Evening.

Good evening.

Welcome to the meeting of the Thursday, March 26, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Design Commission, City of Sacramento.

Meeting is now called to order.

Sorry, that was a too soon on that.

Will the clerk clerk please call the uh roll to establish a quorum?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee?

Here.

Commissioner Tao.

Absent.

Commissioner Lamas.

Commissioner Naibo.

Vice Chair Caden.

Here.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Here.

Commissioner Messias Reed?

Here.

Commissioner Young.

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Here.

Commissioner Blunt.

Commissioner Rishkey?

Here.

Commissioner Thompson.

Thompson.

Chair Chase.

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

Good evening.

I have a few announcements regarding our scheduled items here tonight.

Public item number two, Deer Creek Plaza PUD amendment is being withdrawn.

And public hearing item number three, an ordinance amending various provisions of Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code relating to off-street bicycle and vehicle parking is being continued to April 23rd.

So those two in case anyone is here for either of those items.

Regarding the main remaining items, I'd like to remind those uh in the audience who wish to speak on any items in today's agenda.

Uh please turn on a speaker slip before the item begins.

You will have three minutes to speak once you are called on.

After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We'll now proceed with a land acknowledgement followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please rise.

To the original people of this land, the Nissan Nissanon people, the Southern Maidu Valley and Plains Miwok, Patwin Winton peoples, and the people of the Wilt Wilton Ranch Maria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice of acknowledgments and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

And Pledge of Allegiance for the Pledge of Regions.

Thank you.

Well Mr.

Lamas, huh?

Did we expect him to be here?

Sorry.

Before we begin our business today, it's my privilege on behalf of the Planning and Design Commission to recognize the dedication and service of Commissioners Julio Lamas and Enoch Young.

I notice uh Julia Lamas hopefully will be here.

Uh Commissioner Young is here.

Um I'd like to present a uh certificate uh on behalf of their award, but before I do that, any other um commissioners have uh anything they want to say uh Commissioner Nybo up here Commissioner Massius Reed I was saddened to hear that you were leaving, but I know it's to spend time with family, so um take back that time and I've had I've really enjoyed serving with you.

Um you have always had really thoughtful questions um and really care about the community and so I really appreciate that.

Thank you, Commissioner Hernandez.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I want to echo the sentiments by Commissioner Messias Reed.

Um, Commissioner Young.

Uh we really appreciate your leadership on the commission when you were serving um in that capacity.

Uh your thoughtfulness, you do ask very great questions and you always try to work towards that very um thoughtful solutions, always keeping your community and the broader Sacramento community at mind.

Uh top of mind um in in your discussions and as uh as a an expert on on these issues.

Um it's been a pleasure working alongside with you.

Um you will be missed.

Um you will be missed, um, and we're just so happy that we had the chance to to meet and um congratulations on your next endeavors.

Thank you.

Commissioner Overties Thank you.

Uh I also want to echo my appreciation along with others that I was new to this body, and you were such a um helpful resource.

Um you uh were very gracious and took any and all questions, many of them not quite so um uh thoughtful, but you you endeavored, and I really appreciate and I'm gonna miss you.

Um so I probably have served the shortest time with you, um, but I really really will miss you.

Thank you.

And I would like to also uh kind of echo the comments from my uh fellow commissioners.

It's been great to have you on the commission.

Uh it was great to serve as vice chair under you.

I learned a lot, and I think you've always you've heard this from others, but always presented a very thoughtful uh analysis of whatever was uh before us, and I think we're gonna miss that.

Really are so thank you for your service.

And with that, I'd like to present a uh certificate.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

You know, wait one minute because we will do uh triple with that timing.

Fortunately, he walked in just in time to get his uh award.

Um as I said earlier, I also want to thank uh Commissioner Lamas for his service on the uh commission and uh like to ask if any other uh commissioners have any comments or thoughts Commissioner Hernandez, thank you, Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Lamas.

Uh congratulations on your service here.

Thank you so much for lending your voice.

You you're the community that you represent has very unique points of view, and so you've been a fantastic representative in showcasing that and making sure that they felt heard and seen um and that their um that their perspective was uh part of the discussion here as we make um these decisions.

So it's been an a great time uh with you on the commission, um especially your very measured um and and um also thoughtful considerations of all the items.

Um so we will miss you.

Um congratulations again, and uh we hope to see you around Sacramento.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner Macius Reed.

I did not know you were leaving.

Um, but um I guess congratulations.

Um I did maybe hear that you had um new endeavors as well professionally, so I guess congratulations as well.

Um also to spend time with your I get somewhat new new family.

Um so I think um that'll be great to take some time back as well.

But thank you so much.

Your um representation for District Three is immense and shows at the dais.

Um, so it's been really incredible.

Thank you.

I'd also like to uh thank you for your service here as well.

You you certainly bring a unique background to the commission that I don't think we've had before, and that's really been appreciative, and I think it's been helpful and very thoughtful on a lot of the things come before us.

And again, I congratulate you on your your new endeavors as well.

So uh with that I'd like to present you with a certificate if you don't.

And I guess now's the time, Commissioner Hernandez.

I didn't know I didn't know till this morning.

Three, so no director's report.

With that, we'll move on to the uh consent calendar.

Um proceed to approval of the consent calendar.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Seeing none, um, there any commissioners who wish to speak on this is there a motion and a second for approval of the consent calendar.

Commissioner Caden.

I'll move the item.

Commissioner Hernandez Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Uh Clerk, will you take a vote?

Yeah, Commissioner Lee.

Commissioner Tao.

Commissioner Lamas.

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo.

Vice Chair Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Aye.

Commissioner Messias Reid.

Aye.

Commissioner Young.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Aye.

Commissioner Blenn.

Commissioner Mishki.

Hi.

Commissioner Thompson.

Thompson.

And Chair Chase.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

We will now proceed to the discussion calendar item four.

Workshop workshop preliminary framework for regulating cottages on wheels.

I thought we were going to reverse.

Yeah.

Pardon me.

We discussed earlier.

We're gonna we're gonna switch up uh two items, uh, item four and item five.

So the next uh item we'll talk about is is item five on the calendar, the uh 2040 general plan and zoning consistency.

Uh missing middle housing uh standards and Senate Bill SB 79 workshop.

Is there a staff presentation?

Go back one.

Oh, that's my job actually.

All right, perfect.

Um good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Jamie Mosler, associate planner in the long-range planning team.

We're here tonight for a workshop as part of the 2040 general plan and zoning consistency work.

Tonight focused on missing middle housing and Senate Bill 79.

As an overview of tonight's presentation, I'll first give some background of how we got here.

I'll then describe both missing middle housing and SB 79 along with our recommendations.

Then we'll describe the next steps for the overall zoning consistency work and have time for discussion to get your feedback on our recommendations tonight.

Two key questions that we're looking for input from the commission tonight for missing middle housing.

What type of change does the 2040 general plan's vision mean across the city?

And for SB 79, what should the city's approach to implementation be?

Tonight we're asking PDC to review and comment on high-level concepts and policies and recommended degree of change once we have direction from PDC and later from council, we'll come back and with drafted more specific development standards, things like height setbacks, etc.

All right, so starting with some background.

The reason we're here tonight is because of the 2040 general plan that was adopted by city council in 2024.

This document includes policies and implementation actions to guide more detailed decision making with regards to development, and staff is now in the process of updating the zoning code for consistency with this plan, which is a requirement of state law.

As discussed with the commission last summer, there's several updates we need to make to our code for consistency, but we're just focusing on a few of them tonight.

So, first with updating development standards, this direction is from our general plan.

What this means is removing maximum density across all of our zones, replacing our development standards to be based around the maximum FAR in the general plan, and increasing the intensity of development allowed near transit.

This applies across all zones citywide.

We're also working on codifying the missing middle housing interim ordinance.

This was adopted summer of 2024.

We're working on refinements and improvements based on our implementation experience to allow house-scale buildings with multiple dwelling units inside.

This applies to single unit and duplex zones city-wide.

Then the last item is since our work started on the zoning cut update, new state legislation has been signed.

SB 79 is effective this summer.

It establishes statewide zoning standards for eligible housing near transit that sometimes exceed the allowances in the general plan.

This bill applies in eligible zones within a half mile of transit stops.

Throughout tonight's presentation, you're gonna hear FAR a lot, so I wanted to spend a moment just clarifying what this means.

It's floor area ratio, and that is how the general plan regulates maximum building intensity across the city.

It's calculated by dividing building area by lot area.

So on a 5,000 square foot lot, a 5,000 square foot building is gonna give you an FAR of one, but a 2,500 square foot building on that same lot would give you an FAR of 0.5.

And the general plan establishes maximum FARs of 1 through 15 throughout the city, and higher FAR allowances are located near transit.

All right, so for missing middle housing, as mentioned, the key question for tonight is what type of change does the 2040 general plan's vision mean across the city.

Um defines this as house-scale buildings that contain more than one home that are usually built to the same scale as surrounding single family homes.

Some examples of this include duplexes, triplexes, and cottage courts as shown on the slide.

As mentioned earlier, we adopted our interim ordinance to allow multi-unit house scale dwellings and the single unit and duplex zones and adjusted our development standards to facilitate these.

These projects are also subject to our sliding FAR scale, shown there on the bottom of the slide where projects receive more floor area as more units are provided up to the maximum FAR.

Um, for most parcels in the MMH zones, they have a maximum FAR of one, but for other parcels that are in your transit, they have a maximum FAR of two.

Since the ordinance has been adopted, we've been tracking the number of applications that we've received.

As of last month, 19 projects were approved.

The most common building types we're seeing are definitely single unit and duplex dwellings.

There was only one project that had multi-unit dwellings with the larger number of units on them, but most projects are consisting of single unit and duplex dwellings.

The average FAR of approved project is 0.4, average density, 18 dwelling units per acre, and an average of three units per lot.

Since we began reflecting on the applications we were receiving and wanting to work on improving our ordinance, we brought back on Opticos Design, which is an award-winning firm that pioneered the concept of missing little housing.

I'm supported here by Tony Perez from Opticos Tonight who can support with any questions about their work during our question and answers.

But our analysis of the interim ordinance, focusing on improvements really focused on three areas.

Aligning with the 2040 general plan, streamlining standards for house scale missing middle housing, and identifying opportunities to address what's known as upper missing middle housing.

There's a spectrum of missing little housing types there at the bottom of the slide, ranging from duplexes to townhouses that get bigger from house scale on the left to block scale on the right.

But generally speaking, these can be broken into two categories.

House scale MMH is designed to blend into neighborhoods with one to two story homes, has a similar scale and footprint as a house.

Upper MMH was not, you know, the focus of our interim ordinance, but it's a little bit bigger, typically three to four stories.

If you look at it from the street, it has the same width, but it covers more of the lot when comparing it to house scale.

And so with our analysis, you know, most of the MMH zone parcels have a maximum FAR of one and two.

And so we looked at what this looks like across different contexts across the city to understand what different types of change would result.

And these results help us determine what development standards like height and setbacks should be in the zoning code.

To understand what type of change may occur, we needed to first understand the existing built environment.

And so we use the context types that were developed as part of the 2023 missing little housing study that consider things like street and block patterns, lot configurations, transit access, and the built form.

Low scale residential consists primarily of one to two story single family homes with some multi-unit or commercial and nearby arterials.

Transitional refers to moderately walkable areas with primarily two to three story house scale buildings.

Corridors and centers are mostly single story, commercial with parking and some residential nearby.

And then compact and connected are designed for walking, biking, and transit with one to two story house scale to taller block scale near the city core.

All right, so this table is in the staff report, and we're gonna break it down by FAR, but basically what this table is showing is based on the desired degree of change, there are different MMH strategies that we would use.

So as mentioned, most of the MMH zone parcels have a maximum FAR of one in the general plan.

Generally speaking, a development built up to an FAR of one is going to have, it's gonna be house scale.

There's three degrees of change that we identify.

There's minor, moderate, and transform.

If minor change is desired, then we would want to write development standards for cottage courts, duplexes, four plexes, and townhomes.

If moderate change is desired, then we'd write development standards to also allow courtyard buildings, multiplexes, and live work units.

And if there's a desire for standards that transform a neighborhood, we would focus on upper missing little housing.

Some types include like triplex stacked and stacked flats.

Essentially, the more change is desired, we would create development standards for larger buildings.

All right, so moving up to FAR 1.5.

This isn't a maximum in the general plan.

There's only one and two, but we wanted to show more radiation and development outcomes.

Generally speaking, FAR is up to 1.5 are gonna be larger than house scale and more block scale.

So in this area, if a minor degree of change is desired, then we'd be creating development standards to enable triplexes, floorplexes, townhouses, courtyard, multiplex live work.

But if moderate and transformed change is desired, then it'd be development standards for upper missing middle housing, so like triplexes stacked and stacked flats.

And then lastly, going up to FAR 2.0.

Again, this is generally gonna result in more block scale versus house scale.

If a minor degree of change is desired here, that would be creating development standards for triplexes, floorplexes, townhouses, courtyards, multiplex, live works.

For a moderate degree of change, that would be creating standards for upper missing middle housing.

And then if transformative change is desired in neighborhoods with FAR 2.0, 2.0, excuse me, that's gonna result in buildings that are even larger than missing middle housing just with the amount of FAR that you're working with and give you things more like six-story buildings or taller.

So this slide brings all of the columns that we just went over together.

Generally speaking, if we'd like to facilitate minor change, we'd be looking at creating development standards for house scale missing middle types.

For moderate change, we'd be looking at house scale to upper missing little housing types near transit, and then for transform, we'd be looking at upper MMH to buildings that are even bigger than MMH.

Really depends on how much change is desired, and then we would write development standards to allow that change.

To help visualize what this would look like, we tested a site in the compact and connected context type.

So as a reminder, that's a neighborhood designed for walking, biking, and transit.

The immediately surrounding buildings here are one story, and this is more narrow lot, and there's within a half mile of transit, so it has a maximum FAR of two.

The image on the left shows you two block two duplexes on the site, what that could look like, and this would be more of a minor degree of change in this area.

The middle images shows you townhouses, which are part of moderate degree of change and a little bit more FAR.

And then the image on the right shows you what full build out of an FAR2 would look like on a site of this size, which is larger than missing little housing in scale.

We also looked at a site in the transitional context.

So this is moderately walkable area where cars are needed for some trips.

Existing neighbors on either side of the site are single story, but there is also some two-story in this neighborhood as well.

It's also within a half mile of transit, but this lot is a bit larger than the one that we looked at previously.

The image on the left shows what a minor to moderate degree of change would look like with duplexes and triplexes in the front and a sixplex up the rear.

As you get higher in FAR, you know, even at 1.2 or 1.9, those are both buildings that would be larger than missing middle housing and report and result in more of a transformative degree of change.

So all this leads back to our key question for missing middle housing of what type of change does the 2040 general plan's vision mean across the city.

Minor change would mean creating development standards prioritizing the existing context.

Moderate change would mean creating development standards that balance existing contacts and build out of the FAR.

And then transform would mean creating development standards prioritizing solely full full build out of the FAR.

Staff's recommendation tonight is for a moderate change.

What this means is we would create objective development standards for both house scale, missing middle housing, and upper MMH and areas near transit.

This would both be subject to staff level review.

Folks would still be eligible to exceed those standards with a deviation of director level hearing, which is more flexible than the interim ordinance, that doesn't allow for deviations unless there is an extreme circumstance.

Our rationale for this is that we feel it balances both the general plan policies for increasing intensity near transit and recognizing patterns in existing neighborhoods, that the general plan has a policies for both of these.

Minor is not our recommendation, but what this would mean would be objective development standards for house scale missing little housing only, everything out at staff level.

Everything else would be subject to a director level hearing to deviate that from that.

Again, this is not our recommendation because we don't feel it balances both of those policies in our general plan and focuses solely on patterns in existing neighborhoods.

On the other side, transform is also not a recommendation, but this would be objective development standards, full build-out of the FARs at staff level review.

Nothing would be exceeding a standard, and so there wouldn't be a public hearing.

This is not recommended because again, doesn't feel like it balances both of the policies in the general plan and focuses solely on intensity near transit.

Going even further than the transform change that we've been talking about is SB 79, and our question tonight on this is what approach or what should the city's approach to implementation be.

So this law becomes effective this summer and establishes statewide zoning standards for eligible housing near transit, depending on where a site is within, you know, how close it is transit.

Within 200 feet, they are eligible for a height of 85 feet in NFAR four, within a quarter mile, 65 feet height, an FAR three, and then a quarter to half mile height of 55 feet and an FAR of 2.5.

This also intersects with the missing middle housing policy that we've been talking about, and approximately 29,000 parcels in the single unit and duplex zones are also within a half mile of a transit stop eligible for SB 79.

However, to utilize the heights and FARs provided by S B 79, projects need to meet certain requirements, such as providing at least five dwelling units, meeting a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre or the local requirement, whichever is greater, an average unit size of 1750 square feet, affordability requirements if there's 10 or more units, and then labor standards if projects are 85 feet or taller.

The bill provides local jurisdictions with several options for their implementation.

The first is no local ordinance, we're not required to adopt one, but we would still need to process any applications in accordance with state law.

Second would be adopting a local implementing ordinance where we wouldn't be modifying any of the standards but clarifying the local administrative procedures of how an application would be processed.

The bill also allows for temporary parcel exemptions until 2030 for some parcels that already allow some of the capacity or in low resource areas or contain a historic resource.

Also provides an option for a local alternative plan where within the half mile area of the transit stop, you can shift the where the heights are and where the FARs are, but within certain parameters.

And then the last option would be just taking the heights from SP 79 itself and just putting them into the zoning code without having to meet some of the state's eligibility requirements, such as the affordability piece or the 30 dwelling units per acre minimum density.

Staff is recommending the local implementing ordinance and codifying height standards into the zoning code.

What that means is we'd have an ordinance clarifying how applications would be received and processed here at the city, and then we'd also codify the SB79 heights into the commercial and higher intensity or essentially the non-MMH residential zones near transit.

What that means is unlike C2, for example, which is on a lot of corridors, those projects, if they're eligible, if they want to do that height, they don't have to meet SB79's affordability and density.

But if they weren't MMH they would zone, they would still need to meet the state's eligibility requirements to use the heights of SC 79.

The rationale here was to prioritize intensity along commercial corridors, but still allow and facilitate affordable housing to use the full development standards of SP 79.

Staff's not recommending a local alternative plan as it would affect the schedule of the zoning code update, which we'll talk about in a moment, and also raise questions about if we were shifting capacity, how would we, you know, the requirement to affirmatively further for our housing, how would we decide where it gets shifted?

That I'll describe our next staffs for the overall update.

So right now we're in our analysis phase through spring.

