Sacramento City Council
April 9, 2024

City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.
102-Acre City-Owned Meadowview Site Opportunities and Constraints Analysis File ID: 2023-00357
Location: District 8, Represented by Councilmember Vang Recommendation: Review and comment.

Contact: Alexi Wordell, Associate Planner, 916-808-7856, [email protected], Community Development Department; Elizabeth Boyd, Senior Planner, 916-808-3540, [email protected], Community Development Department.

Presenters: Alexi Wordell, Associate Planner, 916-808-7856, [email protected], Community Development Department.

Attachments:
01-Description/Analysis
02-Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Summary and Appendices 03-District 8 Listening Sessions Report and Guidebook
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail:

In January 2022, the City acquired a 102-acre undeveloped site (Site) located in the Meadowview neighborhood. To aid City Council in their decision-making process regarding the future of this Site, Community Development Department (CDD) staff initiated an opportunities and constraints analysis to inform the following decisions.

1. How should the Site be developed?

2. What are the general land uses to be developed at the Site? A consultant team, led by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), was hired to help provide an overview of the opportunities and constraints for the Site. The analyses considered the suggested land uses and major themes from the District 8 community listening sessions (Attachment 3), held by Councilmember Vang’s office in Spring 2022, and included:
· Initial conditions assessment including biological resources and cost to mitigate.

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.
· Market assessment of demand and feasibility of land uses and potential land value. · Feasibility testing of land use scenarios, including type and cost of infrastructure, traffic, mitigation costs, development costs, and revenues.

Key Considerations
Attachment 2 includes detailed analysis to guide the following.

1. Disposition of the Site: This involves adhering to the Surplus Land Act guidelines to require potential private and/or public-private development and comply with affordable housing requirements.
o Option 1: Selling the undeveloped Site as-is to developers. This would include providing guidance to future developers on the City’s preferred mix of land uses and community amenities/benefits.
o Option 2: The City to further plan and entitle the Site, address significant environmental impacts, develop backbone infrastructure, and develop public facilities before selling portions of the Site for private development.

2. Land Use Mix: Determining the optimal combination of land uses. This could include a mix of residential (including interim temporary housing), open space/parks, recreational facilities, wetland preservation, storm drainage, and other uses. This mix could depend on the following:
o Infrastructure: Evaluating the necessary infrastructure needs and associated costs, which may entail negotiations with adjacent developers based on the selected land use mix.
o Environmental Constraints: Identifying and determining the approach to addressing the environmental constraints on the Site, including concerns related to onsite storm drainage, wetland habitat preservation or loss, and potential traffic impacts, among others.
o Financial Feasibility: Assessing the financial viability of the project and exploring available public subsidies to support its realization.

Next Steps
The information provided is to aid City Council in making decisions about Site disposition and land uses. This first meeting is purely informational and will be followed by a period of community engagement to discuss the findings and determine the desired process and land use mix for the Site.

CDD staff recommends scheduling a second City Council meeting in mid-2024. The time between meetings will allow City Council offices to engage in community discussions about the findings and preferences concerning land use and planning scenarios to inform City Council’s decision.

Policy Considerations: The City’s 2040 General Plan includes a range of policies that promote the acquisition of underutilized lands and development of land for diverse housing opportunities, park and recreational facilities, and wetland habitat preservation to support housing, economic

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.
development, and environmental protection goals. These policies include:
· LUP-1.5 Surplus Land Disposition. The City shall periodically audit municipal land holdings and assess opportunities for more efficient use and management, using criteria including the provision of affordable housing and emergency shelter space, economic development and revitalization objectives, business operations, opportunities to create more park space or park connections, and applicable federal and state law to identify surplus properties and disposition strategies where appropriate.
· LUP-6.6 New Growth Neighborhoods. The City shall ensure that new residential growth areas include neighborhoods with a mix of residential types, sizes, and densities, such as single-, duplex-, and multi-unit dwellings.
· LUP-9.1 Cultural and Entertainment Centers. The City shall support the equitable development of cultural, art, entertainment, and recreational facilities and events in the city to attract visitors, support a quality of life for residents, celebrate and strengthen Sacramento’s unique identity.
· YPRO-1.22 Organized Sports and Recreational Facilities. The City shall develop and maintain quality facilities (e.g., multi-field and multi-court sports complexes, skateparks, pump tracks, and challenge courses) for a variety of organized and recreational sports, prioritizing the needs of youth between the ages of 10 and 24, and particularly for youth in disadvantaged communities, in order to ensure opportunities for youth development, recreation, social development, and life and wellness skill building.
· YPRO-1.29 Park Financing Strategies. The City shall leverage municipal funds to access grants for the acquisition of parkland in park deficient areas, planning, construction and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities in underserved, disadvantaged communities from federal and state government agencies, philanthropic organizations, and private partners. · ERC-2.6 Wetland Protection. The City shall preserve and protect wetland resources including creeks, rivers, ponds, marshes, vernal pools, and other seasonal wetlands, to the extent possible. If not feasible, the mitigation of all adverse impacts on wetland resources shall be required in compliance with State and Federal regulations protecting wetland resources, and if applicable, threatened or endangered species. Additionally, the City shall require either on- or off-site permanent preservation of an equivalent amount of wetland habitat to ensure no -net loss value and/or function.

Economic Impacts: The promotion of equitable economic development and investment, along with the availability of affordable housing, could foster opportunities for the residents and businesses within the area of the Site and citywide.

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.

Environmental Considerations: The opportunities and constraints analysis is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it is an administrative activity that does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15378(b)(2) and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3).

Sustainability: A sustainable community encompasses a diverse range of housing choices, recreational amenities, and employment opportunities for both present and future residents.

Developing the undeveloped site in a sustainable fashion promises advantages for residents, businesses, and the natural environment.

Commission/Committee Action: Not applicable.

Rationale for Recommendation: Not applicable; this item is for review and comment only.

Financial Considerations: Decisions regarding the Site's development and the choice of land use mix will have varying financial impacts for the City, potentially involving either costs or revenue generation. This staff report is for review and comment only. Staff will return to City Council at a later date for a decision. For additional details, refer to the Background.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): EPS is an LBE.

Background: Until the late 1970s, the Site was used as a testing track for the California Highway Patrol. It was then transferred to the U.S. Federal Government as an extension of the Job Corps facility located to the north, used by the U.S. Department of Labor. It has been vacant and unused since 1978.

Site Purchase
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 of through the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act. Following City Council Resolution #2021-0339, the City’s $12.3 million bid was accepted, and the City assumed possession of the parcel in January 2022.

Community Listening Sessions
During the spring of 2022, Councilmember Vang’s office hosted seven community listening sessions, garnering District 8 resident suggestions for the Site’s development. The full report can be found in Attachment 3. The community vision focuses on:
· Resilience/Sustainability o Access to fresh
food. o Promotion of local, small businesses. ·
Connectivity/Affordable Housing o Trail
system and public transit. o Mixed-income
housing. · DEI/Civic Amenities/Environmental
Justices o Multi-generational, multi-cultural
community center.
o Community-serving sports complex. o
Outdoor amphitheater. o Park. · Health &
Wellness/Public Safety o Unhoused support
center. o Investment in District 8.

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.
· Resilience/Sustainability o Access to fresh
food. o Promotion of local, small businesses. ·
Connectivity/Affordable Housing o Trail
system and public transit. o Mixed-income
housing. · DEI/Civic Amenities/Environmental
Justices o Multi-generational, multi-cultural
community center.
o Community-serving sports complex. o
Outdoor amphitheater. o Park. · Health &
Wellness/Public Safety o Unhoused support
center. o Investment in District 8.

Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Key Analytic Findings (Attachment 2) The scope of services provided by EPS encompassed the following:
· Land Use and Market Analysis deliverables:
o Opportunities and Constraints Exhibit.
o Development of four Land Use Concept Plans.
o Market Demand Assessment Report.
o Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum.
· Preliminary Environmental Assessment deliverables:
o Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment Memorandum.
o Environmental Resource Constrains Memorandum.
o Opportunity and Constraints Memorandum.
o Environmental Risk Matrix.
· Infrastructure Availability and Cost Assessment deliverables:
o Infrastructure Needs Assessment Technical Memorandum. o Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost.
o Traffic Feasibility Memorandum.
o Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum.

Below is a summary of the key findings detailed in the deliverables.

Feasibility of Land Use Types
Consultants considered the suggested land uses from the community listening sessions and assessed the demand and feasibility of a range of land uses for the Site. The focused land uses studied in this analysis were based on the following criteria found in Table 1.

Table 1. Market Demand of Studied Land Uses
Land Use Finding
Mixed-Income Housing Strong demand for market-rate and below market-rate housing.

A Mix of Housing and Other
Uses
Could be supported depending on the mix of uses.

Grocery Store The location of the Site and proximity to customers would make it difficult to accommodate a full-size grocery store.

Recreational/Sports/ParksThere is local demand for some recreational uses, as well as

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.

Land Use Finding
Mixed-Income Housing Strong demand for market-rate and below market-rate housing.

A Mix of Housing and Other
Uses
Could be supported depending on the mix of uses.

Grocery Store The location of the Site and proximity to customers would make it difficult to accommodate a full-size grocery store.

Recreational/Sports/Parks
(i.e., outdoor amphitheater,
rock climbing, hardwood
courts for basketball, flat
fields for football, soccer,
and baseball, skatepark,
botanical garden, and
outdoor exercise
equipment)
There is local demand for some recreational uses, as well as some demand to provide for income-generating, tournamentlevel recreation uses.

Community Center The Pannell Community Center is located just north of the Site.

Office Office market and Site characteristics preclude standards office space; small neighborhood-serving medical office could be supportable.

Hotel Unlikely to attract development interest from hotel developers or provide a sufficiently low level of risk to obtain financing due to Site’s location.

Retail A small amount of retail space could potential be supported under right conditions.

Interim Homeless Support Could be supported when the roadways and utilities are developed to serve a 3- to 4-acre site for tiny homes.

Land Use Concept Plans
Based on the above feasibility, the consultants prepared four land use concept plans to explore the opportunities and constraints for a mix of land uses, found in Attachment 2, Appendix A. These concepts were for analysis purposes only and elements of each could be modified and/or combined to create a preferred land use scenario. The four land use concepts analyzed for this study include:
· Concept 1: All sports and recreational uses. The purpose of this concept was to understand the costs and revenues associated with a large tournament-sized sports complex. · Concept 2A: Includes 60-acre area for sports and recreational uses, 15-acre wetland preservation area, 5-acre storm drainage facility, and 19 acres of medium-density and highdensity residential uses which could accommodate approximately 287 dwelling units. The purpose of this concept was to analyze a smaller sports and recreation facility to allow for both housing and wetland preservation. This clarified whether wetland preservation would reduce costs.
· Concept 2B: Concept 2B is similar to Concept 2A; however, the 15-acre wetland preservation

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.
was removed. This concept includes 32 acres of medium-density and high-density residential uses which could accommodate approximately 500 dwelling units. The purpose of this concept was to provide financial analysis if wetland habitat were not preserved, which would allow for more housing to be developed.
· Concept 3: All housing, including a mix of medium-density and high-density residential uses for approximately 1,200 dwelling units, and a neighborhood-serving park. The purpose of this concept was to understand the maximum amount of housing that could be accommodated at the site.

For each concept with a residential component (Concepts 2A, 2B, and 3), 25 percent of all residential units were assumed affordable, not to exceed income restrictions of 70 percent of area median income.

In addition to the above concepts, the analysis assumed a potential 3- to 4-acre interim temporary housing area in the southwest corner of the Site. This could accommodate up to 200 beds (e.g., tiny homes) if infrastructure was available to support the interim use. The southwest location was found to be the most cost-efficient location for such an interim use due to the relative ease of obtaining access to existing/planned utility systems.

Real Estate Market Demand
The Market Demand Assessment Report provides an overview of the Site conditions, the socioeconomic characteristics of the surrounding population, and a market demand assessment of residential and commercial retail, office, and lodging sections (See Attachment 2, Appendix B). Key findings include:
· There is a demand for reasonably priced market-rate residential development and belowmarket-rate units. · The Site is not ideal for a full-size grocery store but could support limited retail space under a dense development scenario. The area surrounding the Site lacks conventional grocery stores, and increasing demand is projected as nearby residential units come online. · Standard office space is not feasible due to market conditions and site characteristics.

However, neighborhood-serving medical/dental office space may find support, particularly with the growth of nearby residential units.
· The Site's location, 1 mile from the I-5/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange without major thoroughfare frontage, is unlikely to attract hotel developers or secure financing. Hotel development in the Sacramento area typically occurs near freeways for visibility and access.

An on-site sports complex will generate room demand, but it is insufficient to support a hotel at the Site. Potential plans for a hotel near the I-5/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange in Delta Shores offer a more viable location, especially for families attending a proposed sports complex.

Sports Facility Demand
The Sports Facility Demand memorandum (See Attachment 2, Appendix C) summarizes regional and

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.
local demand for flat fields; demand for an indoor sports facility; and an overview of research and analysis conducted related to financial feasibility. Key findings include:
· District 8 residents may not have a significant need for additional flat fields; however, existing facilities in the region lack amenities like lighting, all-weather turf, locker rooms, restrooms, and concessions space.
· Analysis suggests that a tournament-level, outdoor flat field complex could attract a range of 173,000 to 303,000 visitors and 35,000 to 65,000 room nights annually for the City. · The estimated room nights would support around 120 to 220 hotel rooms scattered across various properties throughout the City. This is likely served through existing hotel rooms with no need to build additional lodging to serve the Site.
· Estimated City tax revenues from visitation and room nights range from approximately $200,000 to $400,000 in sales tax and about $600,000 to $1 million in City Transient Occupancy Tax per year.
· Hardwood facilities, with a wide range of uses and diverse appeal, are the indoor facility type with the highest demand from residents, according to City Youth, Parks, and Community Enrichment (YPCE) Department staff.
· Ice facilities, popular for team-affiliated operations in areas with strong hockey followers, can generate positive net operating revenue. Management is typically contracted, often to teamaffiliated operators. · An indoor aquatics facility would compete with existing outdoor facilities in North Natomas and Elk Grove. Sacramento's weather rarely necessitates indoor aquatics. · There is no need for a dedicated indoor racquet facility based on discussions with YPCE staff.

Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
As described in Attachment 2, Appendix D in the Environmental Resource Constraints Assessment memorandum, the land use concepts for the Site would have impacts on aquatic resources, primarily seasonal wetlands, ditches, and ponds, as well as special status species. To understand a range of impacts and mitigation requirements, this analysis considered both full site development, which would require removal of all aquatic resources, equaling permanent impact to 10.47 acres, as well as partial site development that would preserve 4.15 acres and permanently impact 6.32 acres of aquatic resources.

Mitigation for fill of aquatic resources will be required by either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or the State Board of California via the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. See Table 2 for a range of estimated environmental mitigation costs.

