Sacramento Planning and Design Commission Meeting – March 26, 2026

The Sacramento Planning and Design Commission met on Thursday, March 26, 2026, from approximately 5:32 p.m. to 9:04 p.m. at City Hall. The agenda included recognition of outgoing commissioners, a consent calendar, two withdrawn/continued items, and two major workshops: one on Missing Middle Housing (MMH) standards and Senate Bill (SB) 79 implementation, and another on a preliminary framework for regulating Cottages on Wheels. Commissioners provided extensive feedback to guide staff in developing formal ordinances.

Recognition of Commissioners

• The Commission honored departing Commissioners Julio Lamas and Enoch Young for their dedicated service. Both received certificates and remarks from colleagues praising their thoughtful contributions and community representation.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes (File ID: 2026-00142): Unanimously approved (9-0) the Planning and Design Commission minutes from March 12, 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

• On Missing Middle Housing and SB 79: Nine speakers addressed the Commission. Michael Turgeon (President, House Sacramento) expressed support for adding SB 79 heights into the code and urged limiting bulk control to allow three-story residences. Maximiliano Rosa (Director of Sustainability, Sierra Service Project) encouraged adoption of temporary parcel exemptions to support local workforce housing. Michael Nervy, a builder, reported it took over a year to get a cottage court approved and requested faster approvals and higher floor area ratios (FAR). Ben Raderstorf (House Sacramento) urged eliminating bulk control entirely, arguing that prioritizing the status quo harms those who cannot afford housing. Robert Ng (Missing Middles) emphasized that standards must translate into buildable configurations. Nolan Gray (renter, House Sacramento) expressed concern that bulk controls could make three-story apartments illegal in many areas. Brian Saynard (architect, AIA Housing Task Force) called for greater density but warned against poorly massed buildings, citing examples on 34th Street.
• On Cottages on Wheels: Three speakers testified. Maximiliano Rosa described Sierra Service Project’s program building tiny homes on wheels for transitional housing and argued the proposed limit of one per lot is too low. Robin, a primary tiny home dweller from West Sacramento, shared her experience legalizing her unit and urged allowing these as primary residences and keeping the process simple. Ben (House Sacramento) recommended treating them like ADUs, allowing them on the same basis, and creating a pre-approved design library.

Discussion Items

Workshop: Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Standards and Senate Bill 79 (Item 5)

Staff presented a detailed analysis of the 2040 General Plan’s impact on MMH zones, focusing on three degrees of change (minor, moderate, transformative) based on FAR (floor area ratio) allowances of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0. Staff recommended the moderate approach, which balances existing neighborhood context with increased intensity near transit. Key data: since the interim ordinance was adopted, 19 projects have been approved (average FAR 0.4, average 3 units per lot), but only one project has more than a few units; most are duplexes with ADUs due to building code constraints. Staff also recommended a local implementing ordinance for SB 79 and codifying SB 79 heights in commercial zones, but not in MMH zones because the state’s affordability and density requirements would still apply there.

Commissioners offered varied perspectives:

• Vice Chair Kadin recommended a transformative approach, advocating for allowing simple three-story buildings without bulk control (e.g., gables/dormers). He argued that the current interim ordinance has not produced middle-density projects due to bulk control costs, and that preserving existing context perpetuates historical inequities (e.g., redlining). He supported staff’s SB 79 recommendation.
• Commissioner Hernandez noted the need to avoid overcomplicating the code and supported the moderate recommendation but with room for deviation.
• Commissioner Ortiz emphasized that many neighborhoods (e.g., East Sacramento) already have height variation and are receptive to density; she favored greater flexibility over strict house-scale standards.
• Commissioner Macias Reed preferred moderate but with an option for MMH High (transformative) in FAR 2.0 areas, and echoed concerns about bulk control increasing costs.
• Commissioner Reschke stressed simplicity and supported allowing discretionary review for projects exceeding house-scale standards.
• Commissioner Young questioned whether the proposed house-scale standards (24-foot eave height with pitched roof) effectively limit three-story buildings; he sought ways to push density while preserving neighborhood character, potentially using contextual thresholds (e.g., next to two-story homes).
• Commissioner Lamas suggested considering a temporary ordinance that shifts from moderate to transformative after a set period to allow adjustment.

Workshop: Preliminary Framework for Regulating Cottages on Wheels (Item 4)

Staff presented a draft framework allowing one cottage on wheels (COW) on lots zoned R1, R1A, R1B, and R2, subject to size (150-400 sq ft), safety certifications (ANSI/NFPA), DMV/HCD registration, and utility connections. The units must resemble traditional homes, be placed on stable surfaces, and follow underlying setbacks. Review would be staff-level if standards are met; deviations would require a design director hearing.

Commissioners overwhelmingly supported the ordinance and suggested expansions:

• Allow COWs as primary dwellings (not just accessory) to enable affordable homeownership.
• Permit more than one per lot (e.g., up to two, or treat like ADUs).
• Explore allowing COWs in commercial and multifamily zones for rental/transitional housing.
• Simplify design review by pre-approving factory-built models, as modifications after manufacture are impractical.
• Ensure utility connections are flexible and affordable; consider proportional impact fees as West Sacramento is doing.
• Clarify anchoring requirements (seismic/wind, no continuous foundation).
• Consider allowing placement in front yards to reduce transport and utility costs.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken on the workshops; both were for review and comment.
• Staff will use the Commission’s feedback to refine the MMH/SB 79 ordinance and the COW ordinance. A similar MMH/SB 79 workshop will be presented to the City Council on April 14, 2026.
• For MMH, the Commission’s leaning was toward a moderate degree of change with a strong push to limit or remove bulk control to facilitate three-story buildings. Many commissioners favored transformative approaches in FAR 2.0 areas. Staff will return with more detailed development standards and an updated framework.
• For COWs, staff will consider allowing primary units, increasing the number per lot, and pre-approving designs; the goal is to adopt an ordinance by late 2026.
• The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.