We're doing a workshop here at the PDC and with council to gear input before we put together a framework of all the proposed zoning code changes and rezones.

Once we have that, we'll do community engagement and all the proposed changes, including a stop here at the planning and design commission.

We'll then take that along with all the input to prepare the ordinance and bring it back for final public hearing and then adoption by the end of the year in the winter.

In the more near-term future, on April 14th, we'll be doing a similar workshop with the city council as well, focusing on missing little housing in SB79.

And then in the summer, we'll come back to the planning and design commission with an overview of all of the proposed Title 17 or zoning code changes and rezons during community engagement.

That our contact information is on the screen.

And I did want to highlight that there is a website for this project, city of sacramento.gov/slash zoning code update where folks can sign up to receive updates.

We sent an email last week about this meeting as well, for example.

And then I will leave this up here to help facilitate the discussion tonight.

Um, myself, city staff are here to answer any questions, and we're really looking forward to receiving your feedback on these important issues.

So thank you.

Thank you, Jamie.

Very good presentation, very clear and appreciated.

Um I'd like to ask first are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this uh ordinance.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I have a handful of speakers.

Can I please have Michael Turchin come forward and then Maximila Rosa, please?

Hey everybody, um Michael Turgeon here.

I'm president of House Sacramento, uh, your local volunteer YMB, yes, in my backyard uh organization.

Um, just want to say a couple things to like kick a kick off the discussion here.

Um, first, we really appreciate the very thorough analysis uh analysis and table setting offered by the staff report and recognize that this is the evolution of a much longer process and that many of the concepts in the staff report are possible tools rather than a formal red line proposal at this stage, and we know there's more community engagement and stuff going forward.

Um, and we really appreciate this engagement step and presenting this portfolio of options rather than going right to it.

Um, I also recognize that to uh some extent the bulk control or house scale policy that has been controversial in the past, and we'll hear more from is you know responding to some amount of direction from the uh previous general plan.

However, what we'd love to see is a way to make this work in all neighborhoods in the city that doesn't totally choke off the ability for us to get um three-story residences, which really are the workhorse of missing middle housing.

They're the projects that are penciling out now that you see in areas of the city where the standard doesn't apply, and we would love a way for um these types of projects to make sense in Land Park or ESAC or anywhere else touched by the missing middle code.

Uh we also love the block scale standard that we saw in the staff report.

Would love more clarity and discussion on where that's going to be applied.

Um, we love adding SB 79 heights directly into the code, although I think we do have some questions about how those would interact with house scale standards in the event where you have an overlap between a missing middle zone and an SB 79 zone.

Um, and just want to say, as an advocate for more abundant, sustainable and affordable housing in Sacramento, um, I urge the commission to consider limiting or shaping uh the scope of application of the house scale standards that we can unlock these projects.

Um I just want to remind everyone that the commission recently gave a unanimous approval to a 300 plus unit project in ESAC, right next to very expensive single family homes.

Um even then it did get some opposition, but if you look at the hearing and you look at the comment docket, um the public was with the commission in that decision, including even the ESAC community association.

So we think the fear of backlash for three-story buildings is overblown.

And the public of the city of Sacramento is with us in wanting to build more housing in our city.

And we obviously would love to support you guys and help us guide the conversation in that direction.

So thank you for your time and looking forward to hearing more.

Thank you for your comments.

Max Millerosa and after Maximum, Michael Nearby.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Maximin Rosa.

I'm the director of sustainability at CR Service Project.

We've led youth focused service learning programs for the last 50 years.

For the last three years, I've been running a workforce development program called the Sacramento Sustainability Academy, where we take young people and we give them career experience addressing the issues in their community.

We incentivize their leadership and participation with real jobs and employment.

In our last uh rendition of this program, we've hired seven people to take on the challenge of building housing for a transitional housing program that we're expanding.

I wanted to encourage you to adopt the temporary parcel exemption and the redistribution of development capacity so that organizations like ours who are building up the leaders and the builders of the future to address the issues in our community.

We want to source these solutions locally by building up the capacity of folks like ours to build housing in their own neighborhoods.

We work and employ a lot of young people who are actively unhoused, living in shelters, and we prioritize them because there's so many spaces where their voice is unheard navigating these complex issues that they're subject to but don't have much agency in.

We would love your support to work with us to address these issues.

I'll have an invite for you later in my uh later comments about our missing middles presentation open house that we're gonna be doing in May.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Oh, and I also wanted to give a shout out to Jamie and the planning department is doing amazing work on this.

Uh Amy also, you guys are doing great work.

We really appreciate all your support.

Thank you for your comments.

Michael Nervy, please, and after Michael is Ben Radestorf.

Hey guys doing is this uh appropriate time to bring up like feedback on uh practical application.

I'm a builder in Sacramento.

I don't know if this is the right time for that.

Yeah?

Okay, cool.

I'm one of uh the nine in progress.

I'm building a small cottage court in Oak Park.

Uh, and I just want to give some feedback.

Um very excited about it.

I want to do more cottage courts, I want to build more in Sacramento.

It took me over a year to get approvals.

Uh, and so man, if somehow we could do something about getting approvals faster, that would really help me and my business and being able to deliver a good product.

Um I ran into a little classification on duplex that was an issue that you guys should be aware of.

Somehow there's a difference between a duplex that shares a wall and a duplex that is separated, and so I don't get any benefit for building two houses on a lot detached as far as uh FAR goes.

And so, in my mind, a duplex is a duplex, whether it's attached or detached, and you should get the benefits of a 0.7 FAR rather than a.4 FAR.

I know we're getting into the weeds here, but it seems like that would be self-explanatory.

Uh, the point four FAR citywide, I've run into some issues uh as far as a single family residence, and I feel like it's maybe unnecessarily low, and even like a bump to a 0.5 would be uh recommended.

I find that the bulk control and tenting and like figuring this all out is still overly cumbersome and a challenge for a builder to figure out, and then costs, man, like the school fees alone, Arborist reports, engineers, drainage plan.

Every year there is no incentive for costs to go down, and every year that I build only the fees go up.

And so as a council, if we can figure out some way to put a cap on some of this stuff, or in fact remove some of the layers of fees would be really great for me as a builder.

But uh, thank you for all you're doing, and I'm a big fan of uh the missing middle and look forward to seeing uh SB 79 implement it as well.

So thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Ben, and after Ben, I have Robert Umge.

Thank you, Commission.

Uh, my name is Ben Raderstorf.

I'm a member of House Sacramento.

We're an all volunteer pro housing organization.

We are here yet again to say please get rid of bulk control.

Um, but I want to I want to talk a little bit about sort of the reasons why I care so much about this ordinance overall, why why I really I see our missing middle strategy, you know, not not just as the key to ending our our housing and homelessness crisis in Sacramento, but like but but something that I feel I I feel quite personal uh uh a sense of ownership over as a Sacramentan.

And you know, we in our city, in our state, um, past generations of planning commissions, past generations of people who stood up and yelled at planning commissions for what to do, um, they decided to prioritize the status quo and to protect the status quo at all costs, right?

I mean, this is this is what we still see in in basically every other planning commission in the state.

You all are the only ones who hear people like me come up and go, yeah, you're right, let's find a way to say yes.

Everywhere else, it is about how do we prevent damage to the status quo.

How do we, how do we keep new people?

How do we keep affordable housing?

How do we keep density from negatively impacting the people who live in neighborhoods?

And and I I understand and I know staff is working so hard to make this ordinance work and to actually get it to the point where it builds at scale and is permitting more than you know 50, 60 units in a year and a half.

And I I believe we can get there.

But I do, at my core, I think the way we the only way that we're gonna be able to actually solve the housing and homelessness crisis is when we start to not just think about the the status quo being the framework from which we are starting, right?

So I I understand the instinct to always think about everything and you know what degree of change are we willing to accept.

You know, how far on that marginal to transformation are we gonna are we gonna be able to go?

But I but I just I think that is prioritizing the wrong people.

It is ignoring the people who don't live here, it is ignoring the people who live on our streets.

And instead, we need to think about you know, what do we actually want to see built in the city of Sacramento?

What do we want our city to look like?

And I believe we want our city to look like simple rules that apply across the city, right?

Um, that are not sort of building arbitrary aesthetic standards on top of it just because we we actually didn't really want the missing middle standard to apply in you know the pocket or North Natomas or something like that.

So we're gonna like find the ways to make sure that you can't build apartments that look like apartments, you know, if they're three stories uh uh outside of the core or or sort of certain you know areas where we think that apartment dwellers want to live.

Um and we think about you know what are the what are the fair and and straightforward, easily applicable, as Michael said.

You know, that the standards that you don't actually need an architect to tell you what you're allowed to build on a lot.

I don't believe that bulk control or or frankly the house scale neighborhood standards get us there.

Um but I think without that, this ordinance is incredible.

Thank you all.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Robert.

After Robert, I have Nolan Gray.

Just a quick comment before Robert's presentation regarding the previous builder um uh speaker, uh, in terms of fees.

Uh there are some fees as a city knows that the city has absolutely no control over school fees, is certainly one of those, uh probably parks, uh, but definitely school fees.

So uh just want to be sure everybody does understand that limitation on the behalf of the city.

Thank you.

Robert.

Sorry, good evening.

Uh I am Robert Ng, uh founder of Missing Middles.

Uh we are a national design competition uh seeking on testing Sacramento's uh missing middle standards and how they perform on real sites and parcels.

Uh the core idea um is both the how missing middle ordnance and SB79 are expound expanding housing capacity, but uh that success really depends on how these standards translate onto actual parcels, both at the human scale and at scale.

Uh key points, um, feasibility is not just what's allowed, it's about whether these standards translate into uh configurations that are actually buildable.

There's often a gap between policy intent and what actually pencils while fitting on parcels.

Uh to close, the opportunity is not is to ensure these standards are clear and predictable, so they can be delivered in practice.

We'd be happy to share what our teams come across and be an available resource.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Nolan, and after Nolan, I have Brian Seenhart.

Um great.

Uh thank you.

Good afternoon, uh Commissioners.

Um my name's Nolan Gray.

I'm a renter, live here downtown, a member of House Sacramento and a recovering city planner.

Uh this is actually the only time I've ever spoken at a commission meeting as a member of the public.

Um I'm here to speak on behalf today of the amazing progress that's been done on the missing middle ordinance.

Um Sacramento's been a real leader of this in my state level housing advocacy.

We often point other cities to what Sacramento is doing and say, why can't you be as good as Sacramento?

They don't appreciate that, but we say it anyway.

But I also want to raise concerns about some of the bulk controls that are being uh considered and that might stymie efforts to actually realize housing uh with this ordinance and with these efforts.

Um today I'm wearing a uh triple decker pen.

Uh it's probably pretty small.

Uh if you've ever been to New England, you see these everywhere.

These are three-story, uh, three-unit stacked apartments.

Uh, I don't know if they're house scale, but to many tens or hundreds of thousands of people, this is what home looks like.

Uh, and this is how historically regions like New England maintained affordability.

Uh, yet my concern is that under the current standards, uh, potentially this form of housing uh will be illegal to build in many parts of Sacramento.

Um, keeping Sacramento affordable means allowing for a range of housing types for families at all income levels and of all sizes, and so I hope that we'll prioritize flexibility and feasibility uh in refining these standards.

Thank you again.

Thank you for your comments.

Last speaker is going to be Brian.

Hello, good evening, uh Chair Chase and Commission.

Uh my name's Brian Saynard.

I'm an architect, and I am involved in um the housing, the American Institute of Architects has a local chapter.

We have a housing task force.

We've been working very closely with the city over the missing middle on the missing middle housing issue.

Um, and we will continue to work.

And I just want to um you know talk about massing and scale from an architectural point of view, and I think you're gonna have a lot to say about that.

Uh, we need greater density.

Uh I have um young architects that I I talk with, and they say, you know, we we don't want to be kept out of these cute these neighborhoods.

We need to have higher density in these neighborhoods, but we also need to be careful about the massing of those.

I wanted to give you an example.

I don't have any photographs, but if you think of where the co-op is uh and that end, uh up to 34th Street, you know there's a really well-integrated uh housing project along the edge of that beautiful little neighborhood, which is one and two-story bungalows, and it's just a sweet area.

Um an example is on 34th Street, which is a commercial corridor, uh uh two new three-story apartment buildings, and they're like straight walls adjacent to the scale of them adjacent three stories against two and one-story small bungalows, which begins to be uh uh less desirable.

I will simply say maybe you could take a look at those.

We'll certainly bring up these kinds of examples.

We are really pushing uh also besides density of these neighborhoods, we are really pushing uh development of underutilized commercial uh zones, and we think there's some great opportunities for housing there.

We've looked at uh high-rise housing as well, and there's some fantastic studies about how to integrate housing into uh unoccupied office buildings.

Sacramento is really not on the cutting edge of that.

There's we don't have the same situation as new you know, San Francisco or or Philadelphia.

Um I just uh I'm here to say we're gonna continue to work uh with the the staff, and we look forward to the final results.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

I have no more speakers on this item.

Great, thank you.

Thank you, Brian.

Um, regarding the former speaker, uh, I'm from New England, lived in Boston.

I I know very well the three-story buildings you're talking about.

They're everywhere, and they work very well, they fit in.

So let's see where we can go.

Um, and do we have any uh commissioner uh comments or questions?

Commissioner Caden, I'm sorry.

Yeah, um thanks, Chair, and uh you know, thank you to staff.

I mean, I know it just an unbelievable amount of work has gone into this, and you know, as as was referenced, this was um you know not just one item.

This has been literally years, I mean three, four years, I'm not sure at this point um of work that has gone into this, and I'm just really appreciative of how thoughtful everyone has been and trying to kind of be receptive to to hearing new ideas on this and try to balance a lot of competing priorities.

Very cognizant of that.

Um I so I I have a few questions.

I I wanted to first look at this slide that shows kind of the the progress so far.

So I saw um we were showing nine missing middle projects that are moving forward um under the the missing middle interim ordinance.

And so I guess this is maybe a hard question to answer, but I'm I'm just curious just from staff's perspective.

Is that is that more or less or about like what you expected?

So as of a month ago, there were 19 approved, and then nine are still in progress, like they haven't been approved.

Right, okay, so yeah, yeah, and then for what was expected, I think Bruce uh Monaghan, our urban design manager would have to be able to speak to that.

Mr.

Caden, um it it's less than what we expected.

That actually it's been a surprise because we set this up for a wide range of building types and a wide range of geographical areas, and essentially what we have seen has been duplexes with an ADU.

So three units at a time, a duplex and an ADU.

This is specifically related to the use of residential code versus commercial code.

Um so once you go to three or more units, you've got to use a commercial code, full compliance with ADU, full compliance with fire sprinkler systems with standpipes, not a residential standpipe system, um, much different sense of exiting.

So almost everybody has opted for keeping it within the residential building code.

So we don't see three and up, we see two and two plus an ADU to get to the three.

Soon as we go to a three-story building that requires a design professional, two stories, not a design professional, three stories design professional, you gotta have an architect or an engineer.

So it's it's the code that seems to be limiting this.

Um we've seen multiple buildings on a single lot, but they're still duplexes or duplexes plus an ADU.

This has been a bit of a surprise, and it looks like the transition to um more units requires a much larger scope of projects, something in the neighborhood of 20 units or more to be able to absorb those additional costs.

Um so that was I won't say totally unanticipated, but we're surprised that nobody's actually broken through there based on the financial cost of moving to commercial building code.

Yeah, and and I mean, so um just to reinforce what what I saw on the slide.

So it's so it's single units, duplex units that you're seeing, duplexes with ADUs, and then you had it sounded like one 20 plus unit project, is that right?

Was that on a I assume a much larger site?

Um, yeah, I mean with the the response is typically been larger sites for larger projects.

Um the other thing that while we don't um require parking, like you can slip duplex and an ADU into a neighborhood and not have to really deal with parking, but once you go to a larger project, parking really becomes a requirement.

So that also increases the size of the lot requirement.

So um they they just haven't shown to be viable from what we're seeing.

Our expectation was more, but we haven't gotten them.

Do you know of any projects that have made three stories work, like with the dormers and the gables that that are required under bulk control?

Well, we have a lot of projects over the last two decades that have used bulk control because it's been around that long.

Um so specifically to missing middle housing, two and a half stories with the use of uh dormers for that third floor.

Um so I had a couple questions on on the house scale versus um block scale development standards.

So can you it was I was struggling to understand?

Can you help us understand where exactly the city is recommending the house scale versus the the block scale development outcome?

Tony, you want to take that one or push the button.

Thank you, Commissioner Caden, for the question.

Yeah, the general approach um for the house skill building or the recommendation of where to put that is in 1.0 FAR areas, that's generally what we have found by testing all kinds of lots in those areas is that uh somewhere between about 0.5 and 0.9 FAR yields a pretty uh pretty good uh range of uh of missing middle projects.

Uh once you get over 1.0, it starts to get bigger than what's what it's next to.

So if that's not a concern, then you could continue going.

But yeah, generally in 1.0 F AR areas.

Okay, so the the 1.0 is the house scale and then the 2.0 in the general plan is the block scale.

1.5.

Uh that's we we introduced that middle category to try and nuance the 1.0 and 2.0 to say what about projects that are somewhere in between, but they aren't as big as 2.0 and but they're bigger than 1.0.

Maybe maybe there's some middle ground there.

And so should it be 1.5 or some other number?

We we just tried 1.5 in the middle, and those projects still can produce house scale components, but the overall project is bigger than house scale.

So for example, you might get a couple duplexes out in front, but the building that really takes advantage of all the available FAR is bigger than house scale building, and it tends to be in the middle or in the back of the lot.

But the house scale development standards that are being proposed, those the ones that have you know the the uh dormers and gable requirement on the third floor.

That that's just the FAR 1.0, and then the rest of the F AR 2.0 areas are gonna have the block scale.

That's yeah.

Right.

Do you do you have a sense of what um proportion, I guess, of the area that's like governed by the missing middle ordinance that the that the house scale, the 1.0 area is.

I know I'm not asking for like the exact number, but just generally speaking, is that the vast majority of I don't I don't know that number for staff.

I don't know the proportion.

Maybe it's like most is 1.0, and then around 20,000 is FR 2.0 of the MMH zoned sites.

Perfect.

Okay.

All right.

So most of the city is is in that house scale range.

And then so, in for the part of the city in that category, I want to make sure I'm understanding the height and the bulk recommendation.

So the max height, we're not touching, right?

That's still 35 feet, as it's always been.

And then for for that sort of 80% of the parcels that we're talking there, um, there's also going to be proposed this sort of max height of 24 feet to the highest Eve, and then a requirement that if you want to build that that third story, it needs to be quote an attic story completely within a pitch roof with dormers.

Is that right?

I just want to make sure I'm getting it right.