Table 2. Comparison of Estimated Costs Associated with the Site Full Development and Development with Wetland Preserve Options
Associated Fee Full Development Development with Wetland Preserve
Seasonal Wetland
Mitigation
$5.88 million $2.36 million
Ditch and Pond
Mitigation
$858,175 to $1.51 million $858,175 to $1.51 million

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20. Associated Fee Full Development Development with Wetland Preserve
Seasonal Wetland
Mitigation
$5.88 million $2.36 million
Ditch and Pond
Mitigation
$858,175 to $1.51 million $858,175 to $1.51 million
Vernal Pool Fairy
Shrimp/Vernal Pool
Tadpole Shrimp
Mitigation
$4.15 million $4.15 million
Regional Board Fee $237,190 $153,993
Swainson’s Hawk
Foraging Habitat
$1.02 to $1.22 million $870,000 to $1.04 million
Total Estimate $12.15 to $13.0 million $8.39 to $9.21 million Although the range of mitigation costs is significant, the Site's biological resources are of low quality.

Even a partial preservation of the wetland habitat would incur substantial expenses and diminish potential revenue. If development occurred with wetland preservation, an estimated 15 out of the 102 acres would be set aside for wetland preservation, reducing potential development opportunities and associated revenue. The provided cost estimate for development with wetland preserve is solely for preserving the wetlands in their current state. Additional expenses would be required to transform them into a functional and attractive open wetland preserve and open space amenity.

California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA) Opportunities and Constraints Assessment As described in Attachment 2, Appendix D in the Environmental Resource Constraints Assessment memorandum, a project-level environmental analysis would be required based on the four land use concepts for the Site. An environmental document would provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental effects of Site development. The anticipated key issue areas for all land use concept alternatives, unless otherwise noted, include:
· Aesthetics (Concept 1 only)
· Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
· Biological Resources
· Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
· Noise
· Transportation
· Utilities and Service Systems (Concept 3 only)
· Other CEQA Topics
Environmental Risk Matrix
The Environmental Risk Matrix, found in Attachment 2, Appendix E, looks to identify site conditions, environmental impacts, and design feasibility considerations that could result in increased project

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.
cost, public controversy, and the potential for delays to the project schedule. These potential risks at the Site include:
· Risk 1: Potential impacts to jurisdictional wetland waters. · Risk 2: Potential impacts to special status invertebrates. · Risk 3: Potential loss of habitat for Swainson’s Hawk, Burrowing Owl, and other nesting migratory birds.
· Risk 4: Regulatory permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and California Department of Fish and Wildlife anticipated; a Clean Water Act 404 may be required from the USACE.
· Risk 5: Potential subsurface archeology and Native American consultation. · Risk 6: Potential earthwork and construction air quality impacts. · Risk 7: Potential contaminated soil (PCB) remediation. · Risk 8: Potential site drainage requirements.
· Risk 9: Potential public controversy to short-term homelessness services tiny home community.

Infrastructure Needs and Costs
The Infrastructure Needs Assessment and Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Costs memorandums, found in Attachment 2, Appendices F and G, detail the offsite and onsite infrastructure needs, including roadway, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and water system, and costs were assessed for each land use concept. A summary of each of the infrastructure cost items for the four land use concepts is found in Table 3 below. The offsite cost estimates assume that neither Stone Beetland nor Delta Shores are developed, and the City would cover all costs related to offsite infrastructure. It is likely that cost sharing negotiations between the adjacent property owners would occur, which for the purposes of this study, were estimated to reduce offsite infrastructure costs by 25 to 75 percent, depending on the land use concept. These offsite cost reduction estimates are accounted for in the overall financial feasibility, discussed below and shown in Table 4.

Table 3. Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost (2023$)

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.

Storm Drainage
The Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment memorandum, found in Attachment 2, Appendix H, identifies the drainage infrastructure constraints and opportunities and provides a conceptual design of the proposed drainage facilities, including detention basins and potential trunk drainage facilities.

The assessment found that offsite drainage originating from the federal property to the north and currently contained in a three-acre onsite pond, would need to be integrated into the future stormwater quality detention basin on this Site. Based on the findings, it is likely that onsite detention will be necessary due to the proposed flows exceeding the outfall pipe capacity; the required size of the storm drainage basin will depend on the final mix of land uses. The memorandum also identifies areas of additional study that would need to be addressed in a full drainage study to further define offsite flow conveyance and address wetlands, and the existing onsite pond.

Traffic Feasibility
The Traffic Feasibility memorandum in Attachment 2, Appendix I, finds that while the planned and existing offsite roadways have the capacity to support traffic demand from all the land use concepts, potential challenges could arise.

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.

The analysis reviewed the potential vehicle trips on planned and existing streets and intersections and considered what could happen if the offsite roadway network matched what was currently planned in the Delta Shores and Stone Beetland developments and considered whether a new backbone roadway connection from the Site to 24th Street would be necessary.

Under all scenarios, a portion of Cosumnes River Boulevard, east of the proposed C Street in the Stone Beetland development, would experience a high level of trips in comparison to the engineered capacity for the roadway. With the development of the Site, this segment of Cosumnes River Boulevard would carry a cumulative average daily traffic volume that would result in the roadway operating at near capacity. Drivers traveling on this segment of Cosumnes River Boulevard would likely experience reduced speeds, increased congestion, and longer delays and queueing at intersections. This has the potential to increase congestion, queueing, and delays on the residential streets planned in the Stone Beetland development as well.

Establishing access to 24th Street through the Delta Shores development is likely necessary for improved traffic flow, safety, and to preserve the overall quality of life in the area for both current and future residents.

Financial Feasibility
The Financial Analysis memorandum, detailed in Attachment 2, Appendix J, aims to evaluate the financial implications for the City based on the four land use scenarios described above. The analysis centers on estimating the potential costs and revenues associated with each scenario. For simplification, the following assumptions are made in the analysis:

Development Process
· City entitles land before sale.
· City mitigates for environmental impacts.
· City develops backbone infrastructure.
· City develops and operates sports and recreation complex or a neighborhood park.

Costs
· One-time development costs, including backbone infrastructure and public amenities. · Cost sharing of offsite infrastructure with adjacent developments. · Ongoing operations and maintenance over a 30-year period.

Revenues
· One-time land sale of residential.
· Sports and recreation complex revenue from Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), sales tax, and use fees over a 30-year period.

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.

As shown in Table 4 below, the financial analysis concludes the following:
· Concept 1 results in negative net revenue.
· Concept 2A results in negative net revenue; however, this would be less negative than Concept 1.
· Concept 2B results in negative net revenue; however, this would be less negative than either Concept 1 or Concept 2A.
· Concept 3 results in positive net revenue.

Concepts 1, 2A, and 2B assume the City would develop and operate a sports and recreation complex. If the size of the complex was different or if there were a private developer/operator, the costs and revenues could change substantially.

Table 4. Estimated Scenario Development Costs (2023$)
Timeline Considerations
The estimated development schedule (See Figure 1 below) shows the potential timeline for different phases of a potential future development project. Following a Council decision on how to develop the land and what uses to include, additional detailed planning would be needed by either the City and/or

File ID: 2023-00357 4/9/2024 Discussion Item 20.
developer. Once a plan has been drafted, the City would then analyze the potential impacts development could have on the environment. The below figure assumes the environmental review would require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a process that could take about two years.

Once an EIR, if required, were certified, the developer and/or City would need to get the appropriate permits from the federal and/or state government before construction can begin. At minimum, a sports complex would not begin operation before Year 7.

Figure 1. Estimated Development Schedule
Phase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Planning & Entitlement
Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Permitting
Construction
Sports Complex Operation

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 Project Report Summary;
EPS #222163
Date: November 3, 2023
I n t ro d u c t i o n
The City of Sacramento (City) engaged an Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)-led team to evaluate the feasibility of alternative development scenarios for a City-owned 102-acre site (Site), located between Meadowview Road and Cosumnes River Boulevard in the southwestern portion of the City (see Figure 1 later in this document). This memorandum
summarizes the project background, technical analyses
prepared, key findings derived from each analysis, and key considerations to inform future land use and policy decisions related to the Site.

B a c k g r o u nd
In January 2022, the City acquired an undeveloped 102-acre Site located in the Meadowview neighborhood of the City. The Site is surrounded by a combination of existing public and quasi-public land uses and undeveloped land proposed for future development, is not served by utilities, and does not have public roadway access. The Site was purchased to serve as a safe parking location for the unhoused as a temporary short-term use. The City then halted that work in October 2022 to focus on long-term affordable housing solutions and conduct a more comprehensive examination of potential uses on the Site.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 2
At the time of the purchase, the City assumed long-term uses on the Site would include affordable housing, a permanent homeless shelter, recreation, and other community resources. Community listening sessions conducted by City Councilmember Vang’s office related to the Site resulted in several preferred land uses, including the inclusion of outdoor recreation facilities, open space (trails), employment/career training centers, and a grocery store.

The City then retained EPS and subconsultants, Wood Rodgers, Inc. (Wood Rodgers), Raney Planning & Management, Inc. (Raney), and Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone), to conduct environmental, engineering, urban planning, and real estate economics technical analyses to guide decision-making regarding potential options to develop the Site. This memorandum summarizes these technical analyses and key findings that emerged from each analysis.

The initial scope of work focused on a comparison of a straightforward sale of the Site, as-is, versus a planned site, encompassing input from the community.

As part of that exercise, a charrette was conducted to build upon previously compiled community input. Out of the charrette process, 3 concept plans were developed, each including some form of a community park with sports fields.

Other goals from both the community listening sessions and the charrette included incorporating some form of economic development driver at the Site, such as bringing a grocery store to the Site to serve the local community or including a hotel to generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to help fund City infrastructure investment related to the proposed concepts.

After deliberations among City officials, it was determined that a more significant sports complex should be considered for the Site. Based on input from Visit Sac, the sports complex was envisioned to be primarily a “flat field” complex capable of hosting soccer tournaments and other tournaments that would generate visitation and tourism revenue for Sacramento. The concepts were adjusted to include one concept with a sports complex occupying the entire Site and capable of accommodating 20 flat fields. Two other concepts that were similar to each other, with the exception of a wetland preservation area, were devised with what was deemed the minimum size required (16 fields) to be a viable facility for bringing tournaments to Sacramento.1 A final concept focused on medium- to high-density housing and replacing the sports complex with a neighborhood park, was also included for comparison purposes. The potential for selling off the Site, as-is, was omitted from further evaluation.
1 The addition of an indoor sports complex reduces the maximum number of fields that can be accommodated in the concept with wetlands preservation to 13 fields, below the targeted threshold of 16 fields. However, for purposes of comparing the environmental mitigation benefit from setting aside acreage for wetlands preservation, a 13-field complex was assumed to function similarly to a 16-field complex.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 3
The key focus of the analysis for this project became a comparison of the costs required to implement each of the proposed concepts with the potential ongoing revenues (or costs) that would be generated by each of the concepts.

S i t e Co n t e x t
The Site, at the southern portion of the Meadowview Road Job Corps site, had been used as a California Highway Patrol testing track before being transferred to the Federal Government in 1978. However, the Site sat unused and was deemed excess land in 2021.

The Meadowview Road corridor to the north of the Site was generally developed between the 1960s and the 1980s, with a mix of commercial and residential uses.

An existing single-family residential neighborhood is located to the east of the Site, with the Cosumnes River Sacramento Regional Transit (Sac RT) light rail line beyond that. See Figure 1.

Figure 1. Meadowview 102-Acre Site
The newly developed Delta Shores shopping center, currently with approximately 900,000 square feet of retail space, lies approximately 1 mile to the southwest of the Site, in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate-5 (I-5)/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange.

Site
Sac RT
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 4
The undeveloped areas adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of the Site are in the planning process, with both anticipated to be primarily singlefamily residential. The 140-acre Stone Beetland development to the south, which is in the later stages of the planning process (Master Parcel Map submitted), includes a higher density transit village between the Sac RT light rail station and Consumnes River Boulevard that is anticipated to include a commercial component. Delta Shores property to the west is in the preliminary stages of the planning process.

K e y C o n s id e r a t i o n s
The Surplus Land Act (SLA) is a critical consideration for developing any proposed uses on the Site. The SLA is State legislation that places various restrictions on City-owned parcels, with the goal of encouraging the provision of affordable housing or providing other municipal benefits such as parks facilities. For the analysis included in this report, the primary impact of the SLA is a requirement for 25 percent affordable units if residential uses are developed on the Site. The affordable housing requirement impacts the financial feasibility of any proposed residential uses on the Site, and therefore the price that any future residential developer would be able to pay to purchase the Site from the City.

The existence of wetlands on the Site, created by an elevated track trapping runoff on the Site, provides another key consideration. While the wetlands are not considered “high value” in that they were not created naturally, they do appear to contain species that require further investigation and will require either setting aside wetlands area on-site or purchasing mitigation credits.

The other key area of consideration is the infrastructure (and associated cost) required to develop the Site. While a 24th Street connector would be advantageous for ease of access to the Site for tournament attendees, it is not certain if such a connector will be possible. Without a 24th Street connector, some on-site roadways connecting the Site to the south will require upgrading.

However, the adjacent Stone Beetland development’s planned roadway network can accommodate the expected additional traffic volume but with potential increased queuing and related safety concerns. Under all scenarios, because of the cumulative effect of the Site and neighboring planned development projects, Cosumnes River Boulevard would drop below a currently acceptable Level of Service (from LOS D to LOS E), east of C Street, a new street in the planned Stone Beetland project located south of the Site.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5
T a s k s C om p l e t ed
Evaluation of the Meadowview 102 Site has resulted in several technical analysis deliverables, including:
 Development of 4 land use Concept Plans by Wood Rodgers, along with 3 conceptual sports complex land use plans.
 Market Demand Assessment Report by EPS.
 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum by EPS.
 Environmental Resource Constraints Memorandum by Madrone.  Opportunity and Constraints Memorandum by Raney.
 Environmental Risk Matrix by Wood Rodgers.
 Infrastructure Needs Assessment Technical Memorandum by Wood Rodgers.  Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost by Wood Rodgers.  Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment by Wood Rodgers.  Traffic Feasibility Memorandum by Wood Rodgers.
 Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum by EPS.

The key findings from each of the project deliverables above are summarized in the following section. Copies of each deliverable are included in the Attachments.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 6
K e y S i t e P l a n n i ng C o n s ide r a t i o n s
The requested programming for each concept and the resulting land planning design characteristics are summarized below.

Land Use Concept 1: Maximum Sports Complex
Requested Programming
Large sports complex planned for entire 102-acre Site, including high-level concept plans for sports fields to test configuration viability, with:
 20 flat fields at 3-4 acres/field.
 100,000 square foot indoor facility.
 Cross country course.
 Storm drainage facility for on-site uses.

Resulting Design
Site designed to accommodate large-scale
sports complex with:
 20 tournament-level flat fields for
soccer (or similar sporting activity).
 A 100,000 sq. ft. building for indoor
recreational uses.
 Several at-grade parking lots.
 3.8-acre storm drainage facility.

