Sacramento City Council
April 14, 2026

City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2026-00674 4/14/2026
2040 General Plan and Zoning Consistency: Missing Middle Housing (MMH) and Senate Bill (SB) 79 Workshop
File ID: 2026-00674
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Review, comment, and provide direction on a preliminary approach to updating development standards related to Missing Middle Housing (MMH) and the City’s approach to implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 79.

Contact: Jamie Mosler, Associate Planner, (916) 808-7875, [email protected]; Amy Yang, Senior Planner, (916) 808-5023, [email protected]; Community Development Department
Presenter: Jamie Mosler, Associate Planner, (916) 808-7875, [email protected], Community Development Department
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Background
3-MMH Analysis Overview
4-SB 79 Overview
5-Planning and Design Commission Meeting Summary
6-Presentation
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: This workshop provides an opportunity for the City Council to review, comment, and provide direction on staff’s preliminary approach to updating development standards related to Missing Middle Housing (MMH) and implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 79 as part of the ongoing zoning code (Title 17) update for consistency with the 2040 General Plan (see Attachment 2:

Background, for an overview of the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Code Consistency project).

Since adoption of the MMH Interim Ordinance in September 2024, staff have evaluated its effectiveness in facilitating house-scale missing middle housing and broadening the range of housing types in single-unit and duplex zones. While the 2040 General Plan also directs the City to increase

File ID: 2026-00674 4/14/2026
development intensity near transit, many areas located near transit are currently developed with lower-intensity, house-scale development. Through analysis conducted with support from Opticos Design, it was determined that house-scale missing middle housing and higher-intensity housing near transit require different development standards. (see Attachment 3: MMH Analysis Overview).

Additionally, the Governor signed SB 79 on October 12, 2025, and it becomes effective July 1, 2026.

The legislation establishes new statewide zoning standards for housing near transit that may exceed the development intensity envisioned in the General Plan for these areas (see Attachment 4: SB 79 Overview). The legislation provides local jurisdictions with options for implementation.

To balance General Plan policy direction, findings from the MMH analysis, and new State legislation, staff are seeking Council direction on the preferred degree of change the City should permit in neighborhoods that now allow higher development intensities. The City Council will be presented with a range of options, from a focus on new housing that is as compatible as possible with existing single -family neighborhoods to a focus on maximizing housing production, even if it results in significantly larger buildings in existing neighborhoods. Staff will update development standards in the Zoning Code consistent with Council direction.

Staff will conclude the analysis phase of the General Plan and Zoning Code Consistency Project this spring, followed by community engagement this summer. Final adoption of the ordinance by the City Council is anticipated this winter.

Policy Considerations: The 2040 General Plan includes the following relevant policies:

Policy LUP-2.4 Development Intensity Linked to Transit. The City shall plan for higher development intensities around current and planned transit to optimize public investments and support an accessible, convenient network.

Policy LUP-4.1 Transit-Supportive Development. The City shall encourage increased residential and commercial development intensity within ½-mile of existing high-frequency bus stops and existing and planned light rail stations, bus rapid transit stations, and commuter rail stations to support more frequent, reliable transit service and vibrant, walkable, neighborhoods.

Policy LUP-4.6 Compatibility with Adjoining Uses. The City shall ensure that the introduction of higher-intensity mixed-use development along major arterial corridors is compatible with adjacent land uses, by requiring features such as the following:
· Buildings set back from rear or side yard property lines adjoining single-unit dwelling residential uses;
· Building heights stepped back from sensitive adjoining uses to maintain appropriate transitions in scale and to minimize impacts to privacy and solar access;

File ID: 2026-00674 4/14/2026
· Landscaped off-street parking areas, loading areas, and service areas screened from adjacent residential areas to the degree feasible; or
· Lighting shielded from view and directed downward to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses.

Policy LUP-6.2 Range of Residential Development Intensities. The City shall allow for a range of residential development intensities throughout the community to cultivate a mix of housing types at varying sales price points and rental rates, provide options for residents of all income levels, and protect existing residents from displacement.

