Item 20 2023-00357 102-Acre City-Owned Meadowview Site Opportunities and Constraints Analysis — Sacramento City Council, April 9, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

The amounts shown in Table 4, which would apply if the aquatic resources are not subject to USACE jurisdiction, show the aquatic resource credits for impacts to waters of the State under either development scenario.

Table 4. Estimated Aquatic Resource Mitigation and Project Fees for Waters of the State Only (no USACE Jurisdiction)
Impact
Mitigation Source and Cost for
Full Development
Mitigation Source and Cost for
Development with Wetland
Preserve
Aquatic Resources1
Seasonal wetland AMR Mitigation Bank
$5.88 million for 6.92 ac of impact
AMR Mitigation Bank
$2.36 million for 2.77 ac of impact
Ditch Cosumnes Floodplain Mitigation
Bank2
$30,675 for 409 LF of impact
Cosumnes Floodplain Mitigation
Bank2
$30,675 for 409 LF of impact
Pond Stillwater Plains Mitigation Bank3
$827,500 for 3.31 ac of impact
Stillwater Plains Mitigation Bank3
$827,500 for 3.31 ac of impact
Listed Species4
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Bryte Ranch
$4.15 million for 6.92 ac of impact
(combined for VPFS and VPTS5)
Bryte Ranch
$4.15 million for 2.77 ac of direct
impact and 4.15 ac of indirect impact
(combined for VPFS and VPTS5)
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Application and Project Fee6 $237,190 $153,993
Estimated Total $11.13 million
(with 10% contingency: $12.24 million)
$7.52 million
(with 10% contingency: $8.27 million)
1 Assumes mitigation ratio of 2:1 for seasonal wetland and 1:1 for ditch and pond. Appropriate ratios will be determined by the Regional Board; final ratios may be higher than those assumed here because AMR is not within the same watershed as the Meadowview Project.
2 Assumes shaded riverine aquatic credits at $75/linear foot (LF). 3 Stillwater Plains Mitigation Bank is far outside of the watershed but one of the few banks that provides open water credits.

Mitigation ratio may be higher than the 1:1 assumed here due to the bank’s location. 4 Assumes entire wetland area considered to be suitable and/or occupied vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp habitat and/or subject to indirect impacts. Mitigation ratio of 2:1 for vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp; final ratios will be determined by the USFWS.
5 Assumes species are present and that one "set“ of credits can be used for both species. If species not present, this compensatory mitigation obligation would not apply.
6 Based on current State Water Board fee schedule.

The Regional Board assesses an application and project fee, where the project fee is based on the area (acres) of waters of the State affected. The fee, which applies to either a Section 401 WQC or WDRs, is reviewed and updated yearly. The amounts shown in Table 3 and Table 4 are based on the current fee schedule (effective as of 25 September 2023); these fees are due prior to the State’s action (Water Quality Certification or WDRs).

Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Page 11 of 18 ends

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code requires a project proponent to notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) of any proposed activity that may substantially modify a river, stream, or lake. If CDFW determines that the activity described in the notification would substantially modify a river, stream, or lake, then CDFW and the project proponent enter into an agreement typically referred to as a lake and/or streambed alteration agreement (LSAA).

Because either option would affect the ditch and pond, we recommend submitting a notification to CDFW.

CDFW considers each element of a project as a separate activity or “project”. A notification is accompanied by a fee payment that is based on the value (cost) of each of the separate projects. For example, if a project includes placing a culvert for a road crossing of a waterway at a cost of $1,000 and placing an outfall structure below the top of bank for a waterway at a cost of $5,000, the notification fee would be based on the cost of each individual activity, not the cost of the activities combined. Because we do not currently know the nature and extent of activity that would affect resources subject to notification under Fish and Game Code Section 1600, we cannot provide a fee estimate for either development option.

The LSAA process takes 90 days from the date CDFW determines an application is complete. An extension may be granted as long as both parties agree. If CDFW fails to act within 90 days and does not request an extension, then a project may proceed under Operation of Law as long as the project is implemented as described in the original notification to CDFW.

Special-Status Plants
Madrone biologist Daria Snider completed a special-status plant survey of a portion of the Study Area on 21 March 2022. Ms. Snider did not locate any special-status plants during the survey. Given the current site conditions, we recommend a focused protocol-level special status plant survey of the entire property to inform the CEQA process. The survey would focus on all plants known from similar habitats in the region, but given the site conditions, the primary target species would be dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla). The California Native Plant Society classifies this wetland-dependent species as Rare Plant Rank 2B.2, meaning it is rare, threatened, or endangered in California but common elsewhere. If the survey does not locate any special-status plants, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be required. If special-status plants are found, the nature and extent of avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would depend on the species and its status.

Special-Status Invertebrates
The CNDDB lists several occurrences of vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS; Branchinecta lynchi)) and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (VPTS; Lepidurus packardi) within three miles of the Study Area. None of the records occur on site, with the closest VPFS record (Occurrence #161 in the Florin, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle) being about 1.25 mile to the southeast, in depressions along the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks. VPTS were also recorded in this location, as well as within a non-specific area generally bounded by Beacon Creek on the north, Dwight Road on the south, Franklin Boulevard on the east, and the UPRR tracks on the west record (Occurrence #32, in the Florin, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle). This area, which is generally defined as the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan bufferlands (SRWTP bufferlands) and has Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Page 12 of 18 ends

remained undeveloped since the time of the record, had records of VPTS in multiple areas throughout in 2012-2013. At its closest point, the UPRR tracks (and their associated depressions that could provide habitat for VPFS and VPTS) are about 0.33 miles to the east and area separated from the Study Area by both developed and undeveloped areas west of the tracks.

In order to confirm whether VPFS and/or VPTS are present on-site, the USFWS requires a “complete survey” that includes both wet-season and dry-season sampling. Madrone is currently undertaking the dry-season sampling. We recommend completing the wet-season surveys this coming winter (2023-24) so that they can be completed in time to inform consultation under FESA. If the surveys indicate that federally-listed invertebrates are present and/or the species are assumed to be present (in the absence of surveys) and USACE determines that any of the aquatic resources are jurisdictional via an AJD (or if a PJD is requested and issued by USACE), then FESA consultation would commence under Section 7 as part of a permit application for authorization under Section 404. The result would be represented in a biological opinion issued by the USFWS, with the terms of the opinion (i.e., required avoidance, minimization, and mitigation) becoming part of the permit issued by the USACE. Because a Section 7 take authorization, if necessary, would be part of the Section 404 process, its timeline is worked into the USACE timeline for permit authorization.

If federally-listed invertebrates are determined to be present and/or are assumed to be present and FESA consultation is not conducted under Section 7, it would be conducted under FESA Section 10. Section 10 consultation requires direct coordination with the USFWS. In the case of the Meadowview Project, the result would likely be a Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that represents an agreement between the USFWS and Project proponent. We estimate that this process would require between 9 and 12 months.

Under either Section 7 or Section 10, if it is determined that compensatory mitigation is required, the cost for such is estimated to be approximately $4.15 million for either development option. Even though habitat would be avoided under the development with wetland preserve option, the seasonal wetlands are within 250 feet of the work area. The USFWS generally assumes indirect impacts to VPFS and VPTS habitat that occurs within that 250-foot buffer area. In the event that federally-listed invertebrates are determined to be absent from the site, then FESA consultation is not required. In this case, compensatory mitigation for federally-listed invertebrates would similarly not be required.

Western Spadefoot Breeding and Foraging Habitat
Wetlands in the Study Area may provide suitable aquatic (breeding) habitat for western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), and adjacent annual brome grasslands may provide dispersal habitat and refugia. This species is not listed under the FESA or CESA, but it is identified as a species of special concern by CDFW.

The CNDDB does not list any occurrences of western spadefoot within three miles of the Study Area. The nearest occurrence (Occurrence #501), which is a non-specific record from 1925, is approximately 7.5 miles to the northeast of the Study Area near the intersection of Jackson Highway and Bradshaw Road (CNDDB 2023). The Delta Shores EIR does not identify western spadefoot as a species that could use the Delta Shores project area. The Stone Beetland biological resources assessment notes that the annual brome grassland provides marginal foraging habitat but the Stone Beetland IS does not identify the species as subject to Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Page 13 of 18 ends

potential project effects and does not assign mitigation for potential impacts. However, the Stone Beetland project site does not support suitable aquatic habitat for western spadefoot.

We recommend that a qualified biologist survey the seasonal wetlands present in the Study Area to assess whether suitable aquatic habitat is present. This survey would need to be completed during the western spadefoot breeding season, which occurs from approximately January through May. If the wetlands do not provide suitable aquatic habitat, no further action would be needed. However, if the species is using the seasonal wetlands, a relocation plan would need to be developed. Mitigation provided for the loss of waters of the U.S. or waters of the State would provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of aquatic habitat, and mitigation provided for the loss of annual brome grassland habitat (discussed below under Swainson’s Hawk Nesting and Foraging Habitat) would provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of potential foraging habitat,
Swainson’s Hawk Nesting and Foraging Habitat
The Study Area provides suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). This species, which is listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), nests in the Sacramento Valley and relies on annual brome grasslands like those present in the Study Area for foraging.

The CNDDB lists numerous occurrences of this species’ nests within 3 miles of the Study Area. The nearest occurrences, recorded in 2009, are about 0.5 mile south of the Study Area along Morrison Creek (CNDDB 2023). The Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird database shows several recent occurrences of the species foraging in grasslands near the Study Area and includes confirmed nesting along Morrison Creek (in the same general area as the 2009 CNDDB records) in 2021 (Checklist S90553084, 21 June 2021; Cornell Lab 2023). Notes in eBird reference a “regular nest site” (confirmed as occupied in 2021) along Morrison Creek just north of Cosumnes River Boulevard, approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the Study Area (Checklist S89540344, 3 June 2021; Cornell Lab 2023).

Mature eucalyptus trees in the Study Area provide prime nesting habitat for this species. As such, we recommend full protocol level surveys prior to construction to confirm whether the eucalyptus trees on-site or other trees within 0.5-mile of the Study Area are being utilized by Swainson’s hawk. These surveys begin about the time the species returns from its wintering grounds (generally January-March) and continue through the nesting season, which generally ends in July. If the species is identified during the surveys, then appropriate nest buffers and monitoring would be required. The survey requirement is typically identified through a project’s CEQA process (regardless of the lead agency) and/or during the process to develop a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement between a project proponent and CDFW.

The CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Delta Shores Project, which is east of the Study Area, prescribes 1:1 preservation for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat as mitigation (PBS&J 2008). The Biological Resources Assessment for Stone Beetland (Madrone 2021) also recommends preservation of foraging habitat at 1:1. Preservation could occur through the purchase of conservation easement(s), purchase of fee title lands, or credits from a CDFW-approved mitigation bank. It is assumed that the Meadowview Project would have a similar mitigation requirement. Swainson’s hawk foraging credits are Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Page 14 of 18 ends

currently priced at $10,000 to $12,000 per acre. The full development option would result in the conversion of up to 102 acres of potential foraging habitat (suitability of habitat subject to field verification), resulting in a mitigation burden of $1.02 million to $1.22 million. The development with wetland preserve option would result in the conversion of about 87 acres, resulting in a mitigation burden of $870,000 to $1.04 million.

Burrowing Owl Nesting/Wintering and Foraging Habitat
The annual brome grasslands in the Study Area provide potential nesting/wintering and foraging habitat for western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Burrowing owl is not listed under the FESA or CESA, but it is identified as a species of special concern by CDFW. The CNDDB lists eight occurrences of this species within three miles of the Study Area, though some of the occurrence listings apply to multiple locations (that is, one listing may apply to three separate locations). The closest occurrence (Occurrence #128), which is from 2007, is about 0.2 miles to the northeast in an area adjacent to the UPRR tracks and a residential development area (CNDDB 2023). The occurrence record notes that the owls were utilizing levees along the channelized Morrison Creek. Since the time of the record, light rail construction has disturbed the area and surveys completed in 2019, 2020, and 2021 in support of the Stone Beetland project south of the Study Area did not locate any owls or sign of owls in that area or in other areas of the Stone Beetland site, which abuts the southern limit of the Study Area (Madrone 2021). Another nearby occurrence first recorded in 2007 and updated in 2009 is approximately 0.6 miles to the west; this record lists several locations generally along a drainage canal from residential areas to the north (CNDDB 2023). eBird lists one 2017 occurrence approximately 0.25 mile to the west at Meadowview Park (Cornell Lab 2023).

Madrone completed a nesting bird survey of the site in April 2022 during which the site was assessed for potential burrowing owl habitat and the presence of active burrows and/or other sign of burrowing owl use. No burrowing owls or sign of burrowing owls were detected in 2022, but suitable habitat is present in some areas of the Study Area, so pre-construction surveys are suggested.

The Delta Shores EIR prescribes mitigation for the loss of foraging and burrow habitat based on the presence of pairs or unpaired resident birds. The EIR states that the burrowing owl mitigation “…could overlap with mitigation requirements for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat…” (PBS&J 2008). The Biological Resources Assessment for Stone Beetland (Madrone 2021) makes a similar recommendation based on whether owls are recorded on-site. The Stone Beetland measure recommends preservation of an area (acreage) equal to that for suitable habitat within 250 feet of each occupied burrow at 1:1 and also notes that Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat preservation can be used to meet the burrowing owl mitigation requirement. It is assumed that the Meadowview Project would require pre-construction surveys for this species and have a similar mitigation requirement. However, given that there are no recent records of the species on-site, we do not expect a significant mitigation burden related to the loss of burrowing owl habitat. If owls are located on-site during pre-construction surveys, it is not expected that the burrowing owl mitigation requirement would come close to or exceed the Swainson’s hawk mitigation requirement, it is safe to assume that no additional mitigation credits would need to be purchased or established for the loss of burrowing owl foraging and burrow habitat in the Study Area under either development scenario.

Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Page 15 of 18 ends

Tricolored Blackbird, Other Nesting Raptors, and Nesting Migratory Birds The Study Area provides suitable foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). This species, which is listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), historically used freshwater marshes dominated by cattails (Typha spp.) and bulrushes (Scirpus or Schoenoplectus spp.) for nesting. More recently, tricolored blackbirds have been recorded using non-native mustards (Brassica spp.), blackberries (Rubus spp.), thistles (Circium spp.), and mallows (Malva spp.) as nesting substrate. Vegetation around the margins of the pond may provide nesting habitat for this species, and the annual brome grasslands provide foraging habitat. The CNDDB lists one occurrence of a nesting colony about 2.6 miles to the southeast of the Study Area along Laguna Creek (Occurrence #204, recorded in 1992) but notes in the record from 2014 indicate that this nesting colony is possibly extirpated due to development. Neither the Delta Shores EIR nor Stone Beetland IS identify those project areas as supporting tricolored blackbird nesting habitat. The eBird database includes some recent records (2017, 2020, 2022) of the species flying over the SRWTP bufferlands south of the Study Area.

The California Fish and Game Code and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act address protection for nesting raptors and other migratory birds. The CNDDB lists occurrences of other protected bird species within three miles, including song sparrow (Modesto population) (Melospiza melodia; state species of special concern) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus, fully protected species) (CNDDB 2023). The annual brome grassland, eucalyptus trees, and vegetation around the pond provides suitable nesting habitat for many other species of raptors and migratory birds.

Projects generally require pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and migratory birds during the nesting season (generally March through August). These surveys would include identification of tricolored blackbirds if they are present. If no active nests are found, no further action is necessary except if there is a lapse in construction during the breeding season of more than two weeks. In the case of a lapse, the surveys are generally repeated. If nests are located, a biologist will recommend an appropriate avoidance buffer based on the species and nest location. Once the young have fledged, the buffer can be removed and construction can continue within the area.

Roosting Bats
Eucalyptus trees present along the western and eastern Study Area boundaries provide potential roosting habitat for bats, some of which are identified as species of special concern. The Delta Shores EIR requires pre-construction surveys for areas that might provide habitat for roosting bats and prescribes appropriate removal (eviction) methods that can be used. If any of the eucalyptus trees need to be removed as part of the Meadowview Project, we expect that the City will require pre-construction surveys. The surveys would be performed just prior to construction.

City Trees
The City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance requires a permit for the removal of City trees, which are defined as “any tree the trunk of which, when measured 4.5 feet above ground, is partially or completely located in a city park, on real property the city owns in fee, or on a public right-of-way, including any street, road, sidewalk, park strip, mow strip, or alley.” The Study Area, which is City property, supports numerous Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Page 16 of 18 ends

eucalyptus trees that may need to be removed or pruned/trimmed, and the pond area may support smaller trees subject to the City’s tree removal process. The City’s tree removal process for public projects applies to trees that “have a diameter standard height (DSH; diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground surface site) of four inches or more” and that would be removed “as part of a public project that otherwise requires city council approval” (Sacramento City Code 12.56.040(B).,The process requires the City project manager to provide written justification to the director of Parks and Recreation (Director) of the need to remove city trees for the public project. The Director then reviews the written justification and if the Director agrees with the written justification, makes a recommendation to the City Council to approve the request to remove the city trees. The request for approval from City Council can take place at any stage of the public project but City Council approval is required prior to the removal of any trees.

Either development scenario could result in the removal of eucalyptus trees and small trees around the pond within the Study Area. As such, the Director would need to make a recommendation regarding tree removal and City Council would need to consider the request(s) for tree removal as part of the overall Meadowview Project
Regulatory Permitting Schedule
Exhibit 1 shows a projected permitting schedule. This scenario assumes there are no significant changes to the site plan once the permit applications are submitted, that additional information requested by the regulatory agencies is provided in a timely manner, and that the agency responses/processes occur within projected timeframes for authorizations that have a specified timeframe.

Exhibit 1. Sample Regulatory Permitting Schedule
Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Page 17 of 18 ends

For sake of simplicity, we show the AJD process starting in January 2024. However, we recommend starting this process earlier if the USACE issues its guidance regarding jurisdictional determinations under the current definition of waters of the U.S. before January.

The first wet-season shrimp surveys should begin in December of this year (2023) and the second would begin in December of 2024. Results of the wet and dry sampling must be submitted to the USFWS 90 days following the completion of the surveys; submittal of these reports is not shown on the sample timeline.

The City’s CEQA process is a key driver for much of the schedule. Because the WDR/ROWD and LSAA processes are state agency processes, they require CEQA compliance. Because the City would be the lead agency under CEQA, the Regional Board and CDFW would utilize the CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) filed by the City. The WDR/ROWD and LSAA processes cannot be completed in advance of the CEQA process, which is why those two processes show a start time following the end of the CEQA process. If the City’s CEQA process is delayed for any reason, the ROWD/WDR and LSAA processes would also be delayed.

Regulatory Permitting Assistance Costs
Madrone has completed a preliminary cost estimate for regulatory permitting assistance assuming the USACE issued an AJD and determines that the aquatic resources are not jurisdictional. This does not include pre-construction surveys such as those mentioned for western spadefoot, Swainson’s hawk, or nesting raptors and migratory birds. Our estimates for each task and the total are as follows:
− AJD – complete report, submit to USACE, coordinate as needed for verification...................................................................................................................................... $5,000 − CEQA – prepare biological resources assessment for CEQA process, coordinate with City as needed............................................................................................. $15,000 − Wet-season shrimp surveys – complete sampling, prepare report, submit to USFWS ............................................................................................................................................. $18,000 − Dry-season shrimp surveys – complete sampling, prepare report, submit to USFWS ............................................................................................................................................. $14,000 − Special-status plant survey – complete surveys, prepare report.............................. $10,000 − FESA Section 10 application – complete biological assessment, coordinate with USFWS during process as needed.............................................................................. $20,000 − ROWD – prepare application, coordinate with Regional Board during process as needed....................................................................................................................................... $12,000 − LSAA – prepare application, coordinate with CDFW..................................................... $9,000 − Project meetings and agency coordination...................................................................... $15,000 Estimate Total: $118,000
A cost comparison summary of the estimated compensatory mitigation costs described in the memo is included as Attachment A.

Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Page 18 of 18 ends

References Cited
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). CNDDB Rarefind 6 database query for the Study Area and all areas within three (3) miles. Accessed 12 and 25 September 2023.

City of Sacramento. 2023. Stone Beetland Project Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study. SCH No. 2023060633. Published June 2023.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology (Cornell Lab). 2023. eBird online database of checklists for the Study Area. https://ebird.org/explore. Accessed 12, 18, and 25 September.

Google Earth Pro (Google Earth). 2023. Current and historic aerial imagery of the Study Area. 13 September.

Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone). 2021. Biological Resources Assessment – Stone Beetland.

Prepared for Taylor Builders, LLC. Published 5 May 2021.

NETROnline. 2023. Historic Aerials of the Study Area by NETROnline. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed 13 and 14 September 2023.

PBS&J. 2008. Delta Shores Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2007042070. Prepared for the City of Sacramento. Draft published September 2008, final published December 2008.

Attachment A
Cost Comparison Summary
DRAFT – FOR INTERNAL REVIEW
Comparison of Estimated Costs Associated with the Meadowview 102 Acre Full Development and Development with Wetland Preserve Options, by Jurisdiction
Full Development Development with Wetland Preserve
Associated Fee
Federal and State
Jurisdictional State Jurisdictional Only
Federal and State
Jurisdictional State Jurisdictional Only
Seasonal Wetland
Mitigation
$5.88 million $5.88 million $2.36 million $2.36 million Ditch and Pond Mitigation $1.51 million $858,175 $1.51 million $858,175 VPFS/VPTS Mitigation $4.15 million $4.15 million $4.15 million $4.15 million Regional Board Fee $237,190 $237,190 $153,993 $153,993
Swainson’s Hawk Foraging
Habitat
$1.02 to $1.22 million $1.02 to $1.22 million $870,000 to $1.04 million $870,000 to $1.04 million Total Estimate $12.80 to $13.0 million $12.15 to 12.35 million $9.04 to $9.21 million $8.39 to 8.56 million !C !C
!C
!C !C
DP-9
DP-8
DP-7
DP-6
DP-4
DP-3
DP-10
DP-5
DP-2
DP-1
!. !.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.!.
!.
/
P-1
SW-20
SW-4
SW-22
SW-2
SW-16
SW-19
SW-29
D-1
SW-8
SW-24
SW-27
SW-10
SW-26
SW-17
SW-30
SW-18
SW-7
SW-21
SW-25
SW-6
SW-1
SW-14
SW-5
SW-28
SW-9
SW-11
SW-15
SW-23
SW-13
SW-31
SW-32
SW-12
SW-3
-121.475757/

38.466913
-121.468882/

38.466908
-121.468871/

38.470396
-121.468863/
-121.475756/ 38.473186

Map Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane California II
Datum: NAD83 (North American Datum 1983)
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Vertical Data: NAVD88 (North American Vertical Datum 1988) Aerial Base: Maxar
Aerial Base Flown: 12 April 2022.

Topographic Contours: USGS NED 1/3 arc-second Contours
for Sacramento W, California. 1 October 2018
Prepared For:

City of Sacramento
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Study Area (102 acres)
!C Reference Point
!. Data Point
/ Culvert
Ground Surface Elevation,
5 foot contour
Aquatic Resources (10.475 acres)
Wetlands (6.921 acres)
Seasonal Wetland (6.921 acres)
Other Waters (3.554 acres)
Ditch (0.243 acre)
Pond (3.311 acres)
Delineation Performed by: B. Peterson, D. Snider
Map Prepared by: N. Bente
Date Map Prepared: 27 March 2023
Definitions:

NAD = North American Datum
NAVD = North American Vertical Datum
NED = National Elevation Datase
USGS = United State Geological Survey
Acreage
SW-1 0.101
SW-2 0.526
SW-3 0.003
SW-4 0.743
SW-5 0.073
SW-6 0.113
SW-7 0.048
SW-8 0.235
SW-9 0.042
SW-10 0.199
SW-11 0.047
SW-12 0.005
SW-13 0.009
SW-14 0.089
SW-15 0.022
SW-16 0.598
SW-17 0.100
SW-18 0.082
SW-19 0.458
SW-20 1.336
SW-21 0.051
SW-22 0.802
SW-23 0.010
SW-24 0.257
SW-25 0.047
SW-26 0.119
SW-27 0.203
SW-28 0.052
SW-29 0.443
SW-30 0.093
SW-31 0.008
SW-32 0.007

6.921

OTHER WATERS
Linear

AQUATIC RESOURCE FEATURES

WETLANDS
Total Wetlands: 6.921 acres
Seasonal Wetland
Feature ID
Aquatic Resources Total: 10.475 acres
D-1 0.243 409

0.243 409
Total Other Waters: 3.554 409
Feature ID Acreage
P-1 3.311

3.311
Ditch
Pond
Feature ID Acreage Feet
ATTACHMENT E:

Environmental Risk Matrix
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Risk Matrix (Env)\23_1013_Meadowview 102-Env Risk Assessment.Docx 1 of 2 Memorandum
To: City of Sacramento
From: Tim Chamberlain CC:

Vance Jones, Wood Rodgers
Tom Martens, EPS
Date: October 13, 2023
Subject: Meadowview 102 – Risk Assessment
Introduction
Wood Rodgers has prepared an assessment of potential risks to the Meadowview 102 Project. This risk assessment looks to identify site conditions, environmental impacts, and design feasibility considerations that could result in increased project cost, public controversy, and the potential for delays to the project schedule. The goal of this risk assessment is to provide the City of Sacramento with a better understanding of project constraints to provide staff and decision makers with the best possible information at this early concept stage of the project.

Background
In January 2022, the City of Sacramento purchased 102 acres of surplus federal land in the Meadowview area of south Sacramento. With input from City staff and the community, Wood Rodgers prepared four preliminary land use scenarios for the City’s consideration with the goal of exploring site development alternatives and feasibility. Each of these land use alternatives will be evaluated as part of this infrastructure needs assessment effort to identify offsite infrastructure and onsite backbone infrastructure needs for each land use.

Land Use Alternatives
Each of the conceptual land use plan alternatives that were evaluated are described below:
 City Alternative #1: Regional Sports Complex
This land use plan highlights a Regional Sports Complex for the entire 102-acre site.  City Alternative #2A: Sports Complex, Housing, and Open Space Preservation This land use plan provides a 60.5-acre sports complex along with some medium-density and highdensity residential uses. Additionally, this land use plan highlights ±15.3 acres of wetland preserve open space.
 City Alternative #2B: Sports Complex and Housing
This land use alternative provides a 60-acre sports complex along with medium-density and highdensity residential uses without the wetland preserve.  City Alternative #3: Residential Housing
Land use alternative #3 highlights a housing centered focus offering medium, medium-high, and high-density residential uses around a 10-acre neighborhood park and 7.8-acre storm drain facility open space.

Meadowview 102 – Risk Assessment
October 13, 2023
2 of 2
In addition to the four land use alternatives, the City of Sacramento intends to use approximately 3.5 acres of the Meadowview 102 site for a Tiny Home Community as an interim use. For ease of connection to existing roadways and utility infrastructure, it is assumed that the Tiny Home Community would be constructed in the southwest corner ofthe Meadowview property. In each ofthe four land use scenarios, utility and roadway access infrastructure would be brought to the project site that could serve this interim project use.

Risk Assessment
Each identified risk has been included in the risk matrix below. The purpose of analyzing these risks is to provide a more detailed look into the potential project costs and where the project schedule could be extended. The table includes Low, Medium, and High risk destinations for both cost and schedule. These designations correspond to the following risk:

Risk Cost Estimate Risk to Schedule
Low or No Risk $0 - $100k Minimal or no delay
Medium Risk $100k - $1 Million 1 - 12 months of delay
High Risk $1 Million or more 1 year or more delay
All risk assessments provided are based on the best information available at this early stage in the project.

As the project advances through the Planning, Environmental Document, and Design phases, more information will become available and these estimates can be further refined.

Meadowview 102 | Environmental Risk Matrix
October 13, 2023

Page 1 of 2 ends

ID Risk/Opportunity DesAripffon oP Issue jCeAted mrobeAt logponent mroSaSihity oP Risk OAAurrin) Risk lost :sffgate Risk to $A7eduheRisk 1 Impacts to Thrisjicwonal fiaters
yCe proUect Dohlj reshlt in tCe Hlling of seasonal DetlanjCabitat anj otCer Dater feathres, DCicC Cave been ijenwHej asfiaters of tCe 5tate- (jjiwonal ghijance anj coorjinawon DitCtCe (rm) Vorps of Engineers is neejej to jetermine if tCesefeathres are also fiaters of tCe “5- Environmental”ochment
;igC 5hbstanwal miwgawon costs are anwcipatej
regarjless of if tCe Daters are hnjer Uhrisjicwonof Uhst tCe 5tate or also tCe (rm) VorpsMiwgawon cost eswmates for tCe ji’erentalternawves are as folloDsBjhternaffve 1- 28- and . 54uhh Devehopgent6912M314Mjhternaffve 2j 5dediAated wethand preserve691.56M317MMiwgate crejit costs are knoDn to escalate )earover )ear b) $Q109- Final Miwgawon rawos Dillbe jeterminej b) tCe variohs reghlator) anjpermi7ng agenciesMojerate Risk- fiCile nhmerohs miwgawon bank opwons are chrrentl) available in tCe central valle) region, tCere is alDa)s a possibilit) tCat banks Dill rhn oht of crejits or costs Dill go hp- If shitable miwgawon crejits are not available to cover tCis proUect, a siteQ speciHc o’Qsite Cabitat restorawon/creawon e’ort Dohlj be reqhirej to provije compensawon for tCe loss of Detlanj Cabitat onQsite- Locawng a shitable locawon anj gaining reghlator) agenc) approval cohlj increase botC costs anj scCejhle to complete tCe necessar) miwgawon e’ortRisk 2 Impacts to 5pecial 5taths Invertebrates;vernal pool Diljlife<
=ernal Pool Fair) 5Crimp anj =ernal Pool yajpole 5Crimp Cavebeen recorjej DitCin tCree miles of tCe proUect area anj tCe)ma) be present in seasonal Detlanjs onQsite- ( >completeshrve)? inclhjing botC jr) anj Det season sampling Dohlj bereqhirej to conHrm presence or absence of tCe speciesEnvironmental ”ochment “njeterminej If protocol shrve)s jetect tCe presence of fejerall) listej invertebrates, or if tCe Vit) elects to asshme presence anj conshlt DitC “5Ffi5 tCrohgC 5ecwon 7 or 5ecwon 10 of tCe Enjangerej 5pecies (ct, miwgawon for tCe loss of shitable Cabitat Dohlj be reqhirej2M-15 es m1-ed CMs- Risk: $4.Miwgate crejit costs are knoDn to escalate )earover )ear b) $Q109- Final Miwgawon rawos Dillbe jeterminej b) tCe variohs reghlator) anjpermi7ng agencies- ;igC risk- Protocol 5hrve)s reqhire botC Det anj jr)sampling- If conjiwons are gooj, shrve)s can becompletej in less tCan 12 montCsA CoDever, in jrohgCtconjiwons, tCe site ma) not retain enohgC Dater toalloD for Det season samples to be collectej reshlwngin a fhll )ear jela) Uhst to jetermine presence orabsenceIf special staths invertebrates are present, or asshmejpresent, conshltawon DitC “5Ffi5 is eswmatej to takehp to 12 montCsA CoDever, it is not hnhshal for tCeconshltawon process to take shbstanwall) longer forproUects like tCese, especiall) DCen conshlwng hnjer5ecwon 10 of tCe fejeral Enjangerej 5pecies (ctRisk . Loss of Cabitat for 5DainsonBs ;aDk,ChrroDing ODl, anjotCer NeswngMigrator) Cirjs ”epenjing on tCe alternawve selectej, tCe proUect Dohlj reshltin tCe loss of betDeen 87 anj 102 acres of neswng anj foragingCabitat for a variet) of special staths birjs inclhjing tCe 5tateListej 5DainsonBs ;aDkEnvironmental ”ochment ;igC Miwgawon crejits for tCe loss of foraging Cabitat for 5DainsonBs ;aDk can be phrcCasej at a price of betDeen F10kQ12k per acre- Miwgawon is expectej to be at a 1B1 rawo reshlwng inB 2M-15 es m1-ed CMs- Risk: $870k $.
LoD risk- Impacts anj miwgawon for special staths avianspecies can be completej tCrohgC tCe normal cohrse oftCe environmental jochment anj miwgawon crejitsobtainej prior to tCe start of constrhcwonRisk 7 Reghlator) Permits Reghlator) permits from tCe Regional fiater Ghalit) Vontrol Coarj anj Valifornia ”epartment of FisC anj fiiljlife areanwcipatej- ( Vlean fiater (ct 404 Fill Permit Dill be reqhirejfrom (rm) Vorps if tCe Dater feathres are jeterminej to behnjer fejeral UhrisjicwonEnvironmental ”ochment, ”esign, Vonstrhcwon ;igC Permi7ng costs are jivijej betDeen applicawon anj processing costs ;fees anj conshltant costs< anj miwgawon costs for impacts to Uhrisjicwonal Daters- Miwgawon costs are ijenwHej in Risks 1Q3- (pplicawon anj processing costs are eswmatej to be betDeen$0k0k for tCis proUect- ;igC risk- Reghlator) permi7ng for fiaters of tCe 5tateis eswmatej to take IQ12 montCs given tCe scope of tCeproUect anj tCe scope of Cabitat loss- If tCe Daterfeathres onQsite are jeterminej to be fiaters of tCe“-5- tCis wmeframe ma) extenj to 18 montCs or moreas it Dohlj reqhire an Injivijhal Permit from tCe (rm)Vorps 404 jivision, as Dell as an Environmental(ssessment or Environmental Impact 5tatementcovering Nawonal Environmental Polic) (ctjochmentawon reqhirements- If an EI5 is reqhirej, itlikel) Dohlj introjhce ajjiwonal risk to botC proUectcosts anj scCejhle- Meadowview 102 | Environmental Risk Matrix
October 13, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