Figure 2. Land Use Concept 1
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
Land Use Concept 2A: Sports Complex + Residential with Wetland Preservation
Requested Programming
Scaled down sports complex including on-site open space for wetland preservation, with:
 16 (or fewer) flat fields at
3 to 4 acres/field.
 100,000 square foot indoor facility.
 Cross country course.
 Wetland preservation (including
appropriate storm drainage facility
acreage).
 MDR and HDR uses on any remaining
acreage.

Resulting Design
Site designed to accommodate large-scale
sports complex with:
 60-acre sports complex including:
‒ 13 tournament-level flat fields for soccer (or similar sporting activity). ‒ a 100,000 sq. ft. building for indoor recreational uses. ‒ cross country course.
‒ several at-grade parking lots.
 Medium-density residential (MDR) uses on 13.6 acres, supporting 122 units.  High-density residential (HDR) uses on 5.5 acres, supporting 165 units.  Open Space uses on 15.3 acres for wetland preservation.  Storm drainage facility on 4.1 acres.

Figure 3. Land Use Concept 2A
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 8
Land Use Concept 2B: Sports Complex + Residential without Wetland Preservation
Requested Programming
Scaled down sports complex including housing and storm drainage facilities, with:
 16 (or fewer) flat fields at 3-4 acres/field.
 100,000 square foot indoor facility.
 Cross country course.
 Storm drainage facility.
 MDR and HDR uses on any remaining acreage.

Resulting Design
Site designed to accommodate large-scale sports complex with:
 60-acre sports complex including:
‒ 16 tournament-level flat fields for
soccer (or similar sporting
activity).
‒ a 100,000 sq. ft. building for
indoor recreational uses.
‒ cross country course.
‒ several at-grade parking lots.
 Medium-density residential (MDR)
uses on 22.2 acres, supporting
200 units.
 High-density residential (HDR) uses
on 10 acres, supporting 300 units.
 Storm drainage facility on 5.5 acres.

Figure 4. Land Use Concept 2B
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9
Land Use Concept 3: Maximum Residential
Requested Programming
Housing focused alternative incorporating higher-density MDR and HDR uses and neighborhood park that fulfills Quimby requirements, with:
 Mix of MDR and HDR uses at higher densities.
 No LDR uses.
 No wetland preservation.
 Storm drainage facility for on-site uses.

Resulting Design
Site designed to accommodate large-scale sports complex with:
 Medium-density residential (MDR) uses on 43.4 acres, supporting 392 units.  Medium-high density residential (MHDR) uses on 14.4 acres, supporting 230 units.
 High-density residential (HDR) uses
on 19.5 acres, supporting 591 units.
 Neighborhood park on 10 acres.
 Paseo corridors on 2 acres for
pedestrian/bike trails.
 Storm drainage facility on 7.8 acres.

Larger images of the 4 concept plans
developed by Wood Rodgers, along with
4 hypothetical test-fit sports complex land
use plans are located in Attachment A.

Figure 5. Land Use Concept 3
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 10
K e y A n a l y t i c F i n d i ng s
The following subsections summarize the key findings of each of the project deliverables noted above.

Real Estate Market Demand and Sports Facility Demand
Market demand analysis for the Site included a full market study covering demographic and economic trends and standard real estate uses, along with a supplemental sports facility market assessment, based largely on available data provided by the City.

The key real estate demand findings are presented below, followed by the key sports facility demand findings. The real estate market demand report is located in Attachment B. The sports facility demand assessment memorandum is located in Attachment C.

Real Estate Market Demand
 Residential demand remains strong in the Market Area, as it does throughout the region. Sufficient demand exists to absorb reasonably priced and executed market-rate residential development that can be accommodated on the Site.
 Below-market-rate residential units are in critically short supply throughout the City. In general, any constructed below-market-rate units will readily be absorbed on the Site.
 The Site is not well-positioned to accommodate a full-size grocery store although may support a small amount of retail space under a development scenario that is dense or compelling enough to generate its own drawing power. While the area near the Site appears to be underserved by conventional grocery stores at this time, and demand for grocery retail is projected to increase substantially as units come online nearby, the Site is not well-positioned for a full-size grocery store. Under a high-density residential-focused scenario, combined with elements to generate additional on-site drawing power, a small amount of retail, including a small convenience market, along with some eating and drinking establishments, may be supportable.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 11
 Office market conditions and Site characteristics preclude support for standard office space, although demand may support neighborhoodserving medical office space. The state of the overall office market, along with a low level of office-centered employment in the Market Area, limit the ability of the Site to support standard office space. Demand appears to exist for neighborhood-/community-serving medical/dental office space, particularly as nearby residential units come online.
 The Site’s location 1 mile from the I-5/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange and without major thoroughfare frontage appears unlikely to attract development interest from hotel
operators/developers or provide a sufficiently low level of risk to obtain financing. Nearly all hotel development in the Sacramento area over the last several decades, outside of Downtown Sacramento or the Airport area, has occurred adjacent to freeways, providing both visibility and access.

While an on-site sports complex will generate demand for rooms, the number of room nights is not estimated to be sufficient to support a hotel at the Site.

Preliminary plans for undeveloped portions of Delta Shores indicate a potential hotel near the I-5/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange, which would be a significantly more viable location for a hotel that could also serve families attending a proposed sports complex.

Sports Facility Demand
Flat Fields
 There does not appear to be a significant need for additional flat fields for use by local residents in District 8, according to YPCE staff. However, few existing facilities in the region provide lighting, all-weather turf, or amenities such as locker rooms, restrooms, and concessions space.
 The Huddle Up report recommends Sacramento develop a tournament-level flat field complex.
 While the Huddle Up report and backup data do not provide an estimate for the number of tournaments Sacramento would likely be able to capture, the backup data provide the basis for estimating an optimistic base case and testing more conservative scenarios, resulting in estimates ranging from 173,000 to 303,000 visitors and 35,000 to 65,000 room nights for the City of Sacramento.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 12
 The potential City tax revenues from the visitation and room nights noted above range from about $200,000 to $400,000 in sales tax and about $600,000 to $1 million in City Transient Occupancy Tax annually.2 3  The estimated number of room nights captured within the City of Sacramento would support between 120 and 220 hotel rooms. However, these hotel rooms would be spread across several hotel properties around the City that are supported by a variety of demand sources throughout the year.

Indoor Facilities
 The specific type of usage associated with an indoor facility has not yet been identified. Further, the Huddle Up study did not provide sufficient data to extrapolate demand for indoor uses. However, EPS has conducted a high-level assessment of potential indoor facility uses as part of this study.  Tournament data for hardwood facilities was unavailable for this assessment; however, VSSC is currently in discussion with Huddle Up regarding an analysis of hardwood facilities.
 Hardwood facilities, with a wide range of uses and diverse appeal, are the indoor facility type with the greatest demand from local residents, according to City YPCE staff.
 Municipally owned hardwood facilities are generally municipally operated.  Ice facilities tend to be very popular, particularly for team-affiliated operations in areas with a strong hockey team following. It is unclear if the same level of support can be generated in areas without a strong team fan base.  While ice facilities require significant capital expenditure and higher operating costs, they can generate positive net operating revenue.  Management of municipally owned ice facilities is typically contracted, with many of the most successful facilities contracted to team-affiliated operators.  An indoor aquatics facility would compete with the recently constructed outdoor aquatics center in North Natomas, as well as the existing aquatics center in Elk Grove. In addition, Sacramento weather generally does not necessitate indoor aquatics (with the exception of smoke emergency days).  Neither the Huddle Up study nor YCPE staff identified a need for a dedicated indoor racquet facility.
2 Reflects a 2.0 percent sales tax rate consisting of the local Bradley Burns 1.0 percent rate and the City’s Measure U 1.0 percent rate which accrue to the City’s General Fund, applied to taxable visitor spending captured in the City.
3 City 12.0 percent TOT only.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 13
CEQA Opportunity and Constraints Assessment
Raney has prepared a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Opportunity and Constraints Memorandum for the 102-acre Site that builds on their previous professional knowledge of the Site and incorporates the findings of the Madrone ecological assessment. Raney determined that all scenarios would require a project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Raney has identified the key issue areas to be addressed under CEQA in each of the alternatives and the likely environmental review documentation to be required, as well as potential mitigation measures. The detailed discussion of issues to be addressed and the potential mitigation measures are located in the Raney Opportunity and Constraints Memorandum located in Attachment D.

In addition, pursuant to passage of AB 52, and the associated amendments to Public Resources Code (PRC) 21080.3.1, lead agencies are required to consult with Native American tribes early in the CEQA process. Raney understands that the City of Sacramento has received letters from tribes requesting notice pursuant to AB 52/PRC 21080.3.1, and the City will need to notify the tribes in writing of the proposed project within 14 days from the start of the CEQA process.

Environmental Resource Constraints Assessment
Madrone completed an assessment of biological resources on the Site. Their complete report is appended to the Raney CEQA Opportunities and Constraints Memorandum, located in Attachment D. The key findings from the Madrone report are summarized below.

Biological Resources in the Study Area
Madrone reviewed publicly available information about the Study Area and nearby areas and used its professional experience in the area to identify biological resources that could most likely be affected by Site development:
 Aquatic resources (seasonal wetlands, ditch, and pond).  Special-status plants.
 Special-status invertebrates (vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchi, federal threatened] and vernal pool tadpole shrimp [Lepidurus packardi, federal endangered]).
 Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii, state species of concern) breeding habitat (seasonal wetlands) and upland habitat (annual grassland).  Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni, state threatened) foraging habitat (annual grassland) and nesting habitat (mature eucalyptus trees).  Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, state species of concern) nesting/wintering and foraging habitat (annual grassland).

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 14
 Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor, state threatened) foraging and nesting habitat (annual grassland).
 Other protected raptor species and migratory bird nesting habitat.  Roosting bats (some species are state species of concern).  City trees (blue gum eucalyptus > 24 inches in diameter).

Potential Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
Implementation of both full development and development with wetland preserve scenarios would result in impacts to aquatic resources that will require mitigation and regulatory permitting. Table 1 provides a summary of the acreage impacts associated with each scenario.

Table 1. Aquatic Resource Impacts Associated with the Meadowview 102 Acre Development Scenarios
Full Development
Development with Wetland
Preserve
Resource Type
Permanent
Impact
(acres)
Preserved
(acres)
Permanent
Impact (acres)
Preserved
(acres)
Seasonal Wetland 6.92 0.00 2.77 4.15
Ditch 0.24
(409 LF)

0.00 0.24
(409 LF)

0.00 Pond 3.31 0.00 3.31 0.00
Total 10.47 0.00 6.32 4.15
LF = Linear Feet
Mitigation for fill of aquatic resources will be required by either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), or more likely the State of California via the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. We recommend purchase of mitigation credits or payment into the ILF Program or a combination of the two.

It is possible that the City could enter into an agreement with a wetland mitigation firm to create project specific mitigation (that is, permittee-responsible mitigation) for a lower cost, but exploring that option and would be the subject of a separate effort. Because the Project could affect vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS) and/or vernal pool tadpole shrimp (VPTS), we recommend purchase of wetland mitigation credits from a bank that is both USACE and approved for VPFS/VPTS credits. Mitigation for impacts to the ditch and pond, if necessary, could be accomplished though payment into the in-lieu fee program. Given the current peracre rates for Section 404 and VPFS/VPTS credits and current rates for the in-lieu Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 15
fee program, we estimate that Section 404 compensatory mitigation would range as shown in Table 2. If the USACE ultimately does not have jurisdiction over the Site’s aquatic resources, then the fees in Table 3, later in this memorandum, would apply.

Table 2. 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
Potential Species Mitigation Requirements
Table 2 shows projected mitigation costs for vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and Swainson’s hawk under each development scenario as they are the species for which defined mitigation is most typically required.

Regulatory Permitting Schedule and Cost
Figure 6 shows a projected permitting schedule that anticipates involvement from all the natural resource agencies. 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. The estimated cost to process the permits ranges from $120,000-$150,000.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 16
Figure 6 Sample Regulatory Permitting Schedule
Environmental Risk Matrix
As part of the analysis, Wood Rodgers prepared the Environmental Risk Matrix, shown in Table 3 and in Attachment E, along with an accompanying memorandum.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 17
Table 3 Environmental Risk Matrix
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 18
Table 3 Environmental Risk Matrix (Continued)
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 19
Infrastructure Needs and Costs
Wood Rodgers identified the off-site and on-site infrastructure needs associated with each of the concept plans, including roadway, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and water system needs. Descriptions of the required infrastructure for each concept are provided in the Infrastructure Needs Assessment Technical Memorandum located in Attachment F.

An Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost Technical Memorandum, by Wood Rodgers, can be found in Attachment G. Figure 7 provides a high-level summary of the infrastructure costs associated with each concept. Table 4 provides summary of each major cost element identified in the Preliminary Opinion of Cost.

Figure 7 Infrastructure Preliminary Cost Summary
$0.0M
$5.0M
$10.0M
$15.0M
$20.0M
$25.0M
$30.0M
$35.0M
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
Infrastructure Costs per Concept
Offsite Infrastructure Onsite Infrastructure 24th Street Connector Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 20
Table 4 Infrastructure Preliminary Opinion of Cost
Storm Drainage
Wood Rodgers completed a Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment for the Site, using Concept 2A as a proxy for the development concepts. According to the Preliminary Storm Drainage Assessment Technical Memorandum, located in Attachment H, 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 off-site flow entering the Site and conveyance to SUMP 89 pump station.

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
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
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 21
Traffic
Wood Rodgers completed a Traffic Analysis of the alternative concepts, both with and without a 24th Street connection to the Site. The detailed findings are located in the Traffic Feasibility Analysis Memorandum, in Attachment I.

The analysis found that in the absence of the proposed 24th Street connection, the likelihood of which is unknown at this time, the planned roadways for Stone Beetland could accommodate the traffic from all of the alternative concepts but likely result in queuing and safety concerns south of the Site.

In addition, because of a cumulative effect of the Site and neighboring developments, Cosumnes River Boulevard would drop below the currently acceptable Level Of Service (from LOS D to LOS E), east of C Street, a new street in the planned Stone Beetland project located south of the Site.

Financial Analysis
This section summarizes the key findings of the financial analysis. The detailed tables are included with the Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum, located in Attachment J.

Key Financial Findings
The key findings of the Analysis are summarized in Table 5.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 22
Table 5 Total Net Cost or Revenue of Alternative Concepts Key notes regarding Table 5:
 The on-site development costs include environmental mitigation, on-site 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 off-site 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 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) $33.7 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%. $2.6 M
Scenario
Concepts 2a & 2b:

Partial Site Sports
Complex + Residential
at 50%
($8.3 M)
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 23
(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 off-site and on-site 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 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 24
Land Use Concepts
The 4 land use concepts developed by Wood Rodgers are summarized in Table 6, which lists the acreage assigned to each land use.

Table 6 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 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 25
Initial Concept Development Costs and Offsetting Revenues Each of the 4 concepts entails some significant upfront costs to develop:
environmental mitigation costs, on-site and off-site 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.

Figure 8 and Table 7 summarize each of the major upfront costs and initial land sale revenues estimated for each concept.

