT
Love the idea of a bonus program! But it should allow additional units beyond the FAR that council has recently approved.

Teresa Ortega
Additional FAR is fine as long as requirements for tree preservation/new tree planting and minimum amount of common open space are also met. Trees and some amount of open space are critical to address heat island effect and rain water absorption to help. reduce flooding during heavy rains Karen Jacques I think a bonus program is potentially a good idea, but we should accomplish it by going *further* than the FAR proposals laid out in the GPU, and not by scaling back the GPU for market-rate projects. We should be encouraging more affordable housing, not discouraging market-rate housing!
Ben Raderstorf
This should include inclusionary zoning requirements for developers whereby they are required to set aside a portion of their development for affordable units. This should be separate from a density bonus program because not all developers will opt to go for a bonus. Antero Rivasplata
A density bonus program is a great idea. But it should allow an FAR over and above at least the base FARs accepted by Council over the past few years.

Ansel Lundberg
Yes! We want and need this! It optimizes high quality affordable living Tyler Wunsch Agree! Jenny
Tenents. This is very telling of an overlooked major problem with this solution. Single family homes have historically been a source of simple generational wealth. Consider how many of the single family homes were taken over in Sacramento after the housing crash and turned into property managed rentals to this day. Less homes available, leads to higher cost for remaining homes which means landlords and pm companies can charge ridiculous rent across the board. High rent means people can't easily save for a home creating the perfect storm for lifetime renters and the gap between the wealthy and the lower class will grow even larger. This isn't going to create a bigger middle class, just a more wealthy owner pool and everybody else at the mercy of their rental rates. Neighborhoods and communities do better on numerous levels when people are given an opportunity to be their own landlord.

Molly Luna

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Incentives to build affordable units are badly needed. If a builder receives an incentive to build an affordable unit or units, those units need to remain permanently affordable for the duration of the life of the building, not revert to market rate at some future date.

Karen Jacques
They definitely need to be deed restriction so that they remain permanently affordable Karen Jacques A bonus program is a good idea, but it should allow additional units over and above a permissive FAR that matches or exceeds what City Council has recently approved as a baseline.

Brandon Mettler
A bonus program is a good idea, but it should allow additional units over and above a permissive FAR that matches or exceeds what City Council has recently approved as a baseline.

Annie Keys
San Diego is now arguably the most expensive city in the country. https://news.yahoo.com/southern-california-city- ranked- most-233501828.html.

Francesca Reitano
We need to learn from San Diego's mistakes and not repeat them. It is critical that units that benefit from an incentive to be affordable remain affordable for the duration of their life times.

Karen Jacques
Developers and landlords are going to make a killing on this, and long after they're gone these units will find a way to be more expensive eventually. These promises are a great idea but rarely work out when there is money to be made. That's why I have a hard time believing that this is an altruistic solution to the housing problem and not a developer work around.

Hopefully I am wrong and this is going to be different.

Molly Luna
Cost of land is rising and will rise further. The more you can build on a lot, the more it is worth. Desirability also creates increased value. San Diego is now arguably the most expensive city in the country. https://news.yahoo.com/southern- california-city- ranked-most-233501828.html. New York, San Francisco, Vancouver BC, and other cities are not getting more affordable by building more housing. They are getting more market-rate housing, which is increasingly unaffordable for many of residents as land value and construction costs rise. We need housing, but be aware of unintended consequences.

Francesca Reitano

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Missing Middle Housing (MMH) and ADUs should not be allowed to be used as short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) when they are not primary residences. This practice reduces housing stock, especially in proposed MMH District Tier 2 amenity-rich and transit adjacent zones which are targeted by MMH and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) for increased density and a significant change to our neighborhoods.

If the city looks into where STVRs are aggregated citywide, it will see that amenity-rich neighborhoods that are targeted for MMH and TOD are greatly impacted. How does this square with the affordability, home ownership and equity goals of MMH in these neighborhoods?
This practice is reducing current, existing housing stock, raising the price of housing and working at cross-purposes to the goals of MMH and TOD. Housing prices are driven up as investors compete with potential landlords and/or homeowners. Operators make more money using homes in certain amenity-rich neighborhoods as STVRs than they do with long-term rentals. STVRs that are not primary residences often belong to out-of-town investors, flippers, and real estate trusts, including family trusts.