Policy LUP-6.3 Variety of Housing Types. The City shall promote the development of a greater variety of housing types and sizes in all existing and new growth communities to meet the needs of future demographics and changing household sizes, including the following:
· Single-unit homes on small lots,
· Accessory dwelling units,
· Tiny homes,
· Alley-facing units,
· Townhomes,
· Lofts,
· Live-work spaces,
· Duplexes,
· Triplexes,
· Fourplexes,
· Cottage/bungalow courts,
· Neighborhood-scale multi-unit buildings, and
· Senior and student housing.

Policy LUP-6.4 Neighborhood Form. The City shall recognize the patterns in existing neighborhoods by developing defined transitions between these neighborhoods and adjoining areas, and by requiring that new development, both private and public, consider the existing physical characteristics of buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban form of the neighborhood in its design. Designs may be traditional or contemporary but should contribute to the livability of the neighborhood.

Policy LUP-6.5 Established Neighborhoods. The City should encourage new development to respect the pedestrian-scale, pre-automobile form, and lush urban forest that typifies established neighborhoods and contributes to their sense of place.

Policy LUP-8.7 Distinctive Urban Skyline. The City shall guide the development of a distinctive urban skyline that reflects the vision of Sacramento with a prominent central core

File ID: 2026-00674 4/14/2026
containing the city’s tallest buildings, complemented by smaller-scale urban centers and corridors with mid- and high-rise development.

Policy LUP-8.11 Neighborhood and Transitions. The City shall ensure that development standards facilitate transitions between areas that border one another so that neighborhoods and districts maintain their own unique qualities.

Economic Impacts: Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations: This report concerns actions supporting the review and comment of the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Code Consistency Project. The action is an administrative activity that would not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment and is not a project as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) and is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3).) Future efforts associated with updating Title 17 to ensure consistency with the 2040 General Plan will be reviewed in accordance with CEQA Guidelines sections 15060 and 15061(a).

Sustainability: Not applicable.

Commission/Committee Action: On August 14, 2025, the Planning and Design Commission passed a motion to initiate rezoning and text amendments to the Planning and Development Code (Zoning Code) to ensure consistency with the 2040 General Plan. On March 26, 2026, the Planning and Design Commission reviewed and commented on proposed modifications to the Missing Middle Housing (MMH) standards and the City’s approach to implementation of Seante Bill (SB) 79 (see Attachment 5: Planning and Design Commission Meeting Summary).

Rationale for Recommendation: Staff is seeking Council direction on a preliminary approach to updating Missing Middle Housing standards and implementing SB 79 to guide development of future Zoning Code amendments.

Financial Considerations: Not applicable.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.

Attachment 2: Background
This attachment provides an overview of the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Code (Title 17) Consistency project and two relevant scope items: 1) Codify the MMH Interim Ordinance and 2) Update Development Standards.

Overview of the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Code (Title 17) Consistency Project
The 2040 General Plan was adopted by City Council on February 27, 2024. This long- range policy document established new land use standards which serve to guide the City’s decision-making and future planning efforts related to development.

Implementation of the General Plan is carried out through a variety of regulatory mechanisms, including area plans, specific plans, and the Planning and Development Code (Title 17). Title 17 is also known as the City’s Zoning Code.

State law requires that a jurisdiction’s zoning code and zoning maps remain consistent with its adopted general plan. To comply with this requirement, staff must update the Zoning Code and conduct a citywide rezoning.