Yeah, and uh I'd like to explain that a little bit.

So, yes, you could build a two-story building with a flat roof.

There's no requirement to build the pitch roof.

It's if you want to to realize more space in that house scale form, then doing it underneath the pitched roof is is a way to do it at the 1.0 and under FAR in that.

You wouldn't build a three-story building with a flat roof with a I mean 24 feet is is really two stories, right?

You wouldn't be able to fit three stories.

That's right.

That's that's intentional because again, the idea is to try and fit those buildings into areas where it's one and two-story um houses exist.

Um so it I mean that I mean that seems pretty similar in impact to sort of what we what we already had, right, with bulk control.

And I'm I'm just trying to um square that, I guess, with the recommendation at the top of attachment three that's that you know has an intent of trying to remove the reliance on bulk control.

I'm wondering if you could maybe just like walk through the change from from bulk control to this sort of I don't know, newer version of bulk control and and sort of what the thinking was there.

Well, bulk control is an approach that's really for big buildings, not houses, not house scale buildings.

And that was one of our early recommendations or findings for staff is that it's a it's a it's a technique that really originated with large buildings and the intent to let light hit the street because they were so large, and somehow over the years that approach has landed in a lot of cities and landed in in on buildings that go into small neighborhoods, you know, two-story neighborhoods.

And what it does is a lot of you cities use it to chip away at what is already a small building, and so we find that bulk control doesn't really serve any purpose in terms of mitigating the building size if you're talking about a house scale building.

So that's why we're saying we recommend that there be a limit for the top of a two-story building before the roof starts, and if you want to put a pitch roof, then the pitch roof has a maximum height, and that controls it because the bulk control, at least how it's um it's it's uh I'll tell you uh uh quick anecdote.

We just studied this in Denver, Colorado.

We were just hired to do the exact same thing in Denver.

They were getting what they call these are their words, uh architects in in Denver, they called it tugboat um projects because they get a two-story house and the third story was achievable only with stepbacks because that's what it took to get approval from the neighbors in the neighborhoods.

And so you step back the third story, and it sounds good until you drive by and look at it, and you say that looks like a tugboat or where you drive a tugboat on top of a two-story building.

So they said we don't want any more of that, nobody's happy with that.

So they're actually doing away with that uh for some of the same reasons that we're recommending bulk control be ended here.

So I know that it's being called bulk control, what we're recommending, but it's really letting the building be full two stories and letting the roof be full where the current bulk control ordinance chips away and makes the result awkward.

Also, want to add process-wise a difference under the interim ordinance, there aren't any deviations allowed to the bulk control unless there is a hardship or extreme condition on that pri on that site.

What we'd be proposing under this is you could deviate from that standard just out of hearing, except just to add that, there'd be a difference in process as well.

It sounds like I mean, like it sounds like basically it's it's slightly more flexible, but it's but it's still having the the generally same impact of not being able to build a a three-story building that has you know the third story look the same as the second.

Is that fair to say?

Yes.

Can I can I add to that?

So yes.

However, that's why we introduced the the um other end of the spectrum of missing middle housing, which is upper missing middle, which is three and four story, and saying that has a place, and that's for you all to determine and tell us, but it doesn't end at the two stories.

There is a three and four story variety.

I'm gonna try a different tack for the question you have of are they the same or are they the different?

Um, as I mentioned, bulk control's been with us a couple of decades.

And it was established because neighborhoods were concerned that in the words being used at the time, McMansions were being very built, they were very big and anything was allowed, you could build it right up to the property lines, they're very, very tall.

And that created a lot of uncertainty and concerns.

So bulk control was was established to provide predictability.

It told builders what you could do in a particular spot, and it told neighbors what they could expect.

By and large, it's it's been very good for infill, but we ended up essentially implementing that everywhere.

You had subdivision, you're gonna do bulk control.

You got over here again, do bulk control.

Um, and when we went to missing middle housing, uh, it was going to be a process that allowed a lot of other opportunity, less setbacks and you know, different things on the front and um larger dormers.

And the way we approached this was how much FAR can we get within our standards?

We realized we couldn't get enough, so we kept expanding the standards.

So we ended up with um an enhanced bulk control.

And through that process, we said, okay, this is really as big as it can get.

Let's not allow deviations.

Let's make our process to deviate from these standards very, very difficult.

When we went back and looked at it this time, we asked the question, why do we have bulk control?

And it was back to the question or the back to the answer of providing some certainty so that if you had a home in a neighborhood, you had a general idea that could be built next to you.

So if you had a new development bulk control wasn't necessary because you could see what was there.

So it's like, all right, let's begin to rethink how we want to use this.

And then is we got into the conversation with Apicos and Tony, this idea of trying to clarify the problem we had before, which was how do we put something big in a in a neighborhood and call it house scale, and yet still look towards a 2.0, and we realized they were two different things, which is what we had been struggling with without really realizing it.

So when we said bulk, or when we said that that house scale was match essentially what's in that neighborhood, and if we do that, then things will be compatible.

However, the this process expects to say if you want to build more, and you have a neighborhood context that is not disruptive, bring it through.

We'll look at a deviation, and there's no reason why we couldn't approve a three-story.

So what we're trying to do is set a standard of neighborhood scale and the expectation, but the opportunity to do something else.

So in some neighborhoods, it's it's not like you can't do it anywhere, but it there are many, many places where three stories just flat works.

I saw some really good stuff in the Thomas, or three-story was next to two story, it's fine.

It's not disruptive.

But again, a three-story building in River Park could be considered disruptive.

So while we don't want to pick and choose what areas these can go in, it neighborhoods are different.

They are do have different context.

And what I like about this is it's not a standard bulk control trying to fit everything everywhere.

It's things trying to be appropriate to a neighborhood, and then allowing things that are more than that as long as the context will support it.

And I think that's the key difference.

It's not a mandate, it's a desire.

And if you want to go different to that, let's look at what the environment is.

Understood.

Yeah, thanks, Bruce.

And so also a last question on the house scale standards.

Um, can you just help us understand kind of this idea of like moving to uh you know regulating the the width and the depth of the building with the different standards for rear and side wings instead of just using setbacks?

Is there a particular advantage to doing that as opposed to just using setbacks?

Yeah, there is.

Thank you for the question.

So in order to figure out if those things should apply or should be considered, what we do is we ask the question are backyards expected where you're where you're looking to apply these standards, or are backyards not existent.

So for example, if you have a neighborhood of buildings, however however deep they are, and you have the neighborhood that has backyards where people expect to be having a 20-foot backyard, whatever it is, 15-foot backyard or bigger, and they have side yards that you can see.

The buildings are clearly detached from each other.

You know the kind of neighborhood I'm talking about.

Where that exists, then there's an expectation when a new building comes in that it not take up the area that people are used to seeing across as open.

Because as soon as you do that, um, I can't show visual.

I'm I'm not connected to your screens here, but as soon as buildings get deeper than the one next door, the there's uh a perception that's real that hey, the the backyards are gone, and now there's in some cases, if there are enough units, there's a balcony looking into the backyard of the adjacent unit.

So that I'm not saying you would let that happen.

I'm saying that has happened, and that's why there is such concern about buildings getting too deep in those kinds of areas.

If, however, you're talking about an area that doesn't have backyards and the lot coverage is higher, well, then it's a different question.

But what we're talking about, that idea of a main body and wings expressing a building size as opposed to just setbacks, it's because of that.

It's because there's an expectation that buildings be seen as detached from each other and have backyards.

Okay, so it so it's about trying to preserve backyards, it sounds like it's it's about trying to um fit in.

Backyards are a key determinant, but it's about trying to fit in.

Again, the question is what are you trying to make?

And if you're trying to make more of what's there, that tends to be how how it's done.

If you're trying to change the pattern, then you just you can change it by instituting a new pattern.

Understood.

Um I have a lot of comments, but I'll wait for after questions.

I'll yield my time.

Thanks.

I just wanted to uh jump in and comment on Bruce's and uh answer to uh the vice chair's question earlier.

Um, and it comes down to the difference in the residential building code and the commercial building code, the actual building code.

Um there are task force and methods for uh requesting changes in the building code through the California Building Standards Commission.

Uh, since Sacramento has been really on the forefront, and we're hearing it just pioneer of of you know increased density and and uh moving this.

Um have this has the city thought about you know approaching and dealing with uh the uh building standards commission to to look at requesting changes in the residential code that may you know uh might allow more than it does right now.

So ICBO took this up this year.

There was a meeting in in Tampa that Mike Mallinowski was out with it.

I think it was up to 10.

Um that was rejected or sent back, and then there was a follow-up meeting in Cleveland that Mike was at, and it got a little bit more traction, but it's still it was put off.

There is currently a bill in the legislature going through that um mandates that HCD start a study by 2027 or report back by 2028 with implementation by 2029 with a code cycle implementation maybe in 2031.

Um, short of that happening, local jurisdictions can't uh adopt a more liberal use of the code than what the state mandates.

Um I think our quickest path is going to be ICBO next year taking a look at the use of residential code because it's a problem across the country.

Um so you know, I I think we need to put our eggs in that basket before we get an HCD response.

Um one of the the problems have been relatively is just what what's the determination of safety when you change the code.

There was a time um back in the 60s when we built fourplexes with a residential code, but the code changed, we don't do that anymore.

But I think there's pl plenty of precedent to show that at least four units are historically not a problem, but I think it'll be several years before we see anything.

And I think you're right.

I'm sure Chase, may I add to that, please?

Yes, absolutely.

Yes, so we did some work in the city of Memphis, Tennessee a few years ago, and uh that led to some uh changes by that city, and that city has been successful in actually changing it.

It's one of the few in the country.

I think there's another one in in Michigan or Minnesota, but Memphis has changed it, and they're working with the state so that it's statewide in Tennessee, and what they've done has allowed four plexus to actually be built, just like like what um Bruce was saying.

So it's it's the one that we can point to, although there are others that are trying to do it.

Yeah, thank you.

I mean, since we have a state building code, any changes would apply uh statewide that are made here.

But uh I'm just glad to hear that there is some attention given to that, and following up on that.

Uh without that, I think we're gonna hit the roadblock that uh uh vice chair was concerned about.

So uh thank you for your attention.

With that, uh I'd like to move on to uh Commissioner Young.

Yeah, I'm just sort of curious just on the interaction of missing middle with SP 79, um, specifically on the affordability requirements that SP 79 is imposing.

Um is so I just want to clarify and confirm.

So there's these various affordability requirements.

I think it's on page 34 of your slide.

So any any project that is 10 units or more will can satisfy SP 79 requirements by product more than seven percent of the units as extremely low income and set aside 10% for very low income, or greater than 13% of the units at the lower income band.

Is is that correct?

I'm just trying to understand the requirements is it greater than seven for extremely low income or greater than 10 at very low income?

So it's any of those options.

They pick one seven percent for extremely low, ten percent for very low, or thirteen percent for lower income.

But the recorded restriction applies to any of the options they select.

Got it, got it.

And then for is the city contemplating any type of in LU fee program or whatnot to satisfy those requirements at the state level.

It didn't sound seem like that was being contemplated.

And no, we're not long-range planning manager.

Remy will speak to that.

Good evening, Commissioner Remy Minds, uh long-range planning manager.

Uh, I'm not aware at this time of the city contemplating the in the fee program for that, but that's really something uh we can look into.

I I guess because I think that when we were looking at missing middle, kind of at the early stages, we were thinking about putting some affordability requirements in the program, which which I applauded.

Um I I guess my concern, since this is my last day, I would just say that um I I would absolutely try to avoid any kind of inlu fee program because I I have just found that over time this the effort is to kind of whittle down that in LU fee program to some form of nominal payment that ultimately does not really go into really producing units, and I think that the um I I agree with the impetus of what of how this has been set up, and I just want to make sure that as a city that um we are doing everything we can to maintain the standard.

Obviously, I would love to see greater subsidies available so that units like this can be produced.

I'm I'm a little concerned though, however, that will we actually see um you know units of 10 plus or more kind of in those transit areas being built with these affordability requirements.

I think it raises other kinds of questions of whether or not something like this is even feasible.

But I'm I'm just sort of curious if if maybe has anyone kind of brought this requirement up as a concern as far as like building projects in Sacramento.

We certainly hope so that we see those projects and the incentive right would be the additional bonus height or FAR that's um the idea that that's a huge incentive in order to um to do that.

Yeah.

I'll just uh good evening everyone, Greg Salon, planning director.

Um just clarify the state law doesn't um have any provision for in loop fee payments to take advantage of of these increased FARs and heights.

We certainly hope so that we see those projects and the incentive right would be the additional bonus height or FAR that's um the idea that that's a huge incentive in order to um to do that yeah I'll just uh good evening everyone Greg Salon Planning Director um just clarify the state law doesn't um have any provision for in loop fee payments right okay to take advantage of of these increased FARs and heights um and generally the affordability requirements that come with these state allowances like SP35 and other things um are are just not taken advantage of in our city um in part I think because our regulations are are often just as generous anyways so in this case you know if you wanted to to utilize the greater floor to area ratios or or build in an area where we don't have the height matching SB 79 um you could go ahead and provide the the units and it's incentivizing um providing affordable units in that way so okay great thank you thank you uh I just have a kind of a a simple probably general uh assumption or in understanding or interpretation of the discussion around bulk uh I think the statement was made generally that um the uh we need to allow greater density in areas outside the grid and that perhaps um the bulk criteria is limited to the grid and that we need to look at using allowing greater density and perhaps I don't know if it's the 1.5 or the 2.0 bulk scale so what is the impediment I mean other than uh why is there incentivizing primarily or extend we have greater bulk and density uh in the grid and not outside I mean I get the community response but what is the the policy uh limitation there if any maybe I'm misunderstanding so citywide there's no maximum density that's the move that the 2040 general plan made and then general plan generally regulates intensity of development through FAR so the higher FAR allowances are on the grid or near transit so that's generally you know the trends that we're how we're informing our development standards is looking through the FARs that that answers your question.

And where is the flexibility between the FAR adjacent to transit versus and and perhaps because transit is more uh centralized in the grid is that just an end result is because of trans uh proximity to transit that's the largest driver yeah for the general plan FARs I'll pull up the map again um so I guess I'm trying to understand is the 1.5 recommendation or or scale or or sort of a as an accommodation outside of the grid to get greater density and and is that I guess how how do we other than I think the examples that were given about backyards uh you know larger structures taller structures being able to look into neighbors backyards what are our limitations for example ESAC I I you someone mentioned river park and I get there's often you know deeper wider lots and lower homes but other than neighborhood opposition I think there are many ways to mitigate not looking in someone's backyard not allowing windows on that side requiring you know structures that give privacy why can't we do more of it in the neighborhoods that were mentioned ESAC River Park what are the policy and regulatory impediments I don't know what the impediments are but I'll just explain to you the intent of what 1.5 um the recommendation that we had um proposed to staff um commissioner ortice the um the idea is that we tested 2.0 FAR in those areas and it was as as the slide showed way too much well I shouldn't say way too much that's my opinion right it was way out of scale beyond it was seven stories eight stories depending on the parcel size compared to houses if that's not a concern then you you could do that we thought it might be a concern because we hadn't talked to you yet and we hadn't talked to the neighbors so we just assumed it would be a concern having done this in other cities so we thought well what what could work in between 1.0 and 2.0 FAR how close could we get to 2.0 FAR and take advantage of that amount of FAR in those areas and that's how we came up with 1.5 and is that the two stories plus attic E no so how tall would that 1.5 be it could be four or five stories three stories four it just depends on the parcel size okay that I appreciate that clarification because I didn't quite uh so we are not precluded you're proposing an interim option of course there's all the things that would come with neighborhood opposition etc but

How close could we get to 2.0 FAR and take advantage of that amount of FER in those areas?

And that's how we came up with 1.5.

And is that the two stories plus attic E?

No.

So how tall would that 1.5 be?

It could be four or five stories, three stories, four.

It just depends on the parcel size.

Okay, that I appreciate that clarification because I didn't quite uh so we are not precluded.

You're proposing an interim option.

Of course, there's all the things that would come with neighborhood opposition, et cetera, but it looks like we could move the needle a bit.

That's correct.

Yeah, in fact, that's precisely why we set up the three columns of of strategies, depending on the desire for change, the appetite uh for change, whatever however you want to say it, you could go with the recommendation for the the minor or the moderate or the transform in each of those columns.

That's what that was intended to provide.

Thank you.

And I and I sounds like staff wants to add to that, so I'd welcome further clarification.

Thank you.

Uh Amy Yang, senior planner, just wanted to add a small point of clarification.

Um, so as Jamie put out, this is our maximum FAR from the 2040 general plan.

We are not proposing any changes to that, therefore we're not proposing any changes to maximum allowed um capacity in these areas.

That's not what we're proposing or talking about today.

I think what we are talking about today is what is um what are objective design standards should be, what should be um reviewed at staff level versus what should come um forward as a discretionary decision, and so that's where the 1.5 comes in as part of our analysis.

It's okay, if we have an area that can go up to 2.0, but we have a project that comes in at maybe 1.5 FAR.

Do we approve that at staff level?

Look at that at staff level, or do we bring it for a discretionary hearing?

So that's what that 1.5 is trying to illustrate is giving us a sense of this is the type of building that would be proposed.

Do we want it to be reviewed at staff level, or do we want it to go through a discretionary process?

So it's there for like an to illustrate what we would be looking at when proposals come in.

I I appreciate that, and I think that's obviously the and and at the staff level, would that be a director's hearing?

No, I think the challenge it would be a director's clarifying.

Um yeah, I wanted to note at staff level there is no hearing, um, and there's no appeal.

Um it's people are really like ministerial processes, administrative checkbox.

Staff level is pretty close, but we have a little bit more discussion discretion, and we could add conditions of approval.

So that's that's one thing to take in account.

These objective standards are recommending or proposed looking at they would be approved without any public hearing.

Um in rolling out the interim ordinance, as staff that's had to hear from the community saying what there's no appeal.

Um it's just reconsideration, and reconsideration is essentially them paying a fee to outline information that we might have missed.

And most reconsiderations we don't yeah, so um we just certainly look at it again, but that's that's the thing with allowing a deviation.

So you can build within the allowable FAR of the general plan, you have a director hearing and online in the afternoon that Bruce would oversee.

Um, and then at that director level hearing, there is one appeal to planning design commission, and that's it.

You don't they don't keep on going to council?

Right.

So just to understand the levels of review, just wanted to clarify that.

And I think I was a little bit concerned on the um, I think it was a comment with one of the builders developers that that director level review.

Um you know, if they had to go to that level, I mean there are costs associated with that that are pretty significant, um, which adds to the whole discussion of further cost impediments, but I appreciate the clarification on the distinction there, and it sounds like you're looking for guidance from us on that 1.5 uh as whether that should be at a staff level as well.