Figure 8 Estimated Scenario Development Cost/(Revenue) (2023$) -$150M
-$100M
-$50M
$0M
$50M
$100M
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
Development (Cost)/Revenue
Offsetting
Residential Land
Sale
Sports
Complex/Park
Dev.
24th Street
Connector
Onsite
Infrastructure
Environmental
Mitigation
Net (Cost)/Revenue
($127.4M) ($75.8M) ($61.6M) $33.7M
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 26
Table 7 Estimated Scenario Development Costs (2023$)
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 on-site 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) 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 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 27
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 8 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. A more detailed version of the table is available in Attachment J.

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.

Table 8 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 Affordable Scenario
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
- $18.1M $30.1M $65.3M
Afffordable Units
Consolidated into HDR
Product
- $22.9M $37.8M $85.9M
Land Gift to Non-Profit
BMR Developer - $37.3M $62.8M $154.7M
Source: EPS
Development Scenario
Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 28
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.

Ongoing Operating Revenues and Expenses
Table 9 summarizes the ongoing annual operating costs and revenues associated with the sports complex in Concept 1, Concept 2a, and Concept 2b. A more detailed version of the table is available in Attachment J.

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 9 Estimated Ongoing/Operating Revenue and Expense Comparison (2023$) Revenue and Expense Items
Full-site
Sports
Complex
Partial-site
Sports
Complex
Ongoing Revenues
Sports Complex Operating Revenues $1,126,000 $1,054,000 Tournament-derived City TOT $1,058,000 $749,000
Tournament-derived City Sales Tax $412,000 $282,000
Total Revenues $2,596,000 $2,085,000
Sports Complex Operating Expenses ($1,900,000) ($1,820,000) Net Operating Revenue $696,000 $265,000
Source: EPS.

Meadowview 102 Project Report Summary—Memorandum
November 3, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 29
Timeline
Figure 9 illustrates the estimated timeline for developing the site. Planning and entitlement are estimated to take 2 years and can overlap with completion of the EIR. After completion of the EIR, the environmental permitting process can begin, with an estimated timeframe between 18 and 24 months. Once the environmental permitting process is complete, construction can begin.

Figure 9 Estimated Site Development Schedule
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A Land Use Concept Plans
Attachment B Real Estate Market Demand
Attachment C Sports Facility Demand
Attachment D Environmental Resource
Constraints Assessment
Attachment E Environmental Risk Matrix
Attachment F Infrastructure
Needs Assessment
Attachment G Infrastructure Preliminary
Opinion of Cost
Attachment H Preliminary Drainage
Assessment
Attachment I Traffic Analysis
Attachment J Financial Analysis
ATTACHMENT A:

Land Use Concept Plans

ATTACHMENT B:

Real Estate Market Demand
Report
Meadowview 102 Market Demand
Assessment Summary
Prepared for:

Alexi Wordell and Elizabeth Boyd
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
September 1, 2023
EPS #222163
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................... 5 Site Context............................................................................................... 5 Demographic Overview ................................................................................ 8 Residential Demand Assessment ................................................................. 11 Retail Demand Assessment ........................................................................ 20 Office Demand Assessment ........................................................................ 25 Hotel Demand Assessment ......................................................................... 29 Summary of Conclusions ........................................................................... 33 Appendices
Appendix A: Demographic Overview
Appendix B: Housing Market
Appendix C: Retail Market
Appendix D: Office Market
Appendix E: Lodging Market
List of Figures
Figure 1. Meadowview 102-Acre Site ...................................................... 6 Figure 2. Market Area .......................................................................... 7 Figure 3. Southwest Sacramento ........................................................... 7 Figure 4. Age Distribution—Market Area and Southwest Sacramento .......... 9 Figure 5. Educational Attainment—Market Area and
Southwest Sacramento ........................................................... 9 Figure 6. Educational Attainment—Market Area 2010 & 2021 ................... 10 Figure 7. Income Distribution—Market Area and
Southwest Sacramento ......................................................... 10 Figure 8. Tenure by Building Type—Market Area, 2021 ........................... 12 Figure 9. Rent as a Share of Household Income—Market Area, 2021......... 14 Figure 10. Owner Cost Burden by Household Income—
Market Area, 2021 ............................................................... 15 Figure 11. Residential Vacancy Rate—City of Sacramento and Sacramento County .............................................................. 16 Figure 12. Multifamily Rent and Vacancy—Market Area and Southwest Sacramento ......................................................... 17 Figure 13. Residential Sales Price and Inventory—
City of Sacramento .............................................................. 17 Figure 14. Zillow Home Value Index—Sacramento and
Adjacent Cities, 2012 & 2022 ................................................. 18 Figure 15. Low- to Medium-Density Single-Family Detached New Home Development—Sacramento and
Surrounding Cities—2022/2023 .............................................. 19 Figure 16. High-Density Single-Family Detached and Attached New Home Development—Sacramento and
Surrounding Cities—2022/2023 .............................................. 19 Figure 17. Growth in Market Area Household Spending from Planned Units—2040 ............................................................ 21 Figure 18. Map of Nearby Full-Scale Grocery Stores ................................. 22 Figure 19. Comparison of Retail Space—Market Area and
Southwest Sacramento ......................................................... 23 Figure 20. Retail Real Estate Market Indicators for
Buildings/Centers >30,000 Sq Ft ............................................ 23 Figure 21. Retail Real Estate Market Indicators for
Buildings/Centers <30,000 Sq Ft ............................................ 24 Figure 22. Employment Trends—Market Area and
SW Sacramento, 2010 and 2020 ............................................ 26 Figure 23. Workforce Trends—Market Area and
SW Sacramento, 2010 and 2020 ............................................ 26 Figure 24. Office Real Estate Market Indicators ....................................... 27 Figure 25. Medical Office Real Estate Market Indicators ............................ 28 Figure 26. I-5 Corridor Upper Midscale/Midscale Hotels Since 1990 ............ 30 Figure 27. Upper Midscale & Midscale Hotel Performance Indicators— I-5 Corridor ......................................................................... 31 Figure 28. Sacramento & Adjacent Cities Upper Midscale & Midscale Hotels Built Since 1990 ......................................................... 32 List of Tables
Table 1. Household Snapshot—Market Area and Southwest Sacramento .... 8 Table 2. Household Size and Tenure—Market Area, 2010 and 2021 ......... 12 Table 3. Household Crowding—Market Area, 2010 and 2021 .................. 13 Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5
Market Demand Assessment
Introduction
The City of Sacramento (City) engaged Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to evaluate the feasibility of alternative development scenarios for a City-owned 102-acre site (Site), located between Meadowview Road and Cosumnes River Boulevard in the southwestern portion of the City (see Figure 1). In support of the overall feasibility analysis, this memorandum provides an overview of the Site conditions, the socioeconomic characteristics of the surrounding population, and a market demand assessment of residential and commercial retail, office, and lodging sectors. Key findings related to the market demand assessment are presented at the conclusion of this memorandum.

Site Context
The Site, at the southern portion of the Meadowview Road Job Corps site, had been used as a California Highway Patrol testing track before being transferred to the Federal Government in 1978. However, the Site sat unused and was deemed excess land in 2021.

The Meadowview Road corridor to the north of the Site was generally developed between the 1960s and the 1980s, with a mix of commercial and residential uses.

An existing single-family residential neighborhood is located to the east of the Site, with the Cosumnes River Sacramento Regional Transit (Sac RT) light rail line beyond that. See Figure 1.

Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 6
Figure 1. Meadowview 102-Acre Site
The newly developed Delta Shores shopping center, currently with approximately 900,000 square feet of retail space, lies approximately 1 mile to the southwest of the Site, in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate-5 (I-5)/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange.

The undeveloped areas adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of the Site are in the planning process, with both anticipated to be primarily singlefamily residential. The 140-acre Stone Beetland development to the south, which is in the later stages of the planning process (Master Parcel Map submitted), includes a higher density transit village between the Sac RT light rail station and Consumnes River Boulevard that is anticipated to include a commercial component. Delta Shores property to the west is in the preliminary stages of the planning process.

The defined Primary Market Area, shown in Figure 2, is intended to highlight the neighborhood context, local demand drivers, and directly competitive real estate uses. The larger Southwest Sacramento area, as defined for this analysis (see Figure 3), serves as the Secondary Market Area and provides a larger context for comparison.

Site
Sac RT
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
Figure 2. Market Area (Primary Market Area)
Figure 3. Southwest Sacramento (Secondary Market Area)
Site
Site
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 8
Demographic Overview
Several key demographic variables, including households, age, education, and income for the Market Area and Southwest Sacramento, are provided below.

Households
The Market Area, which represents about 23 percent of the total households in Southwest Sacramento, has a significantly higher average household size and a smaller share of persons living alone than the larger area. While there are a greater proportion of owner-occupied households, median household income trends lower in the Market Area relative to the larger Southwest Sacramento area.

Table 1. Household Snapshot—Market Area and Southwest Sacramento Age
Figure 4 provides a detailed breakdown of population by age group for the Market Area and larger Southwest Sacramento area. The age breakdown of the Market Area and the larger Southwest Sacramento area are similar, with population spread fairly evenly across age cohorts.

Household Characteristic Total % of Total Total % of Total Total Households 11,308 100% 48,941 100%
Average Household Size 3.45 - 2.98 -
Households with one or more people
under 18 Years 5,148 45.5% 18,313 37.4%
Households with one or more people 60
years and over 5,183 45.8% 20,557 42.0%
Householder living alone 1,927 17.0% 11,982 24.5%
Housing Tenure
Owner-Occupied 6,965 61.6% 25,740 52.6%
Renter-Occupied 4,343 38.4% 23,201 47.4%
Household Income
$0 - $24,999 2,002 17.7% 8,651 17.7%
$25,000 - $49,999 2,351 20.8% 9,559 19.5%
$50,000 - $74,999 2,008 17.8% 9,055 18.5%
$75,000 - $99,999 1,991 17.6% 7,200 14.7%
$100,000 - $149,999 1,758 15.5% 7,411 15.1%
$150,000 - $199,999 585 5.2% 3,297 6.7%
$200,000 + 609 5.4% 3,761 7.7%
Median Household Income $64,352 - $67,848 -
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1101 and Market Area Southwest Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9
Figure 4. Age Distribution—Market Area and Southwest Sacramento Education
The Market Area includes a higher proportion of residents over the age of 25 with high school diplomas without any college, while the larger Southwest Sacramento area includes a higher proportion of residents with bachelor’s and graduate/professional degrees.

Figure 5. Educational Attainment—Market Area and
Southwest Sacramento
7%
21% 22%
25%
10%
14%
7%
20%
22%
24%
11%
15%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
Under 5
years
5-19 years 20-34 years 35-54 years 55-64 years 65+ years % of the Population
Market Area Southwest Sacramento
14%
6%
30%
23%
11% 11%
5%
10%
7%
22% 23%
9%
19%
10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Less than 9th
Grade
9th-12th
grade, No
Diploma
High School
Graduate (Inc.

Equivalency)
Some College,
No degree
Associate's
Degree
Bachelor's
Degree
Graduate or
Professional
Degree
Market Area Southwest Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 10
The share of residents at least 25 years old in the Market Area with between a 9th and 12th grade educational attainment declined significantly between 2010 and 2021.

Figure 6. Educational Attainment—Market Area 2010 & 2021 Household Income
Approximately half of the households in the Market Area have incomes ranging from $50,000 to $149,999 annually, with the rest of the households generally distributed across the range. The larger Southwest Sacramento area, while generally similar, includes a higher share of households earning more than $150,000 annually.

Figure 7. Income Distribution—Market Area and Southwest Sacramento 15%
12%
30%
21%
8%
10%
4%
15%
7%
31%
22%
10%
11%
5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%
Less than 9th
Grade
9th-12th
grade, No
Diploma
High School
Graduate (Inc.

Equivalency)
Some College,
No degree
Associate's
Degree
Bachelor's
Degree
Graduate or
Professional
Degree
2010 2021
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
<$15,000 $15,000 -
$24,999
$25,000 -
$34,999
$35,000 -
$49,999
$50,000 -
$74,999
$75,000 -
$99,999
$100,000 -
$149,999
$150,000 -
$199,999
$200,000+
Percentage of Households
Market Area Southwest Sacramento
SW Sacramento Median HH Income: $67,848
Market Area Median HH Income: $64,352
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 11
Residential Demand Assessment
Although the housing market in the Sacramento region has slowed since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, pent-up demand from a long-term undersupply of housing, continued population and employment growth in the region, and affordability relative to the Bay Area housing market support sustained demand for residential uses.

Residential Characteristics in the Market Area
Household Size and Tenure
As of 2021, approximately 60 percent of households in the Market Area own their homes, while the remaining 40 percent of households are renters, as shown in Table 2. The data suggests that new households added to the Market Area over the last decade represented new homeowners. That is, the number of renteroccupied households has remained static, while owner-occupied households increased by 25 percent.

As shown in Figure 8, owner-occupied units are predominantly single family (95 percent). And, because single-family units comprise the largest portion of the overall housing stock, almost 59 percent of renter-occupied households in the Market Area live in detached single-family houses. The balance of renter-occupied households primarily reside in either attached single-family houses or multifamily buildings with 5 or more units. The Market Area contains a limited number of housing types that fill “missing middle” housing types, including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, which tend to be more affordable housing options for both renters and homeowners.

Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 12
Table 2. Household Size and Tenure—Market Area, 2010 and 2021 Figure 8. Tenure by Building Type—Market Area, 2021
Households Total % Total %
Renter-Occupied Households
1-person 833 18.8% 685 15.8% (17.77%)
2-person 825 18.6% 1,007 23.2% 22.06%
3-person 705 15.9% 913 21.0% 29.50%
4-person 709 16.0% 800 18.4% 12.91%
5+-person 1,355 30.6% 937 21.6% (30.85%)
Total 4,427 100.0% 4,342 100.0% (1.91%)
Owner-Occupied Households
1-person 1,123 19.6% 1,242 17.8% 10.60%
2-person 1,483 25.9% 1,590 22.8% 7.22%
3-person 979 17.1% 1,043 15.0% 6.54%
4-person 810 14.1% 1,489 21.4% 83.94%
5+-person 1,331 23.2% 1,602 23.0% 20.36%
Total 5,726 100.0% 6,966 100.0% 21.67%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B25009; EPS. [1] The Market Area in 2010 is assumed to comprise Census Tracts 40.01, 42.01, 42.02,

42.03, 60.01 and 43. Additionally, a 50% factor was applied to census track 40.01.

Market Area
2010 [1] 2021 Change
(2010-2021)

95.1%

58.5%

3.2%

13.7%

0.3%

2.3%

0.1%

6.5%

0.6%

19.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Other
5+-unit building
3- to 4-unit
building
Duplex
Attached
Single-Family
Detached
Single-Family
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 13
Household Crowding
Rising housing costs and an undersupply of affordable housing options can result in negative impacts, particularly on lower income households, including forcing residents into overcrowded or substandard housing conditions or even into homelessness. As shown in Table 3, while the overall percentage of households residing in overcrowded housing conditions has remained consistent between 2010 and 2021, the number of households residing in severely overcrowded (more than 2.0 people per room) housing has increased dramatically.