ID Risk/Opportunity DesAripffon oP Issue jCeAted mrobeAt logponent mroSaSihity oP Risk OAAurrin) Risk lost :sffgate Risk to $A7eduheRisk 6 5hbshrface (rcCaeolog) anjNawve (mericanVonshltawon
yCe proUect area Cas some potenwal for shbshrfacearcCaeological resohrces tCat cohlj be impactej jhringconstrhcwon- ( chlthral anal)sis anj tribal conshltawon Dillocchr jhring tCe VEG( jochmentawon process to ijenwf) tCelevel of sensiwvit) of tCe proUect area anj jetermine ifshbshrface teswng or arcCaeological/tribal monitoring is neejejjhring constrhcwonEnvironmental ”ochment, yribal Vonshltawon, ”esign, anj Vonstrhcwon LoD to mojerate 5hbshrface teswng costs ma) be F30kQ$0k- If constrhcwon monitoring of grajing acwviwes is reqhirej, eswmate F2,$00 per Dorking ja) for one arcCaeological monitor anj one tribal monitor2M-15 es m1-ed CMs- Risk: $7k LoD risk- VEG( process inclhjes tribal conshltawon hnjer (C$2- 5hbshrface teswng can be jone jhring preparawon of Hnal jesign- Vonstrhcwon monitoring Dill onl) reshlt in jela)s to constrhcwon if shbstanwve arcCaeological jeposits or Chman remains are ijenwHej jhring eartCDorkRisk 8 EartCDork ;import export< / Vonstrhcwon(ir Ghalit) Impacts
yCe proposej proUect is expectej to be able to balanceeartCDork reshlwng in no import or exportA CoDever, if balancejgrajing is not feasible, it ma) reshlt in ajjej costs foracqhisiwon or jisposal eartCen material- yrhcking soil materialma) also be necessar) if soils are ijenwHej to Cave Cazarjohsconcentrawons of PVC ;see Risk 3<- yrhcking soil material ma)also reshlt in an increase in criteria pollhtants inclhjinggreenCohse gas emissionsEnvironmental ”ochment, ”esign, Vonstrhcwon LoD yo be jeterminej- Preliminar) jesign Dill inform tCe neej for soil transport, jistances from a borroD or jisposal site, anj associatej costs- LoD risk- It is asshmej if soil import or export is neejej, an appropriate borroD or jisposal site Dill be locatej nearb) tCat can be hsej DitCoht shbstanwal scCejhle jela)sRisk 2 Vontaminatej 5oil ;PVC< Remejiawon
yCe Vit)Bs PCase 1 ;azarjohs fiaste Iniwal 5ite (ssessmentijenwHej 5M“” PVC 5hbstawon 5ite #1$ DCicC Caj a reportejspill DitC recorjej PVC contaminawon at 7,800 ppm in soilVleanhp sCohlj occhr at $0 ppm anj tCe recorj states no cleanQhp Das jone- PVCs aLacC reajil) to anj move DitC soils, so ifsoil parwcles are movej b) Dater floD, tCe soil anj PVCs Dillmove togetCer- Cecahse tCis site is hpgrajient from tCe 5hbUectPropert), anj if tCe PVCs Dere not remejiatej, soil erosioncohlj Cave movej PVCQcontaminatej soil to tCe 5hbUectPropert) over wme tCrohgC jrainage/irrigawon jitcCes-(jjiwonal teswng onQsite is neejej to conHrm if shrface soilsCave been contaminatej DitC PVCsEnvironmental ”ochment, Vonstrhcwon Mojerate yo be jeterminej- PCase 2 soil teswng is neejej to beLer hnjerstanj tCe extent anj concentrawon of PVC contaminawon on tCe propert)- ”isposal ma) be accomplisCej b) bhr)ing loDer concentrawon contaminatej soils onQsite hnjer clean Hll, or if concentrawons are CigCer, ma) reqhire trhcking tCe contaminatej soils to a Cazarjohs Daste jisposal facilit) ;e-g- lanjHll in KeLleman Vit)<- Vhrrent eswmate for jisposal costs of CigCer concentrawons are betDeen F$00Q1000 per chbic )arj of material, plhs tCe cost to transport tCe material- LoD risk- Remejiawon e’orts can be completej prior to constrhcwon, or tCe) can be inclhjej in tCe bij package speciHcawons as a reqhirement for tCe constrhcwon contractor to completejRisk 4 5ite ”rainage Reqhirements
5ite conjiwons injicate loD permeabilit) onQsite jhe to tCepresence of seasonal Detlanjs tCrohgCoht tCe site- (jjiwonalgeotecCnical/soil inveswgawons are neejej to jetermine CoD toe’ecwvel) jrain tCe proUect site- LoD permeabilit) ma) reshlt inCigCer cost jrainage faciliwes or some onQsite jetenwon facilit)DCicC cohlj a’ect tCe plannej jevelopment alternawve tCe Vit)selectsPreliminar) ”esign, Final ”esign, Vonstrhcwon Mojerate yo be jeterminej- ”esign anj constrhcwon costs of tCe necessar) jrainage faciliwes Dill be jeterminej jhring tCrohgC a ”rainage Report anj jhring Preliminar) ”esign- No Risk- yCis is part of tCe t)pical jesign processRisk 9 Phblic Vontrovers) ;yin) ;ome”evelopment<
Recent Cistor) injicates tCat an) proposal for jeveloping wn)Comes or otCer faciliwes for hnCohsej injivijhals Cas reshltej ingeneral opposiwon from local resijents anj leajs to controvers)over tCe proUect- yCis sCohlj be an expectej reshlt for tCisproUect since all tCree alternawves inclhje a temporar) wn)Come jevelopmentEnvironmental ”ochment, Phblic OhtreacC, ”esign ;igC Minimal cost risk anwcipatej- VCanges in jesign jhe to phblic controvers) cohlj increase conshltant costs- ;igC risk- Vontrovers) Dill reqhire ajjiwonal phblic ohtreacC anj coorjinawon e’orts, Dill be expectej to generate shbstanwal comments on tCe VEG( ”ochment, anj cohlj even reshlt in a laDshit cCallenging tCe Vit)Bs jecision to ajvance a parwchlar alternawve- yCese cohlj reshlt in shbstanwal jela)s to proUect jevelopment anj ajvancing tCe proUect toconstrhcwon- ATTACHMENT F:

Infrastructure Needs Assessment
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Needs Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Needs Assessment.Docx 1 of 16 Technical Memorandum
To: City of Sacramento
From:

Adam Fischlin, PE
Mike Motroni, PE CC:

Vance Jones, Wood Rodgers
Tom Martens, EPS
Date: September 29, 2023
Subject: Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Needs Assessment Introduction
Wood Rodgers has prepared an infrastructure needs assessment review of the Meadowview 102 site based on four land use alternatives identified by the City of Sacramento. The focus of this analysis is to identify offsite infrastructure improvements and onsite backbone utility needs to serve the site development in each of the land use scenarios. Preliminary infrastructure cost estimates for each of the land use scenarios will be evaluated as part of a separate “Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Memorandum”.

Land Use Alternatives
Each of the conceptual land use plan alternatives that will be evaluated as part of this technical memorandum are described below:
• City Alternative #1: Regional Sports Complex (Appendix A) This land use plan highlights a Regional Sports Complex for the entire 102-acre site. • City Alternative #2A: Sports Complex, Housing, and Open Space Preservation (Appendix B) This land use plan provides a 60.5-acre sports complex along with some medium-density and highdensity residential uses. Additionally, this land use plan highlights ±15.3 acres of wetland preserve open space.
• City Alternative #2B: Sports Complex and Housing (Appendix C) This land use alternative provides a 60-acre sports complex along with medium-density and highdensity residential uses without the wetland preserve. • City Alternative #3: Residential Housing (Appendix D) Land use alternative #3 highlights a housing centered focus offering medium, medium-high, and high-density residential uses around a 10-acre neighborhood park and 7.8-acre storm drain facility open space.

Offsite Infrastructure Needs
For each of the four land use alternatives, the offsite infrastructure needs are largely the same. In this section, the infrastructure needs (roadway, water, sewer, and storm drainage) that are constant for each of the land use alternatives will be outlined. Any additional offsite needs that are particular to a specific land use alternative will be identified later in this memo as we evaluate the infrastructure needs of each land use alternative separately.

Roadway
The Meadowview 102 project site is currently landlocked with no vehicular access. For the project to be developed in any of the land use scenarios, there would need to be construction of offsite roadway infrastructure to provide the required two points of access. In each of the land use scenarios, access to the proposed project is provided from the west through the Delta Shores development and from the south through the Stone Beetland development.

It is anticipated that main point of access for the Meadowview 102 project is via the intersection of Consumnes River Boulevard and 24th Street. Currently, roadway infrastructure for 24th Street ends at the northern curb returns of the intersection with Cosumnes RiveR Boulevard. To provide the proposed access to the Project site, 24th Street would need to be constructed to the north for a length of about 2,400 feet. 24th Street has a 99-foot right-of way width consisting of a four-lane road with a landscaped median and a class I paved trail east of the roadway. This roadway extension would serve as the primary point of entry to the proposed project for all the sports park centered land use plans and as a secondary point of access for the housing centered Land Use Plan City Alternative #3.

In addition to the 24th Street extension, a portion of “A Street” (as labeled in the Stone Beetland Tentative Subdivision Map) that runs along the south edge of the Meadowview project would need to be constructed to provide secondary access. It is anticipated that the Meadowview Project would be required to complete ‘A Street’ along the entire project frontage which equates to approximately 2,500 linear feet of roadway improvements. ‘A Street’ is identified as a minor two-lane collector street with parking along the south side of the road and a Class I trail that would run between the Meadowview 102 project site and the Stone Beetland development.

Because ‘A Street’ will branch off 24th Street and there will only be one connection to Cosumnes River Blvd, we expect that an emergency vehicle access road will be required through the Stone Beetland property until that project is developed. Once Stone Beetlend provides a second roadway connection to Cosumnes River Boulevard, this emergency vehicle access would no longer be needed.

Roadway development as described above will also require that all proposed utilities beneath the road are installed as part of the construction efforts. We will describe the anticipated extents of the offsite utility needs in each of the sections below for water, sewer and storm drainage infrastructure.

In addition to the domestic water beneath the proposed roadway extensions, an additional point of connection to the Cosumnes River Blvd water main will be required to complete the looped system.

Within the 24th Street roadway extension, construction of a 24-inch water transmission main and two 8-inch domestic water mains will be required for the complete length of the extension to the north (2,400 feet).

These water main extensions will serve the proposed project from the west through the Delta Shores development. The construction of ‘A Street’ within the Stone Beetland development will include a 12-inch domestic water main (2,500 feet) that will serve the Meadowview 102 project from the south. Depending on construction phasing and the timeline for the Stone Beetland development, it may be required to provide a second point of connection to the Cosumnes River Boulevard domestic water main to create a looped water system to serve the proposed Project. It is likely that the second point of connection would occur at the intersection of ‘B Street’ (as labeled in the Stone Beetland Tentative Subdivision Map) and would require the construction of approximately 850 linear feet of 8-inch domestic water main.

An exhibit showing the required offsite water infrastructure is included as Appendix E. All required water appurtenances per City of Sacramento Department of Utilities standards and specifications would be installed at the time of water main construction. Refer to the separate “Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Memorandum” for the estimate of offsite water infrastructure costs.

Sewer
The development of the proposed Meadowview 102 Project site with any of the proposed land use scenarios will likely trigger several significant sewer system upgrades and trunk sewer main extensions. In the existing condition, a 10-inch sewer line runs along the south edge of the Project site which serves the Detroit/Southgate subdivision. This 10-inch sewer terminates at the existing sewer pump 53 which is located at the future intersection of 24th Street and ‘A Street’. This flow is pumped to the north via an existing 8-inch force main. Both the 10-inch sewer main and the 8-inch force main are to be abandoned after the relocation of sewer pump 53.

Per the Delta Shores Sewer Master Plan, sewer pump 53 is to be relocated south of Cosumnes River Boulevard once the existing pump station reaches 1.283 mgd combined. Due to the necessary roadway construction of 24th Street and ‘A Street’ to serve the Meadowview 102 site, it is assumed that the pump station relocation will be required if not already completed by Stone Beetland or Delta Shores prior to development. The pump station relocation also requires the construction of approximately 10,000 linear feet of 18-inch sewer force main within Cosumnes River Boulevard to the intersection with Franklin Boulevard where it will tie into an existing gravity sewer system.

In addition to the sewer pump station relocation, sewer pipe runs will need to be constructed to serve the Meadowview 102 offsite needs. A 24-inch trunk sewer main will be extended through 24th Street from the intersection with Cosumnes River Boulevard to the intersection with ‘A Street’. A sewer main through ‘A Street’ of sizes varying from 10-inch to 15-inch will be constructed along the southern project boundary. This sewer main will intercept the existing flows from the Detroit/Southgate neighborhood as well as provide a new service to the proposed Meadowview 102 site. Lastly, a 10-inch sewer main will be constructed through 24th Street north of ‘A Street’ as a stub for future development for a length of about 1,400 linear feet.

An exhibit of the required offsite sewer infrastructure is included as Appendix F. Construction of all sewer infrastructure will follow City of Sacramento Department of Utilities standards and specifications. Refer to Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Needs Assessment
September 29, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Needs Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Needs Assessment.Docx 4 of 16 the separate “Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Memorandum” for the estimate of offsite sewer infrastructure costs.

Storm Drainage
While the Meadowview 102 site is mostly clear of existing utility infrastructure, there is storm drainage infrastructure that runs through the site that serves other properties. Depending on which land use alternative is selected, much of this existing storm drainage infrastructure will either remain in place or be rerouted through the site without serving the proposed project. For additional details of the existing storm drainage systems both on and offsite, please refer to the “Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment Memorandum” dated September 8, 2023.

The proposed storm drain point of connection for the Meadowview 102 site is at the existing 24-inch drain that enters the site from the south and is part of the existing “Z-Line” storm drain system. Portions of the “ZLine” system will be removed and replaced as part of the Stone Beetland development. Should the Meadowview 102 project be developed prior to Stone Beetland, a bypass drain line would need to be constructed through the future Stone Beetland roads as shown on the Stone Beetland Preliminary Grading and Drainage exhibits and connected to the remaining “Z-Line” system just north of Cosumnes River Boulevard.

The necessary offsite storm drainage infrastructure to serve the Meadowview 102 site consists of approximately 1,900 linear feet of 30-inch storm drain and 9 storm drain manholes. This new storm drain line would intercept flow from Meadowview 102 at the south boundary, run west through ‘A Street’, turn south down ‘B Street’, turn back east through the south end of Lot MDR-1, and connect to the remaining portion of the “Z-Line” that runs beneath Cosumnes River Boulevard and ultimately outfalls into Morrison Creek via the Sump 89 Pump Station.

An exhibit showing the required offsite storm drainage infrastructure is included as Appendix G. All storm drain construction shall follow applicable City of Sacramento standards and specifications. Refer to the separate “Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Memorandum” for the estimate of offsite storm drainage infrastructure costs.

City Alternative #1: Regional Sports Complex
Included in Appendix A along with the City Alternative #1 Land Use Plan is a proposed layout of the regional sports complex. This preliminary layout has been used to evaluate the required onsite backbone infrastructure to serve the proposed land use. The backbone roads and utilities shown on the Sports Complex Land Use Plan 1 are detailed below. For cost estimate information related to the onsite backbone infrastructure, please refer to the separate “Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Memorandum”.

Roadway
This preliminary layout of the regional sports complex shows a roadway that connects the two points of access to the project site and provides access to parking for all the sports fields as well as the indoor complex located in the northwest corner of the site. In total, there is approximately 3,800 liner feet of backbone roadway and one roundabout proposed.

Water
A backbone water loop following the roadway layout is required to provide domestic water service to the Project site. Two points of water connection are required to provide a looped system to maintain required water pressure throughout the system. A complete water study will be required to determine required pipe Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Needs Assessment
September 29, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Needs Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Needs Assessment.Docx 5 of 16 sizing onsite but it is assumed that an 8-inch domestic water loop will be sufficient to serve this land use scenario. There is approximately 3,800 linear feet of backbone domestic water main required to complete the necessary water main loop onsite.

Sewer
As shown on the Sports Complex Land Use Plan 1, we have proposed a utility corridor between fields 17 and 18 that will provide a shortened path for sewer and storm drain connection to the offsite utilities. Backbone sewer will run north through the utility corridor and the backbone roadway all the way up to the indoor sports complex. A complete Sewer Study will be required during design to determine required sewer pipe sizing. It is assumed that an 8-inch backbone sewer will be adequate to serve this land use alternative.

Approximately 2,150 linear feet of backbone sewer main will be required to serve the proposed Land Use Concept #1.

Storm Drain
Backbone storm drain infrastructure required for this land use scenario will run from the south end of the detention basin to the Stone Beetland bypass drain infrastructure offsite via the proposed utility corridor between sport fields 17 and 18. A drain study with the design efforts will determine the required storm drain pipe sizing for the basin outlet. For this exercise, it is assumed that 30-inch pipe will be used. Approximately 950 linear feet of 30-inch backbone storm drain will be required to provide connection from the detention basin to the offsite drainage system.

City Alternative #2A: Sports Complex, Housing, and Open Space Preservation Included in Appendix B along with the City Alternative #2A Land Use Plan is a proposed layout of the 60.5- acre regional sports complex. This preliminary layout has been used to evaluate the required onsite backbone infrastructure to serve the proposed land use. The backbone roads and utilities shown on the Sports Complex Land Use Plan 2A are detailed below. For cost estimate information related to the onsite backbone infrastructure, please refer to the separate “Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Memorandum”.

Roadway
This preliminary layout of the 60.5-acre regional sports complex and conceptual land use plan shows a roadway that connects the two points of access to the project site and provides access to the medium-density and high-density residential parcels and to parking for all the sports fields as well as the indoor complex located at the north end of the site. In total, there is approximately 2,250 linear feet of backbone roadway and one roundabout proposed.

Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Needs Assessment
September 29, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Needs Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Needs Assessment.Docx 6 of 16 Sewer
As shown on the Sports Complex Land Use Plan 2A, the backbone sewer infrastructure will connect to the offsite sewer within ‘A Street’ and run north through the project site through the backbone roadway to serve each of the residential land uses and the sports complex. A complete Sewer Study will be required to determine required sewer pipe sizing. It is assumed that an 8-inch backbone sewer will be adequate to serve this land use alternative. Approximately 1,650 linear feet of backbone sewer main is proposed to serve the proposed Land Use Concept #2A.

Storm Drain
Backbone storm drain infrastructure required for this land use alternative will convey storm water from the storm drain facilities serving the 60.5-acre sports complex parking to the offsite bypass drain through Stone Beetland via the backbone onsite roadway. Additional drainage infrastructure will be required to convey storm water from the residential land uses to the larger storm drainage facility located at the southeast corner of the project site. The layout of those additional facilities are unknown at this time and are not included as part of this analysis.

A drainage study completed with the design efforts will determine the required pipe sizing. It is assumed that a 24-inch storm drain will serve as the backbone drain for this land uses alternative. Approximately 1,750 linear feet of 24-inch backbone storm drain will be required to provide connection from the sports complex storm drain facilities to the offsite drainage system.

City Alternative #2B: Sports Complex and Housing
Included in Appendix C along with the City Alternative #2B Land Use Plan is a proposed layout of the 60-acre regional sports complex. This preliminary layout has been used to evaluate the required onsite backbone infrastructure to serve the proposed land use. The backbone roads and utilities shown on the Sports Complex Land Use Plan 2B are detailed below. For cost estimate information related to the onsite backbone infrastructure, please refer to the separate “Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Memorandum”.

Roadway
The preliminary layout of the 60-acre regional sports complex shows two points of access to the project site from the south and one from the west. These roadways provide access to the medium-density and highdensity residential parcels as well as access to parking for all the sports fields and the indoor complex located at the center of the project. In total, there is approximately 3,300 linear feet of backbone roadway proposed in this land use alternative.

Water
A backbone water loop following the roadway layout is required to provide domestic water service to the Project site. Two points of water connection are required to provide a looped system to maintain required water pressure throughout the system. As shown, there will be two points of water connection to the south at ‘A Street’ and one to the west through Delta Shores. A complete water study will be required to determine required pipe sizing onsite, but it is assumed that a 12-inch domestic water loop will be required for this land use scenario due to the increased residential land uses. There is approximately 3,300 linear feet of backbone domestic water main required to complete the necessary water main loop onsite.

Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Needs Assessment
September 29, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Needs Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Needs Assessment.Docx 7 of 16 Sewer
As shown on the Sports Complex Land Use Plan 2B, the backbone sewer infrastructure will connect to the offsite sewer within ‘A Street’ at two separate locations and run north through the project site through the backbone roadway to serve each of the residential land uses and the sports complex. A complete Sewer Study will be required to determine required sewer pipe sizing. Because the total flow is split between the two separate pipe runs, it is assumed that an 8-inch backbone sewer will be adequate to serve this land use alternative. Approximately 1,500 linear feet of backbone sewer main is proposed to serve the proposed Land Use Concept #2B.

Storm Drain
Backbone storm drain infrastructure required for this land use alternative will convey storm water from the storm drain facilities serving the 60-acre sports complex parking to the offsite bypass drain through Stone Beetland via the backbone onsite roadway. Additional drainage infrastructure will be required to convey storm water from the residential land uses to the larger 5.5-acre storm drainage facility. The layout of those additional facilities are unknown at this time and are not included as part of this analysis.

A drainage study completed with the design efforts will determine the required pipe sizing. It is assumed that a 24-inch storm drain will serve as the backbone drain for this land uses alternative. Approximately 2,150 linear feet of 24-inch backbone storm drain will be required to provide connection from the sports complex storm drain facilities to the offsite drainage system.

City Alternative #3: Residential Housing
This preliminary Land Use Concept #3 layout in Appendix D has been used to evaluate the required onsite backbone infrastructure to serve this project alternative. The backbone roads and utilities shown on the Conceptual Land Use Plan – City Alternative #3 are detailed below. For cost estimate information related to the onsite backbone infrastructure, please refer to the separate “Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Memorandum”.

Roadway
Conceptual Land Use Plan – City Alternative #3 is a housing centric plan with a roadway circle through the site that loops around a 10-acre neighborhood park and the storm drain detention basin facility and provides two points of access to ‘A Street’ south of the project site. There is an additional backbone road that connects to the roadway circle and provides access to the site from the west through the Delta Shores development.

In total, there is approximately 4,100 linear feet of backbone roadway proposed in this land use scenario.

Water
A backbone water loop following the roadway circle layout is required to provide domestic water service to the Project site. Two points of water connection are required to provide a looped system to maintain required water pressure throughout the system. As shown, there will be two points of water connection to the south at ‘A Street’ and one to the west through Delta Shores. A complete water study will be required to determine required pipe sizing onsite, but it is assumed that a 12-inch domestic water loop will be required for this land use scenario due to the increased residential land uses. There is approximately 4,100 linear feet of backbone domestic water main required to complete the necessary water main loop onsite.

Because this land use scenario is all residential uses and sewer flows will be larger than the other land use concepts, it is assumed that a 15-inch backbone sewer will be required to serve this land use alternative.

Approximately 3,500 linear feet of backbone sewer main is proposed to serve the proposed Land Use Alternative #3.

Storm Drain
As shown on the Conceptual Land Use Plan – City Alternative #3, backbone storm drain infrastructure will be required to convey storm water from each of the residential land uses to the 7.8-acre storm drain facility centered at the south end of the Project site. The outfall of the storm drainage facility will connect directly into the offsite Stone Beetland bypass drain system via ‘A Street’. The onsite backbone storm drain lines are split on either side of the neighborhood park and run through the roadway circle to the ultimate outfalls into the storm drainage detention basin facility.

A drainage study completed with the design efforts will determine the required pipe sizing. It is assumed that 36-inch storm drain pipe will serve as the backbone drain for this land uses alternative. Approximately 2,800 linear feet of 36-inch backbone storm drain will be required to provide connection from the sports complex storm drain facilities to the offsite drainage system.

Summary
The Meadowview 102 project will require both onsite and offsite infrastructure in each of the four land use alternatives for the Project to move forward. Those needs have been identified within this technical memorandum and as noted, additional analysis will be required in the design phase with the completion of water, sewer and drainage studies. All the infrastructure identified as part of this report is also included in the separate “Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Memorandum” where some preliminary costs are associated to the infrastructure required offsite and onsite for each of the land use alternatives.

Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Needs Assessment
September 29, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Needs Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Needs Assessment.Docx 9 of 16 Sources
Delta Shores Development – Tentative Subdivision Map
Stone Beetland Development – Preliminary Sewer and Water Exhibits Stone Beetland Development – Tentative Subdivision Map
Appendices
Appendix A – Land Use Concept #1 and Sports Complex Land Use Plan 1 Appendix B – Land Use Concept #2A and Sports Complex Land Use Plan 2A Appendix C – Land Use Concept #2B and Sports Complex Land Use Plan 2B Appendix D – Land Use Concept #3
Appendix E – Offsite Water Infrastructure
Appendix F – Offsite Sewer Infrastructure
Appendix G – Offsite Storm Drainage Infrastructure
Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Needs Assessment
September 29, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Needs Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Needs Assessment.Docx 10 of 16 Appendix A – Land Use Concept #1 and Sports
Complex Land Use Plan 1

ATTACHMENT G:

Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Cost Estimates.Docx 1 of 9 Technical Memorandum
To: City of Sacramento
From:

Adam Fischlin, PE
Mike Motroni, PE CC:

Vance Jones, Wood Rodgers
Tom Martens, EPS
Date: October 16, 2023
Subject: Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Introduction
Wood Rodgers has prepared an infrastructure needs assessment review of the Meadowview 102 site based on four land use alternatives identified by the City of Sacramento. The focus of this analysis is to identify offsite infrastructure improvements and onsite backbone utility needs to serve the site development in each of the land use scenarios. In conjunction with the Infrastructure Needs Assessment, we have also prepared this Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost memorandum to define preliminary costs associated with the offsite and onsite infrastructure requirements for site development.

Background
In January of 2022, the City of Sacramento purchased 102 acres of surplus federal land in the Meadowview area of south Sacramento. With input from City staff and the community, Wood Rodgers prepared four preliminary land use scenarios for the City’s consideration with the goal of exploring site development alternatives and feasibility of site development. Each of these land use alternatives have been evaluated as part of the infrastructure needs assessment effort to identify offsite and onsite backbone infrastructure needs for each land use. This memo will outline the costs associated with infrastructure needs for Meadowview 102 site development.

Land Use Alternatives
In this section, we will introduce each of the conceptual land use plan alternatives that will be evaluated as part of this technical memorandum.
• City Alternative #1: Regional Sports Complex (Appendix A) This land use plan highlights a Regional Sports Complex for the entire 102-acre site. • City Alternative #2A: Sports Complex, Housing, and Open Space Preservation (Appendix B) This land use plan provides a 60.5-acre sports complex along with some medium-density and highdensity residential uses. Additionally, this land use plan highlights ±15.3 acres of wetland preserve open space.
• City Alternative #2B: Sports Complex and Housing (Appendix C) This land use alternative provides a 60-acre sports complex along with medium-density and highdensity residential uses without the wetland preserve.

Preliminary Opinion of Cost Assumptions
Each of the estimates summarized below assume unit prices based on recent construction bids in the Sacramento region. Due to the volatility of material pricing due to the ongoing supply chain and labor issues and escalation of construction costs, a thirty percent contingency has been included for each of the estimates.

Additionally, we have assumed a twenty percent soft costs allowance which is intended to cover the costs associated with engineering, mapping, plan checking, construction staking, and inspection.

For each of the roadway quantities (24th Street, A Street and Onsite Backbone Roadway), we have assumed a per linear foot cost based on the separate roadway estimates that are included as Appendix F. Additional assumptions are footnoted within each of the preliminary opinions of cost included in the appendices of this memorandum.

Offsite Infrastructure Needs Estimate
Included in Appendix A is the preliminary opinion of cost for the Meadowview 102 offsite infrastructure needs (roadway, sewer, water, and storm drain). This effort includes roadway access to the Meadowview 102 Project site and required utility extensions to serve the proposed Project as described in the “Infrastructure Needs Assessment” memo. The preliminary infrastructure opinion of cost for the offsite infrastructure totals $26,391,000. For the offsite infrastructure costs, it was assumed that neither Delta Shores Phase 3 or the Stone Beetland development would be constructed. Should both projects move forward prior to the development of Meadowview 102, it can be assumed that the offsite infrastructure will be in place, and this cost no longer applies.

Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs Estimate – City Alternative #1 The proposed onsite backbone infrastructure needs and mass grading estimate for City Land Use Alternative #1 is included as Appendix B. This effort includes the backbone roadway, water, sewer, and storm drain needs to serve the 102-acre Regional Sports Complex as described in the “Infrastructure Needs Assessment” memo. The preliminary backbone infrastructure opinion of cost for the onsite needs of City Alternative #1 totals $9,797,000.

Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs Estimate – City Alternative #2A The proposed onsite backbone infrastructure needs and mass grading estimate for City Land Use Alternative #2A is included as Appendix C. This effort includes the backbone roadway, water, sewer, and storm drain needs to serve the 60.5-acre Regional Sports Complex, medium-density residential and high-density residential land uses as described in the “Infrastructure Needs Assessment” memo. The preliminary backbone infrastructure opinion of cost for the onsite needs of City Alternative #2A totals $7,744,000.

Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs Estimate – City Alternative #2B The proposed onsite backbone infrastructure needs and mass grading estimate for City Land Use Alternative #2B is included as Appendix D. This effort includes the backbone roadway, water, sewer, and storm drain needs to serve the 60-acre Regional Sports Complex, medium-density residential and high-density residential land uses as described in the “Infrastructure Needs Assessment” memo. The preliminary backbone infrastructure opinion of cost for the onsite needs of City Alternative #2B totals $9,097,000.

Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost October 16, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Cost Estimates.Docx 3 of 9 Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs Estimate – City Alternative #3 The proposed onsite backbone infrastructure needs and mass grading estimate for City Land Use Alternative #3 is included as Appendix E. This effort includes the backbone roadway, water, sewer, and storm drain needs to serve the housing centric land use plan as described in the “Infrastructure Needs Assessment” memo. The preliminary backbone infrastructure opinion of cost for the onsite needs of City Alternative #3 totals $12,612,000.

Tiny Home Community Preliminary Opinion of Cost
The City of Sacramento has identified a 3.5-acre Tiny Home Community as an interim land use. For this interim use to be implemented in the southwest corner of the Project site, much of the offsite infrastructure would need to be completed as outlined in the “Infrastructure Needs Assessment” memo. The costs associated with mass grading and erosion control for the interim Tiny Home Community land use are minimal when compared to the offsite infrastructure preliminary opinions of costs. Further cost estimate analysis for the Tiny Home Community development can be evaluated during the planning and design phases of the project.

Preliminary Opinion of Cost Exclusions
As discussed in the “Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment Memorandum” dated September 8, 2023, it is unknown whether the SUMP 89 Drainage Pump Station adjacent to Morrison Creek has the capacity to accept additional flow and volume to serve any of the proposed Meadowview 102 land use alternatives. Design level drainage study to confirm pump station capacity. SUMP 89 Pump Station upgrades have been excluded from this effort.

Summary
The Meadowview 102 project will require both onsite and offsite infrastructure in each of the four land use alternatives for the Project to move forward. Those needs have been identified within the “Meadowview 102 Infrastructure Needs Assessment” memorandum and as noted, additional analysis will be required in the design phase with the completion of water, sewer, and drainage studies. This “Meadowview 102 Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost” memorandum further defines the anticipated costs required to develop each of the land use scenarios. The City of Sacramento may use this information to aid in the decision making process for how to move forward with the 102-acre Meadowview Project site.

Sources
Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Needs Assessment Memo
Appendices
Appendix A – Offsite Infrastructure Needs Estimate
Appendix B – Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs Estimate – City Alternative #1 Appendix C – Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs Estimate – City Alternative #2A Appendix D – Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs Estimate – City Alternative #2B Appendix E – Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs Estimate – City Alternative #3 Appendix F – Roadway Estimates (Cost per Linear Foot)
Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost October 16, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Cost Estimates.Docx 4 of 9 Appendix A – Offsite Infrastructure Needs Estimate
Wood Rodgers, Inc.

A. Fischlin/R. Skots
10/11/2023
# QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
A. ROADWAY

1. 2,500 LF A Street (see appendix F) $ 950.00 $ 2,375,000

2. 2,400 LF 24th Street (see appendix F) $ 1,448.00 $ 3,475,200

3. 700 LF Western Entrance Roadway (see appendix F) $ 834.00 $ 583,800

4. 1,000 LF Emergency Vehicle Access Road $ 60.00 $ 60,000 TOTAL ROADWAY $ 6,494,000
B. SANITARY SEWER

5. 1 LS Relocation Sewer Pump Station 53 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000

6. 10,000 LF 18" Force Main Pipe $ 350.00 $ 3,500,000

7. 700 LF 24" Trunk Sewer Main Pipe $ 325.00 $ 227,500

8. 12 EA 48" Sewer Manhole $ 10,500.00 $ 126,000

9. 4 EA 60" Sewer Manhole $ 15,000.00 $ 60,000

10. 65 LF 8" Sewer Main Pipe $ 75.00 $ 4,875

11. 1,555 LF 10" Sewer Main Pipe $ 137.50 $ 213,813

12. 1,030 LF 12" Sewer Main Pipe $ 200.00 $ 206,000

13. 1,700 LF 15" Sewer Main Pipe $ 245.00 $ 416,500
TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $ 8,754,688
C. STORM DRAINAGE

14. 1,900 LF 30" Storm Drain Pipe $ 145.00 $ 275,500

15. 9 EA 48" Manhole $ 9,500.00 $ 85,500
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE $ 361,000
D. WATER SYSTEM

16. 2,400 LF 24" Water Transmission Main Pipe $ 320.00 $ 768,000

17. 2,500 LF 12" Domestic Water Main Pipe $ 170.00 $ 425,000

18. 5,650 LF 8" Domestic Water Main Pipe $ 140.00 $ 791,000 TOTAL WATER SYSTEM $ 1,984,000
A. ROADWAY $ 6,494,000
B. SANITARY SEWER $ 8,754,688
C. STORM DRAINAGE $ 361,000
D. WATER SYSTEM $ 1,984,000
SUBTOTAL PRELIMINARY INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE $ 17,593,688 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 5,278,106
SOFT COSTS 20% $ 3,518,738
$ 26,391,000
NOTES:

1. Based on preliminary nature of the studies, 30% contingency is applied.

2. 3. Pavement and concrete strucutral sections are assumed and not based on site specific geotechnical analysis.

4. Water main pipe costs include all required appurtenances (blow offs, hydrants, air release valves, etc.)

5. All costs shown are full improvement costs, not fair share contributions.

INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY OPINION OF COST
Meadowview 102 - Offsite
City of Sacramento

TOTAL PRELIMINARY INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE
Estimate inlcudes a 20% soft cost allowance. Assumed to be engineering (8%), mapping (1%), plan check (2%), inspection (3%), geotech (3%), and staking (3%).
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Cost Estimates\Meadowview 102_Preliminary Infrastructure Cost Estimate.xlsx Offsite 1 of 1
Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost October 16, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Cost Estimates.Docx 5 of 9 Appendix B – Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs
Estimate – City Alternative #1
Wood Rodgers, Inc.