Yeah, clearly, what what are the objective standards that people can if they meet that we go?

It's two months review, maybe less.

I appreciate that, and I appreciate the explanation that the 2.0 was really quite high, eight, seven to eight stories versus potentially going up to three stories without the dorm limitations that have been discussed in earlier.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rescue.

Thank you.

Oops.

Okay, so I just had a few clarifying questions.

Um one was on the slide where you showed the the applications you've gotten so far.

And I think you said that most of them were single family duplex and not not very many multi-unites.

Why why are single unit dwellings going through the missing middle uh path?

Usually it's because they're on a smaller lot size.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, got it.

Or there could be multiple single unit buildings on the same lot, but the building itself has one unit in it.

Got it.

Okay.

Um so have you had many where it's um multiple buildings on one lot, multiple single family, like that wouldn't normally be.

I think most of them tend to be subdivisions, but there's a couple that we'll put a couple.

So these are like cottage courts.

Not always oriented around a shared open space, but yeah, it's usually just on smaller lots.

Okay.

And then um so in the we were we talked a little bit about the maximum heights in the floor or the the um floor area ratio areas with a FAR of one.

What what is the maximum height like outside of the missing middle ordinance?

Is that the 35?

Yes.

So if you're just building a single family home there, you could make a 35 feet tall.

Well, currently now it's subject to the bulk control.

Yes.

Um the 35 is like to the what is the 35 for then?

If it's the overall height.

Okay, and the 24.

Oh, the 24 is the proposed.

So 35 is overall, but you have book control.

Um, okay.

Okay, thank you.

I have my time.

Uh yeah, but just for clarity, uh citywide, all single family residential has a limit of 35 feet.

It I don't know when that number was picked or how it was picked, but it's always been 35 feet.

Um, within that total maximum height, which is typically, you know, you look at a pitched rough on top of a building that's under the 35 feet.

Um accessory structures are you know like 18 feet.

So there's limits.

Now, within that, you have multiple floors, you can have single level, you can have two levels.

Depends on how you want to develop, whether it's an eight-foot ceiling or one foot of framing, or you want to go to a like 10 foot ceiling or 12-foot ceiling, and they stack something about so it's it's cumulative.

So that the 24 foot side wall, which was what was being proposed, takes into account that you can have two levels of 10, 11 feet and still the framing in between it, and that becomes the top plate, which is where the roof lands.

So we have a roof or we have a wall plate, which is the top of the wall, which starts the roof, and then we have the maximum height up to the top of the roof, which is a third of the city.

So the proposed 24 feet is to top of plate.

It's the top of the plate where the roof wanks.

Got it so it starts.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner uh Osius Reed.

Thank you, Chair.

Well, I'll be honest, a lot of my questions have already been answered.

And uh Chair Chase, thank you for talking about uh the building building code from commercial to residential, because that was definitely something that I had recently heard about that's going through at the state level.

And I'm I'm really glad to hear that you know there's potentially something that could help us move forward.

Um I didn't realize that that was having an impact on our numbers, but obviously it's pretty obvious that it would.

So hopefully that'll um create some change in the future.

Um of the things, I mean, you you did answer the deviation question that I had, so thank you for that.

Um of the questions I had was um have any of the approved applications been finaled with building.

I know there are there's a builder here, um, but there's nine in progress and nineteen approved.

So just curious if um there have been any final to date.

Yeah, so the 19 approved is the planning approval number, nine in progress, like a in progress planning application.

I wasn't able to go through all of the files before today to see which ones were approved.

I don't know if anyone that's fine.

Um filed, but yeah.

That's okay, thank you.

Um I did, you know, I was doing some research.

Um there's you know, not there's not a lot of cities in the United States right now that are that are working, you know, that are that have implemented missing many missing middle housing ordinances.

Um we always seem to be at the forefront of of this um progressive work.

And I I know the city of Minneapolis, I did some research there.

They definitely have an ordinance going.

They were also one of the first cities in the US to adopt um, or rather to get rid of R1 zoning along with Sacramento.

So they're also a very progressive city when it comes to um planning policy.

Um and one of the things I realized um when I was researching their missing middle housing ordinance is that it's it's really complicated.

They have about 14 tiers and 14 areas of the city that have different um I guess different terms, you know, different structures, different requirements.

Um but they do have some areas where they do allow two and a half stories.

And the Pew Research Center did uh put out an article I thought it was worth note noting, um, that they talked about some of the results that many the city of Minneapolis uh had seen.

And I think they're also seeing, right, that they're not getting the results that they had hoped for.

Um and they specifically said that you know the results indicate that their duplex and tri triplex policies so far had a modest impact on their housing stock, in part uh limited success.

Um maybe linked to aspects of their zoning code that make buildings such structures challenging, including low maximum floor area ratio and 2.5 story height limits in the lowest density zones.

So I think again, kind of going back to what Commissioner Ortiz was discussing.

Um I know the greater density outside of the grid, we've kind of discussed that.

I think that's something really important that we should be considering.

Um I know that there was a speaker earlier that had mentioned um that you were really focusing on our commercial corridor doors and and um you know getting some more housing built on the corridors.

And I, you know, I work for um one of our corridors um, and we definitely want more housing out there.

Um definitely some affordable housing, density, higher density for sure.

Um, but historically our corridors and our aging commercial corridors are um very low-income communities.

Um, and so I just want to ask the city to continue, you know, as we go through this process to um, you know, engage um our policy through an equity lens because um that's really really important as well.

So that was all thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Young.

Hey, so I I'm I'm trying to follow the the discussion with the FAR in the single family residential areas.

I'm like looking at vice chair Dobbs like facial expressions, and I'm like trying to look at the housing folks out there and their smiles.

Could like there's there's this higher level discussion that's going on that I'm not like I kind of want to get down a little bit more to the like the base narrative, if I if I may, like so if I could just maybe hear is there like a narrative out there from the housing folks where they would like to see the FAR limitation of one and a half like gone from those single family like I hear some could could you guys maybe kind of clarify your position?

Anyone from the housing group?

I'm just um we'd definitely be of the position that where the general plan says 2.0, we can do what we can to achieve that 2.0, where it says 1.0, we can do what we can to achieve that 1.0.

Um I'm struggling to follow it a little bit too.

It sounds like the 1.5 isn't like an FAR standard of saying this is an F this is a 1.5 zone.

It's saying like if you tack on these design standards on top of things, you can effectively limit it, like kind of de facto limit it to 1.5.

And I would say that's what we're trying to avoid.

Um if a missing middle zone is 2.0, we want to see you get 2.0, you know.

So what would be the ask for like areas like East SAC and the Thomas like that that's kind of what I'm trying to kind of understand.

Is there any kind of disagreement as far as what's proposed versus I would guess the disagreement is I mean, we haven't taught like, you know, I think Bruce mentioned that the height limit is 35 feet.

It's been like that for a long time.

No one's saying we should raise that to, you know, some ungodly number, even though you know, maybe we support that.

But anyway, 35 is 35, but within that 35, there's these design standards, right?

That'll de facto limit what you can build within that 35.

And specifically stuff that when you get to that third floor, that means you have to put in crazy angles that don't make the math pencil out.

That means what you're getting, what you're gonna get is a 24-foot building, a two-foot building.

You're not gonna get that 35 feet.

It's kind of the economics are impractical.

So you would just advocate for abolishing those types of other suggestions that would like limit de facto limit the height to 24.

Yeah, get the 35.

I mean, you know, I know it's that's a that's our political position, and there's other compromise things I think you could do to negotiate that.

And I'm just anticipating that the planning staff is saying, well, there's a certain neighborhood character that they're also trying to preserve, right?

And so my question, the the the comeback question is are there ways to still preserve the neighborhood character architecturally in such a way and still not have those limitations, but kind of still build a little bit higher without those restrictions.

I I think that's kind of what I'm trying to do.

And I think the answer is is yes.

I mean, yeah, like probably the max would be 35 foot.

You can do the full rectangle, you know, the the minimum would be like where the you know the house scale standard where you're going up to 24 feet, and then you have to do the triangle.

Um, and then there could be some ways you could split it between that.

Like you could raise the height where the triangle starts to like 28 feet or something, which may be able to get the minimum compliant three-story buildings.

Um you could kind of slice and dice more like where you get the full 35 versus not.

You could say it's relative to whether the building is next to an existing two-story building, because many single family homes are already two stories, right?

So three-story is less scary.

I get River Park is like basically universally very low building.

So there's other ways you could slice it, I think, that are in between like this strict, basically it has to be two-floor anywhere you're in, you know, 1.0 versus uh, you know, building the box, which is what we'd want to see ultimately.

But okay, so I'm I'm I'm not the design expert, so I'm gonna ask Commissioner Reskee, like, does that does that like make sense to you?

Like what what he's saying?

Um yeah, I mean, like to, so I think I think especially, you know, you're offering some compromises, which I think are good.

And I think the you know, it's it's sort of been mentioned that like, oh, bulk control is sort of like an aesthetic control, and I think there's some functional um aspects to it that aren't just aesthetic.

Like you you mentioned like maybe the a compromise can be where it's not next to a single story house versus a two-story house.

You know, there's two story houses that are as tall as three-story because I have such a steep roof.

Um, and so I think some of those conference compromises would definitely help protect people who who might have a home that they you know, especially like how deep does it go on the lot, you know, is it just the same depth as the house house next to it, or is it like you know, someone was talking about covering over their, you know, you're looking over their backyard with your balcony.

Um so I think I think definitely there some of those compromises are a nice option.

And where you're not next to a single story house or um, you know, there a larger lot there should absolutely be you know able to use the full the full height, I would think.

Yeah, homes in East Sack are pretty tall, right?

Even if it's a single family home, like there's a lot of height there.

Same with land park and a lot of other neighborhoods.

Um I think a three-story building would not be out of place.

Exactly.

Yeah, it's certainly like someone else was saying, you know, respecting the context of the neighborhood, like River Park versus Land Park, and just what what's next door to Yeah, I I think my priority is like I of course I would love to see more housing built, but I I understand that you know there's this element of neighborhood character preservation, right?

Which is also important, which I think the planning staff is is also being sensitive to.

And so I'm all about those two.

I think technically, like I I'm trying to, I'd love to see us be able to push the envelope as far as we can, but uh at a certain I I don't know who to listen to, right?

Like I'm just I'm not the technical expert.

So I'm just doing my best to just hear from you know from you and and you know, community members to just say, well, how how much further can we push the envelope without just ruining the character of um the the neighborhood?

Yet at the same time, we want to be able to empower our planning staff to be able to make those decisions and feel comfortable that they are not.

And so I I think part of that discussion here is also just trying to, you know, convince the planning staff, like, hey, are there other ways for us to continue to push this envelope that that you also feel comfortable with, right?

Because you're also dealing with your own, you know, your own internal standards of just like what makes sense.

And so um love to hear from planning staff in light of this discussion, but but before we jump into that, I will say that um, you know, I'm the whole question of like using missing middle as a way to address our homeless problem.

push this envelope that that you also feel comfortable with right because you're also dealing with your own you know your own internal standards of just like what what makes sense and so um love to hear from planning staff in light of this discussion but but before we jump into that I will say that um you know I'm the whole question of like using missing middle as a way to address our homeless problem like I I'm having a hard time seeing that as something that's really genuine because I I see it affecting you know working working class households and whatnot I I'm having a hard time visualizing how this could really address homelessness and I and the reason why I'm bringing that up is because you know I I know you you've got to advocate and you've got to push what you need to but I I'm not sure if hitching your argument to addressing the homeless problem is really like I don't I don't know if that's really real.

So I I would appreciate if if you think it is real I'm I'm open to hearing so just two points and then I'll sit down let the experts on the room get back to it.

But on your on your last point um I think it absolutely is relevant to the homelessness conversation.

I think it's something 98% of people live in market units that aren't subsidized the number one correlation with rising homelessness rates in cities across the US is the market rent.

You see simple projects going in today like 1221 C in Mansion Flats where the market rate for a studio or one bed is 1400 a month that's not enough to get someone off the streets but it's enough to keep someone from losing their housing right because what we see is when people lose their housing that's when it gets so tough to get them back into housing later and a big reason why our unsheltered homelessness problem blew up so much in the mid 2010s is because market rents in Sacramento skyrocketed and we weren't ready to meet that moment.

And so now we're in this deep hole where we're trying to get people back into homes and off the street right but in the meantime while we're working on that and putting resources to that the one thing we can really do is to try to keep market rents from going up and any artificial restrictions that we put on that helps serve that cause so it absolutely is a you know homelessness concern for the broader region.

And to your prior point we trust your guidance we're looking to your guidance and as advocates we're really happy to compile kind of a list of our ideas if that would be helpful and we could send that around you know again defer to the experts in the room but we're really happy to throw our best creativity at this issue and try to get you some workable ideas.

You know and and I respect that narrative because Vice Chair Caden has has mentioned that you know with the production of units into the marketplace you know rents have maybe even dipped a little bit and so I think from from that vantage point yes I I can understand where it's preventing other households that are kind of on the verge are on the cusp from exiting you know the the housing market.

So I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead to do two things one was put context 1.0 2.0 on the line um a central city grid lot is 12,400 square feet 2.0 allows a 25000 square foot building on that site.

2500 square feet is a lot a standard residential lotted 6,000 square feet allows a 12000 square foot building.

So part of the problem is not just allowing but what actually fits and how do you get there so with that I'll direct you to the slide that's up above which studied a 6.0 a 1.2 and a 1.9 and you can see all on the same lot what happens to the structure so in the first one there's enough open space you get some courtyards it's it's a although it's it's two and a half stories on the back it's two stories up front two and a half on the on the side there as you move towards just past 1.0 you're stacking up to five floors in this four on the back in order to generate that kind of square footage now part of the question earlier to to Tony was how far back do you want to build if you have a two or three story building that goes all the way back you get to see that sidewall and it feels like an apartment building if and to your question about are there techniques that we can use yes it's X amount of square feet it's a big block of clay you can model it tall and short so you can change it.

But it's really important when you're working with a deep building to be able to model the height of that sidewall because going down the street you do see all the way to the back and then the this last one is not even to 2.0 and um you can see that the height of this building on the back which is a very large building of four stories and two on the front with a little bit of courtyard so just from a context standpoint the buildings get really really big when you go to 2.0 so yeah and and I I'm aware that I I think that there's a generational narrative that's going on like I think the younger folks are probably like let's go right I think older generation who's been living there is like what the hell are you doing right?

And so I think I I think I kind of want to just see that narrative play out just being a little bit more open and direct and I it sounds like the younger generation is more like I I don't I don't care you know about that but with some caveats though and and I think they do I so I just I do want to just give them that.

So I just I do want to just give them that.

So okay.

Yeah, there is a there is a path relative to how you design something and how you model the actual standards, but it was really important to understand how big something gets once you go up in the numbers, and it sounds relatively benign to go from 1.0 to 2.0, but it's it's really impactful.

Thank you.

I yield my type.

Yeah, just a quick reminder.

Um, all of these would be allowed, it's just what level review are we setting and what objective standards are we writing.

So just to clarify, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Musk is read.

Yeah, and my comments I actually forgot because we have to get we've been doing comment and review, but we actually have to get to the recommend recommendations.

So on the SB 79, I just wanted to mention that I think the staff is moving in the right direction.

So I do support um the staff recommendations on that.

Um, and then for um yeah, thank you.

Okay.

So I know on the missing middle housing.

Um actually, if you could go back to the last slide that you had on and I and I know that slide, it was the last slide that you had up where it has the uh house.

Yeah, exactly.

The typologies of the site testing one yes, with the sorry, yeah.

I think it was yep.

Uh this one actually, is it slide 43?

I think it is slide 43.

I don't know if you have numbers.

Yeah, I have numbers.

This is 25, so we'll go back the other way.

Sorry to make everybody a little dizzy.

There oh no, there is no 404.

Um, sorry, what's on the slide?

I can find it.

Um, it's just um it's the one that has the house housing scale, and it has all three.

Oh, yeah.

Yes.

Because I think what we need to do really is just sort of give you our our sort of recommendations, right?

And so I just want to.

This was, you know, I'll be honest, like a little confusing looking at this.

Um try, I was really trying to decipher like what are you asking me to do with all of this.

Um this is very complex and complicated.

Um, so I seen obviously what you're wanting us to do, and you're recommending um in the moderate approach, obviously.

Um, and to be clear, it is the moderate approach at staff level review.

And there could still be an option for an applicant to submit for a deviation at director level.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, so that's kind of what's on the table here.

Okay.

Um, so I just wanted to clarify that because I think maybe that's helpful clarification for all of us as we're sort of talking about all of this.

Um I think that's the big ask right right now.

Okay.

Um, and then of course, just talking through because the thing is the standards that you will be reviewing at whatever level, those objective standards are sort of also what we're discussing here, which is really a big big part of this.

Um, so I think I want to continue having a more discussion.

I just I just kind of wanted to break that down for everyone so that we are kind of on on the same page of of where we're at, and then just say that on the SB79.

I think we're I support Steph's recommendation.

Commit uh Vice Chair Caden.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I I mean, I I think you're hearing a lot of folks muddling through, I think uh a really challenging I think item to interpret.

I I think my my first just general reaction that I would just say is that I think we're I think we're overcomplicating this a little bit.

You know, I'll I'll just speak for myself.

Like I I feel like I'm pretty in the weeds on this, and I I struggled this week to actually like understand what was being proposed and all of the different variables that are at play.

You know, it's obviously a tremendous amount of analysis that went into this.

Um I don't mean to discount that, but you know, we're talking about categorizing every neighborhood in the city into four different context types.

There's three different categories of missing middle typologies.

We have two different development outcomes with house scale and block scale, and then that's all mapped onto these different um, you know, for context.

I think we're just gonna lose people, frankly, when we're especially you're going out to the public uh with these workshops.

I think you're gonna lose people trying to explain to the public what what this all means.

And I think it's adding to me a lot of unnecessary friction for the actual users of this ultimate product, which is gonna be you know, probably small scale developers, right?

These are the folks that are, you know, it's it's the Michaels of the room that have to interpret this, right?

And you know, um, I don't want to speak for you, Michael, but I I would say that generally speaking, small scale developers, these are not super highly capitalized folks with entitlement handlers, right?

And and you know, a law firm that they've hired to actually shepherd them through entitlements.

You know, we need to be creating a regulatory environment that normal people can understand.

And I'm I'm struggling to understand it, and I'm not normal.

So the goal here is to consolidate, simplify streamline, right?

I think one of the big ideas that we had with the general plan was that we're trying to take you know these these dozens of different general plan designations and zones and consolidate them into a handful.

I think we did that with the general plan, right?