Our neighborhoods should not be a commercial cash cow for property owners or the city (12% transient occupancy tax, permit fees).

Francesca Reitano
Small scale and lower cost will be necessary in order to make an impact on the unhoused.

Debra Payne
Disagree. Seems to me someone’s cooking up a politically correct stew for residents. I would rather have improved infrastructure and updated schools.

Brooke Goforth
Great idea! Teresa Ortega
I support shrinking or eliminating minimum lot sizes! Brandon Mettler There's plenty of apartment complexes to help fill that need. Unfortunately if you want to have any environmental stability for runoff and heat you might need a little more space.

Molly Luna
Station 3: How can the City promote home-ownership and address potential displacement through Missing Middle? - Attainability and Ownership Recommendations

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
Used to live in SF, high density housing did not make housing more affordable. San Francisco is one of the least affordable cities despite high density housing.

Halfplexes in Greenhaven/ Pocket neighborhood are more affordable than a single family home. They blend in well with existing single family homes. They do give working people a chance to purchase a home but are not priced for low or very low income individuals.

Duplexes are expensive to purchase and then the owner has to rent out the other half at higher rent to be able to make monthly mortgage payments.

Our neighbor is building an ADU but the high cost of materials (lumber,wiring,plumbing etc. ) will lead him to charge higher rent, not affordable rental. Rick Henry
I completely agree Rick. All density logistics and tradeoffs aside, this will make developers and management companies a lot of money but not make living more affordable for most.

Molly Luna
I like this idea Sean L'Estrange
The best way to promote homeownership, is to provide financial education in schools as well as reducing taxes. Jason YES! Ansel Lundberg
Note that this figure overstates the situation. A significant portion of these households are occupied by folks who are not in a place in their lives where the commitments and responsibilities that come with home ownership make sense. The true portion of the population we should be focusing on is probably about half this. (This doesn't mean to understate the importance of protecting and expanding access to home ownership, but it's critical to narrow the focus so we aren't patting ourselves on the back when educated, middle & upper-middle folks decide they are ready to settle down, pick a city/neighborhood, etc and buy a house.) Devin Lavelle Polling data shows that, all else equal, most people prefer to own rather than rent their home. However, I caution the continued framing of homeownership as "wealth building." Real estate only performs well as an investment if house prices go up. House prices in the US have only historically continued their unceasing rise because local governments artificially restricted supply through single-family zoning. You don't see the same trend in other countries that have had more permissive building standards. If we want to achieve the goal of widespread affordable housing, homeownership may no longer be the key to generational wealth that it has been. Most consumer products (cars, electronics, etc) lose value with age! Housing is different because we have so vastly warped the market. Michael Turgeon

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
The market may fluctuate profit wise on homeowners for sure. But if you watch the trend of rent prices at the whim of landlords and property management companies in this city over the years, the renters have been the losers almost always.

There is no profit for renters who are paying the equivalent of a mortgage with nothing to show for it when they need to move. And unlike a mortgage that can be stable and predictable financially, renters are given a little notice that they will suddenly need to increase the housing cost in their budget. Molly Luna There are lots of 1000 sq ft houses in my neighborhood and the prices keep going up. If we want to encourage homeownership for missing middle demographics, programs need to be set up to assist first time home buyers from previously excluded groups. How about help qualifying for low interest mortgages, low down payments and eliminations of onerous fees. It would be more productive to give incentives and exemptions to these buyers, than to wealthy developers and landlords.

Glen
This is a great idea; not everyone wants or needs a gigantic home. But there needs to be decent outdoor space to create a sense of spaciousness psychologically.