A. Fischlin/R. Skots
10/11/2023
# QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
A. GRADING

1. 250,000 CY Site Grading (Cut to Fill) $ 3.50 $ 875,000

2. 102 AC Erosion Control $ 3,000.00 $ 306,000

3. 48,800 CY Detention Basin Excavation $ 4.00 $ 195,200 TOTALGRADING $ 1,376,200
B. ROADWAY

4. 1 LS Roundabout $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000

5. 3,800 LF Onsite Backbone Roadway (see appendix F) $ 834.00 $ 3,169,200 TOTAL ROADWAY $ 3,669,200
C. SANITARY SEWER

6. 2,150 LF 8" Backbone Sewer Main Pipe $ 75.00 $ 161,250

7. 5 EA 48" Manhole $ 10,500.00 $ 52,500
TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $ 213,750
D. STORM DRAINAGE

8. 950 LF 30" Backbone Storm Drain Pipe $ 145.00 $ 137,750

9. 3 EA 48" Manhole $ 9,500.00 $ 28,500

10. 4 AC Detention Basin Improvements $ 130,000.00 $ 494,000

11. 2 EA Basin Headwalls $ 40,000.00 $ 80,000
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE $ 740,250
E. WATER SYSTEM

12. 3,800 LF 8" Backbone Domestic Water Main Pipe $ 140.00 $ 532,000 TOTAL WATER SYSTEM $ 532,000
A. GRADING $ 1,376,200
B. ROADWAY $ 3,669,200
C. SANITARY SEWER $ 213,750
D. STORM DRAINAGE $ 740,250
E. WATER SYSTEM $ 532,000
SUBTOTAL PRELIMINARY INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE $ 6,531,400 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 1,959,420
SOFT COSTS 20% $ 1,306,280
$ 9,797,000
NOTES:

1. Based on preliminary nature of the studies, 30% contingency is applied.

2. 3. Pavement and concrete strucutral sections are assumed and not based on site specific geotechnical analysis.

4. 5.

6. 7. Water main pipe costs include all required appurtenances (blow offs, hydrants, air release valves, etc.) Detention basin excavation cost is based upon assumed available volume within designated footprint of detention basin and not based uopn project required storage needs (which may be more or less than tabulated).

Site grading assumes an earthwork volume of cut to fill for the project site. Exact earthwork quantites will vary depending on land use and further grading design efforts.

INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY OPINION OF COST
Meadowview 102 - Onsite Backbone Infrastructure - City Alternative #1 City of Sacramento

TOTAL PRELIMINARY INFRASTRUCTURE/GRADING COST ESTIMATE
Estimate inlcudes a 20% soft cost allowance. Assumed to be engineering (8%), mapping (1%), plan check (2%), inspection Detention basin improvements include vehicle access road, landscaping, fencing and other basin related features. \\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Cost Estimates\Meadowview 102_Preliminary Infrastructure Cost Estimate.xlsx Onsite BB - 1 1 of 4
Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost October 16, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Cost Estimates.Docx 6 of 9 Appendix C – Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs
Estimate – City Alternative #2A
Wood Rodgers, Inc.

A. Fischlin/R. Skots
10/11/2023
# QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
A. GRADING

1. 250,000 CY Site Grading (Cut to Fill) $ 3.50 $ 875,000

2. 102 AC Erosion Control $ 3,000.00 $ 306,000

3. 52,700 CY Detention Basin Excavation $ 4.00 $ 210,800 TOTAL GRADING $ 1,391,800
B. ROADWAY

4. 1 LS Roundabout $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000

5. 2,250 LF Onsite Backbone Roadway (see appendix F) $ 834.00 $ 1,876,500 TOTAL ROADWAY $ 2,376,500
C. SANITARY SEWER

6. 1,650 LF 8" Backbone Sewer Main Pipe $ 75.00 $ 123,750

7. 6 EA 48" Manhole $ 10,500.00 $ 63,000
TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $ 186,750
D. STORM DRAINAGE

8. 1,750 LF 24" Backbone Storm Drain Pipe $ 105.00 $ 183,750

9. 3 EA 48" Manhole $ 9,500.00 $ 28,500

10. 4 AC Detention Basin Improvements $ 130,000.00 $ 533,000

11. 2 EA Basin Headwalls $ 40,000.00 $ 80,000
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE $ 825,250
E. WATER SYSTEM

12. 2,250 LF 12" Backbone Domestic Water Main Pipe $ 170.00 $ 382,500 TOTAL WATER SYSTEM $ 382,500
A. GRADING $ 1,391,800
B. ROADWAY $ 2,376,500
C. SANITARY SEWER $ 186,750
D. STORM DRAINAGE $ 825,250
E. WATER SYSTEM $ 382,500
SUBTOTAL PRELIMINARY INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE $ 5,162,800 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 1,548,840
SOFT COSTS 20% $ 1,032,560
$ 7,744,000
NOTES:

1. Based on preliminary nature of the studies, 30% contingency is applied.

2. 3. Pavement and concrete strucutral sections are assumed and not based on site specific geotechnical analysis.

4. 5.

Site grading assumes an earthwork volume of cut to fill for the project site. Exact earthwork quantites will vary depending on land use and further grading design efforts.

Estimate inlcudes a 20% soft cost allowance. Assumed to be engineering (8%), mapping (1%), plan check (2%), inspection

INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY OPINION OF COST
Meadowview 102 - Onsite Backbone Infrastructure - City Alternative #2A City of Sacramento

TOTAL PRELIMINARY INFRASTRUCTURE/GRADING COST ESTIMATE
Detention basin improvements include vehicle access road, landscaping, fencing and other basin related features. \\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Cost Estimates\Meadowview 102_Preliminary Infrastructure Cost Estimate.xlsx Onsite BB - 2A 2 of 4 Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost October 16, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Cost Estimates.Docx 7 of 9 Appendix D – Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs
Estimate – City Alternative #2B
Wood Rodgers, Inc.

A. Fischlin/R. Skots
10/11/2023
# QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
A. GRADING

1. 250,000 CY Site Grading (Cut to Fill) $ 3.50 $ 875,000

2. 102 AC Erosion Control $ 3,000.00 $ 306,000

3. 62,200 CY Detention Basin Excavation $ 4.00 $ 248,800 TOTAL GRADING $ 1,429,800
B. ROADWAY

4. 3,300 LF Onsite Backbone Roadway (see appendix F) $ 834.00 $ 2,752,200 TOTAL ROADWAY $ 2,752,200
C. SANITARY SEWER

5. 1,500 LF 8" Backbone Sewer Main Pipe $ 75.00 $ 112,500

6. 5 EA 48" Manhole $ 10,500.00 $ 52,500
TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $ 165,000
D. STORM DRAINAGE

7. 2,150 LF 24" Backbone Storm Drain Pipe $ 105.00 $ 225,750

8. 6 EA 48" Manhole $ 9,500.00 $ 57,000

9. 6 AC Detention Basin Improvements $ 130,000.00 $ 754,000

10. 3 EA Basin Headwalls $ 40,000.00 $ 120,000
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE $ 1,156,750
E. WATER SYSTEM

11. 3,300 LF 12" Backbone Domestic Water Main Pipe $ 170.00 $ 561,000 TOTAL WATER SYSTEM $ 561,000
A. GRADING $ 1,429,800
B. ROADWAY $ 2,752,200
C. SANITARY SEWER $ 165,000
D. STORM DRAINAGE $ 1,156,750
E. WATER SYSTEM $ 561,000
SUBTOTAL PRELIMINARY INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE $ 6,064,750 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 1,819,425
SOFT COSTS 20% $ 1,212,950
$ 9,097,000
NOTES:

1. Based on preliminary nature of the studies, 30% contingency is applied.

2. 3. Pavement and concrete strucutral sections are assumed and not based on site specific geotechnical analysis.

4. 5.

Site grading assumes an earthwork volume of cut to fill for the project site. Exact earthwork quantites will vary depending on land use and further grading design efforts.

INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY OPINION OF COST
Meadowview 102 - Onsite Backbone Infrastructure - City Alternative #2B City of Sacramento

TOTAL PRELIMINARY INFRASTRUCTURE/GRADING COST ESTIMATE
Estimate inlcudes a 20% soft cost allowance. Assumed to be engineering (8%), mapping (1%), plan check (2%), inspection Detention basin improvements include vehicle access road, landscaping, fencing and other basin related features. \\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Cost Estimates\Meadowview 102_Preliminary Infrastructure Cost Estimate.xlsx Onsite BB - 2B 3 of 4 Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost October 16, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Cost Estimates.Docx 8 of 9 Appendix E – Onsite Backbone Infrastructure Needs
Estimate – City Alternative #3
Wood Rodgers, Inc.

A. Fischlin/R. Skots
10/11/2023
# QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
A. GRADING

1. 250,000 CY Site Grading (Cut to Fill) $ 3.50 $ 875,000

2. 102 AC Erosion Control $ 3,000.00 $ 306,000

3. 94,000 CY Detention Basin Excavation $ 4.00 $ 376,000 TOTAL GRADING $ 1,557,000
B. ROADWAY

4. 4,100 LF Onsite Backbone Roadway (see appendix F) $ 834.00 $ 3,419,400 TOTAL ROADWAY $ 3,419,400
C. SANITARY SEWER

5. 3,500 LF 15" Backbone Sewer Main Pipe $ 245.00 $ 857,500

6. 12 EA 48" Manhole $ 10,500.00 $ 126,000
TOTAL SANITARY SEWER $ 983,500
D. STORM DRAINAGE

7. 2,800 LF 36" Backbone Storm Drain Pipe $ 200.00 $ 560,000

8. 6 EA 48" Manhole $ 9,500.00 $ 57,000

9. 8 AC Detention Basin Improvements $ 130,000.00 $ 1,014,000

10. 3 EA Basin Headwalls $ 40,000.00 $ 120,000
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE $ 1,751,000
E. WATER SYSTEM

11. 4,100 LF 12" Backbone Domestic Water Main Pipe $ 170.00 $ 697,000 TOTAL WATER SYSTEM $ 697,000
A. GRADING $ 1,557,000
B. ROADWAY $ 3,419,400
C. SANITARY SEWER $ 983,500
D. STORM DRAINAGE $ 1,751,000
E. WATER SYSTEM $ 697,000
SUBTOTAL PRELIMINARY INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE $ 8,407,900 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 2,522,370
SOFT COSTS 20% $ 1,681,580
$ 12,612,000
NOTES:

1. Based on preliminary nature of the studies, 30% contingency is applied.

2. 3. Pavement and concrete strucutral sections are assumed and not based on site specific geotechnical analysis.

4. 5.

Site grading assumes an earthwork volume of cut to fill for the project site. Exact earthwork quantites will vary depending on land use and further grading design efforts.

INFRASTRUCTURE PRELIMINARY OPINION OF COST
Meadowview 102 - Onsite Backbone Infrastructure - City Alternative #3 City of Sacramento

TOTAL PRELIMINARY INFRASTRUCTURE/GRADING COST ESTIMATE
Estimate inlcudes a 20% soft cost allowance. Assumed to be engineering (8%), mapping (1%), plan check (2%), inspection (3%), Detention basin improvements include vehicle access road, landscaping, fencing and other basin related features. \\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Cost Estimates\Meadowview 102_Preliminary Infrastructure Cost Estimate.xlsx Onsite BB - 3 4 of 4
Meadowview 102 – Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost October 16, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Meadowview 102-Infrastructure Cost Estimates.Docx 9 of 9 Appendix F – Roadway Estimates (Cost per Linear Foot)
Wood Rodgers, Inc.

A. Fischlin/R. Skots
10/11/2023
# QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
A. A STREET (64-FOOT R.O.W.)

1. 42 SF Subgrade Preparation $ 0.25 $ 10.50

2. 5 CY Excavation (3') $ 4.00 $ 18.80

3. 36 SF 3.5" Asphaltic Concrete Paving $ 3.20 $ 115.20

4. 36 SF 8" Aggregate Base $ 3.60 $ 129.60

5. 5 SF Sidewalk $ 7.50 $ 37.50

6. 17 SF Landscape Corridor - Frontage $ 10.00 $ 170.00

7. 2 LF Type 2 Curb & Gutter (Vertical Curb) $ 30.00 $ 60.00

8. 1 LF 12' Class I Trail $ 60.00 $ 60.00

9. 4 LF Signage & Striping $ 5.00 $ 20.00

10. 59 SF Erosion Control $ 0.15 $ 8.85

11. 1 LF Local Drainage for Minor Collector (Leads & DI's) $ 40.00 $ 40.00

12. 1 LF Street Lights (170' estiamted spacing) $ 80.00 $ 80.00

13. 1 LF Joint Trench $ 200.00 $ 200.00
TOTAL COST PER LINEAR FOOT $ 950.00
B. 24TH STREET (99-FOOT R.O.W.)

14. 59 SF Subgrade Preparation $ 0.25 $ 14.75

15. 7 CY Excavation (3') $ 4.00 $ 26.68

16. 53 SF 5.5" Asphaltic Concrete Paving $ 4.80 $ 254.40

17. 53 SF 10" Aggregate Base $ 4.00 $ 212.00

18. 12 SF Sidewalk $ 7.50 $ 90.00

19. 16 SF Landscape Corridor - Frontage $ 10.00 $ 160.00

20. 2 LF Type 2 Curb & Gutter (Vertical Curb) $ 30.00 $ 60.00

21. 2 LF Type 5 Median Curb $ 35.00 $ 70.00

22. 11 SF Median Landscaping & Irrigation $ 8.00 $ 88.00

23. 1 CY Median Top Soil Import (18") $ 10.00 $ 6.00

24. 1 LF 12' Class I Trail $ 60.00 $ 60.00

25. 6 LF Signage & Striping $ 5.00 $ 30.00

26. 87 SF Erosion Control $ 0.15 $ 13.05

27. 1 LF Local Drainage for Major Arterial (Leads & DI's) $ 55.00 $ 55.00

28. 1 LF Street Lights (170' estiamted spacing) $ 88.00 $ 88.00

29. 1 LF Traffic Signal Interconnect $ 20.00 $ 20.00

30. 1 SF Joint Trench $ 200.00 $ 200.00
TOTAL COST PER LINEAR FOOT $ 1,448.00
C. WESTERN ENTRANCE & ONSITE BACKBONE ROADWAY (59-FOOT R.O.W.)

31. 37 SF Subgrade Preparation $ 0.25 $ 9.25

32. 4 CY Excavation (3') $ 4.00 $ 16.44

33. 31 SF 3.5" Asphaltic Concrete Paving $ 3.20 $ 99.20

34. 31 SF 8" Aggregate Base $ 3.60 $ 111.60

35. 10 SF Sidewalk $ 7.50 $ 75.00

36. 12 SF Landscape Corridor - Frontage $ 10.00 $ 120.00

37. 2 LF Type 2 Curb & Gutter (Vertical Curb) $ 30.00 $ 60.00

38. 3 LF Signage & Striping $ 5.00 $ 15.00

39. 49 SF Erosion Control $ 0.15 $ 7.35

40. 1 LF Local Drainage for Local Commerical (Leads & DI's) $ 40.00 $ 40.00

41. 1 LF Street Lights (170' estiamted spacing) $ 80.00 $ 80.00

42. 1 LF Joint Trench $ 200.00 $ 200.00
TOTAL COST PER LINEAR FOOT $ 834.00

COST PER LINEAR FOOT
Meadowview 102 - A Street, 24th Street, Western Entrance Roadway and Onsite Backbone Roadway
City of Sacramento
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Cost Estimates\Meadowview 102_Preliminary Infrastructure Cost Estimate.xlsx Cost Per Linear Foot 1 of 2 Wood Rodgers, Inc.

A. Fischlin/R. Skots
10/11/2023
# QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
NOTES:

1. 2.

AC/AB Street Sections are assumed and may vary based upon recommendations from a complete geotechnical report.

The onsite backbone roadway was based on Section D Local Commericial Street from Stone Beetland Small Lot Tentative Map.
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Infrastructure Costs Estimates Memo\Cost Estimates\Meadowview 102_Preliminary Infrastructure Cost Estimate.xlsx Cost Per Linear Foot 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT H:

Preliminary Drainage Assessment
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Drain Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Storm Drain Assessment.Docx 1 of 11 Technical Memorandum
To: City of Sacramento
From:

Adam Fischlin, PE
Mike Motroni, PE CC:

Vance Jones, Wood Rodgers
Tom Martens, EPS
Date: September 8, 2023
Subject: Meadowview 102 – Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment Summary & Background
Wood Rodgers has prepared a drainage assessment review of the Meadowview 102 site. The focus of this analysis is to identify drainage infrastructure constraints and opportunities and to provide a conceptual design of the proposed drainage facilities, including detention basins and potential trunk drainage facilities.

In addition, we have identified areas of additional study that will need to be addressed in future phases of the Project, including offsite flow conveyance, wetlands, and the existing pond.

Background
In January of 2022, the City of Sacramento purchased 102 acres of surplus federal land in the Meadowview area of south Sacramento. With input from City staff and the community, Wood Rodgers prepared four preliminary land use scenarios for the City’s consideration with the goal of exploring site development alternatives and feasibility of site development. It was determined that Land Use Concept #2A, dated September 1, 2023 and included as Appendix A, should be used for continued analysis of site development feasibility.

Land Use Summary
Table 1: Land Use Summary
Land Use Acres
MDR: Medium Density Residential ±13.6 ac.

HDR: High Density Residential ±5.5 ac.

Park: Regional Sports Complex ±60.5 ac.

OS: Wetlands & Storm Drainage Facility ±19.4 ac.

ROW: Roads & Greenbelts ±3.0 ac.

Total ±102.0 ac.

Land Use Concept #2A highlights a 60.5-acre Regional Park and Sports Complex as its primary use with 13.6 acres of medium-density residential, 5.5 acres of high-density residential and 15.3 acres of wetland preservation open space as secondary uses. Remaining acreage shall accommodate the projects roads, green belts and the storm drain basin facility. Preliminary sizing of the storm drain facilities is addressed later in this report.

Meadowview 102 – Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment
September 8, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Drain Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Storm Drain Assessment.Docx 2 of 11 Design Standards
City of Sacramento Development Standards
The City of Sacramento is responsible for review of drainage plans and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the Project. Drainage design standards for the potential development shall comply with the Department of Utilities’ “Onsite Design Manual” and all applicable City drainage standard drawings and specifications.

Stormwater Quality/Low Impact Development (LID)
The Project will be required to comply with standards in the Sacramento Region Storm Water Quality Design Manual. Water quality treatment within the detention basin footprints is the preferred and typically most efficient water quality treatment control measure along with upstream measures. Alternative means of compliance include localized water quality features at a neighborhood level. Treatment control measures will be designed using either volume-based design or flow-based design. An approximation for the required size of Treatment BMPs to meet stormwater quality requirements is five percent of the drainage area (see detention basin sizing calcs later in this memo). Based on an assumed density of 9 dwelling units per acres, the proposed land use plan would accommodate approximately 176 units. Full trash capture device(s) will be required for the project.

Low Impact Development (LID) will need to be implemented for the proposed project based on the credit criteria outlined by the Storm Water Quality Design Manual. Included in Appendix B is the LID Credits spreadsheet that outlines how the Meadowview 102 project could achieve LID compliance. A combination of parks and open space will provide a large portion of the LID credits in combination with disconnected roof drains, interceptor trees, and amended soils. Total LID credits came out to 102.7 which meets the minimum requirement of 100 credits. Below is a list of assumptions used for the LID Credit spreadsheet:
• 15.3 acres (wetland preservation & storm drain facilities) were included as natural areas. • 25 acres of landscape area/park was assumed. This value is thought to be conservative given that a portion of the 60.5-acre regional sports complex could be developed as impervious area. • 9 units per acre was assumed for medium-density-residential areas. • Less than 10-foot setback assumed for efficiency multiplier related to runoff across landscaping. • 50% of roof drains to be disconnected.
• No separated sidewalks are anticipated due to housing density. • 400 trees were assumed (200 evergreen and 200 deciduous) split between the park and the residential areas.

If amended soils are not allowed by the City of Sacramento, then it is anticipated that approximately 1.1 acres (48,000 square feet) of additional bioretention BMPs would be required to supplement the runoff management credits to meet the 100-point minimum.

Existing Conditions
Onsite Pond
In the northwest quadrant of the Project site lies a 3.3-acre seasonal, graded pond. Based on preliminary review of historical satellite imagery, this pond was graded sometime in early 2007 and accepts flow from the federal property to the north via a graded earthen channel. The purpose and functionality of the pond is unknown and there is no known outfall that connects the pond to a permanent drainage infrastructure system. Additional information regarding drainage of the federal property will be required to fully evaluate the drainage impacts on the Meadowview 102 site.

Meadowview 102 – Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment
September 8, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Drain Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Storm Drain Assessment.Docx 3 of 11 As shown in the Preliminary Land Use Concept #2A (attached in Appendix A), the pond will be filled to accommodate portions of the proposed Regional Sport’s Park facility. The current drainage from the offsite channel will be captured by future storm drainage infrastructure and tied into the future storm water quality detention basin. The existing pond volume has been accounted for in the sizing of the future detention basin later in this report.

Seasonal Wetland Features
Throughout the 102-acre project site, seasonal wetland features totaling nearly 7 acres have been identified by Madrone Ecological Consulting (see exhibit included as Appendix C). It is believed that many of these wetland features were created due to the banked and elevated training track and the lack of drainage infrastructure onsite. In the proposed land use concept, 16-acres of open space has been proposed to preserve a significant portion of the existing seasonal wetland features. Remaining wetland features not preserved by the open space area will be eliminated by the development of the proposed Medium-Density Residential and Regional Sport’s Park land uses.

On-site Drainage Infrastructure
Along the western site boundary, there is existing storm drain infrastructure consisting of parallel 24-inch and 36-inch mains that are not known to serve the Meadowview 102 site. It is believed that the existing infrastructure is in place to service the existing residential subdivision northwest of the Project site and the City of Sacramento Solid Waste Corporation Yard via easements on both the federal land and the City owned Meadowview 102 property. The drainage infrastructure and easement terminate and turn westward approximately 800 feet from the northern property boundary. It is believed that these facilities and easement will remain in place and undisturbed as part of the future development and will not be used to service any portion of the proposed Project.

Additionally, there is a 21-inch reinforced concrete pressure pipe that bisects the Project site west to east and turns north in the eastern third of the property to the State of California property site. This pipe outfalls to the same 48” public drain line as the two parallel mains and is assumed to serve the entirety of the State property. This storm drain infrastructure may be relocated during future development but will not be used to service any portion of the proposed Project. Note that recent post-winter aerials reveal overflows at storm drain manholes which appear to discharge into the existing pond.

SUMP 89 Pump Station
The existing offsite storm drain “Z Line” infrastructure discharges into the existing SUMP 89 Pump Station that sits adjacent to Morrison Creek southeast of Delta Shores Circle South. While the Stone Beetland project does provide a connection point and accounts for a bypass drain line servicing the Meadowview 102 project, it is unknown whether the pump station has capacity to accept additional flow as a result of the proposed project. Further analysis would need to be completed to determine if pump station upgrades are required or if additional detention basin storage will be required.

The Drainage Master Plan for the Delta Shores development provides some 10-year and 100-year flow assumptions for the Meadowview 102 property (Federal Lands parcel). However, the land use assumptions have evolved as part of the City’s land purchase efforts, and site flow rates and contributions to the SUMP 89 Pump Station will need to be further evaluated within the complete drainage study efforts for the Meadowview 102 project.

Meadowview 102 – Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment
September 8, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Drain Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Storm Drain Assessment.Docx 4 of 11 Proposed Conditions
Offsite Drainage Infrastructure
At the southern Project boundary, there is a 24-inch drain that serves the existing site. This drain pipeline is referred to as the “Z Line” in the 2013 Delta Shores Drainage Master Plan and ranges from 24-inch to 30-inch in diameter. The Z Line will be replaced as part of the Stone Beetland development and is planned to serve the Meadowview 102 property. It is anticipated that the proposed drain stub from the Stone Beetland development to the Project site will be the primary connection to drain infrastructure.

Preliminary grading and drainage exhibits for Stone Beetland development show removal of Z Line storm drain infrastructure and replacement with a storm drain bypass system. The proposed bypass will intercept flows at the existing drain service at the south end of the Meadowview site, route the storm drain pipes through proposed streets within the Stone Beetland development and ultimately reconnect with the Z line system just north of Consumnes River Blvd.

The Stone Beetland project also proposes to connect to the downstream end of the 30-inch Z Line. While Stone Beetland does account for existing drainage flows from Meadowview 102, it is unclear how proposed development of both projects will affect the capacity of the existing Z Line downstream and if additional offsite infrastructure upgrades would be necessary. It is anticipated that a detention basin will be required to service the proposed site to regulate storm water discharge and that a full drainage study will be required with future entitlement efforts.

Hydromodification
The Project will tie into portions of the existing “Z Line” as outlined above and conveyed to Morrison Creek.

With use of the Hydromodification Mitigation Applicability Flow Chart (provided as Appendix E), it is believed that the project will be exempt via HMP section 3.2.8, Projects Discharging Directly to Exempted Channels. In section 3.2.8 of the HMP, Morrison Creek from the Sacramento River to Franklin Boulevard is listed as having completed construction on levee improvements which have prepared the creek for potential hydromodification impact. The Meadowview 102 project would discharge into this exempt channel via the SUMP 89 Pump Station.

Flow Calculations and Narrative
In this section, we will identify existing and proposed flows that are tributary to the proposed connection to the Stone Beetland bypass drain and connection to the “Z Line”. Those flows will be compared to the assumed pipe stub capacity to determine if additional detention/retention mitigation measure are necessary for inclusion in our preliminary basin sizing.

Offsite Flow Tributary to Onsite Pond
As mentioned earlier in this technical memorandum, there are some unknowns regarding the existing onsite pond including the tributary area that is conveyed to the pond. Additional information on the Federal Lands site to the north would be needed for further analysis for preliminary drainage study efforts. That said, we can assume that the water volume from the pond must be accounted for if the pond is to be filled and the current storm water tributary to the pond will ultimately be conveyed to a proposed storm water quality facility. Based on existing topography provided by the City of Sacramento, the existing pond is 3-acres in area and approximately 10 feet deep which yields a water volume of 30 acre-feet that needs to be accounted for in the proposed basin sizing.

Based upon the proposed land uses, it was assumed that the proposed site would be 50% impervious and using the Figure 2-15 chart from the Drainage Manual (and included as Appendix D in red), we were able to approximate the 100-year peak onsite flow at 77 CFS.

Based on our current understanding of the site topography, we can approximate the offsite area that flows to the Meadowview site from the north at 26 acres. We have outlined this approximate area on the Land Use Map in Appendix A for reference. If we add that area to the onsite flow calculations, we would use the same Figure 2-15 chart from the Drainage Manual to determine the approximate 100-year peak onsite and offsite flow at 91 CFS (as shown in blue in Appendix D).

Outfall Pipe Capacity
Existing pipe slope and invert elevation information for the 24-inch Z line stub to the proposed Meadowview 102 site is unknown and therefore, for the purposes of this drain assessment memo, it will be assumed that the pipes are at minimum slope to provide the most conservative approach. Using the “Hydraflow Express Extension” for Autodesk Civil3D, the maximum flow for a 24-inch pipe running at minimum slope is 9.41 CFS.

Based on this information, it is anticipated that onsite detention will be required as the proposed flows are larger than the outfall pipe capacity.

Preliminary Stormwater Quality Detention/Retention Basin Sizing The current land use concept provides this 4.0 acres in the southeast corner of the site. Providing the storm drainage facilities on the southern end of the site makes the most sense as this is where the existing connection to drainage infrastructure occurs and is the lowest area of elevation within the Project site.

Based on the information provided in the flow calculations and narrative, there is likely a need for a larger parcel to serve the storm water needs for this proposed project. The sizing will vary upon the ultimate land use decisions made by the City of Sacramento but the need for a detention component (due to outfall pipe capacity) and for additional storage volume (due to the existing onsite pond) will increase the footprint needed for storm water facilities.

Summary
The proposed Meadowview Project as shown in Land Use Concept #2A can meet all required storm drainage requirements with some modifications. A larger area designated for the water quality basin will need to be allocated to comply with LID. Questions remain regarding the SUMP 89 Pump Station capacity and the tributary area and intended function of the on-site pond but it is believed that necessary mitigation can be accomplished. It is anticipated that a full drainage study will further define offsite flow entering the site and conveyance to SUMP 89 pump station.

Meadowview 102 – Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment
September 8, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Drain Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Storm Drain Assessment.Docx 6 of 11 Sources
Sacramento City/County Drainage Manual
Sacramento Region Storm Water Quality Design Manual
Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership Hydromodification Management Plan Stone Beetland Development – Preliminary Grading & Drainage Design Meadowview 102 – Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment
September 8, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Drain Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Storm Drain Assessment.Docx 7 of 11 Appendix A – Land Use Concept #2A
ASSUMED OFFSITE AREA (~26 AC)
TRIBUTARY TO MEADOWVIEW 102

PROJECT SITE
EXISTING 21" DRAIN LINE THROUGH
SITE SERVICING STATE PROPERTY.

CAPACITY AND HGLs TO BE STUDIED
IN FULL DRAINAGE REPORT.

IT IS BELIEVED THAT SOME

PORTION OF THE STATE

PROPERTY DRAINS TO THE

MEADOVIEW SITE BUT THAT

TRIBUTARY AREA IS CURRENTLY
UNKNOWN. ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS

OF THE STATE PROPERTY TO BE

COMPLETED WITH FULL
DRAINAGE REPORT EFFORT.

Step 1 - Open Space and Pervious Area Credits
Is your project within the drainage area of a common drainage plan that includes open space? If not, skip to 1 b. 1 a. Common Drainage Plan Area acres ACDP
Common Drainage Plan Open Space (Off-project) acres AOS a. Natural storage reservoirs and drainage corridors acres b. Buffer zones for natural water bodies acres
c. Natural areas including existing trees, other vegetation, and soil acres d. Common landscape area/park acres
e. Regional Flood Control/Drainage basins acres
1 b. Project Drainage Shed Area (Total) acres A
Project-Specific Open Space (In-project, communal**) acres APSOS a. Natural storage reservoirs and drainage corridors acres b. Buffer zones for natural water bodies acres
c. Natural areas including existing trees, other vegetation, and soil acres d. Landscape area/park acres
e. Flood Control/Drainage basins acres
** Doesn't include impervious areas within individual lots and surrounding individual units. That is accounted for below using Form D-1a in Step 2.

Area with Runoff Reduction Potential A - APSOS = acres AT Number of Units in AT
Number of units per acre in AT DU/AT = DUA
Assumed Initial Impervious Fraction of AT
I
(determined using Table D-1a)
Open Space & Pervious Area LID Credit (Step 1)
(AOS/ACDP+APSOS/A)x100 = pts
Step 2 - Runoff Reduction Credits
Disconnected Roof Drains use Form D-1a for credits 0.82 acres (see Fact Sheet)
Disconnected Pavement use Form D-1b for credits 0.00 acres (see Fact Sheet)
Interceptor Trees use Form D-1c for credits 0.28 acres
(see Fact Sheet)
Alternative Driveway Design use Form D-1d for credits 0.00 acres (see Fact Sheet)
Total Effective Area Managed (Credit Area) AC 1.10 acres EAM Runoff Reduction Credit (Step 2) (AC / AT )*100 = 2 pts Effective Area
Managed (AC)
Appendix D-1: Residential Sites: Low Impact Development (LID) Credits and Treatment BMP Sizing Calculations Meadowview 102 - Drainage Assessment
Sacramento

44.40 57.60
0 0
0 20

0.00 0.00

15.40 25.00

4.00 0
0 176
102.00
4 0.35
Runoff Reduction Measures
44 0
see area example
below
see area example
below
APSOS
AT
Residential
Form D-1a: Disconnected Roof Drains Worksheet
See Fact Sheet for more information regarding Disconnected Roof Drain credit guidelines Effective Area Managed (AC)

1. Determine efficiency Multiplier
Runoff is directed to a dispersal trench or dry well 1.00 (Type A and B soils only)
Runoff is directed across landscaping, determine setback 25 ft + Use multiplier of 1.00
> 20 and < 25 ft Use multiplier of 0.90
> 15 and < 20 ft Use multiplier of 0.70
> 10 and < 15 ft Use multiplier of 0.45
> 5 and < 10 ft Use multiplier of 0.25
Efficiency Multiplier Box J1

2. Determine percentage of roof drains disconnected Box J2

3. Select project density in dwelling units per acre:
1 Use reduction factor of 0.08
2 Use reduction factor of 0.13
3,4 Use reduction factor of 0.19
5,6 Use reduction factor of 0.23
7 Use reduction factor of 0.29
8,9 Use reduction factor of 0.33
10-14 Use reduction factor of 0.37
15-20 Use reduction factor of 0.44
Reduction Factor Box J3

4. Determine Area Managed
Multiply Box J3 by AT, and enter the result in Box J4
acres
Box J4

5. Multiply Boxes J1, J2 and J4, and enter 60% of the Result in Box J acres Box J This is the amount of area credit to enter into the "Disconnected Roof Drains" Box of Form D-1 Form D-1b: Disconnected Pavement Worksheet
See Fact Sheet for more information regarding NDC Pavement credit guidelines Effective Area Managed (AC)
Divided Sidewalks

1. Determine percentage of units with divided Sidewalks 0.0% Box K1 Multiply Box K1, AT, and 0.04 and enter 60% of the result in Box K 0.00 acres Box K This is the amount of area credit to enter into the "Disconnected Pavement" Box of Form D-1 Form D-1c: Interceptor Tree Worksheet
See Fact Sheet for more information regarding Interceptor Tree credit guidelines Effective Area Managed (AC)
New Evergreen Trees
trees

2. Multiply Box L1 by 200 and enter result in Box L2 sq. ft.

New Deciduous Trees
trees

4. Multiply Box L3 by 100 and enter result in Box L4 sq. ft.

Existing Tree Canopy
sq. ft.

6. Multiply Box L5 by 0.5 and enter the result in Box L6 sq. ft.

Total Interceptor Tree Credits
Add Boxes L2, L4, and L6 and enter it into Box L7 sq. ft.