Table 3. Household Crowding—Market Area, 2010 and 2021
Occupants per room [1] Total % Total %
Renter-Occupied Households
Less than 0.5 1,682 38.0% 1,896 43.7% 12.7%

0.51 - 1.00 45.4% 1,865 2,008 43.0% (7.1%)

1.01 - 1.50 13.3% 464 589 10.7% (21.2%)

1.51 - 2.00 3.1% 70 136 1.6% (48.5%)

2.01 or more 0.3% 47 12 1.1% 291.7%
Total 4,427 100% 4,342 100% (1.9%)
Subtotal Overcrowded 737 16.6% 581 13.4% (21.2%)
Owner-Occupied Households
Less than 0.5 57.2% 3,732 3,273 53.6% 14.0%

0.51 - 1.00 37.7% 2,655 2,157 38.1% 23.1%

1.01 - 1.50 3.7% 351 214 5.0% 64.0%

1.51 - 2.00 1.3% 121 76 1.7% 59.2%

2.01 or more 0.1% 107 6 1.5% 1,683.3%
Total 5,726 100% 6,966 100% 21.7%
Subtotal Overcrowded 296 5.2% 579 8.3% 95.6%
Total
Less than 0.5 48.8% 5,628 4,955 49.8% 13.6%

0.51 - 1.00 41.0% 4,520 4,165 40.0% 8.5%

1.01 - 1.50 7.9% 815 803 7.2% 1.5%

1.51 - 2.00 2.1% 191 212 1.7% (9.9%)

2.01 or more 0.2% 154 18 1.4% 755.6%
Total 10,152 100% 11,308 100.0% 11.4%
Subtotal Overcrowded 1,033 10.2% 1,160 10.3% 12.3%
Source: American Community Survey Table 5-Year estimates Table B25014; EPS. [1] The US Census Bureau defines an overcrowded housing unit as having 1 or more persons per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Market Area
2010 2021 Change
(2010-2021)
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 14
Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is the proportion of housing costs relative to income.

High housing cost burdens signify that residents are spending a large portion of their income on housing, restricting the amount they can spend on other essentials, such as food, medical care, and transportation, and increasing the risk of eviction or foreclosure.1 A common rule of thumb is that households should pay no more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers households who spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent to be “rent burdened” and considers households who spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent to be “severely rent burdened”.2 Approximately half of renter households in the Market Area have been identified as either rent burdened or severely rent burdened, as illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Rent as a Share of Household Income—Market Area, 2021 1 Shamsuddin, Shomon & Campbell, Colin. 2021. Housing Cost Burden, Material Hardship, and Well-Being. Housing Policy Debate. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-Cost-BurdenMaterial-Hardship-and-Well-Being.pdf [Accessed November 2021]. 2 Larrimore, Jeff & Schuetz, Jenny. 2017. Assessing the Severity of Rent Burden on Low-Income Families. FEDS Notes. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/assessing-theseverity-of-rent-burden-on-low-income-families-20171222.htm. [Accessed October 2021].

39.0%

25.9% 26.2%

8.8%
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Less than 30% of
Income
30% to 50% of
Income
More than 50% of
Income
Not Computed
Number and Share of Households in Each Category
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 15
Among owner-occupied units, the distribution of housing cost burden by income reflects a trend in which the rate of cost-burdened households declines with rising household income, as shown in Figure 10. Nearly all Market Area households earning less than $20,000 annually (93 percent) and a majority of households earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually (57 percent) are considered cost burdened.

Figure 10. Owner Cost Burden by Household Income—Market Area, 2021 Residential Market Indicators
Residential vacancy rates in both the City and Sacramento County (County) have declined significantly since 2012, although both rates have remained static over the last year, as shown in Figure 11. The City’s and the County’s current overall vacancy rates are slightly below the 5.0 percent threshold that many housing experts believe to be an optimal vacancy rate.3 Higher vacancy rates provide prospective buyers and renters with more options when searching for homes, helping to stabilize prices. Below this 5.0 percent rate, those looking for housing have fewer options, allowing landlords or sellers to charge higher prices. Research has consistently found that a vacancy rate below this 5.0 percent threshold leads to increasing rents and sales prices.
3 Phillips, Shane. 2020. Does the Los Angeles Region Have Too Many Vacant Homes? UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies Working Paper Series. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/87r4543q [Accessed October 2021].

92.7%

57.0%

35.5%

12.5%

31.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Less than
$20,000
$20,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
Total OwnerOccupied HH
Share of Households with Housing Costs 30% or More of Income Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 16
Figure 11. Residential Vacancy Rate—City of Sacramento and Sacramento County
Rental Residential
In the Market Area, vacancy rates among multifamily units are even lower than the overall City and County average residential vacancy rate and lower than the vacancy rate in the broader Southwest Sacramento area, as shown in Figure 12.4 Multifamily units in the Market Area are slightly more affordable than the broader Southwest Sacramento area, and monthly rents have increased over the last decade but appear to have stabilized in the last year. The built inventory of multifamily units has remained flat over the last decade, at approximately 2,600 units in the Market Area and 13,000 units in Southwest Sacramento. 4 See Figure 3 for Southwest Sacramento geography definition.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
City of Sacramento Sacramento County
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 17
Figure 12. Multifamily Rent and Vacancy—Market Area and Southwest Sacramento
For-Sale Residential
As shown in Figure 13, the available inventory of for-sale homes had been steadily declining and then dropped precipitously following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there have been moderate levels of housing production in the City, demand for housing increased significantly because of in-migration and housing supply constraints. The strong demand for new housing and undersupply led to an increase in the median sale price of approximately 240 percent between 2012 and 2022.

Figure 13. Residential Sales Price and Inventory—City of Sacramento

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Market Area Monthly Rent SW Sacramento Monthly Rent
Market Area Vacancy Rate SW Sacramento Vacancy Rate
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Median Sales Price Available Inventory
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 18
Figure 14. Zillow Home Value Index—Sacramento and Adjacent Cities, 2012 & 2022
Comparing Sacramento and surrounding cities, Sacramento had significantly lower home values in 2012 than West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, or Elk Grove.5 However, with significantly higher growth in value in 2022, Sacramento home values have come close to parity with those in West Sacramento and Rancho Cordova.

Figure 15 summarizes the numbers and pricing of newly constructed low- and medium-density single-family units sold in Sacramento and competitive cities over the 15-month period from Q1 2022 through Q1 2023. The Natomas area of Sacramento and the City of Folsom saw the greatest numbers of lower density (10 to 13 units/acre) new units sold. Medium-density (14 to 17 units/acre) new unit sales were concentrated in the City of Folsom. Average unit pricing appears to be comparable across low and medium densities.
5 Homes values reflect the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range as of the month selected. Figure 14 reflects typical homes values in July 2012 and July 2022. 244%
191% 186%
168%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
Sacramento West Sacramento Rancho Cordova Elk Grove
Percent Change (April 2012 - April 2022)
Zillow Home Value Index
July 2012 July 2022 % Change
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 19
Figure 15. Low- to Medium-Density Single-Family Detached New Home Development—Sacramento and Surrounding Cities—2022/2023 The local market’s high-density (18+ units/acre) detached new unit sales were about evenly split between West Sacramento and Sacramento. High-density attached new unit sales were concentrated in Sacramento.

Figure 16. High-Density Single-Family Detached and Attached New Home Development—Sacramento and Surrounding Cities—2022/2023 Residential Demand Findings
Steadily declining residential vacancy rates over the last 10 years, with vacancy rates in the City currently around 5.0 percent and 4.0 percent in the County overall, indicate there is continued demand for additional units in the City.

Multifamily rental vacancy rates in the Market Area have been trending even lower than overall rates, with the current vacancy rate around 3.5 percent, after dropping below 2.0 percent in 2021. The very low vacancy in the Market Area $477 K
$668 K
$594 K
$452 K
$563 K $569 K
$615 K
$524 K $576 K
$0 K
$100 K
$200 K
$300 K
$400 K
$500 K
$600 K
$700 K
$800 K
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Elk Grove Folsom Rancho Cordova Sacramento (excl.

Natomas)
Natomas
(Sacramento)
Low Density Units Sold Medium Density Units Sold Low Density Sales Price Medium Density Sales Price $649,900
$527,321 $500,000
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Sacramento West Sacramento
High Density (Detached) Units Sold High Density (Attached) Units Sold High Density (Detached) Sales Price High Density (Attached) Sales Price Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 20
reflects a lack of new multifamily units constructed in both the Market Area and the larger Southwest Sacramento area over the past decade. Indeed, the last major additions to multifamily inventory in either area occurred between 2004 and 2006.

Much of the apartment construction in Sacramento in recent years has been located in either more urban and pricier central city locations, in student-focused developments along the U.S. 50 corridor, or in the relatively rapidly developing North Natomas area, where there is a greater supply of developable land. The Site provides an opportunity to address the lack of new multifamily unit inventory in Southwest Sacramento with high-density housing near light rail transit.

The demand for low-density market-rate single-family residential units has been well demonstrated by the success of recent developments in the areas surrounding the Site. Much of the low-density single-family development in the City of Sacramento outside of Natomas has been located in the Market Area.

Market support for medium-density and high-density (attached and detached) single-family units has been demonstrated by recent developments throughout Sacramento and surrounding cities, particularly in Natomas and West Sacramento. Similar unit typologies at the Site likely would have similar market support as these comparable locations and provide much needed “missing middle” housing for Southwest Sacramento.

Retail Demand Assessment
The retail demand section is divided into a discussion of the Market Area’s retail demand, followed by a discussion of the retail real estate market indicators, and then the implications of the demand and supply findings.

Retail Demand
Current retail spending by the approximate 11,000 households that reside in the Market Area is estimated to be almost $195 million, with half of the spending, $97 million, going toward grocery/convenience purchases. Market Area households spend another $47 million on traditional comparison-shopping goods, such as clothing, furniture, electronics, toys, and other general merchandise.

Spending at restaurants, bars, and other eating/drinking establishments by Market Area households is estimated to total more than $50 million. Detailed Market Area household spending estimates are shown in Appendix C-1.

Based on Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) projections (see Appendix C-2), the Market Area is anticipated to add an additional 7,000 housing units over the forecast period ending in 2040, with many of the planned units likely coming online much sooner. Assuming the projected new housing units will have average pricing levels of at least 75 percent of the price of those that have sold in the last several quarters, the required Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 21
household incomes would conservatively translate to an additional $164 million in household retail spending. The existing and projected future total household retail spending in the Market Area is illustrated in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Growth in Market Area Household Spending from Planned Units—2040 (2023$)
Source: ESRI; EPS.
[1] Grocery/Convenience includes food and alcoholic beverages for consumption at home, personal care items, nonprescription drugs, housekeeping supplies, etc. [2] General Merchandise/Apparel/Furnishings/Other (GAFO) includes the bulk of comparisonshopping merchandise, such as clothing, electronics, furniture, toys, sporting goods, etc.

GAFO spending tends to be drawn to major retail nodes, corridors, or destinations, such as nearby Delta Shores or other regional retail agglomerations, such as retail centers found in the Arden area or as far as Roseville. These types of goods also lend themselves to online sales. Spending at eating and drinking places varies from neighborhood eateries to out-of-town restaurants and everywhere in between. Grocery/convenience spending, in addition to being the largest share of retail spending, tends to be spent closest to home.

Retail Market
A sizeable share of grocery/convenience spending is captured in conventional supermarkets, often located in community or neighborhood shopping centers or occasionally in stand-alone buildings along arterial roadways. Spending at these locations is typically convenience-oriented, drawing from households within a 1-mile to 2-mile radius one or more times per week.

As voiced in the community listening sessions, the Market Area contains limited grocery options. Several grocery stores are located at the Market Area periphery, particularly along Florin Road to the north. In addition, adjacent to the southwestern periphery of the Market Area is the Delta Shores Walmart $97.3 M
$179.2 M
$47.0 M
$86.5 M
$50.4 M
$92.9 M
$0.0 M
$50.0 M
$100.0 M
$150.0 M
$200.0 M
$250.0 M
$300.0 M
$350.0 M
$400.0 M
Current Market Area Household
Spending
Future Market Area Household
Spending
Grocery/Convenience [1] GAFO [2] Eating and Drinking Places Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 22
Supercenter, which offers groceries and is considered a destination retailer, where consumers typically make less frequent but often higher volume shopping trips than they would at a convenience-oriented retailer.

Several smaller mini-market and specialty-foods retailers are also located mostly along the northern and eastern periphery of the Market Area, with Meadow View Market centrally located at Meadowview Road and 24th Street.

Figure 18 illustrates the conventional supermarkets and superstores with groceries in the vicinity of the Market Area.

Figure 18. Map of Nearby Full-Scale Grocery Stores
Nearly all of the full-scale grocery stores in or surrounding the Market Area are located along major thoroughfares. The notable exception, a Bel Air grocery store in the southern portion of the Pocket neighborhood, is anchored in a community/large neighborhood shopping center (approximately 147,000 square feet) that is well-positioned to serve the surrounding neighborhood via collector roadways.

Few community or neighborhood shopping centers exist within the boundaries of the defined Market Area, with Delta Shores accounting for most of the space in larger retail centers. Neighborhood/community retail, including a Bel-Air grocery store, is concentrated at the northern edge of the Market Area, along Florin Road between South Land Park Drive and Freeport Boulevard. Figure 19 compares retail space in buildings greater than or less than 30,000 square feet for the Market Area and Southwest Sacramento.

Site
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 23
Figure 19. Comparison of Retail Space—Market Area and
Southwest Sacramento
Market Area real estate market indicators for retail buildings and centers larger than 30,000 square feet are somewhat volatile given the high share of total space represented by any single building and the introduction of Delta Shores. However, for about half of the last 10 years, vacancy in these buildings has been near zero and rents have increased during the years when space is on the market, exceeding $1.20 per square foot in 2022 and 2023. In the larger Southwest Sacramento area, with a much higher share of larger buildings/centers, monthly rents have declined over the last several years in response to elevated vacancy rates. With vacancy rates in Southwest Sacramento retail buildings approaching a more sustainable 7 percent, rents in these buildings/centers may begin to increase.

Figure 20. Retail Real Estate Market Indicators for
Buildings/Centers >30,000 Sq Ft
36%
39% 64%
61%

0.0 MSF

1.0 MSF

2.0 MSF

3.0 MSF

4.0 MSF

5.0 MSF

6.0 MSF
Market Area Southwest Sacramento
Larger Scale Retail Centers (>30k SF)
Small Center/Stand Alone Retail (<30k SF)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
$1.60
$1.80
$2.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Market Area Monthly Rent Southwest Sacramento Monthly Rent Market Area Vacancy Rate Southwest Sacramento Vacancy Rate Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 24
For smaller retail buildings, rents in the Market Area and larger Southwest Sacramento have remained comparable; however, they have seen a small downward trend that may be a delayed response to peaks in vacancy potentially attributable to COVID-19 impacts. The Market Area experienced a higher level of vacancy during the pandemic; however, it appears the trend predates the onset of the pandemic.