Staff have identified the following key updates to the Zoning Code to ensure consistency with the 2040 General Plan:
 Rezone parcels for consistency with the 2040 General Plan land use, intensity, and density diagrams
 Consolidate residential zones consistent with 2040 General Plan land use framework
 Permit limited neighborhood commercial uses in residential zones  Codify the Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Interim Ordinance  Update development standards
 Consolidate dwelling land uses
 Incorporate General Plan requirements for gas stations to provide EV charging  Ensure Airport Land Use Compatibility
 Streamlining amendments

Staff will carry out these updates in four phases:
 Analysis (Current-Spring 2026)
o Review the existing Zoning Code for inconsistencies with the 2040 General Plan, identify required approaches, onboard consultants, compare regulatory approaches, and evaluate legal requirements  Community Engagement (Spring-Summer 2026)
o Conduct outreach with the community including webinars, neighborhood meetings, and meetings with the Planning and Design Commission.  Prepare Ordinance (Fall 2026)
o Finalize updated Zoning Code modifications, including zoning district standards, use regulations, and Citywide rezones.
 Final Public Hearings and Adoption (Fall-Winter 2026) o Present the final draft ordinance to the Planning and Design Commission and City Council for review and adoption.

Currently, staff are in the analysis phase, reviewing the specific changes necessary to carry out all key updates. Recommended changes are expected to be presented for public outreach and community engagement in the summer. For more information and to sign up for project updates, please visit cityofsacramento.gov/zoningcodeupdate.

Of the key updates to the Zoning Code, staff have identified the following two for discussion workshops with the Planning and Design Commission and City Council prior to the community engagement phase:
 Codify the Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Interim Ordinance  Update development standards

Codify the Missing Middle Housing Interim Ordinance
In response to policy direction from the 2040 General Plan, City Council adopted the Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Interim Ordinance on September 17, 2024. The development standards included in the interim ordinance aimed to broaden the range of housing types permitted by right within the single-unit and duplex dwelling residential zones (i.e., R-1, R-1A, R-1B, and R-2). The 2040 General Plan defines missing middle housing as house-scale buildings that contain more than one home such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage courts, usually built to the same scale as surrounding single-family homes. The ordinance was adopted as an interim step prior to the comprehensive update of the zoning code. As part of this process, staff are evaluating the impacts of the MMH Interim Ordinance to determine what standards should be updated before codifying it into the Zoning Code.

Update Development Standards
The 2040 General Plan introduced significant changes to the City’s land use framework, including regulating development intensity through maximum floor area ratio (FAR) (see 2040 General Plan Map LUP-6 on next page) rather than maximum residential density, and allowing higher development intensity in areas near transit. FAR is determined by dividing the net building area of development proposed on the site by the total net lot area.

To implement this policy direction, staff are revising development standards in the Zoning Code across all zones, including regulations related to building height, setbacks, and lot coverage and open space, to align with maximum FAR, rather than density, and encourage higher intensity near transit.

Attachment 3: Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Analysis
Overview
This attachment provides a summary of the analysis performed by Opticos to support staff’s evaluation of the MMH Interim Ordinance and proposed updates.

Opticos is an award-winning, nationally recognized firm specializing in urban design, planning, and architecture services. Opticos pioneered the concept of “missing middle housing.” In 2010, Opticos’ founding principal, Daniel Parolek, coined the term, and he authored the definitive book on the subject in 2020
This information is organized into the following sections:
• Introduction
• Neighborhood Patterns
• Types of Change
• Development Standards
Introduction
• Opticos supported City staff with an analysis focused on the following areas for improving the MMH Interim Ordinance:
o Alignment with the 2040 General Plan and proposed changes to Title 17, including removal of maximum residential density
o Streamline and clarify building form standards for house-scale MMH o Identify gaps and opportunities for the standards to address upper MMH o Remove reliance on bulk control and instead regulate development using building typologies.
• While the interim ordinance primarily focused on creating opportunities for house- scale MMH, higher FAR allowances near transit raised questions about where additional opportunities for upper MMH could occur.

• MMH types are grouped into two general categories:

House-Scale MMH Upper MMH

Designed to fit seamlessly into
neighborhoods of one to two stories and
have a footprint like that of a small to large
house.

Ranges from three to four stories and
typically have a similar width to house-scale
MMH as viewed from the street, however
they extend deeper into the lot compared
to house-scale MMH.