Most of the city's missing middle zones are like neighborhood designation.

Um I think with the missing middle ordinance, we're taking we're taking four zones, basically, right?

There's R1, R1A, one B and R2.

And by my look, we're creating at least 12 new ones, right?

There's four place-based contexts with three different combinations of missing middle typologies at different combinations of house scale and block scale.

It just feels, I guess, just counter to the original goal of simplicity.

So, aside from just you know, simplifying, I think how many unique zones we're creating.

I think completely you know, recognize the ask that's that's at play here, right?

We're we're trying to get feedback from the commission on this sort of degree of change idea, the minor, moderate, transform um conversation.

I think, but I think just like more importantly, I think what what's not really being asked, but I think is the really like critical question here is where are we talking about peeling back bulk control, right?

And that decision is a lot more important to me because I think that's what's sort of gonna be dictating where we're allowing these you know simple three-story buildings and by extension these four to ten unit housing projects.

And uh just for the record, I don't, you know, I I recognize it's a it's a factor.

I don't buy the idea that this is all just building code problems uh that that's precluding this stuff.

I mean, I there's plenty of four to ten unit stuff that's being built uh in C2 and in R4.

I just toured one recently, right?

The difference is that those places are not regulated under missing middle and don't have bulk control standards.

I think that's like an important thing that we should at least acknowledge.

Um and I, you know, I don't want to completely like rehash this this whole bulk control debate of you know, I from a couple years ago.

I know a lot of the folks on the commission, you know, were there for that.

I know some weren't, but I think just to it's worth repeating a little bit, right?

We had a pretty universal, I think, feedback at that point from the housing community, from the environmental community, from the business community, um, asking us to remove bulk control completely because they felt that it was increasing costs, right?

We heard repeatedly from people who actually build this stuff that it increased costs.

I don't think anyone's even really disputing that it increased costs, right?

It's more complicated to build a third floor that way.

Um, they reduce affordability, right?

The whole point of eliminating unit caps in the general plan was to build more affordable multiplexes.

That was that was a key tenet of why we did that.

Um I remember there was a bunch of great analysis documents that the city developed you know in the early part of that conversation.

And I was looking back at actually one of them before this meeting, the zoning design and policy recommendations document, I think it was called.

Um, and that showed in that analysis that the most affordable projects, and 75% of the 8400 market feasible missing middle units that they modeled in the city were sixplexes and a plexus.

And that they in that report, they actually said, quote, a significant limiting factor to missing middle housing is bulk control standards.

So you know, and and as we got further along, right?

The bull control requirements, they stayed in, right?

We um you know, optimistically maybe thought, oh, maybe you know, bulk control doesn't preclude these products, maybe we will see this stuff.

You know, we're we're a year and a half in, we haven't seen a single project in the three to 20 range.

And um, and I think that's because nobody can actually make three stories work on a on a small on a small lot.

Um the other things worth mentioning, um, bulk control increases utility bills, right?

This was something that I think um Commissioner Reschke has talked about because it can make it less efficient, right, to heat and cool the building.

And I think you know, it it also works counter to our our fair housing goals because you know, and and um Commissioner Martins, you're referencing this, right?

Like we're we're selectively talking about applying bulk control to certain neighborhoods, and they happen to be very high opportunity, high-demand neighborhoods, right?

Um so I guess I'll be I'll be clear about my recommendation.

I you know, I'd like to see the city allow for at least uh a three-story rectangular building across all the neighborhoods in the city, and I'd like to see that regardless of whether the neighborhood successfully banned missing middle uh in the past.

To me, you know, that existing context, and this is referenced in commons, it's a lot less relevant than what do we want in the future, right?

Which is a more affordable and and you know, a more diverse housing stock.

And I'll take it a step further, right?

The only reason that Oak Park, the neighborhood I live in, is is compact and connected in that context, and then ESAC is categorized as transitional, is because Oak Park was redlined, right?

Oak Park was redlined at ESAC successfully banned multifamily a hundred years ago.

That's that is not to me a good reason to sort of perpetuate the context.

That's just protecting the status quo, right?

And it's doing that at the expense of renters that want to live in ESAC but can't.

They can't afford it.

So before we updated the general plan, um, the height limit, we talked about this before.

It was in R1 was 35 feet.

And we see single family housing pretty much use that height.

Um most of the new small lot single family that I'm used to, like in the Delta Shores area, North Lake, Natomas.

It seems like a lot of that is is in the kind of 30 plus foot range.

Um we updated the the general plan to remove density-based restrictions to you know allow for you know more affordable housing types everywhere.

And now we're updating the the zoning code and talking about what feels like really complicated ways of rating in that really good decision to to kind of simplify the regulatory environment and allow for people to just build more affordable, lower cost buildings.

Stuff like three-story townhomes, stuff like three-story multiplexes.

Um again, it's been over two years now, it's been a year and a half since the the interim ordinance.

Um we we just haven't, you know, part of what we were explicitly trying to do with that was build the three to ten unit stuff, and we just haven't seen a single one come through.

And I just think we have to take that pretty seriously.

I think we have to be thinking about what are we gonna do to sort of make bold changes that make it easier to actually build that product that we were trying to build.

And you know, based on the conversations that I've had with the small developers, and you know, I I was at the you know, the small developer incubator, I went to the showcase, uh, and I talked with the folks that are trying to build this stuff and they're interested in building this stuff.

The biggest constraint in the interim ordinance that they identified were rules like bolt control that that make three-story construction more expensive.

Um I I love Victorian buildings.

I I used to live in like a Victorian triplex in um you know in midtown.

I think the priority here has to be you know flexibility, it has to be trying to create feasibility.

I think you know, these sort of three stories with dormers and gables, no one can afford to build this stuff right now, and I think we just need to sometimes make it legal to build a box, to be honest.

And and there's a reason, you know, we've we've had a lot of apartment buildings that have come through this commission in the last year or so.

Every one of them looks like a box.

There's a reason for that, right?

Because it's a very uh it's much cheaper to build rectangles than than pitched roofs that look like a Victorian house.

So again, I I'd just I would like us to kind of allow for these kind of three three-story simple buildings across most of the city.

To me, that's that's pretty in line with with what's meant by house scale.

You know, I I don't think at the end of the day, we're you know, we're not talking about bulldozing neighborhoods.

I we just you know had the big scary Alhambra project come through this commission.

Um, you know, that's that's not what we're talking about here.

It that's not going in any of these neighborhoods.

This is an extremely incremental approach to me.

You might see one of these projects on a block over the course of decades, if we're lucky, right?

So you're not gonna fundamentally change the the livability, the compatibility of the neighborhood.

You know, neighborhood character, we're talking about neighborhood character a lot.

That's about more than just the building, it's about the people, right?

And and being you know ambitious in our housing policy ensures that the people can actually afford to stay in our city.

Um so I'll I'll move now a little bit to the preferences.

You know, we've again we've tried, I think this bull control idea, it hasn't yielded results.

Doing it again to me, that's a commitment to mostly just limiting these areas to single family homes and duplexes.

That's what we've got.

I think that's what we'll continue to get if we do that.

Um and frankly, that was already kind of allowed by state law.

You can do that with ADU law, you can do that with SB9.

So, in terms of specific preferences, I I do prefer the transform approach of the three options.

Um, I think more importantly than that, I'm less interested in the big scary, like, you know, five-story rectangle that was shown there.

I'm a lot more interested in just facilitating simple three-story buildings without dormers and gables everywhere.

So I'd recommend that we're kind of allowing for that MMH high category at the staff level across the city.

I think that's consistent with the building sizes that are currently allowed for in the general plan and kind of the policy direction that we've gotten from council on that.

I think that means I'm also recommending that we maintain the total height limit.

So I'm not recommending changing that, but removing the Eve height limit and the requirement for pitch roof with dormers on the third floor with the house scale development outcome.

Um I I think I'd also prefer that we maintain the setbacks just the way that they are and not regulate buildings by by width and depth and wings.

I think setbacks seem to work just fine.

I think it's what most folks are used to dealing with.

I think it could actually potentially reduce the size of the building on these like larger lots if you regulate the width of the building instead of just using setbacks.

So I think that's it's a little bit too prescriptive for my taste.

Um I I'm really glad to see.

I think the the block scale stuff that's proposed is great with no bulk control applied in the in the FAR 2.0 areas.

I think that was the intention of the general plan going to 2.0.

In fact, I think that was effectively what this commission uh made a recommendation to council to do back in in 2024 when we took that um action to remove bulk control in those areas, and then it was added backed in.

Um so I'm glad to see that's that's now staff's recommendation.

Um then I didn't even really get into the SP 79 recommendations, but I would just echo um Commissioner Messius Reed's comments, and I would just completely agree that that I think staff's recommendation to approach it that way is great.

That um I certainly don't think we should pursue a local alternative plan.

I don't I don't think we need to create extra work for staff.

You guys are working hard enough.

Um I think it's also a great approach to to codify some of the height limits into the zoning code.

I think that's a very good idea.

I think my only ask on the 79 piece would be that we make it very, very clear and transparent in the zoning code and the maps that we put out, that for the places that were we are not actually codifying the heights into the um zoning code, so the the missing middle areas, that um there's some sort of disclaimer or it's just very, very clear that there are additional allowances under SP79.

Because I think there's, you know, again, getting back to the simplicity idea, like uh these these folks are not necessarily gonna like know that SB79 exists, they might not know that they have additional entitlements like through state law.

So I think that would that would go a long way to just be really really transparent that that's a possibility, even if they're not codified.

Okay, those are all my comments.

Thank you.

Remy?

Commissioner Kennedy, uh, thank you for your feedback on the table.

I just want to um underscore that uh this table does not represent what an ordinance or the regulations would ultimately look like.

Um planners by nature or wonky, we like tables colorful, helps us um break apart information and bringing it together in a way that's manageable to us, and I think we can share it.

But the intent is to um whittle down our options, a range of options from you know three significant different options to one that uh where we can get short input, we can get confirmation from the city council, and then we can develop materials uh that are more graphic friendly, we can unify our message, we can uh undertake our public engagement process in a much more simplified manner uh over the summer, and then as well as when we develop uh an ordinance.

Um with respect to some of the discussion about the the preservation of the existing neighborhoods, I would just say that you know that ship has sailed.

I think uh with the adoption of the new uh 2040 general plan um across all the neighborhoods, we uh created a maximum FAR of 1.0 to give you a sense of scale.

Um the average uh neighborhood had an eight units per acre uh maximum density, a 1.0 FAR represents about a 26 units per acre density.

So as a city, uh we've agreed that we're gonna undertake a smart growth strategy.

Uh I think uh the committee conversation was aligned and that we're gonna accommodate 69,000 housing units within our footprint, and we're gonna welcome a lot of those homes within the existing neighborhood.

So that is certainly happening.

Um and as we had the conversations with the community about missing middle housing and allowing duplex, triplex, and fourplexes, the the graphics that we showed, the discussions that we had, didn't necessarily show the maximum degree of change that's shown in some of these graphics.

Uh Jamie, if you could please go to the um uh photo that shows at three uh housing options.

And so I think that's part of uh the discussion that we're trying to have here is um the maximum can always be you can always be built out certainly.

But the question is I think at staff level with objective standards, um, what level is it that we're comfortable with moving forward for a kind of a fast track review and approval?

Um we don't completely surprise blind side uh the existing community who maybe wasn't aware that option three was coming within the neighborhood next door.

And so that's uh part of the input that we're trying to get from the commission.

The transformative changes have that's something that um folks think the the community is ready for, um that's an input would certainly welcome.

We feel it's a bit extreme.

The moderate approach seems to achieve the intended goals of the general plan to accommodate all of the growth to allow of the missing middle housing types and more, and so that's uh kind of the basis for staff's recommendation.

Can I ask Remy just just um on this slide?

I mean, these these buildings on the right look, I mean, it's hard to totally tell, but those look way taller than 35 feet.

Is that right?

I mean, it looks like there's maybe I'll ask for more than three floors there.

Yeah, they're not they're not conforming 35 feet if they're showing what 2.0 would result in.

So which is way higher, so yeah, five stories before the roof is about 55 feet.

But we're not proposing is there anything in here that's proposing changing the 35 foot height?

I thought we were keeping that flat except for the 79 areas, which is required by state law.

We would potentially be looking at increasing potentially we could increase the height in within the 2.0 uh FAR areas in order to allow more intensity uh that would kind of fulfill the intent of that higher FAR within proximity of transit.

That's what we were trying to illustrate.

The 35 feet is the max, but the FAR that's allowed would result in more than that.

I just want I just want to be clear, right?

That when when we're talking about the vast majority, like the 80% of the city, we're not talking the 80% of the missing middle parcels.

We're not talking about something that looks like this, we're talking about something three stories, right?

Oh 29,000 parcels approximately.

Asking what the FAR breakdown of two that are 2.0.

Yeah, like 20,000 have FAR2 and the MMH zones, the rest are FAR one.

I'm just worried that this is sort of like scaring people a little bit, but it's you know, I think for the vast majority of the city, what we're talking about is something smaller than what's on the screen here.

Right.

It's just for the areas with 2.0 is where you would see the most change, which is why they were highlighted for this discussion tonight.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yeah, I I kind of I appreciate Commissioner Caden opening up the conversation about where we I think we all would love to see density, and I really appreciate understanding better now that the far right is for illustration of what not quite even 2.0 would look like, and that it would indeed exceed the 35 foot.

It's by way of illustration to say um if we indeed went that direction, the 2.0 or 1.9, it would exceed the 35 foot, and it would be essentially four stories or five stories.

Not saying we're gonna do that, but we need to understand what how what it the height would be if we went to a nearly 2.0.

If we went with the transformative approach.

Correct.

So I don't think it's scare tactic, it's just saying this is how if we indeed went that hot tall, it would exceed the three.

Exactly.

Yeah, uh FAR is uh not many jurisdictions use it as a maximum.

It's new to our community, it's new to our residents, commission, council, and so I think a visual is important to help uh convey sort of what can be achieved with that maximum.

And I and I think I generally would like to see um greater density in areas that are traditionally considered anti-density, but I also think it's important to put it in context.

Um I appreciate a little bit of historic information about Oak Park.

It was actually a high-end community.

It was the first suburb, North Central Oak Park indeed was had irrestrictive covenants, just historically.

I had a restrictive covenant in my first home I bought as an adult on the North End.

The downfall of Oak Park was when sadly my grandparents were moved from the West End to Donner Way, and um the freeways were built and communities were divided, but most of Oak Park, central and north indeed had restrictive covenants, and and I had one in my own home.

Uh South Oak Park, not so much where I grew up, my family grew up, lived there for I ran at my mom's home for nearly.

So I lived in Oak Park for nearly 30 years, but it was not legally redlined.

It became segregated as a result of the freeway and other things.

Um I also think it's important to, and I now live in Esack.

Um, I think it's important to clarify.

Not everybody that lives in EastAC lives in the Fab 40s or around McKinley Park.

There are many one story, two-story, lovely bungalows.

In fact, there's a wonderful series of brownstones that are right across the street, one story bungalows on Granada Way just off of Alhambra, and they're they're wonderful.

Those are three-story townhouses, are selling for $900,000.

But there are many height variations in parts of East SAC.

You know, around the I live on the in the thrifty 30s, but I, you know, have a tutor.

Um but so all I'm saying is um I think we could and should have greater density.

I think even those striking height differences are not offensive.

There's ways to mitigate it.

And there's generally far more people in ESAC who support increasing density.

And I think that's a healthy conversation to have.

Um even as I understand there are some people who arms go up in in distress, like we saw at the project, um, the Demas project.

So I think our city in general, and even people who are fortunate to have bought like when I did and couldn't afford to move to my house in USAC.

Now there's a willingness to see greater density.

I do think that this 2.0 for illustration purposes is important.

I wouldn't preclude it in in a ESAC, but they're in the right place.

Um I do think it's important for us to understand this notion of some neighborhoods uh will reject this.

I I think there's a lot more unanimity and universal respect and desire for the average person in most of these neighborhoods to see increased density with some sensitivity.

And and and this body has shown the courage to push back, even when um some people come out opposing density.

So I have confidence in us, and I have confidence in the communities.

Um I think it's really important to understand that one time, you know, Oak Park was in fact littered with uh restrictive covenants in their homes.

Uh beautiful homes, and but for other decisions, white flight, uh, the freeway, uh it was horrible what happened and when Oak Park went through the worst, and I visited my grandma's house when they had the uprisings in the park.

So I remember this well.

But I think our city is is is far more evolved, and I think the desire here to do something more simple and understandable that achieves the outcome of allowing density as as needed uh to address the middle the MMH is where we should go.

And I don't know how we get there, but um I I just think that this body in our city is far more progressive and looking towards the future to do the right thing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh just a quick comment.

I had uh hadn't heard the 5030s before.

Is that the equivalent to that's yeah that's where I live, the three prefects.

Is that the same as prefabs?

That's thrifty is relative term these days.

Is that like prefabs?

Yeah, no, not nearly.

Okay.

Anyway, thank you.

Um Commissioner Mossis Reed.

Yeah, no, I I would agree with Commissioner Caden that I think you know as you go out to the public, um, there could be a case made.

Um, you know, to push this to sort of the it's was it low, medium, high?

What is that each stand for?

I'm sorry, I'm not my staff report is not pulled up high.

Okay, the high level um MMH high.

I think there could be a case made for that.

I guess my question when you're going the next step for you for the staff is to go out to public.

How are you planning to do your public outreach?

And from this feedback, like, are you gonna be going out with with this, or are you going to be condensing it based on the workshop that you have with commission and counsel, condensing that down from the comments and then going out for public commentation?

Uh Commissioner.

Our uh goal is to uh pin input from this commission and uh direction from council as well on the preferred approach between the minor moderate and transformational, and hopefully have the ones selected that we can move forward with to do public engagement and get into the weeds of the thousand page ordinance and start rewriting that ordinance uh so that it uh they align.

Okay, so I'll end my comments with you know, I think there could be a case made for us um uh again pushing it to MMH high.

Um, I I think there's been a lot of really great comments um here tonight, so thank you, commissioners.

Um, I do think that the um review staff level review with um deviation called up to director level, I think is is fine.

I definitely um want to agree with Commissioner Caden's comments um around bulk control.

I have personally experienced um difficulty with bulk bulk control, um, and it's really difficult and adds a ton of cost, and it is really unfortunate for uh to build and um have to have those additional costs because sometimes it makes projects is completely infeasible.

So very unfortunate, and I would like to um you know just echo your comments on that.

Um I just think that our job as a city really needs to be to make things easier.

Um you know, again, as a small contractor as a small builder, um, you know, like my Commissioner Caden said, oftentimes, you know, I I've I've actually been very fortunate as a commissioner who also has been on the other side.

