CITY COUNCIL
Kevin McCarty, Mayor
Lisa Kaplan, District 1
Roger Dickinson, District 2
Karina Talamantes, Vice Mayor, District 3
Phil Pluckebaum, District 4
Caity Maple, District 5
Eric Guerra, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Gustavo Limón Martinez, Interim City Attorney
Farishta Ahrary, City Auditor
Leyne Milstein, Interim City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency Successor Agency
City Hall Complex
915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-7200
AMENDED MATERIAL
Description: Attached are amendments received after publishing the agenda, updates to:
• Page 2 of Attachment 3-Proposed Modifications to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance; and
• Historical Analysis Findings slide of Attachment 4-Presentation.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Discussion Item 27
27. Workshop on the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (LR25-008) File ID: 2025-01659
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Review, comment, and provide direction on the proposed modifications to the City’s Mixed Income Housing Ordinance.
Contact: Greta Soos, AICP, Senior Planner, (916) 808-2027, [email protected]; Remi Mendoza, Long Range Planning Manager, (916) 808-5003, [email protected], Community Development Department
Attachment 3- Proposed Modifications to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance
1 Proposed Modifications to Mixed Income Housing Ordinance
Proposed Modifications
Minor changes to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance are proposed as outlined below.
Justifications for these modifications follow on pages 2-5 of this attachment.
Maintain current ordinance framework with the following adjustments:
1. Housing Impact Fee modification:
a. Remove Housing Incentive Zone (reduced) fee rate areas (see Exhibit A) b. Remove $0 rate for high density projects (SFR 20 du/a and multiunit 40 du/a)
2. Mixed Income Housing Strategy modification
a. Reduce acreage threshold from 100 acres or more to 50 acres or more in size b. Require a minimum of 10% affordable housing (80% AMI or lower) as part of the Mixed Income Housing Strategy
Exhibit A. Housing Incentive Zones
Attachment 3- Proposed Modifications to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance
2 Fee Rate Modification Justification
Current Housing Impact Fee revenues average approximately $1.3M per year (2016-2024).
The revenue generated from this fee has been used to assist with the development of 587 721 total units, 39 55 of which are attributable to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance Housing Impact Fee specifically (see Table 1).
Table 1. Mixed Income Housing Fund Expenditures
Project Name Capitol
Park
4995
Stockton
Mirasol
Block D
On
Broadway
39th &
Broadway
The
Sequoia
Combined
Total
Amount
Expended $2,300,000 $1,000,000 $1,400,000 $700,000 $750,000 $3,400,000 $7,250,000 Number of
MIHO Units 16 5 6 3 5 20 39 55
Total
Regulated
Affordable
Units
134 200 115 140 43 89 587 721
Approximately 800 units per year are exempted from paying the Housing Impact Fee due to meeting the high density $0 rate. From 2016-2023, $9.8 million in Housing Impact Fee revenue was forgone due to the $0 for high density projects1. While it is impossible to affirm that every project would have moved forward had the full fee rate applied, the findings of the previous feasibility analysis produced in the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance Draft Report 2 indicated that projects were generally feasible at the full HIF rate under prior more favorable market conditions (Spring/Summer 2022 data).
Rentals still remain largely infeasible. The dollar per square foot costs of alternative requirements such as on site unit provision has gone down since the Winter/Spring 2023 feasibility analysis data due to increases in affordable prices and rents that brought them closer to market rate. When compared to housing production trends, a study of requirements in other jurisdictions (local and non-local)3 showed that in most cases, housing production was driven by market conditions and was not solely attributable to change in program requirements. We can also see this trend replicated locally in Figure 1
1 See Table 3-9: Forgone Fee Revenue from $0 HIF Rate for High-Density Development:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/MIHO-Draft-Report-8-8-23.pdf 2 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/MIHO-Draft-Report-8-8-23.pdf 3 See Section 6.0 Requirements in Other Jurisdictions and Case Studies:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/MIHO-Draft-Report-8-8-23.pdf and August 2023 Staff Memorandum: https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/Housing/mixed- income-housing-ordinance/Mixed-Income-Housing-Ordinance-Memorandum-August-15-2023.pdf Attachment 3- Proposed Modifications to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance
3 below by comparing housing production in the City of Sacramento to Statewide housing production.