Figure 21. Retail Real Estate Market Indicators for
Buildings/Centers <30,000 Sq Ft
Retail Demand Findings
Several full-size grocery stores are situated along the Florin Road corridor at the northern periphery of the Market Area; however, the southern portion of the Market Area near the Site is lacking a full-size, conventional grocery store. The closest grocery shopping option for nearby households is at the destination retail Walmart Supercenter in Delta Shores.

Anticipated new home development nearby is projected to nearly double Market Area household grocery/convenience spending.6 The conservative projection of an $80 million increase in household grocery/convenience spending alone could potentially support enough grocery store space to occupy two new stores.

However, some of the increased spending will be absorbed by existing grocery retailers around the periphery of the Market Area, as well as grocery delivery services, reducing the net new supportable grocery space. At least one full-size grocery store in this portion of the Market Area should be supportable, assuming standard industry siting and marketing practices.
6 Based on SACOG projections to 2040; however, the timeline for buildout of the projected units is likely earlier than 2040.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
$1.60
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Market Area Monthly Rent Southwest Sacramento Monthly Rent Market Area Vacancy Rate Southwest Sacramento Vacancy Rate Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 25
However, the Site’s location away from a major roadway or sizeable shopping center would make it difficult to capture a sufficient share of spending to be feasible. Major grocery store chains and potential investors or lenders would likely deem the Site too risky to construct a grocery store. A site along Cosumnes River Boulevard or the future extension of 24th Street could provide a significantly better positioned location for a grocery store-anchored neighborhood/community center or stand-alone grocery store.

Other smaller retailers likely would face similar difficulty attracting sufficient sales without a major draw to bring potential customers to the Site. An exception could be a development scenario that is dense enough and compelling enough to generate its own drawing power. Under such a scenario, a small amount of retail space combining eating and drinking establishments and a limited amount of convenience retail could be feasible. For example, a large concentration of highdensity residential on site, adjacent to an attractive gathering place, could create a sufficient combination of demand from on-site households and inflow from surrounding neighborhoods to support a small grocery-convenience store or cafe, which could then help support a small number of other businesses because of foot traffic and visibility.

Office Demand Assessment
The office demand section is divided into a discussion of demand drivers in both the Market Area and Southwest Sacramento, followed by a discussion of office and medical office real estate market indicators, and then the implications of the demand and supply findings.

Office Demand Drivers
Most employment sectors have some proportion of workers that use office space, particularly in a headquarters location. However, the bulk of office demand is driven by employment in several key sectors:
 Information
 Finance and Insurance
 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
 Management of Companies and Enterprises
 Administration & Support, Waste Management, and Remediation Public Administration also is primarily an office-using sector; however, it typically does not support speculative, commercially leased office space so has been excluded from consideration.

Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 26
As shown in Figure 22, typical office-using sectors comprise a small share of employment in the Market Area. These sectors comprised about 9 percent of employment in the Market Area in 2010, declining to about 6 percent by 2020.

In contrast, the larger Southwest Sacramento area saw jobs in office-using sectors increase by 56 percent between 2010 and 2020, growing from 12 percent to 14 percent before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 22. Employment Trends—Market Area and SW Sacramento, 2010 and 2020
Note: See Appendix D for sector detail.

Following the pandemic, many of the office-based jobs, while still technically tied to the same office locations, have likely transitioned to at least partially remote status, with resulting decreases in office employment densities. Figure 23 illustrates the share of typical office-sector workers by location of residence.

Figure 23. Workforce Trends—Market Area and SW Sacramento, 2010 and 2020
Note: See Appendix D for sector detail.
2,568 4,391
247
291
21,594
27,690
2,892
4,503
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2010 2020 2010 2020
Market Area SW Sacramento
Typical Non-Office-Using Sectors Typical Office-Using Sectors 9,643 11,584
2,176 2,788 40,445 44,242
9,176
10,728
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2010 2020 2010 2020
Market Area SW Sacramento
Typical Non-Office-Using Sectors Typical Office-Using Sectors Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 27
The share of workers residing in both the Market Area and Southwest Sacramento that work in typical office-based sectors is greater than the representation of those sectors among the jobs in each area. This indicates a general commute outflow of office-sector workers that existed before the pandemic.

While the outflow of workers may appear to indicate pent-up demand for office space among the office workers who live in the area, it also suggests a relatively weak office market compared to other office submarkets that more effectively pull workers from the larger region.

Office Market Indicators
Office vacancy in the Market Area experienced gradual, steady improvement following a slow Great Recession recovery, until the pandemic hit in 2021 and vacancy increased to almost 8 percent. However, Market Area asking rents have remained fairly stable. In contrast, the larger Southwest Sacramento office market had a more volatile vacancy rate until stabilizing in 2019, maintaining a healthy vacancy rate around 4 percent and stable rents since. See Figure 24.

Figure 24. Office Real Estate Market Indicators

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
$1.60
$1.80
$2.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Market Area Monthly Rent SW Sacramento Monthly Rent
Market Area Vacancy Rate SW Sacramento Vacancy Rate
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 28
As shown in Figure 25, medical office vacancy declined dramatically in both the Market Area and Southwest Sacramento in the years leading up to the pandemic and have held steady at around 5 percent. Rents in both geographies are comparable, with slow, steady growth in recent years, giving way to a recent modest downward trend in the Market Area.

Figure 25. Medical Office Real Estate Market Indicators Office Demand Findings
Speculative commercial office development is unlikely in the near term in all but the most ideal office locations. The Site’s location away from existing office markets, lack of direct freeway access or public transit adjacency, and location in a largely residential neighborhood, appears unlikely to attract development interest from office developers or provide a sufficiently low level of risk to obtain financing.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Market Area Monthly Rent SW Sacramento Monthly Rent
Market Area Vacancy Rate SW Sacramento Vacancy Rate
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 29
Hotel Demand Assessment
Hotel demand drivers include office employment, tourism, and other activities.

While office-sector meeting-related business travel is generally accepted to be below pre-pandemic levels, demand from other sources appears to have largely compensated since the easing of travel restrictions. Therefore, the hotel market assessment focuses largely on the supply side metrics and location criteria.

Hotel Market Indicators
Some of the strongest hotel market growth in the past few decades nationwide, and in Sacramento in particular, has been among mid-range, limited-service national hotel chains. These include brands that the hotel industry categorizes as Midscale and Upper Midscale.7
Given the Site’s relative proximity to I-5, Midscale and Upper Midscale class hotels along the highway corridor stretching from Sacramento International Airport through Elk Grove were identified as the relevant submarket context for evaluating hotel market performance. The corridor is illustrated in Figure 26, with included hotels shown as gray diamonds.

As shown in Figure 27, both Midscale and Upper Midscale hotel occupancy rates have returned to approximately 70 percent, generally considered the minimal occupancy level for a healthy market. Though considerably higher than their 2020 low-point, occupancy rates have not returned to their pre-pandemic highs near 80 percent for Upper Midscale properties and percentages in the mid- to upper70s for Midscale properties. 7 Examples of the hotel industry’s Upper Midscale class include Wyndam Garden Inn, Fairfield Inn, Hampton Inn, TownPlace Suites, Home2Suites, Comfort Inn, Holiday Inn, and La Quinta.

Midscale class examples include Best Western, Rodeway Inn, Sleep Inn, Extended Stay America, Candlewood Suites, Wingate Suites, and Hawthorn Suites.

Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 30
Figure 26. I-5 Corridor Upper Midscale/Midscale Hotels Since 1990 Source: Costar; EPS.

Note: Includes planned hotels.

Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 31
Figure 27. Upper Midscale & Midscale Hotel Performance Indicators— I-5 Corridor
Despite the somewhat lower occupancy levels, room rates have surpassed their 2019 levels. However, adjusted for inflation, room rates remain marginally below their 2019 levels.

While the hotel market has returned to a healthy equilibrium, it may require additional recovery before any significant hotel-building activity returns to the Sacramento market beyond the Airport area.

Location Considerations
While the local hotel market appears to be performing well and may see construction activity ramp up in the coming years, the Site does not provide the access and visibility that hotel developers and financial backers generally look for to maximize revenue potential and minimize risk of project failure.

Figure 28 illustrates the locations of Midscale and Upper Midscale hotels that have been constructed in Sacramento and the surrounding cities of Elk Grove, West Sacramento, and Rancho Cordova since 1990. With the exception of Downtown Sacramento and the Airport area, all but one of the mid-range hotels that have been built in these cities over the period are located along freeways with some combination of easy access and high visibility.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Upper Midscale ADR Midscale ADR
Upper Midscale Occupancy Midscale Occupancy
Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 32
Figure 28. Sacramento & Adjacent Cities Upper Midscale & Midscale Hotels Built Since 1990
Source: Costar; EPS.

Note: Includes planned hotels.

Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 33
Hotel Demand Findings
While hotel occupancy rates and average room rates have rebounded significantly from their pandemic-related declines, the Site’s location 1 mile from the I-5/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange and without major thoroughfare frontage appears unlikely to attract development interest from hotel operators/developers or provide a sufficiently low level of risk to obtain financing.

Hotel feasibility generally requires average occupancy levels of about 70 percent or greater. The seasonal and weekend nature of demand generated by a sports complex on its own would likely not provide sufficient occupancy throughout the year. Preliminary plans for undeveloped portions of the adjacent Delta Shores project indicate a potential hotel site near the I-5/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange, which would be a significantly more viable location for a hotel that could serve families attending a proposed sports complex, but also serve a wider customer base during weekdays and throughout the year.

Summary of Conclusions
Key findings of the market analysis are summarized below:
 Residential demand remains strong in the Market Area, as it does throughout the region. Sufficient demand exists to absorb reasonably priced and executed market-rate residential development that can be accommodated on the Site.
 Below-market-rate residential units are in critically short supply throughout the City. In general, any constructed below-market-rate units will readily be absorbed on the Site.
 The Site is not well-positioned to accommodate a full-size grocery store although may support a small amount of retail space under a development scenario that is dense or compelling enough to generate its own drawing power. While the area near the Site appears to be underserved by conventional grocery stores at this time, and demand for grocery retail is projected to increase substantially as units come online nearby, the Site is not well-positioned for a full-size grocery store. Under a high-density residential-focused scenario, combined with elements to generate additional onsite drawing power, a small amount of retail, including a small convenience market, along with some eating and drinking establishments, may be supportable.

Meadowview 102 Market Demand Assessment Summary
September 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 34
 Office market conditions and Site characteristics preclude support for standard office space, although demand may support neighborhoodserving medical office space. The state of the overall office market, along with a low level of office-centered employment in the Market Area, limit the ability of the Site to support standard office space. Demand appears to exist for neighborhood-/community-serving medical/dental office space, particularly as nearby residential units come online.
 The Site’s location 1 mile from the I-5/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange and without major thoroughfare frontage appears unlikely to attract development interest from hotel
operators/developers or provide a sufficiently low level of risk to obtain financing. Nearly all hotel development in the Sacramento area over the last several decades, outside of Downtown Sacramento or the Airport area, has occurred adjacent to freeways, providing both visibility and access.

While an on-site sports complex will generate demand for rooms, the number of room nights is not estimated to be sufficient to support a hotel at the Site.

Preliminary plans for undeveloped portions of Delta Shores indicate a potential hotel near the I-5/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange, which would be a significantly more viable location for a hotel that could also serve families attending a proposed sports complex.

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Demographic Overview
Appendix B: Housing Market
Appendix C: Retail Market
Appendix D: Office Market
Appendix E: Lodging Market
APPENDIX A:

Demographic Overview
Table A-1 Population by Age ......................................... A-1 Table A-2 Educational Attainment .................................. A-2 Table A-3 Household Income by Range ........................... A-3 Table A-1
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Population by Age (2010-2021)
% Change % Change
Age Range Total % Total % 2010-2021 Total % Total % 2010-2021 Under 5 years 3,071 7.8% 2,939 7.5% (4.3%) 10,516 7.8% 10,725 7.4% 2.0% 5-19 years 11,136 28.3% 8,299 21.1% (25.5%) 30,868 23.0% 29,411 20.2% (4.7%) 20-34 years 8,312 21.1% 8,722 22.1% 4.9% 28,826 21.5% 32,607 22.4% 13.1% 35-54 years 9,480 24.1% 9,665 24.5% 2.0% 34,500 25.7% 34,728 23.8% 0.7% 55-64 years 3,260 8.3% 4,093 10.4% 25.6% 13,417 10.0% 16,172 11.1% 20.5% 65+ years 4,132 10.5% 5,676 14.4% 37.4% 15,867 11.8% 22,129 15.2% 39.5% Total 39,391 100.0% 39,394 100.0% 0.0% 133,994 100.0% 145,772 100.0% 8.8% Median Age 30.6 41.0 34.2% 28.7 31.0 8.0%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table DP05; EPS.

Market Area Southwest Sacramento
2010 2021 2010 2021
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 A-1
Table A-2
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Educational Attainment (2010 and 2021)
% Change % Change
Educational Attainment [1] Total % Total % 2010-2021 Total % Total % 2010-2021 Less than 9th Grade 3,327 15.0% 3,789 14.9% 13.9% 9,797 28.5% 9,908 10.3% 1.1% 9th-12th grade, No Diploma 2,749 12.4% 1,781 7.0% (35.2%) 8,074 12.0% 6,816 7.1% (15.6%) High School Graduate (Inc. Equivalency) 6,545 29.6% 7,858 30.9% 20.1% 19,767 22.4% 22,643 23.5% 14.5% Some College, No degree 4,562 20.6% 5,484 21.5% 20.2% 18,322 17.3% 22,330 23.2% 21.9% Associate's Degree 1,731 7.8% 2,532 9.9% 46.2% 7,007 6.3% 8,643 9.0% 23.3% Bachelor's Degree 2,311 10.4% 2,764 10.9% 19.6% 13,151 9.3% 17,194 17.8% 30.7% Graduate or Professional Degree 911 4.1% 1,262 5.0% 38.5% 6,345 4.2% 8,895 9.2% 40.2% Total 22,136 100.0% 25,470 100.0% 15.1% 82,464 100.0% 96,429 100.0% 16.9% Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S1501; EPS. [1] For population 25 years and over only.

Market Area Southwest Sacramento
2010 2021 2010 2021
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 A-2
Table A-3
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Household Income by Range (2010 and 2021)
Income Range (Current Dollars) 2010 % 2021 % % Change 2010 % 2021 % % Change <$15,000 1,563 13.5% 1,289 11.4% (17.5%) 5,564 12.0% 5,193 10.6% (6.7%) $15,000 - $24,999 1,214 10.5% 713 6.3% (41.2%) 5,021 10.8% 3,458 7.1% (31.1%) $25,000 - $34,999 1,382 12.0% 906 8.0% (34.5%) 5,519 11.9% 3,850 7.9% (30.2%) $35,000 - $49,999 2,207 19.1% 1,446 12.8% (34.5%) 7,522 16.2% 5,709 11.7% (24.1%) $50,000 - $74,999 2,418 21.0% 2,008 17.8% (17.0%) 8,912 19.2% 9,055 18.5% 1.6% $75,000 - $99,999 1,431 12.4% 1,991 17.6% 39.1% 5,788 12.5% 7,200 14.7% 24.4% $100,000 - $149,999 1,035 9.0% 1,758 15.6% 69.9% 5,139 11.1% 7,411 15.1% 44.2% $150,000 - $199,999 178 1.5% 585 5.2% 227.8% 1,815 3.9% 3,297 6.7% 81.6% $200,000+ 107 0.9% 609 5.4% 470.4% 1,108 2.4% 3,761 7.7% 239.6% Total 11,533 100.0% 11,304 100.0% (2.0%) 46,390 100.0% 48,933 100.0% 5.5% Median Household Income in 2021$ [1] $44,759 $64,352 43.8% $51,899 $67,848 30.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2010 & 2021, Table S1901; EPS. [1] The median household income for 2010 has been escalated to 2021 dollars based on CPI growth of 29.97% between 2010 and 2021.