Divide Box L7 by 43,560 and multiply by 20% to get effective area managed and enter the result in Box L8 acres This is the amount of area credit to enter into the "Interceptor Trees" Box of Form D-1 Form D-1d: Alternative Driveway Design
See Fact Sheet for more information regarding Alternative Driveway Design credit guidelines

1. Select type of driveway
Pervious Driveway: Multiplier:

Cobblestone Block Porous Pavement 0.40
Pervious Concrete/Asphalt Pavement 0.60

0.75 Not Directly-connected Driveway 1.00
Box M1

2. Determine percentage of units with Alternative Driveways: Box M2

4. Multiply Boxes M1, M2, AT and 0.04, and enter the result in Box M acres This is the amount of area credit to enter into the "Alternative Driveway Design" Box of Form D-1 Box L1
40000 Box L2

3. Enter number of new deciduous trees that qualify as Interceptor Trees in Box L3.

0.00 Modular Block
Porous Pavement
Porous Gravel
Box L5
0 Box L6
200 Box L3
20000 Box L4
60000 Box L7

0.28 Box L8

0.8 200

0.25 50.0%

0.19 11.0

1. Enter number of new evergreen trees that qualify as Interceptor Trees in Box L1.

5. Enter square footage of existing tree canopy that qualifies as Existing Tree canopy in Box L5. 0 Residential
Step 3 - Runoff Management Credits
Capture and Use Credits
Impervious Area Managed by Rain barrels, Cisterns, and automatically-emptied systems (see Fact Sheet) - enter gallons, for simple rain barrels 0.00 acres Automated-Control Capture and Use System
(see Fact Sheet, then enter impervious area managed by the system) 0.00 acres Bioretention/Infiltration Credits
Impervious Area Managed by Bioretention BMPs Bioretention Area - sq ft (see Fact Sheet) Subdrain Elevation 18 inches
Ponding Depth, inches 12.0 inches 0.00 acres
Impervious Area Managed by Infiltration BMPs
(see Fact Sheet) Drawdown Time, hrs drawdown_hrs_inf
Soil Infiltration Rate, in/hr soil_inf_rate
Sizing Option 1: Capture Volume, acre-ft capture_vol_inf 0.00 acres Sizing Option 2: Infiltration BMP surface area, sq ft soil_surface_area 0.00 acres Basin or trench? Basin approximate BMP depth 0.00 ft
Impervious Area Managed by Amended Soil or Mulch Beds
(see Fact Sheet) Mulched Infiltration Area, sq ft 178,600 mulch_area 16.40 acres Total Effective Area Managed by Capture-and-Use/Bioretention/Infiltration BMPs 16.40 ALIDc Runoff Management Credit (Step 3) ALIDC/AT*200 = 56.9 pts Total LID Credits (Step 1+2+3) LID compliant, check for treatment sizing in Step 4 102.4 Adjusted Area for Flow-Based, Non-LID Treatment AT - AC -ALIDC = 40.10 AAT Adjusted Impervious Fraction of A for Volume-Based, Non-LID Treatment (AT*I-AC-ALIDC) / A = 0.026 IA

Further treatment is required, see choose flow-based or volume-based sizing in Step 4 Step 4a Treatment - Flow-Based (Rational Method)
Form D-1e
Calculate treatment flow (cfs): Flow = Runoff Coefficient x Rainfall Intensity x Adjusted Treatment Area C
Determine i using Table D-1c (Rainfall Intensity) i
AAT from Step 2 AAT
Flow = C * i * AAT cfs
Development Type
Single-family areas Roseville i = 0.20 in/hr
Multi-units, detached Sacramento i = 0.18 in/hr
Apartment dwelling areas Folsom i = 0.20 in/hr
Multi-units, attached
User Specified
Step 4b Treatment - Volume-Based (ASCE-WEF)
Calculate water quality volume (Acre-Feet): WQV = Area x Maximized Detention Volume (P0) Obtain A from Step 1 A 24 hrs Specified Draw Down time
P0
Calculate treatment volume (acre-ft):

Treatment volume = A x (P0 / 12) Acre-Feet
v06232012
Table D-1c

0.50 102.00

0.05 0.18

40.10 3.61
Determine C Factor using Table D-1b
Does project require hydromodification management? If yes, proceed to using SacHM.

Obtain P0: Maximized Detention Volume from figures E-1 to E4 in Appendix E of this manual using IA from Step 2.

Runoff Coefficient (Rational),
C

0.50 0.60

0.70 0.75

0.00 TABLE D-1b
Rainfall Intensity

0.41 Residential
Meadowview 102 – Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment
September 8, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Drain Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Storm Drain Assessment.Docx 9 of 11 Appendix C – Wetland Delineation Exhibit
!C !C
!C
!C !C
DP-9
DP-8
DP-7
DP-6
DP-4
DP-3
DP-10
DP-5
DP-2
DP-1
!. !.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.!.
!.
/
P-1
SW-20
SW-4
SW-22
SW-2
SW-16
SW-19
SW-29
D-1
SW-8
SW-24
SW-27
SW-10
SW-26
SW-17
SW-30
SW-18
SW-7
SW-21
SW-25
SW-6
SW-1
SW-14
SW-5
SW-28
SW-9
SW-11
SW-15
SW-23
SW-13
SW-31
SW-32
SW-12
SW-3
-121.475757/

38.466913
-121.468882/

38.466908
-121.468871/

38.470396
-121.468863/
-121.475756/ 38.473186

38.473205
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community C:\Madrone\Meadowview Safe Parking - 22015\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_ARD\USACE_ARD_Meadowview_v2.mxd, nbente, 3/27/2023, 16:19 8421 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 248 Citrus Heights, California 95610 (916) 822.3230 | www.madroneeco.com Aquatic Resources Delineation Meadowview 102 Acres Sacramento County, California ± 0 50 100 Feet Notes: Map Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane California II Datum: NAD83 (North American Datum 1983) Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Vertical Data: NAVD88 (North American Vertical Datum 1988) Aerial Base: Maxar Aerial Base Flown: 12 April 2022. Topographic Contours: USGS NED 1/3 arc-second Contours for Sacramento W, California. 1 October 2018 Prepared For: City of Sacramento 915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Study Area (102 acres) !C Reference Point !. Data Point / Culvert Ground Surface Elevation, 5 foot contour Aquatic Resources (10.475 acres) Wetlands (6.921 acres) Seasonal Wetland (6.921 acres) Other Waters (3.554 acres) Ditch (0.243 acre) Pond (3.311 acres) Delineation Performed by: B. Peterson, D. Snider Map Prepared by: N. Bente Date Map Prepared: 27 March 2023 Definitions: NAD = North American Datum NAVD = North American Vertical Datum NED = National Elevation Datase USGS = United State Geological Survey Acreage
SW-1 0.101SW-2 0.526SW-3 0.003SW-4 0.743SW-5 0.073SW-6 0.113SW-7 0.048SW-8 0.235SW-9 0.042SW-10 0.199SW-11 0.047SW-12 0.005SW-13 0.009SW-14 0.089SW-15 0.022SW-16 0.598SW-17 0.100SW-18 0.082SW-19 0.458SW-20 1.336SW-21 0.051SW-22 0.802SW-23 0.010SW-24 0.257SW-25 0.047SW-26 0.119SW-27 0.203SW-28 0.052SW-29 0.443SW-30 0.093SW-31 0.008SW-32 0.007

6.921

OTHER WATERS
Linear

AQUATIC RESOURCE FEATURES

WETLANDS
Total Wetlands: 6.921 acres
Seasonal Wetland
Feature ID
Aquatic Resources Total: 10.475 acres
D-1 0.243 409

0.243 409
Total Other Waters: 3.554 409
Feature ID Acreage
P-1 3.311

3.311
Ditch
Pond
Feature ID Acreage Feet
Meadowview 102 – Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment
September 8, 2023
\\Woodrodgers.Loc\Productiondata\Jobs\Jobs\8895_Meadoview 102\Meadowview 102-OA\Planning\Studies\Drain Assessment Memo\Meadowview 102-Storm Drain Assessment.Docx 10 of 11 Appendix D – 100-Year Peak Flow Sacramento Method
for Rainfall Zone 2, 80-640 Acres (Figure 2-15)

ATTACHMENT I:

Traffic Analysis
Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 1 of 25 Memorandum
To: Alexi Wordell
City of Sacramento Planning Department
From: Mario Tambellini, PE, TE
Nicole Scappaticci, PE
Date: November 3, 2023
Subject: Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis Memorandum

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum has been prepared to present the results of a Traffic Feasibility Analysis for the proposed Meadowview 102 Project (Project), located in the City of Sacramento (City). The Project would develop an approximately 101.9-acre site located north of Cosumnes River Boulevard and west of the existing residential neighborhood surrounding Susan B. Anthony Elementary School. This analysis provides trip generation comparisons for the four proposed Project Alternatives, as well as a high-level capacity evaluation of the Project access roads and other nearby roadways that would distribute Project traffic to the surrounding local roadway network. This memorandum also includes an evaluation of an interim Project condition in which a 200-bed “tiny home” community is developed on a 3 to 3.5-acre area in the southwestern corner of the site, with access anticipated to be provided via a driveway on A Street. This Traffic Feasibility Analysis includes the following:
• Project Alternatives Description
• Project Alternatives Trip Generation
• Project Access and Local Roadway Capacity Analysis
• Interim Project Condition Evaluation
• Conclusion
Project traffic was added to the surrounding existing and planned roadway network to determine the adequacy of the planned roadway classifications on key study segments.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This Section is provided for informational purposes. The City Alternatives are defined on Page 2 and the study roadways are defined on Page 10.

With 24th Street Project Access, under City Alternative #3, the 24th Street Project Access Road would require classification as a 2-Lane Minor Collector instead of a Local Street to maintain LOS D.

Without 24th Street Project Access, under City Alternative #1, A Street Project Access (East) would need to be classified as a 2-Lane Major Collector instead of a 2-Lane Minor Collector to maintain LOS D. Under City Alternative #2A, A Street Project Access (West) would need to be classified as a 2-Lane Major Collector instead of a 2-Lane Minor Collector to maintain LOS D. Under City Alternative #3, A Street Project Access (West) would require classification as a 2-Lane Minor Collector instead of a Local Street to maintain LOS D.

Cosumnes River Boulevard east of C Street is projected to operate at LOS E under weekday Buildout Plus Project conditions under all alternatives.

All other planned Project Access roadways are projected to have adequate capacity. The planned roadways in Stone Beetland are projected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate Project traffic volumes.

Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 2 of 25 See the Conclusion on Page 23 for a detailed summary of the findings.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes four alternatives with a varying mix of sports complex and residential uses. Each alternative includes a total of one to three access points along the western or southern edges of the site.

Project access roads on the western edge of the site would connect to a future extension of 24th Street, if feasible. Project access roads on the southern edge of the site would provide connectivity to the planned A Street adjacent to the planned Stone Beetland development, which would provide access to existing Cosumnes River Boulevard.

The Project proposes the following four land use alternatives:
• City Alternative #1: This alternative utilizes the entire site as a sports complex with 20 soccer fields, an approximately 100,000-square foot indoor recreation facility, a cross country course, surface parking, and storm drainage areas. Under this alternative, the 24th Street Project Access would be provided at the western edge of the site (if feasible) and an A Street Project Access (East) would be provided at the southern edge of the site.
• City Alternative #2A: This alternative would provide an approximately 60-acre sports complex use, wetland preservation area, storm drainage facility, and residential uses. The sports complex would include 13 soccer fields, an approximately 100,000-square foot indoor recreation facility, a cross country course, surface parking, and storm drainage areas. Residential uses would include 13.6 acres of Medium Residential (MDR) housing (an estimated 122 units) and 5.5 acres of High Density Residential (HDR) housing (an estimated 165 units). Under this alternative, the 24th Street Project Access would be provided at the western edge of the site (if feasible) and an A Street Project Access (West) would be provided at the southern edge of the site. • City Alternative #2B: This alternative would provide an approximately 60-acre sports complex use, storm drainage facility, and residential uses. The sports complex would include 16 soccer fields, an approximately 100,000-square foot indoor recreation facility, a cross country course, surface parking, and storm drainage areas. Residential uses would include 22.2 acres of MDR housing (an estimated 200 units) and 10.0 acres of HDR housing (an estimated 300 units). Under this alternative, the 24th Street Project Access would be provided at the western edge of the site (if feasible) and two access points off of A Street would be provided at the southern edge of the site (A Street Project Access (West) and A Street Project Access (East)).
• City Alternative #3: This alternative would include residential uses with a mix of small lot/cluster single family housing and multifamily residential, and a 10-acre neighborhood park. Residential uses would include 43.4 acres of MDR housing (an estimated 392 units), 14.4 acres of Medium High Density Residential (MDHR) housing (an estimated 230 units), and 19.5 acres of HDR housing (an estimated 591 units). Under this alternative, the 24th Street Project Access would be provided at the western edge of the site (if feasible) and two access points off of A Street would be provided at the southern edge of the site (A Street Project Access (West) and A Street Project Access (East)).

The four Project alternatives, with labeled access points, are shown in Figure 1 through Figure 4 below. Full sized Project alternative exhibits are contained in Attachment A. 24TH STREET ACCESS
Although the Project alternative descriptions and exhibits include potential Project access connections to 24th Street, those 24th Street connections are purely conceptual at this time. If it was decided to move forward with the Project 24th Street connection, the connection would need to be negotiated with the adjacent development to the west (Delta Shores). Therefore, this memorandum analyzes Project traffic “with” and “without” the 24th Street connection.

Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 3 of 25 Figure 1. City Alternative #1
Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 4 of 25 Figure 2. City Alternative #2A
Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 5 of 25 Figure 3. City Alternative #2B
Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 6 of 25 Figure 4. City Alternative #3
Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 7 of 25

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TRIP GENERATION
The trip generation data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to approximate the number of trips generated by the Project alternatives. The following ITE land use categories were used to represent the Project:
• Recreational Community Center (ITE Code 495) was used to represent the indoor recreation facility in the sports complex.
• Soccer Complex (ITE Code 488) was used to represent the sports field uses. • Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) was used to represent the MDR uses. • Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (ITE Code 220) was used to represent the HDR uses. • Single-Family Attached Housing (ITE Code 215) was used to represent the MHDR uses.

Tables 1 through 4 show the trip generation estimate for each Project alternative.

Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 8 of 25 Table 1. City Alternative #1 Trip Generation
Land Use
ITE
Code Quantity Units Weekday Daily1
AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1
Saturday
Daily1
Saturday Peak Hour1
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Recreational
Community Center 495 100 KSF2 2,882 126 65 191 118 132 250 910 58 49 107 Soccer Complex 488 20 Fields 1,427 12 8 20 217 112 329 8,098 360 390 750 Total Project Trips 4,309 138 73 211 335 244 579 9,008 418 439 857 Notes:
1Trip rates are based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) average rates. 2KSF = 1,000 square feet
Table 2. City Alternative #2A Trip Generation
Land Use ITE
Code Quantity Units Weekday Daily1
AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1
Saturday
Daily1
Saturday Peak Hour1
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Recreational
Community Center 495 100 KSF2 2,882 126 65 191 118 132 250 910 58 49 107 Soccer Complex 488 13 Fields 927 8 5 13 141 73 214 5,263 234 253 487 Single-Family Detached
Housing (MDR) 210 122 DU3 1,212 22 67 89 76 44 120 1,164 62 53 115 Multifamily Housing
(Low-Rise) (HDR) 220 165 DU 1,133 18 56 74 58 34 92 751 34 34 68 Total Project Trips 6,154 174 193 367 393 283 676 8,088 388 389 777 Notes:
1Trip rates are based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) average rates or fitted curve equations. 2KSF = 1,000 square feet
3 DU = Dwelling Unit
Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 9 of 25 Table 3. City Alternative #2B Trip Generation
Land Use ITE
Code Quantity Units Weekday Daily1
AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1
Saturday
Daily1
Saturday Peak Hour1
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Recreational
Community Center 495 100 KSF2 2,882 126 65 191 118 132 250 910 58 49 107 Soccer Complex 488 16 Fields 1,141 10 6 16 174 89 263 6,478 288 312 600 Single-Family Detached
Housing (MDR) 210 200 DU3 1,909 35 105 140 120 71 191 1,881 98 84 182 Multifamily Housing
(Low-Rise) (HDR) 220 300 DU 1,998 28 88 116 95 55 150 1,365 62 61 123 Total Project Trips 7,930 199 264 463 507 347 854 10,634 506 506 1,012 Notes:
1Trip rates are based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) average rates or fitted curve equations. 2KSF = 1,000 square feet
3 DU = Dwelling Unit
Table 4. City Alternative #3 Trip Generation
Land Use1
ITE
Code Quantity Units Weekday Daily2
AM Peak Hour2 PM Peak Hour2
Saturday
Daily1
Saturday Peak Hour2
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached
Housing (MDR) 210 392 DU3 3,546 65 193 258 226 133 359 3,612 187 160 347 Single-Family Attached
Housing (MHDR) 215 230 DU 1,702 29 85 114 79 55 134 2,015 63 68 131 Multifamily Housing
(Low-Rise) (HDR) 220 591 DU 3,864 49 157 206 173 102 275 2,689 121 121 242 Total Project Trips 9,112 143 435 578 478 290 768 8,316 371 349 720 Notes:
1The neighborhood park was not included in the trip generation estimate, as it is not anticipated to be a significant trip generator. 2Trip rates are based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) average rates or fitted curve equations. 3 DU = Dwelling Unit
Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 10 of 25

PROJECT ACCESS AND LOCAL ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS

STUDY ROADWAY FACILITIES
The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated by the Project for both weekdays and Saturdays shown in Tables 1 through 4 was assigned to existing and planned study roadways in order to determine the effect Project traffic would have on the operations and capacity of these roadways under future conditions. The following roadways were studied under each Project alternative condition:

1. 24th Street Project Access: a potential Project access road that would connect the Project site to 24th Street, if feasible. Note that this roadway would need to pass through future Delta Shores development parcels that are currently unmapped. As shown in Attachment A, under Alternatives #1, #2A, and #2B, this roadway is assumed to have a 57’ street section, which corresponds with Plate 15-5 of the City’s Design and Procedures Manual as a Minor Collector (2-lane) designation. Under Alternative #3, this roadway is assumed to have a 53’ street section, which corresponds with Plate 15-2 of the City’s Design and Procedures Manual as a Residential Street (Local Street, 2-lane) designation.

2. A Street Project Access (East/West): proposed Project access road(s) that would connect the Project site to A Street. Note that City Alternatives #2B and #3 assume two A Street Project Access roadways.

As shown in Attachment A, under Alternatives #1, #2A, and #2B, these roadways are assumed to have a 57’ street section, which corresponds with Plate 15-5 of the City’s Design and Procedures Manual as a Minor Collector (2-lane) designation. Under Alternative #3, these roadways are assumed to have a 53’ street section which corresponds with Plate 15-2 of the City’s Design and Procedures Manual as a Residential Street (Local Street, 2-lane) designation.

3. A Street: a future roadway bordering the southern boundary of the Project site that would be constructed as part of the Stone Beetland development. This roadway is planned to be a Minor Collector (2-lane) designation based on the Final Transportation Operations Review of Stone Beetland Plan Area (Fehr & Peers, December 9, 2022).

4. 24th Street: a future extension of 24th Street that would connect the street’s current southern terminus to Cosumnes River Boulevard. This roadway is planned to be a Major Collector (4-lane) designation based on the Final Transportation Operations Review of Stone Beetland Plan Area.

5. Cosumnes River Boulevard: an existing arterial that would provide the Project regional connectivity to I-5 and SR-99. Cosumnes River Boulevard is 6 lanes west of 24th Street and 4 lanes east of 24th Street.

STUDY ANALYSIS SCENARIO
This analysis was performed for study area Buildout Plus Project conditions. Buildout Plus Project conditions represent a future year scenario in which the Project and surrounding developments of Stone Beetland and Delta Shores are completed and operational. Baseline Buildout ADTs for the study roadways were obtained from “Cumulative Plus Project” condition volumes found in the Final Transportation Operations Review of Stone Beetland Plan Area. Project weekday and Saturday ADTs were added to baseline Buildout ADT conditions to obtain Buildout Plus Project conditions volumes.

Saturday conditions were included in this analysis as the sports complex component has the potential to generate a large number of weekend trips. In order to convert weekday baseline Buildout ADT to Saturday baseline Buildout ADT, a conversion factor was calculated using data from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) on I-5 mainline near Cosumnes Rover Boulevard. Typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday) ADT data and Saturday ADT data from May 2023 was taken from PeMS and used to calculate a conversion factor of 0.82, which was then applied to weekday baseline Buildout ADT to obtain Saturday baseline Buildout ADT.

Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 11 of 25

PROJECT DAILY TRIP DISTRIBUTION ASSIGNMENT
Project ADT distribution was based on engineering judgment and the trip distribution of the adjacent Stone Beetland development contained in the Final Transportation Operations Review of Stone Beetland Plan Area.

Project weekday and Saturday ADTs were assigned to the study roadways as shown Figures 1 through 4 and in Tables 5 and 6. Tables 5 and 6 show the Project trip assignment with and without the 24th Street Project Access Road in place, respectively.

Table 5. Project ADT Assignment – With 24th Street Access Alt.
% Project ADT Distribution
24th
Street
Project
Access
A Street
Project
Access
(West)
A Street
Project
Access
(East)
A Street B Street C Street
24th
Street
south of
A Street
24th
Street
north of
A Street
Cosumnes
River
Blvd west
of 24th St
Cosumnes
River Blvd
west of
24th St
#1 50% - 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
#2A 55% 45% - 45% 0% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45%
#2B 55% 30% 15% 30% 15% 30% 45% 45% 45% 45%
#3 60% 25% 15% 25% 15% 25% 40% 40% 40% 40%
Table 6. Project ADT Assignment – Without 24th Street Access Alt.
% Project ADT Distribution
24th
Street
Project
Access
A Street
Project
Access
(West)
A Street
Project
Access
(East)
A Street B Street C Street
24th
Street
south of
A Street
24th
Street
north of
A Street
Cosumnes
River Blvd
west of
24th St
Cosumnes
River Blvd
west of
24th St
#1 - - 100% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50%
#2A - 100% - 55% 0% 45% 45% 10% 45% 45%
#2B - 55% 45% 45.0% 15% 40% 35% 10% 45% 45%
#3 - 60% 40% 50% 15% 35% 30% 20% 40% 40%
Under Alternative #1, all Project trips were conservatively assumed to use Cosumnes River Boulevard to travel to/from the freeway. As the remaining alternatives contain residential uses, a portion of Project trips were assumed to utilize the future 24th Street connection north of A Street to travel towards Meadowview Road. A minimal number of trips may use Detroit Boulevard to travel towards Meadowview Road or Susan B. Anthony Elementary School, however, 24th Street and Cosumnes River Boulevard would likely provide the most direct routes to surrounding major destinations and roads. This memorandum conservatively did not assign Project trips to Detroit Boulevard in order to capture the worst-case traffic congestion on planned roadways in the study area.

CITY ROADWAY CAPACITY STANDARDS
The resulting Buildout Plus Project ADTs were compared to the City’s level of service (LOS) capacity thresholds for different roadway operational classes, as contained in Table 3-3 of the City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015). City roadway operational classes and capacity thresholds are shown in Table 7. City General Plan Policy M 1.2.2 states that LOS D is the threshold for acceptable operations on most City roadways. This analysis uses LOS D as the minimum allowable capacity for study roadways.

Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 12 of 25 Table 7. City of Sacramento LOS Thresholds for City Roadway Segments Operational Class Number
of Lanes
ADT LOS Capacity Threshold

A B C D E
Arterial – Low Access Control
2 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000
4 18,000 21,000 24,000 27,000 30,000
6 27,000 31,500 36,000 40,500 45,000
Arterial – Moderate Access Control
2 10,800 12,600 14,400 16,200 18,000
4 21,600 25,200 28,800 32,400 36,000
6 32,400 37,800 43,200 48,600 54,000
Arterial – High Access Control
2 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
4 24,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000
6 36,000 43,000 48,000 54,000 60,000
Collector Street - Minor 2 5,250 6,125 7,000 7,875 8,750 Collector Street – Major
2 8,400 9,800 11,200 12,600 14,000
4 16,800 19,600 22,400 25,200 28,000
Local Street 2 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Facility Type Stops/Mile Driveways Speed
Arterial – Low Access Control 4+ Frequent 25-35 mph
Arterial – Moderate Access Control 2-4 Limited 35-45 mph Arterial – High Access Control 1-2 None 45-55 mph
Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015)

BUILDOUT PLUS PROJECT STUDY ROADWAY OPERATIONS
Buildout Plus Project ADTs were compared to the capacity thresholds in Table 7 to determine LOS for each study roadway segment based on the proposed operational class designation and number of lanes. Tables 8 through 15 contain Project added ADT, Buildout Plus Project ADT, LOS, and volume to capacity (V/C) ratio under weekday and Saturday conditions for each alternative, with and without 24th Street Project Access.

Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 13 of 25 Table 8. Buildout Plus Project Study Roadway Operations – City Alternative #1 With 24th Street Access
Scenario Street
Baseline
Buildout
ADT
Project
Added
ADT
Buildout
Plus Project
ADT
Current Proposed
Operational Class LOS1 Capacity1 V/C2
Weekday
24th Street
Project Access 0 2,155 2,155 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.25 A Street Project
Access (West) - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (East) 0 2,155 2,155 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.25 A Street 1,400 2,155 3,555 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes A 8,750 0.41
B Street 1,700 0 1,700 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.34 C Street 9,300 2,155 11,455 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.82
24th Street south
of A Street 11,600 2,155 13,755 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.49 25th Street north
of A Street 9,700 2,155 11,855 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.42 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
35,800 2,155 37,955 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes C 54,000 0.70
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
34,600 2,155 36,755 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes E 40,000 0.92
Saturday
24th Street
Project Access 0 4,504 4,504 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.51 A Street Project
Access (West) - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (East) 0 4,504 4,504 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.51 A Street 1,152 4,504 5,656 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes B 8,750 0.65
B Street 1,399 0 1,399 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.28 C Street 7,651 4,504 12,155 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.87
24th Street south
of A Street 9,543 4,504 14,047 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.50 25th Street north
of A Street 7,980 4,504 12,484 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.45 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
29,452 4,504 33,956 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes B 54,000 0.63
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
28,465 4,504 32,969 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes D 40,000 0.82
Notes: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS.
1 Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015). The Capacities shown represent LOS E capacity, which are used to calculate V/C.
2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio = Buildout Plus Project volume / LOS E Capacity Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 14 of 25 Table 9. Buildout Plus Project Study Roadway Operations – City Alternative #1 Without 24th Street Access
Scenario Street Baseline
Buildout ADT
Project Added
ADT
Buildout Plus
Project ADT
Current Proposed
Operational Class LOS1 Capacity1 V/C2
Weekday
24th Street
Project Access - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (West) - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (East) 0 4,309 4,309 Collector Street -Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.49 A Street 1,400 2,155 3,555 Collector Street -
Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.41
B Street 1,700 0 1,700 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.34 C Street 9,300 2,155 11,455 Collector Street -
Major, 2 Lanes D 14,000 0.82
24th Street south
of A Street 11,600 2,155 13,755 Collector Street -Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.49 25th Street north
of A Street 9,700 0 9,700 Collector Street -Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.35 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
35,800 2,155 37,955
Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6
Lanes
C 54,000 0.70
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
34,600 2,155 36,755
Arterial - High
Access Control, 4
Lanes
E 40,000 0.92
Saturday
24th Street
Project Access - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (West) - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (East) 0 9,008 9,008 Collector Street -Minor, 2 Lanes F 8,750 1.03 A Street 1,152 4,504 5,656 Collector Street -
Minor, 2 Lanes B 8,750 0.65
B Street 1,399 0 1,399 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.28 C Street 7,651 4,504 12,155 Collector Street -
Major, 2 Lanes D 14,000 0.87
24th Street south
of A Street 9,543 4,504 14,047 Collector Street -Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.50 25th Street north
of A Street 7,980 0 7,980 Collector Street -Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.29 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
29,452 4,504 33,956
Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6
Lanes
B 54,000 0.63
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
28,465 4,504 32,969
Arterial - High
Access Control, 4
Lanes
D 40,000 0.82
Notes: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS.
1 Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015). The Capacities shown represent LOS E capacity, which are used to calculate V/C.
2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio = Buildout Plus Project volume / LOS E Capacity Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 15 of 25 Table 10. Buildout Plus Project Study Roadway Operations – City Alternative #2A With 24th Street Access
Scenario Street
Baseline
Buildout
ADT
Project
Added
ADT
Buildout
Plus Project
ADT
Current Proposed
Operational Class LOS1 Capacity1 V/C2
Weekday
24th Street
Project Access 0 3,385 3,385 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.39 A Street Project
Access (West) 0 2,769 2,769 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.32 A Street Project
Access (East) - - - - - - -
A Street 1,400 2,769 4,169 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes A 8,750 0.48
B Street 1,700 0 1,700 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.34 C Street 9,300 1,939 11,239 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.80
24th Street south
of A Street 11,600 2,769 14,369 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.51 25th Street north
of A Street 9,700 2,769 12,469 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.45 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
35,800 2,769 38,569 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes C 54,000 0.71
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
34,600 2,769 37,369 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes E 40,000 0.93
Saturday
24th Street
Project Access 0 4,448 4,448 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.51 A Street Project
Access (West) 0 3,640 3,640 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.42 A Street Project
Access (East) - - - - - - -
A Street 1,152 3,640 4,792 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes A 8,750 0.55
B Street 1,399 0 1,399 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.28 C Street 7,651 4,054 11,705 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.84
24th Street south
of A Street 9,543 3,640 13,183 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.47 25th Street north
of A Street 7,980 3,640 11,620 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.42 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
29,452 3,640 33,092 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes B 54,000 0.61
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
28,465 3,640 32,105 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes D 40,000 0.80
Notes: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS.
1 Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015). The Capacities shown represent LOS E capacity, which are used to calculate V/C.
2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio = Buildout Plus Project volume / LOS E Capacity Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 16 of 25 Table 11. Buildout Plus Project Study Roadway Operations – City Alternative #2A Without 24th Street Access
Scenario Street
Baseline
Buildout
ADT
Project
Added
ADT
Buildout
Plus Project
ADT
Current Proposed
Operational Class LOS1 Capacity1 V/C2
Weekday
24th Street
Project Access - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (West) 0 6,154 6,154 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes C 8,750 0.70 A Street Project
Access (East) - - - - - - -
A Street 1,400 3,385 4,785 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes A 8,750 0.55
B Street 1,700 0 1,700 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.34 C Street 9,300 1,939 11,239 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.80
24th Street south
of A Street 11,600 2,769 14,369 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.51 25th Street north
of A Street 9,700 615 10,315 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.37 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
35,800 2,769 38,569 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes C 54,000 0.71
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
34,600 2,769 37,369 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes E 40,000 0.93
Saturday
24th Street
Project Access - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (West) 0 8,088 8,088 Collector Street -Minor, 2 Lanes E 8,750 0.92 A Street Project
Access (East) - - - - - - -
A Street 1,152 4,448 5,600 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes B 8,750 0.64
B Street 1,399 0 1,399 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.28 C Street 7,651 4,054 11,705 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.84
24th Street south
of A Street 9,543 3,640 13,183 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.47 25th Street north
of A Street 7,980 809 8,789 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.31 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
29,452 3,640 33,092 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes B 54,000 0.61
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
28,465 3,640 32,105 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes D 40,000 0.80
Notes: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS.
1 Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015). The Capacities shown represent LOS E capacity, which are used to calculate V/C.
2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio = Buildout Plus Project volume / LOS E Capacity Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 17 of 25 Table 12. Buildout Plus Project Study Roadway Operations – City Alternative #2B With 24th Street Access
Scenario Street
Baseline
Buildout
ADT
Project
Added
ADT
Buildout
Plus Project
ADT
Current Proposed
Operational Class LOS1 Capacity1 V/C2
Weekday
24th Street
Project Access 0 4,362 4,362 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.50 A Street Project
Access (West) 0 2,379 2,379 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.27 A Street Project
Access (East) 0 1,190 1,190 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.14 A Street 1,400 2,379 3,779 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes A 8,750 0.43
B Street 1,700 1,190 2,890 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.58 C Street 9,300 2,379 11,679 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.83
24th Street south
of A Street 11,600 3,569 15,169 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.54 25th Street north
of A Street 9,700 3,569 13,269 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.47 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
35,800 3,569 39,369 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes C 54,000 0.73
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
34,600 3,569 38,169 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes E 40,000 0.95
Saturday
24th Street
Project Access 0 5,849 5,849 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes B 8,750 0.67 A Street Project
Access (West) 0 3,190 3,190 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.36 A Street Project
Access (East) 0 1,595 1,595 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.18 A Street 1,152 3,190 4,342 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes A 8,750 0.50
B Street 1,399 1,595 2,994 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.60 C Street 7,651 3,190 10,841 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes C 14,000 0.77
24th Street south
of A Street 9,543 4,785 14,328 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.51 25th Street north
of A Street 7,980 4,785 12,765 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.46 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
29,452 4,785 34,237 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes B 54,000 0.63
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
28,465 4,785 33,250 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes D 40,000 0.83
Notes: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS.
1 Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015). The Capacities shown represent LOS E capacity, which are used to calculate V/C.
2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio = Buildout Plus Project volume / LOS E Capacity Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 18 of 25 Table 13. Buildout Plus Project Study Roadway Operations – City Alternative #2B Without 24th Street Access
Scenario Street
Baseline
Buildout
ADT
Project
Added
ADT
Buildout
Plus Project
ADT
Current Proposed
Operational Class LOS1 Capacity1 V/C2
Weekday
24th Street
Project Access - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (West) 0 4,362 4,362 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.50 A Street Project
Access (East) 0 3,569 3,569 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.41 A Street 1,400 3,569 4,969 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes A 8,750 0.57
B Street 1,700 1,190 2,890 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.58 C Street 9,300 3,172 12,472 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.89
24th Street south
of A Street 11,600 2,776 14,376 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.51 25th Street north
of A Street 9,700 793 10,493 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.37 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
35,800 3,569 39,369 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes C 54,000 0.73
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
34,600 3,569 38,169 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes E 40,000 0.95
Saturday
24th Street
Project Access - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (West) 0 5,849 5,849 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes B 8,750 0.67 A Street Project
Access (East) 0 4,785 4,785 Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A 8,750 0.55 A Street 1,152 4,785 5,937 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes B 8,750 0.68
B Street 1,399 1,595 2,994 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.60 C Street 7,651 4,254 11,905 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.85
24th Street south
of A Street 9,543 3,722 13,265 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.47 25th Street north
of A Street 7,980 1,063 9,043 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.32 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
29,452 4,785 34,237 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes B 54,000 0.63
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
28,465 4,785 33,250 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes D 40,000 0.83
Notes: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS.
1 Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015). The Capacities shown represent LOS E capacity, which are used to calculate V/C.
2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio = Buildout Plus Project volume / LOS E Capacity Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 19 of 25 Table 14. Buildout Plus Project Study Roadway Operations – City Alternative #3 With 24th Street Access
Scenario Street
Baseline
Buildout
ADT
Project
Added
ADT
Buildout
Plus Project
ADT
Current Proposed
Operational Class LOS1 Capacity1 V/C2
Weekday
24th Street
Project Access 0 5,467 5,467 Local Street, 2 Lanes F 5,000 1.09 A Street Project
Access (West) 0 2,278 2,278 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.46 A Street Project
Access (East) 0 1,367 1,367 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.27 A Street 1,400 2,278 3,678 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes A 8,750 0.42
B Street 1,700 1,367 3,067 Local Street, 2 Lanes B 5,000 0.61 C Street 9,300 2,278 11,578 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.83
24th Street south
of A Street 11,600 3,645 15,245 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.54 25th Street north
of A Street 9,700 3,645 13,345 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.48 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
35,800 3,645 39,445 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes C 54,000 0.73
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
34,600 3,645 38,245 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes E 40,000 0.96
Saturday
24th Street
Project Access 0 4,990 4,990 Local Street, 2 Lanes E 5,000 1.00 A Street Project
Access (West) 0 2,079 2,079 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.42 A Street Project
Access (East) 0 1,247 1,247 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.25 A Street 1,152 2,079 3,231 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes A 8,750 0.37
B Street 1,399 1,247 2,646 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.53 C Street 7,651 2,079 9,730 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes B 14,000 0.70
24th Street south
of A Street 9,543 3,326 12,869 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.46 25th Street north
of A Street 7,980 3,326 11,306 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.40 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
29,452 3,326 32,778 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes B 54,000 0.61
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
28,465 3,326 31,791 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes C 40,000 0.79
Notes: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS.
1 Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015). The Capacities shown represent LOS E capacity, which are used to calculate V/C.
2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio = Buildout Plus Project volume / LOS E Capacity Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 20 of 25 Table 15. Buildout Plus Project Study Roadway Operations – City Alternative #3 Without 24th Street Access
Scenario Street
Baseline
Buildout
ADT
Project
Added
ADT
Buildout
Plus Project
ADT
Current Proposed
Operational Class LOS1 Capacity1 V/C2
Weekday
24th Street
Project Access - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (West) 0 5,467 5,467 Local Street, 2 Lanes F 5,000 1.09 A Street Project
Access (East) 0 3,645 3,645 Local Street, 2 Lanes C 5,000 0.73 A Street 1,400 4,556 5,956 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes B 8,750 0.68
B Street 1,700 1,367 3,067 Local Street, 2 Lanes B 5,000 0.61 C Street 9,300 3,189 12,489 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes D 14,000 0.89
24th Street south
of A Street 11,600 2,734 14,334 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.51 25th Street north
of A Street 9,700 1,822 11,522 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.41 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
35,800 3,645 39,445 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes C 54,000 0.73
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
34,600 3,645 38,245 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes E 40,000 0.96
Saturday
24th Street
Project Access - - - - - - -
A Street Project
Access (West) 0 4,990 4,990 Local Street, 2 Lanes E 5,000 1.00 A Street Project
Access (East) 0 3,326 3,326 Local Street, 2 Lanes B 5,000 0.67 A Street 1,152 4,158 5,310 Collector Street - Minor,
2 Lanes B 8,750 0.61
B Street 1,399 1,247 2,646 Local Street, 2 Lanes A 5,000 0.53 C Street 7,651 2,911 10,562 Collector Street - Major,
2 Lanes C 14,000 0.75
24th Street south
of A Street 9,543 2,495 12,038 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.43 25th Street north
of A Street 7,980 1,663 9,643 Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes A 28,000 0.34 Cosumnes River
Blvd west of 24th
Street
29,452 3,326 32,778 Arterial - Moderate
Access Control, 6 Lanes B 54,000 0.61
Cosumnes River
Blvd east of C
Street
28,465 3,326 31,791 Arterial - High Access
Control, 4 Lanes C 40,000 0.79
Notes: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS.
1 Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015). The Capacities shown represent LOS E capacity, which are used to calculate V/C.
2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio = Buildout Plus Project volume / LOS E Capacity Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 21 of 25

INTERIM PROJECT CONDITION EVALUATION
The Project plans to develop an interim condition in which a 200-bed “tiny home” community is constructed on a 3 to 3.5-acre portion in the southwestern corner of the site. Access is anticipated to be provided via a driveway on A Street. The ITE land use Single-Family Attached Housing (ITE Code 215) was used to represent the tiny home development trip generation, which is shown in Table 16.