• The analysis is organized by evaluating the primary question:

What type of change does the General Plan’s policies mean in existing neighborhoods?
Neighborhood Patterns
• Under the 2040 General Plan, parcels within single-unit and duplex dwelling zones (R-1, R-1A, R-1B, and R-2) that are subject to the MMH Interim Ordinance are allowed a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0, or up to 2.0 for properties located within one-half mile of transit.
• Despite these differing FAR allowances, existing neighborhood patterns in both FAR

1.0 and FAR 2.0 areas are characterized predominantly by one- and two-story single-family homes. These patterns largely reflect historic zoning and development practices.

Types of Change
• The 2040 General Plan includes the following relevant adopted policies:
o LUP-4.1 Transit Supportive Development: The City shall encourage increased residential and commercial development intensity within ½ mile of existing high-frequency bust stops and existing and planned light rail stations, bus rapid transit stations, and commuter rail stations to support more frequent, reliable transit service and vibrant, walkable neighborhoods.

o LUP-6.4 Neighborhood Form: The City shall recognize the patterns in existing neighborhoods by developing designed transitions between these neighborhoods and adjoining areas, and by requiring that new development, both private and public, consider the existing physical characteristics of buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban form of the neighborhood in its design.
• As staff continues to update zoning code development standards (e.g., height, setbacks, lot coverage, and open space) to implement the 2040 General Plan, it has become clear that different approaches to balancing these policies will result in varying development standards and degrees of neighborhood change. • For analysis purposes, three levels of change are identified:
o Minor
o Moderate
o Transform
• Many neighborhoods located near transit are currently developed at intensities significantly below those allowed in the 2040 General Plan. Analysis indicates that placing greater emphasis on policies that support increased intensity would result in more substantial changes to existing development patterns. • In FAR 1.0 areas:
o Minor: Accommodates house-scale missing middle housing types such as cottage courts, duplexes, and triplexes.
o Moderate: Introduces small house-scale multiplexes in addition to the above housing types.
o Transformative: Allows buildings larger than house-scale, including those with a full third story.

• In FAR 2.0 areas:
o Minor Change: Accommodates small multiplexes, courtyard buildings, and fourplexes.
o Moderate Change: Allows larger upper MMH multiplex buildings. o Transformative Change: Results in building forms and scales that exceed typical MMH types (six-story podium buildings or larger).

Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Type of Change for Objective Standards
• Review process: Establish objective standards for Staff-level review of housing developments in the single-unit and duplex dwelling zones (R-1, R-1A, R-1B, R-2). • Council direction: Staff seek direction on what type of change should be reviewed at staff-level within existing neighborhoods: Minor, Moderate, or Transform Staff Recommendation: Minor and Moderate Change
• Staff-Level Review
o Applies to projects that meet all objective standards:
 FAR 1.0: House-Scale MMH Standards
 FAR 2.0: Upper MMH Standards
o Reviewed through established Site Plan and Design Review (SPDR) process o Decision made at the Staff level without a public hearing o Decisions subject to reconsideration, not appeal, by the Urban Design Manager
• Director-Level Review
o Applies to projects that exceed objective standards
o Reviewed through the City’s established SPDR process
o Decided at a Director hearing (held online weekly)
o Decision may be appealed to the Planning and Design Commission • Staff Rationale:
o Allows transformative projects, but with public hearing. o Consistent with General Plan definition of missing middle housing built to the same scale as surrounding single-family homes.
o Balances General Plan policies to recognize patterns in existing neighborhoods while also increasing intensity near transit.

Preliminary Development Standards for Minor and Moderate Change The following concepts are preliminary and provided to illustrate potential approaches for regulating house-scale and upper MMH. Specific standards are subject to further refinement based on Council direction, additional analysis, and zoning code development.

