Sacramento City Council Meeting – April 14, 2026

The Sacramento City Council met on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, at 5:03 p.m. in City Hall Chamber. The meeting featured special presentations for Autism Acceptance Month and International Transgender Day of Visibility, the retirement of Community Development Director Tom Pace, and a workshop on the 2040 General Plan zoning consistency focused on Missing Middle Housing (MMH) and Senate Bill 79. Two cannabis-related public hearings were withdrawn. The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.

Special Presentations

• Autism Acceptance Month (April 2026): Councilmember Mai Vang presented a resolution recognizing April as Autism Acceptance Month, moving from awareness to acceptance. Three organizations were honored: Artism, Impact, and UC Davis MIND Institute. Speakers emphasized that 1 in 31 children are diagnosed with autism and called for culturally responsive care and inclusive communities. The resolution commits to a community-informed system of care.
• International Transgender Day of Visibility (March 31): Councilmembers Kaplan, Pluckebaum, and Mayor Pro Tem Guerra co-sponsored a proclamation recognizing March 31 as Transgender Day of Visibility. They highlighted that over 500 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced nationally and that nearly 1 in 3 transgender people in California report discrimination in employment or housing. The Gender Health Center was honored for providing free clinics, HIV testing, and linkages to care.
• Tom Pace Retirement: Vice Mayor Talamantes and councilmembers celebrated Tom Pace, Director of Community Development, for his 25+ years of service. He was credited with making Sacramento a pro-housing jurisdiction and the first city in California to receive that designation. Pace expressed gratitude to his team and noted he will continue legislative advocacy in retirement.

Public Hearings (Withdrawn)

• Item 1: Ordinance amending Title 17 regarding cannabis land uses – withdrawn.
• Item 2: Resolution establishing business operating permit fees for cannabis consumption lounges – withdrawn.

Discussion Calendar: 2040 General Plan & Zoning Consistency — Missing Middle Housing & SB 79 Workshop

Staff Presentation (Jamie Mosler, Associate Planner):

• The 2040 General Plan requires updating zoning to replace maximum residential density with maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Most parcels in single-unit/duplex zones have FAR 1.0 (over 100,000 parcels) or FAR 2.0 (over 20,000 parcels, near transit).
• Since the MMH interim ordinance (summer 2024), as of March 25, 2026: 34 planning applications submitted, 22 approved, 8 in progress. Common building types: 1-2 unit buildings; average FAR 0.4; average density 18 dwelling units/acre; 13 units per application. No three-to-eight-unit projects have been built.
• Staff recommended: For FAR 1.0 areas, minor and moderate change (e.g., duplexes, small multiplexes) reviewed at staff level; a third story allowed only under a pitched roof unless discretionary review. For FAR 2.0 areas, allow up to four stories, remove bulk control entirely, and permit larger buildings with director-level review for deviations.
• SB 79 (effective July 1, 2026) sets state standards near transit: heights up to 55–85 feet and FAR up to 2.5–4.0 depending on distance. Staff recommended a local implementing ordinance and codifying SB 79 heights into commercial/higher-intensity zones to allow projects to use those standards without meeting all SB 79 eligibility requirements.

Public Comments (18 speakers, MMH-focused):

• Speakers from North State BIA, Sacramento Association of Realtors, House Sacramento, Strong Sac Town, Sacramento Metro Chamber, AIA Central Valley, and several residents uniformly opposed the proposed bulk control standards, width/depth restrictions, and pitched-roof requirements. They argued these would make small-scale projects infeasible and delay housing production.
• Many called for removing bulk control entirely and keeping the interim ordinance without additional restrictions. Speakers noted that no three-to-eight-unit projects have been built under the interim ordinance, indicating current rules are too restrictive.
• A small developer described challenges with setbacks and open-space requirements preventing three-story buildings. Several speakers urged allowing simple three-story buildings by-right without aesthetic mandates.
• A few speakers supported retaining some design standards to ensure neighborhood compatibility and green space.

Council Discussion & Direction:

• Councilmember Maple led the direction, supported by Kaplan, Pluckebaum, Vang, and others: Remove bulk control entirely; do not add width/depth or pitched-roof requirements; keep the interim ordinance but make it more flexible. Emphasized the need to treat housing as a crisis and avoid aesthetic restrictions that block density.
• Mayor Pro Tem Guerra asked staff to re-engage neighborhood associations (e.g., East Sac, Robla) to discuss bulk control impacts before finalizing.
• Councilmember Dickinson requested visual comparisons of different approaches and emphasized time certainty, form-based codes, and focusing density near transit corridors.
• Councilmember Jennings supported streamlined rules and asked staff to explore form-based coding to simplify policies.
• No formal vote was taken; this was a direction-only item. Staff will use council input to develop specific standards and conduct community engagement, with a final ordinance anticipated by winter 2026.

Public Comments – Matters Not on the Agenda (10 speakers)

• Several speakers urged continued funding for the SAC RT free youth ride-share program (RideShare); noted ridership grew from 1.6 million (2021) to 4.7 million (2024) and requested formal funding mechanisms.
• Multiple family members of a shooting victim on March 25, 2026 (Oak Park) criticized lack of support from city officials, police, and victim services. They demanded accountability, resources for displaced families, and trauma care.
• Speakers called for a comprehensive approach to violence prevention (CVI) and criticized current programs (e.g., OVP) as ineffective. They requested community-based organizations be better resourced and coordinated.
• One speaker opposed a proposed homeless shelter location in North Natomas, advocating for a mixed-use development instead.
• A comment about the city attorney’s statements regarding a legal case was noted.

Key Outcomes

• The council provided clear direction to staff to remove bulk control standards and not impose new width, depth, or pitched-roof requirements in the MMH ordinance. The interim ordinance should remain the baseline, with flexibility for three-story buildings by-right.
• Staff will proceed with community engagement and bring back a refined ordinance for adoption by end of 2026.
• The council acknowledged the need for amenities (parks, grocery stores) to accompany increased density.
• No action was taken on public comments regarding violence, homelessness, or transit; those were informational.