INVESTIGATION
INACTIVE -
WITHDRAWN
NE CORNER OF
ROUTIER
ROAD/SYSTEM
S PARKWAY
SACRAMENTO 95815
RUSS
TRANSMISSIO
N
34750038 HISTORICAL NO FURTHER
ACTION
890 57TH
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95819
RYTINA'S
CLEANERS
AND LAUNDRY
34720071 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
2525
YORKTOWN
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95821
ROYAL OAKS
LIGHT RAIL
STATION
70000139 EVALUATION INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
975 CALVADOS
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95815
RETREAT AT
SACRAMENTO,
LLC
60002795 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
ACTIVE 2601 REDDING
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95820
SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
SAC ENGR
AREA-WEIR
AREA
(J09CA0798)
80000391 STATE
RESPONSE
NO FURTHER
ACTION
STATE OLD
RIVER/NORTH
HARBOR ROAD
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95605
SACRAMENTO
ARMY DEPOT
80001235 CORRECTIVE
ACTION
REFER: SMBRP 8350
FRUITRIDGE
RD
SACRAMENTO 9.58E+0
8 SACRAMENTO
ARMY DEPOT
CA0210020780 HAZ WASTE -
RCRA
CLOSED 8350
FRUITRIDGE
RD
SACRAMENTO 9.58E+0
8 SACRAMENTO
ARMY DEPOT
(SUBSITE)
34970006 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED 8350
FRUITRIDGE
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95824
SACRAMENTO
ARMY DEPOT -
AREA I
34970007 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED 8350
FRUITRIDGE
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95813
SACRAMENTO
ARMY DEPOT -
AREA II
34970008 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED 8350
FRUITRIDGE
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95813
SACRAMENTO
CABLE
34480005 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED
O&M - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
ONLY - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
2175 PERKINS
WAY
SACRAMENTO 95818
SACRAMENTO
COUNTRY DAY
SCHOOL
34280150 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO ACTION
REQUIRED
WHITE ROCK
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95630
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
EXECUTIVE
AIRPORT
34550006 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED 6151
FREEPORT
BLVD
SACRAMENTO 95822
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
LANDFILL
34490025 EVALUATION REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
SLOUGHHOUS
E
SACRAMENTO 95683
SACRAMENTO
DYE HOUSE
34720169 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
401 T STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
SACRAMENTO
ENGINEERING
DEPOT
80000700 MILITARY
EVALUATION
INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
SACRAMENTO
SACRAMENTO
FOODS (DIV OF
BORDEN
FOODS)
34200018 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
424 NORTH
7TH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
SACRAMENTO
HOUSING &
REDEVELOP.
AGENCY
34240036 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED
O&M - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
ONLY - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
1920 FRONT
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
SACRAMENTO
MEDICAL
FOUNDATION
34800001 CALMORTGAGE NO ACTION
REQUIRED
1525
ALHAMBRA
BLVD
SACRAMENTO 95816
SACRAMENTO
MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
80001164 MILITARY
EVALUATION
INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
SACRAMENTO
SACRAMENTO
PLATING INC.
34370014 STATE
RESPONSE
ACTIVE 2809 S STREET SACRAMENTO 95816
SACRAMENTO
SURPLUS
SALES
34420005 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
4801 HEDGE
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95826
SAFETY-KLEEN
SACRAMENTO
80001233 CORRECTIVE
ACTION
NO FURTHER
ACTION
6000 88TH ST SACRAMENTO 9.58E+0
8 SAFETY-KLEEN
SYSTEMS,INC.
CA0000084517 INSPECTION NO ACTION 6000 88TH ST SACRAMENTO 95828
SAFETY-KLEEN
SYSTEMS,INC.
CA0000084517 HAZ WASTE -
RCRA
OPERATING
PERMIT
6000 88TH ST SACRAMENTO 9.58E+0
8 SCOE NEW
COMMUNITY
SCHOOL
60002620 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
ACTIVE SOUTH OF
GERBER RD. &
SOUTH OF
FERNRIDGE
DR.
SACRAMENTO 95828
SEABRONS
CLEANERS
LNDRY SRV
34720171 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
5834
FRANKLIN
BLVD
SACRAMENTO 95824
SFPP/LP
BRADSHAW
TERMINAL
71003521 TIERED PERMIT INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
2901
BRADSHAW
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95827
SIERRA
BATTERY
SALES
34360054 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED
O&M - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
ONLY - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
977 LOCHBRAE
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95815
SIGNETICS
CORP
CAT000614016 HAZ WASTE CLOSED 4130 SO
MARKET CT
SACRAMENTO 9.58E+0
8 SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
SIGNETICS
CORP
80001792 CORRECTIVE
ACTION
NO FURTHER
ACTION
4130 SO
MARKET CT
SACRAMENTO 9.58E+0
8 SMALL HIGH
SCHOOL AKA
GENESIS HIGH
SCH
34000017 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO ACTION
REQUIRED
5601 - 47TH
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95824
SMUD NORTH
CITY
SUBSTATION
34360064 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
20TH AND
NORTH B
STREETS
SACRAMENTO 95814
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #1
34490046 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
AMADOR
AVENUE AND
POWER INN
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95826
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #10
34490035 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
ELK GROVEFLORIN ROADSACRAMENTO 95829
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #11
34490036 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
FREEHAVEN
DRIVE AT LAKE
PARK DRIVE
SACRAMENTO 95831
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #12
34490037 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
GILMAN WAY
AT WALERGA
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95842
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #13
34490038 HISTORICAL NO FURTHER
ACTION
GLORIA DRIVE
AT FLORIN
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95822
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #14
34490039 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
KALAMAZOO
DRIVE AT SAN
JUAN AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95833
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #15
34490040 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
MEADOWVIE
W ROAD AT
WESTERN
PACIFIC RR
SACRAMENTO 95814
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #16
34490041 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
OMNI DRIVE
NEAR
HACKBERRY
LANE
SACRAMENTO 95841
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #17
34490042 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
POWER INN
AND 21ST AVE
SACRAMENTO 95826
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #18
34490043 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
REQUA WAY
AT FAWN WAY
SACRAMENTO 95823
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #19
34490044 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
RIO LINDA
BOULEVARD
AT M STREET
SACRAMENTO 95815
SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #2
34490029 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
ARDEN WAY
(POINT WEST)
SACRAMENTO 95815
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #20
34490045 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
35TH AVENUE
AT SOUTH HILL
CENTER
SACRAMENTO 95824
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #21
34490028 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
HIGHWAY 99
NEAR
WYNDHAM
DRIVE
SACRAMENTO 95823
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #22
34490053 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
TRUXEL ROAD
AND SAN JUAN
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95833
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #23
34490047 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
WINDING WAY
NEAR NEW
YORK AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95841
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #3
34490030 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
AUBURN-VAN
MAREN
SACRAMENTO 95821
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #4
34490031 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
BATTLEWOODTHISTLEWOODSACRAMENTO 95835
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #5
34490032 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
SCRIPPS DRIVE
AT UNIVERSITY
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95825
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #6
34490033 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
CITRUS
AVENUE AND
COLOMA WAY
SACRAMENTO 95823
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #7
34490051 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
EL CAMINO
AVENUE AT
BUTANO
DRIVE
SACRAMENTO 95821
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #8
34490052 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
WATT AVENUE
AT EL CAMINO
SACRAMENTO 95821
SMUD PCB
SUBSTATION
SITE #9
34490034 HISTORICAL INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
CYPRESS
STREET AND
MANZANITA
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95838
SMUD
STATION E
SUBSTATION
60002499 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
REFER: IWMB AT THE
NORTHERN
END OF 20TH
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95816
SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
SMUD
THORNTON
AVENUE SITE
60002764 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
ACTIVE 1610
THORNTON
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95811
SMUD AT THE
RAILYARDS
60002686 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
ACTIVE LOT 42
(GOVERNMEN
T ALLEY AND
6TH, 7TH, G
STS) AND
INTERSECTION
OF 7TH ST AND
RAILYARDS
BLVD
SACRAMENTO 95814
SMUD, FRONT
& T STREETS
34490057 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED
O&M - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
ONLY - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
FRONT & T
STREETS
SACRAMENTO 95814
SMUDCORPORATION
YARD
34490015 CORRECTIVE
ACTION
ACTIVE 1708 59TH
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95817
SMUD/CORP
YARD
CAD00062593
9 HAZ WASTE PROTECTIVE
FILER
1708 - 59TH ST SACRAMENTO 9.58E+0
8 SONOMA
AVENUE SITE
34990001 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED 1035 SONOMA
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95815
SORENTO
ROAD MIDDLE
SCHOOL
60000098 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO ACTION
REQUIRED
5701 SORENTO
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95835
SP-PURITY OIL 34510082 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
CERTIFIED 1324 A STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
SPURGEON
CLEANING &
DYEING
34720080 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
3200 FOLSOM
BLVD
SACRAMENTO 95816
ST. FRANCIS
GIRLS HIGH
SCHOOL
60000038 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
REFER: LOCAL
AGENCY
6051 M
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95819
STATE
FAIRGROUNDS
80000611 MILITARY
EVALUATION
INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
SACRAMENTO
STERLING
CLEANERS
34720073 EVALUATION REFER: RWQCB 2417
BROADWAY
SACRAMENTO 95818
STRAWBERRY
MANOR PCB
SITE
34330034 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED 188
OLMSTEAD DR
SACRAMENTO 95838
SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
SUNSHINE
LAUNDRY AND
CLEANERS
57720003 EVALUATION REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
820 MERKLEY
AVENUE
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95691
SUPERB DAY
CLEANERS
AND SHIRT
LAUNDRY
34720078 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
2753 35TH
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95817
SUTTER
MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
CAD98144694
1 HAZ WASTE -
RCRA
CLOSED 52ND & F STS SACRAMENTO 9.58E+0
8 SAC AIR DEPOT
(J09CA0006)
80000008 MILITARY
EVALUATION
NO FURTHER
ACTION
SACRAMENTO
SACRAMENTO
ARMY DEPOT
34970004 FEDERAL
SUPERFUND -
LISTED
CERTIFIED /
OPERATION &
MAINTENANCE
- LAND USE
RESTRICTIONS
8350
FRUITRIDGE
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95813
SACRAMENTO
CITY USD -
DISTRICT BUS
YARD &
CENTRAL
KITCHEN
60002600 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
ACTIVE 3101 REDDING
AVE. & 7050
SAN JOAQUIN
ST.
SACRAMENTO 95820
SACRAMENTO
DOWNTOWN
ARENA
60002031 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
NO FURTHER
ACTION
AREA
BOUNDED BY
3RD, 7TH, J
AND L STREETS
SACRAMENTO 95814
SACRAMENTO
MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
(J09CA0923)
80000701 MILITARY
EVALUATION
NO FURTHER
ACTION
SACRAMENTO
SACRAMENTO
SIGNAL DEPOT
(J09CA0924)
80000605 MILITARY
EVALUATION
NO FURTHER
ACTION
NORTH 7TH
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
SACRAMENTO
STUCCO CO.
60000284 EVALUATION INACTIVE -
ACTION
REQUIRED
860 RISKE
LANE
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95691
SETZER
FOREST
PRODUCTS,
INC.
60000936 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
NO FURTHER
ACTION
2570 3RD
STREET AND
2630 5TH
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95818
SIMS METAL
SITE
70000019 STATE
RESPONSE
ACTIVE 130 NORTH 12
STREET; AT
INTERSECTION
SACRAMENTO 95814
SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
OF NORTH B
STREETS
SOCCER
STADIUM
60002532 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
ACTIVE AREA
BOUNDED BY
8TH ST,
NORTH B ST,
10TH ST, AND
RAILYARDS
BLVD
SACRAMENTO 95814
SOUTHPORT
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
60000763 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO FURTHER
ACTION
2747 LINDEN
ROAD
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95691
STONEGATE
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
60000233 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO FURTHER
ACTION
STONEGATE
DRIVE AND LA
JOLLA STREET
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95691
THERAPEUTIC
CENTER
60000115 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO ACTION
REQUIRED
4501 MARTIN
LUTHER KING
JR. BLVD.
SACRAMENTO 95820
TILLET'S
CLEANERS (1)
34720117 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
9187 KIEFER
BOULEVARD
SACRAMENTO 95826
TILLET'S
CLEANERS (2)
34720118 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
2200
SUTTERVILLE
ROAD
SACRAMENTO 95822
TILLETT
CLEANERS
34720052 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
8173
BELVEDERE
AVE.
SACRAMENTO 95826
TOMLIN'S
SUNSHINE
CLEANERS
57720004 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
612 MICHIGAN
BLVD
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95691
TOWN CENTER
EDUCATIONAL
COMPLEX
34010017 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO ACTION
REQUIRED
DEL PASO
ROAD/NATOM
AS
BOULEVARD
SACRAMENTO 95835
TWO RIVERS
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
34010001 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO FURTHER
ACTION
3201 WEST
RIVER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO 95833
TEST FOR NEW
PROJECT
CREATION
60002759 EVALUATION NO ACTION
REQUIRED
1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
THE DOCKS
AREA
SACRAMENTO
EOA
60000357 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
NO FURTHER
ACTION
CITY OF
SACRAMENTO
RIVERFRONT
SACRAMENTO 95204
THE RIVERS
PHASE II
60002273 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
INACTIVE -
WITHDRAWN
LIGHTHOUSE
AND
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95605
SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
PROPOSED
SCHOOL
FOUNTAIN
DRIVES
THE RIVERS
PHASE II
PROPOSED
SCHOOL
70000067 SCHOOL
CLEANUP
ACTIVE LIGHTHOUSE
AND
FOUNTAIN
DRIVES
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95605
TOWER COURT 60000968 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
ACTIVE 815 WEST
CAPITOL
AVENUE
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95695
U.S. AIR
FORCE,
MCCLELLAN
AIR FORCE
BASE
71003600 TIERED PERMIT REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
5200 WATT
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95652
U.S. COLD
STORAGE
34890001 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
2338 9TH
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95818
UNION
CARBIDE
CORPORATION
/ LINDE PLANT
34280149 EVALUATION REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
7701 WILBUR
WAY
SACRAMENTO 95814
UNION
CHEMICAL
57510002 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED 3961 CHANNEL
DRIVE
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95691
UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD
80001665 CORRECTIVE
ACTION
ACTIVE 501 JIBBOOM
ST
SACRAMENTO 9.58E+0
8 UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD
CAD07377203
0 HAZ WASTE -
RCRA
CLOSED 501 JIBBOOM
ST
SACRAMENTO 9.58E+0
8 UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD,
CURTIS PARK
34400003 STATE
RESPONSE
ACTIVE - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
3675
WESTERN
PACIFIC
AVENUE
SACRAMENTO 95818
UNIVERSAL
CHEMICAL
COMPANY
34280094 EVALUATION REFER: RWQCB 2175 ACOMA
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95815
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC - CAR
SHOP NINE
34400009 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED
O&M - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
ONLY - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC - CENTRAL
CORRIDOR
34400010 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED
O&M - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
ONLY - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC - CENTRAL
SHOPS
34400004 STATE
RESPONSE
ACTIVE 401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC - INLAND
60001652 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
NO FURTHER
ACTION
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC - LAGOON
34400008 STATE
RESPONSE
ACTIVE - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC -
NORTHERN
SHOPS/DRUM
S
34400007 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED
O&M - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
ONLY - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC - PONDS
AND DITCH
34400005 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED /
OPERATION &
MAINTENANCE
- LAND USE
RESTRICTIONS
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC -
REDEVELOPME
NT
34400011 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
INACTIVE -
ACTION
REQUIRED
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC - SITEWIDE
60001957 STATE
RESPONSE
ACTIVE 401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC - TRACK
RELOCATION
60001447 STATE
RESPONSE
NO FURTHER
ACTION
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP,
DOWNTOWN
SAC -
MANUFACTUR
ED GAS PLANT
70000034 STATE
RESPONSE
ACTIVE 400 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP,
DOWNTOWN
60001378 STATE
RESPONSE
NO FURTHER
ACTION
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
SAC - SHOPS
ABATEMENT
UP, SAC -
BATTERY SHOP
YARD
34360065 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED
O&M - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
ONLY - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP, SAC -
SACRAMENTO
STATION
34400006 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED
O&M - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
ONLY - LAND
USE
RESTRICTIONS
401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UP, SAC -
SAND PILES
34320031 STATE
RESPONSE
CERTIFIED 401 I STREET SACRAMENTO 95814
UNION PACIFIC
BANNON
STREET
PARCEL
70000028 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
INACTIVE -
ACTION
REQUIRED
NORTH B
STREET AND
SEVENTH
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD
UNDERGROUN
D VAULT
PROGRAM
60002440 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
28 SUSPECTED
LOCATIONS
THROUGHOUT
THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO 95826
VAN WATERS
AND ROGERS,
INC
57510003 EVALUATION REFER: RWQCB 850 SOUTH
RIVER ROAD
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95691
VILLAGE
CLEANERS
34720122 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
2644 EL PASEO SACRAMENTO 95821
VOLUNTEERS
OF AMERICA -
ADMIN.
OFFICES
34830001 CALMORTGAGE NO ACTION
REQUIRED
201 - 29TH
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95816
VOLUNTEERS
OF AMERICA -
ADMIN. SVCS.
34820005 CALMORTGAGE NO ACTION
REQUIRED
201 - 29TH
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95816
VALLEY
GRAPHICS
ARTS &
ENGRAVERS
71002997 TIERED PERMIT INACTIVE -
NEEDS
EVALUATION
1711 18TH
STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
SITE / FACILITY
NAME
ENVIROSTOR
ID
SITE / FACILITY
TYPE
CLEANUP
STATUS
ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
CITY ZIP
WEST ISLAND 7990015 VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP
CERTIFIED IN THE SAN
JOAQUIN
RIVER
SACRAMENTO
CNTY
95641
WEST
SACRAMENTO
SCHOOL
57880002 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO FURTHER
ACTION
JEFFERSON
BOULEVARD/LI
NDEN ROAD
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95691
WESTCO
TECHNOLOGIE
S
57290002 EVALUATION REFER: RWQCB 801 SOUTH
RIVER RD.
WEST
SACRAMENTO
95691
WESTLAKE
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
34010019 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
INACTIVE -
WITHDRAWN
DEL PASO
ROAD/WYNDV
IEW WAY
SACRAMENTO 95834
WITTER
RANCH
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
34010013 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO ACTION
REQUIRED
STEMMLER
DRIVE/POPPY
HILL WAY
SACRAMENTO 95834
WOODWARD
CLEANERS
AND DRYER
34720124 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
2201 J STREET SACRAMENTO 95816
WEST
LAKESIDE
MIDDLE
SCHOOL/HIGH
SCHOOL
EXPANSION
SITE
60000698 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO ACTION
REQUIRED
SNELLING
LANE/WESTLA
KE PARKWAY
SACRAMENTO 95835
WEST
LAKESIDE
MIDDLE
SCHOOL/HIGH
SCHOOL SITE
34650004 SCHOOL
INVESTIGATION
NO FURTHER
ACTION
WESTLAKE
PARKWAY/SNE
LLING LANE
SACRAMENTO 95835
X-CEL
CLEANERS
34720125 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
3110 ARDEN
WAY
SACRAMENTO 95825
YOUR
CLEANERS
(INACTIVE
#242)
34720062 HISTORICAL REFER: OTHER
AGENCY
1924 16TH ST. SACRAMENTO 95814
Source: California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor Database, accessed 2019.
APPENDIX D:
General Plan Noise Measurement
Locations
D-1
Appendix D
Sacramento General Plan Noise Measurement Locations
Descriptions and Conditions
LT-1. Cosumnes River College. Located on Bruceville Road, between West Stockton Boulevard and Imagination Parkway. The measurement location was located approximately 105 feet west of the Bruceville Road centerline and 245 feet north of Imagination Parkway, in an undeveloped lot that is anticipated to support commercial or transit-orientated development. The Cosumnes River College light-rail and bus transit stop is located to the west of the measurement location. The centerline of the light-rail operations were located approximately 210 feet west of the measurement location. The primary influence on the existing ambient noise environment was vehicular traffic on Bruceville Road and Highway 99. Additional sources of noise that were distinguishable in the ambient noise environment included maintenance operations and kids playing at the nearby Shasta Community Park and minor construction activity (on-site vehicle movement) at the water storage project located at the end of Imagination Way.
The noise monitoring was performed for a period exceeding 24-hours in duration, to aid in documenting the diurnal noise patterns throughout the period. Sound levels cataloged during the monitoring period ranged from average hourly noise levels from 52.9 to 68.2 Leq dBA with an average day/night noise level of 68.0 dBA Ldn. Weather during the monitoring period was favorable with temperatures averaging 75° F, a relative humidity of approximately 56% and average wind speeds of 3 to 7 MPH with clear sky.
LT-2. Sacramento City College / Crocker Village. Located on a partially developed lot in the northwest portion of Crocker Village, adjacent to the currently closed 5th Ave/21st Street extension. The measurement location was located approximately 115 feet east of the adjacent railway centerline and approximately 500-feet southeast of the 4th Ave/Wayne Hultgren station. The primary influence on the existing ambient noise environment was light rail transit and heavy rail activity. Additional noise sources that were distinguishable in the ambient noise environment included aircraft overflights and general community noise.
The noise monitoring was performed for a period exceeding 24-hours in duration, to aid in documenting the diurnal noise patterns throughout the period. Sound levels cataloged during the monitoring period ranged from an average hourly noise level from 42.3 to 58.8 dBA Leq with an average day/night noise level of 56.4 dBA Ldn. Weather during the monitoring period was favorable with temperatures averaging 75° F, a relative humidity of approximately 56% and average wind speeds of 3 to 7 MPH with clear sky.
LT-3. University & 65th. Located on the undeveloped parcel adjacent to the University and 65th Street light rail station in the Hampton Inn and Suites. The measurement location was located approximately 70 feet southwest of the light rail track centerline and 330 feet east of the 65th Street centerline. The primary influence on the existing ambient noise environment was vehicular traffic on Highway 50, the 65th Street off-ramp and 65th Street and light rail transit operations at the station. Additional noise sources distinguishable in the ambient noise environment emergency sirens and aircraft overflights.
D-2
The noise monitoring was performed for a period exceeding 24-hours in duration, to aid in documenting the diurnal noise patterns throughout the period. Sound levels cataloged during the monitoring period ranged from average hourly noise levels from 58.5 to 67.7 dBA Leq with an average day/night noise level of 69.9 dBA Ldn. Weather during the monitoring period was favorable with temperatures averaging 75° F, a relative humidity of approximately 56% and average wind speeds of 3 to 7 MPH with clear sky.
LT-4. Power Inn Station. Located between the Power Inn and light Rail transit station and Granite Regional Park. The measurement location was located approximately 90 feet east of Power Inn Station, 105 feet south of the station’s spur line and 145 feet south of the main track centerline, adjacent to an undeveloped commercial lot that may support transit orientated-development.
The primary influence to the ambient environment at the monitoring location was light rail transit and heavy rail traffic. Secondary noise sources influencing the monitoring location included aircraft operations at Mather Field and occasional loud vehicles on Power Inn Road; with corona noise from nearby high-voltage lines and activity at Granite Regional Park contributing to a lesser degree.
The noise monitoring was performed for a period exceeding 24-hours in duration, to aid in documenting the diurnal noise patterns throughout the period. The noise monitoring was performed for a period exceeding 24-hours in duration, to aid in documenting the diurnal noise patterns throughout the period. Sound levels cataloged during the monitoring period ranged from average hourly noise levels from 52.9 to 68.2 Leq dBA with an average day/night noise level of 68.0 dBA Ldn. Weather during the monitoring period was favorable with temperatures averaging 76° F, a relative humidity of approximately 52% and calm wind of approximately 3 to 6 MPH with clear sky. The noise monitoring was performed for a period exceeding 24-hours in duration, to aid in documenting the diurnal noise patterns throughout the period.
LT-5. Greenline Extension / Natomas Middle School. Located on an undeveloped parcel in the Natomas area of Sacramento, adjacent to the proposed “Greenline” light rail extension and Natomas Middle School. The measurement location was located approximately 125 feet east of East Commerce Way centerline, 15 feet north of the norther boundary of Natomas Middle School and 1,320 feet east of the I-5 centerline. The primary noise source influencing the existing ambient noise environment during the monitoring period was traffic noise from I-5 and E. Commerce Way. Aircraft overflights associated with operations of Sacramento International Airport influenced the ambient noise environment to a lesser extent.
The noise monitoring was performed for a period exceeding 24-hours in duration, to aid in documenting the diurnal noise patterns throughout the period. The noise monitoring was performed for a period exceeding 24-hours in duration, to aid in documenting the diurnal noise patterns throughout the period. Sound levels cataloged during the monitoring period ranged from average hourly noise levels from 50.3 to 60.4 Leq dBA with an average day/night noise level of 62.7 dBA Ldn. Weather during the monitoring period was favorable with temperatures averaging 76° F, a relative humidity of approximately 52% and calm wind of approximately 3 to 6 MPH with clear sky. The noise monitoring was performed for a period exceeding 24-hours in duration, to aid in documenting the diurnal noise patterns throughout the period.
ST-1. Florin Station. The monitoring location was in the northeastern portion of Florin Station, adjacent to an undeveloped parcel to the north of the station that would have the potential to D-3
support transit-orientated development. The monitoring location was approximately 150 feet west of the railroad track centerline. Monitoring was performed for a period of 15 minutes.
The loudest noise source during the monitoring period was a freight train pass-by, which had a maximum noise level of 81.9 dBA Lmax. Other sources contributing to the average noise level of 64 dB Leq included bus-transit traffic at the station, distant aircraft, landscape maintenance and traffic. Weather during the monitoring period was favorable with a temperature of 90° F, clear skies and 0 to 1 MPH winds.
ST-2. 9 – Fruitridge Station. The monitoring location was in the residential neighborhood, just west of the Fruitridge Station. The monitoring location was approximately 92 feet west of the railroad track centerline. Monitoring was performed for a period of 15 minutes. The loudest noise source during the monitoring period was a light rail transit pass-by, which had a maximum noise level of 58.9 dBA Lmax. Other sources contributing to the average noise level of 46.7 dB Leq included dog barking, aircraft overflights and distant traffic. Weather during the monitoring period was favorable with a temperature of 96° F, clear skies and 0 to 3 MPH winds.
ST-3. 1 – Fruitridge & 65th. The monitoring location was in the southern portion of an undeveloped parcel at the intersection of Fruitridge and 65th Street Expressway, which would have the potential to support transit-orientated development. The monitoring location was approximately 50 feet north of the Fruitridge Road centerline and 175 feet west of the 65th Street Expressway centerline. Monitoring was performed for a period of 15 minutes. The dominant noise source was vehicular traffic on Fruitridge Road, average noise levels were 67.5 dBA Leq with the loudest noise source being an “import tuner” style car, which had a maximum noise level of 84.6 dBA Lmax. Weather during the monitoring period was favorable with a temperature of 98° F, clear skies and 0 to 4 MPH winds.
ST-4. 11 – Watt & Manlove Station. The monitoring location was in the northern portion of the Watt and Manlove Station. The monitoring location was approximately 105 feet south of the railroad track centerline and 210 feet south of Folsom Boulevard. Monitoring was performed for a period of 15 minutes. The dominant noise source was vehicular traffic on Folsom Boulevard, average noise levels were 57 dBA Leq with the loudest noise source being an motorcycle, which had a maximum noise level of 70.7 dBA Lmax. Weather during the monitoring period was favorable with a temperature of 98° F, clear skies and 0 to 6 MPH winds.
ST-5. 6 – Swanston Station. The monitoring location was adjacent to the waiting area of Sawanston Station. The monitoring location was approximately 42 feet west of the light rail track centerline and 175 feet west of the heavy rail centerline. Monitoring was performed for a period of 15 minutes. The loudest noise source during the monitoring period was a light rail transit vehicle, which had a maximum noise level of 76.0 dBA Lmax. Other sources contributing to the average noise level of 57.8 dB Leq included bus-transit traffic at the station, distant aircraft and traffic. Weather during the monitoring period was favorable with a temperature of 98° F, clear skies and 0 to 3 MPH winds.