Preliminary House Scale Development Standards for FAR 1.0 • Building Footprint
o Regulated through building width and depth standards for main body and wings
• Building Height
o Typically 2.5 stories max; 24’ max. to top of highest eave o Attic story allowed to be occupied completely within a pitched roof with dormers
•

Preliminary Upper MMH Development Standards for FAR 2.0 Building Footprint
o Greater building width and depth standards than house-scale • Building Height
o Where not abutting or across street from intended house-scale parcel: 60’ max overall (typically 4-5 stories)
o Where abutting or across street from intended house-scale parcel: Up to 4 stories max: 45’ max

Attachment 4: SB 79 Overview
This attachment provides an overview of key provisions under SB 79.

This information is organized into the following sections:
 Overview
 Site Location
 Eligible Projects
 Development Standards
 Review Procedures
 Local Implementation Options
 Staff Recommendation
Overview
 Signed by the Governor on October 12, 2025 and effective July 1, 2026  Establishes statewide zoning standards for housing developments within ½ mile of transit stops
 Provides local jurisdictions with options for implementation  The full bill text is available by clicking here
Site Location
 Zoning: The site must be located on a site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development.
 Proximity to Transit: The site must be located within ½ mile of an eligible transit stop, such as light rail stations.

Eligible Projects
 Type: Housing development that may include mixed-use
 Minimum Number of Units: At least 5 dwelling units
 Minimum Density. 30 dwelling units per acre, or local requirement, whichever is greater
 Average Unit Size: 1,750 square feet or less
 Affordability Requirements (10 or more units):
o ≥ 7% extremely low,
o ≥ 10% very low, OR
o ≥ 13% lower income.
o 45-year (owner) and 55-year (rental) recorded restriction  Existing Housing
o Projects cannot demolish units unless they are replaced o Cannot be located on sites with more than 2 units if affordable units are demolished, including any demolished in the last 7 years  Labor standards for buildings over 85 feet tall
Development Standards
SB 79 Development Standards
Distance from
Transit Stop
Allowed
Height
Allowed
Density
Allowed
FAR
≤200 ft 85 ft 140 du/ac 4
200 ft- ¼ mile 65 ft 100 du/ac 3
¼ - ½ mile 55 ft 80 du/ac 2.5

Review Procedures
 SB 79 projects are eligible for ministerial review if they comply with additional affordability and prevailing wage requirements of SB 35 Local Implementation Options
 No Local Ordinance
o SB 79 does not require adoption of a local ordinance, and applications would be processed under State law
 Local Implementing Ordinance
o Adopt a local ordinance that does not modify State standards, but clarifies local administrative procedures
 Temporary Parcel Exemptions
o Exempt certain parcels from SB 79 through 2030 that already allow some of SB 79’s capacity, are in low-resource areas, or sites with a historic resource
 Alternative Plan
o Maintain SB 79 capacity requirement while redistributing development capacity within eligible areas
 Codify Height Standards into the Zoning Code
o Incorporate SB 79’s height allowances directly into the Zoning Code, applying them to commercial and higher intensity residential areas near transit without the State’s eligibility requirements
Staff Recommendation
 Local Implementing Ordinance that clarifies how applications will be received and processed, and
 Codify height standards in the commercial and higher intensity residential zones near transit without State eligibility requirements Rationale
 Prioritize intensity along commercial corridors (Policy LUP-8.7)  Allow affordable housing to utilize the development standards of SB 79 (Policy LUP-6.2)
 Developing a Local Alternative Plan would impact schedule of the zoning code update and raise questions about the City’s ability to affirmatively further fair housing while reallocating housing capacity
Attachment 5: Planning and Design Commission
Meeting Summary
On March 26, 2026, staff held a workshop with the Planning and Design Commission to review and receive comments on proposed modifications to the Missing Middle Housing (MMH) standards and the City’s approach to implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 79. This attachment summarizes key themes discussed during the meeting.

Public Comment Highlights
Bulk Control Standards
 Multiple commenters expressed concerns about the current bulk control standards noting they may increase project costs and constrain the development of three-story housing forms.