I deal with the building department, I submit entitlement applications, and so I've kind of seen, you know, we build ADUs as well.

So I've kind of been on the other side of what some of the things that we discuss here, and you know, I've experienced, you know, um not that things have all been horrible, it's just experiencing sort of the process, the city process and finding out ways that we can improve.

Um you know, I think that's really helpful, right?

Um, and so I I really really want to stress that um adding things that could be cost prohibitive is really not the direction that I want to support us going in.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Reschke.

Thank you.

Can we look at the slide again showing where you put your recommendations, the city's recommendations?

Um so for the um for both of these, I think I want to echo what some of the other uh commissioners have shared, which is just like simplifying it as much as possible.

I work with a lot of developers and builders, and I I always hear you know just simplify it as much as possible.

And I think some of the um tables we've looked at today have been a little bit um kind of scary in that in that regard.

Um and then so for this moderate recommendation that's in the in the middle here.

Um are you guys recommending that in the FAR one it it meets the moderate standards on those tables, but then um and then you could you could get a discretionary review to do something in excess of that that goes up to the height limit with no bolt control?

And up to the 1.0 FAR up to the 1.0.

Even under the moderate recommendation in FAR of 2.0, you could develop uh at a higher scale and uh three-story flats.

Um and so the intensity is much higher.

That would be allowed to.

With the FAR 2.0, you can always do the block scale options.

Correct, yes, I'll let my consultant, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, I I really like that um that in the FAR 1.0, you can always get a discretionary review because I think that kind of strikes a balance between respecting the neighborhood context and then allowing the more affordable um option to to be built.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um a couple of qu uh comments.

Actually, I'd like to get a clarification from staff if I could regarding SP 79.

What defines a transit stop?

I'm seeing a reference in there to an eligible transit transit stop, such as light rail stations.

Obviously, I think we all know a light rail station, et cetera.

Is there anything uh something like a bus stop?

It's just too temporary that would not necessarily qualify.

A BRT stop would that qualify?

Uh who would actually ask Vice Chair Caden to answer that question in his say cog hat.

Vice Chair?

Sure.

So um you it's they they created an extremely complicated definition um called a transit-oriented development stop that's specific to SB79, and it went through the whole sausage making process in the state legislature.

Um so you can you can qualify several ways.

You can be commuter rail, and we don't have any commuter rail that meets the the trains per day definition.

You can be light rail, you can be heavy rail, we don't have any of that.

Or you can be bus rapid transit.

Um so bus rapid transit counts, and that the how what defines bus rapid transit was the topic of a lot of conversation.

Um but basically where they landed is it needs to have 15 minute frequencies and a dedicated lane.

So we don't have any bus rapid transit currently.

Um there is um provisions in in the bill that allow you to get in as planned transit.

Um I know the city is exploring uh bus rapid transit on the the 51 line on on Stockton Boulevard, and so um there's there's the potential that you know once that that project moves forward that that line would then turn on SB79 for the stops along that route.

And I think we know that the extension to the airport likely, if anything, would be BRT eventually.

Yeah, and that's currently in the map right now.

So the green line extension all the way to the airport is in the map because it's it's planned.

Yeah.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Commissioner Lamas.

Thank you, Chair.

And um thank you, staff.

Thank you to those who um came to provide comments from the audience and to the commissioners for this very robust discussion.

Um I appreciate a lot of the comments and particularly um Commissioner Caden and Commissioner Masses Reed and other folks who have been talking through the importance of trying to ultimately build more housing, um, trying to bring down the cost of housing and ultimately um increasing the supply, right?

Um and I know there was comments about how that impacts even folks who are at risk of homelessness and um on that cusp, but also other folks who are um struggling with trying to um get adequate housing that's affordable.

I had a question about the interim ordinance right now.

So from what I understand, there's an interim ordinance.

When does that expire?

Does it have a set expiration date?

It's just until we replace it with the permanent standards, which is what we're working to develop now.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you for that.

Um I I was curious because it sounds like there's still a lot of interest in trying to explore other options, right?

And we're still trying to figure out as a city, like how effective is the interim ordinance, um, how effective is this proposed ordinance, proposed permanent ordinance going to be.

Um, and there's interest in possibly going um allowing for more um streamline uh uh opportunities to to build more within the 1.0 FARM in terms of the you know 35 feet um um as opposed to the 24-foot limit and these um uh increased um and an increase to build more housing rate within 1.0 FAR and um also this question about um whether or not we're gonna implement a 1.5 FAR staff level approval versus uh um allowing uh uh that up to 2.0, right?

I guess that's part of a question too, right?

Where is that line?

Um so I'm curious, and maybe this is you know a comment to to the city in terms of considering um uh and allowing some more flexibility to be responsive to um what can be built is if um you know part of the recommendation is considering another interim proposal um that might uh go with a moderate approach but um convert to maybe a more transformative approach um after a certain amount of time um uh acknowledging that um there is a need to to build more right housing um and uh so just want to throw that out there right if there's if there's an an appetite for that to try to find a middle ground here.

Um I also uh appreciate the comments about the SB2, I mean SB 79 and um some of the comments about trying to support more affordable housing development and not try to create um alternative options that may not ultimately result in additional affordable housing being built.

Um and so I'm supportive of those uh city recommendations um in terms of SB 79, but um uh with that I will yield my time.

Thank you.

Um just a couple of things I'd like to add.

I wanted to go back to a comment uh Brian Seener made earlier about 34th Street, I guess the which is essentially one-story houses through there and on a three-story building stolid wall that was built.

Um obviously quite a visual shock in the neighborhood until people get used to it.

Um I would probably be somewhat shocked if uh three-story building five feet off my property line and my one-story neighborhood of Woodlake was built.

Um that said, uh, I also lived in midtown for some time in a one-story building, surrounded by several three-story apartment buildings.

Didn't bother me at all.

I mean, it was all there.

So I think if the context is there, you know going in what you have.

Uh if it's not there, I think you and this and particularly going out to the community.

I think a way of perhaps expressing what uh the three-story option could look like to people who are gonna be you know very concerned about that.

Um to find a good examples uh around the city that that would help alleviate concerns that that may come up.

Um, when you live with something that's been there for a while, it's you know it tends to be okay.

I think we go through I've gone through this with several uh affordable housing projects over in the Wood Lake uh area.

Tremendous uh neighborhood out, you know, uh just uh opposition to it initially and trying to continue, you know, convince them, you know, I've been designing affordable housing for 30 years plus.

It will be okay.

They won't be raping and pillaging the neighborhood.

And once the project is billed, as several of them are people go, oh yeah, that's a nice project.

Um I look at Commissioner Rescue, her firm did one of them, and it's just highly successful over there.

Uh but anyway, I think the difference between what's here right now and what would be proposed under these things will probably come up as a major question of uh uh the community as you go out there, find ways to I think address that as much as you can.

Uh with that, any other questions from Commission.

I think this this being a review and comment.

Uh, have we given you enough comments or should we keep going?

Um I want to thank all my fellow commissioners too for all of the input on this one.

It's been very, very good.

Thank you, Jamie, and everyone else on the staff.

We will now go back to uh item four, which is the workshop on the preliminary framework for regulating uh cottages on wheels.

Um, good evening, commissioners.

Uh my name is Angel Angiano, and I'm an associate planner with your community development department.

Um today I'm here to walk through uh some of our thought process and our preliminary preliminary framework uh regulating cottages on wheels.

As we go through this, uh please keep in mind that uh we're looking for your feedback and comments to help us shape this ordinance and this program.

All right, so just some policy context here.

Um this effort comes from the city's housing element, uh, which calls for exploring how movable tiny homes might be incorporated into our housing strategies.

Uh because tiny home can mean different things in states and local codes.

Uh, we use the term cottages on wheels to clearly define the type of home we are discussing.

So, what are cottages on wheels?

A cottage on wheels is a small dwelling unit built on a wheel chassis.

These units include complete living facilities, uh spaces for sleeping, eating, cooking, sanitation, so they function independently as a home.

They're typically between 150 and 400 square feet and are towable, though not designed to move under their own power.

Uh they must be built to nationally recognize safety standards, including standards for the American National Standards Institute and the National Fire Protection Association.

And they must be inspected by a qualified third-party inspector.

Uh, they also require registration with the California California Department of Motor Vehicles and HCD housing and community development.

So, why is a local framework needed?

Uh a local framework is necessary because these units are not defined as a housing type under state law.

State laws for accessory dwelling units also apply to only permanent buildings, and cottages on wheels are not considered uh permanent structures.

Uh, because of this, we need a local zoning uh and permitting uh rules to ensure clarity, consistency, and safety.

Uh, this framework will define where these units can be placed and what standards uh must be met.

So we reviewed ordinances from several jurisdictions, including Placer County, Nevada County, West Sacramento, the City of San Jose, and San Diego.

These jurisdictions were selected as examples based on their proximity to Sacramento, uh, their comparable size, and to provide a variety of approaches from a city and county context.

Um, in total, more than 20 jurisdictions in the state uh jurisdiction statewide have adopted similar programs.

Um but just keep in mind when you're when we are comparing these standards uh to ours, uh it's important to consider the differences between the city and the county uh conditions, particularly uh with respect to land availability and utility access across these communities.

Uh we saw some common themes that being clear definitions for removable dwellings, uh, requirements for construction safety uh certifications, design standards that ensure uh that the units resemble traditional homes, and utility connection requirements for long-term residential uses.

So here's an overview of what we're proposing.

So we're obviously calling them uh cottages on wheels, um, allowed in areas zoned for single unit and duplex dwelling zones, including R1, R1A, R1B, and R2.

Uh the units must be between 150 and 400 square feet.

They must register with uh the DMV and HCD.

Uh they must meet nationally recognized safety standards and the appearance of them, it must resemble uh a house and units and and use materials commonly found in the neighborhood with wheels and mechanical equipment and screen from view.

In terms of setbacks, they must uh follow the underlying zoning requirements and utilities they must connect to water, sewer, and electrical services with uh connections designed for safe disconnection, and in terms of foundation and parking, they must be placed on stable surfaces such as papers, asphalt, uh, concrete or similar materials.

So, our proposal once again is to reiterate that you know we're we're proposing that they be permitted in the R1, R1A, R1B, and R2 zones.

A max allow a maximum of one cow uh on all lots developed with one or more uh dwellings, and that they be approved at a staff level if application conforms with our applicable standards.

If deviations are reviewed by if deviations are required, then it would be re-reviewed by a design director.

And of course, it would still go through the building permit process for uh utility connection and inspections.

So, in terms of next steps, um so this spring we're we'll be connecting our outreach, uh reaching out to the housing policy and working group, which is made up of uh various nonprofit and profit stakeholders uh related to housing that support housing causes and uh rather ambitious, but we're also trying to hope to roll this out by by the summer, um, but more likely we're looking into into the fall and winter.

So just to summarize it all, we're seeking feedback from the commission on the draft ordinance, details related to the permitted zones, number of cals permitted per lot, and the review process uh and the review level and type.

Yeah, so that concludes my presentation.

I'm gonna be able to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Angel.

Yep.

Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have three speakers.

Can I have Maximil Rosa come up?

And then a Robin, and after Robin Ben, please.

Um I didn't mention before that I also serve on the housing policy working group, and I'm a member of the Measure U Commission as well.

We are at Sierra Service Project, run our youth workforce development program.

We are building cottages on wheels as an effort to expand a transitional housing program that already exists.

I want to tell you a little story about the safe harbor community.

It was built by a woman named Robin Moore.

Her program is highlighted on the city's website about addressing homelessness.

And she had the dream and the vision to help students who were sleeping in their cars and living on the streets, have better educational outcomes.

And what she figured she could do was make her house and her property available for people to transition out of homelessness.

At the time, she pitched an idea to have four tiny cottages put into her backyard.

They did not conform with building standards because it was too many ADUs.

So she managed to find a workaround by putting them on trailers, they're no longer buildings, and she was able to create this program that over the last two and a half years has helped 57 families transition out of homelessness.

That's over 160 people who now are no longer living on the street because someone had the idea to share the space that they had on their own personal private property.

She started out with three residential units and a shared kitchen and bath uh combo unit, and since then has expanded.

We're in the process of building additional units to expand this program so that we can actually address that question about how missing middles can address homelessness.

We're employing young people to build these houses and training them on the design site planning, how to go through the permitting process.

We're building them to building code standards so that as this regulation does occur, we can prove that our structures are built to the uh safe working conditions.

I think that the recommendation for one cow per unit is far too low, and I base that on my own personal experience.

Having seen someone take a 50 by 150 lot, put a bunch of units there, and have a meaningful impact in the neighborhood that I grew up in in Del Paso Heights in North Sacramento, and those are the kinds of solutions that I want to be a part of, and I want to see in my neighborhood.

Thank you for taking the time to hear us out on this.

I have more to share with you later.

Thank you for your comments.

Robin, please, and then Ben.

Oh, good evening.

My name's Robin, and I'm a primary cow or tiny home on wheels dweller.

Um I started this process of trying to legalize my tiny home on wheels in the city of West Sacramento in 2020.

So I've lived the reality of what you're discussing tonight.

I'm still going through the legal process, even though the ordinance went into effect May of last year.

But it's so exciting to see the conversation starting over here on the other side of the river.

But I did want to say I strongly support what you're doing here, creating this legal pathway is not just innovative, but it's necessary.

From experience, the biggest barriers weren't safety, they have been process time, costs.

When requirements become too complex, too slow or too expensive, people don't stop living in and building tiny homes.

They just do it without permits.

So if the goal is safe legal housing, the pathway has to be clear and achievable.

And we need to be super clear to the public that these are different from what is often used by government and media to describe things like sheds or pallet shelters.

Those are meant to be temporary housing and are not tiny homes.

So those are very different from what we're discussing here, which are permanent, code compliant housing units.

Clear language helps lead to clear policy and gaining community support.

I also would challenge you to consider allowing these as primary residences.

Limiting them to only accessory units reduces their potential impact.

So when allowed as primary housing, these homes create a true entry point into home ownership for people who are otherwise completely priced out of the market.

We are diverse people who need diverse options.

These are one of the few housing types that can expand access to home ownership without requiring subsidies, large-scale development or public funding.

In that sense, they provide a housing solution at essentially no cost to the taxpayer while still increasing housing supply and local economic activity.

So much of our conversations are around how to incentivize wealthy developers to build our housing for us.

And this empowers the average person to build their own affordable housing.

So I encourage you to keep the permitting process simple and predictable, avoid unnecessary duplication between state, DMV, and local requirements, be mindful of total costs, especially for utility hookups, and allow enough flexibility for these homes to function as real long-term housing.

Ultimately, you have an opportunity here to do more than just allow a new housing type, but to expand who gets to participate in home ownership in Sacramento.

For many people, this isn't about downsizing.

It's about finally having a way to build stability, equity, and a place of their own in a housing market that has otherwise shut them out.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our last speaker is going to be Ben.

Hey everyone, back again.

We are extremely excited about this ordinance.

And I want to tell you why.

What I find most exciting about Tiny Homes Hun Wheels.

So there's for any of you who who follow or participate in housing policy discourse at the state level or just sort of in general, you know that the thing that everybody talks about right now is manufactured or uh or or how do we get how do we get modular housing to work, right?

Like how do we build housing in factories and apartment buildings that are built in factories?

They do it in Europe.

We're throwing tons of money at this problem.

There's like if if the uh across from a Mortal Cafe, just a couple blocks over, there's a very cool modular building.

This is a thing that everybody's paying attention to.

And the reality is we're really struggling, right?

Like nobody can seem to make modular housing, factory-built housing work at scale, but but this is it, right?

Like this this ordinance is that, right?

And I think the wheels, the fact that they they they come on wheels can actually really distract us to what we're talking about here.

All we are talking about is allowing people to purchase factory-built housing, plop it down in the city of Sacramento, connect it to utilities and call it a house because it's a house.

That's all it is.

It just happened to be built in a factory.

It may not be big units stacked on top of each other, like what we usually are talking about when we talk about factory-built housing, modular housing, but but that's what this is.

So with that in mind, our recommendations uh would basically be let's design this ordinance to treat this like any other housing, because again, that's what this is.

Uh it's just it happens to have wheels, so people have stereotypes around trailers or that sort of things, but this is built to the same standards as an ADU or anything else.

So one, um, we do agree they should be allowed to be primary units.

Um if you think about it, they if if you can buy a tiny home for a hundred thousand dollars, and with our new missing middle lot split, you know, tiny lot sizes, you really could be talking about a starter home in Sacramento for less than 200,000, which is absolutely insane, right?

I know some people maybe purchase their houses back when that was reasonable.

That is not reasonable anymore.

If we could do that through this ordinance, that'd be incredible.

Um two, we should regulate them just like ADUs.

So that means the same number of ADUs we allow on a lot.

We should allow the same thing with tiny homes on wheels.

Um three, we should use uh uh so Greta and I know others of the city have done an incredible job making it so that people can can basically do pre-approved ADUs.

We think we should do the same thing for this, right?

So you should have a library of ones that the city has already you know approved, and the city should even put it on the website, right?

Like all of these are pre-approved, and every time we approve one, we should put another one on that list.

Um then finally, uh I think that's it.

But basically, we just treat these just like any other type of housing.

That's what they are.

Um we're very excited about this.

Thank you, staff for delivering this excellent ordinance.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

That's the last speaker on this item.

Thank you, Clerk.

Um just a comment.

I guess being a former building official, I just can't get building codes out of my brain.

Um this brings up some interesting uh just issues of who who approves uh one of these units.

It really once it's on wheels, it would need to be housing community development HCD.

Uh and I'm assuming that would then get a um certification uh stamp or uh applied to the building.

It would not then the build the the building department in Sacramento would just say that's pre-approved, that's fine.

We're just doing the utility connections.

Since it is on wheels, so I think also we need to take into account moving forward, given potential seismic issues that may come up.

The connections for all of the utilities, I think need to have a degree of flexibility to them.

So if anything moves, they don't break, crack, and put doo-doo all over the place.

Um but I would like to ask the the woman from West Sacramento to come back up.

I'd be curious to see how that uh has gone and how how your that unit was built.

Was it built at a factory or yes, technically?

Yeah, just on Richard's Boulevard.

This was back in um 2016, I believe, um, when I started the process.

So I've lived in the tiny home illegally for quite some time.

And then I bought the property in West Sacramento and asked for permission, and then it was kind of like what's going on, what are you doing?

And then I asked for forgiveness.

I moved there, and then um got other advocates on board, neighbors on board.

Then we started just getting with council, getting with planning, community development, and that's kind of how where we are now.

So it was approved, the ordinance was approved in May of last year of 2025.

So it's been almost a year, and now we're working on proportional impact fees.