APPENDIX E:
Traffic Noise Model Calculations
Appendix E-1
Traffic Noise Model CalculationsProject: 11499 - City of Sacramento GP 2040 TBR Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing Conditions
1 El Centro Rd Hankview Rd Radio Rd 11,323 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.92 El Centro Rd/W El Camino Rd Radio Rd I-80 13,346 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.63 W Elkhorn Blvd E Commerce Way Natomas Blvd 16,654 55 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.84 Del Paso Rd Power Line Rd I-5 22,683 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.65 Del Paso Rd I-5 Natomas Blvd 43,098 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.96 Del Paso Rd Natomas Blvd Gateway Park Blvd 19,110 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.47 San Juan Rd El Centro Rd Duckhorn Dr 6,529 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.1 8 Del Paso Rd Gateway Park Blvd Northgate Blvd 20,728 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.7 9 Northgate Blvd Main Ave North Market Blvd 26,556 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.8 10 Northgate Blvd North Market Blvd I-80 44,860 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.111 Natomas Blvd W Elkhorn Blvd Del Paso Rd 27,718 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.012 Truxel Rd Arena Blvd I-80 58,072 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 73.013 Truxel Rd Del Paso Rd Arena Blvd 23,934 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.114 North Market Blvd Truxel Rd Northgate Blvd 13,251 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.2 15 Arena Blvd I-5 Truxel Rd 20,670 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.2 16 Arena Blvd El Centro Rd I-5 26,798 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.317 E Commerce Way W Elkhorn Blvd N Park Dr 7,967 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.0 18 E Commerce Way N Park Dr Del Paso Rd 20,412 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.1 19 E Commerce Way Del Paso Rd Arena Blvd 16,077 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.420 Del Paso Blvd Globe Ave El Camino Ave 9,443 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.7 21 Del Paso Blvd El Camino Ave Marysville Blvd 11,841 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.7 22 Del Paso Blvd Marysville Blvd Arcade Blvd 4,948 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 57.9 23 Rio Linda Blvd Main Ave Bell Rd 8,189 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.124 Rio Linda Blvd Grand Ave Arcade Blvd 11,605 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.2 25 Rio Linda Blvd Arcade Blvd Lampasas Ave 14,445 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.1 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 646
35 75 162
875348
48 103 223
628480
158 340 734 1580
517
61 131 283 61087 18635 76 163 35141 88 189 40728 60 130 27916 34 72 156 Input
Speed Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Output
Distance to Contour, (feet)3
Distance to
Directional Centerline,
(feet)4
6724
291406300
59836984773464
165
63 13588 18965 139
74 312112
138145
Segment Description and Location
53 247
ADT
114111
227240
4930 6552
531593831687843490
52 402 865356 768139 300
128179148182106
342641671240
275386319391159297
Appendix E-2
Traffic Noise Model CalculationsProject: 11499 - City of Sacramento GP 2040 TBR Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing Conditions
1 Marysville Blvd Rio Linda Blvd Bell Ave 7,057 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.5 2 Marysville Blvd I-80 Arcade Blvd 26,277 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.2 3 Marysville Blvd Arcade Blvd Del Paso Blvd 10,436 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.1 4 Norwood Ave Main Ave I-80 31,376 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.5 5 Norwood Ave Silver Eagle Rd El Camino Ave 9,872 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.9 6 El Camino Ave Grove Ave Del Paso Blvd 13,508 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.6 7 El Camino Ave Del Paso Blvd I-80 Business 32,946 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.1 8 Arden Way Del Paso Blvd Royal Oaks Dr 23,574 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.3 9 Arden Way Royal Oaks Dr I-80 Business 36,503 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.6 10 Grand Ave Norwood Ave Rio Linda Blvd 7,218 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.5 11 Silver Eagle Rd Northgate Blvd Norwood Ave 13,760 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.0 12 Main Ave Northgate Blvd Norwood Ave 16,244 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.613 Main Ave Norwood Ave Rio Linda Blvd 9,054 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.114 Main Ave Marysville Blvd Raley Blvd 1,334 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 50.515 W Elkhorn Blvd Natomas Blvd Rio Linda Blvd 17,935 55 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.1 16 Arcade Blvd Marysville Blvd Roseville Rd 18,241 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.617 Raley Blvd Ascot Ave Bell Ave 20,156 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.418 Bell Ave Norwood Ave Winters St 13,660 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.9 19 Roseville Rd Arcade Blvd Watt Ave 17,645 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.820 Winters St Bell Ave I-80 15,021 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.321 Royal Oaks Dr Arden Way SR-160 6,406 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 57.4 22 Dry Creek Rd Marysville Blvd Grand Ave 3,335 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 56.2 23 Arden Garden Connector Northgate Blvd Del Paso Blvd 24,657 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.5 24 San Juan Rd Truxel Rd Northgate Blvd 18,885 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.8 25 W El Camino Ave I-80 I-5 20,833 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.2 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 65 140 301 64958 125 269 58161 131 282 60814 31 67 14412 26 56 12071 154 332 71442 90 194 41778 168 362 78039 84 182 39287 188 405 87337 80 173 37330 64 138 298 5 11 23 50
19 40 86 18644 95 204 44094 203 438 94420 43 93 20155 119 257 55356 121 262 56324 51 110 23626 55 119 25768 147 316 68248 102 221 47525 53 115 248 Segment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet)3 32 68 146 316
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional Centerline,
(feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Appendix E-3
Traffic Noise Model CalculationsProject: 11499 - City of Sacramento GP 2040 TBR Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing Conditions
1 W El Camino Ave I-5 Truxel Rd 25,760 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.12 W El Camino Ave Truxel Rd Northgate Blvd 18,730 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.73 W El Camino Ave Northgate Blvd Grove Ave 14,327 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.94 Garden Hwy I-80 Orchard Ln 1,805 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 56.6 5 Garden Hwy Gateway Oaks Dr I-5 16,199 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.1 6 Northgate Blvd I-80 San Juan Rd 32,742 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.77 Northgate Blvd Silver Eagle Rd Arden Garden Connector 21,246 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.88 Truxel Rd W El Camino Ave Garden Hwy 16,374 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.79 Truxel Rd San Juan Rd W El Camino Ave 25,272 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.6 10 Truxel Rd I-80 San Juan Rd 41,435 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 70.211 I St 5th St 12th St 22,315 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.112 I St 21st St 29th St 5,190 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 54.8 13 L St 5th St 15th St 11,148 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 58.1 14 L St 15th St 29th St 5,091 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 56.4 15 P St 16th St 29th St 8,019 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 58.316 J St 3rd St 7th St 22,413 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.8 17 J St 21st St 29th St 13,311 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.518 Q St 3rd St 10th St 15,630 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.619 7th St P St J St 5,328 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 54.9 20 12th St D St I St 8,053 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 56.721 N St 10th St 16th St 7,786 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 56.622 15th St X St Broadway 9,653 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.123 15th St J St P St 10,570 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.5 24 16th St P St W St 15,551 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.625 29th St J St P St 11,761 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.0 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 22 46 100 21520 43 93 20120 43 94 20213 27 59 12719 41 88 18910 21 46 9913 28 60 13023 50 109 23420 44 94 20217 36 77 16733 71 154 33116 35 75 16212 27 57 12326 55 119 25710 21 45 9759 127 274 590 103 221 477 1027
53 113 244 52644 95 205 44270 151 326 70125 53 114 24613 27 59 12738 82 176 37955 118 255 549 Segment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet)3 75 161 347 748
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional Centerline,
(feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Appendix E-4
Traffic Noise Model CalculationsProject: 11499 - City of Sacramento GP 2040 TBR Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing Conditions
1 30th St P St J St 9,331 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.0 2 Alhambra Blvd Stockton Blvd Broadway 13,762 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.7 3 Broadway 3rd St 5th St 10,285 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 57.84 Broadway Riverside Blvd Franklin Blvd 20,420 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.85 Richards Blvd Bercut Dr N 7th St 26,432 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.86 Exposition Blvd SR-160 I-80 Business 22,903 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.17 Exposition Blvd I-80 Business Arden Way 35,049 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.48 Arden Way I-80 Business Exposition Blvd 54,546 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 71.49 El Camino Ave I-80 Business Howe Ave 38,432 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.4 10 Marconi Ave I-80 Business Bell St 25,704 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.611 Auburn Blvd Howe Ave Watt Ave 8,722 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.9 12 Auburn Blvd Watt Ave SR-244 21,160 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.8 13 Auburn Blvd El Camino Ave Arcade Blvd 8,986 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.1 14 American River Dr Howe Ave Watt Ave 11,057 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.4 15 Heritage Ln Arden Way Exposition Blvd 8,178 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.1 16 Howe Ave US-50 Fair Oaks Blvd 55,633 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 72.8 17 Howe Ave Fair Oaks Blvd Hurley Way 51,674 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.718 Howe Ave Hurley Way El Camino Ave 29,860 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.319 Howe Ave El Camino Ave Auburn Blvd 16,596 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.220 Alta Arden Ex Howe Ave Fulton Ave 16,244 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.421 Fair Oaks Blvd Howe Ave Munroe St 29,904 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.322 Fair Oaks Blvd Munroe St Watt Ave 28,901 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.123 Fair Oaks Blvd Watt Ave Eastern Ave 42,434 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.824 Watt Ave Fair Oaks Blvd US-50 84,384 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 71.825 Elvas Ave/56th St 52nd St H St 8,239 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.7 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 28 60 130 28083 180 387 834
132 284 612 1319
66 142 306 66065 139 300 64535 75 162 35068 146 314 67695 205 441 95166 142 306 66022 47 101 218 154 331 713 1536
30 64 137 29627 58 124 26729 63 135 29052 113 243 52478 168 362 78160 129 277 59792 198 426 918 123 266 573 1233
55 119 257 55315 33 71 15324 52 112 24224 52 111 23961 131 282 608 Segment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet)3 18 40 86 185
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional Centerline,
(feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Appendix E-5
Traffic Noise Model CalculationsProject: 11499 - City of Sacramento GP 2040 TBR Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing Conditions
1 Elvas Ave J ST Folsom Blvd 18,988 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.82 H St Alhambra Blvd 45th St 13,876 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.73 H St 45th St Carlson Dr 17,635 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.84 J St Alhambra Blvd 56th St 15,781 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.35 Folsom Blvd 47th St 65th St 18,426 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.66 Folsom Blvd Howe Ave Jackson Hwy 38,544 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.87 Power Inn Rd US 50 14th Ave 62,511 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 72.08 Stockton Blvd Alhambra Blvd US-50 14,504 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.99 Jackson Hwy Folsom Blvd S Watt Ave 14,807 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.0 10 Hornet Dr US-50 WB Ramps Folsom Blvd 19,139 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.411 La Rivera Dr Watt Ave Folsom Blvd 18,052 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.512 Carlson Dr Moddison Ave H St 10,602 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.513 College Town Dr Hornet Dr La Rivera Dr 19,172 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.814 39th St Folsom Blvd J St 4,451 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 54.1 15 59th St Folsom Blvd Broadway 10,580 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 57.9 16 C St 33rd St McKinley Blvd 5,865 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 58.6 17 Sutterville Rd Riverside Blvd Freeport Blvd 15,111 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.8 18 Sutterville Rd 24th St Franklin Blvd 26,241 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.119 Seamas Ave I-5 S Land Park Dr 15,872 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.520 Fruitridge Rd S Land Park Dr Freeport Blvd 17,294 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.921 Fruitridge Rd Freeport Blvd Franklin Blvd 27,704 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.022 Fruitridge Rd Franklin Blvd SR-99 26,800 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.823 Franklin Blvd Broadway 5th Ave 7,171 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 57.8 24 Franklin Blvd Sutterville Rd Fruitridge Rd 20,994 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.2 25 Freeport Blvd Sutterville Rd (S) Fruitridge Rd 24,087 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.8 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 45 97 208 44915 33 72 15541 88 190 40963 135 291 62861 132 285 61443 93 201 43346 99 213 45833 71 153 32947 102 220 47516 34 72 15617 38 81 17539 83 179 385 9 19 41 88
37 80 172 37020 43 93 20164 137 295 63549 106 228 490
135 291 627 1351
25 53 115 24861 132 285 61428 61 131 28226 56 122 26224 52 112 24038 81 174 375 Segment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet)3 61 132 283 610
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional Centerline,
(feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Appendix E-6
Traffic Noise Model CalculationsProject: 11499 - City of Sacramento GP 2040 TBR Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing Conditions
1 Riverside Blvd Broadway 2nd Ave 12,519 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.92 Riverside Blvd Sutterville Rd Seamas Ave 6,932 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.4 3 Land Park Dr Broadway Vallejo Way 13,011 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.4 4 S Land Park Dr Sutterville Rd Seamas Ave 5,067 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 56.3 5 24th St Sutterville Rd Fruitridge Rd 9,357 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.36 Stockton Blvd US-50 Broadway 26,523 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.5 7 Stockton Blvd Broadway Fruitridge Rd 19,570 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.98 Broadway Alhambra Blvd Stockton Blvd 15,768 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.99 Broadway Stockton Blvd 65th St 16,311 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.4 10 65th St Elvas Ave 14th Ave 30,693 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.411 Power Inn Rd 14th Ave Fruitridge Rd 37,908 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.812 12th Ave Martin Luther King Jr Blvd SR-99 19,016 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.413 14th Ave 65th St Power Inn Rd 12,848 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.614 Florin Perkins Rd Folsom Blvd Fruitridge Rd 11,297 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.515 Fruitridge Rd SR-99 44th St 31,033 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.516 Fruitridge Rd 44th St Stockton Blvd 30,409 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.417 Fruitridge Rd Stockton Blvd 65th St 20,061 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.618 Fruitridge Rd 65th St Florin Perkins Rd 18,052 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.619 Fruitridge Rd Florin Perkins Rd S Watt Ave 14,102 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.820 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Broadway Fruitridge Rd 9,458 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.1 21 T St Stockton Blvd 59th St 3,039 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 54.122 33rd St 4th Ave 12th Ave 4,770 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 54.423 Raley Blvd Bell Ave I-80 33,804 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.3 24 S Watt Ave US-50 Kiefer Blvd 53,280 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 71.325 Florin Rd Riverside Blvd Havenside Dr 9,950 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.5 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 32 68 147 31790 193 416 897
121 262 564 1214
9 19 41 879 20 43 92
62 133 286 61519 40 86 18651 109 235 50659 127 274 59068 146 314 67767 144 310 66838 81 175 37643 93 200 43297 208 449 96823 50 107 23127 58 124 26867 145 312 67239 84 181 39134 73 157 33837 80 172 37023 50 107 23012 26 57 12320 42 91 19630 66 141 304 Segment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet)3 29 62 135 290
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional Centerline,
(feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Appendix E-7
Traffic Noise Model CalculationsProject: 11499 - City of Sacramento GP 2040 TBR Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing Conditions
1 Florin Rd Havenside Dr I-5 38,574 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.92 Riverside Blvd/Pocket Rd Florin Rd Greenhaven dr 10,076 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.63 Pocket Rd Greenhaven dr Freeport Blvd 28,830 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.14 43rd Ave Gloria Dr 13th St 6,460 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.6 5 S Land Park Dr Windbridge Dr Florin Rd 4,257 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 55.66 Gloria Dr Florin Rd 43rd Ave 4,229 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 55.67 Greenhaven Dr Gloria Dr Florin Rd 5,565 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 58.48 Freeport Blvd Pocket Rd South City Limits 11,727 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.0 9 Freeport Blvd Florin Rd Pocket Rd 17,356 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.7 10 24th St Fruitridge Rd Florin Rd 16,026 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.611 24th St Florin Rd Meadowview Rd 15,144 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.312 Meadowview Rd Freeport Blvd Brookfield Dr 31,108 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.513 Florin Rd Freeport Blvd Franklin Blvd 36,030 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.114 43rd Ave/Blair Ave 13th St Freeport Blvd 7,647 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.8 15 47th Ave 24th St Franklin Blvd 23,856 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.4 16 Franklin Blvd Fruitridge Rd 47th Ave 16,703 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.817 Stockon Blvd Florin Rd Mack Rd 30,333 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.418 65th St 14th Ave Fruitridge Rd 23,525 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.719 65th Ex Elder Creek Rd Stockton Blvd 21,719 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.420 Power Inn Rd Fruitridge Rd Florin Rd 29,621 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.721 S Watt Ave Kiefer Blvd Jackson Hwy 40,501 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 70.122 Florin Rd Franklin Blvd SR-99 44,392 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.023 Florin Rd SR-99 65th St 57,361 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 70.124 Florin Rd 65th St Stockton Blvd 36,269 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.125 Florin Rd Stockton Blvd Power Inn Rd 29,785 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.3 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 66 142 306 659
102 220 473 1019
75 162 349 751
101 218 469 1011
86 185 399 85967 144 310 66882 177 381 82167 144 309 66770 152 327 70427 58 124 26845 96 208 44875 161 347 74821 45 97 20942 90 195 42068 146 315 67871 152 328 70644 94 202 43617 36 78 16954 117 252 54411 23 51 10964 139 299 64424 51 110 23832 69 148 32011 24 51 109 Segment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet)3 98 211 454 979
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional Centerline,
(feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Appendix E-8
Traffic Noise Model CalculationsProject: 11499 - City of Sacramento GP 2040 TBR Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing Conditions
1 Florin Rd Power Inn Rd Florin Perkins Rd 23,756 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.72 Elder Creek Rd Stockton Blvd Florin Perkins Rd 27,088 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.33 Elder Creek Rd South Watt Avenue Hedge Ave 7,203 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 62.6 4 Florin Perkins Rd Fruitridge Rd Elder Creek Rd 20,583 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.1 5 Florin Perkins Rd Elder Creek Rd Florin Rd 21,658 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.46 Mack Rd Meadowview Rd Franklin Blvd 22,280 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.57 Mack Rd Franklin Blvd Center Pkwy 25,886 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.18 Mack Rd Center Pkwy Stockton Blvd 38,136 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.89 Center Pkwy Tangerine Ave Mack Rd 7,035 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.0 10 Center Pkwy Mack Rd Bruceville Rd 6,590 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.711 Valley Hi Dr Franklin Blvd Center Pkwy 8,894 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.512 Valley Hi Dr Center Pkwy Mack Rd 20,939 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.2 13 Bruceville Rd Valley Hi Dr Consumnes River Blvd 19,630 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.514 Bruceville Rd Consumnes River Blvd Calvine Rd 37,068 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.715 Franklin Blvd Village Wood Dr Big Horn Blvd 24,123 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.816 Franklin Blvd Mack Rd Turnbridge Dr 25,572 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.117 Franklin Blvd 47th Ave Turnbridge Dr 24,672 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.518 Stockton Blvd Fruitridge Rd Florin Rd 29,651 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.319 65th Ex Stockton Blvd Florin Rd 19,924 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.020 Power Inn Rd Florin Rd Elsie Ave 29,391 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.721 47th Ave Franklin Blvd SR-99 29,691 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.322 47th Ave SR-99 Stockton Blvd 35,641 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.123 Franklin Blvd Mack Rd Village Wood Dr 27,950 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.024 Elkhorn Blvd SR-99 E Commerce Way 20,794 55 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.825 Freeport Blvd Sutterville Rd (N) Sutterville Rd (S) 27,747 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.0 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 63 135 292 62863 136 293 63196 208 447 96366 142 305 65774 160 345 74240 85 183 39582 176 379 81758 125 270 58166 141 305 65772 154 332 71674 160 346 74450 107 231 49995 205 443 95323 50 107 23141 88 190 40925 54 117 25224 52 112 24175 162 348 75097 209 451 97268 146 315 67932 69 148 32064 139 299 64477 167 359 77467 144 309 666 Segment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet)3 44 96 206 444
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional Centerline,
(feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Appendix E-9
Traffic Noise Model CalculationsProject: 11499 - City of Sacramento GP 2040 TBR Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing Conditions
1 Folsom Blvd US-50 Howe Ave 20,303 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.1 2 Cosumnes River Blvd Franklin Blvd Center Pkwy 22,868 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.93 Freeport Blvd 21st St Sutterville Rd (N) 14,825 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.04 Freeport Blvd Broadway 21st St 6,728 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.25 Land Park Dr Vallejo Way 13th Ave (S) 10,552 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.56 Land Park Dr 13th Ave (S) Sutterville Rd 7,848 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 58.27 Riverside Blvd 7th Ave Sutterville Rd 10,198 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.08 Riverside Blvd 2nd Ave 7th Ave 10,675 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.29 24th St Donner Way Sutterville Rd 541 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 46.6 10 Sutterville Rd Freeport Blvd Sutterville Bypass 27,246 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.311 5th St Broadway Vallejo Way 6,764 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 57.612 Broadway 5th St Riverside Blvd 11,981 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.113 Elder Creek Rd Florin Perkins Rd S Watt Ave 13,118 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.214 Richards Blvd N 7th St N 12th St 23,324 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.615 12th St Richards Blvd D St 19,549 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 63.916 16th St Richards Blvd I St 24,175 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 64.817 N 7th St B St F St 10,095 25 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 57.718 Florin Rd I-5 Freeport Blvd 31,565 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.519 Cosumnes River Blvd Center Pkwy SR-99 54,422 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 72.720 Garden Hwy Orchard Ln Gateway Oaks Dr 4,464 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 57.521 J St 7th St 10th St 15,710 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.322 J St 10th St 16th St 18,070 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 61.923 P St 16th St 9th St 7,378 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 58.024 P St 9th St 2nd St 12,493 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 60.325 Franklin Blvd 5th Ave Sutterville Rd 9,388 30 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 59.0 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 31 117 253226 487209 450
183
54414335
151685
1513
146
394117
899370
318
Segment Description and Location
64 296
ADT
138
56 121
76 16
25 5426
638849251192200164
151
15 69
221181
8525192015 3248 10339 8445 971568
33 702
68 147326
Input
Speed Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Output
Distance to Contour, (feet)3
Distance to
Directional Centerline,
(feet)4
26 56 121 26129 62 133 28722 48 104 22419 40 86 185
390
16 34 73 158
477
44 95 204 439
149
22 47 101 218
261
3 6 13 28
49 105
Appendix E-10
Traffic Noise Model CalculationsProject: 11499 - City of Sacramento GP 2040 TBR Noise Level Descriptor: Ldn
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: ADT
Traffic K-Factor: 10
Ldn,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Existing Conditions
1 J St/Fair Oaks Blvd H St Howe Ave 41,226 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.7 2 Folsom Blvd Jackson Hwy S Watt Ave 18,387 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.6 3 Riverside Blvd/43rd Ave Florin Rd Gloria Dr 21,980 40 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 66.04 Freeport Blvd Fruitridge Rd Florin Rd 20,607 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 68.5 5 Garden Hwy I-5 Truxel Rd 20,787 45 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 67.2 6 Garden Hwy Truxel Rd Northgate Blvd 23,149 50 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 69.0 7 Norwood Ave I-80 Silver Eagle Rd 28,290 35 100 100 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 20.0% 65.5 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels.
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional Centerline,
(feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics Segment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet)3 82 176 380 81860 129 277 59754 116 250 53879 171 368 79265 140 301 64886 184 397 85650 108 232 499 This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX F:
Market Demand Analysis
bae urban economics
Sacramento General Plan Update
Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum: Market Demand Study July 23, 2019
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Geographic Definitions ................................................................................................................1 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARCTERISTICS ................................................................... 3 Population and Household Trends..............................................................................................3 Household Composition...............................................................................................................5 Household Tenure........................................................................................................................6 Race and Ethnicity .......................................................................................................................7 Educational Attainment ............................................................................................................ 11 Household Income Distribution................................................................................................ 13 Households by Size-Adjusted Income Category and Tenure .................................................. 16 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 19 Employment by Industry ........................................................................................................... 19 Major Employers........................................................................................................................ 24 Occupational Employment........................................................................................................ 25 Labor Force Characteristics...................................................................................................... 31 Regional Commuting Patterns.................................................................................................. 33 Retail Sales and Leakage......................................................................................................... 36 REAL ESTATE MARKET CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 45 Residential Market.................................................................................................................... 45 Non-Residential Market............................................................................................................ 69 Planned and Proposed Projects............................................................................................... 78 Federal Opportunity Zone Program.......................................................................................... 86 ANTICIPATED GROWTH AND MARKET OPPORTUNITIES .......................................................... 89 Demographic and Economic Forecast..................................................................................... 89 APPENDIX A: SACRAMENTO PLANNING AREA AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS ...................... 97 APPENDIX B: SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS .......................................................... 98 APPENDIX C: DESIGNATED QUALIFIED OPPORTUNITY ZONES .............................................. 111 List of Tables
Table 1: Population and Households, 2010-2018......................................................................... 4 Table 2: Household Type, 2010-2018 ............................................................................................ 6 Table 3: Household Tenure, 2010-2018 ........................................................................................ 7 Table 4: Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2018........................................................................................ 9 Table 5: Educational Attainment, 2010-2018..............................................................................12 Table 6: Household Income, 2011-2018......................................................................................14 Table 7: Households by Size Adjusted Income Category and Tenure, 2011-2015....................17 Table 8: Employment by Industry, 2010-2017.............................................................................21 Table 9: Principle Employers, City and County of Sacramento, 2018.........................................25 Table 10: Employed Residents by Occupation, Population Age 16+, 2018...............................28 Table 11: Labor Force Characteristics, LAUS 2010-2017...........................................................32 Table 12: Labor Force Characteristics, ACS 2010 and 2017.....................................................33 Table 13: Worker and Employed Resident Commuting Patterns, City of Sacramento, 2010 and 2017..............................................................................................................................34 Table 14: Regional Commuting Patterns, Origin and Destination, City of Sacramento, 2010 and 2015..............................................................................................................................35 Table 15: Taxable Sales, 2016......................................................................................................40 Table 16: Retail Leakage and Injection, 2018 .............................................................................43 Table 17: Units in Structure, 2017................................................................................................46 Table 18: Housing Stock by Year Built, 2017...............................................................................47 Table 19: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status, 2010-2017................................................48 Table 20: Characteristics of Housing Sales by Type, City of Sacramento, May 2018 to October 2018..................................................................................................................................49 Table 21: Affordable For-Sale Housing Prices, Sacramento County, 2018................................50 Table 22: Multifamily Market by Unit Type....................................................................................54 Table 23: Affordable Rents, Sacramento County, 2018..............................................................59 Table 24: Housing Cost Burden by Income Category and Tenure, 2011-2015 .........................62 Table 25: Overcrowded Households by Income Level and Tenure, 2011-2015........................66 Table 26: Retail Market Overview, 2010-2018 YTD ....................................................................71 Table 27: Office Market Overview, 2010-2018 YTD ....................................................................74 Table 28: Industrial Market Overview, 2010-2018 YTD ..............................................................77 Table 29: Planned and Proposed Residential Units by Project Status, City of Sacramento......80 Table 30: Planned and Proposed Residential Units by Community Plan Area, City of Sacramento.....................................................................................................................................81 Table 31: Non-Residential Planned and Proposed Projects by Project Status, City of Sacramento.....................................................................................................................................82 Table 32: Non-Residential Planned and Proposed Projects by Community Plan Area, City of Sacramento.................................................................................................................................83 Table 33: Growth Projections, 2016-2040...................................................................................91 Table 34: Job Growth by Land Use Type, 2016-2040..................................................................92 Table 35: Supportable Non-Residential Development 2018-2040 ............................................93 List of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area Definitions, City of Sacramento and the Sacramento-RosevilleArden Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)......................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Year-Over-Year Population Growth, 2000 to 2018......................................................... 3 Figure 3: Total Population by Community Plan Area, 2018.......................................................... 5 Figure 4: Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2018........................................................................ 8 Figure 5: Percent Minority, Sacramento Planning Area and Community Plan Areas, 2018......10 Figure 6: Population Age 25 and Over by Educational Attainment, 2018.................................11 Figure 7: Median Household Income, Sacramento Planning Area and Community Plan Areas, 2018 ....................................................................................................................................15 Figure 8: Households by Size Adjusted Income Category and Tenure, 2011-2015 ..................18 Figure 9: Distribution of Jobs by Industry, 2017..........................................................................20 Figure 10: Employment Density, Sacramento Planning Area and Community Plan Areas, 2015................................................................................................................................................23 Figure 11: Distribution of Employed Residents by Occupation. Population Age 16+, 2018....27 Figure 12: Year-Over-Year Change in National Retail Sales, eCommerce and Total, 2000-2017......................................................................................................................................37 Figure 13: Median Residential Sale Price and Appreciation for the Sacramento Planning Area and Community Plan Areas, 2010-2018..............................................................................52 Figure 14: Average Multifamily Rents and Appreciation for the Sacramento Planning Area and Community Plan Areas, 2010-2018 ......................................................................................60 Figure 15: Percent of Households With a Cost Burden Equal to 30 Percent of Income or More.................................................................................................................................................64 Figure 16: Percent of Households With a Cost Burden Equal to 50 Percent of Income or More.................................................................................................................................................65 Figure 17: Percent of Low-Income Households with >1 Person Per Room ..............................68 Figure 18: Office Asking Rents and Vacancy Rates, City of Sacramento, 2010-2018 YTD.......73 Figure 19: Census Tracts Designated as Opportunity Zones......................................................88 Figure 20: Jobs Growth by Land Use Category and Projection Scenario, 2018-2040..............92 i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides background information regarding existing and anticipated future demographic and economic trends and market conditions for use as part of the City of Sacramento General Plan Update. This includes evaluation of recent changes in demographic characteristics and household composition, as well as recent labor market changes, industry growth trends, and other related topics that pertain to economic development. The study also evaluates existing real estate market conditions for residential (considering demand for different housing types), office, commercial, and industrial land uses, and projects anticipated citywide demand for each land use type through the year 2040.
Population and Household Characteristics
Population and Household Growth
Population growth in the City of Sacramento generally kept pace with statewide population growth since 2010, but was somewhat slower compared to the rest of the SacramentoRoseville-Arden Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Population and household growth were significantly outpaced by employment growth within the City, reinforcing the City’s position as a major employment center within the broader region.
The parts of Sacramento that grew most rapidly generally correspond with those parts of the City that have larger quantities of undeveloped land. These generally include the North Natomas and North Sacramento Community Plan Areas, as well as the South Area Community Plan Area. The exception to this trend was the Central City. While the Central City Community Plan Area is one of the most intensively developed parts of the City, it experienced some of the fastest population growth since 2010. Much of this can be attributed to actions being taken by the City of Sacramento to encourage new residential development, as well as progress that has been made toward development of the Railyards and the River District.
Household Characteristics
Households living in Sacramento are somewhat less likely to be families compared to the broader region. They are also notably more likely to live in rented accommodations, versus owning their own homes. This is somewhat indicative of the City’s larger youth and young adult populations, which make up a larger share of the population compared to the region.
Sacramento residents also generally have lower incomes and levels of educational attainment.
Racial and Ethnic Identity
Residents of Sacramento are also significantly more likely to identify with one or more racial and/or ethnic minority groups. The share of the total population in the City that identifies with one or more minority groups is more than 20 percentage point higher than for the region as a whole, at 69 percent. However, the relative concentration of racial and ethnic minority ii
residents differs throughout the City. For example, the four Community Plan Areas with the highest concentrations of minority residents include the South Area, Fruitridge/Broadway, North Sacramento, South Natomas.
Economic and Labor Force Trends
Employment Trends
Employment in Sacramento is overwhelmingly concentrated in the Central City. While there are other important employment centers within the City, such as in the Fruitridge/Broadway and Arden Arcade areas, employment in the Central City accounts for roughly one-third of the total citywide jobs. As the seat of both State and local governments, the Government sector accounts for nearly 40 percent of citywide employment. Other important employment sectors include Healthcare and Social Assistance, Administrative and Waste Services, and Retail Trade, among others. Jobs growth in Sacramento outpaced regional employment growth since 2010, expanding the City’s employment base at a rate of 2.7 percent per year. This is compared to a regional employment growth rate of 2.0 percent per year, indicating that the City is solidifying its position as the region’s premier employment center.
The unemployment rate in Sacramento improved significantly between 2010 and 2017.
Depending on the data source, the unemployment rate in 2010 reached a high of 13.3 to 16.1 percent. As of 2017, the unemployment rate had dropped by around eight percentage points to between 4.7 and 8.2 percent. Most economists generally consider full employment to occur when the unemployment rate hits around 6.0 percent. Thus, the data indicate that the City of Sacramento is either at or is nearing full employment, which has important implications for workforce availability and economic development.
Commuting Patterns
As the region’s premier employment Center, the City has a significant cross-commute.
According to the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS), roughly 61 percent of the workforce commutes in from outside of the City, while 43 percent of employed Sacramento residents commute outside of the City for work. This is roughly similar to the pattern observed in the 2006-2010 ACS. Data from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) dataset indicates that the main points of origin for workers commuting into Sacramento include Elk Grove, Arden-Arcade, Roseville, and West Sacramento.
Retail and Taxable Sales
The retail sector in the United States is undergoing a significant transformation. This transformation is being driven by technological innovations that are altering how consumers shop for and purchase a wide variety of goods, from home goods to motor vehicles. This rapid expansion is having a noticeable impact on the retail real estate sector, including the decline of indoor shopping malls, as well as major contractions among many national and regional retail chains. While the exact future of eCommerce is unclear, due to the rapid pace of iii
technological change, there is a general consensus that eCommerce is likely to continue expanding its market share in the coming years.
According to the California State Board of Equalization (SBOE), Sacramento captured $6.4 billion in taxable sales in 2016, which was equal to around 17 percent of the regional total.
Recognizing that the City accounts for approximately 21 percent of the region’s population, as well as a disproportionate share of the region’s employment, this indicates that the City is not capturing its fair share of regional taxable sales. While this data precedes completion of the Downtown Commons and Delta Shores, which are expected to improve the City’s taxable sales capture, these are unlikely to be enough to substantively change the balance of trade.
While the City currently suffers from a significant leakage of retail sales dollars (i.e., residents are going outside of the community to purchase goods and services, versus spending their money locally), the rapid expansion of online retailing outlets will make it difficult for the City to capture existing leakage through new retail real estate development. Existing market conditions indicate that while the region’s destination retail centers continue to capture an increasing share of regional taxable sales, retail shopping centers big and small are beginning to reposition to emphasize “experiential” retail offerings, such as restaurants, entertainment, and boutique locally branded niche retail.
Real Estate Market Conditions
Residential Market Conditions
Like most communities throughout the nation, most of the housing stock in the City is comprised of single-family housing units, both attached and detached. Multifamily housing accounts for approximately one-third of the City’s existing housing stock, which is roughly on par with the statewide average, but is more than eight percentage points higher than the MSA.
The largest concentration of multifamily housing is located in the Central City, though the Arden Arcade, South Natomas, North Natomas, and Pocket Community Plan Areas also feature significant concentrations of multifamily housing units.
Housing built using traditional wood-framing is generally considered to be at risk for deteriorating condition after approximately 30 years from the date of construction.
Approximately 58 percent of the housing stock in the City of Sacramento was built prior to 1980. While this is close to the statewide average, the City features a much older housing stock compared to the remainder of the MSA, where only 47 percent of the regional housing stock was built before 1980.
The City of Sacramento features significantly fewer vacant units, on average, compared to the MSA and the State as a whole. The current residential vacancy rate in Sacrament is 5.3 percent, compared to around 8.0 percent for the MSA and the State. While Sacramento has a iv
strong tourism sector, there were fewer than 1,500 residential units that were vacant for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use, which typically includes short-term rentals.
For-Sale Housing Prices
Between May and October of 2018, there were nearly 4,500 home sales in the City of Sacramento. The majority of these were detached single-family homes, with around 375 condominium and 105 duplex sales. The median sale price for all units was $325,000, with duplex and condominium units selling for a little less than single-family units. Homes priced at this level are generally affordable to households in the moderate-income category and above.
The data also highlight several high value (i.e., more than one million dollars) condominium sales. These likely reflect sales of units at the Residences at the Sawyer, which have led the way for additional high-end condominium development in the Central City.
Rental Housing Prices
As in many communities throughout California, demand for multifamily rental housing in Sacramento has largely outpaced supply, resulting in rapid increases in rental housing costs for many Sacramento residents. Between 2016 and 2017 Sacramento led the nation for rent growth,1 with CoStar reporting annual rent increases averaging between eight and ten percent.
As of winter, 2019, Yardi Matrix reports decelerating but steady rent growth resulting from a modest increase in vacancy in 2018, combined with limited supply gains and continued strong demand resulting from Sacramento’s position as a comparatively affordable alternative to the San Francisco Bay Area.2
According to CoStar, there are approximately 63,928 market rate multifamily rental units in 2,253 complexes within the City of Sacramento. As of the third quarter of 2018, the average rental rate was $1,228 per month. With an average unit size of 804 square feet, this equaled a rental rate of $1.53 per square foot per month. One- and two-bedroom units comprise most of the existing rental stock.
While the rate of rent growth in Sacramento has begun to moderate in recent years, Yardi Matrix reports that local rent increases continue to outpace the national average by at least one percentage point. While Sacramento has experienced a robust increase in demand for rental housing in the Central City, which is expected to continue, brokers indicate that areas outside of the urban core are experiencing the most rapid increase in average rental rates.
Gentrification Pressure
A high-level evaluation of changes in housing costs by Community Plan Area do not suggest a close relationship between increasing rental rates and the racial/ethnic composition of the
1 Yardi Matrix. (2019). Moderating is Key In Sacramento: Multifamily Report Winter 2019. Available at:
https://www.multihousingnews.com/post/sacramentos-rent-growth-still-strong-not-dazzling/ 2 Ibid. v
community, though additional analysis may be necessary to draw any definitive conclusions.
Additional analysis of changes in for-sale home prices by Community Plan Area indicate that for-sale prices are increasing most rapidly in some of the community plan areas with the highest concentrations of minority residents. For example, for-sale home prices have more than doubled in the four Community Plan Areas that have minority concentrations that make up more than 70 percent of the population, while the median sale prices in other less racially and ethnically diverse areas have less than doubled.
Housing Affordability
Additional data on housing affordability, published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, indicate that more than 40 percent of Sacramento households pay more than 30 percent of their income to housing, and more than 20 percent pay more than 50 percent of their monthly income for housing. Renter households and lower income households are both generally more likely to overpay for housing.
Retail Market Conditions
Although significant population growth and relocation of households from the San Francisco Bay Area into the Sacramento market are driving strong increases in retail sales, as discussed in this report, the rapid expansion of online retailing is resulting in changing consumer behaviors,3 and a slackening of demand for some types of traditional brick and mortar retail.
These trends are disproportionately impacting the region’s community and neighborhood shopping centers, while brokers report that demand remains strong among the region’s major destination and power centers, such as Delta Shores and the Fountains at Roseville.4 With lackluster demand for most community retail space, much of the recent leasing activity has been focused on bargain grocery, fitness centers and health clubs, and bars and restaurants. Except for restaurants, these uses are typically lower rent, but all of these types are more resilient to e-commerce. This shift in focus signals a change in management approach for many retail investors and property managers, including both small neighborhood and regional power centers, which emphasize experiential retail and food sales.
The Sacramento submarket that best exemplifies this turn towards experiential retail and food service is the Central City. According to Colliers International, the Central City now has 68 bars and 139 restaurants.5 In addition, around 50 new retail business have opened, or are planning to open, since completion of the Golden 1 Center and the Downtown Commons (DoCo) in 2016, including the recently opened food hall known as The Bank. Brokers indicate
3 Same-day home delivery is changing the way that many resident’s shop. Rather than stopping at a neighborhood shopping center on their way home from work, they can order products online and have them waiting for them. 4 The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) defines Power Regional centers as a specialized-purpose shopping center with dominant anchors including discount department stores, off-price stores, wholesale clubs, and with only a few small tenants. 5 Colliers International. (Q3 2018). Research & Forecast Report: Sacramento Retail. Available at:
vi
that the key to successful retail in this environment is food service and local boutique branding. The Ice Blocks is another good example of this approach, with multiple locally branded restaurants, as well as Device Brewing Company, plus an assortment of locally and regionally based retailers (i.e., identifiable northern California based brands like Bonobos).
Office Market Conditions
The City of Sacramento is one of the region’s premier office markets, accounting for approximately 56 percent of the total regional inventory. While traditionally driven by demand from State government, the Sacramento office market is experiencing increasing demand from firms working in healthcare, technology, and education. While Class A office space remains the most in-demand market segment, a lack of available inventory is increasingly pushing prospective tenants into the Class B market. While still close to ten percent, office vacancy in Sacramento has reached a ten-year low. Although a case can be made for more speculative office development, builders remain hesitant due to rising construction and downtown land costs. Nonetheless, the market is seeing considerable build-to-suit activity.6 The bulk of the build-to-suit activity is occurring in the medical services and medical tech segment. For example, Sacramento’s largest new office project is the new Centene campus in North Natomas, which broke ground in 2018 and will include 1.25 million square feet of new office space accommodating up to 5,000 workers (approximately 1,500 net new jobs).7 Sacramento can also expect significant new medical office demand following construction of the Kaiser Permanente medical center in the Railyards. The first phase of that development is expected to include a more than 300,000 square foot hospital, plus approximately 60,000 square feet of medical office. The second phase could double the amount of medical office space. With three major health systems, plus multiple major insurers and a major research university (i.e., the University of California, Davis), Sacramento may also be well positioned to capture demand from bio-pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and R&D establishments. Demand from this market segment is likely to be dispersed throughout the City and the region, including in the Central City and North Natomas, as well as Rancho Cordova, Rocklin, Roseville, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, and Orangevale, among other locations.
Sacramento is also experiencing considerable expansion of the Government office sector. The State of California is largely driving new construction of office space within the Central City and the River District. As of this writing, the State is about to break ground on the new 21-story 875,000 square foot Natural Resource Building and redevelopment of the existing California
6 Build-to-suit real estate transactions involve construction of a building for sale or lease that is built to a buyer’s or tenants desired specifications. This is in contrast to speculative development, which is built to a generic standard that is specified by the developer so-as to appeal to a broad segment of the market, or which is built as a “shell space,” meaning that further tenant improvements will be completed following signing of a use agreement. 7 Rodd, Scott. (November 17, 2018). Sacramento Strikes Deal with Health Insurer That May Bring Up to 5,000 Jobs. The Sacramento Business Journal. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/ 2017/11/17/sacramento-strikes-deal-with-health-insurer-that.html vii
Department of Food and Agriculture Annex Building at 1215 O Street, which will include another 360,000 square feet of space. The State has also approved $460 million to fund development of a new Sacramento County Courthouse at 6th and G Streets, behind the existing Federal Courthouse, which is expected to be complete in 2023. In the River District, the State is planning demolition of the Office of State Publishing Building at 7th and Richards to make room for a new one million square foot campus, which is anticipated for delivery in 2022.
Industrial Market Conditions
Industrial real estate brokers indicate that the region is experiencing robust demand for industrial and warehouse space that is evenly distributed throughout the regional submarkets.
Six of the region’s largest submarkets are located within the City of Sacramento, including the Central City, McClellan, Natomas, Northeast Sacramento, Power Inn Road, and South Sacramento. The City has more than 66.1 million square feet of industrial space, which represents 46 percent of the regional market. The largest submarket in the region is the Power Inn Road area, which features more than 24.4 million square feet of industrial space, followed by West Sacramento, Woodland, McClellan, Sunrise/Rancho Cordova, and Natomas, among other key markets. Central Sacramento, including both Downtown, the Railyards, and the River District, features approximately 7.1 million square feet of industrial space.
The industrial real estate market in Sacramento is in transition. Historical industrial areas, like the Union Pacific Railyards, the River District, and the western portion of the Broadway corridor are transitioning away from industrial uses to accommodate more residential, office, retail, and recreational uses. The largest such project is obviously the Railyards redevelopment, which will convert the former railroad yard to accommodate up to 10,000 new housing units, more than 500,000 square feet of retail, up to 3.9 million square feet of office space, a 1.2 million square foot medical center, 1,100 hotel rooms, more than 30 acres of open space and a possible major league soccer stadium. Similarly, the western Broadway corridor has already begun transitioning to accommodate new housing, like the Mill at Broadway, which redeveloped a former lumber mill facility to accommodate medium density workforce housing.
The River District is likewise positioned to redevelop from a predominantly industrial district to a mix of residential, State and private office, and retail uses.
The Cannabis Industry
At the same time that industrial uses are relocating out of the City’s historic industrial districts, the City is experiencing significant new industrial demand in places like Power Inn Road and near the McClellan Business and Industrial Park. One of the primary drivers of demand, particularly in the Power Inn Road area is expansion of the legal cannabis industry.8 Following
8 Rodd, Scott. (January 3, 2019). Power Play: How the Power Inn Alliance Influenced the City’s Approach to Cannabis”. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2019/01/03/power-play-how-the-power- viii
legalization of recreational marijuana in 2016, the industry has expanded rapidly, occupying large volumes of space and driving up lease rates in the surrounding area. The area has become a destination for a mix of cannabis cultivators, distributors, manufacturers, and dispensaries, effectively creating a small cannabis-related industry cluster. However, the rapid expansion has also caused safety/security concerns and prompted the Power Inn Alliance to lobby the City to better regulate the industry and encourage a wider distribution of cannabis related facilities throughout the City, citing impacts on industrial vacancy and rents and the competitive effects on traditional industrial users in need of space. The cannabis industry is showing significant activity elsewhere in Sacramento as well, notably in the Southeast Sacramento area, with the $50 million We Grow California cannabis campus.9 Planned and Proposed Development
The sustained recovery from the Great Recession and demonstrated depth of demand for a variety of land use types throughout the city has renewed optimism regarding local market fundamentals and led to a significant pipeline of development projects seeking entitlements or actively pursuing construction.