Clarity of Standards
 Small developers noted challenges associated with the interim ordinance including extended approval times and floor area ratio (FAR) limits in the sliding FAR scale perceived as restrictive.

Neighborhood Compatibility and Massing
 Architects generally supported increased residential density, but identified potential issues related to massing transitions, particularly where new taller buildings are adjacent to lower-scale structures.

Commission Discussion Summary
Bulk Control and House-Scale
 Commissioners discussed the complexity of current bulk control standards and their potential implications for project cost.
 Questions were raised regarding the distinction between proposed house-scale standards, such as limited third floors to pitched roof forms, and existing bulk control provisions.
 Some commissioners indicated support for allowing full use of the 35-foot height limit and allowing three stories with a flat roof in most residential areas.  Some commissioners emphasized that context matters, suggesting that building height and massing should be responsive to neighborhood conditions rather than applied uniformly.

Building Code
 The discussion included constraints associated with differences between residential and commercial building codes, particularly for buildings with three or more dwelling units.

Simplification and Public Clarity
 Commissioners noted that elements of the framework presented to the Commission, including multiple context types and detailed tables, may be difficult for the public to interpret.
 There was general support for simplifying the standards.

SB 79
 Commissioners expressed support for preparing a local implementing ordinance and codifying height standards in commercial and higher-intensity residential zones.
 Questions were raised regarding the applicability of in-lieu fees.  Commissioners also indicated interest in ensuring that zones without codified height limits include clear guidance on eligibility under SB 79 2040 General Plan & Zoning Consistency
Missing Middle Housing & Senate Bill 79 Workshop
City Council
April 14, 2026
1 Workshop Overview
• Background
• MMH & Staff Recommendation
• SB 79 & Staff Recommendation
• Next Steps & Discussion
2 Workshop Questions
Missing Middle Housing
What type of change do the 2040 General Plan’s policies mean in existing neighborhoods?
Senate Bill 79
What should the City’s approach to implementation be?
3 City Council Action
Review, comment, and provide direction on high-
level concepts. Recommend type of change.
4 Staff Follow-up Action
Based on recommended type of change, staff will
draft specific development standards
(e.g., height, setbacks, etc.)
2040 General Plan & Zoning Consistency
General
Plan
Master Plans, Specific
Plans, and Strategies
City Code, Ordinances, and
Operations
Longer T erm
Shorter T erm
More General
More Specific
• Zoning code update to align
with the 2040 General Plan
• State law requires consistency
with the General Plan
Key Updates Identified for Discussion
Update Development
Standards
Codify the Missing Middle
Housing Interim Ordinance
New State Legislation
(SB 79)
When 2040 General Plan adopted
February 27, 2024
Adopted September 17, 2024 Signed October 12, 2025
Effective July 1, 2026
What
It Means
-Remove maximum density
-Replace with (FAR)-based
development standards
Refinements based on
implementation for house-scale
buildings with multiple dwelling
units
Statewide standards for eligible
housing near transit that
sometimes exceed the General
Plan
Where
It Applies
All Zones Citywide Single-Unit and Duplex
Zones Citywide
(R-1, R-1A, R-1B, and R-2 zones)
Sites zoned for residential, mixed,
or commercial development
within ½ mile of eligible
transit stops
6 Key Updates Identified for Discussion
Update Development
Standards
Codify the Missing Middle
Housing Interim Ordinance
New State Legislation
(SB 79)
When 2040 General Plan adopted
February 27, 2024
Adopted September 17, 2024 Signed October 12, 2025
Effective July 1, 2026
What
It Means
-Remove maximum density
-Replace with (FAR)-based
development standards
Refinements based on
implementation for house-scale
buildings with multiple dwelling
units
Statewide standards for eligible
housing near transit that
sometimes exceed the General
Plan
Where
It Applies
All Zones Citywide Single-Unit and Duplex
Zones Citywide
(R-1, R-1A, R-1B, and R-2 zones)
Sites zoned for residential, mixed,
or commercial development
within ½ mile of eligible
transit stops
7 Key Updates Identified for Discussion
Update Development
Standards
Codify the Missing Middle
Housing Interim Ordinance
New State Legislation
(SB 79)
When 2040 General Plan adopted
February 27, 2024
Adopted September 17, 2024 Signed October 12, 2025
Effective July 1, 2026
What
It Means
-Remove maximum density
-Replace with (FAR)-based
development standards
Refinements based on
implementation for house-scale
buildings with multiple dwelling
units
Statewide standards for eligible
housing near transit that
sometimes exceed the General
Plan
Where
It Applies
All Zones Citywide Single-Unit and Duplex
Zones Citywide
(R-1, R-1A, R-1B, and R-2 zones)
Sites zoned for residential, mixed,
or commercial development
within ½ mile of eligible
transit stops
8 What is Floor Area Ratio (FAR)?
FAR = 0.5
FAR = 1.0
Building Area divided by Lot Area
FAR Examples
FAR = 1.9
FAR = 1.24FAR = 0.63
Duplex, Triplex, Sixplex
11 total units
Apartment Building
26 Units
Apartment Building
30 Units
2040 General Plan Policies
Encourage increased residential
development intensity within ½
mile of transit (LUP-4.1)
Recognize patterns in existing
neighborhoods (LUP-6.4)
12 What type of change
do the 2040 General
Plan’s policies mean
in existing
neighborhoods?
Missing Middle Housing
Minor
Moderate
Transform
13 Missing Middle Housing
13 Type of Change
(Council direction)
Updated Standards
(Staff draft standards for staff-level review)
Height
Depth
Side
Setback
Front
Setback
Rear
Setback Open
Space
House-Scale MMH Upper MMH
• Blends into neighborhoods with 1-2
story homes
• Similar scale to house
• Addressed in MMH Interim Ordinance
• 3-4 stories
• Similar width as house-scale
• Extend deeper into the lot
• Now being considered for FAR 2.0
What is Missing Middle Housing (MMH)?