As shown in Table 16, the proposed tiny home community is projected to generate 1,474 weekday daily trips and 1,752 Saturday daily trips. However, these values could vary due to the lack of trip generation data available for tiny home community uses. ITE data shows daily and peak hour trip estimates for Mobile Home Park (ITE Code 240) and Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (ITE Code 220) uses are relatively similar to the estimates shown in Table 16. Since the interim tiny home community trip generation is projected to be significantly lower than that of any of the City’s Alternatives, it can be assumed that all study area planned roads would be able to accommodate the interim tiny home trips.

Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 22 of 25 Table 16. Interim Project Conditions Trip Generation
Land Use ITE
Code Quantity Units Weekday Daily1
AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1
Saturday
Daily1
Saturday Peak Hour1
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Attached
Housing (Tiny Homes)
215 200 DU 1,474 25 73 98 68 48 116 1,752 55 59 114
Total Project Trips 1,474 25 73 98 68 48 116 1,752 55 59 114 Notes:
1Trip rates are based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) average rates or fitted curve equations. 2 DU = Dwelling Unit
Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 23 of 25

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings in Tables 8 through 15, the recommended operational class and number of lanes for each failing study roadway to operate at acceptable LOS D or better are summarized in Tables 17 and 18 below, for the With 24th Street Project Access and Without 24th Street Project Access scenarios, respectively.

With 24th Street Project Access:

As shown in Table 17, under City Alternative #3, the 24th Street Project Access Road would require classification as a 2-Lane Minor Collector instead of a Local Street to maintain LOS D. Cosumnes River Boulevard east of C Street is projected to operate at LOS E under weekday Buildout Plus Project conditions under all alternatives. The planned roadways in Stone Beetland are projected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate Project traffic volumes.

Without 24th Street Project Access:

As shown in Table 18, under City Alternative #1, A Street Project Access (East) would need to be classified as a 2-Lane Major Collector instead of a 2-Lane Minor Collector to maintain LOS D. Under City Alternative #2A, A Street Project Access (West) would need to be classified as a 2-Lane Major Collector instead of a 2- Lane Minor Collector to maintain LOS D. Under City Alternative #3, A Street Project Access (West) would require classification as a 2-Lane Minor Collector instead of a Local Street to maintain LOS D. Cosumnes River Boulevard east of C Street is projected to operate at LOS E under weekday Buildout Plus Project conditions under all alternatives. The planned roadways in Stone Beetland are projected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate Project traffic volumes.

Consumnes River Boulevard East of C Street:

As described above, the segment of Cosumnes River Boulevard east of C Street is projected to operate at LOS E conditions under both With 24th Street Project Access and Without 24th Street Project Access scenarios.

The highest projected ADT on this segment under Buildout Plus Project conditions is 38,245. The segment is currently a 4-Lane High Access Control Arterial with a capacity of 40,000 ADT, resulting in a maximum Buildout Plus Project volume to capacity ratio of 0.96. The Buildout Plus Project volumes are consistent with the volumes in the Traffic Operations Review of Stone Beetland Plan Area by Fehr & Peers. The high ADT volumes on this segment are a result of the cumulative effect of future projects in the area, including traffic generated by the Project, Stone Beetland, Delta Shores, and other planned future developments Note that the LOS E operations are not projected to occur until Buildout Plus Project, or long-term future conditions. Generally, the roadway operating with a volume to capacity ratio of 0.96 means that it would be near, but not over capacity. The roadway operating near capacity at LOS E means that vehicles on this segment of Consumnes River Boulevard would experience reduced speeds, increased congestion, and increased delays and queuing at intersections during certain times of the day. As the roadway would not be over capacity, traffic would likely still progress, just at a reduced rate. Additionally, as this segment of Consumnes River Boulevard is adjacent to Stone Beetland, it is possible it would cause increased congestion, queueing, and delays on the side streets in Stone Beetland as well.

Interim Tiny Home Community:

The Project plans to develop an interim condition in which a 200-bed “tiny home” community is constructed on a 3 to 3.5-acre area in the southwestern corner of the site. The ITE land use Single-Family Attached Housing (ITE Code 215) was used to represent the tiny home development trip generation. The proposed tiny home community is projected to generate 1,474 weekday daily trips and 1,752 Saturday daily trips. Since the interim tiny home community trip generation is projected to be significantly lower than that of any of the City’s Alternatives, it can be assumed that all study area planned roads would be able to accommodate the interim tiny home trips.

Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 24 of 25 Table 17. Buildout Plus Project Study Roadway Operational Class Requirements – With 24th Street Project Access
Alt. Street Planned Operational Class Recommended Operational Class for LOS D1 or Better
#1
24th Street Project Access Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Project Access (East) Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change
B Street Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change
C Street Collector Street - Major, 2 Lanes No Change
24th Street south of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change 25th Street north of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd west of 24th Street Arterial - Moderate Access Control, 6 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd east of C Street Arterial - High Access Control, 4 Lanes Arterial - Low Access Control, 6 Lanes #2A
24th Street Project Access Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Project Access (West) Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change
B Street Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change
C Street Collector Street - Major, 2 Lanes No Change
24th Street south of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change 25th Street north of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd west of 24th Street Arterial - Moderate Access Control, 6 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd east of C Street Arterial - High Access Control, 4 Lanes Arterial - Low Access Control, 6 Lanes #2B
24th Street Project Access Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Project Access (West) Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Project Access (East) Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change
B Street Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change
C Street Collector Street - Major, 2 Lanes No Change
24th Street south of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change 25th Street north of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd west of 24th Street Arterial - Moderate Access Control, 6 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd east of C Street Arterial - High Access Control, 4 Lanes Arterial - Low Access Control, 6 Lanes #3
24th Street Project Access Local Street, 2 Lanes Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A Street Project Access (West) Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Project Access (East) Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change
B Street Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change
C Street Collector Street - Major, 2 Lanes No Change
24th Street south of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change 25th Street north of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd west of 24th Street Arterial - Moderate Access Control, 6 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd east of C Street Arterial - High Access Control, 4 Lanes Arterial - Low Access Control, 6 Lanes Note: 1 Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015) Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis 25 of 25 Table 18. Buildout Plus Project Study Roadway Operational Class Requirements – Without 24th Street Project Access
Alt. Street Planned Operational Class Recommended Operational Class for LOS D1 or Better
#1
A Street Project Access (East) Collector Street – Minor, 2 Lanes Collector Street – Major, 2 Lanes A Street Collector Street – Minor, 2 Lanes No Change
B Street Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change
C Street Collector Street – Major, 2 Lanes No Change
24th Street south of A Street Collector Street – Major, 4 Lanes No Change 25th Street north of A Street Collector Street – Major, 4 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd west of 24th Street Arterial - Moderate Access Control, 6 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd east of C Street Arterial - High Access Control, 4 Lanes Arterial - Low Access Control, 6 Lanes #2A
A Street Project Access (West) Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes Collector Street - Major, 2 Lanes A Street Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change
B Street Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change
C Street Collector Street - Major, 2 Lanes No Change
24th Street south of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change 25th Street north of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd west of 24th Street Arterial - Moderate Access Control, 6 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd east of C Street Arterial - High Access Control, 4 Lanes Arterial - Low Access Control, 6 Lanes #2B
A Street Project Access (West) Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Project Access (East) Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change
B Street Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change
C Street Collector Street - Major, 2 Lanes No Change
24th Street south of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change 25th Street north of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd west of 24th Street Arterial - Moderate Access Control, 6 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd east of C Street Arterial - High Access Control, 4 Lanes Arterial - Low Access Control, 6 Lanes #3
A Street Project Access (West) Local Street, 2 Lanes Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes A Street Project Access (East) Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change A Street Collector Street - Minor, 2 Lanes No Change
B Street Local Street, 2 Lanes No Change
C Street Collector Street - Major, 2 Lanes No Change
24th Street south of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change 25th Street north of A Street Collector Street - Major, 4 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd west of 24th Street Arterial - Moderate Access Control, 6 Lanes No Change Cosumnes River Blvd east of C Street Arterial - High Access Control, 4 Lanes Arterial - Low Access Control, 6 Lanes Notes:
1 Source: Table 3-3, City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report (March 3, 2015) Meadowview 102 Land Use Concept Alternatives – Traffic Feasibility Analysis

ATTACHMENT A

PROJECT ALTERNATIVE EXHIBITS

ATTACHMENT J:

Financial Analysis

D R A F T T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M
To: Alexi Wordell and Elizabeth Boyd
From: Tom Martens and Amy Lapin
Subject: Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis
Date: November 1, 2023
As part of the Meadowview 102 project conducted for the City of Sacramento (City), Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) has completed a financial analysis (Analysis) of each of the potential land use concepts developed for the Meadowview site (Site) by Wood Rodgers. Land use concepts range from the entirety of the Site developed as a sports complex to a combination of sports complex and residential land uses to residential and neighborhood park land uses.

The Analysis includes estimated cost inputs from the project team’s biological consultant, Madrone Ecological Consulting (Madrone), as well as estimates of probable cost for required onsite and offsite infrastructure needs, developed by Wood Rodgers, and ongoing annual costs related to the sports complex, assuming the City owns and operates the facility.

In addition, the Analysis includes estimated land sale proceeds, as well as potential sports complex operating revenues and visitor tax revenue estimated to accrue to the City, based on research conducted on behalf of Visit Sac Sports Commission (VSSC) and estimated by EPS in the previously completed Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Market Assessment
Memorandum.

A p p r o a c h
The Analysis compares the substantive upfront development and ongoing annual costs to the City estimated to result from each of the land use concepts. Costs include environmental mitigation, onsite and offsite infrastructure, and development of a sports complex or park facilities. Revenues include the sale of land to residential developers, sports complex operating revenues, and tax revenues from sports complex tournament attendees’ hotel stays and other visitor spending.

Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 2
The potential residential land sale revenues to the City are impacted by the eventual strategy for meeting the 25 percent affordable housing requirement under the Surplus Land Act because of the effect on residual land value (i.e., what a potential developer would be willing to pay for the land).Infrastructure costs (for both onsite infrastructure and a portion of required offsite infrastructure costs) have been modeled as costs to the City. While some of these costs would likely be allocated to any potential residential developers under scenarios with housing, they would be reflected in reductions in residual land value and therefore land sale proceeds to the City. Therefore, the overall value to the City estimated in the Analysis is generally consistent with anticipated values with offsets to infrastructure costs.

K e y F i n a n c i a l F i nd i ng s
The key findings of the Analysis are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Total Net Cost or Revenue of Alternative Concepts Revenue / Expense Item
Concept 1:

Full Site Sports
Complex
Concept 3:

Residential
Development Costs
Onsite Development Costs [1] ($123.3 M) ($90.3 M) - ($91.1 M) ($39.7 M) Potential Offsite Infrastructure Share at 25% at 75%
Potential Offsite Infrastructure Cost ($4.2 M) ($12.5 M) Total Development Costs ($127.4 M) ($98.7 M) - ($99.5 M) ($52.2 M) Residential Development Land Sale [2] - $22.9 M - $37.8 M $85.9 M Present Value of Sports Complex
Net Revenue (30 years) [3] $7.8 M -
Total Net Revenue / (Cost) ($119.6 M) ($73.2 M) - ($59.1 M) $13.0 M - $102.4 M Source: EPS.
[1] Includes onsite infrastructure, 24th Street connection, environmental mitigation costs, and development of sports complex or neighborhood park.
[2] Land sale value may vary depending on affordable unit strategy. [3] Includes Transient Occupancy Tax (12%) and sales tax (2%) from tournament visitors, plus nominal revenue from facility usage/rental fees, net of annual operating expenditures, as managed by the City. The discount rate used to calculate present value of the net operating revenue is 7%.

Scenario
Concepts 2a & 2b:

Partial Site Sports
Complex + Residential
at 50%
($8.3 M)
$2.6 M
Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 3
Key notes regarding Table 1:
 The onsite development costs include environmental mitigation, onsite infrastructure, the 24th Street connector (technically off-site but included with on-site costs since it will primarily serve the Site), and development of a flat field (soccer) complex and 100,000-square-foot indoor facility. These are upfront costs.
 The offsite infrastructure (total of $20 million, excluding 24th Street connector) includes costs that will be shared between the Site, Stone Beetland, and Delta Shores. The City’s cost share assumed in this Analysis (ranging from 25 percent to 75 percent) is a rough order-of-magnitude estimate that would be determined in future analysis. (Concept 1, with no residential units would likely pay the lowest share, while Concept 3, with the most residential units, would likely pay the highest share.) These are upfront costs.
 Residential land sale values vary considerably depending on affordable unit strategy. The numbers shown assume the required 25 percent affordable units (assumed affordable at 70 percent of Area Median Income [AMI]) can be accommodated in multifamily rental units (consolidated approach). These are upfront revenues.
 The present value of the sports complex net revenues, which account for the City’s annual operating expenses, discounts a 30-year stream of net revenue to the City to its value today for comparison with the upfront costs/revenues noted above. The ongoing annual revenue stream includes sports complex operating revenue, sports complex operating expenses (assuming the facility is City-operated), and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and City sales tax revenues from tournament attendees. Potential advertising or other revenues have not been estimated in this Analysis.

As expected, the maximum residential concept, with most of the Site sold for residential development, generates the most revenue for the City. None of the scenarios result in a positive net present value (NPV), except the full residential concept. Cost drivers impacting negative NPV include the cost to construct the sports complex, both offsite and onsite infrastructure needs, and environmental mitigation costs. Wetland preservation appears to have a marginal effect on overall feasibility. Alternative affordable housing strategies strongly affect feasibility.

Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 4
L a n d U se C o n c e p t s
The 4 land use concepts developed by Wood Rodgers are summarized in Table 2, which lists the acreage assigned to each land use.

Table 2 Scenario Land Use Summary
Land Use [1]
Concept 1:

Maximum
Sports Complex
Concept 2a:

Sports Complex
+ Residential w/
Wetlands
Preserve
Concept 2b:

Sports Complex
+ Residential
w/o Wetlands
Preserve
Concept 3:

Maximum
Residential
Sports Park - Flat Fields [2] 99.15 57.75 53.75 -
Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 2.75 2.75 -
Neighborhood Park - - - 10.00
MDR - 13.60 22.20 43.40
MHDR - - - 14.40
HDR - 5.50 10.00 23.00
Wetland Preserve - 15.30 - -
Storm Drainage [2] - 4.10 5.50 7.80
Total for Concept [3] 101.90 99.00 94.20 98.60
Source: Wood Rodgers; EPS.
[1] Land area devoted to the interim used is included with the assumed replacement use. [2] Flat field acreage includes drainage in Concept 1.
[3] Total acreage does not include acreage for circulation, resulting in varying totals.

Acres per Use by Development Scenario
Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5
S umm a r y o f F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s
Initial Concept Development Costs and Offsetting Revenues Each of the 4 concepts entails some significant upfront costs to develop:
environmental mitigation costs, onsite and offsite infrastructure costs, and development of the sports complex or neighborhood park. A 24th Street connector has been assumed as part of the Site development cost. The 3 scenarios that include residential development also include upfront revenues from the sale of land for residential development.

Table 3 summarizes each of the major upfront costs and initial land sale revenues estimated for each concept.

Table 3 Estimated Scenario Development Costs (2023$)
Cost & Offsetting Revenue Category [1]
Concept 1:

Maximum
Sports Complex
Concept 2a:

Sports Complex +
Residential w/
Wetlands
Preserve
Concept 2b:

Sports Complex +
Residential w/o
Wetlands
Preserve
Concept 3:

Maximum
Residential
Estimated Initial Costs
Environmental Mitigation [2] ($12,571,000) ($10,333,000) ($12,571,000) ($12,571,000) Onsite Infrastructure ($9,797,000) ($7,744,000) ($9,097,000) ($12,612,000) 24th Street Connector ($6,494,000) ($6,494,000) ($6,494,000) ($6,494,000) Sports Complex/Park Development ($94,400,000) ($65,770,000) ($62,970,000) ($8,000,000) Total Onsite + 24th Street Connector ($123,262,000) ($90,341,000) ($91,132,000) ($39,677,000) Potential Offsite Infrastructure Share at 25% at 50% at 50% at 75% Potential Offsite Infrastructure Cost ($4,162,500) ($8,325,000) ($8,325,000) ($12,487,500) Total Estimated Cost ($127,424,500) ($98,666,000) ($99,457,000) ($52,164,500) Estimated Initial Revenues
Residential Development Land Sale [3] - $22,887,000 $37,839,000 $85,907,000 Total Estimated Revenues - $22,887,000 $37,839,000 $85,907,000 Total Net Development Cost ($127,424,500) ($75,779,000) ($61,618,000) $33,742,500 Source: EPS
[2] Average of US waters and State waters designation costs. Includes rough estimate for cost of wetland perserve development under Scenario 2a.
[3] Land sale values assume below market rate units consolidated into HDR development. See Table 3 for revenue estimates under alternative affordable unit scenarios.

Development Scenario
[1] The costs and offsetting revenues shown are from the perspective of the City of Sacramento. Actual financing options or joint venture agreements may affect eventual responsibility for various costs, with resulting reductions to supportable land sale values.

Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 6
The potential residential land sale revenues included in Table 3 reflect an affordable unit approach that allows the provision of the Site’s total required number of affordable units within the multifamily product category. This approach is fairly common for larger developments with a mix of housing types and represents one potential approach to providing affordable units on the Site.

For example, it is not certain at this time whether the requirements of the Surplus Land Act will require affordable units to be spread proportionally across all unit types. Distributing affordable units across all unit types would have a significant negative impact on development feasibility, reducing the land sale price the City would be able to realize from sale to a residential developer.

The most advantageous strategy for onsite affordable units from a development feasibility (and residual land value) perspective would be providing a portion of the Site (large enough to accommodate the necessary number of affordable units) free to a nonprofit Below Market-Rate (BMR) developer that can take advantage of various grants and low-interest financing mechanisms. This land gift strategy would result in a higher residual land value for a potential developer and therefore a higher land sale price the City could command.

Table 4 provides a comparison of the estimated land sale value the City could realize from selling land for residential development for each of the 3 concepts with a residential component, under each of the 3 alternative affordable unit scenarios, each of which assumes 25 percent of the total units are affordable to households earning 70 percent of AMI.

Under the “Distributed Affordable Units” scenario, the Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR), which would normally drive much of the project value, have significantly reduced land values. Under the “Consolidated Affordable Units” scenario, the MDR and MHDR values reflect their market value, but the HDR value is decreased significantly because it is carrying the cost burden of the affordable units. However, because MDR and MHDR drive much of the value of the overall concept, the total residual land value is higher.

Under the “Land Gift” scenario, the value of the MDR/MHDR units and the HDR units that are not on the gifted portion of the property are maximized.

Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
Table 4 Estimated Residential Land Sale Values (2023$)
The strategy with affordable units distributed proportionally across each product type results in significantly lower residual land value because of the significant differential between the cost to build the for-sale MDR units and the estimated BMR sales prices for those units.

Conversely, the strategy providing land to a nonprofit BMR developer produces the smallest reduction in residual land value because all HDR units not on the gifted parcel will achieve market-rate rents.

Affordable Scenario / Unit Category
Concept 1:

Maximum
Sports Complex
Concept 2a:

Sports Complex
+ Residential w/
Wetlands
Preserve
Concept 2b:

Sports Complex
+ Residential w/o
Wetlands
Preserve
Concept 3:

Maximum
Residential
Affordable Units Distributed Across All Residential Products MDR - $15,294,000 $24,965,000 $48,805,000
MHDR - - - $6,485,000
HDR - $2,822,000 $5,132,000 $10,006,000
Total - $18,116,000 $30,097,000 $65,296,000
Afffordable Units Consolidated into HDR Product
MDR - $29,768,000 $48,592,000 $94,994,000
MHDR - - - $32,227,000
HDR - ($6,881,000) ($10,753,000) ($41,314,000)
Total - $22,887,000 $37,839,000 $85,907,000
Land Gift to Non-Profit BMR Developer
MDR - $29,768,000 $48,592,000 $94,994,000
MHDR - - - $32,227,000
HDR - $7,509,000 $14,202,000 $27,478,000
Total - $37,277,000 $62,794,000 $154,699,000
Source: EPS
Development Scenario
Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 8
Ongoing Operating Revenues and Expenses
Table 5 summarizes the ongoing annual operating costs and revenues associated with the sports complex in Concept 1, Concept 2a, and Concept 2b, as well as the operating costs for the neighborhood park in Concept 3.

The larger sports complex in Concept 1, on about 60 acres with an assumed 20 flat fields, is estimated to generate more direct operating revenue and visitorgenerated tax revenues than the sports complex in either Concept 2a or Concept 2b, which are assumed to include 13 to 16 flat fields. The neighborhood park in Concept 3 is assumed to generate no revenue.

Netting out the estimated cost of ongoing annual operating expenses results in the estimated annual net operating revenue to the City at stabilization (shown in 2023 dollars).

Table 5 Estimated Ongoing/Operating Revenue and Expense Comparison (2023$) Concept 1:

Maximum
Sports Complex
Concept 2a:

Sports Complex
+ Residential w/
Wetlands
Preserve
Concept 2b:

Sports Complex
+ Residential w/o
Wetlands
Preserve
Concept 3:

Maximum
Residential
Ongoing Revenues
Sports Complex Operating Revenues [1] $1,126,000 $1,054,000 $1,054,000 - Tournament-derived City TOT [2] $1,058,000 $749,000 $749,000 - Tournament-derived City Sales Tax [3] $412,000 $282,000 $282,000 - Total Revenues $2,596,000 $2,085,000 $2,085,000 - Ongoing Expenses Sports Complex Operating Expenses [4] ($1,900,000) ($1,820,000) ($1,820,000) Neighborhood Park ($150,000)
Total Expenses ($1,900,000) ($1,820,000) ($1,820,000) ($150,000) Net Operating Revenue / (Cost) [5] $696,000 $265,000 $265,000 ($150,000) Source: EPS
[1] Not including any extraordinary advertising revenue. [2] Includes City 12.0% Transient Occupancy Tax; excludes dedicated Tourism Marketing District (2.5%) and Tourism Infrastructure District (1.0%) room taxes.
[3] Includes 1.0% Bradley Burns allocation and 1.0% Measure U (non-permanent) tax rate. [4] Assumes municipally operated facility.
[5] Excludes property tax and other revenues due to residential development, as well as costs for municipal services for residential units, assuming these are in relative equilibrium.

Development Scenario
Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9
K e y A s s um p t i o n s
The Analysis incorporates output from the evaluation of biological resources, infrastructure needs assessment, park/sports complex development and operating assumptions, and residual land value estimates for each of the proposed residential uses for each scenario.

Environmental Mitigation
The key costs to address the potential biological issues identified by Madrone are summarized in Appendix Table A-1. The costs are identified under 2 alternative scenarios, depending on whether the water resources at the Site are designated as Federal and State waters or State waters only. For purposes of the overall Analysis, EPS averaged the 2 sets of costs. In addition, EPS added a cost for developing the potential wetland preserve, assuming $100,000 per acre.

Infrastructure
Estimates for the onsite and offsite infrastructure elements required for each scenario were developed by Wood Rodgers and summarized in Appendix Table A-2.

Sports Complex, Park, and Interim Use
The Analysis includes several key assumptions related to the cost of developing and operating sports complex elements and a neighborhood park, along with potential offsetting revenues.

Appendix Table A-3 provides the detailed assumption inputs used for sport facility and park development costs, operating costs, and operating revenues, along with potential visitor-generated TOT and local sales tax from sports complex attendees assumed to be captured in the City. Also included is the cost for minimally preparing a portion of the Site to hand over to Sacramento County for an interim use, presumed to be a temporary “tiny home” community.

The estimated annual sports complex visitor-generated TOT and sales tax in the City was calculated as part of the sports facility demand assessment. A detailed description of methodology used to estimate these tax revenues can be found in the Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Assessment Memorandum.

The sports complex, park development, and interim use costs, operating costs, and offsetting revenues were developed using a variety of data sources collected for this Analysis, as summarized in Table 6 below.

Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 10
Table 6 Park and Interim Use Cost and Revenue Assumptions The sources used to develop the revenue and expense inputs in Table 6 reflect the availability of data. In particular, municipalities generally budget for park and recreation operating costs on a citywide or districtwide basis, rather than per facility. However, the City of Ripon identifies the Mistlin sports complex operating expense as a separate item in the municipal budget. The operating budget was adjusted to account for other uses at the complex and contracted management of the facility’s baseball component.

Assumption Category
Flat
Fields
Indoor
Sports Facility
Neighborhood
Park
Interim
Use
One-Time
Development Cost $700,000 / Acre $250 / Sq Ft $800,000 / Acre $100,000 / Acre Source/Justification Based on industry rule of
thumb for grass sport field
construction costs ranging
from $650,000-$750,000
per acre.

Based on typical
commercial sports club
construction cost multiplier
with standard fit-out, not
including equipment.

Assumed moderately
higher per acre than sport
fields, reflecting
intermittent areas of
increased programming
combined with relatively
less earthwork.

Assumed cost for minimal
vegetation clearance,
surface leveling, access
point.

Ongoing Operating
Expense $20,000 / Acre $15 / Sq Ft $15,000 / Acre na
Source/Justification Based on City of Ripon
budgeted sports complex
operating expense of
$400,000; with half
assumed devoted to flat
fields, divided by 10 fields.

Assumed similar to typical
commercial operating
expense per square foot.

City of Roseville: Annual
Maintenance Costs for
Maintenance CFDs.

Maintainance not
assumed to be provided
by the City of Sacramento.

Ongoing Operating
Revenue $19,000 / Acre $8 / Sq Ft na na
Source/Justification Based on Livermore Area
Park & Rec. Dept.
budgeted revenues from
field rental, synthetic field
rental, and field lighting
rental allocated across
facilites based on Google
Earth assessment of park
assets.

Based on Livermore Area
Park & Rec. Dept.
budgeted revenues from
gym rental, divided by
gym square footage.

Neighborhood park
revenue assumed
negligible.

No revenue potential
assumed.

Source: Saylor Current Construction Costs; Wood Rodgers; City of Ripon; Livermore Area Parks & Recreation Department; City of Morgan Hill; City of Roseville; Google Earth; EPS.

Meadowview 102 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 11
Similar to operating costs noted above, most municipal budgets do not break down park and recreation revenues by facility or into component pieces tied to specific elements that would allow for extrapolation of revenues for a new facility in Sacramento. However, the Livermore Area Park & Recreation Department budget provides line-item revenue estimates for sports field rental, artificial turf field rental, and field lighting rental. An aerial image survey of each of the Department’s fields across 13 park sites was conducted to estimate the allocation of revenues for prime flat fields that would be comparable to a new sports complex.

Residential Uses
Appendix Table A-12 and Appendix Table A-13 include static development pro formas for the proposed residential typologies proposed for the Site, including MDR (assumed for-sale), MHDR (assumed rental), and High Density Residential (HDR; assumed rental). The residual land values per acre, by unit type, calculated in these 2 tables provide the basis for the potential City revenue to be derived from potential land sale to a residential developer that would construct the units.

Potential market-rate unit revenue assumptions included in the static pro formas are derived from market data included in the previously completed Meadowview 102 Real Estate Market Demand Analysis Report. The affordable unit revenues are based on an assessment of Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency and California Department of Housing and Community Development data and regulations, as summarized in Appendix Table A-14.

Appendix Table A-8 through Appendix Table A-11 include detailed assumptions of initial and post-interim use acreages for each residential type under varying affordable unit strategies. The base scenario1 is based on the assumption all units are market rate for purposes of allocating affordable units under the other scenarios. The alternative affordable unit strategies include allocating the required 25 percent affordable units within each of the residential land use typologies, consolidating the required number of affordable units in the HDR use, and allocating the required number of affordable units in a development by a nonprofit affordable housing developer on a gifted portion of the Site.

The total residual land value of residential development for each concept under each of the affordable unit strategies identified above is summarized in Appendix Table A-4. Annualized estimates for each of the major revenue and expense line items under each scenario are summarized in Appendix Table A-5 through Appendix Table A-7.
1 The base scenario would not be permitted and is only used in this Analysis to develop the 3 affordable scenarios; therefore, results for the base scenario are not presented.

APPENDIX
Table A-1 Mitigation Costs
Table A-2 Infrastructure Costs
Table A-3 Park, Interim Use Costs & Revenues
Table A-4 Residential Uses—Annual Land Sale Proceeds
Table A-5 Annual Revenue and Expense—Distributed
Affordable Units
Table A-6 Annual Revenue and Expense—Consolidated
Affordable Units
Table A-7 Annual Revenue and Expense—Land Gift
Affordable Units
Table A-8 Alternative Scenarios and Development Values— Base/Before Affordable Allocation
Table A-9 Alternative Scenarios and Development Values— Distributed Affordable
Table A-10 Alternative Scenarios and Development Values— Consolidated Affordable
Table A-11 Alternative Scenarios and Development Values— Nonprofit BMR Land Gift
Table A-12 For-Sale Residual Land Value
Table A-13 Rental Residential Residual Land Value
Table A-14 Affordable Housing Pricing Estimate
Table A-15 Sports Facility Impact Analysis
Table A-1
Meadowview 102
Development Feasibility Analysis
Mitigation Costs (2023$)
Category
Concept 1:

Maximum
Sports Complex
Concept 2a:

Sports Complex +
Residential w/
Wetlands Preserve
Concept 2b:

Sports Complex +
Residential w/o
Wetlands Preserve
Concept 3:

Maximum
Residential
US Waters Scenario
Aquatic Resources Mitigation
Seasonal Wetland $5,880,000 $2,360,000 $5,880,000 $5,880,000 Ditch / Pond $1,510,000 $1,510,000 $1,510,000 $1,510,000 Species Mitigation
Vernal Pool Shrimp $4,150,000 $4,150,000 $4,150,000 $4,150,000 Application and Project Fee $237,190 $153,993 $237,190 $237,190 Swainson's Hawk Foraging Habitat (average) $1,120,000 $955,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 Total Mitigation Cost $12,897,000 $9,129,000 $12,897,000 $12,897,000 Wetland Preserve Development - $1,530,000 - -
Mitigation Cost Plus Wetland Preserve Development $12,897,000 $10,659,000 $12,897,000 $12,897,000 State Waters Scenario
Aquatic Resources Mitigation
Seasonal Wetland $5,880,000 $2,360,000 $5,880,000 $5,880,000 Ditch / Pond $858,175 $858,175 $858,175 $858,175
Species Mitigation
Vernal Pool Shrimp $4,150,000 $4,150,000 $4,150,000 $4,150,000 Application and Project Fee $237,190 $153,993 $237,190 $237,190 Swainson's Hawk Foraging Habitat (average) $1,120,000 $955,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 Total Mitigation Cost $12,245,000 $8,477,000 $12,245,000 $12,245,000 Wetland Preserve Development - $1,530,000 - -
Mitigation Cost Plus Wetland Preserve Development $12,245,000 $10,007,000 $12,245,000 $12,245,000 Average of US Waters and State Waters Scenarios
Total Mitigation Cost $12,571,000 $8,803,000 $12,571,000 $12,571,000 Wetland Preserve Development $1,530,000
Mitigation Cost Plus Wetland Preserve Development $12,571,000 $10,333,000 $12,571,000 $12,571,000 Source: Madrone Ecological Consulting; EPS.