Residential Planned and Proposed Projects
Entitlement data provided by the City of Sacramento show that there were approximately 19,765 housing units in the development pipeline as of late 2018. Only around four percent of Sacramento’s total proposed units had applied for or received building permits, indicating that developers with interests in Sacramento are positioned to deliver a relatively large number of new units in the coming years compared to the number of units currently being delivered. Roughly half of the proposed residential units were single-family structures, most of which are in large-scale master planned communities in Natomas. Another 46 percent of proposed residential units were in standalone or mixed-use multifamily projects consisting of mostly apartment units. Smaller infill and residential mixed-use projects tend to be located in the Central City, while larger standalone multifamily residential projects tend to be located in less built-out areas such as Natomas and the South Area. The area around the CSUS campus, near the intersection of Folsom Boulevard and 65th Avenue is also attracting new multifamily development, mostly in student-oriented housing projects. Around six percent of the proposed residential units were in condominium projects, mostly consisting of medium-density workforce housing units in upper Land Park, North Natomas, and the South Area. Below market rate units accounted for only two percent of Sacramento’s proposed residential pipeline. In addition to the residential projects in the City’s entitlement pipeline, there is capacity within previously entitled PUDs and Specific Plan areas for development of an additional 19,800 units during the General Plan time horizon. Roughly two-thirds of these units are loosely
inn-alliance-influenced.html?ana=e_mc_prem&s=newsletter&ed=2019-01- 04&u=jkGEganSI4SroNszQZtNbDMiSLI&t=1546624504&j=85851181 9 Rodd, Scott. (October 17, 2019). Construction could begin within weeks on $50M cannabis campus in southeast Sacramento. Sacramento Business Journal. Available at:
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/10/17/construction-could-begin-within-weeks-on-50m.html ix
defined as “mixed-use residential”, indicating they will be part of a larger master planned community that includes other commercial elements, while the remaining one-third will be single-family structures.
Non-Residential Planned and Proposed
As of late 2018 there were approximately 200 projects in the City’s development pipeline that incorporated non-residential development, including approximately 7.5 million square feet of non-residential floor area, plus at least 1,646 hotel rooms. Most of the non-residential development was concentrated in office, industrial, and residential mixed-use projects. Most of the planned and proposed floor area already received, or was in the process of obtaining, Planning Department approvals, while projects accounting for only 6.5 percent of the planned and proposed floor area were actively seeking, or had obtained, building permits. Office uses accounted for around 27 percent of total planned non-residential development floor area, most of which was planned for development in Natomas. Industrial uses accounted for another 27 percent of the total planned non-residential development pipeline, with the Power Inn Road Area and North Sacramento capturing nearly 70 percent of new industrial development. Commercial self-storage facilities accounted for approximately 40 percent of planned industrial development, and cannabis-related uses accounted for another 14 percent.
Approximately ten percent of floor area in the city’s non-residential development pipeline consisted of retail uses. Most of this was concentrated in standalone retail locations or commercial centers, predominately in power or specialty shopping centers, with some additional development in new or remodeled neighborhood-serving retail centers. Retail floor area in residential mixed-use projects accounted for 1.3 percent of the city’s planned nonresidential development, while another 17.5 percent of floor area was in residential mixed-use projects which had not yet defined how the commercial space would be used, but which likely includes some mix of office and/or retail. In addition to the development projects described above, 12.6 percent of floor area in the non-residential development pipeline did not easily fit into established non-residential categories. This included uses such as places of worship, adult and child day care facilities, automotive uses, entertainment uses, City sponsored projects, and medical facilities.
Anticipated Growth and Market Opportunities
Population and Household Growth
According to Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), the City of Sacramento could add new residents at a rate of approximately 1.1 percent per year. If realized, the City would add somewhere on the order of 140,000 new residents between 2016 and 2040. This is roughly consistent with the total growth that could be expected if the City roughly maintains its current share of the total regional population, as estimated by BAE using data published by the California Department of Finance. The projections provided by SACOG assume a gradual decrease in the average household size in the City of Sacramento. As a result, SACOG anticipates that the City could add almost 70,000 new households between 2016 and 2040. x
Residential Land Use Demand
According to SACOG, the City of Sacramento is likely to experience demand sufficient to absorb approximately 73,520 new housing units between 2016 and 2040. Housing demand growth is expected to occur at a rate of 1.3 percent per year, which is slightly higher than the projected population growth rate discussed above. Adjusting from a 2016 base year to a 2018 base year, based on the average annual growth rate implied by the data set, the City can expect demand sufficient to absorb 68,253 new housing units between 2018 and 2040.
Employment Growth
The draft projections provided by SACOG indicate that the City of Sacramento is likely to add approximately 56,210 new jobs between 2016 and 2040. This would equal an annual rate of approximately 0.7 percent per year. SACOG projects jobs growth in the City will occur more slowly compared to the region as a whole, which is expected to add approximately 252,840 new jobs over this period at a rate of roughly 0.9 percent per year. This indicates the City will likely account for a declining share of regional employment growth. This is contrary to recent historical trends. Adjusting from 2016 to a 2018 base year, the City could expect to add approximately 51,995 new jobs between 2018 and 2040. The largest employment gains are expected in Office using industry sectors - such as Information, Finance and Insurance, and Real Estate Rental and Leasing, among others - followed by Government, Retail, and Services.
Supportable Non-Residential Development
To calculate the anticipated future land use needs for general planning purposes, BAE analyzed two alternative land use demand scenarios. The first scenario is based on the published SACOG employment projections discussed above. One assumption seemingly implicit in that dataset is that the City of Sacramento is likely to decline in its share of regional employment. Recognizing that this is contrary to recent historical trends, BAE also developed an alternative scenario that assumes that the City of Sacramento will maintain its existing share of regional employment, accounting for differential growth by land use type. xi
Table ES-1: Supportable Non-Residential Development 2018-2040 Notes:
(a) Employment by type in 2018 was estimated based on the 2016 estimate included in the SACOG projections data and the annual average growth rate for the period from 2016 to 2040 by job type. (b) Based on draft data provided by SACOG in January 2019 during the 2020 MTP/SCS update, which may not be fully reflective of the final land use assumptions for the 2020 MTP/SCS. (c) Based on the regional SACOG jobs projections, combined with the distribution of jobs by industry provided in the Caltrans long-term projections, assuming that Sacramento maintains its current share of regional employment by industry. (d) Based on industry standard average employment densities. (e) Includes a 10 percent vacancy adjustment.
Sources: SACOG; BAE, 2018.
Retail and Related Uses
As reported in Table ES-1, the City of Sacramento may experience demand sufficient to support between 7.5 and 10.2 million square feet of new commercial development through 2040. This includes nearly 2.7 to 3.2 million square feet of retail, 2.4 to 2.7 million square feet of food service, and 2.5 to 4.3 million square feet of service space. There are a number of factors that may dampen demand for retail and related uses, including the ongoing rise of eCommerce. According to Forrester Research, eCommerce outlets may reasonably achieve 17 percent market share in the retail sector through 2022. Conservatively assuming that eCommerce achieves an average market share of 20 percent over the course of the planning period, the City of Sacramento would still need to accommodate 2.3 to 2.7 million square feet of new retail space through 2040, as well as 2.0 to 2.3 million square feet of food service and
2.2 to 3.7 million square feet of service space.
City of Sacramento
Supportable Development
New Jobs 2018-2040 (a) Employment (Millions of Sq. Ft.) Land Use Type SACOG Existing Share (c) Density (b) SACOG Existing Share Education 4,167 3,542 700 3.21 2.73
Food 3,594 4,092 600 2.37 2.70
Government 7,548 6,461 500 4.15 3.55
Office 14,084 23,721 200 3.10 5.22
Retail 5,355 6,452 450 2.65 3.19
Services 4,573 7,819 500 2.52 4.30
Medical 12,319 16,319 350 4.74 6.28
Industrial 355 8,153 1,000 0.39 8.97
Total, All (d) 51,995 76,559 23.13 36.95
Sacramento MSA
Supportable
New Jobs Employment Development
Land Use Type 2018-2040 (a) Density (b) (Millions of Sq. Ft.) Education 14,590 700 11.23
Food 15,966 600 10.54
Government 13,947 500 7.67
Office 66,881 200 14.71
Retail 25,257 450 12.50
Services 30,136 500 16.58
Medical 36,542 350 14.07
Industrial 30,690 1,000 33.76
Total, All (a)(b) 234,010 121.06
xii
Office Uses
The City of Sacramento may expect demand sufficient to support between 3.1 and 5.2 million square feet of new office development through 2040. The current inventory of planned and proposed development in Sacramento includes approximately 2.2 million square feet of new office space. While this would equal 42 to 70 percent of the projected future demand, builders are currently hesitant to develop speculative office space and most of the planned inventory is build-to-suit. The Sacramento market absorbed an average of around 216,000 square feet of new retail space each year from 2010 to 2018. If demand materializes as currently projected, the market would need to absorb between 140,838 and 237,211 square feet per year, which is consistent with recent historical trends.
Industrial Uses
SACOG currently projects that the City will experience a net increase in industrial employment of only 355 jobs through 2040. However, if the City were to maintain its existing share of regional industrial employment, the City could gain more than 8,150 new jobs. While the specific reasons behind SACOG’s low industrial employment figures is unclear, there are a number of possible contributing factors. Other cities throughout the region are adding large volumes of new inventory in places better suited for regional logistics, such as parts of Woodland, West Sacramento, Lincoln, Roseville, and Rocklin. Meanwhile, some of Sacramento’s existing industrial districts are transitioning away from industrial uses towards residential, office, and commercial uses. Prime examples of this include the River District and the Rail Yards. One exception to this trend is the cannabis industry, which is expanding rapidly, particularly in the Power Inn Road industrial area.
Based on an employment density factor that is generally representative of current industry standards, new employment in the industrial sector would be sufficient to support up to 9.0 million square feet of new industrial development, assuming that the City is able to maintain its existing share of regional industrial sector. Between 2010 and 2018, industrial users absorbed around 622,310 square feet per year. For the sake of argument, if this pace were to be sustained through 2040, which is unlikely due to normal economic cycles, the City could see up to 13.7 million square feet of new industrial development.
All Other Uses
The three land use categories reported in Table ES-1 which are not discussed above include Education, Medical, and Education. These sectors generally represent institutional employment associated with State and Federal government agencies, as well as public and private educational institutions, and major medical facilities, like hospitals. In total, these sectors are projected to gain between 24,034 and 26,322 new jobs through 2040, with around 50 to 60 percent being in the Medical sector specifically. If this employment materializes as currently projected, the resulting demand may be sufficient to absorb between
2.7 and 3.2 million square feet of new educational facilities, 3.6 and 4.2 million square feet of new government facilities, and 4.7 to 6.3 million square feet of new medical facilities. 1 INTRODUCTION
For the purposes of informing the city of Sacramento General Plan Update process, this Market Demand Study reviews existing conditions and recent demographic and economic trends within the City of Sacramento and its environs. This includes evaluation of recent changes in demographic characteristics and household composition, as well as recent labor market changes, industry growth trends, and other related topics that pertain to economic development. The study also evaluates existing real estate market conditions for residential (considering demand for different housing types), office, commercial, and industrial land uses and projects anticipated citywide demand for each land use type through the year 2040. In addition, this study highlights other market-based needs identified through the course of this research, that the City may use to inform future community and economic development goals and policies, as well as opportunities for the City to encourage and facilitate economic development and revitalization in disadvantaged parts of the broader Sacramento community.
Geographic Definitions
This analysis reviews existing conditions and trends in the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),10 and the State of California, as illustrated in Figure 1. This report also provides supplemental analysis for the ten Community Plan Areas within the City of Sacramento, as well as the Sacramento Planning Area.11 Detailed information regarding the Community Plan Areas and the Sacramento Planning Area is provided in Appendix A.
10 The Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade MSA includes the counties of Sacramento, Placer, Yolo, and El Dorado. 11 The Sacramento Planning Area includes the area within the incorporated City limits, as well as additional areas located in unincorporated Sacramento County, but which are located within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). 2 Figure 1: Study Area Definitions, City of Sacramento and the Sacramento-RosevilleArden Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER), 2017; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
3 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD
CHARCTERISTICS
The following section summarizes population and household characteristics and demographic trends in the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and the state of California. The analysis uses data from U.S. Census Bureau, including the 2010 Decennial Census and the 2010 1-Year American Community Survey (ACS).12 The study also relies on data from the 2011-2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), which is a special tabulation of the 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year estimates published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). More current population and household estimates are from ESRI, a private data vendor.
Population and Household Trends
Figure 2 illustrates changes in the pace of population growth in the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento MSA, and California as a whole. The data illustrate how population growth throughout the region and the state slowed following the early 2000s. At its peak between 2001 and 2002, the state population grew by 1.4 percent, while the MSA grew by 2.8 percent, and the city grew by 2.5 percent. While population growth slowed over the course of the following decade, the Sacramento MSA, and the City of Sacramento more specifically, continue to represent important centers for population growth in California, continually surpassing the statewide growth rate by a significant margin.
Figure 2: Year-Over-Year Population Growth, 2000 to 2018 Sources: California Department of Finance, 2018; BAE, 2019.
12 Please note that 1-Year ACS data are used here for general descriptive purposes only and do not directly inform the land use demand projections discussed later in this report. Detailed estimates based on 1-Year ACS data should be interpreted with appropriate caution due to known issues regarding margins of error for estimates based on survey samples.
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
City of Sacramento Sacramento MSA State of California
4 Corresponding with the historical trends discussed above, Table 1 reports that between 2010 and 2018 the City of Sacramento added roughly 34,180 new residents. This represents growth of 7.3 percent, or an average of 0.89 percent per year. The Sacramento MSA, meanwhile, grew by 8.7 percent, or 1.04 percent per year, while the state as a whole grew by
6.9 percent, or 0.83 percent per year. Population growth in all three geographies outpaced household growth, signaling a modest increase in average household sizes.
Table 1: Population and Households, 2010-2018
Note:
(a) The Sacramento MSA refers to the Sacramento--Roseville—Arden Arcade, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes Sacramento, Placer, Yolo, and El Dorado Counties.
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Community Plan Area Growth
Appendix B presents population and household counts for each of the city’s ten Community Plan Areas, as well as for the Sacramento Planning Area. There are approximately 685,700 people living in the city’s Planning Area, which includes the incorporated City plus areas within the Sphere of Influence. This is 185,027 more persons than in the City of Sacramento alone.
Since 2010, the Sacramento Planning Area added approximately 45,130 new residents. This indicates that the city and the Planning Area grew at roughly the same rate during this period.
Average
% Change Annual
Population 2010 2018 2010-2018 Change
City of Sacramento 466,488 500,667 7.3% 0.89%
Sacramento MSA (a) 2,149,127 2,335,072 8.7% 1.04%
State of California 37,253,956 39,806,791 6.9% 0.83%
Average
% Change Annual
Group Quarters Population 2010 2018 2010-2018 Change
City of Sacramento 8,314 7,870 -5.3% -0.68%
Sacramento MSA (a) 35,946 37,117 3.3% 0.40%
State of California 819,816 813,593 -0.8% -0.10%
Average
% Change Annual
Households 2010 2018 2010-2018 Change
City of Sacramento 174,624 184,977 5.9% 0.72%
Sacramento MSA (a) 787,667 844,933 7.3% 0.88%
State of California 12,577,498 13,336,104 6.0% 0.73%
Average Household Size 2010 2018
City of Sacramento 2.62 2.66
Sacramento MSA (a) 2.68 2.72
State of California 2.90 2.92
5 Figure 3: Total Population by Community Plan Area, 2018 Sources: ESRI Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Community Plan Areas with the largest populations include Fruitridge/Broadway, the South Area, and Arden Arcade, which each have more than 100,000 residents and account for between 15 and 22 percent of the total Planning Area population, respectively. Some of the fastest growing areas include the Central City, North Natomas, North Sacramento, and the South Area. Each of these Community Plan Areas added new residents at a rate of one percent or more per year between 2010 and 2018. Communities with the slowest growth include East Sacramento and the Pocket, which each grew at half a percent per year or less.
One distinguishing factor between the faster versus slower growing Community Plan Areas is the relative availability of land to accommodate new development. For example, North Natomas and the South Area feature relatively large amounts of undeveloped land, while East Sacramento and the Pocket are essentially fully built out. The exception is the Central City, which represents one of the most intensively developed portions of the city, but which featured the second highest population growth rate in the city, behind North Natomas. This is generally attributable to a surge in urban housing demand and a strong rental housing market, as well as efforts by the City to encourage more housing development in the Central City. BAE anticipates that the Central City will remain one of the faster growing parts of the city for the near future, in addition to North Natomas, recognizing the policy focus on new housing development institutionalized in the recently-adopted Central City Specific Plan, and the considerable planning and investment activity within the Sacramento Railyards and River District areas.
Household Composition
While families represent the dominant household type in all three study areas, the City of Sacramento has an above average concentration of non-family households relative to the other comparison geographies. As shown in Table 2, approximately 59.3 percent of all households in Sacramento are families, compared to 66.9 percent in the MSA and 68.7 0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
6 percent statewide. While the MSA and the state as a whole added both family and non-family households at roughly the same rate, the City of Sacramento added non-family households at a somewhat faster rate than family households. This translated into an increase in the share of non-family households in Sacramento between 2010 and 2018, while the share in the MSA and the state remained roughly the same. The implication is that increased proportions of non-family households can signal demand for a diverse range of housing types to cater to people with housing needs associated with different life stages and different household compositions. This can include smaller housing units for individuals living alone, flexible living spaces for groups of un-related persons sharing housing, and both rental and homeownership opportunities.
Table 2: Household Type, 2010-2018
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census; BAE, 2018.
Household Tenure
Households in the Sacramento MSA are somewhat more likely to own their own homes, compared to their statewide counterparts. For example, in 2018, approximately 60 percent of households in the MSA owned their own homes, compared to roughly 55 percent statewide.
However, households that live in the City of Sacramento, by comparison, are more likely to rent their accommodations, with a home ownership rate of only 48 percent.
All three study areas have seen a decreasing rate of home ownership over the past eight years. For example, the rate of home ownership in the MSA decreased by roughly 0.6 percentage points between 2010 and 2018, while the home ownership rates for the City of Sacramento and the state of California decreased by 1.4 and 1.2 percentage points over the same period, respectively. While this trend corresponds with an increased interest in, and demand for, higher density rental housing, other important causal factors include a long-term systemic underproduction of new for-sale housing units compared to household growth, and the resulting increase in home prices and decrease in affordability within the for-sale housing % Change
City of Sacramento Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2018 Family Households 103,730 59.4% 109,623 59.3% 5.7%
Non-Family Households 70,894 40.6% 75,354 40.7% 6.3%
Total, All Households 174,624 100% 184,977 100% 5.9%
% Change
Sacramento MSA Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2018
Family Households 526,337 66.8% 564,901 66.9% 7.3%
Non-Family Households 261,330 33.2% 280,032 33.1% 7.2%
Total, All Households 787,667 100% 844,933 100% 7.3%
% Change
State of California Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2018 Family Households 8,642,473 68.7% 9,166,028 68.7% 6.1%
Non-Family Households 3,935,025 31.3% 4,170,076 31.3% 6.0% Total, All Households 12,577,498 100% 13,336,104 100% 6.0% 2010 2018
2010 2018
2010 2018
7 market. The increasing barriers to entry within the for-sale housing market are also one of the main driving forces behind sustained strong demand for rental housing within the region. For more information on housing market conditions, please refer to Real Estate Market Conditions section below.
Table 3: Household Tenure, 2010-2018
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Race and Ethnicity
The City of Sacramento is somewhat more racially and ethnically diverse than the state as a whole. As reported in Table 4, approximately 69 percent of the City of Sacramento population affiliates with one or more racial and ethnic minority groups, compared to 63 percent statewide. The MSA more broadly is much less diverse than the city and the state, with a minority population that is roughly 15 percentage points below the statewide average.
In Sacramento, White non-Hispanic residents account for roughly 31 percent of the population, compared to 37 percent statewide and 52 percent in the MSA as a whole. Compared to both the MSA and the state as a whole, the City of Sacramento has above average concentrations of African American and Asian residents. While the city has a lower share of residents who are Hispanic or Latino compared to the state as a whole, the city has a much higher share of Hispanic and Latino residents compared to the MSA as a whole. 2010 2018
City of Sacramento Number Percent Number Percent
Ow ner-Occupied 86,271 49.4% 88,866 48.0%
Renter-Occupied 88,353 50.6% 96,111 52.0%
Total, All Households 174,624 100% 184,977 100%
2010 2018
Sacramento MSA Number Percent Number Percent
Ow ner-Occupied 478,512 60.8% 508,324 60.2%
Renter-Occupied 309,155 39.2% 336,609 39.8%
Total, All Households 787,667 100% 844,933 100%
2010 2018
State of California Number Percent Number Percent
Ow ner-Occupied 7,035,371 55.9% 7,294,468 54.7%
Renter-Occupied 5,542,127 44.1% 6,041,636 45.3%
Total, All Households 12,577,498 100% 13,336,104 100%
8 Figure 4: Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2018
Sources: ESRI Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Similar to the state as a whole, the data indicate that the City of Sacramento is becoming more diverse over time. For example, between 2010 and 2018, the minority population grew by
11.7 percent. More specifically, the White non-Hispanic population contracted by approximately four percent, while the Asian population grew by nearly 24 percent, the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander population grew by 17 percent, and the Hispanic/Latino population grew by nearly 15 percent.
Similar to the way the City of Sacramento differs from the remainder of the MSA in terms of its racial and ethnic makeup, the city’s various neighborhoods also differ widely in terms of the racial and ethnic characteristics of residents. As shown in Figure 5, the South Area is generally the most diverse of the city’s ten Community Plan Areas, with a population that is 88 percent non-White. Other areas with average to above average concentrations of minority residents include Fruitridge/Broadway, North Sacramento, and North and South Natomas. Areas with the lowest minority concentrations generally include East Sacramento, the Central City, Arden Arcade, Land Park, and the Pocket. While the exact concentrations vary from area to area, the minority populations within each of the Community Plan Areas are generally concentrated among people who identify as Hispanic/Latino, Asian, or African American, which is consistent with the citywide averages discussed above.
28.7%
30.9%
13.5%
0.5%
19.6%
1.6% 0.3%
5.1%
Hispanic/Latino
White
Black/African American
Native American
Asian
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Other
Two or More Races
9 Table 4: Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2018
Notes:
(a) Includes all races for those of Hispanic/Latino background. (b) May not sum to total due to rounding.
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
% Change
City of Sacramento Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2018 Hispanic/Latino (a) 125,276 26.9% 143,505 28.7% 14.6%
Not Hispanic/Latino 341,212 73.1% 357,161 71.3% 4.7%
White 161,062 34.5% 154,602 30.9% -4.0%
Black/African American 64,967 13.9% 67,439 13.5% 3.8%
Native American 2,586 0.6% 2,443 0.5% -5.5%
Asian 83,841 18.0% 98,211 19.6% 17.1%
Native Haw aiian/Pacific Islander 6,392 1.4% 7,903 1.6% 23.6% Other 1,253 0.3% 1,267 0.3% 1.1%
Tw o or More Races 21,111 4.5% 25,296 5.1% 19.8%
Total (b) 466,488 100% 500,667 100% 7.3%
% Minority 11.7%
% Change
Sacramento MSA Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2018
Hispanic/Latino (a) 433,734 20.2% 512,183 21.9% 18.1%
Not Hispanic/Latino 1,715,393 79.8% 1,822,889 78.1% 6.3% White 1,197,389 55.7% 1,211,476 51.9% 1.2%
Black/African American 150,424 7.0% 161,351 6.9% 7.3%
Native American 12,606 0.6% 12,341 0.5% -2.1%
Asian 250,690 11.7% 307,652 13.2% 22.7%
Native Haw aiian/Pacific Islander 14,874 0.7% 18,445 0.8% 24.0% Other 4,782 0.2% 4,888 0.2% 2.2%
Tw o or More Races 84,628 3.9% 106,736 4.6% 26.1%
Total (b) 2,149,127 100% 2,335,072 100% 8.7%
% Minority 15.3%
% Change
State of California Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2018 Hispanic/Latino (a) 14,013,719 37.6% 15,757,962 39.6% 12.4% Not Hispanic/Latino 23,240,237 62.4% 24,048,829 60.4% 3.5% White 14,956,253 40.1% 14,577,903 36.6% -2.5%
Black/African American 2,163,804 5.8% 2,195,675 5.5% 1.5% Native American 162,250 0.4% 159,811 0.4% -1.5%
Asian 4,775,070 12.8% 5,713,702 14.4% 19.7%
Native Haw aiian/Pacific Islander 128,577 0.3% 141,009 0.4% 9.7% Other 85,587 0.2% 84,542 0.2% -1.2%
Tw o or More Races 968,696 2.6% 1,176,187 3.0% 21.4%
Total (b) 37,253,956 100% 39,806,791 100% 6.9%
% Minority 59.9% 63.4% 11.6%
2010 2018
2010 2018
2010 2018
65.5% 69.1%
44.3% 48.1%
10 Figure 5: Percent Minority, Sacramento Planning Area and Community Plan Areas, 2018
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
11 Educational Attainment
As reported in Table 5, Sacramento residents have somewhat lower levels of educational attainment, on average, compared to their counterparts throughout the MSA, but higher levels of educational attainment compared to the state as a whole. For example, approximately 84 percent of Sacramento residents age 25 years or older possess a high school diploma or higher as of 2018, compared to 89 percent for the MSA as a whole, and 82 percent statewide.
The city also has a lower share of residents with college degrees (i.e., an Associates degree or higher), compared to both the state and the MSA. This generally implies that the city has an above average concentration of residents who have received a high school degree, but not gone on to pursue post-secondary education, compared to the state as a whole.
Although the City of Sacramento continues to strengthen its position as the major employment center within the region, worsening regional traffic patterns and commute times, discussed in more detail later in this analysis, could provide an incentive for employers to locate closer to the places where their workers live. Under this type of scenario, the below average educational attainment of Sacramento residents could function to hinder business recruitment efforts in comparison to other competing jurisdictions throughout the region. However, another analysis conducted by BAE in support of the Sacramento Central City Specific Plan found that the Central City is attracting more highly educated residents at a higher rate than other parts the MSA. This demonstrates that the City remains attractive to some higher income and better educated households in cases where the built environment and related residential amenities are competitive with offerings available elsewhere in the region.
Figure 6: Population Age 25 and Over by Educational Attainment, 2018 Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
8.6% 7.4%
21.4% 22.4%
8.6%
20.1%
11.6%
12 Table 5: Educational Attainment, 2010-2018
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, American Community Survey, 2010 1-year sampling data, S1501; BAE, 2018.
2010 2018
City of Sacramento Number Percent Number Percent
Less than 9th Grade 26,218 8.8% 28,261 8.6%
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 28,303 9.5% 24,293 7.4%
High School Graduate (incl. Equivalency) 61,671 20.7% 70,545 21.4% Some College, No Degree 74,482 25.0% 74,020 22.4%
Associate Degree 23,238 7.8% 28,362 8.6%
Bachelor's Degree 53,925 18.1% 66,356 20.1%
Graduate/Professional Degree 30,091 10.1% 38,337 11.6%
Total, 25+ Years of Age 297,929 100% 330,174 100%
Population 25+ High School Graduate
(incl. Equivalency) or Higher (%)
Population 25+ with Associates
Degree or Higher (%)
2010 2018
Sacramento MSA Number Percent Number Percent
Less than 9th Grade 82,142 5.9% 85,963 5.5%
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 97,457 7.0% 88,852 5.7%
High School Graduate (incl. Equivalency) 299,331 21.5% 333,478 21.2% Some College, No Degree 374,511 26.9% 385,728 24.6%
Associate Degree 129,478 9.3% 151,828 9.7%
Bachelor's Degree 270,094 19.4% 335,906 21.4%
Graduate/Professional Degree 139,224 10.0% 187,865 12.0% Total, 25+ Years of Age 1,392,236 100% 1,569,620 100%
Population 25+ High School Graduate
(incl. Equivalency) or Higher (%)
Population 25+ with Associates
Degree or Higher (%)
2010 2018
State of California Number Percent Number Percent
Less than 9th Grade 2,523,776 10.5% 2,557,052 9.8%
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 2,115,165 8.8% 2,067,041 7.9% High School Graduate (incl. Equivalency) 4,999,481 20.8% 4,804,568 18.5% Some College, No Degree 5,335,984 22.2% 5,627,462 21.6% Associate Degree 1,826,733 7.6% 2,056,384 7.9%
Bachelor's Degree 4,590,869 19.1% 5,552,919 21.4%
Graduate/Professional Degree 2,643,956 11.0% 3,342,632 12.9% Total, 25+ Years of Age 24,035,965 100% 26,008,058 100% Population 25+ High School Graduate
(incl. Equivalency) or Higher (%)
Population 25+ with Associates
Degree or Higher (%)
81.7% 84.1%
36.0% 40.3%
87.1% 88.9%
38.7% 43.0%
80.7% 82.2%
37.7% 42.1%
13 Household Income Distribution
On the whole, Sacramento’s households have somewhat lower incomes compared to those living elsewhere in the MSA and the state as a whole. For example, the 2018 median household income for the City of Sacramento was $54,771 per year, which was $12,517 lower than the median income for the MSA and $14,280 lower than the median income for the state as a whole.
As shown in Table 6, the City of Sacramento generally has a lower proportion of resident households with incomes of $100,000 or more per year, compared to both the MSA and the state as a whole. The city has roughly the same share of households between $50,000 and $99,999,13 but a significantly higher share of households at less than $50,000 per year.
More specifically, around 45 percent of all households living in the city have incomes of less than $50,000 per year, compared to 37 percent in both the MSA and the state as a whole.
The data indicate that income growth in the City of Sacramento has not kept pace with income growth elsewhere in the MSA and the state as a whole. For example, the median income in the city increased in nominal dollars by approximately 17 percent between 2010 and 2018.
This equals an additional $8,040 per year, per household. However, the table illustrates that inflation-adjusted median income actually decreased by around six percent, which equals a real decrease in household purchasing power of $3,421 per year. For the MSA and state as a whole, the median income increased in nominal dollars by 20 percent during this period, which equals around $11,055. After adjusting for inflation, the median income in both areas decreased by around four percent, or roughly $2,800 per household, per year.
Figure 7 shows the median household income for each of the ten Community Plan Areas, and the Sacramento Planning Area. As shown in the figure, the median household income in the Planning Area is roughly similar to the citywide median. There are four Community Plan Areas that have median household incomes that are below the citywide value. These include the Central City, Fruitridge/Broadway, North Sacramento, and the South Area. At only $38,822, the Central City has the lowest median household income,14 followed by North Sacramento at $39,892. Except for the Central City, these low-income communities are also some of the most racially and ethnically diverse. Community Plan Areas with median household incomes that are above the citywide value include East Sacramento, Land Park, North Natomas, and the Pocket. At $82,890, North Natomas has the highest annual median household income, followed by East Sacramento at $74,408 per household per year.
13 For four-person households, those with gross earnings of $64,100 per year or less are considered Low-Income, while households with gross earnings of $96,100 to $64,101 per year are considered Moderate-Income. For more details regarding the income limits for different income levels, please refer to Table 21. 14 Background research conducted for the Sacramento Central City Specific Plan indicates that the low median income of the Central City may be a function of the area’s relatively youthful population. Compared to the citywide average, the Central City has a significantly higher proportion of young adults between the age of 18 and 35 who are less likely than older residents to have accumulated wealth and formed households with multiple earners. 14 Table 6: Household Income, 2011-2018
Notes:
(a) Based on the normalized distribution of households by income category reported in the 2010 1-Year ACS and the total households estimates provided by Esri and the 2010 Decennial Census. (b) Inflation adjusted using CPI-All Urban Consumers and All Items, not seasonally adjusted, in San Francisco for the first halves with an adjustment factor of 1.25.
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers database, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010 1-Year sampling data, S1901, B19301; BAE, 2018.
City of Sacramento Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $15,000 26,395 15.1% 24,004 13.0%
$15,000-$24,999 20,801 11.9% 18,835 10.2%
$25,000-$34,999 18,179 10.4% 17,603 9.5%
$35,000-$49,999 27,094 15.5% 23,584 12.7%
$50,000-$74,999 30,590 17.5% 32,569 17.6%
$75,000-$99,999 20,626 11.8% 22,118 12.0%
$100,000-$149,999 20,626 11.8% 25,974 14.0%
$150,000-$199,999 5,419 3.1% 10,484 5.7%
$200,000 or more 4,894 2.8% 9,806 5.3%
Total, All Households (a) 174,624 100% 184,977 100%
Median HH Income $46,731 $54,771
Inflation Adjusted (b) $58,192 $54,771
Per Capita Income $24,142 $28,836
Inflation Adjusted (b) $30,063 $28,836
Sacramento MSA Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $15,000 87,519 11.1% 78,971 9.3%
$15,000-$24,999 78,057 9.9% 69,055 8.2%
$25,000-$34,999 78,057 9.9% 67,316 8.0%
$35,000-$49,999 107,230 13.6% 98,232 11.6%
$50,000-$74,999 146,653 18.6% 142,852 16.9%
$75,000-$99,999 103,288 13.1% 110,469 13.1%
$100,000-$149,999 112,749 14.3% 141,867 16.8%
$150,000-$199,999 43,365 5.5% 67,226 8.0%
$200,000 or more 30,750 3.9% 68,945 8.2%
Total, All Households (a) 787,667 100% 844,933 100%
Median HH Income $56,233 $67,288
Inflation Adjusted (b) $70,025 $67,288
Per Capita Income $26,992 $34,107
Inflation Adjusted (b) $33,612 $34,107
State of California Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $15,000 1,432,402 11.4% 1,280,615 9.6%
$15,000-$24,999 1,281,623 10.2% 1,102,410 8.3%
$25,000-$34,999 1,168,539 9.3% 1,036,596 7.8%
$35,000-$49,999 1,633,441 13.0% 1,486,913 11.1%
$50,000-$74,999 2,198,863 17.5% 2,149,782 16.1%
$75,000-$99,999 1,545,487 12.3% 1,630,222 12.2%
$100,000-$149,999 1,796,785 14.3% 2,142,299 16.1%
$150,000-$199,999 766,461 6.1% 1,084,396 8.1%
$200,000 or more 753,896 6.0% 1,422,664 10.7%
Total, All Households (a) 12,577,498 100% 13,336,104 100% Median HH Income $57,708 $69,051
Inflation Adjusted (b) $71,861 $69,051
Per Capita Income $27,353 $34,254
Inflation Adjusted (b) $34,062 $34,254
2010 2018
2010 2018
2010 2018
15 Figure 7: Median Household Income, Sacramento Planning Area and Community Plan Areas, 2018
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
16 Households by Size-Adjusted Income Category and Tenure Table 7 reports data collected from the 2011-2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data set, which is a special tabulation of the 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Note that the data should be interpreted with caution, as the data are based on 5-Year ACS estimates covering the 2011-2015 time period, while other data presented in this report reflect 2018 estimates published by Esri. Also, the data are based on multi-year surveys. As such, individual estimates may not sum to exactly match the totals due to rounding.
The CHAS data set uses HUD-defined income categories to classify households by income level, after adjusting for household size. Note that these income categories also form the basis for the income limits published annually by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which are reported in Table 21, and are used to establish rental rates and home sale price limits for various affordable housing programs implemented at the local level. The categories are based on the HUD Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI), which is calculated using 2011-2015 5-Year median family income estimates,15 supplemented with 2015 1-Year estimates. The HUD income categories are calculated as a percentage of the HAMFI.
The extremely low-income category includes households with income less than, or equal to, 30 percent of the HAMFI, while the very low-income category includes households with incomes greater than 30 percent, and up to 50 percent, of the HAMFI. The low-income category includes household with incomes greater than 50 percent, and up to 80 percent of the HAMFI, while the moderate-income category includes households with incomes greater than 80 percent, and up to 120 percent of the HAMFI. The above moderate-income category subsequently includes the remaining households with incomes greater than 120 percent of the HAMFI. Both the HAMFI and the associated income limits are adjusted to household size, so that a larger household with a given income could be placed in a lower income category than a smaller household with the same dollar amount of income.