Diane Chase
This program seems to be force feeding the city’s desired conclusion. The “bonus program” would create govt funded incentives, eradicating required market forces and thus taxpayers would actually be paying for the program. Builders will be unable to have projects pencil out and won’t be interested. Last and also important is the proposed lack of requiring off-street parking, which will further crowd roads. Consider that impact on the hundreds of narrow streets throughout Sacramento Mike O’Brien
The market can never and will never solve the housing crisis. There simply is to much monetary incentive to maintain housing stalk at a supply that maximizes profit. If there are enough houses profit goes down. The government must subsidize housing or we will forever have a housing crisis. Austin
Requiring parking incudes car use. Limiting parking induces transit and other alternatives to get better and reduces the crowding of roads from cars. There is no world were we do not increase density and reduce the need of cars if we want to have any chance of even slightly mitigating climate change. Austin A workshop in district#5 ,near formally Sacramento school park . Miguel Barraza This seems like a disincentive to building more affordable units. Need to be careful when applying restrictions on multi-unit projects that may scare away small-scale mom-and-pop builders.

Douglas Brown
Tenant protections like these are critical to keeping MMH affordable. For these recommendations to work, the city needs to bolster its rental registry.

Brandon Mettler
This seems like a disincentive to building more affordable units. Need to be careful when applying restrictions on multi-unit projects that may scare away small-scale mom-and-pop builders.

Douglas Brown

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
How about reinstating the City's inclusionary zoning requirements whereby developers are required to set aside a portion of their projects for affordable housing? Density bonuses are fine, but reinstating inclusionary zoning would help with those projects that don't choose to go higher density. Antero Rivasplata This is away to increase property tax revenue and increase growth not improve quality life. Is continuous growth the only trick in the pocket of the city planners? Plus I get offers at least once a week from companies that want to buy the back half of my lot. This will increase big business ownership in our city, cut trees and reduce green space. In my neighborhood we are already being bought out for short term rentals. I do not support this program. Rick Morris These ADUs are blue being built to make money. The wealthy are just getting wealthier. The ADUs are not being built as affordable housing which is the purpose of the program. There is no oversight AB And ADUs should definitely NOT be used as short-term rentals (Airbnb, VRBO etc.). That is NOT creating housing. Francesca Reitano Affordable housing tends to ignore the middle income workers this plan is intending to help. Often programs in Sacramento only focus on low income workers. Even as the cost of living limits the middle income workers options. Be sure to expand the definition of afforable to include middle income yearly salaries. Shaun Yes, we need tenant protections like these so that MMH will be affordable. We need the city to bolster its rental registry so that these recommendations can actually work. Teresa Ortega Herein lies the rub: we have built a system in the US since WWII where the primary path to wealth-building is home ownership. When the promise of home ownership is that it will make you wealthy through appreciation, it is guaranteed that your home in the future will be unaffordable for many, if not most, future buyers. And here we are. Peter S Maybe we should look into that more. I just know that rental prices in this city haven't served many for a long time either.

Molly Luna
I oppose MMH housing proposals in historically single family zoned neighborhoods. Brad Warren Affordability must be baked into this proposal. Simply building a lot of market-rate housing will be a supply-and-demand situation only for people who can afford market rate housing. If the existing housing is unaffordable to some Sacramentans, it will remain unaffordable - another housing product type will not change this equation. Filtering is a slow process and will not help residents who need affordable housing now. Salaries are not going up commensurable with the rise in rents. As a community, we need to crack this open. Francesca Reitano Homeownership is not always about creating "spendable"wealth. Moving from a leased duplex into a single family home myself, even WITHOUT mortgage payments, owning the home is much more expensive monthly than renting the duplex. In the duplex, I had more spendable income to invest each month, which was liquid (could be spent easily, vs. having assets tied up in real estate). Dave

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
The cost of lot splitting and high fees have stopped me from developing my deep lot. It is a major disincentive. I was told it was a minimum of $40,000 just for the application to simply put an imaginary line on paper to show the new lot even if I had no plans to build immediately. And I would have to tear down an existing garage even though I would still own both lots until at some future point I would develop. Why would anyone do this except to build very expensive new housing to recoup these high fees? Yes, fee reduction is needed or all you will see built are high priced units.