Maximum
Sports Complex
Concept 2a:

Sports Complex +
Residential w/
Wetlands Preserve
Concept 2b:

Sports Complex +
Residential w/o
Wetlands Preserve
Concept 3:

Maximum
Residential
Offsite
Sanitary Sewer $8,754,688 $8,754,688 $8,754,688 $8,754,688 Storm Drainage $361,000 $361,000 $361,000 $361,000
Water System $1,984,000 $1,984,000 $1,984,000 $1,984,000 Contingency $3,329,906 $3,329,906 $3,329,906 $3,329,906 Soft Costs $2,219,938 $2,219,938 $2,219,938 $2,219,938
Total Offsite $16,650,000 $16,650,000 $16,650,000 $16,650,000 Onsite
Grading $1,376,200 $1,391,800 $1,429,800 $1,557,000
Roadway $3,669,200 $2,376,500 $2,752,200 $3,419,400
Sanitary Sewer $213,750 $186,750 $165,000 $983,500
Storm Drainage $740,250 $825,250 $1,156,750 $1,751,000
Water System $532,000 $382,500 $561,000 $697,000
Contingency $1,959,420 $1,548,840 $1,819,425 $2,522,370 Soft Costs $1,306,280 $1,032,560 $1,212,950 $1,681,580
Total Onsite $9,797,000 $7,744,000 $9,097,000 $12,612,000 24th Street Connector $6,494,000 $6,494,000 $6,494,000 $6,494,000 Onsite Plus 24th Street Connector $16,291,000 $14,238,000 $15,591,000 $19,106,000 Source: Wood Rodgers; EPS.

Development Scenarios
Prepared by EPS 11/1/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 financial m1.8 Table A-3
Meadowview 102
Development Feasibility Analysis
Park, Interim Use Costs & Revenues (2023$)
Concept / Use Acres Fields Sq Ft
Development Cost
Multiplier
Development
Cost
Operating
Expense
Multiplier
Annual
Operating
Expense
Operating
Revenue
Multiplier
Annual
Operating
Revenue
Annual
Visitor
TOT
Revenue [1]
Annual
Visitor
Sales Tax
Revenue [1]
Concept 1: Maximum Sports Park
Sports Park - Flat Fields 95.65 19 $700,000 / Ac $66,950,000 $20,000 / Field $380,000 $19,000 / Field $361,000 $1,058,000 $412,000 Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 100,000 $250 / Sq Ft $25,000,000 $15.00 / Sq Ft $1,500,000 $7.50 / Sq Ft $750,000 - - Sports Park/FF - Post Interim Use 3.50 1 $700,000 / Ac $2,450,000 $20,000 / Field $20,000 $15,000 / Field $15,000 - - Total $94,400,000 $1,900,000 $1,126,000 $1,058,000 $412,000 Concept 2a: Sports Park + Residential
w/ Wetlands
Sports Park - Flat Fields 57.75 16 $700,000 / Ac $40,420,000 $20,000 / Field $320,000 $19,000 / Field $304,000 $749,000 $282,000 Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 100,000 $250 / Sq Ft $25,000,000 $15.00 / Sq Ft $1,500,000 $7.50 / Sq Ft $750,000 - - Total $65,770,000 $1,820,000 $1,054,000 $749,000 $282,000 Concept 2b: Sports Park + Residential
w/o Wetlands
Sports Park - Flat Fields 53.75 16 $700,000 / Ac $37,620,000 $20,000 / Field $320,000 $19,000 / Field $304,000 $749,000 $282,000 Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 100,000 $250 / Sq Ft $25,000,000 $15.00 / Sq Ft $1,500,000 $7.50 / Sq Ft $750,000 - - Total $62,970,000 $1,820,000 $1,054,000 $749,000 $282,000 Concept 3: Maximum Residential
Neighborhood Park 10.00 $800,000 / Acre $8,000,000 $15,000 / Acre $150,000 - - - - Interim Use
Interim Use 3.50 $100,000 / Acre $350,000 - - - - - -
Source: EPS.
[1] See the Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Assessment Memorandum for detailed explanation of estimated visitor TOT and sales tax revenue.

Prepared by EPS 11/1/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 financial m1.8 Table A-4
Meadowview 102
Development Feasibility Analysis
Residential Uses - Annual Land Sale Proceeds (2023$)
Concept 1:

Maximum
Sports Complex
Category
Combined
Land Sale Initial Land Sale
Post Interim
Land Sale
Combined
Land Sale Initial Land Sale
Post Interim
Land Sale
Combined
Land Sale Initial Land Sale
Post Interim
Land Sale
Combined
Land Sale
Distributed Affordable Units
MDR - Market - $16,580,000 $5,746,000 $22,326,000 $30,698,000 $5,746,000 $36,444,000 $71,245,000 - $71,245,000 MDR - Affordable - ($5,222,000) ($1,810,000) ($7,032,000) ($9,669,000) ($1,810,000) ($11,479,000) ($22,440,000) - ($22,440,000) MHDR - Market - - - - - - - $24,170,000 - $24,170,000
MHDR - Affordable - - - - - - - ($17,685,000) - ($17,685,000) HDR - Market - $10,544,000 - $10,544,000 $19,171,000 - $19,171,000 $30,673,000 $6,710,000 $37,383,000 HDR - Affordable - ($7,722,000) - ($7,722,000) ($14,039,000) - ($14,039,000) ($22,463,000) ($4,914,000) ($27,377,000) Total - $14,180,000 $3,936,000 $18,116,000 $26,161,000 $3,936,000 $30,097,000 $63,500,000 $1,796,000 $65,296,000 Consolidated Affordable Units
MDR - Market - $22,107,000 $7,661,000 $29,768,000 $40,931,000 $7,661,000 $48,592,000 $94,994,000 - $94,994,000 MDR - Affordable - - - - - - - - - -
MHDR - Market - - - - - - - $32,227,000 - $32,227,000
MHDR - Affordable - - - - - - - - - -
HDR - Market - $7,509,000 - $7,509,000 $14,202,000 - $14,202,000 $18,532,000 $8,946,000 $27,478,000 HDR - Affordable - ($14,390,000) - ($14,390,000) ($24,955,000) - ($24,955,000) ($68,792,000) - ($68,792,000) Total - $15,226,000 $7,661,000 $22,887,000 $30,178,000 $7,661,000 $37,839,000 $76,961,000 $8,946,000 $85,907,000 Land Gift Affordable Units
MDR - Market - $22,107,000 $7,661,000 $29,768,000 $40,931,000 $7,661,000 $48,592,000 $94,994,000 - $94,994,000 MDR - Affordable - - - - - - - - - -
MHDR - Market - - - - - - - $32,227,000 - $32,227,000
MHDR - Affordable - - - - - - - - - -
HDR - Market - $7,509,000 - $7,509,000 $14,202,000 - $14,202,000 $18,532,000 $8,946,000 $27,478,000 HDR - Affordable - - - - - - - - - -
Total - $29,616,000 $7,661,000 $37,277,000 $55,133,000 $7,661,000 $62,794,000 $145,753,000 $8,946,000 $154,699,000 Source: EPS.

Concept 2a:

Sports Complex + Residential
with Wetlands Preserve
Concept 2b:

Sports Complex + Residential
without Wetlands Preserve
Concept 3:

Maximum Residential
Prepared by EPS 11/1/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 financial m1.8 Table A-5
Meadowview 102
Development Feasibility Analysis
Annual Revenue and Expense - Distributed Affordable Units (2023=Year 0) Category Assumption Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Inflation Factor 2.5% 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.38 1.41 1.45 Concept 1: Maximum Sports Park
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($12,571,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($6,442,638) ($6,603,703) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($9,797,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($7,719,730) ($2,637,574) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Flat Fields ($66,950,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($54,073,371) ($18,475,068) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Indoor ($25,000,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($20,191,699) ($6,898,831) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park/FF - Post Interim Use ($2,450,000) 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - ($3,059,714) - - - - - - Total Development Cost ($133,768,000) - ($14,976,000) ($23,070,000) ($77,280,000) ($25,374,000) - - - - ($3,060,000) - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Sports Park Revenue $1,111,000 4 10% 5 50% - - - - $122,634 $628,497 $1,288,419 $1,320,630 $1,353,646 $1,387,487 $1,422,174 $1,457,728 $1,494,171 $1,531,526 $1,569,814 $1,609,059 Sports Park Revenue - Post Interim Portion $15,000 10 95% 11 100% - - - - - - - - - - $18,241 $19,681 $20,173 $20,678 $21,195 $21,724 Sports Park Expenses ($1,880,000) 4 20% 5 70% - - - - ($415,034) ($1,488,933) ($2,180,224) ($2,234,729) ($2,290,597) ($2,347,862) ($2,406,559) ($2,466,723) ($2,528,391) ($2,591,601) ($2,656,391) ($2,722,801) Sports Park Expenses - Post Interim Portion ($20,000) 10 95% 11 100% - - - - - - - - - - ($24,322) ($26,242) ($26,898) ($27,570) ($28,259) ($28,966) Transient Occ. Tax Revenue [2] $1,058,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $598,515 $858,869 $1,257,630 $1,289,070 $1,321,297 $1,354,329 $1,388,188 $1,422,892 $1,458,465 $1,494,926 $1,532,299 Visitor Sales Tax Revenue [2] $412,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $233,070 $334,456 $489,739 $501,982 $514,532 $527,395 $540,580 $554,094 $567,947 $582,145 $596,699 Total Operating Revenue $696,000 - - - - ($292,000) ($29,000) $302,000 $833,000 $854,000 $875,000 $891,000 $913,000 $936,000 $959,000 $983,000 $1,008,000 NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 25% OFFSITES - ($8,576,000) ($16,510,000) ($77,280,000) ($25,666,000) ($29,000) $302,000 $833,000 $854,000 ($2,185,000) $891,000 $913,000 $936,000 $959,000 $983,000 $1,008,000 Concept 2a: Sports Park + Residential w/ Wetlands
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($8,803,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($4,511,538) ($4,624,326) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wetland Preserve Development ($1,530,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($784,125) ($803,728) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($7,744,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($6,102,030) ($2,084,860) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Flat Fields ($40,420,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($32,645,939) ($11,154,029) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Indoor ($25,000,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($20,191,699) ($6,898,831) - - - - - - - - - - - Initial Residential Land Sale $14,180,000 3 100% - - - - - $15,270,309 - - - - - - - - - - - - Post-Interim Residential Land Sale $3,936,000 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - $4,915,525 - - - - - - Total Development Cost ($82,381,000) - ($13,829,000) ($20,277,000) ($40,029,000) ($18,053,000) - - - - $4,916,000 - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Sports Park Revenue $1,054,000 4 10% 5 50% - - - - $116,342 $596,252 $1,222,317 $1,252,875 $1,284,197 $1,316,302 $1,349,209 $1,382,939 $1,417,513 $1,452,951 $1,489,274 $1,526,506 Sports Park Expenses ($1,820,000) 4 20% 5 70% - - - - ($401,788) ($1,441,414) ($2,110,642) ($2,163,408) ($2,217,493) ($2,272,931) ($2,329,754) ($2,387,998) ($2,447,698) ($2,508,890) ($2,571,612) ($2,635,903) Transient Occ. Tax Revenue [2] $749,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $423,712 $608,027 $890,326 $912,584 $935,398 $958,783 $982,753 $1,007,322 $1,032,505 $1,058,317 $1,084,775 Visitor Sales Tax Revenue [2] $282,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $159,529 $228,923 $335,209 $343,590 $352,179 $360,984 $370,008 $379,259 $388,740 $398,459 $408,420 Total Operating Revenue $265,000 - - - - ($285,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $331,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 50% OFFSITES - ($9,562,000) ($15,903,000) ($40,029,000) ($18,338,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $5,247,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 Concept 2b: Sports Park + Residential w/o Wetlands
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($12,571,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($6,442,638) ($6,603,703) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($9,097,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($7,168,152) ($2,449,119) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Flat Fields ($37,620,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($30,384,469) ($10,381,360) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Indoor ($25,000,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($20,191,699) ($6,898,831) - - - - - - - - - - - Initial Residential Land Sale $26,161,000 3 100% - - - - - $28,172,536 - - - - - - - - - - - - Post-Interim Residential Land Sale $3,936,000 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - $4,915,525 - - - - - - Total Development Cost ($71,191,000) - ($14,976,000) ($22,518,000) ($25,230,000) ($17,280,000) - - - - $4,916,000 - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Sports Park Revenue $1,054,000 4 10% 5 50% - - - - $116,342 $596,252 $1,222,317 $1,252,875 $1,284,197 $1,316,302 $1,349,209 $1,382,939 $1,417,513 $1,452,951 $1,489,274 $1,526,506 Sports Park Expenses ($1,820,000) 4 20% 5 70% - - - - ($401,788) ($1,441,414) ($2,110,642) ($2,163,408) ($2,217,493) ($2,272,931) ($2,329,754) ($2,387,998) ($2,447,698) ($2,508,890) ($2,571,612) ($2,635,903) Transient Occ. Tax Revenue [2] $749,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $423,712 $608,027 $890,326 $912,584 $935,398 $958,783 $982,753 $1,007,322 $1,032,505 $1,058,317 $1,084,775 Visitor Sales Tax Revenue [2] $282,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $159,529 $228,923 $335,209 $343,590 $352,179 $360,984 $370,008 $379,259 $388,740 $398,459 $408,420 Total Operating Revenue $265,000 - - - - ($285,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $331,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 50% OFFSITES - ($10,709,000) ($18,145,000) ($25,230,000) ($17,565,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $5,247,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 Concept 3: Maximum Residential
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($12,571,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($6,442,638) ($6,603,703) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($12,612,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($9,937,862) ($3,395,436) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Neighborhood Park ($8,000,000) 3 95% 4 5% - - - ($8,184,369) ($441,525) - - - - - - - - - - - Initial Residential Land Sale $63,500,000 3 100% - - - - - $68,382,555 - - - - - - - - - - - - Post-Interim Residential Land Sale $1,796,000 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - $2,242,958 - - - - - - Total Development Cost $15,113,000 - ($14,976,000) ($25,288,000) $56,426,000 ($442,000) - - - - $2,243,000 - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Neighborhood Park Expenses ($150,000) 4 95% 5 100% - - - - ($157,293) ($169,711) ($173,954) ($178,303) ($182,760) ($187,329) ($192,013) ($196,813) ($201,733) ($206,777) ($211,946) ($217,245) Total Operating Revenue ($150,000) - - - - ($157,000) ($170,000) ($174,000) ($178,000) ($183,000) ($187,000) ($192,000) ($197,000) ($202,000) ($207,000) ($212,000) ($217,000) NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 75% OFFSITES - ($12,842,000) ($23,101,000) $56,426,000 ($599,000) ($170,000) ($174,000) ($178,000) ($183,000) $2,056,000 ($192,000) ($197,000) ($202,000) ($207,000) ($212,000) ($217,000) Source: EPS.
[1] Full stabilization assumed after 2nd year of operation. [2] Includes TOT from hotel stays and sales tax from taxable visitor spending captured within the City of Sacramento from tournament attendees. See the Sports Market Demand Assessment Memo for additional detail.

Buildout/Stabilization [1]
Prepared by EPS 11/1/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 financial m1.8 Table A-6
Meadowview 102
Development Feasibility Analysis
Annual Revenue and Expense - Consolidated Affordable Units (2023=Year 0) Category Assumption Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Inflation Factor 2.5% 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.38 1.41 1.45 Concept 1: Maximum Sports Park
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($12,571,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($6,442,638) ($6,603,703) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($9,797,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($7,719,730) ($2,637,574) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Flat Fields ($66,950,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($54,073,371) ($18,475,068) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Indoor ($25,000,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($20,191,699) ($6,898,831) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park/FF - Post Interim Use ($2,450,000) 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - ($3,059,714) - - - - - - Total Development Cost ($133,768,000) - ($14,976,000) ($23,070,000) ($77,280,000) ($25,374,000) - - - - ($3,060,000) - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Sports Park Revenue $1,111,000 4 10% 5 50% - - - - $122,634 $628,497 $1,288,419 $1,320,630 $1,353,646 $1,387,487 $1,422,174 $1,457,728 $1,494,171 $1,531,526 $1,569,814 $1,609,059 Sports Park Revenue - Post Interim Portion $15,000 10 95% 11 100% - - - - - - - - - - $18,241 $19,681 $20,173 $20,678 $21,195 $21,724 Sports Park Expenses ($1,880,000) 4 20% 5 70% - - - - ($415,034) ($1,488,933) ($2,180,224) ($2,234,729) ($2,290,597) ($2,347,862) ($2,406,559) ($2,466,723) ($2,528,391) ($2,591,601) ($2,656,391) ($2,722,801) Sports Park Expenses - Post Interim Portion ($20,000) 10 95% 11 100% - - - - - - - - - - ($24,322) ($26,242) ($26,898) ($27,570) ($28,259) ($28,966) Transient Occ. Tax Revenue [2] $1,058,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $598,515 $858,869 $1,257,630 $1,289,070 $1,321,297 $1,354,329 $1,388,188 $1,422,892 $1,458,465 $1,494,926 $1,532,299 Visitor Sales Tax Revenue [2] $412,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $233,070 $334,456 $489,739 $501,982 $514,532 $527,395 $540,580 $554,094 $567,947 $582,145 $596,699 Total Operating Revenue $696,000 - - - - ($292,000) ($29,000) $302,000 $833,000 $854,000 $875,000 $891,000 $913,000 $936,000 $959,000 $983,000 $1,008,000 NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 25% OFFSITES - ($8,576,000) ($16,510,000) ($77,280,000) ($25,666,000) ($29,000) $302,000 $833,000 $854,000 ($2,185,000) $891,000 $913,000 $936,000 $959,000 $983,000 $1,008,000 Concept 2a: Sports Park + Residential w/ Wetlands
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($8,803,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($4,511,538) ($4,624,326) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wetland Preserve Development ($1,530,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($784,125) ($803,728) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($7,744,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($6,102,030) ($2,084,860) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Flat Fields ($40,420,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($32,645,939) ($11,154,029) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Indoor ($25,000,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($20,191,699) ($6,898,831) - - - - - - - - - - - Initial Residential Land Sale $15,226,000 3 100% - - - - - $16,396,737 - - - - - - - - - - - - Post-Interim Residential Land Sale $7,661,000 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - $9,567,539 - - - - - - Total Development Cost ($77,610,000) - ($13,829,000) ($20,277,000) ($38,903,000) ($18,053,000) - - - - $9,568,000 - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Sports Park Revenue $1,054,000 4 10% 5 50% - - - - $116,342 $596,252 $1,222,317 $1,252,875 $1,284,197 $1,316,302 $1,349,209 $1,382,939 $1,417,513 $1,452,951 $1,489,274 $1,526,506 Sports Park Expenses ($1,820,000) 4 20% 5 70% - - - - ($401,788) ($1,441,414) ($2,110,642) ($2,163,408) ($2,217,493) ($2,272,931) ($2,329,754) ($2,387,998) ($2,447,698) ($2,508,890) ($2,571,612) ($2,635,903) Transient Occ. Tax Revenue [2] $749,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $423,712 $608,027 $890,326 $912,584 $935,398 $958,783 $982,753 $1,007,322 $1,032,505 $1,058,317 $1,084,775 Visitor Sales Tax Revenue [2] $282,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $159,529 $228,923 $335,209 $343,590 $352,179 $360,984 $370,008 $379,259 $388,740 $398,459 $408,420 Total Operating Revenue $265,000 - - - - ($285,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $331,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 50% OFFSITES - ($9,562,000) ($15,903,000) ($38,903,000) ($18,338,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $9,899,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 Concept 2b: Sports Park + Residential w/o Wetlands
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($12,571,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($6,442,638) ($6,603,703) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($9,097,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($7,168,152) ($2,449,119) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Flat Fields ($37,620,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($30,384,469) ($10,381,360) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Indoor ($25,000,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($20,191,699) ($6,898,831) - - - - - - - - - - - Initial Residential Land Sale $30,178,000 3 100% - - - - - $32,498,405 - - - - - - - - - - - - Post-Interim Residential Land Sale $7,661,000 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - $9,567,539 - - - - - - Total Development Cost ($63,449,000) - ($14,976,000) ($22,518,000) ($20,904,000) ($17,280,000) - - - - $9,568,000 - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Sports Park Revenue $1,054,000 4 10% 5 50% - - - - $116,342 $596,252 $1,222,317 $1,252,875 $1,284,197 $1,316,302 $1,349,209 $1,382,939 $1,417,513 $1,452,951 $1,489,274 $1,526,506 Sports Park Expenses ($1,820,000) 4 20% 5 70% - - - - ($401,788) ($1,441,414) ($2,110,642) ($2,163,408) ($2,217,493) ($2,272,931) ($2,329,754) ($2,387,998) ($2,447,698) ($2,508,890) ($2,571,612) ($2,635,903) Transient Occ. Tax Revenue [2] $749,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $423,712 $608,027 $890,326 $912,584 $935,398 $958,783 $982,753 $1,007,322 $1,032,505 $1,058,317 $1,084,775 Visitor Sales Tax Revenue [2] $282,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $159,529 $228,923 $335,209 $343,590 $352,179 $360,984 $370,008 $379,259 $388,740 $398,459 $408,420 Total Operating Revenue $265,000 - - - - ($285,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $331,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 50% OFFSITES - ($10,709,000) ($18,145,000) ($20,904,000) ($17,565,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $9,899,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 Concept 3: Maximum Residential
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($12,571,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($6,442,638) ($6,603,703) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($12,612,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($9,937,862) ($3,395,436) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Neighborhood Park ($8,000,000) 3 95% 4 5% - - - ($8,184,369) ($441,525) - - - - - - - - - - - Initial Residential Land Sale $76,961,000 3 100% - - - - - $82,878,579 - - - - - - - - - - - - Post-Interim Residential Land Sale $8,946,000 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - $11,172,328 - - - - - - Total Development Cost $35,724,000 - ($14,976,000) ($25,288,000) $70,922,000 ($442,000) - - - - $11,172,000 - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Neighborhood Park Expenses ($150,000) 4 95% 5 100% - - - - ($157,293) ($169,711) ($173,954) ($178,303) ($182,760) ($187,329) ($192,013) ($196,813) ($201,733) ($206,777) ($211,946) ($217,245) Total Operating Revenue ($150,000) - - - - ($157,000) ($170,000) ($174,000) ($178,000) ($183,000) ($187,000) ($192,000) ($197,000) ($202,000) ($207,000) ($212,000) ($217,000) NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 75% OFFSITES - ($12,842,000) ($23,101,000) $70,922,000 ($599,000) ($170,000) ($174,000) ($178,000) ($183,000) $10,985,000 ($192,000) ($197,000) ($202,000) ($207,000) ($212,000) ($217,000) Source: EPS.
[1] Full stabilization assumed after 2nd year of operation. [2] Includes TOT from hotel stays and sales tax from taxable visitor spending captured within the City of Sacramento from tournament attendees. See the Sports Market Demand Assessment Memo for additional detail.

Buildout/Stabilization [1]
Prepared by EPS 11/1/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 financial m1.8 Table A-7
Meadowview 102
Development Feasibility Analysis
Annual Revenue and Expense - Land Gift Affordable Units (2023=Year 0) Category Assumption Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Inflation Factor 2.5% 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.38 1.41 1.45 Concept 1: Maximum Sports Park
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($12,571,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($6,442,638) ($6,603,703) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($9,797,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($7,719,730) ($2,637,574) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Flat Fields ($66,950,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($54,073,371) ($18,475,068) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Indoor ($25,000,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($20,191,699) ($6,898,831) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park/FF - Post Interim Use ($2,450,000) 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - ($3,059,714) - - - - - - Total Development Cost ($133,768,000) - ($14,976,000) ($23,070,000) ($77,280,000) ($25,374,000) - - - - ($3,060,000) - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Sports Park Revenue $1,111,000 4 10% 5 50% - - - - $122,634 $628,497 $1,288,419 $1,320,630 $1,353,646 $1,387,487 $1,422,174 $1,457,728 $1,494,171 $1,531,526 $1,569,814 $1,609,059 Sports Park Revenue - Post Interim Portion $15,000 10 95% 11 100% - - - - - - - - - - $18,241 $19,681 $20,173 $20,678 $21,195 $21,724 Sports Park Expenses ($1,880,000) 4 20% 5 70% - - - - ($415,034) ($1,488,933) ($2,180,224) ($2,234,729) ($2,290,597) ($2,347,862) ($2,406,559) ($2,466,723) ($2,528,391) ($2,591,601) ($2,656,391) ($2,722,801) Sports Park Expenses - Post Interim Portion ($20,000) 10 95% 11 100% - - - - - - - - - - ($24,322) ($26,242) ($26,898) ($27,570) ($28,259) ($28,966) Transient Occ. Tax Revenue [2] $1,058,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $598,515 $858,869 $1,257,630 $1,289,070 $1,321,297 $1,354,329 $1,388,188 $1,422,892 $1,458,465 $1,494,926 $1,532,299 Visitor Sales Tax Revenue [2] $412,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $233,070 $334,456 $489,739 $501,982 $514,532 $527,395 $540,580 $554,094 $567,947 $582,145 $596,699 Total Operating Revenue $696,000 - - - - ($292,000) ($29,000) $302,000 $833,000 $854,000 $875,000 $891,000 $913,000 $936,000 $959,000 $983,000 $1,008,000 30-year NPV of Operating Revenue $7,849,879
NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 25% OFFSITES - ($8,576,000) ($16,510,000) ($77,280,000) ($25,666,000) ($29,000) $302,000 $833,000 $854,000 ($2,185,000) $891,000 $913,000 $936,000 $959,000 $983,000 $1,008,000 Concept 2a: Sports Park + Residential w/ Wetlands
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($8,803,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($4,511,538) ($4,624,326) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wetland Preserve Development ($1,530,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($784,125) ($803,728) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($7,744,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($6,102,030) ($2,084,860) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Flat Fields ($40,420,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($32,645,939) ($11,154,029) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Indoor ($25,000,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($20,191,699) ($6,898,831) - - - - - - - - - - - Initial Residential Land Sale $29,616,000 3 100% - - - - - $31,893,193 - - - - - - - - - - - - Post-Interim Residential Land Sale $7,661,000 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - $9,567,539 - - - - - - Total Development Cost ($63,220,000) - ($13,829,000) ($20,277,000) ($23,406,000) ($18,053,000) - - - - $9,568,000 - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Sports Park Revenue $1,054,000 4 10% 5 50% - - - - $116,342 $596,252 $1,222,317 $1,252,875 $1,284,197 $1,316,302 $1,349,209 $1,382,939 $1,417,513 $1,452,951 $1,489,274 $1,526,506 Sports Park Expenses ($1,820,000) 4 20% 5 70% - - - - ($401,788) ($1,441,414) ($2,110,642) ($2,163,408) ($2,217,493) ($2,272,931) ($2,329,754) ($2,387,998) ($2,447,698) ($2,508,890) ($2,571,612) ($2,635,903) Transient Occ. Tax Revenue [2] $749,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $423,712 $608,027 $890,326 $912,584 $935,398 $958,783 $982,753 $1,007,322 $1,032,505 $1,058,317 $1,084,775 Visitor Sales Tax Revenue [2] $282,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $159,529 $228,923 $335,209 $343,590 $352,179 $360,984 $370,008 $379,259 $388,740 $398,459 $408,420 Total Operating Revenue $265,000 - - - - ($285,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $331,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 30-year NPV of Operating Revenue $2,562,325
NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 50% OFFSITES - ($9,562,000) ($15,903,000) ($23,406,000) ($18,338,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $9,899,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 Concept 2b: Sports Park + Residential w/o Wetlands
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($12,571,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($6,442,638) ($6,603,703) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($9,097,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($7,168,152) ($2,449,119) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Flat Fields ($37,620,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($30,384,469) ($10,381,360) - - - - - - - - - - - Sports Park - Indoor ($25,000,000) 3 75% 4 25% - - - ($20,191,699) ($6,898,831) - - - - - - - - - - - Initial Residential Land Sale $55,133,000 3 100% - - - - - $59,372,211 - - - - - - - - - - - - Post-Interim Residential Land Sale $7,661,000 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - $9,567,539 - - - - - - Total Development Cost ($38,494,000) - ($14,976,000) ($22,518,000) $5,970,000 ($17,280,000) - - - - $9,568,000 - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Sports Park Revenue $1,054,000 4 10% 5 50% - - - - $116,342 $596,252 $1,222,317 $1,252,875 $1,284,197 $1,316,302 $1,349,209 $1,382,939 $1,417,513 $1,452,951 $1,489,274 $1,526,506 Sports Park Expenses ($1,820,000) 4 20% 5 70% - - - - ($401,788) ($1,441,414) ($2,110,642) ($2,163,408) ($2,217,493) ($2,272,931) ($2,329,754) ($2,387,998) ($2,447,698) ($2,508,890) ($2,571,612) ($2,635,903) Transient Occ. Tax Revenue [2] $749,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $423,712 $608,027 $890,326 $912,584 $935,398 $958,783 $982,753 $1,007,322 $1,032,505 $1,058,317 $1,084,775 Visitor Sales Tax Revenue [2] $282,000 5 50% 6 70% - - - - - $159,529 $228,923 $335,209 $343,590 $352,179 $360,984 $370,008 $379,259 $388,740 $398,459 $408,420 Total Operating Revenue $265,000 - - - - ($285,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $331,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 30-year NPV of Operating Revenue $2,562,325
NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 50% OFFSITES - ($10,709,000) ($18,145,000) $5,970,000 ($17,565,000) ($262,000) ($51,000) $315,000 $323,000 $9,899,000 $339,000 $348,000 $356,000 $365,000 $374,000 $384,000 Concept 3: Maximum Residential
Development Yr % Yr %
Biological Mitigation Cost ($12,571,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($6,442,638) ($6,603,703) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Offsite Infrastructure ($16,650,000) 1 50% 2 50% - ($8,533,125) ($8,746,453) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Onsite Infrastructure ($12,612,000) 2 75% 3 25% - - ($9,937,862) ($3,395,436) - - - - - - - - - - - - Interim Use Ground Provision ($350,000) 3 100% - - - - - ($376,912) - - - - - - - - - - - - Neighborhood Park ($8,000,000) 3 95% 4 5% - - - ($8,184,369) ($441,525) - - - - - - - - - - - Initial Residential Land Sale $145,753,000 3 100% - - - - - $156,960,039 - - - - - - - - - - - - Post-Interim Residential Land Sale $8,946,000 9 100% - - - - - - - - - - - $11,172,328 - - - - - - Total Development Cost $104,516,000 - ($14,976,000) ($25,288,000) $145,003,000 ($442,000) - - - - $11,172,000 - - - - - - Operation Yr % Yr %
Neighborhood Park Expenses ($150,000) 4 95% 5 100% - - - - ($157,293) ($169,711) ($173,954) ($178,303) ($182,760) ($187,329) ($192,013) ($196,813) ($201,733) ($206,777) ($211,946) ($217,245) Total Operating Revenue ($150,000) - - - - ($157,000) ($170,000) ($174,000) ($178,000) ($183,000) ($187,000) ($192,000) ($197,000) ($202,000) ($207,000) ($212,000) ($217,000) NET ANNUAL COST/REVENUE W/ 75% OFFSITES - ($12,842,000) ($23,101,000) $145,003,000 ($599,000) ($170,000) ($174,000) ($178,000) ($183,000) $10,985,000 ($192,000) ($197,000) ($202,000) ($207,000) ($212,000) ($217,000) Source: EPS.
[1] Full stabilization assumed after 2nd year of operation. [2] Includes TOT from hotel stays and sales tax from taxable visitor spending captured within the City of Sacramento from tournament attendees. See the Sports Market Demand Assessment Memo for additional detail.

Buildout/Stabilization [1] Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30

1.48 1.52 1.56 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.72 1.76 1.81 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.05 2.10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
$1,649,286 $1,690,518 $1,732,781 $1,776,100 $1,820,503 $1,866,015 $1,912,666 $1,960,482 $2,009,495 $2,059,732 $2,111,225 $2,164,006 $2,218,106 $2,273,559 $2,330,398 $22,268 $22,824 $23,395 $23,980 $24,579 $25,194 $25,824 $26,469 $27,131 $27,809 $28,504 $29,217 $29,947 $30,696 $31,464 ($2,790,871) ($2,860,642) ($2,932,158) ($3,005,462) ($3,080,599) ($3,157,614) ($3,236,554) ($3,317,468) ($3,400,405) ($3,485,415) ($3,572,550) ($3,661,864) ($3,753,411) ($3,847,246) ($3,943,427) ($29,690) ($30,432) ($31,193) ($31,973) ($32,772) ($33,592) ($34,431) ($35,292) ($36,175) ($37,079) ($38,006) ($38,956) ($39,930) ($40,928) ($41,951) $1,570,607 $1,609,872 $1,650,119 $1,691,372 $1,733,656 $1,776,998 $1,821,423 $1,866,958 $1,913,632 $1,961,473 $2,010,510 $2,060,772 $2,112,292 $2,165,099 $2,219,226 $611,616 $626,907 $642,579 $658,644 $675,110 $691,988 $709,287 $727,020 $745,195 $763,825 $782,921 $802,494 $822,556 $843,120 $864,198 $1,033,000 $1,059,000 $1,086,000 $1,113,000 $1,140,000 $1,169,000 $1,198,000 $1,228,000 $1,259,000 $1,290,000 $1,323,000 $1,356,000 $1,390,000 $1,424,000 $1,460,000 $1,033,000 $1,059,000 $1,086,000 $1,113,000 $1,140,000 $1,169,000 $1,198,000 $1,228,000 $1,259,000 $1,290,000 $1,323,000 $1,356,000 $1,390,000 $1,424,000 $1,460,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
$1,564,669 $1,603,786 $1,643,880 $1,684,977 $1,727,102 $1,770,279 $1,814,536 $1,859,900 $1,906,397 $1,954,057 $2,002,909 $2,052,981 $2,104,306 $2,156,913 $2,210,836 ($2,701,800) ($2,769,345) ($2,838,579) ($2,909,543) ($2,982,282) ($3,056,839) ($3,133,260) ($3,211,591) ($3,291,881) ($3,374,178) ($3,458,533) ($3,544,996) ($3,633,621) ($3,724,461) ($3,817,573) $1,111,895 $1,139,692 $1,168,184 $1,197,389 $1,227,324 $1,258,007 $1,289,457 $1,321,693 $1,354,736 $1,388,604 $1,423,319 $1,458,902 $1,495,375 $1,532,759 $1,571,078 $418,631 $429,096 $439,824 $450,819 $462,090 $473,642 $485,483 $497,620 $510,061 $522,812 $535,883 $549,280 $563,012 $577,087 $591,514 $393,000 $403,000 $413,000 $424,000 $434,000 $445,000 $456,000 $468,000 $479,000 $491,000 $504,000 $516,000 $529,000 $542,000 $556,000 $393,000 $403,000 $413,000 $424,000 $434,000 $445,000 $456,000 $468,000 $479,000 $491,000 $504,000 $516,000 $529,000 $542,000 $556,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
$1,564,669 $1,603,786 $1,643,880 $1,684,977 $1,727,102 $1,770,279 $1,814,536 $1,859,900 $1,906,397 $1,954,057 $2,002,909 $2,052,981 $2,104,306 $2,156,913 $2,210,836 ($2,701,800) ($2,769,345) ($2,838,579) ($2,909,543) ($2,982,282) ($3,056,839) ($3,133,260) ($3,211,591) ($3,291,881) ($3,374,178) ($3,458,533) ($3,544,996) ($3,633,621) ($3,724,461) ($3,817,573) $1,111,895 $1,139,692 $1,168,184 $1,197,389 $1,227,324 $1,258,007 $1,289,457 $1,321,693 $1,354,736 $1,388,604 $1,423,319 $1,458,902 $1,495,375 $1,532,759 $1,571,078 $418,631 $429,096 $439,824 $450,819 $462,090 $473,642 $485,483 $497,620 $510,061 $522,812 $535,883 $549,280 $563,012 $577,087 $591,514 $393,000 $403,000 $413,000 $424,000 $434,000 $445,000 $456,000 $468,000 $479,000 $491,000 $504,000 $516,000 $529,000 $542,000 $556,000 $393,000 $403,000 $413,000 $424,000 $434,000 $445,000 $456,000 $468,000 $479,000 $491,000 $504,000 $516,000 $529,000 $542,000 $556,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
($222,676) ($228,243) ($233,949) ($239,798) ($245,792) ($251,937) ($258,236) ($264,692) ($271,309) ($278,092) ($285,044) ($292,170) ($299,474) ($306,961) ($314,635) ($223,000) ($228,000) ($234,000) ($240,000) ($246,000) ($252,000) ($258,000) ($265,000) ($271,000) ($278,000) ($285,000) ($292,000) ($299,000) ($307,000) ($315,000) ($223,000) ($228,000) ($234,000) ($240,000) ($246,000) ($252,000) ($258,000) ($265,000) ($271,000) ($278,000) ($285,000) ($292,000) ($299,000) ($307,000) ($315,000) Prepared by EPS 11/1/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 financial m1.8 Table A-8
Meadowview 102
Development Feasibility Analysis
Alternative Scenarios and Development Values - Base/Before Affordable Allocation (2023$) Concept / Use Acres DU / Acre Res. Units
Residential RLV /
Acre
Land Sale
Value
Concept 1: Maximum Sports Park
Sports Park - Flat Fields (includes drainage) 95.65 - - - - Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
Sports Park/FF - Post Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
Total for Concept 101.90 - - - -
Concept 2a: Sports Park + Residential w/ Wetlands
Sports Park - Flat Fields 57.75 - - - -
Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
MDR - Market 10.10 14 141 $2,188,800 $22,106,880
HDR - Market 5.50 40 220 $2,556,100 $14,058,550
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
MDR - Market - Post Interim Use 3.50 14 49 $2,188,800 $7,660,800 Wetland Preserve 15.30 - - - -
Storm Drainage 4.10 - - - -
Total for Concept 99.00 68 410 $2,294,600 $43,826,230
Concept 2b: Sports Park + Residential w/o Wetlands
Sports Park - Flat Fields 53.75 - - - -
Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
MDR - Market 18.70 14 262 $2,188,800 $40,930,560
HDR - Market 10.00 40 400 $2,556,100 $25,561,000
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
MDR - Market - Post Interim Use 3.50 14 49 $2,188,800 $7,660,800 Storm Drainage 5.50 - - - -
Total for Concept 94.20 68 711 $2,302,900 $74,152,360
Concept 3: Maximum Residential
Neighborhood Park 10.00 - - - -
MDR - Market 43.40 14 608 $2,188,800 $94,993,920
MHDR - Market 14.40 30 432 $2,238,000 $32,227,200
HDR - Market 19.50 40 780 $2,556,100 $49,843,950
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
HDR - Market - Post Interim Use 3.50 40 140 $2,556,100 $8,946,350 Storm Drainage 7.80 - - - -
Total for Concept 98.60 124 1,960 $2,302,100 $186,011,420 Source: City of Sacramento, Wood Rodgers, EPS.