Data presented in Table 7 reinforce data presented in Table 6, showing that Sacramento has a slightly larger proportion of lower income households, and a smaller proportion of above moderate-income households, compared to the MSA and the state. Approximately 50 percent of households in the City of Sacramento have incomes at or below 80 percent of HAMFI, compared to their statewide counterparts at 46 percent. While Sacramento tracks the statewide trend for moderate-income households, with 18 percent of households having incomes greater than 80 percent but less than 120 percent of HAMFI, Sacramento falls four
15 Excludes one-person households and multi-person households comprised of unrelated individuals, based on the Census definition of a family, which includes a householder with one more other person living in the same households who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. 17 percentage points behind the state in terms of the proportion of above moderate-income households, with 33 percent of Sacramento households having incomes above 120 percent of HAMFI.
Table 7: Households by Size Adjusted Income Category and Tenure, 2011-2015 (a) Notes:
(a) CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits. HAMFI stands for HUD Area Median Family Income. (b) Totals may not match sums of component figures due to independent rounding.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2011-2015; BAE, 2018.
When broken down by household tenure, Sacramento still has slightly larger proportions of lower-income households compared to the state. For example, roughly 65 percent of Sacramento’s renter households have incomes at or below 80 percent of HAMFI, compared to 63 percent statewide. While Sacramento’s renter household income distribution generally tracks within one-percentage point of the statewide averages, Table 7 shows that Sacramento has a somewhat larger proportion of extremely low-income renter households and a slightly smaller proportion of above moderate-income renter households compared to the state.
Meanwhile, nearly 33 percent of Sacramento’s owner households have incomes at or below 80 percent of HAMFI, compared to nearly 31 percent statewide. This is likely reflective of Sacramento’s relatively affordable housing stock compared to the state as a whole. The income distribution for owner households in Sacramento generally falls within one percentage Renter Households
City of Sacramento State of California
HAMFI Level Number Percent Number Percent
Extremely Low -Income (≤30% HAMFI) 27,175 28.9% 1,480,830 25.5% Very Low -Income (30%-50% HAMFI) 16,470 17.5% 1,041,130 17.9% Low -Income (50%-80% HAMFI) 17,105 18.2% 1,118,740 19.3% Moderate-Income (80%-120% HAMFI) 15,610 16.6% 964,455 16.6% Above Moderate-Income (>120% HAMFI) 17,695 18.8% 1,203,465 20.7% Total, Renter Households (b) 94,055 100% 5,808,625 100% Owner Households
City of Sacramento State of California
HAMFI Level Number Percent Number Percent
Extremely Low -Income (≤30% HAMFI) 6,935 8.2% 531,435 7.7% Very Low -Income (30%-50% HAMFI) 8,090 9.6% 625,410 9.1% Low -Income (50%-80% HAMFI) 12,625 15.0% 989,925 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% HAMFI) 16,255 19.3% 1,290,605 18.7% Above Moderate-Income (>120% HAMFI) 40,220 47.8% 3,471,805 50.2% Total, Owner Households (b) 84,130 100% 6,909,175 100%
Total Households
City of Sacramento State of California
HAMFI Level Number Percent Number Percent
Extremely Low -Income (≤30% HAMFI) 34,110 19% 2,012,265 16% Very Low -Income (30%-50% HAMFI) 24,560 14% 1,666,540 13% Low -Income (50%-80% HAMFI) 29,730 17% 2,108,665 17%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% HAMFI) 31,865 18% 2,255,060 18% Above Moderate-Income (>120% HAMFI) 57,915 33% 4,675,270 37% Total, All Households (b) 178,185 100% 12,717,800 100%
18 point of the statewide averages, though Sacramento has a somewhat smaller proportion of above moderate-income owner households, compared to the state as a whole.
Figure 8: Households by Size Adjusted Income Category and Tenure, 2011-2015 Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2011-2015; BAE, 2018.
8.2% 9.6%
15.0%
19.3%
47.8%
7.7%
9.1%
14.3%
18.7%
50.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
Owner Household Income Distribution
City of Sacramento State of California
28.9%
17.5% 18.2% 16.6% 18.8%
25.5%
17.9%
19.3%
16.6%
20.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
Renter Household Income Distribution
City of Sacramento State of California
19 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The following section summarizes economic conditions and trends in the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento MSA, and the State of California. The purpose of this analysis is to identify challenges and opportunities for economic development. The analysis primarily relies on data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), California Employment Development Department (EDD), the California State Board of Equalization (BOE), and the California Department of Finance (DOF), as well as Esri Business Analyst.
Employment by Industry
Table 8 reports data from a special tabulation of the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). According to that data, the City of Sacramento had 302,110 jobs in 2017, which is the most recent year for which data are available. The table also reports that in 2010, the City of Sacramento had roughly 250,570 jobs. Based on these figures, the City of Sacramento’s employment base grew by nearly 21 percent, adding around 7,360 jobs per year, on average. This also equates to an average annual growth rate of 2.7 percent per year, which is approximately 1.8 percentage points higher than the city’s population growth rate from 2010 to 2018. Compared to the Sacramento MSA, the city captured approximately 42 percent of regional employment growth, compared to only around 18 percent of regional population growth. This indicates that the city has continued to strengthen its position as the dominant employment center for the broader Sacramento region, which has important implications for non-residential land use and housing affordability.
As expected for the seat of both State and county government, the City of Sacramento jobs base is largely concentrated in the Government sector, compared to the broader MSA. For example, approximately 39 percent of the city’s employment base worked in the Government sector, compared to 24 percent for the Sacramento MSA as a whole. The city, conversely, had slightly below average concentrations of employment in Retail Trade and Construction, compared to the broader region. Differences in employment concentrations within all other sectors were generally plus or minus two percentage points of the MSA average.
The largest absolute employment gains in the City of Sacramento between 2010 and 2017 were in Health Care and Social Assistance, Administration and Waste Services, Accommodation and Food Services, and Local Government, while the city also saw notable gains in Construction, Retail Trade, Wholesale Trade, and Professional and Technical Services.
Only two sectors registered net declines in employment over this period. These included State Government, which lost 4,056 jobs16, and Educational Services, which lost 318 jobs.
16 Note that some shifts in state government employment may be attributable to adjustments in how the EDD identifies the work locations of certain State employees, rather than due to actual changes in the numbers of persons working in a given location. The data should thus be interpreted with caution. 20 Figure 9: Distribution of Jobs by Industry, 2017
Sources: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010, 2017; BAE, 2018.
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
City of Sacramento Sacramento MSA State of California
21 Table 8: Employment by Industry, 2010-2017 (Page 1 of 2) (a) Notes:
(a) Universe consists of all wage and salary employment by place of work. Does not include self-employed persons not on payroll. Industry classification is not self-reported by individual workers. (b) Data are confidential under BLS or State agency disclosure standards if there are fewer than three businesses in a category or if one employer makes up 80 percent or more of employment in a category. (c) Totals may not sum from parts due to independent rounding and data confidentiality.
Sources: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2018; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010, 2017; BAE, 2018.
Absolute Annual
City of Sacramento Number Percent Number Percent Change Average Change Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 135 0.1% 116 0.0% -19 -2.1% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction (b) (b) 10 0.0% n.a. n.a.
Utilities 32 0.0% 98 0.0% 66 17.3%
Construction 7,096 2.8% 10,848 3.6% 3,752 6.3%
Manufacturing 6,403 2.6% 7,571 2.5% 1,168 2.4%
Wholesale Trade 5,027 2.0% 7,788 2.6% 2,761 6.5%
Retail Trade 15,790 6.3% 19,470 6.4% 3,680 3.0%
Transportation and Warehousing 4,017 1.6% 5,164 (b) 1,147 3.7% Information 3,634 1.5% 3,305 1.1% -329 -1.3%
Finance and Insurance 5,058 2.0% 6,038 2.0% 980 2.6%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 2,443 1.0% 2,996 1.0% 553 3.0% Professional and Technical Services 13,539 5.4% 16,058 5.3% 2,519 2.5% Management of Companies and Enterprises 2,093 0.8% 2,852 0.9% 759 4.5% Administrative and Waste Services 11,920 4.8% 21,881 7.2% 9,961 9.1% Educational Services 3,952 1.6% 3,634 1.2% -318 -1.2%
Health Care and Social Assistance 24,989 10.0% 38,504 12.7% 13,515 6.4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 3,026 1.2% 3,793 1.3% 767 3.3% Accommodation and Food Services 15,230 6.1% 22,558 7.5% 7,328 5.8% Other Services, except Public Administration 9,222 3.7% 9,541 3.2% 319 0.5% Federal Government 1,696 0.7% 2,759 0.9% 1,063 7.2%
State Government 86,043 34.3% 81,987 27.1% -4,056 -0.7% Local Government 29,086 11.6% 34,577 11.4% 5,491 2.5%
Unclassified/Not Elsew here Classified (b) (b) 566 0.2% n.a. n.a.
Total (c) 250,571 100% 302,111 100% 51,540 2.7%
Absolute Annual
Sacramento MSA Number Percent Number Percent Change Average Change Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 8,151 1.0% 9,947 1.0% 1,796 2.9% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 379 0.0% 362 0.0% -17 -0.7% Utilities (b) n.a. (b) n.a. n.a. n.a.
Construction 38,359 4.5% 58,081 6.0% 19,722 6.1%
Manufacturing 32,545 3.9% 35,453 3.7% 2,908 1.2%
Wholesale Trade (b) n.a. (b) n.a. n.a. n.a.
Retail Trade 87,590 10.4% 100,881 10.4% 13,291 2.0%
Transportation and Warehousing 19,116 2.3% 21,458 2.2% 2,342 1.7% Information 15,147 1.8% 12,217 1.3% -2,930 -3.0%
Finance and Insurance 36,374 4.3% 36,859 3.8% 485 0.2%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 12,189 1.4% 15,042 1.6% 2,853 3.1% Professional and Technical Services 51,772 6.1% 54,631 5.7% 2,859 0.8% Management of Companies and Enterprises 11,650 1.4% 12,753 1.3% 1,103 1.3% Administrative and Waste Services 40,801 4.8% 62,231 6.4% 21,430 6.2% Educational Services 11,504 1.4% 11,356 1.2% -148 -0.2% Health Care and Social Assistance 87,206 10.3% 135,588 14.0% 48,382 6.5% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 13,188 1.6% 16,096 1.7% 2,908 2.9% Accommodation and Food Services 66,781 7.9% 86,460 8.9% 19,679 3.8% Other Services, except Public Administration 40,801 4.8% 29,524 3.1% -11,277 -4.5% Federal Government 14,683 1.7% 14,163 1.5% -520 -0.5%
State Government (b) n.a. 118,530 12.3% n.a. n.a.
Local Government (b) n.a. 101,466 10.5% n.a. n.a.
Unclassified/Not Elsew here Classified 1,535 0.2% 3,328 0.3% 1,793 11.7% Total (c) 843,713 100% 966,635 100% 122,922 2.0%
2010 2017
2010 2017
22 Table 8: Employment by Industry, 2010-2017 (Page 2 of 2) (a) Notes:
(a) Universe consists of all wage and salary employment by place of work. Does not include self-employed persons not on payroll. Industry classification is not self-reported by individual workers. (b) Data are confidential under BLS or State agency disclosure standards if there are fewer than three businesses in a category or if one employer makes up 80 percent or more of employment in a category. (c) Totals may not sum from parts due to independent rounding and data confidentiality.
Sources: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2018; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010, 2017; BAE, 2018.
Absolute Annual
State of California Number Percent Number Percent Change Average Change Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 382,857 2.7% 421,749 2.5% 38,892 10.2% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 24,445 0.2% 19,711 0.1% -4,734 -19.4% Utilities 56,897 0.4% 58,013 0.3% 1,116 2.0%
Construction 556,110 3.9% 805,942 4.7% 249,832 44.9%
Manufacturing 1,234,647 8.6% 1,303,550 7.7% 68,903 5.6% Wholesale Trade 642,187 4.5% 720,304 4.2% 78,117 12.2%
Retail Trade 1,506,924 10.5% 1,680,913 9.9% 173,989 11.5% Transportation and Warehousing 393,470 2.7% 551,752 3.2% 158,282 40.2% Information 423,397 2.9% 513,029 3.0% 89,632 21.2%
Finance and Insurance 510,909 3.5% 544,087 3.2% 33,178 6.5% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 247,593 1.7% 283,407 1.7% 35,814 14.5% Professional and Technical Services 1,016,956 7.1% 1,226,410 7.2% 209,454 20.6% Management of Companies and Enterprises 192,186 1.3% 230,319 1.4% 38,133 19.8% Administrative and Waste Services 851,858 5.9% 1,094,715 6.4% 242,857 28.5% Educational Services 271,920 1.9% 312,777 1.8% 40,857 15.0% Health Care and Social Assistance 1,468,569 10.2% 2,248,130 13.2% 779,561 53.1% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 243,727 1.7% 305,110 1.8% 61,383 25.2% Accommodation and Food Services 1,250,482 8.7% 1,630,870 9.6% 380,388 30.4% Other Services, except Public Administration 718,490 5.0% 527,915 3.1% -190,575 -26.5% Federal Government 268,544 1.9% 248,348 1.5% -20,196 -7.5% State Government 442,715 3.1% 461,700 2.7% 18,985 4.3%
Local Government 1,658,588 11.5% 1,751,002 10.3% 92,414 5.6% Unclassified/Not Elsew here Classified 50,991 0.4% 79,949 0.5% 28,958 56.8% Total (c) 14,414,461 100% 17,019,702 100% 2,605,241 18.1% 2010 2017
23 Figure 10: Employment Density, Sacramento Planning Area and Community Plan Areas, 2015
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015. BAE, 2018 24 Community Plan Area Jobs Trends
BAE used data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program to identify employment trends within the city’s ten Community Plan Areas in 2015, the most recent date for which data are available. As reported in detail in Appendix B, the Central City was the largest employment center in Sacramento, with approximately 117,330 jobs. This represented nearly one-third of the total employment base within the Sacramento Planning Area in 2015, according to the LEHD data set. The two other dominant employment centers within the Sacramento Planning Area included Arden Arcade and the Fruitridge/Broadway areas,17 which accounted for 18 percent and 16 percent of the total Planning Area employment base, respectively. Figure 10 on the prior page, illustrates employment densities in the greater Sacramento area, as reported in the LEHD data set.
As is expected in the area surrounding the State Capital, the Central City employment base was dominated by State Government jobs, which accounted for 60 percent of the total for that Community Plan Area. Land Park and South Natomas also featured relatively high concentrations of Government jobs, while the remaining Community Plan Areas were largely dominated by Service sector employment.18 In addition to being dominated by Service sector jobs, the Fruitridge/Broadway and North Sacramento Community Plan Areas also featured relatively large shares of Goods Producing jobs.19
Major Employers
Reinforcing the findings identified above regarding the city’s importance as a regional employment Center, the EDD reports that three-quarters of Sacramento County’s principal employers are located within the City of Sacramento. According to the EDD, 19 of the 25 largest employers in Sacramento County are located in the City of Sacramento. Five of the largest businesses are in the Healthcare industry, including four hospitals (Kaiser Permanente South, Mercy General Hospital, and Sutter Medical Center Sacramento) and one health plan provider. At least 12 of the largest employers are State or local government agencies or affiliated organizations, such as the California Air Resources Board, California Department of Corrections, California Employment Development Department, California Environmental Protection Agency, and the UC Davis Medical Center, among others. Other important local employers include the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and the Sacramento Bee.
17 Major employment concentrations in the Fruitridge/Broadway Community Plan Area are mostly focused on the Power Inn Road industrial district. 18 Service sector jobs include Trade, Transportation, and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Services; Education and Health Services; Leisure and Hospitality; and Other Services. 19 Goods producing jobs include those in the following industries: Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; and Manufacturing
25 Table 9: Principle Employers, City and County of Sacramento, 2018 Sources: California Employment Development Department, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Occupational Employment
Table 10 reports the number and share of residents in the City of Sacramento and the MSA based on their occupation, as reported by Esri. The data illustrate that occupational employment in the city generally matches the regional and statewide distributions. Notable exceptions include modestly higher concentrations of residents working in Office and Administrative Support, Business and Financial, and Computer and Mathematical occupations.
Between 2010 and 2018, the City of Sacramento added an estimated 19,628 new employed residents.20 This represents approximately 19 percent of regional growth, which is slightly higher than the city’s estimated share of regional population growth, which implies that the city is gaining an above average share of employed residents compared to the region.21 Just over half of these new employed residents work in somewhat lower wage service sectors, such as Food Preparation and Serving, Personal Care and Service, and Office and Administrative
20 These figures may differ from those reported elsewhere in this report due to the use of different data sources. 21 Also note that while the two figures do not wholly correspond, the number of new employed residents in Sacramento was less than half the number of new jobs gained during roughly the same period.
Employee
Employer Class Range Location Industry
Aerojet Rocketdyne Inc 1,000-4,999 Rancho Cordova Aerospace Industries (mfrs) Air Resources Board Tstg Off 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Engineers-Environmental AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC 1,000-4,999 Rancho Cordova Electronic Equipment & Supplies-Mfrs Apple Distribution Ctr 1,000-4,999 Elk Grove Distribution Centers (w hls) California Department-Crrctns 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Insurance Agents Brokers & Service California Exposition & Fair 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Government Offices-State California Prison Ind Auth 1,000-4,999 Folsom Government Offices-State California State Univ-Scrmnt 1,000-4,999 Sacramento University-College Dept/Facility/Office Corrections Department 1,000-4,999 Sacramento State Govt-Correctional Institutions Dept of Transportation In Ca 10,000+ Sacramento Government Offices-State Disabled American Veterans 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Veterans' & Military Organizations Employment Development Dept 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Government-Job Training/Voc Rehab Svcs Environmental Protection Agcy 1,000-4,999 Sacramento State Government-Environmental Programs Intel Corp 5,000-9,999 Folsom Semiconductor Devices (mfrs) Kaiser Permanente South 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Hospitals L A Care Health Plan 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Health Plans Mercy General Hospital 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Hospitals Mercy San Juan Medical Ctr 1,000-4,999 Carmichael Hospitals Sacramento Bee 1,000-4,999 Sacramento New spapers (publishers/Mfrs) Sacramento Municipal Utility 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Electric Contractors Smud 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Electric Companies
State Compensation Ins Fund 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Insurance Sutter Medical Ctr Sacramento 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Hospitals U C Davis Medical Ctr 5,000-9,999 Sacramento Hospitals
Water Resource Dept 1,000-4,999 Sacramento Government Offices-State 26 Support occupations. Meanwhile, just over 40 percent work in higher wage professional occupations, such as Business and Financial, and Computer and Mathematical occupations. 27 Figure 11: Distribution of Employed Residents by Occupation. Population Age 16+, 2018 Sources: Esri, Business Analyst; BAE, 2018.
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
City of Sacramento Sacramento MSA State of California
28 Table 10: Employed Residents by Occupation, Population Age 16+, 2018 (Page 1 of 3) Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
City of Sacramento
2010 2018 Absolute Average
Occupation Number Percent Number Percent Change Annual Change Management 19,001 9.3% 19,181 8.6% 180 0.1%
Business/Financial 13,308 6.5% 14,465 6.5% 1,157 1.0%
Computer/Mathematical 7,433 3.6% 9,556 4.3% 2,123 3.2%
Architecture/Engineering 3,640 1.8% 3,639 1.6% -1 0.0%
Life/Physical/Social Science 2,815 1.4% 2,494 1.1% -321 -1.5% Community/Social Service 4,190 2.0% 4,656 2.1% 466 1.3% Legal 4,247 2.1% 4,581 2.0% 334 1.0%
Education/Training/Library 9,769 4.8% 10,654 4.8% 885 1.1% Arts/Design/Entertainment/Sports/Media 4,472 2.2% 4,803 2.1% 331 0.9% Healthcare Practitioner/Technician 8,393 4.1% 10,932 4.9% 2,539 3.4% Healthcare Support 4,440 2.2% 5,025 2.2% 585 1.6%
Protective Service 3,577 1.7% 5,372 2.4% 1,795 5.2%
Food Preparation/Serving Related 13,040 6.4% 15,555 6.9% 2,515 2.2% Building/Grounds Cleaning/Maintenance 8,665 4.2% 9,372 4.2% 707 1.0% Personal Care/Service 9,239 4.5% 11,392 5.1% 2,153 2.7% Sales and Sales Related 20,776 10.2% 20,453 9.1% -323 -0.2% Office/Administrative Support 33,076 16.2% 36,524 16.3% 3,448 1.2% Farming/Fishing/Forestry 624 0.3% 858 0.4% 234 4.1%
Construction/Extraction 9,669 4.7% 8,995 4.0% -674 -0.9% Installation/Maintenance/Repair 5,329 2.6% 5,683 2.5% 354 0.8% Production 7,493 3.7% 7,557 3.4% 64 0.1%
Transportation/Material Moving 11,318 5.5% 12,395 5.5% 1,077 1.1% Total, Employed Residents 16+ Years of Age 204,514 100.0% 224,142 100% 19,628 1.2% 29 Table 10: Employed Residents by Occupation, Population Age 16+, 2018 (Page 2 of 3) Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Sacramento MSA
2010 2018 Absolute Average
Occupation Number Percent Number Percent Change Annual Change Management 100,866 10.5% 103,271 9.7% 2,405 0.3%
Business/Financial 56,749 5.9% 64,884 6.1% 8,135 1.7%
Computer/Mathematical 32,703 3.4% 43,394 4.1% 10,691 3.6% Architecture/Engineering 21,438 2.2% 22,042 2.1% 604 0.3% Life/Physical/Social Science 11,741 1.2% 14,072 1.3% 2,331 2.3% Community/Social Service 15,964 1.7% 18,331 1.7% 2,367 1.7% Legal 13,362 1.4% 14,306 1.3% 944 0.9%
Education/Training/Library 52,653 5.5% 60,208 5.7% 7,555 1.7% Arts/Design/Entertainment/Sports/Media 16,452 1.7% 18,942 1.8% 2,490 1.8% Healthcare Practitioner/Technician 45,203 4.7% 60,114 5.7% 14,911 3.6% Healthcare Support 19,380 2.0% 23,511 2.2% 4,131 2.4%
Protective Service 23,294 2.4% 26,393 2.5% 3,099 1.6%
Food Preparation/Serving Related 49,148 5.1% 63,957 6.0% 14,809 3.3% Building/Grounds Cleaning/Maintenance 34,957 3.7% 39,142 3.7% 4,185 1.4% Personal Care/Service 39,379 4.1% 50,867 4.8% 11,488 3.3% Sales and Sales Related 110,738 11.6% 112,357 10.6% 1,619 0.2% Office/Administrative Support 147,532 15.4% 154,480 14.5% 6,948 0.6% Farming/Fishing/Forestry 4,582 0.5% 7,345 0.7% 2,763 6.1% Construction/Extraction 51,468 5.4% 45,018 4.2% -6,450 -1.7% Installation/Maintenance/Repair 29,000 3.0% 31,658 3.0% 2,658 1.1% Production 33,566 3.5% 34,485 3.2% 919 0.3%
Transportation/Material Moving 47,266 4.9% 54,514 5.1% 7,248 1.8% Total, Employed Residents 16+ Years of Age 957,441 100.0% 1,063,291 100% 105,850 1.3% 30 Table 10: Employed Residents by Occupation, Population Age 16+, 2018 (Page 3 of 3) Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; BAE, 2018.
State of California
2010 2018 Absolute Average
Occupation Number Percent Number Percent Change Annual Change Management 1,668,877 10.0% 1,855,900 9.9% 187,023 1.3%
Business/Financial 821,110 4.9% 954,560 5.1% 133,450 1.9% Computer/Mathematical 458,821 2.8% 613,063 3.3% 154,242 3.7% Architecture/Engineering 371,965 2.2% 404,652 2.2% 32,687 1.1% Life/Physical/Social Science 166,440 1.0% 201,329 1.1% 34,889 2.4% Community/Social Service 243,259 1.5% 284,419 1.5% 41,160 2.0% Legal 208,992 1.3% 238,185 1.3% 29,193 1.6%
Education/Training/Library 918,724 5.5% 1,009,003 5.4% 90,279 1.2% Arts/Design/Entertainment/Sports/Media 429,312 2.6% 496,842 2.7% 67,530 1.8% Healthcare Practitioner/Technician 734,609 4.4% 949,157 5.1% 214,548 3.3% Healthcare Support 307,148 1.8% 366,384 2.0% 59,236 2.2% Protective Service 356,343 2.1% 392,348 2.1% 36,005 1.2% Food Preparation/Serving Related 848,107 5.1% 1,120,449 6.0% 272,342 3.5% Building/Grounds Cleaning/Maintenance 717,838 4.3% 785,132 4.2% 67,294 1.1% Personal Care/Service 667,884 4.0% 857,001 4.6% 189,117 3.2% Sales and Sales Related 1,918,398 11.5% 1,983,354 10.6% 64,956 0.4% Office/Administrative Support 2,303,013 13.8% 2,408,291 12.9% 105,278 0.6% Farming/Fishing/Forestry 244,252 1.5% 342,107 1.8% 97,855 4.3% Construction/Extraction 905,810 5.4% 836,217 4.5% -69,593 -1.0% Installation/Maintenance/Repair 501,626 3.0% 534,466 2.9% 32,840 0.8% Production 912,310 5.5% 945,216 5.1% 32,906 0.4%
Transportation/Material Moving 927,628 5.6% 1,100,778 5.9% 173,150 2.2% Total, Employed Residents 16+ Years of Age 16,632,466 100.0% 18,678,853 100% 2,046,387 1.5% 31 Labor Force Characteristics
Table 11 and 12 reports labor force characteristics for the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento MSA, and the state as a whole, as reported by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) and the U.S. Census Bureau. While the EDD’s Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) data represent the official governmental estimates used for most economic analyses, the associated labor force estimates seem to under report labor force growth. For example, the LAUS estimates that between 2010 and 2017 the labor force in the City of Sacramento grew by only around 3,500 people while the population expanded by just under 34,200 people. Based on the national average labor force participation rate, most analysts would assume that the City of Sacramento should have added approximately 21,500 people to the labor force during this period. By comparison, the Census Bureau’s ACS based labor force estimates, provided in Table 12, indicate that the City of Sacramento added closer to 22,550 new workers during the same period, which is closer to what most analysts would expect, recognizing that the labor force participation rate in most communities varies only slightly from the broader national average. Though not shown in the table, the Census data also indicate that the people moving into Sacramento have an above average labor force participation rate of around 66 percent, compared the average among existing Sacramento residents of approximately 50 percent.
The data from both the EDD and the Census Bureau clearly indicate that the unemployment rate in the City of Sacramento decreased by around eight percentage points since the 2010.
The EDD data indicate that the rate went from a high of 13.3 percent in 2010 to a low of 4.7 percent in 2017. Meanwhile, the Census data indicate that the unemployment rate went from a high of 16.1 percent in 2010 to a low of 8.2 percent in 2017. Most economists generally consider full employment to occur when the unemployment rate hits around 6.0 percent.
Thus, the data indicate that the City of Sacramento is either at, or is near to reaching, full employment, which has important implications for workforce availability and economic development.
32 Table 11: Labor Force Characteristics, LAUS 2010-2017 Note:
(a) City of Sacramento numbers were independently rounded to convert monthly data to annual averages.
Sources: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), 2018; BAE, 2018.
Employed Unemployment
Year Labor Force Residents Unemployment Rate
City of Sacramento (a)
2010 228,200 197,900 30,300 13.3%
2011 226,900 197,900 28,900 12.8%
2012 226,900 201,800 25,100 11.1%
2013 226,200 205,000 21,200 9.4%
2014 225,700 208,200 17,400 7.7%
2015 226,900 212,500 14,400 6.3%
2016 229,500 216,800 12,700 5.5%
2017 231,700 220,700 11,000 4.7%
Sacramento MSA
2010 1,049,800 920,100 129,700 12.4%
2011 1,045,200 921,600 123,600 11.8%
2012 1,047,900 939,900 108,000 10.3%
2013 1,046,500 955,800 90,700 8.7%
2014 1,047,200 972,600 74,600 7.1%
2015 1,055,900 994,100 61,800 5.9%
2016 1,070,900 1,014,300 56,600 5.3%
2017 1,080,900 1,032,000 48,900 4.5%
State of California
2010 18,336,300 16,091,900 2,244,300 12.2%
2011 18,415,100 16,258,100 2,157,000 11.7%
2012 18,523,800 16,602,700 1,921,100 10.4%
2013 18,625,000 16,958,400 1,666,600 8.9%
2014 18,758,400 17,351,300 1,407,100 7.5%
2015 18,896,500 17,724,800 1,171,700 6.2%
2016 19,093,700 18,048,800 1,044,800 5.5%
2017 19,312,000 18,393,100 918,900 4.8%
33 Table 12: Labor Force Characteristics, ACS 2010 and 2017 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010 and 2017 1-year sampling data, B01003; BAE, 2019.
Regional Commuting Patterns
According to the 2017 ACS, approximately 61 percent of Sacramento workers commute into the city from homes located elsewhere in the region. This is compared to 43 percent of employed Sacramento residents who commute outside of the city for work. According to the ACS, the rate of in-commuting has decreased from 63 percent in 2010, while the rate of outcommuting stayed relatively stable at 43 percent. As a result, the net in-commute has increased in absolute terms from around 97,300 people in 2010 to 103,700 in 2018.
Change
2010 2017 Absolute Percent
Resident Labor Force
City of Sacramento 232,278 254,825 22,547 9.7%
Sacramento MSA 1,061,331 1,139,503 78,172 7.4%
State of California 18,749,576 20,072,353 1,322,778 7.1% Employed Residents
City of Sacramento 194,779 233,821 39,043 20.0%
Sacramento MSA 913,551 1,069,209 155,658 17.0%
State of California 16,241,857 18,748,902 2,507,045 15.4% Unemployment Rate
City of Sacramento 16.1% 8.2% -8% n.a.
Sacramento MSA 13.9% 6.2% -8% n.a.
State of California 13.4% 6.6% -7% n.a.
34 Table 13: Worker and Employed Resident Commuting Patterns, City of Sacramento, 2010 and 2017
Sources: ACS 2010 and 2017, 1-year sampling period, S0804, B08008; BAE 2018.
The LEHD program, also administered by the U.S. Census Bureau, provides additional information on commute patterns, with greater detail regarding worker origin and destination.
Please note that the overall commute rates reported in Table 14 may differ from those reported in Table 13. Based on this information, it appears that the primary points of origin for workers commuting in to jobs in the City of Sacramento include the City of Elk Grove and the Arden-Arcade Census Designated Place (CDP) in unincorporated Sacramento County, as well as the cities of Roseville and West Sacramento, among others. Conversely, the most prominent destinations for workers commuting from homes in Sacramento to jobs elsewhere in the region include the Arden Arcade CDP, and the cities of Rancho Cordova, West Sacramento, Elk Grove, Roseville, and San Francisco.
Data from the Decennial Census and the 2017 ACS indicate that the average commute time for people who work in Sacramento is roughly 9.4 percent higher than for the region as a whole. Although commute times changed at roughly the same rate (around 4.7 percent in total) in both areas between 2010 and 2017, the city’s reliance on workers that commute in from outside the region (i.e., 61 percent of the workforce) may put it at risk as employers increasingly consider locations that are closer to their primary sources of labor. Areas likely to benefit from this type of site location behavior include areas like Rocklin/Roseville, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Folsom, among others that have ample room to accommodate both residential and non-residential growth.
2017 ACS
Number Percent
Work in City 331,393 100%
Live Outside City 201,812 61%
Live Within City 129,581 39%
Live in City 227,711 100%
Work Outside City 98,130 43%
Work Within City 129,581 57%
Net In-Commute 103,682
2010 ACS
Number Percent
Work in City 286,270 100%
Live Outside City 179,382 63%
Live Within City 106,888 37%
Live in City 188,974 100%
Work Outside City 82,086 43%
Work Within City 106,888 57%
Net In-Commute 97,296
35 Despite these trends, there are some businesses that will continue to benefit from locating in highly urbanized areas that offer greater amenities to workers, as well as those that rely on proximity to important State and federal government agencies. Therefore, the City may want to consider strategies that strengthen business relationships that tie major employers to Sacramento. The City should also continue its ongoing work of increasing the variety and depth of consumer offerings and amenities in the Central City and other important employment nodes that can act as draws for important segments of the labor force. Lastly, the City should also continue working to increase the amount of housing that is available to, affordable to, and attractive to key segments of the workforce, who might otherwise be tempted to locate in areas outside of Sacramento that might be perceived to offer better or more affordable options.
Table 14: Regional Commuting Patterns, Origin and Destination, City of Sacramento, 2010 and 2015
Note:
(a) Represents locations that account for less than one percent of the population, respectively.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015.; BAE, 2018.
Employed Sacramento Residents by Place of Work
2010 2015
Place of Work Number Percent Place of Work Number Percent Sacramento city 68,856 44% Sacramento city 76,626 43%
Arden-Arcade CDP 6,581 4% Arden-Arcade CDP 7,796 4%
Rancho Cordova city 5,556 4% Rancho Cordova city 6,736 4% West Sacramento city 3,977 3% West Sacramento city 5,587 3% Elk Grove city 3,319 2% Elk Grove city 4,885 3%
San Francisco city 3,145 2% Roseville city 4,039 2%
Roseville city 2,955 2% San Francisco city 3,940 2%
University of California-Davis CDP 2,849 2% Carmichael CDP 2,568 1% North Highlands CDP 2,288 1% Florin CDP 2,561 1%
Folsom city 2,141 1% North Highlands CDP 2,285 1%
All Other Locations (a) 54,108 35% All Other Locations (a) 62,623 35% Total, All Locations 155,775 100% Total, All Locations 179,646 100% Sacramento Workers by Place of Residence
2010 2015
Place of Residence Number Percent Place of Residence Number Percent Sacramento city 68,856 25% Sacramento city 76,626 27%
Elk Grove city 18,947 7% Elk Grove city 21,526 8%
Arden-Arcade CDP 11,089 4% Arden-Arcade CDP 11,814 4%
Roseville city 6,511 2% Roseville city 7,811 3%
Carmichael CDP 6,400 2% West Sacramento city 6,662 2%
Citrus Heights city 6,154 2% Rancho Cordova city 6,645 2% West Sacramento city 5,729 2% Carmichael CDP 6,303 2%
Rancho Cordova city 5,078 2% Citrus Heights city 6,122 2% Folsom city 4,954 2% Florin CDP 5,587 2%
Florin CDP 4,888 2% Folsom city 5,189 2%
All Other Locations (a) 132,562 49% All Other Locations (a) 132,436 46% Total, All Locations 271,168 100% Total, All Locations 286,721 100% 36 Retail Sales and Leakage
National E-Commerce Trends
The retail sector in the United States is undergoing a significant transformation. This transformation is being driven by technological innovations that are altering how consumers shop for and purchase a wide variety of goods, from home goods to motor vehicles. With the proliferation of internet-based shopping and shopping from mobile devices,22 coupled with the expansion of quick delivery services, consumers are increasingly choosing these new forms of retail over more traditional brick-and-mortar retail offerings.
According to data from the Monthly Retail Trade Survey, published by the U.S. Census Bureau, retail sales among e-commerce outlets currently account for around ten percent of total national retail sales. Retail sales among e-commerce outlets generally track with broader retail sales trends, recognizing that growth within the subsector represents a shifting of retail sales from brick-and-mortar outlets to internet-based ones. Nonetheless, the subsector shows remarkable resilience and growing influence. For example, national retail sales declined in real terms between 2007 and 2009, as illustrated in Figure 12, which corresponded with the onset of the Great Recession. While e-commerce sales tracked the broader retail sales trend, the industry subsector recorded year-over-year growth of two to four percent during the same period, illustrating the sectors relative resilience. Since the onset of the economic recovery, beginning around 2010, e-commerce has consistently increased sales by 14 to 16 percent per year. This is notably slower than prior to the recession, when e-commerce sales consistently grew by around 25 percent per year; though it still outpaces overall retail sales growth which has averaged around 4.5 percent per year since 2009.
22 Business Insider reports that online retail via mobile devices, or m-commerce, 37 Figure 12: Year-Over-Year Change in National Retail Sales, eCommerce and Total, 2000-2017
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Retail Trade Survey; BAE, 2019.