By removing the $0 rate for high density housing and lower Housing Incentive Zone rate, it is likely that we would see an average increase of $1 million in Housing Impact Fee revenues annually.
Mixed Income Housing Strategy Modification Justification
The current Mixed Income Housing Strategy requirement allows for a fee credit for land dedication, construction of affordable dwelling units, or other mechanisms which leads to the provision of affordable housing. Table 2 below summarizes the current Mixed Income Housing Strategies approved under the 2015 Ordinance. The strategies include a mix of approaches including land dedication to SHRA, onsite units, a stand-alone affordable development, and HIF payment.
The proposed adjustment to the Mixed Income Housing Strategy requirement would simply require at least 10% of the proposed project including housing at 80% AMI or below. This would ensure that a higher percentage of affordable housing is provided on-site.
Additionally, while no major sites are currently available at this size, a reduction in the project size threshold from 100 acres or more to 50 acres or more would increase the opportunity for this requirement to apply to future projects that may arise in the future. 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
California Housing Units Permitted
City of Sacramento Housing Units Permtted
Figure 1. Comparison of Housing Production Trends,
City of Sacramento and State of California
Sacramento Units Permitted Under 2000 Ordinance Sacramento Units Permitted Under Current Ordinance California Units Permitted
Attachment 3- Proposed Modifications to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance
4 Table 2. 2015 Ordinance Large Sites - Mixed Income Housing Strategies Project Market Rate Units Affordable Units
Railyards 6,000 - 10,000 units 600 units @ 40% - 60% AMI. Half can be provided by land dedication.
Innovation Park
(Former Sleep
Train Arena Site)
Est. 3,000 units. High density
(20 -150 dua)
10% Low income units and 2.0 acre affordable site (150 units).
Delta Shores 5,921 market rate units Land dedication to SHRA for 429 affordable units.
Panhandle 1,662 single family units Housing impact fees ($7.7 million) and 16 affordable units.
Greenbriar 2,526 single family and
multifamily
189 affordable senior units plus two manager units.
Aspen 1/New
Brighton
1,365 total units, single family
and multifamily
10% of units (137 units)
Proposed Project Timeline
Pending City Council direction, below is a proposed project timeline to bring forward modifications to the City’s Mixed Income Housing Ordinance. • Outreach (January-February 2026)
o Housing Policy Working Group
o Focus Group Meetings
• Outreach Findings Report-Out + Final Ordinance Recommendations (March - May 2026)
o Planning and Design Commission
o Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission
o City Council
• Final Ordinance Adoption (July-August 2026)
o Planning and Design Commission
o Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission
o City Council
Historical Analysis Findings
2000 ORDINANCE ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Affordable Unit Production
◦ 1,985 affordable units (132/yr avg )
◦ 1,557 inclusionary units ( 104/yr avg)
◦ Most units within 14 LIHTC projects
◦ SHRA assisted 10 of 12 projects for which historic
funding data was identified.
Market Rate Projects Provided:
◦ Land (2/3 of affordable projects)
◦ Cash subsidy averaging ~$9,000 per affordable unit or ~5% of project cost
◦ Affordable costs borne by market rate projects about
the same as initial housing impact fee rate
2015 ORDINANCE ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Affordable Unit Production
◦ $11.6 Million fees collected through 2024
◦ 587 721 affordable units in projects assisted with fees, 39 55 units attributed to MIHO funding
◦ 407 affordable units produced under Mixed Income
Housing Strategies for Northlake and Railyards
◦ Average annual affordable production:
◦ 110 125 units/yr avg based on all units = (721 +
407) / 9 years
◦ 49 51 units/yr avg based on MIHO units = ( 39 55 +
407) / 9 years