Note: The base allocation of residential unit types provides the basis for allocation of affordable units; none are included in the base.

Prepared by EPS 11/1/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 financial m1.8 Table A-9
Meadowview 102
Development Feasibility Analysis
Alternative Scenarios and Development Values - Distributed Affordable (2023$) Concept / Use Acres DU / Acre Res. Units
Residential RLV /
Acre
Land Sale
Value
Concept 1: Maximum Sports Park - Dist
Sports Park - Flat Fields (includes drainage) 95.65 - - - - Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
Sports Park/FF - Post Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
Total for Concept 101.90 - - - -
Concept 2a: Sports Park + Residential w/ Wetlands - Dist Sports Park - Flat Fields 57.75 - - - -
Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
MDR - Market 7.58 14 106 $2,188,800 $16,580,160
MDR - Affordable 2.53 14 35 ($2,068,200) ($5,222,205)
HDR - Market 4.13 40 165 $2,556,100 $10,543,913
HDR - Affordable 1.38 40 55 ($5,615,700) ($7,721,588)
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
MDR - Market - Post Interim Use 2.63 14 37 $2,188,800 $5,745,600 MDR - Affordable - Post Interim Use 0.88 14 12 ($2,068,200) ($1,809,675) Wetland Preserve 15.30 - - - -
Storm Drainage 4.10 - - - -
Total for Concept 99.00 136 410 $948,500 $18,116,205
Concept 2b: Sports Park + Residential w/o Wetlands - Dist Sports Park - Flat Fields 53.75 - - - -
Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
MDR - Market 14.03 14 196 $2,188,800 $30,697,920
MDR - Affordable 4.68 14 65 ($2,068,200) ($9,668,835)
HDR - Market 7.50 40 300 $2,556,100 $19,170,750
HDR - Affordable 2.50 40 100 ($5,615,700) ($14,039,250) Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
MDR - Market - Post Interim Use 2.63 14 37 $2,188,800 $5,745,600 MDR - Affordable - Post Interim Use 0.88 14 12 ($2,068,200) ($1,809,675) Storm Drainage 5.50 - - - -
Total for Concept 94.20 136 710 $934,700 $30,096,510
Concept 3: Maximum Residential - Dist
Neighborhood Park 10.00 - - - -
MDR - Market 32.55 14 456 $2,188,800 $71,245,440
MDR - Affordable 10.85 14 152 ($2,068,200) ($22,439,970) MHDR - Market 10.80 30 324 $2,238,000 $24,170,400
MHDR - Affordable 3.60 30 108 ($4,912,500) ($17,685,000) HDR - Market 12.00 40 480 $2,556,100 $30,673,200
HDR - Affordable 4.00 40 160 ($5,615,700) ($22,462,800) Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
HDR - Market - Post Interim Use 2.63 40 105 $2,556,100 $6,709,763 HDR - Affordable - Post Interim Use 0.88 40 35 ($5,615,700) ($4,913,738) Storm Drainage 7.80 - - - -
Total for Concept 95.10 248 1,820 $844,700 $65,297,295
Source: City of Sacramento, Wood Rodgers, EPS.

Note: The distributed allocation of affordable units applies the 25% affordable unit requirement within each residential use type.

Prepared by EPS 11/1/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 financial m1.8 Table A-10
Meadowview 102
Development Feasibility Analysis
Alternative Scenarios and Development Values - Consolidated Affordable (2023$) Concept / Use Acres DU / Acre Res. Units
Residential RLV /
Acre
Land Sale
Value
Concept 1: Maximum Sports Park - Cons
Sports Park - Flat Fields (includes drainage) 95.65 - - - - Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
Sports Park/FF - Post Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
Total for Concept 101.90 - - - -
Concept 2a: Sports Park + Residential w/ Wetlands - Cons Sports Park - Flat Fields 57.75 - - - -
Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
MDR - Market 10.10 14 141 $2,188,800 $22,106,880
HDR - Market 2.94 40 118 $2,556,100 $7,508,544
HDR - Affordable 2.56 40 103 ($5,615,700) ($14,390,231) Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
MDR - Market - Post Interim Use 3.50 14 49 $2,188,800 $7,660,800 Wetland Preserve 15.30 - - - -
Storm Drainage 4.10 - - - -
Total for Concept 99.00 108 410 $1,198,200 $22,885,993
Concept 2b: Sports Park + Residential w/o Wetlands - Cons Sports Park - Flat Fields 53.75 - - - -
Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
MDR - Market 18.70 14 262 $2,188,800 $40,930,560
HDR - Market 5.56 40 222 $2,556,100 $14,202,331
HDR - Affordable 4.44 40 178 ($5,615,700) ($24,954,767) Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
MDR - Market - Post Interim Use 3.50 14 49 $2,188,800 $7,660,800 Storm Drainage 5.50 - - - -
Total for Concept 94.20 108 711 $1,175,100 $37,838,924
Concept 3: Maximum Residential - Cons
Neighborhood Park 10.00 - - - -
MDR - Market 43.40 14 608 $2,188,800 $94,993,920
MHDR - Market 14.40 30 432 $2,238,000 $32,227,200
HDR - Market 7.25 40 290 $2,556,100 $18,531,725
HDR - Affordable 12.25 40 490 ($5,615,700) ($68,792,325) Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
HDR - Market - Post Interim Use 3.50 40 140 $2,556,100 $8,946,350 Storm Drainage 7.80 - - - -
Total for Concept 98.60 164 1,960 $1,063,200 $85,906,870 Source: City of Sacramento, Wood Rodgers, EPS.

Note: The consolidated allocation of affordable units applies the sitewide 25% affordable unit requirement to HDR use type.

Prepared by EPS 11/1/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 financial m1.8 Table A-11
Meadowview 102
Development Feasibility Analysis
Alternative Scenarios and Development Values - Non-Profit BMR Land Gift (2023$) Concept / Use Acres DU / Acre Res. Units
Residential RLV /
Acre
Land Sale
Value
Concept 1: Maximum Sports Park - LG
Sports Park - Flat Fields (includes drainage) 95.65 - - - - Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
Sports Park/FF - Post Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
Total for Concept 101.90 - - - -
Concept 2a: Sports Park + Residential w/ Wetlands - LG
Sports Park - Flat Fields 57.75 - - - -
Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
MDR - Market 10.10 14 141 $2,188,800 $22,106,880
HDR - Market 2.94 40 118 $2,556,100 $7,508,544
BMR Non-Profit Land Set Aside 2.56 40 103 - -
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
MDR - Market - Post Interim Use 3.50 14 49 $2,188,800 $7,660,800 Wetland Preserve 15.30 - - - -
Storm Drainage 4.10 - - - -
Total for Concept 99.00 108 410 $1,951,600 $37,276,224
Concept 2b: Sports Park + Residential w/o Wetlands - LG Sports Park - Flat Fields 53.75 - - - -
Sports Park - Indoor 2.75 - - - -
MDR - Market 18.70 14 262 $2,188,800 $40,930,560
HDR - Market 5.56 40 222 $2,556,100 $14,202,331
BMR Non-Profit Land Set Aside 4.44 40 178 - -
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
MDR - Market - Post Interim Use 3.50 14 49 $2,188,800 $7,660,800 Storm Drainage 5.50 - - - -
Total for Concept 94.20 108 711 $1,950,100 $62,793,691
Concept 3: Maximum Residential - LG
Neighborhood Park 10.00 - - - -
MDR - Market 43.40 14 608 $2,188,800 $94,993,920
MHDR - Market 14.40 30 432 $2,238,000 $32,227,200
HDR - Market 7.25 40 290 $2,556,100 $18,531,725
BMR Non-Profit Land Set Aside 12.25 40 490 - -
Interim Use 3.50 - - - -
HDR - Market - Post Interim Use 3.50 40 140 $2,556,100 $8,946,350 Storm Drainage 7.80 - - - -
Total for Concept 98.60 164 1,960 $1,914,600 $154,699,195 Source: City of Sacramento, Wood Rodgers, EPS.

Note: The BMR land gift allocation of affordable units assumes sufficient land to meet the required number of sitewide affordable units based on HDR density is donated to a non-profit BMR housing developer.

Prepared by EPS 11/1/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 financial m1.8 Table A-12
Meadowview 102
For-Sale Residual Land Value (2023$)
Development Typolology Assumptions MDR Market MDR Afford Static PF Analysis Acreage Assumption [1] 10.00 10.00
Site Percent Developable 100% 100%
Development Site (SF) 435,600 435,600
Development Site Percent Common Area 0% 0%
Common Area (SF) 0 0
Remaining Sellable Land Area (SF) 435,600 435,600
DU / Acre 14.00 14.00
Use FAR 0.63 0.63
Dwelling Units 140 140
GBA / DU 1,950 1,950
Gross Building Area (Square Feet) 273,000 273,000
Efficiency Factor 100% 100%
Net Square Feet 273,000 273,000
Unit Income MDR Market MDR Afford
Market Price Per Square Foot $310 na
Market Price Per Unit $604,500 na
Affordable per Unit Price na $234,600
Modeled Unit Price Unit $604,500 $234,600
Sales Cost % of Price 3% 3%
Cost of Sale -$18,135 -$7,038
Net Unit Value $586,365 $227,562
Project Value $82,091,100 $31,858,692
Expected Return on Cost (Unleveraged) 18.0% 18.0%
Supportable Development Cost $69,568,729 $26,998,892
per unit $496,919 $192,849
Development Costs MDR Market MDR Afford
Direct Construction Cost
Basic Site Work per SF (Site) $3 $3
Building Direct Cost per SF (GBA) $137 $137
Soft Costs (% of Direct) 20.0% 20.0%
Permits and Fees (per DU) $20,000 $20,000
Total Construction Cost $47,681,200 $47,681,200
per unit $340,580 $340,580
Summary Values MDR Market MDR Afford
Residual Land Value $21,887,529 -$20,682,308
per acre $2,188,753 -$2,068,231
per unit $156,339 -$147,731
Blended Affordable RLV @ 25% Affordable Units $11,245,070 per acre $1,124,507
per unit $80,322
Source: EPS.
[1] Acreage used to develop a prototypcal value per acre; not tied to any specifc planned parcel.

Table A-13
Meadowview 102
Rental Residential Residual Land Value (2023$)
Development Typolology Assumptions MHDR Market MHDR Afford HDR Market HDR Afford Static PF Analysis Acreage Assumption [1] 10.00 10.0 10.0 10.0 Site Percent Developable 100% 100% 100% 100%
Development Site (SF) 435,600 435,600 435,600 435,600
Development Site Percent Common Area 0% 0% 0% 0%
Common Area (SF) 0 0 0 0
Remaining Developable Land Area (SF) 435,600 435,600 435,600 435,600 DU / Acre 30 30 40 40
Use FAR 0.73 0.73 0.86 0.86
Dwelling Units 300 300 400 400
NRA / DU 900 900 800 800
GBA / DU 1,059 1,059 941 941
Gross Building Area (Square Feet) 317,647 317,647 376,471 376,471 Efficiency Factor 85% 85% 85% 85%
Net Rentable Square Feet 270,000 270,000 320,000 320,000 Spaces / DU 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0
Total Parking Spaces 450 450 400 400
% Structured Parking Spaces 0% 0% 0% 0%
Structured Parking Spaces 0 0 0 0
% Surface Parking Spaces 100% 100% 100% 100%
Surface Parking Spaces 450 450 400 400
Building Operating Income (Annual) MHDR Market MHDR Afford HDR Market HDR Afford Market Gross Potential Rent per SF/Month $2.90 na $2.95 na Market Price Per Unit $2,610 na $2,360 na
Affordable per Unit Price na $860 na $860
Modeled Unit Price Unit $2,610 $860 $2,360 $860
Gross Total Potential Rent $9,396,000 $3,097,575 $11,328,000 $4,130,100 Gross Parking Income per Space/Month $150 $150 $150 $150 Gross Parking Income $810,000 $810,000 $720,000 $720,000 Vacancy Average 5% 5% 5% 5%
Loss to Vacancy -$510,300 -$195,379 -$602,400 -$242,505 Gross Residential Revenue $9,695,700 $3,712,196 $11,445,600 $4,607,595 Operating Expenses as percent of Gross Rev 30% 30% 30% 30% Total Operating Expenses -$2,908,710 -$1,113,659 -$3,433,680 -$1,382,279 Net Operating Income (NOI) $6,786,990 $2,598,537 $8,011,920 $3,225,317 Multifamily Capitalization Rate 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% Capitalized Value $123,399,818 $47,246,134 $145,671,273 $58,642,118 Expected Project Yield Rate (on Capitalized NOI) 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Supportable Development Cost $115,868,374 $44,362,567 $136,780,538 $55,063,022 per unit $386,228 $147,875 $341,951 $137,658
Development Costs MHDR Market MHDR Afford HDR Market HDR Afford Construction Cost
Basic Site Work per SF (Site) $3 $3 $3 $3
Building Direct Cost per SF (GBA) $230 $230 $230 $230
Surface Parking Direct Cost per Space $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 Soft Costs (% of Direct) 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%
Permits and Fees (per DU) $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Total Construction Cost $93,487,888 $93,487,888 $111,219,682 $111,219,682 per unit $311,626 $311,626 $278,049 $278,049
Summary Values MHDR Market MHDR Afford HDR Market HDR Afford Residual Land Value (RLV) $22,380,486 -$49,125,321 $25,560,855 -$56,156,661 per acre $2,238,049 -$4,912,532 $2,556,086 -$5,615,666
per unit $74,602 -$163,751 $63,902 -$140,392
Blended Affordable RLV @ 25% Affordable Units $4,504,034 $5,131,476 per acre $450,403 $513,148
per unit $15,013 $12,829
Source: EPS.
[1] Acreage used to develop a prototypcal value per acre; not tied to any specifc planned parcel.

Table A-14
Meadowview 102
Affordable Housing Pricing Estimate
Average
Input/ 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person Unit Category Assumption Studio One BR Two BR Three BR Four BR Pricing Overall Assumptions
Sacramento County Median Income $113,900
Household Size Income Adjustments 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 108.0% Income Requirements (% AMI) 70.0% $55,811 $63,784 $71,757 $79,730 $86,108 For Sale Units
Sale Price
Percent of Income to Housing Payment 30.0%
Estimated Share Tax/Insurance 20.0%
Maximum Annual Mortgage Payment $13,395 $15,308 $17,222 $19,135 $20,666 Maximum Sale Price by Unit Size [1] $166,215 $189,960 $213,705 $237,449 $256,445 Price per Assumed Unit Distribution
For-Sale Low Density 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 70.0% 30.0% $243,148 For-Sale Medium Density 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 70.0% 10.0% $234,600 Rental Units
Rental Rates
Gross Monthly Rent $938 /Mo $1,073 /Mo $1,206 /Mo $1,340 /Mo $1,448 /Mo Less Utility Allowance $167 /Mo $187 /Mo $233 /Mo $279 /Mo $329 /Mo Net Allowable Rent $771 /Mo $886 /Mo $973 /Mo $1,061 /Mo $1,119 /Mo Price per Assumed Unit Distribution 10.0% 50.0% 35.0% 0.0% 0.0% $860 /Mo Source: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency; California Department of Housing and Community Development; EPS. [1] Assumes 5% down payment, 30-year term, and 7.0% interest.

Unit Pricing Distribution
Table A-15
Meadowview 102
Sports Facility Impact Analysis
Category Base/Optimistic Conservative 1 Conservative 2
Tournament Capture Potential [1]
Capture of Identified Local/Regional Tournaments 30% 40% 35% Capture of Identified National Tournaments 30% 10% 5%
Visitation (To Greater Sacramento)
Local/Regional Tournament Visitor Days 153,000 204,000 179,000 National Tournament Visitor Days 225,000 75,000 38,000
Total Tournament Vistor Days 378,000 279,000 217,000
Local/Regional Attendee Taxable Spending/Day $59 $59 $59 National Attendee Taxable Spending/Day $74 $74 $74
Total Attendee Taxable Spending $25,750,000 $17,656,000 $13,364,000 Total Number of Roomnights 81,000 58,000 44,000
Assumed Hotel Nightly Rate $134.91 $134.91 $134.91
City of Sacramento Spending and Hotel Stay Capture
City of Sac Capture of Roomnights and Spending 80% 80% 80% Total Number of Visitor Days 303,000 223,000 173,000
City of Sacramento Taxable Visitor Spending $20,600,000 $14,125,000 $10,691,000 Total Captured Roomnights 65,000 46,000 35,000
City of Sacramento Hotel Room Spending $8,817,000 $6,242,000 $4,775,000 Tax Revenue
Bradley Burns 1.0% Sales Tax $206,000 $141,000 $107,000 Measure U 1.0% Sales Tax $206,000 $141,000 $107,000
Total Local Sales Tax $412,000 $282,000 $214,000
City Transient Occupancy Tax (12.0%) $1,058,000 $749,000 $573,000 Sacramento Tourism Marketing District (2.5%) $220,000 $156,000 $119,000 Sacramento Tourism Infrastructure District (1.0%) $88,000 $62,000 $48,000 Total Hotel Tax $1,366,000 $967,000 $740,000
Source: Huddle Up Group; Visit Sac; EPS.

Scenarios
[1] The Huddle Up impact analysis included "slippage adjustments" instead of capture rates to reflect the range of potential tournament activity captured by proposed facility. The Huddle Up slippage adjustments of 50%, 65%, and 75% correspond with capture rates of 50%, 35%, and 25%, respectively. The 30% capture used for the base/optimistic scenario corresponds to the midpoint between Huddle Up's moderate and conservative estimates. The roomnights and visitor spending estimates were further adjusted to reflect 80% capture of hotel stays and spending within City limits. [2] The Huddle Up impact analysis assumed national tournament visitor spending of $143.60 per person per day; and local/regional tournament visitor spending of $79 per person per day, based on Sports ETA 2019. To estimate the portion of daily spending subject to sales tax, the national tournament daily spending per person amount was adjusted downward by 1/3 of the daily hotel room rate of $134.91 (Zone 3/Natomas per Sacramento CVB), then 75% of the remaining daily spending was assumed taxable. The 75% taxable assumption was also applied to the lcoal/regional daily spending per person.

Note: This analysis relies upon estimates of the total pool of potential tournament-related visitors, length of stay, and roomnights provided by Huddle Up/Visit Sac. Any changes to the total pool would result in proportional changes to potential captured vistation, spending, and tax revenue. 1 | P a g e

In Partnership With
102 ACRES COMMUNITY VISIONING

REPORT & GUIDEBOOK
By: Mayor Pro Tem Mai Vang
January 20, 2023
2 | P a g e
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND……………………………………………………….3
COMMUNITY LED-PLANNING APPROACH……………………………………………..5
COMMUNITY VALUES FOR 102 ACRES PROJECT.………………………………….17 THE PEOPLE’S VISION…….………………………………………………………………17
DEERFIELD/MESA GRANDE LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY…………………...19 DETROIT NEIGHBORHOOD LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY…………………....20 MEADOWVIEW LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY……………………………………21
OLDER ADULT LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY……………………………………23
SMALL BUSINESS LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY……………………………….24 UNHOUSED LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY……………………………………….24
YOUTH LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY……………………………………………..26
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PATH FORWARD………………………………….27
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………...……..29
A. RESIDENT VALUES
B. ME AND MY NEIGHBORHOOD – MENTIMETER DATA
C. 102-ACRES CONTEXT MAP
D. 102-ACRES-LAYOUT MAP
3 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
For far too long, communities in South Sacramento have been underinvested in and denied economic opportunities. Growing up in Sacramento, I have seen entire neighborhoods endure generational poverty and there are still parts of our city that continue to be passed over. I ran for city council to set a new trajectory for communities that have been long ignored and forgotten – so that they too can receive the resources they need to thrive.

In Fall of 2021, my District 8 team identified a large unused property located south of the Job Corps site at 3100 Meadowview Road. With support from the Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Representative Doris Matsui, the City of Sacramento purchased that 102-Acre parcel of land in the heart of South Sacramento in January 2022-creating a unique opportunity for our residents to dream big and co-create a community-centered development that would benefit our families and neighborhoods.

When the property was purchased, I committed to listening to our community to ensure that their voices would be heard and that the future of this property would be a catalyst to uplift every person, child, and family in South Sacramento. Over the course of several months, we held multiple listening sessions attended by residents of all ages, race/ethnicity, housing status and backgrounds to help guide the development of the property. These listening sessions were meant to give local residents a voice and greater agency in the decisions made about their neighborhoods.

There were so many exciting ideas that emerged from our listening sessions. From a multi-use youth sport complex to more affordable housing – our community’s vision for communitycentered amenities, services, and programming inspired me. It also underscored our shared core community values of health and wellness that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion for all residents.

This guidebook embodies the recommendations from our community and provides a blueprint for the development of the 102 Acres community. I will work tirelessly to help realize that plan outlined by our community, including fighting for the resources we deserve to fully realize our shared dreams and aspirations. We’re excited to implement what we heard directly from the listening sessions. In the upcoming weeks, my office will convene a community taskforce to assist with the implementation of the 102 Acres. If you live or work in District 8 and would like to join our taskforce, please email [email protected].

Thank you to the hundreds of youth, elders, neighborhood leaders, businesses, and residents who participated in our listening sessions to create this community guidebook. A special thank you to our community facilitators and organizers from Everyday Impact Consulting and the Asian American Liberation Network for co-leading and collaborating with my office.

In Solidarity,
Mayor Pro Tem Mai Vang, MPH/MA
District 8 Councilmember, City of Sacramento
4 | P a g e
History of Site
• The 102-Acres site is currently located in Meadowview on the southern portion of the Job Corps site at 3100 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832. (See aerial map below).
• Until the late 1970s, the property was used as a testing track for the California Highway Patrol. It was then transferred to the U.S. Federal Government as an extension for the Job Corps facility. It has been vacant and unused since 1978. • In 2021, the site was deemed excess land by the U.S. Department of Labor. The property was determined to be a high value asset and was disposed through the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act. FASTA properties are not subject to 40 USC 550, Public Benefit Conveyances. As such, the site could not be acquired by the City for a discounted price.
• In January of 2022, the City purchased the property for $12 million for long-term purposes such as civic amenities, affordable housing, and recreation -- and for short-term uses such as safe parking and temporary shelter through the Comprehensive Siting Plan to Address Homelessness.
• During Spring of 2022, Councilmember Vang’s office conducted several community-centered listening sessions to gather ideas for how residents would like to see this site used.
• Councilmember Vang will host a community meeting in January 2023 with residents to share the input received from the community listening sessions, provide an overview of the next steps, and create community taskforce within her office to inform land use and implementation of the 102-Acres. 5 | P a g e

COMMUNITY-LED PLANNING APPROACH
Councilmember Vang contacted Everyday Impact Consulting (EIC) to host a series of community gatherings/listening sessions designed to inform the development of the recently acquired 102 acre lot in District 8. Under the direction of Councilmember Mai Vang’s office, EIC partnered with the Asian American Liberation Network (AALN), a trusted community-based organization with strong reputation for embracing and implementing community-led efforts, to co-lead the effort for the 102 Acres community gatherings/listening sessions. EIC, with AALN, created and co-facilitated a series of community gatherings/listening sessions which resulted in the development of this guidebook. EIC also engaged the support of local and trusted evaluator Tiffany Wilson whose land use/planning background coupled with her equity-rooted approach to evaluation offered invaluable insights and additional technical expertise to the consulting team.
6 | P a g e
About Everyday Impact Consulting
Everyday Impact Consulting was established in 2012 with a mission to create lasting impact for our clients through re-imagining systems and developing innovative strategies by collectively realizing a future of social justice and liberation for all.

EIC’s expertise focuses on developing innovative strategies that resonate with the most vulnerable communities to create systemic change, foster meaningful partnerships for our clients, and build capacity in our communities.

About Asian American Liberation Network
The Asian American Liberation Network’s mission is to build power in the Asian American community to advance social justice and collective liberation. Asian American Liberation Network came together in February of 2020 as a project called the Sacramento A/PI Regional Network. What started as a grassroot effort by Sacramentoarea Asian American community leaders to collectively address existing inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, address root causes to mounting racism, and build a sustainable community-centered movement, eventually turned into the establishment of a 501c3 nonprofit.

A Community Centered Approach
EIC, with AALN, adopted a community-centered approach rooted in the theoretical frameworks outlined below to conduct the series of community gathering/listening sessions.

Focus on creating an inclusive process
It is sometimes challenging to create inclusive processes through top-down, “professional expert facilitated” workshops and/or listening sessions – especially for people whose preferred language is not English, persons with disabilities, etc. EIC utilizes evidenced-based practices rooted in racial equity and social justice to guide and inform our community facilitation work such as: powell’s Targeted Universalism framework, Yosso’s cultural wealth model, and Meadow’s systems theory framework.

Together, the Office of Councilmember Vang, EIC, with AALN, identified a set of priority communities within District 8 based on geography and priority populations. EIC, with AALN, developed a facilitation process which incorporated standard communitycentered facilitation practices such as an introductory land acknowledgement, use of self-identified pronouns, providing interpretation, as needed, etc. The team adapted when necessary to ensure information accessibility to a variety of audiences (youth, adults, people with disabilities, etc.). In addition, EIC and AALN’s experiences working with diverse populations and applying community-rooted facilitation practices resulted in the creation of safe, supportive meeting spaces.

Synthesizing ‘big idea’ recommendations into a cogent set of recommendations 7 | P a g e
In general, it is challenging to synthesize the views of diverse participants who tend to focus on a particular aspect of a given issue. People naturally want to advocate for their priority area and for topics/subjects that they are most impassioned and most knowledgeable. These tendencies were offset by a level setting presentation facilitated by Councilmember Vang at the start of each session, encouraging participants to ‘be honest and bold’; and community-rooted facilitation by EIC and AALN to actively move through a free-flowing process, adopting a World Café style facilitation, concluding with a uniform note-taking protocol to capture themes and big ideas. 8 | P a g e
Guiding Research Questions for District 8 - 102 Acres Project Overarching research question: What is the community identified development priority(ies) for the site? Research Questions to District 8 - 102 Acre Project Facilitation QUESTION Areas of Focus EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
GOAL1

INTERVENTION
What are the assets (individual,
associations, social, cultural,
institutions, or the natural
environment such as land, roads,
buildings) present in our
community that help the
community respond to, and
recover from hard times? How
could our community make better
use of the assets? Are there any
assets that would be useful for
our community to have?
Resilience Understand and respond to
local context. Respect local
community character, cultural
diversity, and values. Preserve
and strengthen intact
neighborhoods, building upon
their local assets and
resources.

Identify the community assets
that support resilience, the
assets needed, and to discern
what role development has in
strengthening or building
current/additional assets.

Economic-based: What are the
goods and services that you buy
from small businesses based in
the area? What are the goods
and services that you travel
outside of the area to buy? How
could the site support and build
the small businesses and local
economy of the area?
Sustainability Advance economic opportunity:

Promote local economic
development and entrepreneur
opportunities, enhance
community-serving
establishments, and increase
quality living wage jobs for
people in all neighborhoods.

Identify the type of
development to build and
grow the local economy.

How should the parcel be
connected to the development
Connectivity Promote broader mobility and
connectivity. Prioritize an
Identify ingress/egress
recommendations and issues,
1 Source: https://www.racialequityalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GARE-Equitable-Development.pdf; Source:
https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/resources/building-heal-framework-holistic-community-development-11471 9 | P a g e
that surrounds it, for example, via
walking paths, bicycle paths,
sidewalks, roads, public
transportation? When you
consider the roads and
development that surrounds the
parcel, what areas would you
prioritize for connection? Are
there areas surrounding that
parcel that could be problematic
areas to connect to – if yes,
where, why?
effective and affordable public
transportation network that
supports transit-dependent
communities and provides
equitable access to core
services and amenities,
including employment,
education, and health and
social services.
and the type of connectivity
supported by community.

Does this area have enough
affordable housing to meet the
need of the residents from the
area? Do you support affordable
housing being built on the site? If
yes, what type of housing (homes,
duplexes, apartments) and would
you allocate the entire parcel, or a
portion of the parcel for housing?
If no, why not? Do you support
mixed-income housing being built
on the site?
Affordable
housing
Prevent displacement. Develop
policies and programs that allow
anyone who wants to live in the
community to do so, especially
current residents, and
discourage displacement of
viable small businesses that
serve community needs.

Preserve and expand affordable
housing options. Create
healthy, safe, and affordable
housing for all family sizes and
incomes in all neighborhoods.

Do residents support
affordable housing, and if yes,
at what density.

What civic amenities (e.g., parks,
community centers, cultural
center) do you use in the
community? What types of civic
amenities are needed in this
community? Do you think the site
would be a good location for a
Civic Amenities Achieve full accessibility.

Ensure any development that
results from investments in the
built environment is accessible
and welcoming to people
regardless of age, physical
condition, or language.

Identity resident support for
civic amenity for the site
10 | P a g e
civic amenity? If yes, what type? If
no, why not?
How can residents/business
owners and other community
stakeholders share their ideas
and pose questions about the
area?
When thinking about the needs
and assets of this community, and
your vision for the community’s
future, what type of development
(e.g., housing, retail/commercial
to support economic
development, civic amenity to
support recreation and culture)
would you prioritize for the site?
Equity, Diversity,
and Inclusion
Practice meaningful community
engagement. Require local
community participation and
leadership in decision-making to
reflect a diversity of voices,
including targeted strategies to
engage historically marginalized
communities. Build cultural
competence and
responsiveness among all
stakeholders, and structure
planning processes to be clear,
accessible and engaging.

Identify process before,
during, and after development
to determine resident
development priorities
What environmental issues
negatively impact your community
(e.g., air pollution, lack of tree
canopy, illegal dumping, lead
from South Sac airport)? How
does existing development
contribute to environmental
degradation? What development
considerations should be given
(e.g., do not waive CEQA) or how
can development at this site
support a healthy environment
(e.g., non polluting uses, healthy
and robust tree canopy,
something else visionary because
Environmental
Justice
Promote environmental justice.

Eliminate disproportionate
environmental burdens and
ensure an equitable share of
environmental benefits for
existing communities. Secure
resources to mitigate and
reverse the effects of
environmental hazards past and
present.

Identify community
environmental justice
priorities.
11 | P a g e
residents are so masterful at
seeing a better way of doing
things)?
What are the existing
environmental burdens in the
area?
How might the development hurt
or help existing environmental
burdens?
Where do you feel the most safe
in the community? Why?
Is there adequate access to
healthy food, healthcare,
open/walkable space?
Health and
Wellness/Public
Safety
Develop healthy and safe
communities.

Create built environments that
enhance community health
through public amenities
(schools, parks, open spaces,
complete streets, health care,
and other services), access to
affordable healthy food,
improved air quality, and safe
and inviting environments.

Identify the conditions that
help community members feel
safe.

Identify health and wellness
priorities
(walkability/bikeability,
markets, clinics/healthcare,
etc.).
12 | P a g e
Listening Session Facilitation Format
In collaboration with Councilmember Mai Vang’s office, EIC and AALN prioritized the following populations and communities: Meadowview Community, Detroit Community, Deerfield / Mesa Grande Community, Seniors, Youth, Unhoused Community and Advocates, and Small Businesses.