This rapid expansion of online retailing is having a noticeable impact on the retail real estate sector. The consensus is that consumer spending power is finite and that any increase in market share by online retailers draws sales away from brick-and-mortar establishments, though this appears to impact retailers that sell large volumes of commodity goods, versus those that traffic in discretionary items.23 This has largely contributed to the decline in the American indoor shopping mall, as well as major contractions among many national and regional retail chains. For example, Bloomberg Business Week reports that 2017 set the record for the amount of retail spaced closed by national retail chains at 105 million square feet.24 By April of 2018, the total of announced closures was already at 77 million square feet and climbing.25
While the exact future of eCommerce is unclear, due to the rapid pace of technological change, there is a general consensus that eCommerce is likely to continue expanding its
23 Commodity goods are those which consumers buy on a regular basis, are familiar with the available choices, and for which their purchasing decisions are based on price and convenience. These are the types of goods for which online shopping is an ideal tool. As opposed to commodity purchases, discretionary purchases involve items that consumers purchase less frequently, and which are not necessities. So-called because consumers spend their discretionary time and income on them, discretionary purchases may involve specialty items for which expert sales help is needed and/or for which the experience of purchasing the items and the sales and after-sale support experience is important. Online shopping is not as conducive to this type of purchase. 24 Retail’s Real Estate Glut is Growing, Bloomberg Business Week, p. 31, April 23, 2018. 25 Inbid. -10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Total eCommerce
38 market share in the coming years. While forecasts often vary by source, one article published by Business Insider reported that Forrester Research projects that online sales will increase to approximately 17 percent of total national retail sales by 2022.26 This is generally consistent with an anticipated continuation of current trends in annual eCommerce sales growth.
Taxable Sales
According to the California State Board of Equalization (SBOE), the City of Sacramento captured $6.4 billion in taxable sales in 2016, the most recent year for which data are available. The Sacramento MSA as a whole, by comparison, saw $38.2 billion in taxable sales.
This indicates that in 2016, the City of Sacramento captured approximately 17 percent of the region’s total taxable retail sales. Recognizing that the city accounts for approximately 21 percent of the region’s population as well as a disproportionate share of the region’s employment, these data indicate that the city is not capturing its fair share of regional taxable sales.
Additional data on per capita sales also support the conclusion that the city’s retail sector underperforms compared to the MSA as a whole. For example, Sacramento saw an average of $13,214 dollars in annual taxable sales, per capita in 2016. This was compared to $16,832 for the MSA as a whole, which was generally comparable to the statewide average. On a per capita level, the city’s retail sector underperformed within all reported retail categories, except for Food Service and Drinking Places, which outperformed the region on a per capita basis.
The retail categories that underperformed by the greatest margin in 2016, compared to the regional average, include Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers,27 General Merchandise Stores, Building Materials and Garden Equipment, and Gasoline Stations. Categories that, while underperforming, were closest to the regional average include Food and Beverage Stores and Clothing and Clothing Accessories. Overall, these data indicate that while the City of Sacramento is, on average, a destination for the food service and bar industry, the community is generally leaking taxable merchandise sales to other destinations within the region.
Another important influence on both the current and future strategic positioning of the city’s retail sector within the broader region is the impact of online retailing on sales at brick and mortar retail establishments. Due to the rapidly evolving nature of the industry, the impacts of online retailing are not well understood in terms of the ways in which it shapes local markets.
Nonetheless, there is a general understanding that online outlets direct sales away from brick and mortar stores and divert taxable sales, and the resulting tax revenue, away from local jurisdictions. The communities that generally benefit most from the expansion of online
26 Keyes, D. (August 11, 2017). E-Commerce will make up 17% of all US retail sales by 2022 – and one company is the main reason. Business Insider. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/e-commerce-retail-sales2022-amazon-2017-8 27 Note that the Fulton Auto Mall is located just outside of the existing City limits. The City’s older automotive retail corridors have largely transitioned away from auto sales towards other retail and residential uses. 39 retailing tend to be those that host large distribution facilities, and which negotiated with online retailers so-as to be designated as the point of sale.
Also, as is discussed in greater detail in the Real Estate Market Conditions section, the retail real estate sector appears to be undergoing a restructuring, with decreasing average rental rates throughout both the city and the region. This is largely driven by underperformance among many of the smaller neighborhood and community shopping centers, which are increasingly repositioning their tenant mixes to emphasize discount grocery, fitness, and service types uses. Many of these shopping centers are increasingly emphasizing lifestyle offerings, such as restaurants, breweries, health and wellness centers, recreation, etc. Many of the larger regional and destination shopping centers are doing the same thing, while also achieving economies of scale with larger big box anchors. In this way, these shopping centers are working to become more resilient to the effects of online retailing. 40 Table 15: Taxable Sales, 2016
Note:
(a) Based on 2016 population estimates published by the Department of Finance.
Sources: California State Board of Equalization, 2018; California Department of Finance, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Share of
City of Sacramento Sacramento MSA County California
Category Number Percent Per Cap. (a) Number Percent Per Cap. (a) Total Number Percent Per Cap. (a) Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers $592,960,889 9.2% $1,216 $6,276,969,621 16.4% $2,764 9.4% $84,225,652,029 13.0% $2,150 Furnishings & Appliance Stores $312,443,352 4.8% $641 $1,905,701,306 5.0% $839 16.4% $29,910,070,865 4.6% $763 Bldg. Matrl. & Garden Equipment $358,733,835 5.6% $735 $2,340,795,894 6.1% $1,031 15.3% $35,238,332,762 5.4% $899 Food & Beverage Stores $335,385,564 5.2% $688 $1,624,911,769 4.3% $715 20.6% $27,678,056,007 4.3% $706 Gasoline Stations $459,365,518 7.1% $942 $2,752,525,332 7.2% $1,212 16.7% $43,273,082,077 6.7% $1,104 Clothing & Clothing Accessories $354,274,881 5.5% $726 $1,661,258,921 4.3% $731 21.3% $39,698,156,197 6.1% $1,013 General Merchandise Stores $456,208,343 7.1% $935 $3,127,517,467 8.2% $1,377 14.6% $48,255,569,497 7.4% $1,232 Food Services & Drinking Places $1,005,781,023 15.6% $2,062 $3,850,449,451 10.1% $1,695 26.1% $78,494,623,434 12.1% $2,003 Other Retail Group $571,602,112 8.9% $1,172 $3,132,548,819 8.2% $1,379 18.2% $55,940,351,036 8.6% $1,428 Subtotal, All Retail and Food $4,446,755,517 69.0% $9,117 $26,672,678,580 69.8% $11,744 16.7% $442,713,893,904 68.2% $11,300 All Other Outlets $1,998,709,138 31.0% $4,098 $11,554,663,888 30.2% $5,088 17.3% $206,365,477,101 31.8% $5,267 Total, All Outlets $6,445,464,655 100% $13,214 $38,227,342,468 100% $16,832 16.9% $649,079,371,005 100% $16,567 41 Retail Leakage Analysis
To assess the net balance of trade within the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento MSA, this analysis relies on retail sales and consumer expenditure estimates from Esri. As reported in Table 16, City of Sacramento residents spent approximately $6.3 billion on retail purchases as of 2018. Conversely, the city captures nearly $5.5 billion in total retail spending, both from residents and visitors. As a result, the City of Sacramento has a negative balance of trade, or leakage,28 of approximately $774 million in retail sales as of 2018. The table also illustrates a negative balance of trade even at the regional level. For example, residents of the MSA spend approximately $34.3 billion on retail purchases, while the region captures approximately $30.2 billion in retail sales, according to Esri. This equals a negative net balance of trade of $4.2 billion.
According to Esri, the City of Sacramento has retail leakage in nine retail categories as of 2018. These include Furniture and Home Furnishings; Electronics and Appliances; Clothing and Clothing Accessories; Sporting Goods, Hobbies, Books, and Music; General Merchandise; Miscellaneous Store Retailers; Non-Store Retailers; Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers; and Gasoline Stations. The total net leakage among these sectors is approximately $525 million.
Almost all of Sacramento’s retail leakage is concentrated in retail categories that emphasize comparison shopping, or goods suitable for online retailing. By comparison, Sacramento’s retail injections are generally concentrated in non-durable goods and service-oriented retail categories, such as Food and Beverage Stores, Health and Personal Care Stores, and Food Service and Drinking Places, as well as Building Materials, Garden Equipment and Supply Stores, which are more e-commerce resistant. While it is not often realistic for any community to capture 100 percent of its residents’ expenditures in every category, retail strategies that emphasize services and experience-driven offerings that appeal to residents and destination shoppers from elsewhere in the region could help to capture additional consumer expenditures and help local retailers compete with online retailers.
Table 16 reports the estimated new development that could be supported through the capture of existing retail leakage. The estimates are based on sales per square foot figures for each retail category identified through a variety of sources, including the Urban Land Institute’s Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers publication, HdL ECON Solutions, and eMarketRetail.
BAE then applied the average sales per square foot estimates to the estimated retail leakage by retail category. The estimates also include a ten percent vacancy allowance and a 14 percent non-retail allowance. As shown in Table 16, capture of existing retail sales leakage from the City of Sacramento could potentially support absorption of up to 1.8 million square feet of additional retail space. This includes up to approximately 662,000 square feet in the Clothing and Clothing Accessories category, as well as about 489,000 square feet in General Merchandise Stores; 318,000 square feet in Furniture and Home Furnishing Stores; 181,000
28 Retail leakage occurs when a community’s residents spend more for products and services than local businesses capture, indicating an unmet demand in the trade area that could be supported by additional retail development. 42 square feet in Miscellaneous Store Retailers; 103,000 square feet in Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores; and 28,000 square feet in Electronics and Appliance Stores.
However, given that brick and mortar retail is shrinking rather than expanding, it may be difficult for the City to capture this leakage.
By comparison, the capture of retail sales that currently leak out to locations beyond the Sacramento MSA could support up to 11.5 million square feet of additional retail space. The majority of this demand is concentrated in Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores, Miscellaneous Store Retailers, Health and Personal Care Stores, and Furniture and Home Furnishings. All of these sectors are subject to significant competition from online retailers.
Thus, the city is unlikely to capture much of this unmet regional demand. In the near term, online retailers will continue increasing their market share in certain retail categories, making it more difficult for local establishments to compete, as discussed in greater detail later on in this report.
Additionally, both the city and the MSA have significant leakage in the Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealer category and the Gasoline Stations category. In the City of Sacramento, existing leakage in the Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers category could potentially support up to 62 acres of new auto dealership development, or up to a maximum of ten new auto dealerships.
Regional leakage in the Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers category could support up to 87 acres of new development, or up to 15 new dealerships. The city’s leakage in the Gasoline Stations category could potentially support up to 23 acres of new development, assuming approximately one acre per establishment. Meanwhile regional leakage in this sector would be sufficient to support up to 121 acres of new development. However, please note that other retail categories may capture some gasoline sales, as some grocers and warehouse stores also sell gasoline. Therefore, these estimates may overstate the potential demand for new gasoline station development.
Long-term projections of demand for retail related to automotive uses (e.g., new and used auto sales, auto parks and accessory stores, auto repair establishments, fuel sales) must also be considered in light of substantial potential changes in the automotive industry due to such factors as the emergence of car sharing/transportation network companies, mobility as a service, vehicle fleet electrification, and so forth. While the exact implications of these types of trends are difficult to identify, this uncertainty indicates that the City of Sacramento should seek to ensure that long-term land use planning and economic development plans are flexible enough to accommodate and adapt to unforeseen shifts within the General Plan planning horizon.
43 Table 16: Retail Leakage and Injection, 2018 (Page 1 of 2) Notes:
(a) Sales per square foot data are based on figures reported in the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers published by ULI, as well as data published by HdL ECON Solution and eMarketRetail.
(b) Supportable square footage estimates include a 14 percent non-retail adjustment and a 10 percent vacancy allowance. (c) Sales per acre for Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers are based on the average sales per dealership published by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). The figures assume that an average motor vehicle dealership will range in size between 5.3 and 6.4 acres. (d) The estimated sales per acre for Gasoline Stations is based on statewide gasoline station sales and number of establishments in 2016, as published by the California State Board of Equalization (SBOE), which is then inflation adjusted to 2018 dollars. The estimate assumes an average of one acre per establishment.
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; NADA, 2018; SBOE, 2018; BLS, 2018; ULI, 2008; HdL ECON Solutions, 2016; eMarketRetail, 2018; BAE, 2019.
City of Sacramento
Consumer Retail (Leakage)/ Estimated Supportable
Retail Category Expenditures Supply Injection Sales/SF (a) Square Feet (b) Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores $209,909,780 $111,989,953 ($97,919,827) $382 317,689 Electronics & Appliance Stores $207,748,866 $194,952,716 ($12,796,150) $568 27,919 Bldg. Matrl., Garden Equip, Supply Stores $325,486,480 $391,737,003 $66,250,523 $365 n.a.
Food & Beverage Stores $928,704,314 $1,192,817,860 $264,113,546 $548 n.a.
Health & Personal Care Stores $388,551,142 $448,429,917 $59,878,775 $708 n.a.
Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores $406,864,706 $279,897,358 ($126,967,348) $238 662,007 Sport. Goods, Hobby, Book, Music Stores $179,765,638 $157,981,728 ($21,783,910) $263 102,903 General Merchandise Stores $955,264,767 $847,754,516 ($107,510,251) $268 498,365 Miscellaneous Store Retailers $210,782,192 $181,367,093 ($29,415,099) $201 181,059 Non-Store Retailers $164,216,361 $35,126,136 ($129,090,225) n.a. n.a.
Food Service & Drinking Places $622,488,734 $744,983,131 $122,494,397 $519 n.a.
Subtotal, Non-Automotive $4,599,782,980 $4,587,037,411 ($12,745,569) 1,789,942 Consumer Retail (Leakage)/ Estimated Supportable
Retail Category Expenditures Supply Injection Sales/Acre Square Acres Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $1,185,755,955 $527,372,223 ($658,383,732) $10,676,196 (c) 62 Gasoline Stations $511,035,356 $408,001,526 ($103,033,830) $4,553,327 (d) 23 Subtotal, Automotive $1,696,791,311 $935,373,749 ($761,417,562) Net Balance of Trade $6,296,574,291 $5,522,411,160 ($774,163,131) Categories with Leakage $2,334,552,310 $1,809,069,500 ($525,482,810) 44 Table 16: Retail Leakage and Injection, 2018 (Page 2 of 2) Notes:
(a) Sales per square foot data are based on figures reported in the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers published by ULI, as well as data published by HdL ECON Solution and eMarketRetail.
(b) Supportable square footage estimates include a 14 percent non-retail adjustment and a 10 percent vacancy allowance. (c) Sales per acre for Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers are based on the average sales per dealership published by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). The figures assume that an average motor vehicle dealership will range in size between 5.3 and 6.4 acres. (d) The estimated sales per acre for Gasoline Stations is based on statewide gasoline station sales and number of establishments in 2016, as published by the California State Board of Equalization (SBOE), which is then inflation adjusted to 2018 dollars. The estimate assumes an average of one acre per establishment.
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2018; NADA, 2018; SBOE, 2018; BLS, 2018; ULI, 2008; HdL ECON Solutions, 2016; eMarketRetail, 2018; BAE, 2019.
County of Sacramento
Consumer Retail (Leakage)/ Estimated Supportable
Retail Category Expenditures Supply Injection Sales/SF (a) Square Feet (b) Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores $695,791,426 $401,861,579 ($293,929,847) $382 953,619 Electronics & Appliance Stores $684,340,677 $707,644,318 $23,303,641 $568 n.a.
Bldg. Matrl., Garden Equip, Supply Stores $1,123,696,317 $1,241,651,124 $117,954,807 $365 n.a.
Food & Beverage Stores $3,005,477,203 $3,443,680,255 $438,203,052 $548 n.a.
Health & Personal Care Stores $1,279,493,354 $1,009,403,966 ($270,089,388) $708 472,888 Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores $1,328,897,894 $652,665,801 ($676,232,093) $238 3,525,871 Sport. Goods, Hobby, Book, Music Stores $588,767,266 $488,710,754 ($100,056,512) $263 472,648 General Merchandise Stores $3,107,775,825 $3,478,798,932 $371,023,107 $268 n.a.
Miscellaneous Store Retailers $693,404,130 $575,385,406 ($118,018,724) $201 726,443 Non-Store Retailers $542,788,522 $85,591,986 ($457,196,536) n.a. n.a.
Food Service & Drinking Places $2,030,807,733 $1,942,846,576 ($87,961,157) $519 n.a.
Subtotal, Non-Automotive $15,081,240,347 $14,028,240,697 ($1,052,999,650) 6,151,469 Consumer Retail (Leakage)/ Estimated Supportable
Retail Category Expenditures Supply Injection Sales/Acre Square Acres Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $3,895,031,415 $2,663,581,428 ($1,231,449,987) $10,676,196 (c) 115 Gasoline Stations $1,653,082,936 $1,299,146,531 ($353,936,405) $4,553,327 (d) 78 Subtotal, Automotive $5,548,114,351 $3,962,727,959 ($1,585,386,392) Net Balance of Trade $20,629,354,698 $17,990,968,656 ($2,638,386,042) Categories with Leakage $7,159,950,325 $5,156,466,068 ($2,003,484,257) 45 REAL ESTATE MARKET CONDITIONS
The following section summarizes the current real estate market conditions in the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento MSA, and the state of California. Where appropriate, there is additional commentary regarding conditions within the Sacramento Planning Area and the ten Community Plan Areas. The analysis relies on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau as well as home sales records provided by the Sacramento Association of Realtors, and other real estate market conditions data provided by CoStar, a private data vendor. The analysis also incorporates findings from a review of quarterly and annual reports published by commercial real estate brokerage firms active in the Sacramento market.
Residential Market
Housing Stock Characteristics
Table 17 reports housing units by type for the City of Sacramento, the MSA, and the state of California. As shown in the table, there were approximately 199,760 housing units in the City of Sacramento in 2017. Like most communities throughout the nation, the majority of the housing stock in the City of Sacramento is comprised of single-family housing units, both attached and detached. Multifamily housing accounts for approximately one-third of the city’s existing housing stock, which is roughly on par with the statewide average, but is more than eight percentage points higher than the MSA. This indicates that while the city has accommodated its fair share of multifamily housing on average, compared to the state, the remainder of the Sacramento region is much less dense and more heavily oriented towards single-family housing.
Overall, the distribution of housing by type in the Sacramento Planning Area is similar to the citywide distribution shown in Table 17. The Central City has the largest concentration of multifamily units, which account for around 81 percent of the housing stock. The next largest concentrations of multifamily housing are located in the Arden Arcade, South Natomas, North Natomas, and the Pocket areas, which have concentrations of multifamily units that account for around 31 to 46 percent of the total housing stock in each area. 46 Table 17: Units in Structure, 2017
Note:
(a) Includes boats, RVs, vans, or any other non-traditional residences.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-year sampling data, B25024; BAE, 2018.
Housing Stock by Year Built
Housing built using traditional wood-framing is generally considered to be at risk for deteriorating condition after approximately 30 years from the date of construction. As reported in Table 18, approximately 58 percent of the housing stock in the City of Sacramento was built prior to 1980, while more than 74 percent was built before 1990. While this is close to the statewide average, the city features a much older housing stock compared to the remainder of the MSA, where only 47 percent of the regional housing stock was built before 1980 and 64 percent built before 1990.
While the age of the housing stock can have important implications for housing conditions in the city, it also has important implications for affordability. For example, older homes may, in some cases, be more affordable than newer homes, due to the depreciated nature of the structures and the need for ongoing upkeep and maintenance. However, many older homes also exist in older, more well-established neighborhoods that often have more mature landscaping and a better-defined sense of place. Some older neighborhoods also contain much older homes that offer architectural and historic value. Therefore, while houses of moderate age can offer more affordable housing opportunities, much older homes can often be even less affordable to homebuyers than newly constructed housing units.
City of Sacramento Sacramento MSA State of California
Type of Residence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Single Family Detached 119,808 60.0% 614,951 68.2% 8,199,891 57.8% Single Family Attached 13,137 6.6% 49,571 5.5% 1,010,379 7.1% Multifamily 2 Units 3,773 1.9% 13,248 1.5% 342,567 2.4% Multifamily 3-19 Units 41,451 20.8% 132,400 14.7% 2,351,028 16.6% Multifamily 20-49 Units 5,844 2.9% 22,655 2.5% 703,150 5.0% Multifamily 50+ 12,146 6.1% 41,195 4.6% 1,035,668 7.3%
Mobile Home/Other (a) 3,601 1.8% 27,934 3.1% 534,587 3.8% Total 199,760 100% 901,954 100% 14,177,270 100%
Single Family Housing Units 132,945 664,522 9,210,270
% of Single Family 66.6% 73.7% 65.0%
Multifamily Housing Units 63,214 209,498 4,432,413
% of Multifamily 31.6% 23.2% 31.3%
47 Table 18: Housing Stock by Year Built, 2017
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017 1-year sampling data, B25034; BAE, 2018.
Housing Occupancy and Vacancy
Table 19 reports residential vacancy trends between 2010 and 2017 for the City of Sacramento, the MSA, and State of California. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Sacramento had a residential vacancy rate of 5.3 percent in 2017, which was notably lower than the residential vacancy rate of around eight percent in both the MSA and the state. Of the City of Sacramento’s vacant units, only around 3,575 units were available for rent or sale in 2017, indicating that the true functional vacancy rate was closer to 1.8 percent. This excludes units that are rented or sold, but not yet occupied, as well as second homes and other types of housing that are not immediately available for occupancy. By comparison, the true functional vacancy rates (i.e., units available for sale or rent) in the Sacramento MSA and state as a whole in 2017 were 1.7 percent and 2.0 percent. This indicates that housing availability is quite constrained not only in Sacramento, but throughout all of California.
According to the DOF, the housing vacancy rate in the City of Sacramento increased from 6.2 percent in 2017 to 6.6 percent in 2018. The vacancy rate in Sacramento County as a whole also increased during the period. This, along with other factors, may indicate the beginning of a softening within the housing market, which may have potentially positive implications, including stabilizing costs and increased functional vacancy.
Information on housing vacancy in the Community Plan Areas indicates that housing vacancy in the broader Sacramento Planning Area is somewhat higher than for the city alone. The portions of the City with the highest residential vacancy rates generally include the Central City, North Sacramento, and Arden Arcade. This is followed by Fruitridge/Broadway, the South Area, East Sacramento, the Pocket, and Land Park. The Community Plan Areas with the lowest housing vacancy include both North and South Natomas.
City of Sacramento Sacramento MSA State of California
Year Built Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1939 or Earlier 22,539 11.3% 39,268 4.4% 1,317,565 9.3% 1940-1949 16,266 8.1% 34,091 3.8% 831,629 5.9%
1950-1959 23,610 11.8% 92,529 10.3% 1,909,367 13.5%
1960-1969 24,209 12.1% 94,835 10.5% 1,884,146 13.3%
1970-1979 29,144 14.6% 165,175 18.3% 2,481,692 17.5%
1980-1989 32,849 16.4% 153,615 17.0% 2,155,091 15.2%
1990-1999 19,958 10.0% 137,373 15.2% 1,522,735 10.7%
2000-2009 28,189 14.1% 155,216 17.2% 1,582,880 11.2%
2010-2013 1,560 0.8% 15,252 1.7% 253,036 1.8%
2014 or Later 1,436 0.7% 14,600 1.6% 239,129 1.7%
Total 199,760 100% 901,954 100% 14,177,270 100%
Pre-1980 115,768 58.0% 425,898 47.2% 8,424,399 59.4%
Pre-1990 148,617 74.4% 579,513 64.3% 10,579,490 74.6%
48 Table 19: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status, 2010-2017 (a) Note:
(a) Definition of occupancy slightly varies between Census and ACS; the Census uses usual place of residence, whereas ACS uses current residence, meaning someone is planning on staying at the unit for more than two months.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, H5, American Community Survey, 2017 1-year sampling data, B25007, S1101; BAE, 2018.
For-Sale Residential Market Conditions
Table 20 summarizes home sale characteristics for 4,451 homes sold in the City of Sacramento between May and October of 2018, as reported by the Sacramento Association of Realtors (S.A.R.). There were 4,451 sales during this period, the majority of which were detached single-family units. The median sale price in the City was $325,000, with a median floor area of 1,402 square feet. This equals a median price of $231.81 per square foot. At this pricing level, the median-priced home in Sacramento would be affordable to larger (i.e., 4+ persons) moderate-income households and above, as reported in Table 21. 2010 2017 % Change Ann. Avg.
City of Sacramento Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2017 Change Occupied Units 174,624 91.5% 189,193 94.7% 8.3% 1.2%
Vacant Units 16,287 8.5% 10,567 5.3% -35.1% -6.0%
For rent 8,035 4.2% 2,424 1.2% -69.8% -15.7%
Rented, not occupied 262 0.1% 951 0.5% 263.0% 20.2%
For sale 2,495 1.3% 1,151 0.6% -53.9% -10.5%
Sold, not occupied 479 0.3% 412 0.2% -14.0% -2.1%
For seasonal, recreation, or occasional use 872 0.5% 1,487 0.7% 70.5% 7.9% For migrant w orkers 5 0.0% 0 0.0% -100.0% -100.0%
Other vacant 4,139 2.2% 4,142 2.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Total, All Units 190,911 100% 199,760 100%
2010 2017 % Change Ann. Avg.
Sacramento MSA Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2017 Change Occupied Units 787,667 90.4% 829,772 92.0% 5.3% 0.7%
Vacant Units 84,126 9.6% 72,182 8.0% -14.2% -2.2%
For rent 26,942 3.1% 9,875 1.1% -63.3% -13.4%
Rented, not occupied 1,202 0.1% 3,100 0.3% 157.9% 14.5% For sale 12,010 1.4% 5,567 0.6% -53.6% -10.4%
Sold, not occupied 2,241 0.3% 2,607 0.3% 16.3% 2.2%
For seasonal, recreation, or occasional use 27,508 3.2% 36,723 4.1% 33.5% 4.2% For migrant w orkers 144 0.0% 0 0.0% -100.0% -100.0%
Other vacant 14,079 1.6% 14,310 1.6% 1.6% 0.2%
Total, All Units 871,793 100% 901,954 100%
2010 2017 % Change Ann. Avg.
State of California Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2017 Change Occupied Units 12,577,498 91.9% 13,005,097 91.7% 3.4% 0.5% Vacant Units 1,102,583 8.1% 1,172,173 8.3% 6.3% 0.9%
For rent 374,610 2.7% 214,814 1.5% -42.7% -7.6%
Rented, not occupied 20,347 0.1% 61,738 0.4% 203.4% 17.2% For sale 154,775 1.1% 72,701 0.5% -53.0% -10.2%
Sold, not occupied 34,288 0.3% 54,554 0.4% 59.1% 6.9%
For seasonal, recreation, or occasional use 302,815 2.2% 416,596 2.9% 37.6% 4.7% For migrant w orkers 2,100 0.0% 4,110 0.0% 95.7% 10.1%
Other vacant 213,648 1.6% 347,660 2.5% 62.7% 7.2%
Total, All Units 13,680,081 100% 14,177,270 100%
49 Table 20: Characteristics of Housing Sales by Type, City of Sacramento, May 2018 to October 2018
Notes:
(a) Does not include the sale of 44 single-family properties where multiple dwelling units were present on one-site (e.g., accessory dwelling unit).
(b) Represents the sale of individual units.
(c) Does not include the sale of a condominium at the Residence at the Sawyer, because the $4.1 million sale price is not representative of the general Sacramento housing market.
Sources: Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Property Type
Single Family (a) Duplex (b) Condominium (c) All Units
Number of Sales 3,971 105 375 4,451
Lot Area
Median Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 6,159 4,042 1,738 6,098
Average Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 7,372 4,174 2,336 7,073
Living Area
Median Living Area (Sq. Ft.) 1,444 1,155 1,072 1,402
Average Living Area (Sq. Ft) 1,564 1,274 1,130 1,520
Sale Price
Minimum $85,000 $168,000 $80,000 $80,000
Maximum $2,775,000 $495,000 $1,055,000 $2,775,000
Median $335,000 $265,000 $222,500 $325,000
Average $379,593 $283,465 $248,696 $366,297
Sale Price Per Sq. Ft.
Median $/Sq. Ft. Living Area $231.99 $229.44 $207.56 $231.81 Average $/Sq. Ft. Living Area $242.78 $222.55 $220.14 $240.97 50 Table 21: Affordable For-Sale Housing Prices, Sacramento County, 2018 Notes:
(a) Income limits are based on the HCD adjusted median family income of $80,100 ($2018). (b) Based on an average of quoted insurance premiums from the Homeowners Premium Survey, published by the California Department of Insurance, for a 16- to 40-year old home valued at $300,000 with a $1,000 deductible Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2018; California Department of Insurance, Homeowners Premium Survey, 2019; Bankrate.com, 2019; BAE, 2019.
Household Size
2018 Income Limits (a) 1-Person 2 -Persons 3-Persons 4-Persons 5-Persons Extremely Low $16,850 $19,250 $21,650 $25,100 $29,420
Very Low Income $28,050 $32,050 $36,050 $40,050 $43,300 Low Income $44,900 $51,300 $57,700 $64,100 $69,250
Moderate Income $67,250 $76,900 $86,500 $96,100 $103,800 Amount Avail. Principal & Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down- Affordable 1-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Extremely Low $421 $298 $17 $65 $42 $421 $3,257 $62,029 Very Low Income $701 $496 $28 $108 $69 $701 $5,422 $103,284 Low Income $1,123 $794 $45 $172 $111 $1,123 $8,687 $165,460 Moderate Income $1,681 $1,189 $68 $258 $166 $1,681 $13,003 $247,674 Amount Avail. Principal & Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down- Affordable 2-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Extremely Low $481 $340 $19 $74 $48 $481 $3,721 $70,869 Very Low Income $801 $567 $32 $123 $79 $801 $6,196 $118,017 Low Income $1,283 $908 $52 $197 $127 $1,283 $9,924 $189,034 Moderate Income $1,923 $1,360 $77 $295 $190 $1,923 $14,875 $283,330 Amount Avail. Principal & Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down- Affordable 3-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Extremely Low $541 $383 $22 $83 $53 $541 $4,185 $79,710 Very Low Income $901 $637 $36 $138 $89 $901 $6,969 $132,751 Low Income $1,443 $1,021 $58 $221 $143 $1,443 $11,162 $212,608 Moderate Income $2,163 $1,530 $87 $332 $214 $2,163 $16,731 $318,691 Amount Avail. Principal & Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down- Affordable 4-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Extremely Low $628 $444 $25 $96 $62 $628 $4,858 $92,528 Very Low Income $1,001 $708 $40 $154 $99 $1,001 $7,743 $147,485 Low Income $1,603 $1,134 $65 $246 $159 $1,603 $12,400 $236,182 Moderate Income $2,403 $1,700 $97 $369 $238 $2,403 $18,588 $354,052 Amount Avail. Principal & Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down- Affordable 5-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Extremely Low $736 $521 $30 $113 $73 $736 $5,693 $108,440 Very Low Income $1,083 $766 $44 $166 $107 $1,083 $8,377 $159,567 Low Income $1,731 $1,224 $70 $266 $171 $1,731 $13,390 $255,041 Moderate Income $2,595 $1,836 $105 $398 $257 $2,595 $20,073 $382,341 Ownership Cost Assumptions
% of Income for Housing Costs 30% of gross annual income Dow n payment 3.50% of home value
Annual interest rate 4.50% fixed
Loan term 30 years
Upfront mortgage insurance 1.75% of home value
Annual mortgage insurance 0.85% of mortgage
Annual property tax rate 1.25% of home value
Annual hazard insurance (b) 0.33% of home value
51 Gentrification in the For-Sale Market
Single-family units are generally more expensive than duplex and condominium units in Sacramento, with a median sale price of $335,000. These units are typically larger, with a median floor area of 1,444 square feet. Duplex units are the next most expensive, with a median sale price of $265,000 and a median floor area of 1,155 square feet. Condominium units were the most affordable housing category, with a median sale price of $222,500 and a median floor area of just over 1,000 square feet. The maximum recorded sale price for a single-family unit was $2.8 million, while the maximum sale price for a condominium was $1.05 million, which reflects the same of one of the high-end condominium units at the Residences at the Sawyer. This shows that while condominium units are generally one of the more affordable housing options in Sacramento, the market does offer some higher value options, such as the newly constructed Residences at the Sawyer in the Central City.
Housing in the City of Sacramento is generally more affordable than elsewhere in the region, with a median home price for single-family units that was well below the median prices in El Dorado, Placer, and Yolo Counties (i.e., the remaining counties that comprise the SacramentoRoseville-Arden Arcade MSA), as well as the state as a whole. Median sale price data for existing single-family homes provided by the California Association of Realtors (C.A.R) show that median sale prices in Sacramento County ranged from $360,000 to $375,000 per unit between May and October 2018, which is higher than the median sale price for new and existing single-family homes in the City of Sacramento reported by the S.A.R. for that period.29 Comparatively, median sale prices in Yolo County ranged from $430,000 to $476,500, while median sale prices in Placer County ranged from $470,000 to $510,000, and median sale prices in El Dorado County ranged from $465,000 to $552,200 during the same period. The median sale prices for single-family units in El Dorado, Placer, and Yolo Counties fall more in line with the median sale price reported for the state as a whole. According to the C.A.R, median sale prices between May and October 2018 ranged from $572,000 to $602,760 statewide. This highlights the critical role that the City of Sacramento plays in providing more affordable housing options within the region.
To assess the relative differences in housing affordability within each of the Community Plan Areas, BAE mapped the S.A.R. home sales data using Geographic Information System (GIS) software, then calculated median home sales figures for each area. Based on this analysis, the housing markets in Sacramento with the highest median home sale prices include the Central City ($533,750), East Sacramento ($511,000), Land Park ($497,100), and the Pocket ($448,000). The areas with the lowest median sale prices include North Sacramento ($240,000), the South Area ($279,000), and Fruitridge/Broadway ($285,000). The Sacramento Planning Area, by comparison, had a median of $327,500.
29 While the C.A.R. figures exclude new home sales, and are therefore not directly comparable to the S.A.R median listed above, the S.A.R. figures provide a general basis for comparison that reflect conditions within the region. 52 Figure 13: Median Residential Sale Price and Appreciation for the Sacramento Planning Area and Community Plan Areas, 2010-2018
Note:
Median sale price figures reflect single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October of 2018, and appreciation figures reflect the percent change in sale price between May and October of 2010 and 2018.
Sources: Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; City of Sacramento, 2018; BAE, 2018. 53 Multifamily Rental Residential Market Conditions
As in many communities throughout California, demand for multifamily rental housing in Sacramento largely outpaced supply, resulting in rapid increases in rental housing costs for many Sacramento residents. Between 2016 and 2017 Sacramento led the nation for rent growth,30 with CoStar reporting annual rent increases averaging between eight and ten percent. Despite this, Sacramento’s multifamily rental market remains comparatively affordable relative to the broader region and the nearby San Francisco Bay Area.
According to CoStar, there are approximately 63,928 market rate multifamily rental units in 2,253 complexes within the City of Sacramento. As of the third quarter of 2018, the average rental rate was $1,228 per month. With an average unit size of 804 square feet, this equals a rental rate of $1.53 per square foot per month. One- and two-bedroom units comprise the majority of the existing rental stock,31 which have average rents for $1,112 and $1,312 per month, respectively. Studio units account for only 1.7 percent of the total inventory and rent for $997 on average. Units with three or more bedrooms account for only 2.2 percent of the inventory and rent for $1,762 or more per month. As shown in Table 22, average asking rents in the City of Sacramento are lower across all unit types compared to the MSA as a whole, with average rents consistently around $100 lower in the city compared to the MSA.
Additional data summarized in Appendix B indicate that average asking rents vary widely between the city’s ten Community Plan Areas. The community Plan Area with the highest average monthly asking rent was North Natomas at $1,692 per month, followed by South Natomas ($1,463 per month), the Pocket ($1,412 per month), East Sacramento ($1,366 per month), and the Central City ($1,326 per month). The areas with the most affordable asking rents of less than $1,000 per month include North Sacramento ($970 per month) and Land Park ($881 per month).
While Sacramento experienced some of the fastest growth in rental housing costs in the nation in recent years, the data indicate that prices have begun to moderate somewhat as new inventory has begun to come online in recent years.32 Nonetheless, Yardi Matrix reports that local rent increases continue to outpace the national average by at least one full percentage point. While Sacramento has experienced a robust increase in demand for rental housing in the Central City, which is generally expected to continue, brokers indicate that areas outside of the urban core experienced the most rapid increase in average rental rates.