Market Area Southwest Sacramento
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 A-3
APPENDIX B:

Housing Market
Table B-1 Tenure by Units in Structure ........................... B-1 Table B-2 Overall Rent Burden ...................................... B-2 Table B-3 Owner’s Costs as a Percentage of Household
Income by Household Income ......................... B-3 Table B-4 Market Area Estimated Housing Unit Value
Based on Income and Housing Costs ................ B-4
Table B-5 Total Vacancy Rate ........................................ B-5 Table B-6 Multifamily Housing Market Summary .............. B-6 Table B-7 For-Sale Housing Market Summary .................. B-7 Table B-8 Home Value Changes by City .......................... B-8 Table B-9 Single-Family Mid-Density
Comparable Sales Data .................................. B-9 Table B-10 Single-Family Mid-Density
Comparable Sales Data ................................. B-10 Table B-11 Single-Family Mid-Density
Comparable Sales Data ................................. B-11 Table B-12 Single-Family Attached
Comparable Sales Data ................................. B-12 Table B-1
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Tenure by Units In Structure (2021)
Unit Type
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupiedShare Renter
Occupied
Detached Single-Family 6,627 2,538 27.7%
Attached Single-Family 223 596 72.8%
Duplex 22 99 81.8%
3- to 4-unit building 10 281 96.6%
5+-unit building 44 828 95.0%
Other 40 0 0.0%
Total 6,966 4,342 38.4%
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table Market Area
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 B-1
Table B-2
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Overall Rent Burden (2021)
Rent as a Percentage of
Household Income [1]
Total Renter
Households
% of Total Renter
Households
Less than 30% of Income 1,695 39.0%
30% to 50% of Income 1,125 25.9%
More than 50% of Income 1,139 26.2%
Not Computed 383 8.8%
Total Renter Households 4,342 100.0%
[1] The US Department of Housing and Urban Development defines a household spending more than 30% of their income on housing as "rent burdened." Households spending more than 50% of their income on housing are considered "severely rent burdened." Market Area
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25070; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 B-2
Table B-3
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Owner's Costs as a Percentage of Household Income by Household Income (2021) Housing Cost Burden by
Income Bracket [1]
Owner-Occupied
Households
Share within
Income Bracket
Share with
Mortgage
Less than $20,000
Less than 30% 29 7% 0%
30% or more 369 93% 56%
Total 398 100% 52%
$20,000 to $49,999
Less than 30% 728 43% 20%
30% or more 964 57% 90%
Total 1,692 100% 60%
$50,000 to $74,999
Less than 30% 752 65% 55%
30% or more 413 35% 100%
Total 1,165 100% 71%
$75,000 or More
Less than 30% 3,177 88% 64%
30% or more 452 12% 100%
Total 3,629 100% 69%
Totals
Less than 30% 4,686 68% 55%
30% or more 2,198 32% 88%
Totals 6,884 100% 66%
Source: American Community Survey Year Estimates, Table B25101; EPS.

Market Area
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 B-3
Table B-4
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Market Area Estimated Housing Unit Value Based on Income and Housing Costs (2022$) Affordability Category Annual
Formula E F = A * E G = F / 12 H [2] J = I / (1 - D)
County Income Level [3]
Extremely Low $30,400 $9,120 $760 $486 $81,127 $90,100
Very Low Income $50,650 $15,195 $1,266 $810 $135,168 $150,200 Low Income $81,050 $24,315 $2,026 $1,297 $216,295 $240,300 Median Income $102,200 $30,660 $2,555 $1,635 $272,738 $303,000 Moderate Income $122,650 $36,795 $3,066 $1,962 $327,312 $363,700 Market Area Affordability Comparison
$64,352 $19,306 $1,609 $872 $145,442 $161,600
$192,498 $57,749 $4,812 $3,080 $508,742 $565,269
Assumptions
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost as % of Income [6] 30.00% A Assumed Mortgage Term (In Years) [7] 30 B
Assumed Mortgage Interest Rate [8] 6.00% C
Assumed Down Payment as a % of Unit Value [9] 10.00% D
Source: Freddie Mac; State of California Department of Housing and Community Development; EPS. [1] Mortgage insurance, utilities, and taxes assumed to account for 36% of monthly housing cost. [2] Assumes mortgage payment is 64% of monthy housing cost. [3] Income limits shown are for 4-person households.
[4] Average of median incomes for each of the Census tracts included in the Market Area. [5] Average new home sales price from Table B-9, Table B-10, Table B-11, Table B-12. [6] Assumes affordable housing prices shall be based on no more than 30% of income being applied to housing expenses. [7] Based on a 30-year fixed-rate conventional mortgage. [8]
[9] The median down payment percentage in 2021 for buyers of all ages according to the National Association of Realtors.

Annual
Income
Estimated Housing Costs
Monthly Costs
(Homeowner
Costs / Rent +
Utilities) [1]
Estimated Unit
Value (Rounded)
Loan
Amount
Monthly
Mortgage
Cost
Interest rates are based on the average for 30-year fixed-rates from 2010 to 2020 per Freddie Mac.

I (see assumptions B & C)
Income Required for Market Area Average
New Home Price Affordability
Affordable Unit Value at Market Area
Median Income
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 B-4
Table B-5
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Total Vacancy Rate (2012-2022)
Year
City of
Sacramento
Sacramento
County
2012 8.5% 7.4%
2013 7.6% 6.9%
2014 7.4% 6.7%
2015 7.3% 6.7%
2016 6.8% 6.2%
2017 6.6% 6.0%
2018 6.2% 5.7%
2019 6.0% 5.5%
2020 5.9% 5.4%
2021 4.8% 3.9%
2022 4.8% 3.9%
Source: California Department of Finance E-5; EPS.

Total Residential Vacancy Rate
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 B-5
Table B-6
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Multifamily Housing Market Summary (2013-2023)
Year
2013 44 2,550 - - $775 $0.98 - 3.9% 179 13,087 - - $882 $1.09 - 5.3% 2014 44 2,550 0.0% - $763 $0.97 (1.0%) 3.5% 179 13,087 0.0% - $912 $1.13 3.7% 4.5% 2015 44 2,550 0.0% - $786 $1.00 3.1% 2.8% 179 13,087 0.0% - $997 $1.23 8.8% 3.5% 2016 44 2,550 0.0% - $829 $1.05 5.0% 2.1% 179 13,087 0.0% - $1,092 $1.35 9.8% 3.2% 2017 44 2,550 0.0% - $880 $1.12 6.7% 2.4% 179 13,087 0.0% - $1,156 $1.43 5.9% 3.9% 2018 44 2,550 0.0% - $930 $1.18 5.4% 2.2% 179 13,087 0.0% - $1,215 $1.50 4.9% 3.4% 2019 44 2,550 0.0% - $978 $1.24 5.1% 2.1% 179 13,087 0.0% - $1,286 $1.59 6.0% 3.5% 2020 44 2,550 0.0% - $1,013 $1.29 4.0% 1.6% 179 13,087 0.0% - $1,365 $1.69 6.3% 2.1% 2021 44 2,550 0.0% - $1,095 $1.39 7.8% 1.5% 179 13,087 0.0% - $1,490 $1.85 9.5% 2.7% 2022 44 2,550 0.0% - $1,114 $1.42 2.2% 3.0% 179 13,087 0.0% - $1,532 $1.90 2.7% 4.7% 2023 44 2,550 0.0% - $1,122 $1.43 0.7% 3.3% 179 13,087 0.0% - $1,536 $1.90 0.0% 5.3% Total Change 0 0 0.0% - $347 $0.45 44.8% -0.6% 0 0 0.0% - $654 $0.81 74.1% 0.0% Source: CoStar (May 2023); EPS.

Total
Units
% Change,
Total Units
New
Units
Monthly
Rent
% Change,
Rent Asked
Vacancy
Rate
Asking Rent
per Sq.Ft
Asking Rent
per Sq.Ft
Market Area Southwest Sacramento
Total
Buildings
Total
Units
% Change,
Total Units
New
Units
Monthly
Rent
% Change,
Rent Asked
Vacancy
Rate
Total
Buildings
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 B-6
Table B-7
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
For-Sale Housing Market Summary (2012-2022)
Year
2012 [1] 7,931 - $144,718 - 1,580 42
2013 7,669 (3.3%) $197,806 36.7% 1,223 19
2014 7,116 (7.2%) $228,192 15.4% 1,445 26
2015 7,808 9.7% $249,025 9.1% 1,205 22
2016 8,095 3.7% $278,150 11.7% 1,085 17
2017 8,062 (0.4%) $301,500 8.4% 989 17
2018 8,198 1.7% $329,792 9.4% 1,184 19
2019 7,532 (8.1%) $342,625 3.9% 963 20
2020 7,048 (6.4%) $384,097 12.1% 678 12
2021 7,659 8.7% $458,958 19.5% 536 9
2022 5,827 (23.9%) $492,438 7.3% 747 17
Total Change (2,104) (26.5%) $347,719 240.3% -833 -25
Source: RedFin; EPS.
[1] Data for 2012 starts in Feburary.

City of Sacramento
% Change
Average of the
Monthly Median
Sale Price % Change
Average
Days on
Market
Average
Monthly
Homes Sold Inventory
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 B-7
Table B-8
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Home Value Changes by City (2012-2022)
Rank
[2] City July 2012 July 2022 % Change
1 Sacramento $140,729 $484,425 244%
2 West Sacramento $180,555 $526,143 191%
3 Rancho Cordova $185,314 $530,178 186%
4 Elk Grove $242,298 $648,811 168%
Average $187,224 $547,389 192%
Source: Zillow, EPS.
[1] The Zillow Home Value Index represents the typical value of a home or condominium, defined as a home with a value between the 33rd percentile and the 67th percentile.

Zillow Home Value Index [1]
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 B-8
Table B-9
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Single Family Mid Density (10-13 DU/Acre) Comparable Sales Data (2022-2023) Average Average Average Average Average
Unit Lot Density Sales Price per Units Units
Single Family Project [1] Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. (DU/Acre) Price Sq. Ft. Offered Sold Elk Grove
Bluestone 1,684 3,150 11 $477,334 $283 32 31
Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,684 3,150 11 $477,334 $283 32 31 Folsom
Legacy 2,163 3,075 11 $745,460 $345 68 68
Debut 1,859 3,015 12 $596,167 $321 24 15
Lariat 2,025 2,982 12 $573,163 $283 100 11
Creekstone 2,100 2,925 12 $685,709 $327 71 71
Enclave 1,862 2,800 12 $627,233 $337 111 111
Weighted Average by Units Sold 2,004 2,919 12 $667,561 $333 374 276 Rancho Cordova
Montrose 2,428 3,375 10 $627,791 $259 37 31
Sagebrush 1,910 3,325 10 $586,271 $307 42 30
Elevate 1,831 3,000 12 $554,800 $303 7 4
Springs 1,995 2,625 13 $577,094 $289 63 40
Weighted Average by Units Sold 2,092 3,061 12 $593,835 $286 149 105 Sacramento
Morey Morrison 1,377 3,000 12 $452,375 $329 49 38
Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,377 3,000 12 $452,375 $329 49 38 Natomas
Windrow 1,772 2,900 12 $553,070 $312 146 145
Shor 1,981 2,788 12 $591,140 $298 104 99
Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,857 2,855 12 $568,516 $307 250 244 Total Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,922 2,997 12 $600,000 $312 854 694 Source: The Gregory Group; EPS.
[1] Reflects 2022Q1 - 2023Q1 data.

Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 B-9
Table B-10
City of SacramentoMeadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints AnalysisSingle Family Mid Density (14-17 DU/Acre) Comparable Sales Data (2022-2023) Average Average Average Average Average
Unit Lot Density Sales Price per Units Units
Single Family Project [1] Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. (DU/Acre) Price Sq. Ft. Offered SoldElk Grove Winding Meadow Village 1,539 2,000 17 $501,436 $326 15 10Allegro 1,904 2,000 17 $588,323 $309 24 24Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,797 2,000 17 $562,768 $314 39 34 Folsom
Regency -- Redwood Collection 1,567 2,450 14 $657,395 $420 57 42Canterly 1,968 2,352 15 $535,394 $272 24 24Eastwood 2,044 2,000 17 $689,475 $337 26 23Steel Canyon 1,987 2,150 16 $600,950 $302 114 114Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,904 2,219 16 $614,908 $327 221 203 Rancho Cordova
Paseo 1,879 2,400 15 $524,115 $279 26 23Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,879 2,400 15 $524,115 $279 26 23 Natomas
Everly 1,894 2,025 17 $575,990 $304 26 23Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,894 2,025 17 $575,990 $304 26 23 Total Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,848 2,172 16 $600,000 $325 312 283Source: The Gregory Group; EPS. [1] Reflects 2022Q31 - 2023Q1 data.

Prepared by EPS 7/24/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-22 B-10
Table B-11
City of SacramentoMeadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints AnalysisSingle Family Mid Density (18+ DU/Acre) Comparable Sales Data (2022-2023) Average Average Average Average Average
Unit Lot Density Sales Price per Units Units
Single Family Project [1] Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. (DU/Acre) Price Sq. Ft. Offered SoldSacramento Petrero 1,558 1,782 20 $649,900 $417 4 1Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,558 1,782 20 $649,900 $417 4 1 West Sacramento
Riverchase 1,708 1,900 18 $519,490 $304 222 222Port Towne at Bridgeway Lakes 1,472 1,625 21 $540,490 $367 132 132Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,620 1,797 19 $527,321 $328 354 354 Total Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,579 1,769 20 $530,000 $336 358 355Source: The Gregory Group; EPS. [1] Reflects 2022Q1 - 2023Q1 data.

Prepared by EPS 7/24/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-22 B-11
Table B-12
City of SacramentoMeadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints AnalysisSingle Family Attached (20+ DU/Acre) Comparable Sales Data (2022-2023) Average Average Average Average Average
Unit Lot Density Sales Price per Units Units
Single Family Project [1] Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. (DU/Acre) Price Sq. Ft. Offered SoldNatomas Edgeview 1,799 - 20 $500,590 $278 140 130Nuvo at Artisan Square 1,324 - 23 $461,068 $348 145 145Icon @ 14th and C 1,683 - 38 $729,990 $434 21 21Provence 1,852 - 23 $515,657 $278 121 121Weighted Average by Units Sold 1,643 - 23 $500,000 $304 427 417 Source: The Gregory Group; EPS.
[1] Reflects 2022Q3 - 2023Q1 data.