Deborah Condon
I not a big fan of tiny homes of ADLs and think the building on limited space is better used building multi-story shared housing like duplexes triplexes or 4-plexes. The success of infill homes that are three stories along alleys creates the possibility of condo's or rentals on a small space. ADLs waste a lot of lot footprint and most of the ones in my neighborhood are offices and guest houses and really not rentals and never new home ownership. Affordable by design - smaller pre-fab stacked housing sold as single units is a better use of a housing footprint. Mobile tiny homes? that's called a trailer and should only be allowed in trailer parks, another subject that the city should pursue. Deborah Condon Most of there proposals for MMH seem aimed at multiple units on a single property which will translate into more rental properties. Corporate buyers will continue to gobble up properties with cash and turn single family properties into cash cows.

Rents will be as high as the market will bear. There needs to be regulations to keep Corporations, LLCs, and out-of-town investors from taking part in this program. I don't believe the City has the cojones to do it. Glen What changes? The CBC is largely health and safety based, with additional requirements for energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I don't support changes to the CBC that compromise any of these code requirements.

Antero Rivasplata
Would the city of sacramento consider doing a program like they have in Detroit where I believe tiny homes were built on tiny lots and the person moving into it was then allowed to own it after making payments they could afford for seven years - at that point, Detroit gives them the flexiblity of selling it at its appreciated value. this creates a dilemma it's good for that person as a wealth generating tool, but it doesn't keep it affordable for the next buyer. jackie whitelam This is a great idea. We need to create more affordable for-sale options and condo liability laws are partly to blame. Legalizing single-stair construction would provide a safe way to better utilize small lots for multifamily housing.

Ansel Lundberg
This is a great idea. We need to create more affordable for-sale housing options in sacramento and condo liability laws are partly to blame for the lack of these housing types. Additionally, legalizing point-access construction in the building code (as Seattle did) would provide a safe way to better utilize small lots for multifamily housing. Brandon Mettler

Attachment 5 - Table of Comments Received on the MMH Study's Preliminary Recommendations Comment/Feedback Commenter
So many of the statements staff make in this report are unsupported by facts or evidence. Facts are not a thesis proposed by a graduate student, or consultants paid to come up with a conclusion consistent with what the City Council has already decided. What home will be affordable to someone who has trouble paying their rent each month? How to prevent someone from falling prey to a predatory lender? I don't think that is relevant to this report, and has to do more with decisions made by renters/homeowners. Should the City take that right away from them? Further, due to Prop 13, taxes are not likely to go up in amounts that will end up "displacing" anyone. This entire report is based on assumptions and premises extracted from "studies" of other cities, as well as the pre-conceived notions of folks with a certain ideological philosophy as to how others should live, what neighborhoods and homes should "look" like, how much space we need to live, how many cars and/or bus stops we should have, etc. They are "experts" and opinions not shared by them are denigrated and dismissed. MMH is catchy little phase which means whatever the interpreters want it to mean.

Bill Motmans
Well stated! Jan
You brought the truth to light Bill. This is about making money under the guise of the housing issues and climate concern at the expense of many. The irony is that the tradeoffs will most likely negatively impact the very problems they are attempting to address while creating new ones they didn't account for in their theories. Molly Luna Well stated, as usual! Zoe
This liability law protects condo owners from having to live with building flaws without a means of having them rectified. I don't support messing with this important consumer protection law.

Antero Rivasplata
I disagree with the restriction on demolishing occupied units. If you can build a more modern, efficient and more housing in place of older shoddy ad hoc buildings, that is a plus. Sometimes it is easier, cheaper and the result better to tear down junky building to build more sustainable efficient designs for more units. Some of the dinky units built over garages would be best replaced with taller, more livable units. Deborah Condon Yes! We need to create more affordable for-sale housing in our city, and condo liability laws are an obstruction. I would also encourage the council to consider legalizing point-access construction to help us build more homes for more Sacramentans! Teresa Ortega