30 Yardi Matrix. (2019). Moderating is Key In Sacramento: Multifamily Report Winter 2019. Available at:
https://www.multihousingnews.com/post/sacramentos-rent-growth-still-strong-not-dazzling/ 31 CoStar provides unit type and size detail for only 49 percent of the City of Sacramento’s inventory. While the generally distribution of units by size generally reflects the overall inventory, the exact proportions may vary. 32 According to an article published in the Sacramento Business Journal on January 10th, 2019, newly completed rental housing units now account for more than one percent of the total inventory, with significant additional inventory currently planned for development.
54 Table 22: Multifamily Market by Unit Type
Notes:
(a) Unit totals may not add up to totals due to some units lacking classification by number of bedrooms. (b) Sample size provided by CoStar is not an adequate representation of the City of Sacramento multifamily rental housing market.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Student Housing
The area around the existing California State University Sacramento (CSUS) campus is undergoing a transformation. While the area has historically focused on light industrial and commercial uses, the area is experiencing robust demand for new student-oriented residential and related commercial development, particularly around the intersection of 65th Street and Folsom Boulevard.
There are five projects currently planned or under construction in the area, which include approximately 1,125 new student housing units.33 Reflecting a new approach to student
33 Van der Meer, Ben. (June 28, 2018). Development Surge Suggests Sac State Area Changing Identity.
Sacramento Business Journal. Available at:
City of Sacramento
All Unit
Multifamily Summary Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4+ BR Types (a) Inventory, Q3 2018 (units) 2,197 26,048 27,332 2,460 369 63,928 % of Units 1.7% 20.0% 21.0% 1.9% 0.3% 100%
Occupied Units 2,065 24,872 26,139 2,335 346 61,033
Vacant Units 132 1,176 1,193 125 23 2,895
Vacancy Rate 6.0% 4.5% 4.4% 5.1% 6.2% 4.5%
Avg. Asking Rents per unit per month,
Q3 2017 - Q3 2018
Avg. Asking Rent, Q3 2017 $931 $1,057 $1,255 $1,673 (b) $1,172 Avg. Asking Rent, Q3 2018 $997 $1,112 $1,312 $1,762 (b) $1,228 % Change Q3 2017 - Q3 2018 7.1% 5.2% 4.5% 5.3% (b) 4.8% Avg. Unit Size (Sq.ft), Q3 2018 474 670 908 1,228 1,332 804 Avg. $/Sq.ft Q3 2018 $2.10 $1.66 $1.44 $1.43 (b) $1.53
Sacramento MSA
All Unit
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4+ BR Types (a)
Inventory, Q3 2018 (units) 4,003 49,052 59,798 7,294 1,206 130,289 % of Units 3.1% 37.6% 45.9% 5.6% 0.9% 100%
Occupied Units 3,754 46,928 57,173 6,965 1,166 124,524
Vacant Units 249 2,124 2,625 329 40 5,765
Vacancy Rate 6.2% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 3.3% 4.4%
Avg. Asking Rents, per unit per month,
Q3 2017 - Q3 2018
Avg. Asking Rent, Q3 2017 $1,068 $1,124 $1,339 $1,786 $1,566 $1,274 Avg. Asking Rent, Q3 2018 $1,116 $1,177 $1,401 $1,870 $1,565 $1,333 % Change Q3 2017 - Q3 2018 4.5% 4.7% 4.6% 4.7% -0.1% 4.6% Avg. Unit Size (Sq.ft), Q3 2018 468 674 925 1,243 1,438 835 Avg. $/Sq.ft Q3 2018 $2.38 $1.75 $1.51 $1.50 $1.09 $1.60 55 housing, which is gaining traction in college communities throughout the state, these projects are typically leased on a per-bed or bedroom basis and are generally more expensive, on a per unit basis, than traditional multifamily housing. However, as justification for the increased cost, these projects are typically very high quality and well supplied with a wide variety of resident amenities, such as club rooms, fitness studios, study and meeting space, on-site coffee shops, resort style pool and spa facilities, and other recreational amenities.
One good example of this new approach to student housing is The Retreat at Sacramento, located at 2601 Redding Avenue. The project will include 736 beds in 224 units, spread across 31 two- or three-story buildings. Units will range from one to six bedrooms, and offer amenities including a club house with a fitness center, study and meeting rooms, golf simulator, café, resort style pool with cabanas, and volleyball courts. Units will range from one to six bedrooms. Another project, the Academy on 65th, located at 1325 65th Street, will include 90 apartments that will house up to 305 students. Each unit will come fully furnished with a flat-screen-TV, stainless steel energy efficient appliances, and quartz counter tops.
Amenities will include a fitness center, game room, study lounge, bike storage and outdoor courtyard with a hot tub and grilling stations.34
One reason for the rapid increase in popularity for bed-lease style apartment projects is the significant increase in gross rent per unit, compared to traditional apartments that are leased out on a per unit basis. For example, CoStar reports an average asking rent of $775 per bedlease in units with four or more bedrooms in the City of Sacramento during the third quarter of 2018. Assuming one bed per bedroom, this equals around $3,875 in gross monthly rent per unit. By comparison, the average unit with four or more bedrooms rented in Sacramento, which is leased on a per unit basis, currently rents for only $1,397 per month, as of the third quarter of 2018. This indicates that student housing units generate nearly three-times more revenue than traditional unit-leased multifamily units in the Sacramento market. Additionally, student housing units can be more cost effective to construct, as they require the construction of fewer kitchens and bathrooms for a given number of bedrooms, which are often some of the costlier elements of a new construction project. Bed-lease student housing developments can also be more cost efficient for the developer in cases where local permitting and impact fees are calculated on a per unit basis. Because of this, the City should consider updating the methods used for calculating permitting and impact fees to account for the higher population densities associated with bed-leased student housing projects.
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/06/28/development-surge-suggests-sac-state-areachanging.html. 34 Van der Meer, Ben. (April 9, 2018). Pennsylvania Group Exercises Option to Acquire Student Housing Project on 65th Street. Sacramento Business Journal. Available at:
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/04/09/pennsylvania-group-exercises-option-to-acquire.html 56 The City should also anticipate continued growth in demand for student housing in the area surrounding the CSUS campus, as well as along the Folsom Boulevard corridor and, to a lesser extent, in the area surrounding the planned Aggie Square satellite campus of UC Davis. For example, fall enrollment at CSUS has increased by 32 percent, or nearly 7,500 students, between 2010 and fall 2018. Over just the past four years, enrollment has increased by 1,850 students, or around six percent. While the CSUS 2015 Campus Master Plan caps fulltime enrollment at 25,000 students,35 only 13 percent of students live on or in proximity to campus, rendering CSUS a predominately commuter-oriented university.36 The university has the goal of offering more opportunities for students to live on and near campus by strengthening physical connections to the surrounding community. The university is constructing new housing that would accommodate between 1,400 and 1,800 net new beds for undergraduate students. The Plan also calls for the addition of an unknown number of additional apartment-style units to house graduate students, faculty and staff, as well as undergraduate students if needed. Details regarding the number and configuration of the apartment style units are forthcoming, pending a future market study. CSUS’s efforts to create a more vibrant and livable campus that is interconnected with the surrounding community is likely to continue the area’s ongoing transition from a light industrial area to a student-oriented residential and commercial district. Similarly, developers are looking to the area along Folsom Boulevard from around 59th Street to Power Inn Road for opportunities to develop dedicated student housing. One developer also referenced the possibility for market rate multifamily housing along Del Paso Boulevard that may also appeal to a portion of the student population.
The area around the existing UC Davis Medical Center, and the planned Aggie Square development, may present additional opportunities for multifamily housing. However, housing in this area will differ from the student housing under development in the area surrounding CSUS. While the UC Davis Medical Center employs some students, most of these are higherincome medical students and residents who typically prefer more traditional multifamily and single-family housing types, compared to communal bed-leased student housing projects.
Similarly, the proposed Aggie Square development will predominantly house research laboratories and office space for companies with ties to UC Davis research. As a result, employees will typically be higher-wage and will most often prefer more traditional housing types, like multifamily apartments and townhomes.
Rental Housing Affordability
Although relatively affordable by regional and Bay Area standards, many Sacramento residents are struggling with rapidly rising rental housing costs. Table 23 shows the maximum monthly rent by unit size that can be considered affordable to households in each of the HUD-defined
35 According to the CSU, there were 23,490 full-time students enrolled at the Sacramento campus as of Fall 2018. 36 Anderson, Mark. (July 6, 2018). National Builder Submits Plans for Student Housing Near Sac State.
Sacramento Business Journal. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/07/06/ national-builder-submits-plans-for-student-housing.html 57 income categories. These data indicate that only larger low-income and moderate-income households are likely able to afford the average cost rental housing in Sacramento without incurring an excessive housing cost burden (i.e., housing expenses greater than 30 percent of gross income), and that both smaller and lower-income households have far fewer affordable rental housing options.
Yardi Matrix indicates that rental housing demand is growing most rapidly among the Rent-byNecessity demographic.37 This generally includes households without the income or assets necessary to purchase housing in the for-sale market. With rapid increases in for-sale home prices throughout the city and region that have generally outpaced income growth, along with high debt loads and increasing interest rates, many in Sacramento continue to be locked out of the for-sale housing market. Demand in this segment reportedly grew by 5.3 percent, yearover-year, compared to 3.2 percent in the Lifestyle segment.38 With little hope in the foreseeable future of a widespread decrease in for-sale housing prices or significant increases in area incomes, demand within the Rent-by-Necessity asset class is expected to increase.
Although rent increases are expected to occur more slowly in the coming year, limited wage growth and increasing competition are likely to contribute to steadily increasing housing cost burdens among renter households in Sacramento and the broader MSA. Increasing costs to construct new housing, due to sharp increases in labor and materials costs, also contribute to housing affordability challenges.
Gentrification in the Rental Housing Market
Similar to the analysis conducted for the for-sale market, BAE compared changes in the multifamily rental rates by Community Plan Area, focusing on areas with above average concentrations of minority residents as well as lower-income households. Unlike the for-sale market, there does not appear to be a clear and consistent relationship between increasing rental housing costs and the proportion of residents who identify with racial and ethnic minority groups, based on the data considered for this analysis. While two of the Community Plan Areas with relatively large concentrations of minority residents, namely Fruitridge/Broadway and North Sacramento, saw increases in the average rental rate of seven to eight percent, the two other majority minority areas saw increases of only four or five
37 Renter-by-Necessity households span a range of household types, including young-professionals; double-incomeno-kids household with substantial income but without wealth needed to acquire a home or condominium; students, who may also span a range of incomes, extending from affluent to just getting by; lower-middle-income (“grey-collar”) households, composed of office workers, police officers, firemen, technical workers, etc.; blue-collar households which may barely meet rent demands each month and likely pay a disproportionate share of their income towards rent; military households subject to relocation; and subsidized households which pay a percentage of household income in rent, with the balance of rent paid through a governmental agency subsidy. While subsidized households are typically low-income, this moniker may also extend to some middle-income households in high cost markets. 38 Lifestyle households (Renters-by-Choice) have wealth sufficient to own but have chosen to rent. Discretionary households, typically retired couples or single professionals, choose the flexibility associated with renting over the obligations of ownership.
58 percent, which is roughly comparable with the citywide average. The largest increase (13 percent) was in the East Sacramento Community Plan Area. That area has a minority population that accounts for only around one-third of the resident population.
According to area brokers, the primary driving factor behind rental rate appreciation in Sacramento is investors looking to create value through modest updates to existing multifamily properties. Communities with large concentrations of “naturally affordable” rental units (i.e., non-rent restricted rental units that rent for relatively affordable rates) are more likely to experience gentrification as Sacramento attracts interest from investors looking for value-add projects. Each of the multifamily broker reports consulted for this analysis indicates that investors are showing a preference for Class C39 properties, where modest updates and renovations can be offset by substantial increases in asking rents. This is of particular concern for the General Plan Update, as existing Class C rental housing represents one of the most important supplies of affordable housing in Sacramento. According to Marcus and Millichap, the Arden Arcade, Midtown, and Carmichael areas represent the most active markets for value-added property transactions, which often involve the sale of properties with 30 units or less. Brokers also note that multifamily investor confidence seems to have increased following the defeat of State Proposition 10, which would have repealed CostaHawkins and allowed jurisdictions to more broadly adopt local rent control measures.
39 The multifamily residential real estate market often uses an alphabetical classification system to differentiate between properties with different characteristics. Class A multifamily product often include properties that are less than ten years old, or have undergone significant renovations, have high quality exteriors and amenities, and command the highest rents. Class B multifamily product generally include properties built within the last 20 years, with dated exteriors and amenities, with little deferred maintenance. Class C multifamily properties are typically older products over 30 years old with dated exteriors and interiors, and few, if any amenities. 59 Table 23: Affordable Rents, Sacramento County, 2018
Notes:
(a) Income limits are based on the HCD adjusted median family income of $80,100 ($2018). (b) Affordable rents equal to 30 percent of gross monthly income, minus a utility allowance. The utility allowance is derived based on the 2018 figures published by The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. Utility allowance estimates assume that all heating, cooking, and water heating would be done using natural gas. Other electricity usage is also included, accounting for lighting, refrigeration, and small appliances, in addition to water, sewer, and trash collection.
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2018; Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, 2018; BAE, 2019.
Income Category (a) 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person Extremely Low -Income $16,850 $19,250 $21,650 $25,100 $29,420 Very Low -Income $28,050 $32,050 $36,050 $40,050 $43,300 Low -Income $44,900 $51,300 $57,700 $64,100 $69,250
Moderate-Income $67,250 $76,900 $86,500 $96,100 $103,800 Unit Size
Affordable Rents (b) Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom Extremely Low Income
1-Person $247 $240
2-Person $300 $279
3-Person $339 $318
4-Person $405
5-Person $513
Very Low Income
1-Person $527 $520
2-Person $620 $599
3-Person $699 $678
4-Person $778
5-Person $860
Low Income
1-Person $949 $942
2-Person $1,102 $1,081
3-Person $1,241 $1,220
4-Person $1,380
5-Person $1,508
Moderate Income
1-Person $1,507 $1,500
2-Person $1,742 $1,721
3-Person $1,961 $1,940
4-Person $2,180
5-Person $2,372
Income Limits/Household Size
60 Figure 14: Average Multifamily Rents and Appreciation for the Sacramento Planning Area and Community Plan Areas, 2010-2018
Note:
Average rent figures reflect conditions as of the third quarter of 2018 while appreciation figures reflect the percent change in rents between the third quarter of 2017 and the third quarter of 2018.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; BAE, 2018.
61 Housing Cost Burden
Table 24 presents information on the number and percent of households that overpay for housing in the City of Sacramento and the state of California by HUD-defined income category, as reported in the 2011-2015 CHAS data set. This data is also illustrated in Figures 15 and
16. As discussed previously, the household income categories are defined in relation to HUD Adjusted Median Family Income, or HAMFI.
HUD estimates monthly housing cost burdens as a share of a household’s monthly income.
Households are considered to have an excessive housing cost burden when housing costs exceeds 30 percent of the monthly gross income. Households are considered to have a severe housing cost burden when monthly housing costs exceed 50 percent of the monthly gross income. For owner households, housing costs are assumed to include mortgage, principal, interest, property taxes, and insurance (PITI), but do not include utility charges. For renter households, housing costs include monthly rent, plus a utility allowance.
Among all households in Sacramento, 41 percent had housing cost burdens of greater than 30 percent of income, while 21 percent had housing cost burdens in excess of 50 percent of income. Cost burdens among owner households were typically lower than among renter households. For example, in the City of Sacramento, 30 percent of owner households had an excessive or severe cost burden, compared to 51 percent for renter households. Households at lower income levels were also statistically more likely to experience excessive or severe housing cost burdens. For example, more than 78 percent of households in the very low- and extremely low-income categories experienced high housing cost burdens.
Overcrowding by Income Category and Tenure
Another important metric of housing stress is overcrowding. According to HUD, a household is considered to live in overcrowded conditions when there is more than one person per room.
Severely overcrowded is defined as more than 1.5 persons per room. Under this definition, “rooms” include living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, finished recreation rooms, enclosed porches suitable for year-round use, and lodger’s rooms, while excluding bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, or half-rooms.
According to this definition, households in Sacramento had a lower prevalence of overcrowding compared to the state, with 5.6 percent of all households in Sacramento experienced overcrowding between 2011 and 2015, compared to 8.2 percent for California as a whole. Lower-income households and renter households were more likely to experience overcrowded conditions due to housing affordability and other economic constraints. For example, the rate of overcrowding among renter households averaged 7.6 percent in Sacramento between 2011 and 2015, compared to 3.4 percent for owner households.
Around nine percent of very low- and extremely low-Income households were overcrowded, compared to 2.2 percent of moderate- and above moderate-income households. Figure 17 shows the rate of overcrowding among low-income households by Census Tract. 62 Table 24: Housing Cost Burden by Income Category and Tenure, 2011-2015 (Page 1 of 2) Note:
(a) Totals may not match sums of component figures due to independent rounding.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2011-2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2018.
Renter-Occupied Units Owner-Occupied Units All Occupied Units City of Sacramento Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Household Income <=30% HAMFI (Extremely Low-Income) 27,175 100% 6,935 100% 34,110 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 3,480 12.8% 1,050 15.1% 4,530 13.3% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 2,885 10.6% 820 11.8% 3,705 10.9% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 18,705 68.8% 4,305 62.1% 23,010 67.5% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 2,100 7.7% 760 11.0% 2,860 8.4% Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI (Very Low-Income) 16,470 100% 8,090 100% 24,560 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 2,585 15.7% 2,785 34.4% 5,370 21.9% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 8,010 48.6% 1,830 22.6% 9,840 40.0% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 5,880 35.7% 3,480 43.0% 9,360 38.1% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI (Low-Income) 17,105 100% 12,625 100% 29,730 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 8,025 46.9% 7,070 56.0% 15,095 50.8% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 8,000 46.8% 3,710 29.4% 11,710 39.4% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 1,080 6.3% 1,845 14.6% 2,925 9.8% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Household Income >80% to <=120% HAMFI (Moderate-Income) 15,610 100% 16,255 100% 31,865 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 13,085 83.8% 10,885 66.9% 23,970 75.2% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 2,440 15.6% 4,455 27.4% 6,895 21.6% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 85 0.5% 925 5.7% 1,010 3.2% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Household Income >120% HAMFI (Above Moderate-Income) 17,695 100% 40,220 100% 57,915 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 17,280 97.6% 36,660 91.1% 53,940 93.1% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 395 2.2% 3,350 8.3% 3,745 6.5% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 25 0.1% 215 0.5% 240 0.4% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total Households (a) 94,055 100% 84,130 100% 178,185 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 44,455 47.3% 58,450 69.5% 102,905 57.7% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 21,730 23.1% 14,165 16.8% 35,895 20.1% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 25,775 27.4% 10,770 12.8% 36,545 20.5% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 2,100 2.2% 760 0.9% 2,860 1.6% 63 Table 24: Housing Cost Burden by Income Category and Tenure, 2011-2015 (Page 2 of 2) Note:
(a) Totals may not match sums of component figures due to independent rounding.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2011-2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2018.
Renter-Occupied Units Owner-Occupied Units All Occupied Units State of California Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Household Income <=30% HAMFI (Extremely Low-Income) 1,480,830 100% 531,435 100% 2,012,265 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 157,890 10.7% 85,500 16.1% 243,390 12.1% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 169,240 11.4% 67,155 12.6% 236,395 11.7% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 1,027,440 69.4% 321,525 60.5% 1,348,965 67.0% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 126,260 8.5% 57,250 10.8% 183,510 9.1% Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI (Very Low-Income) 1,041,130 100% 625,410 100% 1,666,540 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 170,755 16.4% 229,950 36.8% 400,705 24.0% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 451,580 43.4% 135,995 21.7% 587,575 35.3% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 418,795 40.2% 259,460 41.5% 678,255 40.7% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI (Low-Income) 1,118,740 100% 989,925 100% 2,108,665 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 484,170 43.3% 463,890 46.9% 948,060 45.0% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 508,750 45.5% 293,735 29.7% 802,485 38.1% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 125,820 11.2% 232,300 23.5% 358,120 17.0% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Household Income >80% to <=120% HAMFI (Moderate-Income) 964,455 100% 1,290,605 100% 2,255,060 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 710,465 73.7% 774,075 60.0% 1,484,540 65.8% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 232,765 24.1% 390,645 30.3% 623,410 27.6% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 21,235 2.2% 125,885 9.8% 147,120 6.5% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Household Income >120% HAMFI (Above Moderate-Income) 1,203,465 100% 3,471,805 100% 4,675,270 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 1,141,810 94.9% 2,975,555 85.7% 4,117,365 88.1% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 58,855 4.9% 432,775 12.5% 491,630 10.5% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 2,790 0.2% 63,470 1.8% 66,260 1.4% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total Households (a) 5,808,625 100% 6,909,175 100% 12,717,800 100% With ≤ 30% Housing Cost Burden 2,665,090 45.9% 4,528,970 65.6% 7,194,060 56.6% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Housing Cost Burden 1,421,190 24.5% 1,320,305 19.1% 2,741,495 21.6% With > 50% Housing Cost Burden 1,596,080 27.5% 1,002,640 14.5% 2,598,720 20.4% Not Computed (No or Negative Income) 126,260 2.2% 57,250 0.8% 183,510 1.4% 64 Figure 15: Percent of Households with a Cost Burden Equal to 30 Percent of Income or More
Notes:
(a) Percentages include households that do not have a computed cost burden. (b) Households include both owner- and renter-occupied housing units.
Sources: HUD, CHAS, 2017 five-year data, 2019; U.S. Census Bureau, TIGER, 2018; BAE, 2019. 65 Figure 16: Percent of Households With a Cost Burden Equal to 50 Percent of Income or More
Notes:
(a) Percentages include households that do not have a computed cost burden. (b) Households include both owner- and renter-occupied housing units.
Sources: HUD, CHAS, 2017 five-year data, 2019; U.S. Census Bureau, TIGER, 2018; BAE, 2019. 66 Table 25: Overcrowded Households by Income Level and Tenure, 2011-2015 (Page 1 of 2) (a) Notes:
(a) CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits. HAMFI stands for HUD Area Median Family Income. (b) Totals may not match sums of component figures due to independent rounding.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2011-2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2018.
Renter-Occupied Units Owner-Occupied Units All Occupied Units City of Sacramento Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Household Income <=30% HAMFI (Extemely Low-Income) 27,170 100% 6,935 100% 34,105 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 24,455 90.0% 6,590 95.0% 31,045 91.0%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 2,040 7.5% 275 4.0% 2,315 6.8% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 675 2.5% 70 1.0% 745 2.2% Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI (Very Low-Income) 16,470 100% 8,095 100% 24,565 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 14,730 89.4% 7,610 94.0% 22,340 90.9%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 1,320 8.0% 330 4.1% 1,650 6.7% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 420 2.6% 155 1.9% 575 2.3% Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI (Low-Income) 17,105 100% 12,625 100% 29,730 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 15,850 92.7% 11,695 92.6% 27,545 92.7%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 965 5.6% 790 6.3% 1,755 5.9% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 290 1.7% 140 1.1% 430 1.4% Household Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI (Moderate-Income) 8,360 100% 8,645 100% 17,005 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 7,770 92.9% 8,370 96.8% 16,140 94.9%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 445 5.3% 245 2.8% 690 4.1% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 145 1.7% 30 0.3% 175 1.0% Household Income >100% HAMFI (Above Moderate-Income) 24,945 100% 47,825 100% 72,770 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 24,125 96.7% 47,025 98.3% 71,150 97.8%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 570 2.3% 605 1.3% 1,175 1.6% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 250 1.0% 195 0.4% 445 0.6% Total Households (b) 94,055 100% 84,130 100% 178,185 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 86,930 92.4% 81,290 96.6% 168,220 94.4%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 5,340 5.7% 2,245 2.7% 7,585 4.3% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 1,780 1.9% 590 0.7% 2,370 1.3% 67 Table 25: Overcrowded Households by Income Level and Tenure, 2011-2015 (Page 2 of 2) (a) Notes:
(a) CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits. HAMFI stands for HUD Area Median Family Income. (b) Totals may not match sums of component figures due to independent rounding.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2011-2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2018.
Renter-Occupied Units Owner-Occupied Units All Occupied Units State of California Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Household Income <=30% HAMFI (Extemely Low-Income) 1,480,830 100% 531,435 100% 2,012,265 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 1,238,955 83.7% 510,405 96.0% 1,749,360 86.9%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 139,155 9.4% 15,165 2.9% 154,320 7.7% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 102,720 6.9% 5,865 1.1% 108,585 5.4% Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI (Very Low-Income) 1,041,130 100% 625,405 100% 1,666,535 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 840,310 80.7% 585,360 93.6% 1,425,670 85.5%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 124,045 11.9% 29,265 4.7% 153,310 9.2% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 76,775 7.4% 10,780 1.7% 87,555 5.3% Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI (Low-Income) 1,118,745 100% 989,925 100% 2,108,670 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 949,210 84.8% 919,115 92.8% 1,868,325 88.6%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 110,510 9.9% 52,600 5.3% 163,110 7.7% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 59,025 5.3% 18,210 1.8% 77,235 3.7% Household Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI (Moderate-Income) 548,820 100% 666,010 100% 1,214,830 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 488,225 89.0% 625,155 93.9% 1,113,380 91.6%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 41,535 7.6% 31,465 4.7% 73,000 6.0% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 19,060 3.5% 9,390 1.4% 28,450 2.3% Household Income >100% HAMFI (Above Moderate-Income) 1,619,110 100% 4,096,405 100% 5,715,515 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 1,527,875 94.4% 3,992,020 97.5% 5,519,895 96.6%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 61,705 3.8% 79,115 1.9% 140,820 2.5% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 29,530 1.8% 25,270 0.6% 54,800 1.0% Total Households (b) 5,808,625 100% 6,909,175 100% 12,717,800 100% Up to 1 Person per Room 5,044,575 86.8% 6,632,055 96.0% 11,676,630 91.8%
1.01 to 1.50 Persons per Room (Overcrow ded) 476,950 8.2% 207,610 3.0% 684,560 5.4% More than 1.50 Persons Per Room (Severely Overcrow ded) 287,110 4.9% 69,515 1.0% 356,625 2.8% 68 Figure 17: Percent of Low-Income Households with >1 Person Per Room Notes:
(a) Low-income households include those that make 80 percent or less of HAMFI. (b) Overcrowded households include those that have more than one person per room.
Source: HUD, CHAS, 2017 five-year data, 2019; U.S. Census Bureau, TIGER, 2018; BAE, 2019. 69 Non-Residential Market
The following represents a brief summary of existing conditions in the non-residential real estate market. The analysis is subdivided by general land use type, including retail, office, and industrial space. Due to the rapidly changing development landscape in Sacramento, this analysis is largely limited to high level trends. Nonetheless, to the extent reasonably possible, this analysis does acknowledge some significant developments and/or happenings in the market, as documented in recent news articles and discussed in local broker reports.
Retail Market Conditions
Although significant population growth and relocation of households from the San Francisco Bay Area into the Sacramento market are driving strong increases in retail sales, as discussed earlier in this report, the rapid expansion of online retailing is resulting in changing consumer behaviors,40 and a slackening of demand for some types of traditional brick and mortar retail.
These trends are disproportionately impacting the region’s community and neighborhood shopping centers, while brokers report that demand remains strong among the region’s major destination and power centers, such as Delta Shores and the Fountains at Roseville.41 With lackluster demand for most community retail space, much of the recent leasing activity has been focused on bargain grocery, fitness centers and health clubs, and bars and restaurants. With the exception of restaurants, these uses are typically lower rent but more resilient to e-commerce. This shift in focus generally signals a change in management approach for many retail investors and property managers, including both small scale neighborhood and regional power centers, which emphasize experiential retail and food sales.
For example, the existing Bel Air shopping center at the intersection of Florin Road and Freeport Boulevard in South Sacramento is currently undergoing a significant makeover that emphasizes fitness and restaurant uses. Meanwhile, the redevelopment of the Howe ‘Bout Arden shopping center by SyWest Development has expanded the center’s offerings to include significantly more food and beverage options, in addition to discount retail and redevelopment of the outdated Century Theaters complex.
Central City Retail Revolution
The Sacramento submarket that best exemplifies this turn towards experiential retail and food service is the Central City. According to Colliers International, the Central City now has 68 bars and 139 restaurants.42 In addition, around 50 new retail business have opened or are planning to open since completion of the Golden 1 Center and the Downtown Commons (DoCo) in 2016, including the recently opened food hall known as The Bank. Brokers indicate
40 Same-day home delivery is changing the way many resident’s shop. Rather than stopping at a neighborhood shopping center on their way home from work, they can order products online and have them waiting for them. 41 The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) defines Power Regional centers as a specialized-purpose shopping center with dominant anchors including discount department stores, off-price stores, wholesale clubs, and with only a few small tenants.
42 Colliers International. (Q3 2018). Research & Forecast Report: Sacramento Retail. Available at:
70 that the key to successful retail in this environment is food service and local boutique branding. The Ice Blocks is another good example of this approach, with multiple locally branded restaurants, as well as Device Brewing Company, plus an assortment of locally and regionally based retailers (i.e., identifiable northern California based brands like Bonobos) and services (e.g., Pure Barre, Bishop’s Cuts, Pressed Juicery, etc.) that complement the national brand anchor tenant, West Elm, which is a lifestyle furniture and home goods store.
Other Market Fundamentals
Retail vacancy throughout the region peaked in 2010, following the onset of the Great Recession and has progressively declined to a regional average of 6.3 percent in 2018, and a local average of 7.4 percent in Sacramento. Brokers indicate that some of this decline in vacancy represents property owners who have taken underperforming retail centers and redeveloped them with alternative uses, such as multifamily housing. While this trend continues to some extent, increasing construction costs and improvements in the retail sector are acting as a disincentive to conversions.
On average, asking rents for retail space have declined significantly since 2010, both regionally and in Sacramento specifically. For example, the average asking rent in Sacramento in 2010 was $1.49 per square foot, triple net, according to CoStar. The average asking rent in 2018 was $1.29 per square foot, triple net. While average asking rents for newly developed space in some of the region’s destination power centers exceed $2.00 per square foot,43 rents among other smaller retail centers, which are less well positioned to resist the effects of ecommerce, have experienced ongoing downward pressure on rents.
Similar to rental rate trends, net absorption in Sacramento has fluctuated considerably from year-to-year since 2010. The first major injection of new inventory occurred in 2017, with the addition of 1.2 million square feet of new retail space. This generally reflected the opening of the Delta Shores shopping center, as well as continued expansion of the Central City retail submarket, including opening of new establishments in and around DoCo. Regional trends, meanwhile, show a more even increase in net absorption year-over-year since 2010, which also peaked in 2017 with a total of nearly 2.3 million square feet of new retail space, though 2018 year-to-date estimates indicate that the region added somewhere on the order of one million square feet of new retail, while the City added close to 400,000 square feet.
Based on the trend discussed above, it seems as though the Sacramento retail sector has found its stride amid the ever-evolving e-commerce landscape, for now. Sacramento should expect continued repositioning of smaller existing retail shopping centers that are in need of updating and refurbishment. To support this activity, the City may consider policies that allow retail centers to reduce the amount of surface parking provided, in exchange for additional
43 Ibid.
71 open space and outdoor seating. Some property owners could also use assistance in finding creative ways to re-tenant or subdivide vacant big box or anchor tenant spaces. However, the City should also be cautious of the over concentration of restaurant and bar type uses in some locations, recognizing that alcohol sales generally represent a large share of restaurant revenue.
Table 26: Retail Market Overview, 2010-2018 YTD
Notes:
(a) Reflects conditions as of December 2018.
(b) Average asking rents reflect NNN leases.
(c) Reflects new construction based on properties tracked by CoStar.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Office Market Conditions
The City of Sacramento is one of the region’s premier office markets, accounting for approximately 56 percent of the total regional inventory. While traditionally driven by demand from State government, the Sacramento office market is experiencing increasing demand from firms working in healthcare, technology, and education. While Class A office space remains the most in-demand market segment, a lack of available inventory is increasingly pushing prospective tenants into the Class B market. While still close to ten percent, office vacancy in Sacramento has reached a ten-year low. Although a case can be made for more speculative office development, builders remain hesitant due to rising construction and downtown land costs. Nonetheless, the market is seeing considerable build-to-suit activity.
City of Sacramento
Sacramento MSA
Summary, 2018 YTD (a)
Inventory (sf) 38,672,253 107,292,444
Occupied Stock (sf) 35,811,317 100,542,403
Vacant Stock (sf) 2,860,937 6,750,042
Vacancy Rate 7.4% 6.3%
Inventory (% of Sacramento MSA) 36.0%
Asking Rents (b)
Avg Asking Rent (psf), 2017 $1.27 $1.33
Avg Asking Rent (psf), 2018 YTD (a) $1.29 $1.38
% Change 1.6% 4.1%
Net Absorption
Net Absorption (sf), 2010 - 2017 1,047,563 7,350,912
Net Absorption (sf), 2018 YTD (a) 397,731 977,529
New Activity (c)
New Construction (sf), 2010-2017 1,906,968 5,182,921
New Construction (sf), 2018 YTD (a) 332,712 679,087
72 The bulk of the build-to-suit activity within the region is occurring in the medical services and medical tech segment. For example, Sacramento’s largest new office project is the new Centene campus in North Natomas, which broke ground in 2018 and will include 1.25 million square feet of new office space accommodating up to 5,000 workers (approximately 1,500 net new jobs).44 Sacramento can also expect significant new medical office demand following construction of the new 1.2 million square foot Kaiser Permanente medical center in the Railyards. The first phase of that development is expected to include a more than 300,000 square foot hospital, plus approximately 60,000 square feet of medical office. The second phase could double the amount of medical office space. With three major health systems, plus multiple major insurers and a major research university (i.e., the University of California, Davis), Sacramento may also be fairly well positioned to capture demand from biopharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and R&D establishments. Demand from this market segment is likely to be dispersed throughout the city and the region, including in the Central City and North Natomas, as well as Rancho Cordova, Rocklin, Roseville, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, and Orangevale, among other locations.
Sacramento is also experiencing considerable expansion of the Government office sector. The state of California is largely driving new construction of office space within the Central City and the River District. Much of this new activity represents replacement of existing State government offices. As of this writing, the State is about to break ground on the new 21-story 875,000 square foot Natural Resource Building and redevelopment of the existing California Department of Food and Agriculture Annex Building at 1215 O Street, which will include another 360,000 square feet of space. The State has also approved $460 million to fund development of a new Sacramento County Courthouse at 6th and G Street, behind the existing Federal Courthouse, which is expected to be complete in 2023. In the River District, the State is planning demolition of the Office of State Publishing Building at 7th and Richards to make room for a new one million square foot campus, which is anticipated for delivery in 2022.
Office Market Fundamentals
Brokers report that office vacancy in Sacramento reached a more than ten-year low at around
9.6 percent in 2018. The Sacramento market has absorbed approximately 1.7 million square feet of office space since 2010, including more than 400,000 square feet within the last year.
The relative success of the Heller Pacific project known as the Ice Blocks, including three high quality Class A leases totaling around 67,000 square feet, exemplifies the strength of the Class A market segment. However, a lack of new inventory is driving some tenants into the Class B market.
44 Rodd, Scott. (November 17, 2018). Sacramento Strikes Deal with Health Insurer That May Bring Up to 5,000 Jobs. The Sacramento Business Journal. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/ 2017/11/17/sacramento-strikes-deal-with-health-insurer-that.html 73 Corresponding with a steady decrease in local and regional vacancy, average asking rents in the office market increased steadily from a low of $1.71 in 2012, to a high of $1.94 in 2018 in Sacramento. Office rental rates in Sacramento generally track around three to four percentage points above the regional average.
Although brokers indicate that office lease rates are relatively high for this market, comparatively high and progressively increasing construction costs are discouraging the majority of developers from building new speculative space, which might otherwise be welcomed by the market. This may have implications for economic development, as a lack of available inventory can impede rapidly growing businesses that might otherwise create jobs within a jurisdiction, which are not otherwise inclined to wait for a build to suit project to be finished. Nonetheless, the Sacramento market currently features more than 5.6 million square feet of vacant office space which may be leveraged to meet the demands of expanding businesses, though not all of the available inventory may be suitable for immediate occupancy.
In terms of the breakdown of the exiting office inventory by submarket area, the Central City accounts for more than 44 percent of the city’s total inventory, and nearly one-quarter of the region’s total inventory, with a total of 25.6 million square feet of office space. The Arden Arcade Community Plan Area also represents an important submarket with approximately 9.8 million square feet of space, or 17 percent of the city’s inventory, and nine percent of the MSA’s inventory (refer to Appendix B for additional details).