Because I'm a primary resident uh residence, so there's no other home on the property.

So this is my you know entry to housing.

Um so now we're working on impact fees because if the impact fees are more than your house, there's no incentive.

So we're trying to create incentives for the average person, not just wealthy developers.

That's kind of where I was looking at policy.

I'm like, wow, look at all these discounts and all these programs for all these developers to build all this housing.

There's nothing for the average person.

There's no there was no options to impact fees, there was no payment plans, there's no ordinances, you know, there's nothing like that.

So this was an affordable option for me and hopefully for others.

And right now we have four people who have submitted permits, and there's one other primary that um is also waiting for the impact fees that should be going to council April 15th.

So we're waiting on that.

And then there's two um ADUs that have submitted.

And I don't know what the holdup is for them.

I I'm not sure.

Um, but the as primaries, we're waiting on the impact fees, the proportional impact fees to come down.

Has your unit been submitted to the building department in OSR?

Yes, we've submitted site plans.

Yep.

Did the issue of uh flexibility and the uh utility connections?

No, no, that hasn't been.

Like a rocky, I don't know about that.

Yeah.

No.

And so also I assume is your unit uh either to be registered with the DMV.

Yes, it's registered.

And that would require what an annual renewal uh would it be like.

No, it's a permanent, it's a permanent trailer.

It doesn't require an annual remote.

Really?

Because RVs and boats typically, if the you have options with a boat, you can either pay annually a fee to the DMV and renew it like a license, or you can document it with a Coast Card.

But I don't think there's any, you know, um mod mode like that with these units.

I would assume they would be uh annual renewal, but I could be wrong.

Okay, interesting.

All right.

Well, thanks.

Thanks for clarifying that.

All right.

Uh speakers, uh Commissioner Young.

Yeah, um, I was wondering, staff, uh, do you guys know how much it it costs to build build these units?

Or or maybe you can add answer how much did it cost for you to acquire acquire the unit?

Second range.

The tiny home itself.

Yeah, yeah.

And all I bought mine and you know years ago.

So, you know, 2016.

Okay.

So it's definitely it's definitely been inflated, just like everything else in terms of labor and materials.

But I mean, my unit was 40,000, and the impact fees in West Sacramento are 50,000.

So my land was $60,000.

So I'm like, okay, how do we make this make sense?

You know, so that's that's kind of what we've been doing, and and that's why we created the ordinance, because it's not exactly a manufactured home, it's not a traditional home, so we had to create the ordinance to so that I didn't have to build a whole other home.

Because that's that it's not affordable.

So are all these homes being really just contemplated as home ownership?

We're using them as transitional housing.

Just for the people watching from home, if we could make sure we use a microphone.

Thank you.

He builds them.

I'd come up.

Yeah.

Yeah, sorry.

We're building them for an average cost of about 30k each.

We're running a model of transitional housing, so it's not considered emergency housing or rentals, but there's like a long-term lease that's held with uh participating like case management agencies who place people into the housing and do all the screening and those things too.

So one of our program staff actually has a life dream to use tiny homes as a way to help people bridge the gap of cost of home ownership by having them build their houses as more of a housing cooperative, being able to learn from each other and helping people access the starter home for much cheaper and also sharing in land, so things like the land use fees and development fees and those things can also be shared by a group of people.

So it could be used as a rental housing strategy, possibly as well.

So I mean, what would that look like with the proposed ordinance?

Because right now I think these units would only be allowed in R1, R2, R3.

I mean, if if some nonprofit developer wanted to do some sort of rental housing strategy or homeless housing strategy, would would that be allowed under the proposed?

Well, um, they would have to have a primary dwelling of sorts, whether it's a uh single unit or duplex, right?

Because those are the zones that were proposed to be allowed in, and they're proposed to be an accessory, right?

Uh in it in on lots that have existing primary dwellings.

So, you know, technically someone could own the unit, but they wouldn't own the land, right?

Maybe someone could own like Robin could own her unit and live but the the unit on the back of another property and technically she would own the tiny house, but she wouldn't own the land.

So does that make sense?

Yeah, I I I think I'm just thinking about the yeah, Greg, great share how we kind of navigate around this too.

So as we're having our program fellows developing site plans and they're evaluating different sites based on their criteria of not only how many can they fit, what the infrastructure costs would be in terms of mechanic, electrical, plumbing, but also like is there an existing structure that we can tap into because it's a limiting factor, as well as like looking at other um sites like for example churches that have certain exemptions that would allow us to build these not on trailers.

So there's a couple of strategies that we teach around that help the help our program fellows understand how to assess which sites are actually feasible or scalable because a lot of the times the permitting development infrastructure costs would be prohibitive and break the business model of being able to build these and use them for housing, whether it be rental or homeownership.

Thanks, Alan.

Uh just clarify everybody again, Greg Sandlin, planning director.

I believe Robin Moore's uh set up with uh tiny homes on wheels.

That was permitted through an emergency ordinance, um, which is permitted during a declared housing crisis, and those are temporary structures, and those are permitted through an administrative process.

Ms.

Moore is taken advantage of as intended.

It hasn't occurred very often in the city.

Um, but yes, we that same ordinance allows safe parking lots in churches, um camping cabins, other things that private entities could do during this housing crisis.

Now, the question of can we do this for a let's say a nonprofit wants to set up a uh a situation where they're bringing in tiny homes on wheels for a permanent land use?

Correct.

That is something that we'd have to look into, and we have right now regulations for homeless shelters that require CUPs and have standards under state law.

Um so doing something like that is that it's gone a little bit beyond the scope of what we're doing here in terms of allowing homes on wheels in backyards in most cases, or maybe as a primary unit intriguing concept.

Um but we're yeah, that would be an expansion of our scope.

I mean, I think I mean obviously like the I believe the transitional housing or the homeless housing that's being proposed by the city.

Um I forgot the name of the director, but I mean he I I spoke with him.

Pedro, yeah.

I mean, he's talking about building like a hundred thousand dollars per bed or whatever, like just like that was just like the approximate cost, but if you're structured right.

So, but if we're talking about something here, like you know, with scale of economies or whatnot, you know, you could possibly be a rental um piece, but then you know, I I think I would just love to hear from the dais as far as kind of their thoughts on it being a rental housing strategy.

Like I I appreciate the homeownership.

I just think that you know, we've been talking for years about finding a low-cost way of building affordable housing, transitional housing, and it sounds like there's something here, but I I'm not sure why we're not contemplating possibly having this be a possibility in a commercial zone or church zone or multi-family zone, you know.

I mean, I I know that there are some other implications here, but I just feel like the discussion given given all we that we've been talking about for years, does at least deserves to have that enter into the conversation.

Uh, for that I'll I'll just rest for now and I might have some other cool comments later.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh Vice Chair Caden.

Yeah, I mean, I I think it's it's really exciting.

Um, you know, everything that's in here.

I'd completely support the city pursuing this.

I think um I would I would you know support I think a lot of the the comments that have been expressed uh from the public.

I think the the letter from House Sacramento is is pretty thoughtful, and I think a lot of the suggestions should be should be considered and maybe you know worth reaching out to them to kind of talk about them more.

I I would lift up a couple of those that stood out to me.

I mean, I think that the um permitting them on as primary dwellings, I think is is absolutely worth exploring from a affordable homeownership opportunity perspective, particularly as it you know, as we talk about um our ministerial lot split rules with 684 and 1123.

I mean, like I think that's you you very conceivably could see a eight-unit subdivision on a lot, and you know, I mean that's that would be unbelievable to see you know a home ownership opportunity without subsidy, you know, sub 300, you know, maybe pushing the boundaries even below that.

I think that would that would be unbelievable to do.

So it's it's definitely worth exploring.

I think um allowing more than one per lot.

I I agree with the the comment that you know why why are we treating these that differently?

I mean, I think I the the Placer County example of going up to 12.

I get that that's you know, maybe uh a stretch too far.

I I would support that personally, but I understand like why why that that's um you know uh a concern, I guess.

And so maybe there's a middle ground there, maybe you treat them like ADUs.

I mean, we don't we don't allow 12 ADUs, right?

Um, but you you do allow more than one.

So I think maybe there's there's a way to kind of allow for for a couple and just kind of have the same sort of rules that the city has with ADUs.

Um then I think the the streamline permitting through ministerial approval recommendation, I think it's you know, uh really worth exploring.

Um I don't I mean I I still don't totally understand like how if this is a factory built product, what does design review really mean uh in that case?

I mean, you're not gonna go back to the factory and and change the the design, and I understand the the desire to kind of have it, you know, have a minimum standard for what it looks like.

I think that makes a lot of sense, but it seems like you can achieve that through objective um design standards that that sort of set that minimum, and then you can still approve that at the staff level without sort of requiring a design process that um seems like it wouldn't yield anything anyway because there's not really a whole lot of opportunity to make changes at that at that point anyway.

Um and then you know, I mean I think the other aspect there is I mean it was referenced, right?

This is the whole factory built conversation at the state level.

This is like obviously a very hot topic.

There's a whole you know 10 bill package that's going through the legislature right now that actually does restrict some of the ability of local government, at least on the building code side to sort of require alterations beyond what is you know allowable via the the HCD approval process.

So I think it's it's possible if we have these kind of more um discretionary site plan design review processes that can kind of you know add layers of complexity to what's already kind of approved at the state level that we could you know run into some trouble you know if some of these bills are passed.

So I just wanted to make sure that the city was kind of tracking some of those as well.

Um but generally you know, I I think it's a fantastic idea and just would love, you know.

Maybe this is one of these things like we did this with with um the missing middle interim ordinance, right?

Where it's like we had um some ideas that we were you know exploring that were new and and different and it was uncomfortable, and so maybe we can you know try some of these things and then you know have a look back in a year where we come back next year, see how it's working, and then maybe add some of these these other ideas as well.

Yield my time.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um in terms of the design review, I suppose it's a possibility that uh the manufacturers of these could you know work with Bruce a bit uh you know, in the same way we have pre-approved uh ADU designs, uh try to develop uh approved uh you know um uh you know cottages on wheels, Bruce.

So Bruce Monaghan, your urban design manager, and 12 years ago, just about this month.

One of the questions I was asked about taking this position is what did I think the city should do?

And I said, we need tiny homes on wheels, and that was 12 years ago.

And for the last two years, Robin is I'm a West Sacramento resident.

Two years, Robin has been my muse on this particular topic, and I appreciate the effort that they have put into this.

Um I would also just reviewed a report by the Turner Center out of Berkeley on their um the uh modular home industry obstacles.

And one of the things mentioned in that obstacle was design review, and that they are like a car manufacturer, they build X number of cars with certain standards and paint it a certain color, and you buy one that you like, and that's it.

There's no changes, you don't get to go to the factory and modify what you want.

In the past, we have looked at modulars as something we wanted to comment on from a design standpoint.

After reviewing this Turner Center report, I've advanced the idea that we need to be able to pre-approve certain designs and let people say these are okay, go ahead and bring them, and that's it, we'll be fine.

I I I have found that it's harder to set a set of standards of what it should look like because we've got a good list for objective standards, and then we'll find one that's like, oh my god, that fits the checklist, but look at it.

So in my mind, there's more work that needs to go on that, but this needs to be a very simple review because you can't ask a person to go back and change it after the fact if it's already built.

Um this is the fastest, least expensive way to build housing.

If when you look, this is gonna be half the cost of an EDU, maybe even less than that.

Um it has the ability to be taken with you to another lot or another location.

It is a very simple thing to do when it's housing.

And we did have a major discussion with the building department, and they clarified this is not a building.

We're not gonna inspect this, we're not dealing with it, it's not a building.

It's you know, it's a it's a um DMV licensed building and in uh inspected by HCD.

So we we know that the the connections are the key.

We know that a foundation that works the same as a modular would work would be sufficient.

So the goal is to keep this really simple.

There are people in this country, other states that are creating subdivisions out of these.

I think that that's an opportunity.

We're not necessarily ready to go there.

I like you know, the fact that West Sacramento said these could be primary residents is a big step forward, not all of them say that.

But when we do this, if we do this, if we get you know support for this, it needs to be a very simple process, and design review will be a very secondary, and I won't say ministerial is the word, but it needs to be along that line of ministerial and not let's go tweak this thing.

We'll set some standards, see if we get people complying with those standards.

So I'm very excited about it, and I don't think it's a problem from a design standpoint.

Um Bruce, you mentioned that you you think that these could be half the price of uh you know ADUs, but yet they they've got to be built at the same uh building code standards, even though if they're HCD buildings, how could we account for that much of that?

Well, we we actually have an appendix in the in the uniform building code for tiny homes because things like stairs and lofts and exits don't fit the standard building code.

So there is an appendix nine, I think it is, yeah.

Um for in in the in the uh well international building code, and we've adopted that.

So these will have their own standards that they're built to, and they'll build to those standards.

Um they will be inspected at construction and not on site.

Um, much like the modular industry is having problems with there's too many jurisdictions want to inspect them on site rather than accepting the HCD stamp.

So um, yes, not a building, but a house.

Thank you.

I just want to quickly mention also that I know we're talking about site planning and design review, but I don't want us to forget also that as part of that planning stage, we're also taking into account utilities, um, overhead easements, all these other connections and utility connections that are that need to be captured at an early stage.

Otherwise, you know, if if if a potential uh cow owner it gets too far down the line.

So the building department, they've invested quite a bit of money, and now they're they're caught in they're unaware of certain development standards that are gonna have to do.

So it's important that we also capture through the planning stage, you know, certain requirements that other departments may require when we route projects out to them.

So that would include, you know, uh utilities, fire, uh, public works if that becomes an issue, uh like electrical, you know, those things to keep in mind.

But design review, site plan design review, those are two of the same thing that were we we take into consideration.

Thank you, Angel.

I I can't help but see an irony here as we've over the last decades plural eliminated mobile home parks uh throughout the area.

What are we coming back to here in a sense?

Anyway, yeah.

Which I've always thought was a great concept.

With that, um did you we got to Commissioner Reschy.

Thank you.

Yeah, so I have a quick question about the impact fees.

Um for the for the person who lives in West Sacramento, are the impact fees that you're being charged basically the same as if you had built a single family house with one bedroom, one bathroom?

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

And if you were to like move out of state tomorrow, would you be able to like take your house with you?

Yes.

And and then you would be able to sell your lot and someone could come and build a single family home on it, and then they would pay the impact fees again.

Uh I I don't know exactly what they're gonna do with that.

Yeah, I I don't know.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, I see.

Um, I just I I think it seems like that the impact fees should definitely be considered to be lower because you can leave and someone can come and and pay them again.

Um okay, thanks.

Um yeah, I really appreciate all the work on this ordinance.

It's really it's really creative and wonderful, and I would echo the things that have been said earlier that it should definitely be um it'd be great if it could be a primary unit, it's a really great way to um start uh you know, a low entry low cost entry point to to housing.

Um the the letter that we got from um Sacramento House is um really helpful where they talk about movable ADUs.

I think that would be a really great way to classify them, and then that way they could be the same number as ADUs, um, or even more.

I think it's a really good opportunity for communities.

I hear a lot of people want to live in co-housing or you know, they've live with friends or or something, and so like having that opportunity to to do something like that would be really nice.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh Commissioner Ortiz.

If I may just add or Mary make a comment related to that.

So when we first started working on this ordinance, um, we reached out to HCD uh to gather their input related to how we should classify these um these um cows and whether um uh state ADU standards would apply to them, and also naming convention because we've seen so many different varieties of how they've classified uh how other jurisdictions call them, and they did discourage discourage us to utilize ADUs in its name because it does pose a lot of confusion related to state mandates uh that would not necessarily apply to a movable non-permanent structure because it's not they're not seen that way.

I see, yeah.

Um and it also poses the question, you know, like um there are very specific building requirements that an ADU must meet that do not meet or not required.

Yeah, I see how that's tricky.

And so um well, plus the cow name is really cute, so marketing potential.

Is that it, Commissioner?

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Ortiz.

I think I just have a can you reactivate your mic?

I turned that off accidentally.

Okay, thank you.

Um I I think it's all wonderful, and I really excited about this.

Um I just have a practical some practical questions about the utility hookups and the uh ability of a property owner, the landowner at some time uh if indeed they wanted to no longer have a tiny home on their property uh with their primary residence, um and perhaps even build an ADU.

I mean, the cost of the hookups I'm trying to imagine how the hookups would be the sewer, the water, the storm drain, all of that is very very expensive when you are going to you know alter your your primary residence property to accommodate a um a cottage on wheels.

Um what if somewhere down the line they were to abandon that?

Are there uh challenges in terms of that infrastructure staying in place and not being utilized for the purposes of a cottage on a wheel?

Do you just abandon them or what if they eventually wanted to do uh alter the land in some other way, build a pole or build an ADU?

That how how would one move from existing infrastructure sewer, et cetera, for a tiny home to something different?

Yeah.

Um so if you've ever had a travel trailer and taken it to a travel trailer park and you pull into the travel trailer, you hook up your water to a hose to a hose bigot, and you take your flexible hose and you stick it in the connection of the ground and you take your electrics and you plug it into a pedestal.

Um I did that at my house in the county, and I had a part of a trailer park there with full service.

I don't know if that was allowed.

Um the discussion that we've been having is how permanent.

Um it can still be a and note that these don't even require a permanent slab to park them on, just let's call it a surface that's not grass.

The idea that there should be a a connection that doesn't fall out like a sewer connection, so there's a screw-in connection of some type.

Um that the there might be a pedestal that instead of plugging it in, it's a hardwired pedestal, and you need an electrician to make that plug-in.

And there might be a uh PVC piping that connects the water with a water spigot valve.

It's still very, very, very low tech.

Um if you took the the cow out of there and you had these three elements there, you could simply cap them off and then use them for your ADU because the services are already pulled into that point.

And I think we've yet to land on how permanent a connection that is, rather than a full residential typical kind of hidden connection, could it have some um uh exposure relative, but it should be secured connection.

I would think the sewer line is probably the more complicated and expensive infrastructure need, um, and that the electrical and and even the um water input line would be relatively manageable, but that sewer line has got to essentially be permanent and could in fact impact anything subsequent.

And and if you're working with an existing residence, then you're tapping into that facility that you already have.

So you wouldn't be running everything new, it'd be connecting to the water you have, collecting the power you have coming off the the power panel and then hooking to the sewer that's already on your property.

So yeah, as someone who lives in a uh an area where I've contemplated that at a detached garage, or there are challenges getting a sewer line around the back and into yeah, so I appreciate that that you're you know that that may be something that uh obviously needs to be built into our final adoption.

But I I think it's fabulous, and I'm excited about it because you know when the tiny homes came on the uh scene 15 years ago or so.