MMH
Applications
Received
34 22 8 4 0
Submitted Approved In Progress Withdrawn Denied
Approved Building T ypes
Single-Unit Dwellings Duplex Dwellings Multi-Unit Dwellings (20+ Units)
FAR Density Units Per Application

0.4 18 du/ac 13
As of March 25, 2026
Planning Applications
Approved Project Averages
16 Missing Middle Housing
16 Areas Impacted:

Single Unit and
Duplex Zones with
FAR 1 and 2
FAR 2.0 – 20,000+ parcelsFAR 1.0 – 100,000+ parcels
17 Missing Middle Housing
17 Existing Neighborhood Patterns in FAR 1.0

18 Missing Middle Housing
18 In FAR1.0, what type of change should be reviewed at staff level? Minor Moderate Transform
Ex: Cottage Court Ex: Multiplex (small) Ex: Three Story Multiplex

19 Missing Middle Housing
19 In FAR1.0, what type of change should be reviewed at staff level? Minor Moderate Transform
Ex: Cottage Court Ex: Multiplex (small)
Ex: Three Story Multiplex
20 Missing Middle Housing
20 Up to Moderate Change in FAR1.0
Potential Standards
• Replace bulk control tent with third story
allowance in a pitched roof
• Keep 35 feet maximum overall height
• New building width and depth standards
• New ability to exceed objective standards with a
Director level hearing
• Keep staff-level review for projects smaller than
moderate change
Ex: Multiplex (small)
21 Missing Middle Housing
21 Existing Neighborhood Patterns in FAR 2.0
2121