Figure 18: Office Asking Rents and Vacancy Rates, City of Sacramento, 2010-2018 YTD
Sources: CoStar, 2018; BAE, 2018.
$1.89
$1.79
$1.73
$1.71
$1.74
$1.77
$1.81
$1.85
$1.94 13.4%
14.6% 14.6% 14.4%
13.5%
12.5%
11.2%
10.7%
9.6%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
$1.55
$1.60
$1.65
$1.70
$1.75
$1.80
$1.85
$1.90
$1.95
$2.00
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Vacancy Rate
Average Asking Rent (psf)
Average Asking Rents Vacancy Rate
74 Table 27: Office Market Overview, 2010-2018 YTD
Notes:
(a) Reflects conditions as of December 2018.
(b) Average asking rents reflect a Gross leases structure. (c) Reflects new construction based on properties tracked by CoStar.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Industrial Market Conditions
Real estate brokers active in the industrial market indicate that the region is experiencing robust demand for industrial and warehouse space that is fairly evenly distributed throughout the various regional submarkets. Six of the region’s largest submarkets are located within the City of Sacramento, including the Central City, McClellan, Natomas, Northeast Sacramento, Power Inn Road, and South Sacramento. In total, the city features more than 66.1 million square feet of industrial space, which represents approximately 46 percent of the regional market. The largest submarket in the region is the Power Inn Road area, which features more than 24.4 million square feet of industrial space, followed by West Sacramento, Woodland, McClellan, Sunrise/Rancho Cordova, and Natomas, among other key markets. Central Sacramento, including both Downtown, the Railyards, and the River District, features approximately 7.1 million square feet of industrial space.
Brokers indicate that the majority of the recent expansion of regional industrial inventory is taking place in the West Sacramento, Woodland, and the Lincoln, Roseville, and Rocklin areas.
West Sacramento is experiencing strong demand from the logistics sector due availability of port facilities, proximity to three major freeways, relatively inexpensive land, and proximity to City of Sacramento
Sacramento MSA
Summary, 2018 YTD (a)
Inventory (sf) 58,842,560 104,069,603
Occupied Stock (sf) 53,197,378 93,871,508
Vacant Stock (sf) 5,645,182 10,198,095
Vacancy Rate 9.6% 9.8%
Inventory (% of Sacramento MSA) 56.5%
Asking Rents (b)
Avg Asking Rent (psf), 2017 $1.85 $1.78
Avg Asking Rent (psf), 2018 YTD (a) $1.94 $1.86
% Change 4.6% 4.2%
Net Absorption
Net Absorption (sf), 2010 - 2017 1,311,714 6,195,997
Net Absorption (sf), 2018 YTD (a) 417,073 549,300
New Activity (c)
New Construction (sf), 2010-2017 525,861 2,186,291
New Construction (sf), 2018 YTD (a) 150,092 246,790
75 the core Sacramento regional market. Other areas like Roseville/Rocklin are similarly attractive due to easy freeway access and proximity to the rail facilities at the J.R. Davis Yard.
Development in the area known as the Metro Air Park, adjacent to the Sacramento International Airport (SMF), is similarly attractive to companies like Amazon.com due to freeway access, air freight facilities, and proximity to a robust consumer base.
The Changing Industrial Landscape
The industrial real estate market within the City of Sacramento is experiencing a period of significant transition. Historical industrial areas, such as the Union Pacific Railyards, the River District, and the western portion of the Broadway corridor are transitioning away from industrial uses to accommodate more residential, office, retail, and recreational uses. The largest such project is obviously the Railyards redevelopment, which will convert the former railroad yard to accommodate up to 10,000 new housing units, more than 500,000 square feet of retail, up to 3.9 million square feet of office space, a 1.2 million square foot medical center, 1,100 hotel rooms, more than 30 acres of open space and a possible major league soccer stadium. Similarly, the western Broadway corridor has already begun transitioning to accommodate new housing, like the Mill at Broadway, which redeveloped a former lumber mill facility to accommodate medium density workforce housing. The River District is likewise positioned to redevelop from a predominantly industrial district to a mix of residential, State and private office, and retail uses.
The Cannabis Industry
At the same time that industrial uses are relocating out of the City’s historic industrial districts, the city is experiencing significant new industrial demand in places like Power Inn Road and near the McClellan Business and Industrial Park. Brokers anticipate that a majority of the region’s near term new deal flow is likely to be generated though industrial activity in these two locations.45 One of the primary drivers of demand, particularly in the Power Inn Road area is expansion of the legal cannabis industry.46 Following passage of the “Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (AUMA), or Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana in 2016, the industry expanded rapidly in the area, occupying large volumes of space and rapidly driving up lease rates in the surrounding area. The area has become an attractive destination for a mix of cannabis cultivators, distributors, manufacturers, and delivery dispensaries, effectively creating a small cannabis-related industry cluster. However, the rapid expansion of the industry in the area has also prompted the Power Inn Alliance to
45 Chang, John. (Midyear 2017). Industrial Research Market Report. Marcus & Millichap. Available at:
https://www.marcusmillichap.com/research/researchreports/reports/2017/07/12/sacramento-industrialresearch-report 46 Rodd, Scott. (January 3, 2019). Power Play: How the Power Inn Alliance Influenced the City’s Approach to Cannabis”. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2019/01/03/power-play-how-the-powerinn-alliance-influenced.html?ana=e_mc_prem&s=newsletter&ed=2019-01- 04&u=jkGEganSI4SroNszQZtNbDMiSLI&t=1546624504&j=85851181 76 lobby the City to better regulate the industry and encourage a wider distribution of cannabis related facilities throughout the city, citing impacts on industrial vacancy and rents and the competitive effects on traditional industrial users in need of space. The cannabis industry is showing significant activity elsewhere in Sacramento as well, notably in the Southeast Sacramento area, with the approved $50 million We Grow California cannabis campus.47 Other Market Fundamentals
Beyond the myriad issues and opportunities identified above, the industrial market in Sacramento and the broader region is quite robust. Surging demand and a relative lack of newly constructed inventory continues to drive down the industrial vacancy rate, which now sits at just 4.3 percent. The majority of the new demand within the region is coming from the trade, transportation, and utilities sector, with additional demand coming from manufacturing businesses, including some high-tech manufacturing. This is in addition to demand from the cannabis industry, which is expanding rapidly within the market and possibly even crowding out other industrial demand that might otherwise be captured in Sacramento. Brokers indicate that much of the industrial demand in the region is spillover from the Bay Area market, which is experiencing a shortage of industrial space as lower value industrial buildings get displaced by higher value housing and office developments. This has driven significant net absorption since 2010, which totaled more than 11 million square feet throughout the MSA, and more than 5.1 million square feet within the City of Sacramento alone.
Strong demand, low vacancy, and robust net absorption figures are driving speculative construction of new industrial space throughout the market. The City of Sacramento has seen net absorption of over 1.5 million square feet each year since 2015, with absorption in 2017 reaching nearly 2.1 million square feet. New industrial completions in Sacramento have generally lagged the broader region, but reached nearly 1.2 million square feet in 2017.
Corresponding with this robust increase in demand for industrial space, average asking rents increased significantly since 2016. Until then, rents had remained relatively stable at around $0.35 per square foot, triple-net. Over the last three years, rents have nearly doubled to more than $0.60 per square foot in the city, and to around $0.52 region wide.
47 Rodd, Scott. (October 17, 2019). Construction could begin within weeks on $50M cannabis campus in southeast Sacramento. Sacramento Business Journal. Available at:
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/10/17/construction-could-begin-within-weeks-on-50m.html 77 Table 28: Industrial Market Overview, 2010-2018 YTD
Notes:
(a) Reflects conditions as of December 2018.
(b) Average asking rents reflect NNN leases.
(c) Reflects new construction based on properties tracked by CoStar.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; BAE, 2018.
City of Sacramento
Sacramento MSA
Summary, 2018 YTD (a)
Inventory (sf) 66,134,142 155,113,669
Occupied Stock (sf) 63,275,895 148,192,557
Vacant Stock (sf) 2,858,248 6,921,112
Vacancy Rate 4.3% 4.5%
Inventory (% of Sacramento MSA) 42.6%
Asking Rents (b)
Avg Asking Rent (psf), 2017 $0.45 $0.42
Avg Asking Rent (psf), 2018 YTD (a) $0.61 $0.52
% Change 34.8% 23.4%
Net Absorption
Net Absorption (sf), 2010 - 2017 5,105,617 11,035,126
Net Absorption (sf), 2018 YTD (a) (127,129) 3,341,874
New Activity (c)
New Construction (sf), 2010-2017 1,321,735 4,179,402
New Construction (sf), 2018 YTD (a) 0 861,788
78 Planned and Proposed Projects
While the pace of new real estate development in Sacramento slowed during the Great Recession, the long recovery has renewed optimism regarding local market fundamentals and has demonstrated the depth of demand for a variety of use types throughout the City.
Sacramento has a significant pipeline of development projects that are seeking entitlements or are actively pursuing construction. Entitlements in Sacramento are considered “active” for three years following issuance, after which the developer must apply for an extension. Tables Table 29 through Table 32 summarize the current inventory of residential and non-residential real estate development projects with active entitlements.48 The data were compiled by City staff and represent the City’s best effort to track projects with active Planning and Building permit applications or approvals. BAE organized the data based on land use type and project status.
Residential Planned and Proposed Projects
As of late-2018, there were approximately 19,765 housing units in the development pipeline in the City of Sacramento. Most of these units were in projects that were either seeking or had obtained Planning Department approvals. For example, 68 percent of the planned residential units were in projects that already received Planning Department approvals, while another 28 percent were in projects that had applied for Planning Department permits and were in the review process. Only a small portion of planned and proposed residential units, around four percent, were in projects that either applied for or received building permits. This indicates that developers with interests in Sacramento are positioned to deliver a relatively large number of new units in the coming years compared to the number of units currently being delivered onto the market.
Roughly half of the proposed residential units were single-family structures, with more than three fourths being located in Natomas. These units were typically part of large-scale master planned communities or Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). The largest PUDs (i.e., with more than 1,000 new units) are The Panhandle and Greenbriar developments in North Natomas.
The Panhandle master-planned community located north of Del Paso Road and south of Elkhorn Boulevard proposes to add 1,662 new single-family units to the city’s housing stock, while the Greenbriar master planned community, located between Interstate 5, Highway 99 and Metro Air Park, proposes to add 2,172 new homes to the city’s housing stock. Developers for both projects anticipate that initial construction could begin sometime in 2019.49 50
48 The inventory of planned and proposed development projects is current as of December 2018, per City staff. 49 Van der Meer, Ben. (June 18, 2018). Panhandle Annexation to Sac Lined Up for September Vote. Sacramento Business Journal. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/06/18/panhandleannexation-to-sac-lined-up-for-september.html 50 Van der Meer, Ben. (May 1, 2018). Greenbriar Project in Sacramento Could See First Work This Year.
Sacramento Business Journal. Available at:
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/05/01/greenbriar-project-in-sacramento-could-seefirst.html 79 Another 46 percent of Sacramento’s residential pipeline was in standalone or mixed-use multifamily projects. Based on the City’s classifications, most multifamily consist of apartment units, though some projects may include condominium units. These projects range in size from smaller infill projects with fewer than 100 units (mostly in the Central City), to larger developments with hundreds of units in less built-out areas like North and South Natomas, and the South Area. The area around the CSUS campus, near the intersection of Folsom Boulevard and 65th Avenue is also attracting some new multifamily housing development, though most of the new projects in this area specifically targets students.
The largest proposed multifamily project, known as Arden Gateway, is a joint venture between SKK Development, the Grupe Co. and DeBartolo Development and is currently seeking approval for a 734-unit apartment complex. If constructed, it would be Sacramento’s second largest apartment complex behind the Woodlands in South Natomas.51 Other notable multifamily projects include The Press Building and 19J, both of which are currently under construction. The Press Building is a mixed-use multi-family residential project also by SKK Developments and DeBartolo Development Co. which consists of 253 apartments on the former Sacramento Bee parking lot at 1714 21st Street.52 The 19J project by Mohanna Development is Sacramento’s first microunit development, consisting of 175 mostly studio rental units that are as small as 400 square feet in size.53 In August 2018, Mohanna Development submitted plans for another microunit project at on K Street which will be 15 stories and include a hotel and co-living units similar to those targeting students being constructed around CSUS.54
City staff indicate that only around six percent of the planned new residential units in the City would be in condominium projects. Most of these units are in medium density workforce housing projects like The Mill at Broadway in upper Land Park, Artesian Square Condominiums in North Natomas, and the Cottages at Laguna in the South Area. The highest density proposed condominium project is the 25-story 242-unit Cathedral Square development in the Central City on the corner of 11th and J Streets. As mentioned previously, medium density condominium projects can provide more affordable ownership opportunities; however, they
51 Van der Meer, Ben. (December 11, 2018). Apartment Project Site Near Arden Fair Sold. Sacramento Business Journal. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/12/11/apartment-project-site-neararden-fairsold.html 52 Bizjak, Tony and Lillis, Ryan. (April 28, 2018). It’s Sacramento’s Biggest Apartment Complex in Decades. Will It Solve Downtown Housing Woes?. The Sacramento Bee. Available at:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article208682639.html 53 Micro units typically include small studio apartments, usually less than 350 square feet, with fully functioning and assessable kitchen and bathroom facilities which often rent for less than conventional units. Microunits are increasingly seen as one option for providing non-deed restricted affordable workforce housing. 54 Van der Meer, Ben. (August 21, 2018). Mohanna Files Plans for Hotel and Apartments at 10th and K.
Sacramento Business Journal. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/08/20/ mohannas-file-plans-for-hotel-and-apartments-at.html
80 comprise a relatively small portion of the city’s residential pipeline. Other planned condominium projects aim towards the higher end of the market, such as CADA’s Site 21.
It is worth noting that there at least six projects in the residential pipeline that will provide below market rate (BMR) units. The Twin Rivers Redevelopment project, a joint development in the River District by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) and development firm McCormack Baron Salazar, is currently underway and will replace 218 existing rent restricted units with 486 mixed-income units, resulting in a net increase of 268 new units.55 The Lavender Courtyard project, an LGBTQ friendly affordable housing development for seniors,56 would add 54 units on the southeast corner of 16th and F Street in the Central City.57 In addition, the Capitol Area Development Authority (CADA) Site 21 project will include 22 below market rate units in a multistory condominium project. Although exact unit totals are not available, the 1717 S Street, Del Paso Nuevo, and North Natomas projects will also include at least some below market rate housing units.
Table 29: Planned and Proposed Residential Units by Project Status, City of Sacramento
Notes:
(a) To the extent possible, figures in this table represent the number of net new housing units for projects with active Planning Department entitlements or building permits as of late-2018. (b) Represents the number of units for which the City specifically identified the unit type as condominium. Figures presented in the Multifamily and Mixed-Use columns may also include condominium units that the City did not explicitly identify as such.
Sources: City of Sacramento, 2019; BAE, 2019.
55 Bizjak, Tony. (July 23, 2017). Why Sacramento Plans to Demolish and Replace and Entire Neighborhood. The Sacramento Bee. Available at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estatenews/article163046558.html 56 LGBTQ is an initialism that means lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning. 57 Van der Meer, Ben. (October 6, 2017). Mutual Housing Woodland Project Moved Ahead, Not So Fast for Lavender Courtyard. Sacramento Business Journal. Available at:
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2017/10/06/mutual-housing-woodland-project-moves-ahead-notso.html Project Type (# of Units) (a)
1 or 2 Family/
Project Status 2nd Unit Multifamily Condominium (b) Mixed-Use Total % of Total Planning Approvals in In Process 1,442 2,722 300 1,091 5,555 28.1% Received Planning Approvals 7,764 2,357 842 2,414 13,377 67.7% Applied for Building Permit 52 53 42 0 147 0.7%
Building Permit Approved 217 33 0 436 686 3.5%
Total 9,475 5,165 1,184 3,941 19,765 100.0%
81 Table 30: Planned and Proposed Residential Units by Community Plan Area, City of Sacramento
Notes:
(a) To the extent possible, figures in this table represent the number of net new housing units for projects with active Planning Department entitlements or building permits as of late-2018. (b) Represents the number of units for which the City specifically identified the unit type as condominium. Figures presented in the Multifamily and Mixed-Use columns may also include condominium units that the City did not explicitly identify as such.
Sources: City of Sacramento, 2019; BAE, 2019.
In addition to the planned development projects discussed above, there is capacity within previously entitled PUDs and Specific Plan areas for development of an additional 19,800 units. Please note that this includes only those PUDs and Specific Plan Areas that City staff expect to build out during the General Plan time horizon. Some of the largest of these include the Railyards Specific Plan, Township 9 PUD, and Delta Shores development. Other PUDs and Specific Plan Areas with remaining capacity include Sutter Park, Northwest Land Park (The Mill at Broadway), Crocker Village, Aspen 1-New Brighton, Del Paso Nuevo Phases 5 and 6, Shasta 10, Sacramento Commons, The Creamery, Calistoga, and Natomas Field. Roughly two-thirds of these units are loosely defined as “mixed-use residential,” indicating they will be part of a larger master planned community that includes other commercial elements, but for which exact unit counts are not available. The remaining one-third will be single-family structures.
Non-Residential Planned and Proposed
There were approximately 200 projects that include non-residential development in the City’s planning pipeline as of the end of 2018. This included approximately 7.5 million square feet of non-residential development, plus 1,646 hotel rooms. Nearly 60 percent of the planned non-residential floor area had already been permitted, with another 35 percent still under planning review. At the time, developers were actively seeking or had received building permits for only around 6.5 percent of the planned non-residential floor area. As described in more detail below, most of the new non-residential development planned in the City was concentrated in office, industrial, and residential mixed-use projects.
Project Type (# of Units) (a)
1 or 2 Family/
Community Plan Area 2nd Unit Multifamily Condominium (b) Mixed-Use Total % of Total Arden Arcade 3 779 0 0 782 4.0%
Central City 223 878 242 3,169 4,512 22.8%
East Sacramento 384 343 0 430 1,157 5.9%
Fruitridge/Broadw ay 310 278 0 236 824 4.2%
Land Park 239 28 581 14 862 4.4%
North Natomas 6,352 1,684 299 0 8,335 42.2%
North Sacramento 626 131 0 0 757 3.8%
Pocket 3 0 0 0 3 0.0%
South Area 275 496 62 92 925 4.7%
South Natomas 1,060 548 0 0 1,608 8.1%
Total 9,475 5,165 1,184 3,941 19,765 100.0%
82 Table 31: Non-Residential Planned and Proposed Projects by Project Status, City of Sacramento (a) Notes:
(a) To the extent possible, figures presented in this table represent gross new floor area and number of hotel rooms for projects that have or are in the process of obtaining active Planning Department entitlements or building permits as of late-2018. The square footage figures report new gross floor area, and do not account for floor area demolished as part of the development process. To the extent possible, parking structures are excluded from the reported square footage figures. (b) Represents planned or proposed retail floor area in commercial centers or standalone locations. (c) Represents commercial mixed-use projects for which the City provided data does not explicitly define the commercial use type, but which likely includes some combination of office and/or retail use
(d) Represents retail floor area in residential mixed-use projects where the City provided data explicitly identified the new commercial use as retail. (e) Represents commercial floor area in residential mixed-use projects where the City provided data does not explicitly define the commercial use type, but which likely includes some combination of office and/or retail. Up to 116,801 square feet of the total Residential Mixed-Use Commercial square feet includes a 205-key hotel, which is also accounted for in the number of hotel rooms column.
(f) Represents new commercial floor area for use types that do not easily fit into the previously summarized categories, including: adult and child day care centers; entertainment venues such as the Powerhouse Science Center and Sacramento the Community Center Theater expansion; medical facilities such as residential care facilities and hospital expansions (though medical office buildings are included in "Office"); gas stations and car washes; churches and other places of worship; and City projects such as new fire stations and public park facilities. (g) Six hotel projects totaling 301,351 square feet did not detail the number of proposed or approved rooms. (h) Up to 116,801 square feet may include a 205-key hotel component of a residential mixed-use project already accounted for in the hotel room count.
Sources: City of Sacramento, 2019; BAE, 2019.
Project Type (Sq. Ft.)
Total Sq. Ft.
Mixed-Use Res. Mixed- Res. Mixed-Use Hotel (# of (Exlcuding Project Status Retail (b) Office Industrial Commercial (c) Use Retail (d) Commercial (e) Other (f) Rooms)(g) Hotels) (h) Planning Approvals in Process 354,039 526,880 687,840 25,000 12,328 957,269 48,912 1,062 2,612,268 Received Planning Approvals 302,940 1,568,740 1,216,086 141,345 85,354 358,217 753,248 185 4,425,930 Applied for Building Permit 108,299 50,020 147,210 0 0 0 69,580 170 375,109 Building Permit Approved 5,723 20,270 14,740 0 1,523 0 75,417 229 117,673 Total 771,001 2,165,910 2,065,876 166,345 99,205 1,315,486 947,157 1,646 7,530,980 83 Table 32: Non-Residential Planned and Proposed Projects by Community Plan Area, City of Sacramento (a) Notes:
(a) To the extent possible, figures presented in this table represent gross new floor area and number of hotel rooms for projects that have or are in the process of obtaining active Planning Department entitlements or building permits as of late-2018. The square footage figures report new gross floor area, and do not account for floor area demolished as part of the development process. To the extent possible, parking structures are excluded from the reported square footage figures. (b) Represents planned or proposed retail floor area in commercial centers or standalone locations. (c) Represents commercial mixed-use projects for which the City provided data does not explicitly define the commercial use type, but which likely includes some combination of office and/or retail use
(d) Represents retail floor area in residential mixed-use projects where the City provided data explicitly identified the new commercial use as retail. (e) Represents commercial floor area in residential mixed-use projects where the City provided data does not explicitly define the commercial use type, but which likely includes some combination of office and/or retail. Up to 116,801 square feet of the total Residential Mixed-Use Commercial square feet includes a 205-key hotel, which is also accounted for in the number of hotel rooms column.
(f) Represents new commercial floor area for use types that do not easily fit into the previously summarized categories, including: adult and child day care centers; entertainment venues such as the Powerhouse Science Center and Sacramento the Community Center Theater expansion; medical facilities such as residential care facilities and hospital expansions (though medical office buildings are included in "Office"); gas stations and car washes; churches and other places of worship; and City projects such as new fire stations and public park facilities. (g) Six hotel projects totaling 301,351 square feet did not detail the number of proposed or approved rooms. (h) Up to 116,801 square feet may include a 205-key hotel component of a residential mixed-use project already accounted for in the hotel room count.
Sources: City of Sacramento, 2019; BAE, 2019.
Project Type (Sq. Ft.)
Total Sq. Ft.
Mixed-Use Res. Mixed-Use Res. Mixed-Use Hotel (# of (Exlcuding Community Plan Area Retail Office Industrial Commercial (b) Retail (c) Commercial (d) Other (e) Rooms) (f) Hotels) (g) Arden Arcade 47,201 265,280 167,460 0 0 0 2,915 0 482,856 Central City 76,887 261,600 190,358 38,100 93,200 1,283,146 242,181 792 2,185,472 East Sacramento 9,412 0 175,014 0 4,005 13940 138,104 0 340,475 Fruitridge/Broadw ay 67,732 108,075 787,396 39,900 2,000 6,000 75,252 0 1,086,355 Land Park 224,945 0 8,670 0 0 7000 29,676 0 270,291
North Natomas 122,307 1,282,860 39,529 88,345 0 0 88,328 776 1,621,369 North Sacramento 20,400 76,636 568,339 0 0 0 93,259 0 758,634 Pocket 35,827 0 0 0 0 0 101,673 0 137,500
South Area 166,290 15,200 129,110 0 0 5400 166,458 78 482,458 South Natomas 0 156,259 0 0 0 0 9,311 0 165,570
Total 771,001 2,165,910 2,065,876 166,345 99,205 1,315,486 947,157 1,646 7,530,980 84 For example, approximately 2.1 million square feet of new non-residential floor area was planned for development in office projects. This accounted for around 29 percent of total planned non-residential development. Most of this new space was planned for development in either North or South Natomas. This included the 1.2 million square foot Centene campus in North Natomas, which represents the more than half of the city’s office pipeline. Another 150,543 square feet of new office development was planned in the Natomas Corporate Center east of Interstate 5 and the River Plaza Office Building at 2500 River Plaza Drive.58 Major office projects not represented in this inventory include those being developed by the State of California, including the new Natural Resources Building and redevelopment of the California Department of Food and Agriculture Annex Building, which together will add an additional 1.2 million square feet of office space to the city’s Central City inventory. In the River District, the State Plans to demolish the existing Office of State Publishing and construct a new one million square foot campus that would be ready for occupancy by 2024.59 Another two million square feet of non-residential development was planned as part of dedicated industrial developments. This represented around 27 percent of the total planned non-residential development pipeline. These projects were generally distributed throughout the city, with the Power Inn Road area and North Sacramento capturing nearly 70 percent of new industrial floor area. Approximately 40 percent of this planned new industrial space was intended for commercial self-storage storage use. Another 14 percent was planned for cannabis related uses, such as cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution. This cannabis related industrial development was mainly concentrated in North Sacramento, Fruitridge/Broadway, and Arden Arcade Community Plan Areas, with some additional new space planned in Land Park.
In addition to the dedicated office and industrial projects discussed above, there was approximately 771,001 square feet of new retail floor area planned or proposed for development in Sacramento, which accounts for approximately 10 percent of the nonresidential development pipeline. These projects were relatively well dispersed throughout the city, with approximately 41 percent of the new retail floor area located in planned power or specialty shopping centers. These included the Railyards in the Central City (51,750 square feet), the Natomas Fountains development in North Natomas (115,960 square feet), and the Delta Shores development in South Sacramento (150,000 square feet). Other notable retail developments include Crocker Village, a new 77,000 square foot neighborhood serving retail center in Land Park, and the redevelopment of a number of other neighborhood serving retail
58 Van der Meer, Ben. (2017). South Natomas Sees Another New Office Building Proposal. Sacramento Business Journal. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2017/02/10/south-natomas-sees-anothernew-office-building.html 59 Van der Meer, Ben. (December 17, 2018). State Office Complex in River District Could Include 29-Story Building.
Sacramento Business Journal. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/12/17/stateoffice-complex-in-river-district-could.html 85 centers, such as the Bel Air center on Florin Road. There was also another 99,205 square feet of retail planned as part of residential mixed-use projects in the Central City, East Sacramento, and Fruitridge/Broadway Community Plan Areas. This accounted for only 1.3 percent of Sacramento’s non-residential pipeline. Most residential mixed-use projects incorporate just a few thousand square feet of neighborhood serving retail along with residential uses. A proposed grocery store at 2001 L Street accounts for the largest mixed-use retail project, with 40,578 square feet of retail proposed.60
There was another 1.3 million square feet of commercial space planned in residential mixeduse projects which have not yet identified how the commercial space will be used (e.g., office, industrial, retail, etc.). All of these projects have, or were in the process of, obtaining Planning Department approvals. These residential mixed-use projects were generally concentrated in the Central City, which accounted for approximately 97.5 percent of planned or proposed commercial space in residential mixed-use projects. The largest mixed-use commercial project was Tower 301 at 301 Capitol Avenue. The Developer, CIM Group, was proposing a 33-story building with a mix of Class A office space, apartments, and ground floor retail.61 Other larger mixed-use residential projects include The Metropolitan at the corner of 10th and J Streets where developers SKK Developments, the Grupe Co., and Sacca Development envision a mixed-use project with ground floor retail, a 200-room hotel, and 250 apartments. In 2018 the development team requested an entitlement extension and plan to submit new project details in the near future.62 Mixed-use projects without residential components tend to be concentrated in the North Natomas (88,345 square feet), Fruitridge/Broadway (39,900 square feet), and Central City Community Plan Areas. The Innovate Corporate Center at 2599 Arena Boulevard in North Natomas represents the largest commercial mixed-use project, with 63,345 square feet of hotel, office, and related facilities. Other notable projects included Gateway West in North Natomas, the Tribute Building at 1926 Capitol Avenue in the Central City; and Triangle Workspace Development at 3400 Broadway in the Fruitridge/Broadway Community Plan Area.
In addition to the development projects described above, there was approximately 947,157 square feet of new development that does not easily fit into established non-residential land use categories. This included 34,181 square feet in places of worship; 44,542 square feet of new adult and child daycare facilities; 47,424 square feet of automotive related uses such as gasoline stations, service stations and car washes; 101,000 square feet of entertainment
60 Chang, Richard. (September 28, 2016). Whole Foods Opts Out of Midtown Sacramento Lease After Developer Misses ‘Milestones’. The Sacramento Bee. Available at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estatenews/article104713441.html 61 Van der Meer, Ben. (November 14, 2018). Tower 301 Concept Released for 301 Capitol Mall (Renderings).
Sacramento Business Journal. Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2018/11/14/tower301-concept-released-for-301-capitol-mall.html 62 Bizjak, Tony and Lillis, Ryan. (July 12, 2018). Is a Planned 40-Story Tower in Downtown Sacramento Finally on Track?. The Sacramento Bee. Available at: https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article214774190.html 86 uses including the Powerhouse Science Center and Sacramento Community Theater Expansion; 108,688 square feet of City sponsored projects such as new fire stations and recreation facilities; and 611,322 square feet of new medical facilities including residential care facilities and the Kaiser South hospital expansion.
Federal Opportunity Zone Program
Another factor that may influence the pace of new development in Sacramento through the General Plan planning period are investments in newly created Opportunity Zones. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 created a new system of federal tax incentives meant to spur investment in undercapitalized communities known as Opportunity Zones.
Opportunity Zones were established by the federal government in cooperation the state governors through a nomination and designation process. To qualify for nomination, a Census Tract had to meet the following minimum requirements:
- A poverty rate of at least 20 percent; or
- A median family income of no more than 80 percent of the median for the state or metropolitan area.
Up to 25 percent of the Census Tracts that met the above criteria could be nominated, along with an additional five percent of adjacent contiguous Census tracts, so long as the median income of the adjacent Tract was no more than 125 percent of the adjacent Opportunity Zone.
As illustrated in Figure 19, there are 31 Opportunity Zones that are either partially or completely located in the existing Sacramento City Limits. Around half of the Opportunity Zone Census Tracts are located in South Sacramento, mostly along the Hwy 99 corridor, as well as in the Power Inn Road area. There are also six Opportunity Zone Census Tracts located in or near the Central City, including parts of Upper Land Park and South Side Park, as well as the area around the Capitol, DoCo, the Railyards, and the River District. There are also another 10 designated Census Tracts covering the Arden Arcade, Del Paso Boulevard, Gardenland, Del Paso Heights, North Sacramento, and North Natomas areas.
The establishment of Opportunity Zones is intended to spur economic development through the provision of certain tax benefits to investors, which can draw investment into communities that might otherwise experience lower levels of investment. These investments are facilitated through Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs), which must invest at least 90 percent of their assets within Opportunity Zones and must double their investment within the 30 months. For example, if a property is purchased by a QOF for $500,000, the QOF must invest another $500,000 into that property within 30 months. If the investment is held for longer than five years, investors can defer up to ten percent of the capital gains on the investment. The tax benefits increase to 15 percent after seven years. If the investment is held for at least ten 87 years, investors are eligible to increase the basis of the QOF investment to the fair market value on the date the QOF investment is sold or exchanged.
The primary objective of the Opportunity Zone program is to encourage investment in qualified assets in areas that normally would likely not receive such investment. However, capturing the promise of Opportunity zones requires local communities to establish and build relationships with QOF and to market local opportunities to investors. Some ways that communities are working to leverage the Opportunity Zone program include:
1) Develop an Investment Prospectus to showcase assets and investment opportunities in Qualified Opportunity Zones;
2) Ensure that investments in infrastructure being made in Opportunity Zones and/or through QOFs are high quality and meet performance/sustainability standards; 3) Market opportunities that leverage investments that are being made by key anchor institutions, like government agencies, companies, and universities; 4) Align local government investments with competitive assets located or under development in Opportunity Zones;
5) Facilitate opportunities for QOF investment in local entrepreneurship and development through access to capital, technical assistance, mentoring, and legal services, etc.; 6) Support QOF investments and local community and economic development through alignment of education and workforce development initiatives; 7) Facilitate development and preservation of affordable and workforce housing; 8) Other approaches that can help to align public interests and resources with the robust investment vehicles created by QOFs.
88 Figure 19: Census Tracts Designated as Opportunity Zones Sources: City of Sacramento, Opportunity Zones, 2019; U.S. Census Bureau, TIGER, 2018; BAE, 2019. 89 ANTICIPATED GROWTH AND MARKET
OPPORTUNITIES
The following section discusses long-term growth projections for the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade MSA through 2040. The data are based on the Discussion Draft and Draft Preferred Scenario forecasts provided by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) in January of 2019 during the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) update.63 The data reflect a 2016 base year. In cases where this analysis calculates anticipated growth from 2018 onward, the 2018 estimates are based on the average annual growth rates that are implicit to SACOG’s 2016 base year projection set. The Draft Preferred Scenario projections include only housing units and jobs by industry category. To provide additional insight into anticipated population and household growth, this analysis refers to the Discussion Draft projections of population and households for the City of Sacramento, as well as additional county-level population projections data published by the California Department of Finance (DOF). The analysis also relies on the distribution of jobs by land use type from the Discussion Draft projections set.
Demographic and Economic Forecast
Population and Household Growth
SACOG provided BAE with a copy of the internal Discussion Draft projections for the City of Sacramento in late 2018, ahead of the release of the projections associated with the Draft Preferred Scenario, which were published in January of 2019. According to the Discussion Draft figures, the City of Sacramento could be expected to add new residents at a rate of approximately 1.1 percent per year. If realized, this would mean that the city is likely to add somewhere on the order of 140,000 new residents between 2016 and 2040. This is roughly consistent with the total growth that could be expected if the city roughly maintains its current share of the total regional population, as estimated by BAE using the county-level population growth projections published by the DOF.
The Discussion Draft projections provided by SACOG assume a gradual decrease in the average household size in the City of Sacramento. As a result, SACOG anticipates that the city could add almost 70,000 new households between 2016 and 2018. If the average household sizes assumed in the SACOG projections are applied to city-level population estimates derived from the count-level DOF projections, the results are similar.
63 Although the projections data used for this analysis were the most up-to-date as of this writing, the figures were still preliminary. As such, they may not match the final land use assumptions used for the final 2020 MTP and SCS. 90 Residential Demand
The draft projections provided by SACOG for the Preferred Scenario include only housing units and jobs. According to these data, which are presented in Table 33 below, the City of Sacramento is likely to experience demand sufficient to absorb approximately 73,520 new housing units between 2016 and 2040. Housing demand growth is expected to occur at an annual rate of 1.3 percent, which is slightly higher than the projected population growth rate discussed above. Adjusting from a 2016 base year to a 2018 base year, based on the average annual growth rate implied within the data set, the city could expect demand sufficient to absorb approximately 68,253 new housing units between 2018 and 2040.
As discussed earlier in this report, there are just under 19,800 housing units currently planned and proposed for development in Sacramento, including around 9,500 single-family homes and more than 10,000 multifamily housing units (including apartments and condominium units). This is equal to approximately 27 percent of the projected demand through 2040.
Assuming that future demand mirrors the current distribution of housing between single-family and multifamily structures, the current pipeline of development would be adequate to absorb approximately 19 percent of the projected single-family demand and just over 40 percent of the projected multifamily housing demand. However, recent market trends indicate that demand for multifamily housing may continue to increase as a share of total demand, though the exact trajectory is difficult to forecast. In addition to the units currently planned for nearterm development, the City has existing capacity within already approved Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and Specific Plan Areas (SPAs) for an additional 19,800 units, or another 27 percent of projected long-term demand. Thus, the City will need to make land available to accommodate the remaining 46 percent of projected long-term demand, or around 34,000 units, through the second half of the planning period.
Employment Growth
Table 33 also reports anticipated jobs growth between 2016 and 2040. Based on these data, the City of Sacramento is likely to add approximately 56,210 new jobs over this period at an annual rate of approximately 0.7 percent per year. SACOG projects jobs growth in the city will occur more slowly compared to the region as a whole, which is expected to add approximately 252,840 new jobs over this period at a rate of roughly 0.9 percent per year. Adjusting from 2016 to a 2018 base year, based on the average annual growth rate implied within the data set, the city could expect to add approximately 51,881 new jobs between 2018 and 2040.