I mean, I don't I have a driveway that couldn't even get a trailer through the gate because it's like seven feet wide, but I just think it's a fascinating idea, and that we're we're gonna incorporate it, or we plan to incorporate it as part of our housing spectrum of options, it's really fabulous.

So thank you for answering my question.

Bruce a quick follow-up, and maybe you are Angel.

Um my understanding from the report is that the these are not intended to be permanently uh attached to the ground, simply sit on wheels.

And that's what leads to deeding a flexible connection.

They're not gonna be sitting there anchored, the no earth screws holding the thing down in.

So uh in that sense, I think there has to be the the actual infrastructure itself, sewer, water, electrical needs to be permanent to a certain point, as you mentioned, and then from that point there, some degree of flexibility from the unit itself to that uh to that uh utility.

So still no reason why it can't be done.

Yeah, that's correct.

And each each of these uh you know uh uh cows would have their own manufacturing hookup um or anchoring, I should say anchoring that's uh required that would be required as part of our standards.

So there would be a degree of anchoring to the ground you're saying required?

Okay, that well wasn't clear about that in the uh yeah, there are standard details for anchoring uh modular homes.

Sure, I like you're supporting them at various areas, and then there's a screw that goes down into the ground or they're secured to that screw, and that keeps them from wind overturning or seismic overturn.

So they're anchored to the ground, but they're not supported on a continuous foundation because of so that's this requires a continuous foundation.

Okay, it would be no continuous foundation, just uh seismic attachment.

Yeah, which is the way school a lot of the school modular units are uh anchored to the ground too.

All right, thank you.

Uh sorry to jump in there.

So Commissioner Larms, did we get you yet?

I think I think something happened, but yeah, you should I think you're ahead of the colour.

I'm hitting buttons ahead of here.

Sorry.

No worries, thank you.

Um I'm new to this.

Yeah.

Um I would just like to say um that I really appreciate this ordinance coming through.

Um, especially for someone who grew up in a mobile home for most of my life, and talking about how this can be a really good opportunity for someone to access housing and an affordable housing option.

Um this provides opportunities for um some of those unique kind of options for folks.

So I really appreciate it.

Um I thought the discussion about how permanent the structure is uh was an interesting one because the Mohomes are not really mobile, even though they're in the name.

Um, but these ones are contemplating a little bit more uh flexibility in that and that consideration.

Um I think one of the um interesting um ideas was this per primary residence um for the the cows.

Um and I I think that it'd be interesting that if the city is gonna be looking into that um whether or not the city would also consider allowing them in the front of the house as opposed to just the back.

Um because to uh Commissioner Ortiz's point, many of these are built off-site, there might be an additional cost to get them in the back of the house because there might not be an entry point.

So I don't know, you're using a crane or something to like put it back there.

And that is gonna be a lot of money, I imagine, increase the the cost to do that.

Also the sewer lines to get the sewer lines to the back of the property, probably a more a lot more cost effective, especially if there's a slab foundation.

Um and so if you're allowed considering primary residence for these cows, um, I would recommend that you consider them on the front of the property because it can save a lot of costs with transporting them and also connecting to the sewer utility line, which is probably easier on the front of the property.

Um I was just kind of curious about the um in terms of like taxes.

Would this be considered an improvement to the would the building itself, the cow be considered an improvement to the land, or would just the utility connections be considered like an improvement to the land?

That's a really good question, and we can certainly look into it.

But I'm not sure if you're although I think if that's if it's uh D DMV regulated, it's not a permanent structure on the property.

My impression on this is I've looked at it is because it's not a permanent structure.

It's not taxed as a property tax, but um Sacramento County.

Uh, if you own a boat or a trailer, you pay a tax on that as property tax on it.

So these would probably fall under that level of uh property taxes, a recreational vehicle, but it would not necessarily be um a property tax improvement on the site because it's not permanent, it could go at any time.

Okay, thank you.

That helps clarify.

Um so I just yeah, I think that's a great idea.

Applaud the city for moving this forward and looking forward to um this getting some traction.

Thank you.

Yield my time.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh Commissioner Young.

Yeah, just some follow-up questions.

It's so as far as the the home ownership piece, this is most likely gonna operate like a mobile home park where whoever is the existing landowner is gonna grant someone essentially the right to place this tiny home on their land.

So we're essentially looking at a ground lease, right?

That that will most likely occur, right?

They're not technically gonna have the ability to buy that parcel of land in the single family site, right?

Yeah, that's correct.

And well, there's also the AB 1033 Avenue, but that really only applies to ADUs.

Um, and so this is a different separate type of conversation because these can also move.

So if if someone were to pick up and go, and then you know, is there really a property on the pro on the site?

Okay, and then so as far as insurance is concerned, that's they'd be buying auto insurance, some form of auto insurance.

It's not really homeowners insurance.

Like what is that?

How does that you know, Bruce?

I don't know.

I'm gonna turn around and ask Robin for just a minute.

I think she's she's in our I don't have a home or something.

Okay.

Um I I it's an interesting question.

In many ways, it's like an ADU in the sense that you can rent it out to anybody, but you're essentially bringing your own you know ownership there.

So it could be something the homeowner owns and brings in and uses for whatever purposes, family, friends, rentals.

Um, or it could be uh someone who has found someone who will let them use their property and whatever arrangements made between the homeowner, whether it's a monthly rent or free or it's it's a lease.

I think that that's an that's an open question.

I think that the homeowner or the owner of the property would probably insure themselves at a different rate because there's another you know vehicle located on the property.

Um when I owned uh a trailer, I had insurance on the trailer and it was personal property and the physical element that was insured.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, in general, I I mean it's a good idea.

I I I think that I appreciate the fact that you guys are really trying to implement this ordinance and and and go quickly.

I mean, under these parameters.

I I still would love for us to consider this as a product for for other types of strategies beyond just kind of the way how it's being contemplated now.

Um, but but I understand, you know, like let's just kind of get this ball rolling and then from there see how it goes.

I just I just don't want us to wait too long, you know, before we we consider that question.

So thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh uh Vice Chair Caden.

Yeah, I I forgot to mention it uh before, but I I mean I would definitely agree that we should we should be exploring other zones besides the ones that we have uh in this one.

I mean, I again don't want to hold up the process.

Maybe this can be part of the the look back where we're explicitly looking in a year for expanding the the zones that we're allowing these things in.

Um Angela, you brought up 1033, so I have to ask.

I mean, like that would be that I hadn't thought about that, but like I know we're exploring uh you know, doing a 1033 implementing ordinance, which allows you to sell ADUs separately as a condo.

Um it seems like I mean I know that would require us to permit them as primary dwellings.

Um but if we're treating them as primary dwellings and we're treating them like ADUs, that could be a really I think interesting way to create affordable home ownership in the same way that 684 does.

I'm curious if that's even legal.

I don't even know.

Yeah, I can't imagine.

I can't imagine creating airspace for a movable home, you know.

Like conduitizing a movable home.

Sounds strange, but and we wouldn't permit them as ADUs like Angel mentioned.

So I guess you'd be conduitizing the the space, the land, and then there happens to be a home on it that can move.

It's worth exploring.

I don't know.

Yeah, as I I know we're gonna be talking about 1033 as a commission probably at some point, but that'd be that'd be cool to look at.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Lee.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Uh just want to thank Robin for uh being committed to this and uh leading us to where we are today.

Um used to hearing your spiel and your your hat, the West Council.

So yeah, yeah, thanks for coming to everyone.

Um yeah, I certainly support this as well.

Uh I also support a very uh simple process.

I mean, it just makes a lot of sense when we're uh working with off-the-shelf uh products.

Uh did have some questions.

Are there any height limits?

I didn't see any mentioned here, or is that something that's gonna be contemplated?

Yeah, there are height limits.

Um the DMV, because these are registered with the DMV, the DMV sets um height limits at 13 feet six inches is I believe, and then if you want to go beyond that, then you you need a special permit from the DMV.

And so um, but we also have the underlying zoning, you know, uh height requirements that would would apply.

Okay, got it.

But but DMV takes precedent in this case because they're automobiles at the end of the day.

So there's a height limit that it cannot exceed the the roof line of the home.

Is that what I'm hearing?

Yeah, we put it would be because they're rotable, they have to go into bridges in the 13 foot six is the height for DM over uh trailers on over the road trailers uh to be able to clear all bridges.

I was just curious because I know that uh a lot of things can change out in the field, but you know, if for example, if uh a property they if they have a higher foundation or something that could potentially uh put it up higher than the roof line of the home or something.

I'm I'm just thinking of outside cases like that that could potentially happen, although it's unlikely, but yeah, just something to think about as we and some of these come with roof decks and some of them have pop-up things on them.

So I think that that all has to go in the consideration of the the final ordinance, but the base structure is brought onto the site would be a 13-6 measured from the ground up on the wheels.

Okay.

Um another question.

Uh I know we have a lot of HOAs now in the city, uh, especially in the newer communities.

Could an HOA restrict a property from having one of these units?

Uh you may not have the answer now, but just something to think about.

Um then would these units be required to have a separate water and electric meter, or is that something that would still be contemplated as part of this ordinance?

Um my understanding is that they can tap off the existing the primary dwelling, so they don't need to make a new connection.

Okay.

But if they uh wanted to, they could probably get a separate meter through the the power or gas company or whatever their standard processes is not too sure, but we can look into that.

Yeah, I'm just curious if uh if a property owner wanted to rent out the the unit, you know, they they could at least have a separate bill for for that renter, yeah, for the gas or water or something.

Um then I did also see in there that uh it should resemble traditional homes.

You know, I was I was looking at some of these uh units.

Um are we talking about like things like an airstream unit?

I know airstreams are the popular uh uh would that be something like like that?

But obviously airstreams, I know they're they're known for like being a shiny aluminum meadow.

So would that not be something that um fits within the definition of what we're thinking about here?

I I wouldn't go as far as uh considering airstreams uh what we're uh you know, a cow.

Um so I would consider airstream units more of a recreational vehicle.

And one of my slides, I've I included a comparison of what we're what would we're considering a cow.

And so some of these like recreational vehicles will have like pop-outs, they have windows that are round, uh, they don't have second um means of exit.

Um they have um all sorts of um elements that are uh that are beyond the structure itself, and so what we're proposing is that they be that they be enclosed within the with within the uh the cow.

Um they have um all sorts of um elements that are uh that are beyond the structure itself, and so what we're proposing is that they be that they be enclosed within the with within the uh the cow so if I was interested in doing or putting a unit in my backyard or somewhere in my property, uh in a stream unit wouldn't be something that okay, got it.

So there's like a different class of of uh units that's more specific to this, yeah, yeah.

And those those are built different standards, and so the uh with the the standards that would apply to like a a dwell like a like a permanent cow would be uh uh would be regulated under the ANSI and NFPA uh requirements for like a true like dwelling unit, or uh you know, I'm losing that term loosely, but it's a true dwelling with all living facilities that a normal home would have.

Got it.

And then uh one last question uh do we know in terms of those those units, like what the durability is, like do they is there like a a uh sort of a shelf life on them?

Like is it 30 years, 50 years or what happens if I don't know I'm not sure offhand, but um yeah.

I was just curious, like uh, you know, uh if the the unit uh not saying that this would be for every property, but for some properties if they fall out of a uh a good condition, like are there gonna be uh things in the code that code enforcement or someone can could come out to to uh make sure that it's up to standards or yeah, well, yeah, that there's gonna be a separate like code enforcement uh component to this to make sure that you know these are truly uh cows because I uh folks may assume that a recreational vehicle would fall under, you know, these uh that would be permitted under these classifications.

Uh but um most of these structures are are being built with you know durable materials, they're they're they're made in fabric and factories, um and they've been around for a long time, and so uh they're they're durable, I would say.

Thank you.

And I think you may have a just like most homes, they'll require maintenance.

We're estimating around 30 years for the ones that we're building, and at that point, um mechanical problems to the trailer itself become the greatest concern in the sense of like you may not want to transport it at that point, or you may just want to give it an inspection and verify that all the com moving components are still operating at expected standard.

So 30 years or more.

Um could be even longer, depending on how durable you want them to be.

The structure itself, like um, we've evaluated building them with like stick frame wood timber structures, those would have a shorter lifespan than the tiny homes that we've already built with steel frames that are fire resistant.

So like those will last forever, you know.

So the depending on what your standard of durability that you're aiming to achieve with your design, then it all goes into your cost calculation and your overall plan and business strategy.

So long term.

Thank you.

Uh those are all my questions that yield my time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I just want to comment.

I uh A, I'm compliments staff on on this proposal.

I'm totally all for it.

I think it's a great idea.

Um, particularly I go back to this potential for addressing affordability uh and housing.

Um and I think this goes back to even what Bruce has commented, even more so than a uh than an ADU.

Um we've had a boat down in the Bay Area for 15 years now, uh, and it's livable, very little.

It's not a 1600 square foot cottage, you know.

Um, but it's it's livable.

In terms of it being an affordable structure for someone, uh it would be fabulous, absolutely fabulous.

So I I think they would, you know, it would work out great.

You get used to living in a smaller space, as I'm sure our Ms.

Moore has has figured out, but you know what, that that can be enjoyable too.

Uh just figuring out a new way to live.

And we certainly have done that over the years uh down there.

Uh so I I think in addition to a a new uh concept for just housing in general to provide more housing, I think it's affordability uh potential to me is is really great, and I look forward to seeing them move forward uh for that reason.

Um it's a great concept, I think I look forward to it.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Uh were there any other commission comments?

I didn't see anything.

All right.

Uh again, as a review and comment uh item.

Uh no uh approval necessary.

Thank you very much for it.

Angel and Greta, thank you very much.

And with that, seeing there's no directors report tonight, right?

Okay.

Last uh item on our gender as well.

Next to the last uh commissioner comments, ideas and questions.

Are there any seeing none?

Uh public comments matters are on the agenda.

Commissioner comments.

I'm sorry, there was actually do you have a couple commissioners?

Oh god, they popped up.

You want to certainly look around.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um just wanted to show my appreciation to the staff for the last three years um and all the effort you guys do to uh try to provide detailed reports and thoughtful recommendations and help us uh make uh informed decisions.

Uh I also want to thank my colleagues on the commission for um these very thoughtful dip uh discussions and uh I appreciated learning from all of you and appreciate all the experience you all bring from the different uh perspectives that we all come from to try to make well-informed decisions on the uh the best interest of the city of Sacramento.

Um so um I I don't imagine this will be the last time I will see you.

Uh uh, and I look forward to uh working with you in a different capacity, but just want to thank you for for the time that we got to serve together.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We're we're gonna miss you for sure.

Uh did I miss uh did I skip over you, Commissioner?

No, no, I gave the floor to message.

Okay, yeah, no, I just want to also say thank you.

It's just been a pleasure serving with all of you.

Um five plus years now, and so um appreciate the staff.

I I have to say that the planning staff is probably the best in the state of California, maybe the country.

Like, I just I feel you guys are um exemplary, you're patient.

Um you really guys dig in and appreciate the thoughtfulness of what you guys are trying to do to just help make Sacramento a better place.

So thank you for that.

Um, for the planning commission, um, all of you guys personally, um you guys are just wonderful people, and I wish to be able to just get to know you guys more off off the dais.

You guys are people of high character, highly intelligent, but more more importantly, you guys just really care about your community and just are consistently finding creative ways within your own lives to serve, and so it's it's been uh just a pleasure to get to know all of you, so thank you very much.

Thank you again.

Good luck to both of you in your futures.

Um, so again, I think there was there anyone else waiting to speak.

No, any uh public comments.

Thank you, Chair.

We have one speaker for Matters Non Agenda, Maximilian.

Will you please step forward?

Good to see you all again.

Um I just wanted to invite you out to our missing middles design showcase that we're hosting on May 15th.

We would love to have you out, meet our program fellows who are funded through the city and see some of the work and some of the proposals of how we're approaching this cow concept and applying it to a bunch of different sites and how we're accounting for all the mechanical, electrical, plumbing costs, how we've taken some actual case studies of how we've built in this infrastructure to provide rapid housing.

Um we're also building them with local manufacturers, we're building them to NOAA standards, which are ANSI-certified, National Fire Protection Association certified, National Electrical Code certified, and structural and energy efficiency guidelines.

So these are all things that we've been thinking about for a long time.

We're in conversations with DCR and the mayor's office of how we could rapidly deploy these housing solutions in a way that's cheaper than a hundred thousand dollars per unit that don't really classify as emergency housing, and also don't force the city into the um what is it, the affordable housing um like red tape structure that makes it so expensive.

This is also something that our organization has been dealing with.

We recently bought our building and have been evaluating uh redeveloping it to put housing on top of our building and some of the uh building code requirements limit us to a certain height.

That would put us two units under what we could do to build affordable housing.

So these these issues are something that we're navigating on a daily basis.

So, like all the things that you're considering tonight, we would love to chat with you more about them and share our particular case studies and how we're navigating them, and would love to get your insight and feedback and advice and recommendations on how to not only create solutions for housing in our community, but how to create opportunities for young people through workforce and how to build the companies that are gonna be solving the problems here, investing in our young people and keeping those resources local.

Thank you for your time, Commissioners, and your patience and all the comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, and Ms.

Moore for your input tonight.

I think it's been very valuable.

Thanks.

With that.

I wanted to make a comment to the speaker.

Is it is it Maximilian?

Yes.

Uh if you want to check out uh people who have been building housing on buildings, um the Dutch have been doing it for a very long time.

Very, very cool.

You should check it out.

Um, I did a tour there many years ago, and um, they build uh multifamily housing on top of strip malls.

Very cool to see.

Yeah, I would love to see stuff like that here.

Very cool.

Or like where our office is is on the Arden Del Paso Boulevard corridor, where we have a bunch of underutilized properties that would be ideal for investment and attracting industry and building up these businesses to be solving these problems and dealing with the nuanced situations of how do we make this one building work for this purpose?

Or how do we give it a new purpose and a new life?

Because there's so many spaces like this, not only in communities like mine in North Sack, but all over.

Norsack and Oak Park have an abundance of vacant lots that are borderline too expensive to do proper developments on, but also borderline too small to make it incentive.

So I'd love to chat with you more.

Uh quick air uh what what what's your address?

Are you on Harden or Del Paso?

Uh 1516 Del Paso Boulevard.

So we we abut those streets right across the street from the light rail station on the corner.

So even the the open lot next to our office where there used to be a gas station, we wouldn't really consider feasible for development because it would trigger a bunch of environmental remediation that would cost millions of dollars before we could ever even build.

Right, good again, thank you.

That's cool.

And with that, oh I also wanted to give a shout-out to both commissioners.

Thank you for your service.

I'm on the Measure U Commission.

I don't know how you did it for five years.

All right.

With that, seeing nothing else in the agenda, uh, we are adjourned.