Each community listening session included the following meeting objectives:

1. Learn about the 102 Acres Project in District 8.

2. Provide feedback on community principles and project priorities that will inform the development of the project.

The facilitation format was designed as an in-person facilitation with each session lasting two hours in duration, with the exception of one community listening session which was held virtually. Each listening session included opening remarks by Councilmember Mai Vang and a brief presentation of the 102 Acres Project in District 8, a presentation of a set of community agreements, icebreaker activities using the Mentimeter platform, and world café rotations in each of the four thematic areas described in the following section.

An overview of the Community Listening Sessions is presented below:

Priority Community Date Time Location
Small Business April 11, 2022 4:30pm – 6:00pm Sam & Bonnie Pannell Community
Center
Youth & Youth
Advocates
April 18, 2022 5:00pm – 6:30pm Common Ground
Church
Detroit Neighborhood April 27, 2022 6:00pm – 7:30pm Susan B. Anthony Elementary School
Cafeteria
Meadowview
Neighborhood
May 11, 2022 5:30pm – 7:00pm Genesis Church
Seniors & Senior
Advocates
May 12, 2022 11:30am – 1:00pm Sam & Bonnie
Pannell Community
Center
Unhoused Neighbors May 13, 2022 12:30pm – 2:30pm Genesis Church Deerfield/Mesa Grande
Neighborhood
May 27, 2022 5:30pm –7:00pm Virtual via Zoom
Community Agreements
The community agreements were derived and adapted from adrienne maree brown’s book, Emergent Strategy, and also included several agreements created by AALN and EIC.
13 | P a g e
The following Community Agreements were shared at each session:
• We acknowledge and respect differing views, opinions and experiences. • This is an honest, brave, and kind space.
• It's okay to not understand or know everything. We will ask for what we need to feel good about being here, support each other, and learn together as we go. • We choose collaboration over competition.
• What happens here, stays here. What’s learned here, leaves here.

EIC and AALN used the highly interactive Mentimeter application as an icebreaker activity during each session (with the exception of the first session). The application allowed for community engagement and input at the start of each session by asking community members to respond to questions about their community (i.e. how long they have lived in the neighborhood), then the team would present beautiful graphic representations of the responses in a Word Cloud. (Mentimeter results from each listening session can be found in Appendix B: Me and My Neighborhood – Mentimeter Data).

Following the Mentimeter icebreaker, participants were split up into four smaller breakout groups to discuss the four priority thematic areas: Resilience/Sustainability, Connectivity/Affordable Housing, DEI/Civic Amenities/Environmental Justice, and Health and Wellness/Public Safety. Each World Café rotation lasted roughly 15 minutes. EIC and AALN selected a “World Café” facilitation style as opposed to a large group workshop format to allow for more intimate conversations in smaller groups and to encourage more active participation through smaller groups discussions. Instead of rotating the participants, community members remained in their table clusters for the entirety of the session, and four EIC/AALN facilitators were paired with four note-takers assigned to a specific thematic area. The facilitators rotated around the room to all breakout groups. Workshop facilitators and note-takers were recruited through both EIC and AALN networks. Each facilitator was selected to support and facilitate the target population and/or geography session that resonated most with them and identified the thematic area based on their areas of interest/expertise.

See below for an example of the note-taking template that was used for each session.

DREAM BIG LISTENING SESSIONS PURPOSE
The overarching guiding question that each of the Dream Big Listening Sessions will address is: What is the community identified development priority(ies) for the site?
NOTE-TAKING INSTRUCTIONS: This template is intended for designated volunteers/EIC or AALN team members who are supporting the facilitation and note- 14 | P a g e
taking of breakout rooms during the Dream Big listening sessions and community stakeholder gatherings for District 8.

Fill in the header appropriately. Fill in the Rotation Notes sections as you rotate around the room.

A few quick notes:

1. Before the sessions: Familiarize yourself with the questions for each World Cafe rotation

2. During the Rotations: In the NOTES (right-side column) provide bulleted notes for the QUESTIONS/CONCEPTS (left-side column) that are surfaced interventions during the listening session dialogue and discussions.
o Do NOT include personal identifiers (i.e., names of participants, names of individuals mentioned in the discussion, etc.)
o Please DO note the speaking participant by their first and last initials when possible. These will be removed after the consolidation of themes o Capture most/all that the participant says/describes. At the minimum, capture the theme/experience the participant is describing. ▪ If capturing a direct quote, signify using quotation marks (“ ”) and ellipses (...) if needed
▪ If capturing a theme, signify by stating ‘expresses’, ‘feels’, ‘describes’, or similar language in notes
o Feel free to add additional notes that do not necessarily fit in the listed recommended questions/concepts in the row titled ADDITIONAL NOTES

3. Post-Listening Session: Send your final copy of your notes to [email protected].

ROTATION NOTES:

Rotation: RESILIENCE/SUSTAINABILITY
Intervention to Surface NOTES
What type of retail development and/or commercial
development would support the growth of local
businesses?
What we would love to see at the project site?
What are some things we already have in our community that we would love to see more of?
Where do you currently do business in this community?
15 | P a g e
What would be helpful to see at the project site to increase the business you do in the district and help you keep dollars in the district?
How do you envision the site supporting your business?
ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Rotation: CONNECTIVITY/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Intervention to Surface NOTES
What’s the best way for you, your employees, your
customers, to connect to the new project site?
Could you note some things/areas that could be problematic to connecting to the project site? (Consider physical accessibility, safety concerns, etc.)
Do you live in the community? If not, why not and where do you commute from?
Do your employees and/or customers live in the community? If not, where do they commute from?
Would you/your employees live in the community if there was more affordable housing available in the area? And what type of housing:
o Homes
o Duplexes
o Apartments
How much if any of the project space would you want to
dedicate to housing?
ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Rotation: DEI/CIVIC AMENITIES/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Intervention to Surface NOTES
What types of civic amenities would you want to see in
this community?
16 | P a g e
How can the new project site promote positive
environmental conditions (green space, trees)?
How do you want to stay informed and share feedback on the project?
What kinds of information about the project are most important to you/your business?
What are the existing negative environmental conditions of the neighborhood (pollution, dumping, etc.)
ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Rotation: HEALTH & WELLNESS/PUBLIC SAFETY
Intervention to Surface NOTES
What would you like to see in the district to promote
safety and healthy living?
Where do you feel most safe in the community and why?
How can the project promote healthy living in the district? ADDITIONAL NOTES:
17 | P a g e
COMMUNITY VALUES FOR 102 ACRES PROJECT
At the conclusion of each session, residents in District 8 were asked via survey to share their values for the project, the community priorities that should guide future development decisions including decisions about resource and space allocation. Below are the responses that were shared by 90% or more of the community listening participants.
• Create built environments that enhance community health through public amenities (schools, parks, open space, complete streets, health care, & other services)
• Access to affordable healthy food
• Safe and inviting environments
• Develop healthy and safe communities
• Improved air quality
Current and future residents benefit from the project’s sustained economic competitiveness and prosperity
The community values described above align with the People’s Vision which is presented in the following section. The completed findings and data collected from all of the surveys can be found in Appendix A: Resident Values.

THE PEOPLE’S VISION
The residents’ vision for the development of 102 acres builds on the assets that currently exist in the community and includes the provision of new assets to meet resident needs. Residents want new development to prioritize local economic development by supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs and the commercial needs of residents. The vision includes greater connectivity that supports equitable access to community amenities and housing for families of all sizes. Residents want civic amenities that are welcome spaces for all residents, with a focus on full and unfettered access for D8 youth. Residents want a healthy and safe community, with support services to improve the quality of life for everyone.

RESILIENCE/SUSTAINABILITY
Access to fresh food: Residents leave District 8 to buy fresh food at affordable prices because the current food landscape is typified by fast food, to go restaurants, and convenience stores with a variety of unhealthy food options. In response to the current context and to support healthy living, residents want access to affordable, healthy food in their community through a grocery store, farmers market, and/or community garden.

The healthy food options must cater to the culturally diverse, culinary needs of the community. The youth put forward food sovereignty – connecting local farmers with local consumers - as a strategy for building on and strengthening the assets or resiliency of the community.
18 | P a g e
Promote local, small businesses: D8 residents expressed staunch support for commercial uses that advance economic opportunity for local, small business or “mom and pop” shops. Neighborhood serving commercial and residential mixed use is viewed as the type of development that will grow the local economy by meeting the retail needs of D8 residents and giving small businesses an opportunity to build equity.

CONNECTIVITY/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Trail system and public transit: D8 residents want a multi-use trail system to increase connectivity to and throughout the parcel. Residents prioritized a trail system to: (1) accommodate folks who use mobility vehicles (e.g., wheelchairs, scooter) or do not drive (e.g., youth), and (2) support community health by encouraging the use of nonmotorized forms of transportation (e.g., walking and biking), “walkable neighborhoods” and “car free zones.” The trails should be wide, well lit, and separated from traffic lanes with planting strips or landscaped buffers. The residents also emphasized that public transit must serve the new development on the 108-acer parcel.

Mixed-income housing: Residents want housing build on 25% to 50% of the 108 acers. The vision is mixed income housing (i.e., affordable and market rate housing) for folks who want to rent or buy. To meet the diverse housing needs of the D8 community, residents believe a range of housing types or density is necessary, from single-family homes to duplexes and townhomes, and mixed-use residential.

DEI/CIVIC AMENITIES/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
D8 residents imagine an epicenter of civic amenities in their community that honor the diverse cultures in south Sacramento and bring people together through celebration, performing arts, recreation, and learning to build strong community ties. This cultural epicenter will foster an inclusive and welcome environment for all people regardless of age or language, with an emphasis on creating spaces where youth feel safe, supported, and inspired. Of particular importance is that the amenities are affordable and accessible to youth on a continual basis.

Multi-generational, multi-cultural community center: Residents want a space in D8 where residents and community organizations can host events, and where classes (e.g., dancing, art, job training, money management, mentoring) and activities (e.g., game and music rooms) are offered for folks of all ages. Youth see the potential for the community center to offer programs designed to intentionally foster relationship building between different generation.

Sports complex: Residents want a sports complex (e.g., basketball, football, soccer, baseball, rock climbing) with indoor and outdoor amenities with much needed access to recreational amenities in D8.

Outdoor amphitheater: This space was visioned as the heart of cultural celebrations through the performing arts and events.
19 | P a g e
Park: Weaving these amenities together is a park with a thriving tree canopy, walking and bicycle paths, a botanical garden, exercise stations, and art (i.e., murals and sculptures). Residents want a green space in their community to gather and relax with family and friends and to support the soul and health of the community.

HEALTH & WELLNESS/PUBLIC SAFETY
Unhoused Support Center: To meet the needs of unhoused residents, a center that supplies transitional housing; service referrals; counseling; and access to public showers, restrooms, washing machines and dryers was recommended by residents.

Invest in D8: When asked what would increase the safety and the health of their community, residents reiterated the amenities they want developed in their community (e.g., walking, and biking paths, parks, a community center that supports learning and recreation, good lighting, performing arts space). D8 is a historically disinvested community that deserves equitable investment with consideration of strategies that offset displacement and the gentrification of the culturally rich and diverse area.

DEERFIELD / MESA GRANDE LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY

RESILIENCE/SUSTAINABILITY
Increased access to healthy food: Deerfield Mesa Grande residents would like healthy food options in their community. Folks believe their community needs a grocery store, a community garden, a farmers market for local farmers to sell their produce, and restaurants with healthy food options. Deerfield Mesa Grande residents leave District 8 to buy healthy food at affordable prices because of the lack of options, and the oversaturation of convenience stores and fast-food chains in their community.

Foster small business development: The site should have space to accommodate small businesses or “mom and pop shops,” such as a bookstore, dance studio, bike shop, coffee shop, shoe repair, dry cleaner, or laundromat. Folks iterated that the retail should be affordable to support the needs of low-income community members.

CONNECTIVITY/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Walking and biking paths: Connectivity to the site via walking and bicycle paths is a priority for residents. The paths should be set within greenbelts with shade trees, and proper lightening. The residents support “car free zones,” and public transit access at the site. Residents discussed the need for active transportation modes to accommodate the members of the community who do not drive (e.g., youth, seniors).

Consumnes River Boulevard Connectivity: When asked for the most convenient way for cars to access the site, the residents discussed connectivity to Consumnes River Boulevard and to the east of the parcel.

Mix of housing types: Deerfield / Mesa Grande would like a mix of housing types both in terms of style and price at the site. The residents discussed a preference for market 20 | P a g e
rate and affordable townhomes, single family, and high-density, mixed-use housing for renters and home buyers. When asked how much of the site should be allocated for housing, answers ranged from 25% to 50%.

DEI/CIVIC AMENITIES/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Support services: A facility that houses a “one stop shop” resource center for homeless folks, transitional housing for youth aging out of foster care, mental health services, and/or a substance abuse center were identified as possible civic amenities.

Community center and sports facilities: Folks want a community center in D8 that provides a place for residents to gather and host events. The center should have a youth focus with indoor (e.g., music room, art space, dance studio, theater, a game room) and outdoor (e.g., sports fields, a skatepark, a rock-climbing wall, a public pool) recreational amenities. The center’s services must be affordable and consistently available to youth both afterschool and on the weekends.

HEALTH & WELLNESS/PUBLIC SAFETY
Invest in D8: When asked “where do you feel safe in the community?” listening sessions attendees discussed feeling safe “at home” and a few folks discussed feeling safe “just around their neighborhood.” When asked “how the project can increase safety,” Deerfield / Mesa Grande residents recommended that the City invest in District 8 through the provision of good lighting, active transportation (e.g., vibrant crosswalks, bike lanes), parks with trees, green spaces, community gardens, public art, and multigenerational spaces where people can gather and build a sense of community.

Residents talked about these types of City investments creating an environment where people feel safe.

Unhoused Resources: When asked how the project can increase safety, residents also discussed “having a place for people who are unhoused” to live and access resources.

DETROIT NEIGHBORHOOD LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY

RESILIENCE/SUSTAINABILITY
Grocery store: Detroit neighborhood residents want a grocery store at the site for access to fresh food (e.g., fresh fruits and vegetables) to support healthy living.

Grow local business: The residents want commercial development that serves the needs of the people who live in the area, and at a scale that supports small to medium sized local business owners. Residents iterated a need for businesses that offer products at affordable prices, and that employ District 8 residents. Folks supported between 30% to 50% of the site zoned for commercial purposes.

CONNECTIVITY/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
21 | P a g e
Walking, biking and transit: There was agreement that access to the site must include walking/bicycle paths separated from the traffic lanes. Folks want “walkable neighborhoods” or well-lit and wide active transportation facilities to accommodate the mobility needs of parents with young kids, youth, and elders, and as an alternative to driving. The site should also be accessible via public transportation.

More connectivity: While folks agreed that more roads are necessary for ingress and egress to the site, there was not agreement on the best to connect the parcel to the existing road network. Attendees believe the City should conduct a transportation study to ensure that new roads are designed to slow traffic, and do not increase congestion or impede walking and biking.

Mixed income housing: Detroit neighborhood residents want 25% to 45% of the site rezoned for housing. Folks want a mix of market rate and affordable housing and a variety of housing types (e.g., single-family homes, duplexes, and mixed use).

DEI/CIVIC AMENITIES/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Park: Most of the attendees believe that District 8 needs more green space for residents to gather and recreate and to meet that need, they want part of the parcel developed into a park. Recommended park facilities include a: community garden, a botanical garden, outdoor amphitheater for concerts in the park or cultural celebrations, and exercise stations.

Community Center: The site should include a community center with a focus on programs and activities for youth and seniors.

HEALTH & WELLNESS/PUBLIC SAFETY
Support youth: When asked how the project can increase safety in District 8, listening session attendees discussed the need for a place where “kids are safe,” and where youth feel “inspired.” Listening session attendees “do not want more gates” and barriers that restrict youth access to recreational facilities. The residents iterated that youth must have consistent and regular access to the youth-serving amenities built on the site.

MEADOWVIEW LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY

RESILIENCE/SUSTAINABILITY
Small Business Commercial: While a few residents would like to see “anchor” Big Box stores (i.e., Khols, Big Lots, Macy’s) at the site, most participants want “small,” “local business” or “community generating opportunities.” Suggested retail included shore repair, hair salons, affordable clothing stores, and a bike shop.

Sit Down Restaurants: D8 has a plethora of fast food “to go,” restaurants.

Meadowview residents would like restaurants or “cafes where people can sit down” to 22 | P a g e
eat. The restaurants should be family friendly, with outdoor dining (e.g., Chilies, BJs, Macaroni Grill).

Grocery Store: A grocery store was identified as a priority for D8. Folks would prefer the grocery store is locally owned, and not a chain store like Walmart. Meadowview residents cited a need to increase access to affordable, healthy food and produce when discussing why a grocery store is a priority for the community.

CONNECTIVITY/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Walking, Biking and Transit: Meadowview residents recommend a series of walking and biking paths to increase connectivity to and throughout the parcel. The paths should be separated from the road via landscaped buffers. The site should also be accessible via public transit.

Housing Options: Meadowview residents recommend affordable and market rate single-family homes and mixed-use development. When asked how much space they wanted dedicated to housing, responses ranged from 30% to 50%.

DEI/CIVIC AMENITIES/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Multicultural, Outdoor amphitheater: Meadowview listening session attendees want an outdoor amphitheater at the site. The residents imagined the amphitheater as a “space to cultivate diversity,” where “multicultural communities can host events,” and residents can gather for “multicultural festivals.” Residents discussed the amphitheater as part of an art park with trees, murals and sculptures that celebrate D8 diversity.

Recreational facility for youth: The youth in District 8 are denied access to recreational spaces and have very few places where they are welcome to go. To counter this trend, Meadowview residents want a recreational facility with an open-door policy for youth. Recommended facility amenities included sports fields (e.g., soccer, football, baseball) and courts (e.g., basketball and tennis), mentoring programs, arts and crafts, and rock climbing. Residents want the youth to have a voice in the development of, and the programs offered at the facility. One attendee described an investment “in youth and children’s development” as “crucial.”

HEALTH & WELLNESS/PUBLIC SAFETY
Build the Vision: When asked how the project can increase safety in the District8, listening session attendees’ responses included better lit streets and parks, walking, and biking paths, and slowing down cars. When asked how to increase health living in the district, Meadowview residents discussed park access, community gardens, botanical gardens, walking and biking paths, and iterated activities for youth and kids.

OLDER ADULT LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY
23 | P a g e

RESILIENCE/SUSTAINABILITY
Local businesses: Older adult residents want to see more local businesses so that big box stores do not continue to come into the local community.

Grocery stores and fresh food markets: To increase access to grocery stores and fresh food markets, older adults advocated for more of these businesses to be developed in the community.

Multi-use buildings: Older adult residents want to see more multi-use building for both businesses and then affordable housing at the top of the priority for development in the community.

Walkability and public transportation: Noted as a high priority for older adult residents, many identified the importance of walkability in the community as well as being the ability to get around easily through public transportation.

CONNECTIVITY/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Separated walking and bicycle paths: To increase community safety and connectivity to the parcel, older adults recommend well lit, walking and bike paths with vertical curbs, and a planting strip that separates the paths from the traffic lane. Older adults emphasized the importance of accessibility via wide paths to accommodate folks who use mobility vehicle (e.g., wheelchair, scooter) and non-motorized forms of transportation.

Senior Housing: The older adults would like to see more homes and duplexes for seniors, and 30% of the 108 acres allocated for affordable senior housing.

DEI/CIVIC AMENITIES/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Green space and walking trails: To provide a space for healing, recreation and to support healthy living, the older adults recommend that the parcel include green space with trees, a community garden, walking trails and exercise stations. The older adults recalled a time when the City watered and pruned the street trees in District 8 and believe the City should supply that service again.

HEALTH & WELLNESS/PUBLIC SAFETY
Increased lighting and traffic calming: When asked where they feel safe in the community, the older adults relayed that they feel safe at the Sam & Bonnie Pannell Community Center and Susan B Anthony park. When discussing how the project can increase safety in the District, the residents iterated the need for better street, sidewalk, and public facility lighting. The older adults also recommended that new streets are designed to mitigate speeding to improve community safety.

Homeless Support Services: Residents believe that transitional housing and support services for unhoused community members (e.g., job training, counseling, showers, 24 | P a g e
meals) would increase safety because “everyone is safer when everyone has their own space – everybody’s got to be somewhere.”

SMALL BUSINESS LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY

RESILIENCE/SUSTAINABILITY
Small Business: Attendees of the small business listening session want commercia built at the site that supports “community-based” businesses. The preference is for mixed-use development that includes small, retail spaces that cater to local business owners, rather than big box stores. Mixed-use is viewed as the development type that will provide residents with retail choices, while also giving local “small mom and pop shops,” an opportunity to build equity.

Grocery Store: Small business owners identified a grocery store that caters to the culture and socio-economic status of the residents as a priority for the area.

Job Training Center: A sustainability strategy put forth by the small business listening session attendees is a job training center for the residents who live in the housing built on the site.

CONNECTIVITY/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Walking and biking access: Small business owners believe that the site must be accessible by walking or biking. Folks recommended a system of multi-use paths that connect the larger community to the site, and that bisect the site to increase accessibility to future development.

Housing: When asked how much of the parcel should be set aside for housing, small business attendee responses ranged from 25% to 60%.

DEI/CIVIC AMENITIES/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Community serving amenities: Small business owners discussed the need for youth programs and activities, a community center; parks, and green space to promote better air quality; a community pool; walking and bicycle trails; and more lighting.

HEALTH & WELLNESS/PUBLIC SAFETY
Community-oriented Policing: Attendees noted that the community has a fear of law enforcement, which affects public safety. The small business owners discussed a larger community-oriented police presence in District 8 to build trust and promote safety.

UNHOUSED LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY

RESILIENCE/SUSTAINABILITY
25 | P a g e
Mixed-Use: The unhoused listening session attendees relayed traveling outside of District 8 “to get the things we need,” and recommend mixed-use commercial on the site to support the retail needs of the community (e.g., laundromat, hardware store, dining with outdoor seating). Attendees visioned mixed-use development with “mom and pop shops,” and greenery so “people can enjoy the space.”
Big Box: In addition to recommending mixed-use development for the site, unhousing attendees also recommended big box retail. There was strong support for a Walmart and a dollar/99 cent store.

Fresh food: The residents want access to fresh food in D8 and recommended the development of a farmers market, community garden, and/or a grocery store located at the site.

CONNECTIVITY/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Car alternatives: When asked for the most convenient way to get to the site, the residents recommended increased connectivity via public transit, sidewalks, and bike trails.

Assortment of housing types: The residents would like to see senior housing, single family homes, tiny homes, duplexes, and supportive housing at the site. The housing should be affordable and market rate and occupy 30% to 50% of the parcel.

DEI/CIVIC AMENITIES/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Park and recreation: Attendees recommend part of the parcel is zoned for a park with walking paths, a community garden, splash pad/water park, sports fields (e.g., baseball, football, and soccer fields; basketball court), exercise stations, and murals. The recreational facilities must be handicapped accessible and inclusive.

Learning center: Unhoused listening session attendees would like a center in D8 that provides classes for residents of all ages (e.g., job training, computer, parenting, anger management), but with a youth emphasis. Youth-supporting programs and services recommendations include afterschool tutoring, mentoring, performing arts classes, and sports programs. The space should be “open to everyone,” and cultivate a culture of belonging and inclusivity.

Unhoused Support Center: To support an unmet need, attendees believe D8 should have a center that supplies service referrals, and access to public showers, restrooms, washing machines and dryers for unhoused residents.

HEALTH & WELLNESS/PUBLIC SAFETY
Revisiting their vision: When asked how the project can increase health and safety in the District, the residents reiterated their vison for D8. When discussing increased safety, the residents recommended the project include housing and support services for the unhoused, a thriving tree canopy and green space, and a community center. The conversation about how the project can increase community health, included recommendations for the development of community gardens, programs and services for youth, and public facilities for unhoused residents. 26 | P a g e

YOUTH LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY

RESILIENCE/SUSTAINABILITY
Localized Food System: To address the lack of access to fresh fruits and vegetables youth expressed a strong desire for fostering food sovereignty and connecting local farmers with local consumers via community gardens or a marketplace/co-op where folks can grow, sell, and buy produce. Additionally, youth suggested that the site include a grocery store, or Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native Hawaiian markets to serve the culinary needs of residents.

Small business: Youth believe the site should support local business, and expressed an interest in a music store, an electronic store, or businesses that support learning (e.g., Code Ninjas).

CONNECTIVITY/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Safe streets: Youth advocated for site connectivity that prioritizes pedestrian/bicyclist safety. Youth expressed the need for traffic calming solutions such a round abouts.

Integrated housing: The youth believe housing on the site should be a blend of supportive and affordable housing because “when communities are integrated, there is stronger community.” Youth visioned support for unhoused residents largely through the provision of “tiny homes for the homeless,” or a “homeless center” to connect residents to shelter, jobs and counseling.

DEI/CIVIC AMENITIES/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Multi-generational, multi-cultural community center: Youth vision the site including a community center with activities that bring different generations together. For example, elders supervising youth to “create a safe area,” youth supplying childcare to gain extra income or job experience, or parents providing mentoring and support for youth. The center should cultivate a youth safe and youth friendly culture through the provision of youth-informed - and led - programs that focus on: (a) practical life skills (e.g., money management, job certification, employment training programs); (b) health and wellness services such as (e.g., mental health and coping skills, social emotional learning), and (c) recreational activities. The youth also vision the community center supporting learning through workshops and classes.

Cultural Performing arts center: To build on the community’s assets, the youth support the inclusion of a space to “celebrate all cultures” through performing arts and events.

Sports facilities: District 8 youth need access to recreational facilities. To mitigate this need, the youth believe the site should include a “state of the art sports complex,” or 27 | P a g e
baseball and football fields, and basketball courts for community members and sports clubs/leagues.

HEALTH & WELLNESS/PUBLIC SAFETY
Mental health resources: The youth believe the site should include a clinic with access to mental health resources and services, and medical services to increase the health and safety of the community.

Support community building: When asked how the project can increase safety, the youth emphasized building community connections and discussed the opportunity for the site to host events and festivals that bring neighbors together.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PATH FORWARD
Share and distribute findings from this report
As next steps following this report and guidebook, EIC and AALN recommends that Councilmember Mai Vang’s District 8 team share and distribute the findings from this report and guidebook widely and begin by sharing with the community members who participated in the listening sessions. Consider hosting a public webinar/information session (virtual or in-person) to celebrate the 102 Acres listening series, share and discuss findings. Invitees for this public webinar/information session should include targeted outreach and follow up invitations to community members and other stakeholders who participated in the listening session.

Community-led conversations as development progresses
EIC and AALN strongly recommend that the City of Sacramento adopt communitycentered and community-led conversations as a guide for any future community development processes. As an evidenced based practice, tailoring activities (or targeting interventions), such as community facilitation toward collectively, shared outcomes has the highest potential for an inclusive experience among participants.

Consider that in the work of Dr. john powell, “targeted universalistic interventions undermine active or passive forces of structural exclusion and marginalization, and promote tangible experiences of belonging.”2 Through the lens and use of the Targeted Universalism framework in future community development projects, the City of Sacramento has the opportunity to develop a community engagement experience that creates and promotes bridging and belonging with its communities and constituents.

Shared feedback loop, outreach, and engagement with D8 residents 2 john a. powell, Stephen Menedian, Wendy Ake, “Targeted Universalism Policy & Practice,” May 2019, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/targeted-universalism.
28 | P a g e
EIC and AALN recommends that accompanying this report, the District 8 team design and communicate the ways in which community members can continue to provide feedback on the 102 Acres project, pre-development, during development and postdevelopment. In any development project, creating and implementing a clear feedback loop, outreach, and engagement with D8 residents will help to ensure active engagement throughout each phase of development. It will also be important to communicate HOW community feedback, particularly feedback gleaned from this report, will be utilized to make decisions about the project. Lastly, consider creating a 102 Acres community council, comprised of residents, to support the District 8 team in identifying priorities and make decisions about the project area.

Community-benefit consideration, prior to, during, and after the development of the 102 Acre project
A community-benefits agreement (CBA) is a best practice and EIC and AALN strongly recommend considering any next steps in the development process through a community-benefits lens. Consider creating a community benefits plan in partnership with community members. As development progresses the essence of the communitybenefits approach is to create a plan that meets the community’s needs.3 A community benefits agreement is a contract between the community (usually through a communitybased organization) and a developer, which represents the best interests of the residents. The agreement spells out the benefits the community will receive in return for supporting the project in their neighborhood. CBAs may include benefits such as guaranteed local hiring or development of parks or other important community facilities.

CBAs can help to promote equitable development and ensure that existing residents benefit from the new investment into the neighborhood without threat of gentrification or displacement4. This report has identified priority areas for the residents in District 8 and can be used to facilitate a community benefits agreement process with the project developer.
3 Alma Campos, Sarah Conway, and Phoebe Mogheri, “Seven steps to making your own Community Benefits Agreement in Chicago,” February 22, 2022, https://www.citybureau.org/newswire/2022/2/22/what-is-acommunity-benefits-agreement 4 Source: LISC Community Benefits Toolkit
29 | P a g e
APPENDIX A: RESIDENT VALUES
Values Statements
% of residents who
selected the statement
as a priority
Create built environments that enhance community health through public amenities (schools, parks, open space, complete streets, health care, & other services)
100%
Access to affordable healthy food 99%
Safe and inviting environments 99%
Develop healthy and safe communities 97%
Improved air quality 95%
Current and future residents benefit from the project’s sustained economic competitiveness and prosperity 90%
Create healthy, safe, and affordable housing 88%
Prompt local economic development and entrepreneur
opportunities 86%
Require local community participation and leadership in decisionmaking 84% Respect local community 82%
Preserve and strengthen neighborhoods 82%
Practice meaningful community engagement 81%
Increase quality living wage jobs for people in the district 80% People live and work in a community where they can choose to walk for pleasure and meet their everyday needs 79%
Preserve and expand affordable housing options 76%
Everyone enjoys clean air and water 75%
Prioritize an effective and affordable public transportation network 73%
Advance economic opportunity 70%
Ensure any development that results from investments in the built environment is accessible and welcoming to people 70%
Build cultural competence and responsiveness 66%
Achieve full accessibility 66%
30 | P a g e
The benefits and burdens of growth and change are distributed equally 66%
Promote broader mobility and connectivity 65%
Discourage displacement of viable small businesses that serve community needs 65%
Promote environmental justice and minimize global warming 64% Foster economic prosperity 63%
Prevent displacement 63%
Develop policies and programs that allow anyone who wants to live in the community to do so 59%
31 | P a g e
APPENDIX B: ME AND MY NEIGHBORHOOD – MENTIMETER DATA
Small Business Session
What is the one thing you wished you had in your neighborhood?

WHAT FOLKS WANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Parks 13
Bike trails / paths 5
Youth sports complex 5
Grocery store 3
Community center 2
Homeless shelter 2
Small Businesses (e.g., restaurants, cafes) 2
Community garden 1
Art 1
Immigration Resource Center 1
What are the challenges of living in your neighborhood?

CHALLENGES NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Safety and Security 9
Sense of Community 5
Outdated Infrastructure (e.g., streets,
sidewalks)
4 Wealth Disparities 4
Systemic Issues 3
Grocery Store 2
Homelessness 2
Lack of Green Space / Parks 2
Outreach 2
Bike Trails 1
32 | P a g e
Detroit Neighborhood Session
What is the one thing you wished you had in your neighborhood?

WHAT FOLKS WANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Parks 19
Grocery stores / farmers market 12
Shared community spaces 9
Youth sports complex 9
Transportation 2
Wildlife areas / zoos 2
Cleanliness 2
Bike trails 1
Gym 1
BIPOC Businesses 1
Community garden 1
More homeowners 1
Fire station 1
What are the challenges of living in your neighborhood?

CHALLENGES NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Safety (e.g., crime, gun shooting) 16
Road accessibility / traffic 14
Dumping 13
Homelessness 5
Outdated Infrastructures (e.g., streets,
sidewalks)
4 Predatory Landlords/Banks 4
Affordable food 3
Air quality 2
33 | P a g e
Youth Session
What is the one thing you wished you had in your neighborhood?

WHAT FOLKS WANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Sports complex 7
Parks 6
Grocery store 5
Youth spaces / activities 4
Independent café 1
Crab place 1
Homeless shelter 1
Bike paths 1
Art studio 1
Cell tower 1
What are the challenges of living in your neighborhood?

CHALLENGES NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Safety (e.g., crime, gun shooting) 9
Unsafe drivers 4
Access to food 4
Affordable housing 3
Sports accessibility 2
Lack of green space 1
No cell tower 1
Obesity 1
34 | P a g e
Meadowview Neighborhood Session
What is the one thing you wished you had in your neighborhood?

WHAT FOLKS WANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Diverse Restaurants 8
Bike / walking paths 6
Grocery store / farmers market 5
Shared community spaces 4
Outdoor spaces / activities 3
Financial institutions 3
Youth sports complex 2
Art gallery / performing arts 2
Gym 2
Laundromats 2
Movie theater 1
Quality stores 1
Single family homes 1
Luxury hotel 1
Training center 1
Police 1
What are the challenges of living in your neighborhood?

CHALLENGES NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Safety (e.g., crime, gun shooting) 9
Lack of resources 4
Dumping 4
Food desert 3
Lack of youth services 2
No banks / credit unions 2
Transportation 2
Cars doing donuts 2
Home affordability 2
Walkable streets 1
Lighting 1
35 | P a g e
Older Adults Session
What is the one thing you wished you had in your neighborhood?

WHAT FOLKS WANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Senior activities 4
Affordable housing 3
Community gardens 3
More park activities 3
Shared community spaces 2
Grocery store 2
Shelter for homeless 1
Education 1
COVID-19 to end 1
Banking and vendors 1
Neighborhood transportation 1
What are the challenges of living in your neighborhood?

CHALLENGES NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Transportation 8
Dumping / littering 6
Homelessness 5
Air pollution 5
Access to business 4
Irresponsible real estate 3
Lack of public transportation 3
Food apartheid 1
Lights 1
COVID-19 restrictions 1
36 | P a g e
Unhoused Neighbors & Advocates Session
What is the one thing you wished you had in your neighborhood?

WHAT FOLKS WANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Services for unhoused / homelessness 8
More low-income housing 4
Shared community spaces 4
Afterschool programs 3
Youth complex 2
Community center 2
Amenities for seniors 2
Local retail stores 1
Mom and pop businesses 1
Public transportation 1
Banks and Office 1
Miniature golf 1
Parks 1
Show how to progress 1
More freedom 1
What are the challenges of living in your neighborhood?

CHALLENGES NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Affordable housing 9
Safety (e.g., crime, gun shooting) 8
Traffic 7
Lack of resources 5
Homelessness 3
Lack of retail 1
Lack of representation 1
Fireworks 1
37 | P a g e
APPENDIX C: 102-ACRES CONTEXT MAP
38 | P a g e
APPENDIX D: 102-ACRES-LAYOUT MAP

Sacramento City CouncilApril 9, 2024

Sacramento City Council
April 9, 2024