22 Missing Middle Housing
22 In FAR 2.0, what type of change should be reviewed at staff level? Minor Moderate Transform
Ex: Fourplex Ex: Multiplex (Large) Ex: Larger than MMH
23 Missing Middle Housing
23 In FAR 2.0, what type of change should be reviewed at staff level? Minor Moderate Transform
Ex: Fourplex Ex: Multiplex (Large) Ex: Larger than MMH
24 Missing Middle Housing
24 Up to Moderate Change in FAR 2.0
Potential Standards
• Remove bulk control tent
• Increase the current 35 feet maximum overall
height to allow a fourth floor
• New building width and depth standards greater
than in FAR 1.0
• New ability to exceed objective standards with a
Director level hearing
• Keep staff-level review for projects smaller than
moderate change
Ex: Multiplex (large)
25 Senate Bill 79
What should the City’s approach to
implementation be?
SB 79
• Effective July 1, 2026
• Establishes Statewide
zoning standards
• Applies to eligible
housing near transit
stops
SB 79 Development Standards
Distance from Stop Height Density FAR
≤ 200 ft 85 ft 140 du/ac 4
≤ ¼ mile 65 ft 100 du/ac 3
¼ - ½ mile 55 ft 80 du/ac 2.5
Affected Areas
Draft Map of Parcels Affected by SB 79
Please note these are draft maps and official
authoritative maps will be published at a
later date by SACOG.
26 SB 79
Affected Areas
Please note these are draft maps and official
authoritative maps will be published at a
later date by SACOG.

SB 79 Development Standards
Distance from Stop Height Density FAR
≤ 200 ft 85 ft 140 du/ac 4
≤ ¼ mile 65 ft 100 du/ac 3
¼ - ½ mile 55 ft 80 du/ac 2.5
Draft Map of MMH Zoned Parcels Affected by SB 79
27 ~29,000 parcels in Single-
Unit and Duplex
(MMH) zones near
transit impacted
SB 79
Project T ype
Housing or mixed-use with
≥
5 units
Minimum Density
•
30 dwelling units/acre or
• 2040 General Plan standard
(whichever is greater)
Average Unit Size
≤
1,750 square feet
Affordability
Projects with
10+ units
Labor Standards
Buildings
>85 feet tall
Eligibility
Requirements
28 $
SB 79
Staff
Recommendation
What this Means
• Ordinance clarifies how applications will be processed, does not modify State standards
• Codify SB 79 height limits in commercial and higher intensity residential zones near transit
Rationale
• Prioritize intensity along commercial corridors (Policy LUP-8.7) • Allow affordable housing to utilize the development standards of SB 79 (Policy LUP-6.2)
29 Local Implementing Ordinance
Codify Height Standards into the Zoning Code
Next Steps
30 Zoning Code
Update
Schedule
Analysis
• Current – Spring 2026
Community Engagement
• Spring – Summer 2026
Prepare Ordinance
• Fall – Winter 2026
Final Public Hearings and Adoption
• Winter 2026
31 Thank you
32 Jamie Mosler
Associate Planner
[email protected]
Amy Yang
Senior Planner
[email protected]
cityofsacramento.gov/zoningcodeupdate
Workshop Questions
Missing Middle Housing
What type of change does the 2040 General Plan’s policies mean in existing neighborhoods?
Senate Bill 79
What should the City’s approach to implementation be?
33 Additional Images to Reference As Needed
34 35
Missing Middle Housing
35 Minor Change in FAR1.0
Ex: Cottage Court Ex: Duplex Ex: Triplex

36 Missing Middle Housing
36 Moderate Change in FAR1.0
Ex: Multiplex (small)
Ex: Courtyard Building Ex: Fourplex
37 Missing Middle Housing
37 Transform Change in FAR1.0
Ex: Full Three-Story Buildings

38 Missing Middle Housing
38 Minor Change in FAR 2.0
Ex: Multiplex (small)
Ex: Courtyard Building Ex: Fourplex
39 Missing Middle Housing
39 Moderate Change in FAR 2.0
Ex: Multiplex (large)

40 Missing Middle Housing
40 Transform Change in FAR 2.0
Ex: Four Story and Above Buildings Larger than MMH