This indicates that the city is likely to capture around 21 percent of projected jobs growth in the Sacramento MSA. This means that the city would have a declining share of regional employment growth (i.e., as of 2016, the city accounted for 34 percent of employment in the Sacramento MSA, or 29 percent of the SACOG region, including Sutter and Yuba County). 91 Table 33: Growth Projections, 2016-2040
Notes:
(a) Projections data are those provided by SACOG in January 2019 during the 2020 MTP/SCS update, which may not be fully reflective of the final land use assumptions for the 2020 MTP/SCS.
Sources: SACOG, 2019; BAE, 2019.
Job-Growth by Land Use Type
To forecast jobs by land use category, BAE combined the jobs totals from the Preferred Scenario and the distribution by land use type from the Discussion Draft projection set, since the necessary detail was not yet available for the Preferred Scenario. These figures are provided in Table 34. According to these data, the City of Sacramento may add up to 56,214 new jobs between 2016 and 2040, at an average rate of around 0.7 percent per year. The largest absolute gains are expected in the Office sector, which is expected to add around 15,225 new jobs, at an annual rate of 1.2 percent. The next largest absolute gains are expected in Medical (13,222 new jobs; 1.6 percent per year), Government (8,165 new jobs;
0.6 percent per year), and Retail (5,788 jobs; 0.7 percent per year).
City of Sacramento
Average
Total Change Annual
2016 2040 Number Percent Change
Dw elling Units 194,462 267,981 73,519 37.8% 1.3%
Employment 308,735 364,949 56,214 18.2% 0.7%
Sacramento MSA
Average
Total Change Annual
2016 2040 Number Percent Change
Dw elling Units 858,566 1,104,060 245,494 28.6% 1.1%
Employment 895,836 1,148,677 252,841 28.2% 1.0%
92 Table 34: Job Growth by Land Use Type, 2016-2040 (a) Notes:
(a) Based on the total jobs projections provided in the Draft Preferred Scenario and the distribution of jobs by industry provided in the Discussion Draft Scenario. Projections data are those provided by SACOG in January 2019 during the 2020 MTP/SCS update, which may not be fully reflective of the final land use assumptions for the 2020 MTP/SCS. (b) Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding.
(c) Excludes approximately 20,170 existing home-based jobs.
Sources: SACOG, 2019; BAE, 2019.
Supportable Non-Residential Development
To calculate the anticipated future land use needs for general planning purposes, BAE analyzed two alternative land use demand scenarios. The first scenario is based on the published SCACOG employment projections discussed above. One assumption seemingly implicit in that dataset is that the City of Sacramento is likely to decline in its share of regional employment. Recognizing that this is contrary to recent historical trends, BAE also developed an alternative scenario that assumes that the City of Sacramento will maintain its existing share of regional employment, accounting for differential growth by land use type. Information for each scenario is summarized in Table 35.
Figure 20: Jobs Growth by Land Use Category and Projection Scenario, 2018-2040 Sources: SACOG; BAE, 2018.
City of Sacramento
Average
Total Change Annual
Land Use Type 2016 2040 Number Percent Change
Education 14,257 18,753 4,490 31.5% 1.1%
Food 20,583 24,476 3,884 18.9% 0.7%
Government 52,622 60,807 8,165 15.5% 0.6%
Office 82,549 97,805 15,225 18.4% 0.7%
Retail 31,266 37,067 5,788 18.5% 0.7%
Services 28,689 33,645 4,945 17.2% 0.7%
Medical 27,941 41,177 13,222 47.3% 1.6%
Industrial 30,656 31,043 377 1.2% 0.1%
Other (b) 20,171 20,177 0 n.a. n.a.
Total, All (c) 308,735 364,949 56,214 18.2% 0.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
SACOG Existing Share
93 Table 35: Supportable Non-Residential Development 2018-2040 Notes:
(a) Employment by type in 2018 was estimated based on the 2016 estimate included in the SACOG projections data and the annual average growth rate for the period from 2016 to 2040 by job type. (b) Based on draft data provided by SACOG in January 2019 during the 2020 MTP/SCS update, which may not be fully reflective of the final land use assumptions for the 2020 MTP/SCS. (c) Based on the regional SACOG jobs projections, combined with the distribution of jobs by industry provided in the Caltrans long-term projections, assuming that Sacramento maintains its current share of regional employment by industry. (d) Based on industry standard average employment densities. (e) Includes a 10 percent vacancy adjustment.
Sources: SACOG; BAE, 2018.
City of Sacramento
Supportable Development
New Jobs 2018-2040 (a) Employment (Millions of Sq. Ft.) Land Use Type SACOG Existing Share (c) Density (b) SACOG Existing Share Education 4,167 3,542 700 3.21 2.73
Food 3,594 4,092 600 2.37 2.70
Government 7,548 6,461 500 4.15 3.55
Office 14,084 23,721 200 3.10 5.22
Retail 5,355 6,452 450 2.65 3.19
Services 4,573 7,819 500 2.52 4.30
Medical 12,319 16,319 350 4.74 6.28
Industrial 355 8,153 1,000 0.39 8.97
Total, All (d) 51,995 76,559 23.13 36.95
Sacramento MSA
Supportable
New Jobs Employment Development
Land Use Type 2018-2040 (a) Density (b) (Millions of Sq. Ft.) Education 14,590 700 11.23
Food 15,966 600 10.54
Government 13,947 500 7.67
Office 66,881 200 14.71
Retail 25,257 450 12.50
Services 30,136 500 16.58
Medical 36,542 350 14.07
Industrial 30,690 1,000 33.76
Total, All (a)(b) 234,010 121.06
94 Retail and Related Uses
As reported in Table 35, the City of Sacramento is expected to add nearly 5,355 to 6,452 new retail jobs between 2018 and 2040, in addition to 3,594 to 4,092 new food service jobs, and 4,573 to 7,819 new service jobs. Based on employment density factors that are representative of current industry standards, this new employment would be sufficient to support between 7.54 and 10.19 million square feet of new commercial space. This includes nearly 2.65 to 3.19 million square feet of retail, 2.37 to 2.70 million square feet of food service, and 2.52 to 4.30 million square feet of service space. If this demand materializes as projected, the City’s existing pipeline of planned and proposed development projects would be sufficient to absorb less than 10 percent.
There are a number of factors that may dampen demand for retail and related uses during the General Plan timeframe. A primary factor is the ongoing rise of eCommerce, as discussed earlier in this report. According to Forrester Research, eCommerce outlets may reasonably achieve 17 percent market share in the retail sector through 2022. Conservatively assuming that eCommerce achieves an average market share of 20 percent over the course of the planning period, the City of Sacramento would still need to accommodate 2.3 to 2.7 million square feet of new retail space through 2040, as well as 2.0 to 2.3 million square feet of food service and 2.2 to 3.7 million square feet of service space.
Even with these caveats, the retail demand projections may overestimate demand for new retail and related development. For example, the Sacramento market absorbed approximately 180,660 square feet of new retail space per year between 2010 and 2018. If this pace of absorption could be sustained on average through 2040, it would be more than sufficient to accommodate projected retail demand, but would be insufficient by around half if demand for food service and related services is included. Likewise, the current pipeline of planned and proposed retail projects also indicates a lack of confidence in the market, with planned projects being equal to less than ten percent of the projected future demand. Rather, many investors are turning to existing shopping centers, which are being renovated with a shifting tenant mix that emphasizes experiential retail, entertainment, and services.
Office Uses
As reported in Table 35, the City of Sacramento is expected to add nearly 14,084 to 23,721 new office jobs between 2018 and 2040. Based on an employment density factor that is representative of current industry standards, this new employment would be sufficient to support between 3.10 and 5.22 million square feet of new office development. Note that the City of Sacramento currently accounts for around 58 percent of the regional office real estate market. The SACOG projections assume that the City will experience a decreasing share of regional office employment; hence the large difference between the SACOG projection scenario and the scenario that assumes that the City will maintain its existing share. 95 As discussed earlier, the current inventory of planned and proposed development in Sacramento includes approximately 2.2 million square feet of new office space. If built as currently envisioned, this would equal 42 to 70 percent of the projected future demand.
Recognizing that builders are currently hesitant to develop speculative office space, the majority of the planned development is build-to-suit and may therefore be considered outside of the future demand projections discussed here. As discussed above, the Sacramento market absorbed an average of around 216,000 square feet of new retail space each year from 2010 to 2018. If demand materializes as currently projected, the market would need to absorb between 140,838 and 237,211 square feet per year, which is consistent with recent historical trends.
Industrial Uses
As reported in Table 35, SACOG currently projects that the City will experience a net increase in industrial employment of only 355 jobs through 2040. However, if the City were to maintain its existing share of regional industrial employment, the City could gain more than 8,150 new jobs. While the specific reasons behind SACOG’s low industrial employment figures is unclear, there are a number of factors that may be at play. While Sacramento hosts around 46 percent of the region’s current inventory of industrial space, other cities throughout the region are adding large volumes of new inventory in places that are better suited for regional logistics, such as parts of Woodland, West Sacramento, Lincoln, Roseville, and Rocklin. Expansion of industrial uses in these areas generally corresponds with an adjustment in the regional industrial sector which is experiencing slower growth, and in some cases contraction, in the durable goods manufacturing, with more rapid growth in the transportation and warehousing sector (which is also tied to the expansion of eCommerce). Meanwhile, a number of Sacramento’s existing industrial districts, which were largely oriented toward manufacturing, are now beginning to transition away from industrial uses towards more residential, office, and commercial uses. Prime examples of this include the River District and the Rail Yards. One exception to this trend is the cannabis industry, which is expanding rapidly, particularly in the Power Inn Road industrial area.
Based on an employment density factor that is generally representative of current industry standards, new employment in the industrial sector would be sufficient to support up to 8.97 million square feet of new industrial development, assuming that the City is able to maintain its existing share of regional industrial sector. With the rapid expansion of warehousing and distribution facilities throughout the region, it is unlikely that the City will maintain its current share of the regional industry. However, with the current assortment of existing industrial businesses, and the rapid expansion of some subsectors like cannabis, it is similarly unlikely that the City will experience demand for only a few hundred thousand square feet of new industrial development. For example, between 2010 and 2018, industrial users in Sacramento absorbed a net of nearly five million square feet of new industrial space. This equals around 622,310 square feet per year. For the sake of argument, if this pace were to 96 be sustained through 2040, which is unlikely, the City could see up to 13.7 million square feet of new industrial development.
All Other Uses
The three land use categories reported in Table 35 which are not discussed above include Education, Medical, and Education. These sectors generally represent institutional employment associated with State and Federal government agencies, as well as public and private educational institutions, and major medical facilities, like hospitals. In total, these sectors are projected to gain between 24,034 and 26,322 new jobs through 2040, with around 50 to 60 percent being in the Medical sector specifically. If this employment materializes as currently projected, the resulting demand may be sufficient to absorb between
2.73 and 3.214 million square feet of new educational facilities, 3.55 and 4.15 million square feet of new government facilities, and 4.74 to 6.28 million square feet of new medical facilities.
97 APPENDIX A: SACRAMENTO PLANNING AREA
AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER), 2017; City of Sacramento, 2017; BAE, 2018.
98 APPENDIX B: SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY PLAN
AREAS
99 Appendix B1: Community Plan Area Summary
Notes:
(a) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018. (b) Represents The average asking rent per unit per month reported by CoStar for the third quarter of 2018.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Arden Central East Fruitridge/ Land North North South South Sacramento Arcade City Sacramento Broadway Park Natomas Sacramento Pocket Area Natomas Planning Area Demographics 2018
Total, Population 101,071 35,547 32,659 153,452 33,831 59,979 60,574 45,706 116,863 46,012 685,694 % Minority 43.1% 49.7% 33.4% 77.5% 50.7% 69.3% 75.0% 66.8% 88.0% 73.1% 67.4% Total, Households 44,355 22,167 14,921 49,214 14,765 20,936 18,038 19,952 33,718 16,623 254,689 Median Household Income $53,949 $38,822 $74,408 $44,501 $73,949 $82,890 $39,892 $74,133 $44,281 $54,673 $54,914 Jobs by Type 2015
Goods Producing 3.0% 3.6% 2.7% 18.1% 3.3% 10.9% 15.7% 1.5% 3.4% 4.2% 6.7% Services 90.8% 39.3% 84.4% 74.7% 44.7% 86.9% 70.4% 87.3% 93.0% 76.2% 66.9% Government 6.2% 57.1% 12.9% 7.2% 52.0% 2.2% 13.9% 11.2% 3.6% 19.6% 26.4% Total, Jobs 64,518 117,330 22,226 55,914 17,561 20,041 16,697 6,487 21,084 14,123 355,981 Types of Residence 2016
Single Family 53.5% 18.1% 75.3% 75.8% 83.3% 68.0% 73.7% 69.1% 75.4% 56.4% 65.0% Multifamily 45.9% 81.7% 24.5% 18.6% 16.7% 31.0% 22.9% 30.8% 21.4% 42.6% 33.0% Other 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 5.6% 0.1% 1.0% 3.3% 0.1% 3.2% 1.1% 2.1% Total, Housing Units 47,370 21,206 15,617 51,383 15,448 21,164 19,212 20,847 34,792 17,582 264,621 % Vacancy 8.9% 11.9% 6.3% 6.8% 6.2% 5.1% 9.2% 6.3% 6.7% 5.6% 7.4% Residential 2018
Median Sale Price (a) $349,975 $533,750 $511,000 $285,000 $497,100 $381,000 $240,000 $448,000 $279,000 $315,000 $327,500 Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $245 $388 $376 $224 $361 $207 $210 $251 $201 $217 $225 Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) (b) $1,140 $1,326 $1,366 $1,064 $881 $1,692 $970 $1,412 $1,081 $1,463 $1,241 Retail Q3 2018
Inventory (sq. ft.) 9,687,431 4,648,980 1,522,084 6,240,126 1,515,272 2,660,702 1,455,851 894,458 4,455,457 1,072,962 34,153,323 % Vacancy 8.9% 5.1% 1.0% 5.2% 3.5% 7.5% 4.4% 6.7% 9.3% 6.3% 6.7% Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.37 $1.70 $1.28 $1.12 $1.63 $1.50 $1.03 $1.04 $1.30 $1.33 $1.37 Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 9,779,120 25,661,228 2,877,925 3,436,507 885,242 2,634,992 908,068 530,984 1,054,606 4,023,319 51,791,991 % Vacancy 13.9% 8.0% 10.8% 5.0% 0.7% 10.9% 8.7% 5.5% 12.6% 9.9% 9.3% Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.76 $2.50 $1.90 $1.85 $1.49 $1.84 $1.79 $1.70 $1.77 $1.95 $2.15 Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 2,698,761 6,502,495 673,630 26,195,158 1,391,379 8,219,967 9,184,806 0 4,322,803 337,953 59,526,952 % Vacancy 2.1% 1.9% 0.8% 3.9% 1.8% 2.7% 3.4% n.a. 21.9% 0.0% 4.6% Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.90 $0.52 $0.92 $0.79 $1.17 $0.53 $0.63 n.a. $1.06 $0.29 $0.73 100
Appendix B2: Sacramento Planning Area Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018.
(c) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 36.3% 32.6% -4.0%
Hispanic/Latino 26.8% 28.7% 14.6%
African American 13.3% 12.9% 3.9%
Asian 17.1% 18.7% 17.0%
All Others 6.5% 7.2% 17.7%
Total, Population 640,561 685,694 7.0%
% Minority 63.7% 67.4% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 13.1% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 10.5% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 9.7% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 12.9% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 17.4% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 11.8% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 13.4% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 5.2% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 5.2% n.a.
Total, Households 238,970 254,689 6.6%
Median Household Income n.a. $54,914 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.1% 0.1% 3.2%
Construction 3.1% 3.7% 25.7%
Manufacturing 2.9% 2.9% 3.7%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 13.8% 15.0% 13.5%
Information 1.9% 1.9% 5.3%
Financial Activities 4.1% 3.6% -8.0%
Professional & Business Services 12.5% 12.3% 3.7%
Education & Health Services 19.6% 22.5% 20.1%
Leisure & Hospitality 7.3% 8.2% 17.8%
Other Services 5.4% 3.4% -32.5%
Government 29.3% 26.4% -5.4%
Total, Jobs 339,242 355,981 4.9%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 65.0% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 33.0% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 2.1% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 261,893 264,621 1.0%
% Vacancy 8.8% 7.4% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $143,000 $327,500 129.0%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $100 $225 125.1%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $1,177 $1,241 5.4%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 33,620,895 34,153,323 1.6%
% Vacancy 7.5% 6.7% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.37 $1.37 -0.6%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 51,745,239 51,791,991 0.1%
% Vacancy 10.4% 9.3% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $2.05 $2.15 5.1% Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 59,306,873 59,526,952 0.4%
% Vacancy 4.8% 4.6% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.52 $0.73 40.9%
101
Appendix B3: Arden Arcade Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018.
(c) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 61.1% 56.9% -2.1%
Hispanic/Latino 19.4% 21.7% 17.5%
African American 8.1% 8.2% 6.2%
Asian 6.0% 7.0% 22.0%
All Others 5.4% 6.1% 19.2%
Total, Population 96,300 101,071 5.0%
% Minority 38.9% 43.1% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 13.0% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 10.3% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 10.2% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 13.1% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 15.6% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 11.4% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 13.4% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 5.2% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 7.8% n.a.
Total, Households 42,693 44,355 3.9%
Median Household Income n.a. $53,949 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.0% 0.1% 64.0%
Construction 2.0% 2.2% 10.4%
Manufacturing 1.0% 0.7% -29.8%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 16.0% 16.9% 6.3%
Information 2.1% 3.4% 62.8%
Financial Activities 10.5% 8.6% -17.5%
Professional & Business Services 23.4% 22.9% -1.0%
Education & Health Services 24.2% 25.8% 7.5%
Leisure & Hospitality 10.0% 10.8% 8.6%
Other Services 3.9% 2.4% -36.3%
Government 6.7% 6.2% -6.9%
Total, Jobs 63,885 64,518 1.0%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 53.5% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 45.9% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 0.6% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 47,368 47,370 0.0%
% Vacancy 9.9% 8.9% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $179,750 $349,975 94.7%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $129 $245 89.2%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $1,089 $1,140 4.7%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 9,668,267 9,687,431 0.2%
% Vacancy 10.2% 8.9% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.42 $1.37 -3.5%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 9,798,185 9,779,120 -0.2%
% Vacancy 14.8% 13.9% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $1.71 $1.76 2.9% Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 2,698,761 2,698,761 0.0%
% Vacancy 4.4% 2.1% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.84 $0.90 7.1%
102
Appendix B4: Central City Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018.
(c) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 55.0% 50.3% 0.5%
Hispanic/Latino 19.6% 22.1% 23.7%
African American 9.3% 9.5% 12.3%
Asian 10.3% 11.7% 24.0%
All Others 5.8% 6.5% 22.1%
Total, Population 32,367 35,547 9.8%
% Minority 45.0% 49.7% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 19.8% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 12.0% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 9.6% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 11.5% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 13.6% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 6.9% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 11.2% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 2.7% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 2.8% n.a.
Total, Households 18,101 22,167 22.5%
Median Household Income n.a. $38,822 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.0% 0.1% 39.6%
Construction 1.0% 1.7% 54.6%
Manufacturing 1.5% 1.9% 14.1%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 6.6% 6.7% -4.2%
Information 2.2% 1.6% -31.9%
Financial Activities 2.5% 2.5% -3.7%
Professional & Business Services 9.4% 9.8% -1.5%
Education & Health Services 5.3% 7.1% 25.4%
Leisure & Hospitality 6.7% 7.7% 8.5%
Other Services 4.0% 3.9% -7.9%
Government 60.7% 57.1% -11.4%
Total, Jobs 124,452 117,330 -5.7%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 18.1% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 81.7% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 0.3% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 20,752 21,206 2.2%
% Vacancy 12.8% 11.9% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $284,500 $533,750 87.6%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $226 $388 71.6%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $1,274 $1,326 4.1%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 4,639,843 4,648,980 0.2%
% Vacancy 5.7% 5.1% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.58 $1.70 7.6%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 25,606,653 25,661,228 0.2%
% Vacancy 8.8% 8.0% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $2.36 $2.50 5.9% Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 6,502,495 6,502,495 0.0%
% Vacancy 2.6% 1.9% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.50 $0.52 4.0%
103
Appendix B5: East Sacramento Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018.
(c) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 70.6% 66.6% -2.6%
Hispanic/Latino 14.9% 17.0% 17.8%
African American 3.9% 4.0% 6.0%
Asian 6.0% 7.0% 21.4%
All Others 4.7% 5.4% 19.6%
Total, Population 31,635 32,659 3.2%
% Minority 29.4% 33.4% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 7.7% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 7.8% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 6.2% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 9.8% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 18.7% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 12.8% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 17.3% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 8.9% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 10.7% n.a.
Total, Households 14,536 14,921 2.6%
Median Household Income n.a. $74,408 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.4% 0.4% 26.0%
Construction 2.8% 1.7% -30.3%
Manufacturing 0.6% 0.6% 7.6%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 8.9% 9.0% 14.5%
Information 0.9% 0.5% -41.2%
Financial Activities 2.4% 3.0% 38.9%
Professional & Business Services 16.1% 12.1% -14.8%
Education & Health Services 43.1% 48.5% 27.1%
Leisure & Hospitality 8.3% 7.9% 8.0%
Other Services 5.1% 3.4% -24.0%
Government 11.4% 12.9% 28.0%
Total, Jobs 19,653 22,226 13.1%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 75.3% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 24.5% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 0.3% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 15,524 15,617 0.6%
% Vacancy 6.4% 6.3% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $330,000 $511,000 54.8%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $257 $376 46.6%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $1,208 $1,366 13.1%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 1,523,798 1,522,084 -0.1%
% Vacancy 2.0% 1.0% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.32 $1.28 -3.0%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 2,877,925 2,877,925 0.0%
% Vacancy 12.3% 10.8% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $1.81 $1.90 5.0% Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 693,806 673,630 -2.9%
% Vacancy 0.4% 0.8% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.17 $0.92 -21.4%
104
Appendix B6: Fruitridge/Broadway Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018.
(c) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 25.5% 22.5% -5.7%
Hispanic/Latino 32.9% 34.8% 13.2%
African American 13.5% 12.8% 2.4%
Asian 22.0% 23.4% 14.0%
All Others 6.1% 6.5% 15.5%
Total, Population 143,116 153,452 7.2%
% Minority 74.5% 77.5% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 15.8% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 13.4% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 10.9% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 14.0% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 19.3% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 11.4% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 10.3% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 2.8% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 2.0% n.a.
Total, Households 46,306 49,214 6.3%
Median Household Income n.a. $44,501 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.1% 0.1% -14.3%
Construction 8.1% 8.6% 18.3%
Manufacturing 8.3% 9.5% 27.0%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 24.2% 26.3% 20.8%
Information 1.3% 0.9% -18.7%
Financial Activities 1.2% 1.2% 9.0%
Professional & Business Services 6.7% 6.2% 3.3%
Education & Health Services 30.5% 31.5% 14.8%
Leisure & Hospitality 4.4% 5.4% 35.9%
Other Services 6.8% 3.2% -47.6%
Government 8.2% 7.2% -3.0%
Total, Jobs 50,168 55,914 11.5%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 75.8% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 18.6% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 5.6% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 50,810 51,383 1.1%
% Vacancy 8.9% 6.8% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $117,000 $285,000 143.6%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $88 $224 153.6%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $996 $1,064 6.8%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 6,230,279 6,240,126 0.2%
% Vacancy 6.3% 5.2% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.20 $1.12 -6.7%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 3,425,265 3,436,507 0.3%
% Vacancy 5.4% 5.0% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $1.84 $1.85 0.5% Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 25,954,903 26,195,158 0.9%
% Vacancy 3.3% 3.9% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.50 $0.79 58.0%
105
Appendix B7: Land Park Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018.
(c) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 54.1% 49.3% -3.8%
Hispanic/Latino 20.1% 22.2% 16.2%
African American 7.5% 7.8% 10.4%
Asian 12.9% 14.6% 19.3%
All Others 5.4% 6.1% 19.8%
Total, Population 32,052 33,831 5.6%
% Minority 45.9% 50.7% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 10.7% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 7.2% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 8.5% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 10.2% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 13.7% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 11.9% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 18.0% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 7.7% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 12.0% n.a.
Total, Households 14,163 14,765 4.3%
Median Household Income n.a. $73,949 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.1% 0.1% 8.3%
Construction 2.2% 1.9% 5.5%
Manufacturing 1.4% 1.3% 14.9%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 7.4% 10.3% 74.3%
Information 1.2% 0.4% -63.8%
Financial Activities 1.6% 1.2% -8.5%
Professional & Business Services 5.3% 3.9% -8.6%
Education & Health Services 21.1% 16.9% 0.7%
Leisure & Hospitality 8.0% 10.1% 57.7%
Other Services 5.4% 2.1% -52.2%
Government 46.1% 52.0% 42.0%
Total, Jobs 13,963 17,561 25.8%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 83.3% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 16.7% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 0.1% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 15,240 15,448 1.4%
% Vacancy 7.1% 6.2% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $310,000 $497,100 60.4%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $216 $361 67.0%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $857 $881 2.8%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 1,512,758 1,515,272 0.2%
% Vacancy 2.2% 3.5% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.37 $1.63 19.0%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 885,242 885,242 0.0%
% Vacancy 1.7% 0.7% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $1.25 $1.49 19.2% Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 1,391,379 1,391,379 0.0%
% Vacancy 1.0% 1.8% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.50 $1.17 134.0%
106
Appendix B8: North Natomas Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018.
(c) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 35.2% 30.7% -2.8%
Hispanic/Latino 18.5% 20.0% 20.3%
African American 13.9% 13.6% 9.7%
Asian 25.0% 27.6% 23.1%
All Others 7.4% 8.2% 22.5%
Total, Population 53,766 59,979 11.6%
% Minority 64.8% 69.3% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 6.7% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 6.1% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 5.0% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 8.3% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 17.6% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 16.3% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 21.5% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 10.9% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 7.5% n.a.
Total, Households 19,359 20,936 8.1%
Median Household Income n.a. $82,890 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.1% 0.0% -36.4%
Construction 6.1% 9.3% 95.3%
Manufacturing 5.3% 1.5% -62.1%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 33.6% 28.9% 11.1%
Information 3.2% 5.1% 103.8%
Financial Activities 4.4% 3.4% 0.4%
Professional & Business Services 15.0% 14.2% 22.2%
Education & Health Services 11.2% 15.5% 79.0%
Leisure & Hospitality 11.4% 13.5% 51.9%
Other Services 7.9% 6.3% 2.7%
Government 1.9% 2.2% 56.3%
Total, Jobs 15,537 20,041 29.0%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 68.0% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 31.0% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 1.0% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 20,814 21,164 1.7%
% Vacancy 7.0% 5.1% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $215,000 $381,000 77.2%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $111 $207 86.3%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $1,579 $1,692 7.2%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 2,631,406 2,660,702 1.1%
% Vacancy 6.5% 7.5% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.71 $1.50 -12.3%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 2,634,992 2,634,992 0.0%
% Vacancy 16.1% 10.9% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $1.75 $1.84 5.1% Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 8,219,967 8,219,967 0.0%
% Vacancy 3.3% 2.7% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.46 $0.53 15.2%
107
Appendix B9: North Sacramento Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018.
(c) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 28.5% 25.0% -4.8%
Hispanic/Latino 34.2% 36.2% 14.9%
African American 15.2% 14.5% 3.9%
Asian 15.0% 16.5% 19.1%
All Others 7.1% 7.7% 18.2%
Total, Population 55,855 60,574 8.4%
% Minority 71.5% 75.0% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 18.0% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 14.2% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 11.7% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 15.3% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 17.1% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 10.7% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 8.5% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 2.7% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 1.9% n.a.
Total, Households 16,874 18,038 6.9%
Median Household Income n.a. $39,892 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.2% 0.0% -100.0%
Construction 7.3% 8.3% 28.2%
Manufacturing 5.6% 7.3% 47.7%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 20.8% 24.2% 30.5%
Information 1.3% 3.5% 206.3%
Financial Activities 1.6% 1.7% 14.4%
Professional & Business Services 10.3% 8.4% -8.4%
Education & Health Services 17.4% 22.8% 46.3%
Leisure & Hospitality 5.4% 4.6% -4.8%
Other Services 10.7% 5.2% -45.7%
Government 19.5% 13.9% -20.1%
Total, Jobs 14,927 16,697 11.9%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 73.7% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 22.9% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 3.3% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 19,045 19,212 0.9%
% Vacancy 11.4% 9.2% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $85,000 $240,000 182.4%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $77 $210 173.8%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $898 $970 8.0%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 1,440,401 1,455,851 1.1%
% Vacancy 5.0% 4.4% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.70 $1.03 47.1%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 908,068 908,068 0.0%
% Vacancy 7.8% 8.7% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $1.67 $1.79 7.2% Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 9,184,806 9,184,806 0.0%
% Vacancy 4.7% 3.4% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.44 $0.63 43.2%
108
Appendix B10: Pocket Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents. (c) There is not industrial product in this area.
(d) There is no industrial product in this Community Planning Area.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 37.7% 33.2% -8.2%
Hispanic/Latino 15.7% 17.0% 13.1%
African American 13.1% 12.9% 2.4%
Asian 27.1% 29.8% 14.9%
All Others 6.4% 7.0% 15.0%
Total, Population 43,833 45,706 4.3%
% Minority 62.3% 66.8% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 6.5% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 5.8% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 7.9% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 11.3% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 18.9% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 13.7% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 17.7% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 9.5% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 8.6% n.a.
Total, Households 19,260 19,952 3.6%
Median Household Income n.a. $74,133 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.3% 0.1% -60.0%
Construction 0.8% 0.8% 47.2%
Manufacturing 1.0% 0.6% -9.1%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 19.3% 12.1% -8.5%
Information 0.9% 0.1% -86.8%
Financial Activities 8.6% 4.9% -16.2%
Professional & Business Services 16.6% 27.1% 139.1%
Education & Health Services 32.6% 32.4% 45.0%
Leisure & Hospitality 11.2% 8.9% 16.7%
Other Services 7.7% 1.7% -67.4%
Government 1.1% 11.2% 1381.6%
Total, Jobs 4,445 6,487 45.9%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 69.1% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 30.8% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 0.1% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 20,598 20,847 1.2%
% Vacancy 6.5% 6.3% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $280,000 $448,000 60.0%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $156 $251 60.2%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $1,344 $1,412 5.1%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 894,458 894,458 0.0%
% Vacancy 9.4% 6.7% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.70 $1.04 -38.8%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 530,984 530,984 0.0%
% Vacancy 8.2% 5.5% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $1.63 $1.70 4.3% Industrial (d)
Inventory (sq. ft.) 0 0 n.a.
% Vacancy n.a. n.a. n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) n.a. n.a. n.a.
109
Appendix B11: South Area Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018.
(c) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 14.1% 12.0% -8.0%
Hispanic/Latino 32.6% 33.9% 12.4%
African American 21.6% 20.3% 1.6%
Asian 23.2% 24.7% 15.3%
All Others 8.5% 9.2% 16.7%
Total, Population 107,992 116,863 8.2%
% Minority 85.9% 88.0% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 14.8% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 12.4% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 11.8% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 15.9% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 18.2% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 12.2% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 9.9% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 3.3% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 1.5% n.a.
Total, Households 31,551 33,718 6.9%
Median Household Income n.a. $44,281 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.0% 0.0% 16.7%
Construction 2.5% 2.2% -6.0%
Manufacturing 5.4% 1.2% -76.7%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 15.8% 18.5% 26.1%
Information 1.4% 0.9% -28.4%
Financial Activities 1.9% 1.5% -11.7%
Professional & Business Services 5.6% 4.7% -9.5%
Education & Health Services 49.3% 58.1% 26.8%
Leisure & Hospitality 4.8% 6.6% 45.7%
Other Services 9.6% 2.7% -69.8%
Government 3.7% 3.6% 3.5%
Total, Jobs 19,605 21,084 7.5%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 75.4% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 21.4% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 3.2% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 34,477 34,792 0.9%
% Vacancy 8.5% 6.7% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $121,150 $279,000 130.3%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $88 $201 128.0%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $1,038 $1,081 4.1%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 4,006,723 4,455,457 11.2%
% Vacancy 10.5% 9.3% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.37 $1.30 -5.1%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 1,054,606 1,054,606 0.0%
% Vacancy 16.6% 12.6% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $1.67 $1.77 6.0% Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 4,322,803 4,322,803 0.0%
% Vacancy 20.8% 21.9% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.67 $1.06 58.2%
110
Appendix B12: South Natomas Profile
Notes:
(a) Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, or other non-traditional residences. (b) Represents the median sale price and sale price per square foot for single-family, duplex units, and condominium units between May and October 2018.
(c) Office rents are displayed as full service gross rents rather than base (NNN) rents.
Sources: CoStar, 2018; Esri Business Analyst, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2015; Sacramento Association of Realtors, 2018; BAE, 2018.
Demographics 2010 2018 % Change
White 30.5% 26.9% -7.1%
Hispanic/Latino 39.2% 41.8% 12.3%
African American 14.4% 13.9% 1.6%
Asian 9.4% 10.4% 16.5%
All Others 6.5% 7.0% 14.9%
Total, Population 43,645 46,012 5.4%
% Minority 69.5% 73.1% n.a.
Household Income 2010 2018 % Change
Less than $15,000 n.a. 10.2% n.a.
$15,000-$24,999 n.a. 8.7% n.a.
$25,000-$34,999 n.a. 10.5% n.a.
$35,000-$49,999 n.a. 15.1% n.a.
$50,000-$74,999 n.a. 21.0% n.a.
$75,000-$99,999 n.a. 11.9% n.a.
$100,000-$149,999 n.a. 14.7% n.a.
$150,000-$199,999 n.a. 4.0% n.a.
$200,000 or more n.a. 4.0% n.a.
Total, Households 16,127 16,623 3.1%
Median Household Income n.a. $54,673 n.a.
Jobs by Type 2010 2015 % Change
Natural Resources & Mining 0.0% 0.0% 400.0%
Construction 3.1% 3.1% 12.5%
Manufacturing 0.7% 1.0% 69.4%
Trade, Transp., & Utilities 10.5% 10.8% 15.6%
Information 3.1% 1.9% -30.3%
Financial Activities 7.7% 7.1% 3.9%
Professional & Business Services 21.9% 26.7% 36.3%
Education & Health Services 18.7% 17.5% 5.3%
Leisure & Hospitality 8.7% 9.1% 17.5%
Other Services 4.3% 3.0% -22.1%
Government 21.4% 19.6% 2.9%
Total, Jobs 12,607 14,123 12.0%
Types of Residence 2010 2016 % Change
Single Family n.a. 56.4% n.a.
Multifamily n.a. 42.6% n.a.
Other (a) n.a. 1.1% n.a.
Total, Housing Units 17,265 17,582 1.8%
% Vacancy 6.6% 5.6% n.a.
Residential 2010 2018 % Change
Median Sale Price (b) $130,000 $315,000 142.3%
Median Sale Price (per sq. ft.) $99 $217 119.3%
Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Avg. Asking Rent (per unit/month) $1,391 $1,463 5.2%
Retail Q3 2017 Q3 2018 % Change
Inventory (sq. ft.) 1,072,962 1,072,962 0.0%
% Vacancy 6.1% 6.3% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $1.42 $1.33 -6.3%
Office
Inventory (sq. ft.) 4,023,319 4,023,319 0.0%
% Vacancy 10.0% 9.9% n.a.
Avg. Asking Gross Rent (per sq. ft.) (c) $1.86 $1.95 4.8% Industrial
Inventory (sq. ft.) 337,953 337,953 0.0%
% Vacancy 15.8% 0.0% n.a.
Avg. Asking NNN Rent (per sq. ft.) $0.29 $0.29 0.0%
111
APPENDIX C: DESIGNATED QUALIFIED
OPPORTUNITY ZONES
112
Appendix C1: Designated Qualified Opportunity Zones
Sources: California Department of Finance, 2018.
113
Appendix C2: Designated Qualified Opportunity Zone Census Tracts, Sacramento County
06067000500
06067000700
06067001101
06067002100
06067002200
06067002800
06067003700
06067004100
06067004203
06067004402
06067004501
06067004502
06067004601
06067004701
06067004802
06067004903
06067004905
06067005101
06067005205
06067005301
06067005502
06067005505
06067005601
Sources: California Department of Finance, 2018
06067005605
06067006201
06067006202
06067006300
06067006500
06067006600
06067006702
06067006900
06067007004
06067007019
06067007204
06067007301
06067007423
06067008909
06067008910
06067008911
06067009006
06067009201
06067009634
06067009800