Category: Missing Middle Housing Project

Sac missing middle housing gets better

Dan Allison1 Comment

The Sacramento City Council will hear tonight (Tuesday, November 28, 2023, 5:00PM) on a recommendation to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from 1 to 2 in areas within a half mile of frequent transit, and other improvements. The Missing Middle Housing program is part of the 2040 General Plan update. In October, staff brought missing middle housing to the council. Housing advocates led by House Sacramento suggested several improvements, and several council members spoke strongly in favor of improvements. See Sac missing middle housing project for background. So at the council meeting tonight, staff will be back with some of the recommended improvements. The documents are here: body of the staff report; table of public comments (the comments account for most of the size of the document, so the body will download much faster).

Public support for improved missing middle housing program policies and areas is critical to ensure that it will end up strong in the general plan. Though people opposed to better housing availability (NIMBYs) have so far not shown up to speak against it, they have been using their political power behind the scenes to ensure that housing remains scarce (which increases their own property values) and that their neighborhood does not change nor include people who have been excluded from housing and opportunity. Of course these Missing Middle Housing program elements will only take effect if they are not weakened when the 2040 General Plan is adopted, perhaps late next year. So housing advocates will need to remain vigilant.

Please see the House Sacramento Take Action page for information about providing public comment on the issue, and suggestions for your comments.

I believe that the public should support these changes. The general plan could be even better, by removing zoning completely, but this represents a huge improvement over both existing conditions and the earlier proposal.

  1. Floor area ratio (FAR) changed from 1 to 2 for all areas within a half mile of frequent transit service (which means if and when areas get better transit service, they can be similarly be allows greater housing density and variety). See map below (pdf). While the area changed is not huge, it represents a huge opportunity for more housing along light rail and SacRT bus route 1 along Stockton.
  2. The cap on dwelling per parcel are removed. Use of FAR will provide the appropriate level of control without reference to number of units. The cap on dwelling is a continuation of the exclusionary housing policies of the past.
  3. Creation of a sliding FAR scale. To be honest, I don’t quite understand this policy, but I trust to House Sacramento that it is useful.
map of areas with FAR increased to 2 within half mile of frequent transit

Sac missing middle housing project

Dan Allison1 Comment

From the City of Sacramento Missing Middle Housing Project page:

“Missing Middle Housing (MMH) is a range of small multi-unit housing types that are similar in scale to a single-family house and are often found in walkable areas. This study focuses on duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, ADUs, and bungalow courts. MMH types are ‘middle’ in form and scale between that of small single-family houses and larger apartment buildings, enabling them to blend into existing residential neighborhoods. With smaller units, MMH can provide housing at price points attainable to many middle-income households.”

If you would like to see what missing middle housing looks like, head to midtown Sacramento, where missing middle is mostly NOT missing. Midtown has a mix of building uses and housing types. There are corner grocery stores, single family houses, bungalow courts (cottage court, in the MMH documents), multi-unit apartments, and large apartment buildings, with clusters of commercial areas hosted small locally owned businesses.

Midtown was created before the city decided (along with most governments) that uses should be far separated, jobs downtown and housing in the far suburbs. It prohibited most of the kinds of buildings that exist today in midtown. Some of this was through exclusionary zoning, and some through parking mandates that made affordable housing almost impossible. Most, though not all, of midtown escaped the city and state’s urban renewal travesty of the 1960s and 1970s. The city and state replaced missing middle, and lower income, housing, and the people who lived there, with state buildings and parking lots throughout downtown Sacramento (west of 15th Street). But the urban renewal project had just bitten into the edge of midtown, to 17th Street, before urban renewal was stopped, and the housing that had been purchased and not yet torn down was transferred to Capitol Area Development Agency (CADA). And parking mandates were removed from the central city (midtown and downtown).

The Missing Middle Housing Project will become part of the 2020 General Plan update. Four reports will be produced, and the first two are done: MMH Informational Report, and MMH Attainability & Livability Analysis. The analysis was the topic in front of the city council on October 24. All the public comments were in favor of the concept, and requested strengthening the project by removing some of the remnants of the old zoning regime such as tiers matching existing zoning patterns, and unnecessary dwelling unit limits. Floor area ratio (FAR) should be the only built environment limit. The council was also very much in favor of a stronger program, and clearly favored removal of dwelling unit limits. All the attendees were pleased at the support of the council for a strong MMH plan.

My point of concern was recommendation 9, Approval Process – “A discretionary design review process will be required for MMH projects, allowing opportunity for community input.” in the staff presentation. This page is below, and pdf. This type of community review, where NIMBYs are able to kill housing of any density greater than current density, and housing for people of color and lower income, is what got us into this fix to begin with, it is largely the reason missing middle housing is missing. It included in the final proposal, this one item could potentially kill any new housing, by allowing the same exclusionary policies to continue.

City staff tried to clarify that design review would be by city staff, and not public hearings, but that is not what the text says. It says ‘community input’. I’m certainly not opposed to community input, but it should be up front, at the level of policy review, and not review of individual projects. Review of individual projects would force middle housing to continue to be missing.