Prepared by EPS 7/24/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-22 B-12
APPENDIX C:

Retail Market
Table C-1 Market Area Household Spending Potential ....... C-1 Table C-2 Dwelling Unit, Pop., and Employment
Estimates and Projections—Market Area ........... C-2
Table C-3 Retail Greater Than 30K Sq Ft
Market Summary .......................................... C-3 Table C-4 Retail Less Than 30K Sq Ft
Market Summary .......................................... C-4 Table C-1
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Market Area Household Spending Potential (2022$)
Current
Total Average Total Average Households Plus
Household Spending per Household Spending per New Households [1] Spending Category Spending Household Spending Household Total Spending Grocery/Convenience
Food at Home $66,892,962 $5,569.20 $56,361,225 $8,005.72 $123,254,187 Nonprescription Drugs $1,815,442 $151.15 $1,529,616 $217.27 $3,345,058 Housekeeping Supplies $9,514,909 $792.17 $8,016,866 $1,138.74 $17,531,775 Personal Care Products $6,126,872 $510.10 $5,162,247 $733.26 $11,289,119 Smoking Products $4,609,847 $383.79 $3,884,065 $551.70 $8,493,912 Pets - 50% $4,096,581 $341.06 $3,451,609 $490.28 $7,548,190 Reading - 50% $587,371 $48.90 $494,894 $70.30 $1,082,265 Alcoholic Beverages - 50% $3,612,630 $300.77 $3,043,852 $432.36 $6,656,482 Total Grocery/Convenience $97,256,614 $8,097.14 $81,944,375 $11,639.64 $179,200,989 Gen. Merchandise/Apparel/Furnishings/Other (GAFO)
Apparel and Services $25,800,338 $2,148.02 $21,738,291 $3,087.77 $47,538,629 Computers and Accessories $2,418,832 $201.38 $2,038,007 $289.48 $4,456,839 TV/Video/Audio (excl. cable/sat. svcs.) $4,466,510 $371.86 $3,763,295 $534.55 $8,229,805 Toys/Games/Crafts/Hobbies $1,373,549 $114.36 $1,157,295 $164.39 $2,530,844 Sports/Recreation/Exercise Equipment $2,101,679 $174.98 $1,770,787 $251.53 $3,872,466 Photo Equipment and Supplies $525,344 $43.74 $442,633 $62.87 $967,977 Household Furnishing and Equipment $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Lawn and Garden $5,596,841 $465.97 $4,715,665 $669.83 $10,312,506 Pets - 50% $4,096,581 $341.06 $3,451,609 $490.28 $7,548,190 Reading - 50% $587,371 $48.90 $494,894 $70.30 $1,082,265 Total GAFO $46,967,045 $3,910.26 $39,572,477 $5,621.00 $86,539,522 Eating and Drinking Places
Food Away from Home $46,824,925 $3,898.43 $39,452,733 $5,603.99 $86,277,658 Alcoholic Beverages - 50% $3,612,630 $300.77 $3,043,852 $432.36 $6,656,482 Total Eating and Drinking Places $50,437,555 $4,199.20 $42,496,584 $6,036.35 $92,934,139 Total Retail Spending $194,661,214 $164,013,436 $358,674,650 Households 19,051
Average Household Income [2] $74,000
Source: Esri; SACOG; EPS.
[1] Projected new households to 2040 based on SACOG projections for approximated alignment of TAZ boundaries. Household spending per category as a share of total income reflects the estimated speding patterns of existing households. [2] Estimated household income for new households based on 75% of the average sale price of $565,269; mortgage payment at 30% of income; 6% APR; 10% down.

Current Market Area Households New Market Area Households [1] 12,011
$64,000
7,040
$92,000
C-1
Table C-2
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Dwelling Unit, Pop., and Employment Estimates and Projections - Market Area Item [1] 2016 2023 2040 2016-2040 2016-2040 2023-2040
Dwelling Units by TAZ
680 759 777 822 0.3% 63 45
681 746 807 976 1.1% 230 170
691 1,730 1,755 1,816 0.2% 86 61
692 1,748 1,783 1,870 0.3% 122 87
693 1,630 1,995 3,257 2.9% 1,627 1,262
694 1,492 1,529 1,621 0.3% 129 92
695 570 573 581 0.1% 11 8
749 0 0 1,182 0.0% 1,182 1,182
750 261 460 1,816 8.4% 1,555 1,356
751 1,579 1,592 1,623 0.1% 44 31
1132 538 743 1,624 4.7% 1,086 882
1159 0 0 1,864 0.0% 1,864 1,864
Total Market Area DUs 11,053 12,011 19,051 2.3% 7,998 7,040 Population by TAZ
680 1,515 1,552 1,645 0.3% 130 93
681 1,424 1,545 1,882 1.2% 458 337
691 5,127 5,216 5,440 0.2% 313 224
692 5,240 5,337 5,580 0.3% 340 243
693 5,257 6,030 8,412 2.0% 3,155 2,382
694 4,909 4,936 5,003 0.1% 94 67
695 1,871 1,877 1,892 0.0% 21 15
749 0 0 2,841 0.0% 2,841 2,841
750 902 1,450 4,597 7.0% 3,695 3,147
751 4,949 4,908 4,811 (0.1%) -138 -97
1132 1,834 2,435 4,847 4.1% 3,013 2,412
1159 0 0 4,550 0.0% 4,550 4,550
Total Market Area Population 33,028 35,287 51,500 1.9% 18,472 16,213 Persons Per Household 2.99 2.94 2.70
Jobs by TAZ
680 480 514 607 1.0% 128 94
681 334 363 442 1.2% 108 80
691 710 710 710 0.0% 0 0
692 844 844 844 0.0% 0 0
693 484 575 871 2.5% 387 297
694 362 377 415 0.6% 53 38
695 313 313 313 0.0% 0 0
749 0 0 1,771 0.0% 1,771 1,771
750 206 229 297 1.5% 91 68
751 240 265 335 1.4% 95 70
1132 264 304 429 2.0% 165 125
1159 0 0 1,994 0.0% 1,994 1,994
Total Market Area Jobs 4,237 4,493 9,030 3.2% 4,793 4,537 [1] Population, household, and employment estimates and projections per SACOG at the TAZ-level geography.

Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2020 MTP?SCS, "ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA) and Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level Summary, 2016 Estimates and 2040 Projections"; EPS. [2] SACOG provides population, dwelling unit, and employment data for years 2020 and 2040. EPS estimated 2023, using the average annual growth rate from 2016 to 2040 from SACOG’s projections.

SACOG Demographic Estimates &
Projections [2]
Average
Annual
Change Total Change
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 C-2
Table C-3
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Retail Greater Than 30K Sq Ft Market Summary (2013-2023) Year
2013 7 406,821 - - - - 14.4% 32 2,346,246 - - $1.65 - 17.7% 2014 7 406,821 0.0% 0 - 0.0% 14.4% 32 2,346,246 0.0% 0 $1.53 -7.6% 17.6% 2015 7 406,821 0.0% 0 $0.59 0.0% 15.2% 31 2,275,404 -3.0% (70,842) $1.27 -17.0% 12.7% 2016 7 406,821 0.0% 0 - 0.0% 1.2% 31 2,275,404 0.0% - $1.34 5.7% 12.5% 2017 8 596,364 46.6% 189,543 - 0.0% 0.8% 32 2,464,947 8.3% 189,543 $1.45 7.7% 9.7% 2018 11 1,038,740 74.2% 442,376 $0.84 0.0% 9.0% 35 2,907,323 17.9% 442,376 $1.25 -13.6% 10.9% 2019 11 1,038,740 0.0% 0 $0.88 4.7% 10.4% 35 2,907,323 0.0% 0 $1.18 -5.2% 9.7% 2020 11 1,038,740 0.0% - $0.65 (26.1%) 6.6% 35 2,907,323 0.0% - $1.22 3.0% 11.4% 2021 12 1,162,285 11.9% 123,545 - 0.0% 2.1% 36 3,030,868 4.2% 123,545 $1.45 18.5% 9.1% 2022 12 1,162,285 0.0% - $1.25 0.0% 1.6% 36 3,030,868 0.0% - $1.89 30.9% 9.4% 2023 12 1,162,285 0.0% 0 $1.25 0.0% 2.7% 36 3,030,868 0.0% 0 $1.02 -46.2% 7.2% Total Change [2] 5 755,464 185.7% 755,464 $0.66 111.9% -11.7% 4 684,622 29.2% 684,622 -$0.64 -38.4% -10.5% Source: CoStar (May 2023); EPS.
[1] Missing rent data generally due to lack of actively marketed, available inventory. [2] Site Area Rent Change and % Change based on 2015-2023 due to data availability.

Market Area Southwest Sacramento
Total
Buildings
Inventory
(sq.ft)
% Change,
Total sq.ft
New
inventory
(sq.ft)
NNN
Rent/mo./
sq.ft [1]
% Change,
Asking Rent
Vacancy
Rate
Total
Buildings
Inventory
(sq.ft)
% Change,
Total sq.ft
New
inventory
(sq.ft)
NNN Rent
/mo. / sq.ft
% Change,
Asking Rent
Vacancy
Rate
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 C-3
Table C-4
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Retail Less Than 30k Sq Ft Market Summary (2013-2023)
Year
2013 55 471,741 - - $1.17 - 17.3% 225 1,722,080 - - $1.24 - 13.0% 2014 57 508,701 7.8% 36,960 $1.24 5.3% 14.7% 228 1,775,540 3.1% 53,460 $1.32 6.3% 13.3% 2015 57 508,701 0.0% - $1.27 2.9% 6.0% 227 1,770,542 -0.3% (4,998) $1.27 -3.7% 11.1% 2016 57 508,701 0.0% - $1.19 (6.4%) 5.9% 226 1,762,061 -0.5% (8,481) $1.15 -9.7% 10.0% 2017 72 611,638 20.2% 102,937 $1.17 (1.3%) 8.7% 241 1,864,998 5.8% 102,937 $1.23 7.7% 11.9% 2018 77 631,262 3.2% 19,624 $1.17 (0.3%) 6.5% 247 1,885,812 1.1% 20,814 $1.10 -10.5% 7.2% 2019 78 635,812 0.7% 4,550 $1.46 24.6% 7.6% 248 1,890,362 0.2% 4,550 $1.19 7.6% 6.0% 2020 78 635,812 0.0% - $1.42 (2.9%) 10.2% 248 1,890,362 0.0% - $1.39 16.5% 8.3% 2021 79 643,812 1.3% 8,000 $1.50 5.9% 5.2% 249 1,897,314 0.4% 6,952 $1.42 2.7% 5.3% 2022 79 643,812 0.0% - $1.37 (8.9%) 4.2% 249 1,897,314 0.0% - $1.34 -5.6% 3.7% 2023 80 650,322 1.0% 6,510 $1.37 0.0% 4.6% 250 1,903,824 0.3% 6,510 $1.22 -8.9% 3.8% Total Change 25 178,581 37.9% 178,581 $0.19 16.5% -12.7% 25 181,744 10.6% 181,744 -$0.01 -1.1% -9.2% Source: CoStar (May 2023); EPS.

Inventory
(sq.ft)
% Change,
Total sq.ft
New
inventory
(sq.ft)
NNN Rent
/mo. / sq.ft
% Change,
Asking Rent
Vacancy
Rate
Market Area Southwest Sacramento
Total
Buildings
Inventory
(sq.ft)
% Change,
Total sq.ft
New
inventory
(sq.ft)
NNN Rent
/mo. / sq.ft
% Change,
Asking Rent
Vacancy
Rate
Total
Buildings
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 C-4
APPENDIX D:

Office Market
Table D-1 Market Area Job Trends .................................. D-1 Table D-2 Southwest Sacramento Job Trends .................. D-2 Table D-3 Market Area Resident Worker Trends ............... D-3 Table D-4 Southwest Sacramento Resident
Worker Trends .............................................. D-4 Table D-5 Office Market Summary .................................. D-5 Table D-6 Medical Office Market Summary ...................... D-6 Table D-1
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Market Area Job Trends (2010 and 2020)
Industry Sector [1] No. % No. % Change
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 1 0.0% 0 0.0% (1) (100.0%) Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Utilities 4 0.1% 13 0.3% 9 12.5%
Construction 12 0.4% 48 1.0% 36 14.9%
Manufacturing 10 0.4% 6 0.1% (4) (5.0%)
Wholesale Trade 11 0.4% 5 0.1% (6) (7.6%)
Retail Trade 473 16.8% 1,091 23.3% 618 8.7%
Transportation and Warehousing 12 0.4% 8 0.2% (4) (4.0%) Information 27 1.0% 102 2.2% 75 14.2%
Finance and Insurance 102 3.6% 33 0.7% (69) (10.7%)
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 26 0.9% 18 0.4% (8) (3.6%) Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 36 1.3% 59 1.3% 23 5.1% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1 0.0% 0 0.0% (1) (100.0%) Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 55 2.0% 79 1.7% 24 3.7% Educational Services 605 21.5% 771 16.5% 166 2.5%
Health Care and Social Assistance 388 13.8% 1,451 31.0% 1,063 14.1% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 41 1.5% 19 0.4% (22) (7.4%) Accommodation and Food Services 198 7.0% 590 12.6% 392 11.5% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 780 27.7% 72 1.5% (708) (21.2%) Public Administration 33 1.2% 317 6.8% 284 25.4%
Total 2,815 100.0% 4,682 100.0% 1,867 5.2%
Source: US Census LEHD OnTheMap, 2010 & 2020; EPS. Typical Office- Using Sectors Industry Trends
Market Area
2010-2020
Average
Annual
Growth
2010 2020
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 D-1
Table D-2
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Southwest Sacramento Job Trends (2010 and 2020)
Industry Sector No. % No. % Change
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 24 0.1% 8 0.0% (16) (10.4%) Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 1 0.0% 0 0.0% (1) (100.0%) Utilities 58 0.2% 13 0.0% (45) (13.9%)
Construction 503 2.1% 676 2.1% 173 3.0%
Manufacturing 1,119 4.6% 298 0.9% (821) (12.4%)
Wholesale Trade 364 1.5% 350 1.1% (14) (0.4%)
Retail Trade 2,908 11.9% 4,047 12.6% 1,139 3.4%
Transportation and Warehousing 751 3.1% 1,270 3.9% 519 5.4% Information 204 0.8% 165 0.5% (39) (2.1%)
Finance and Insurance 346 1.4% 238 0.7% (108) (3.7%)
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 423 1.7% 376 1.2% (47) (1.2%) Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 562 2.3% 720 2.2% 158 2.5% Management of Companies and Enterprises 447 1.8% 502 1.6% 55 1.2% Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 910 3.7% 2,502 7.8% 1,592 10.6% Educational Services 2,709 11.1% 2,476 7.7% (233) (0.9%) Health Care and Social Assistance 7,909 32.3% 14,330 44.5% 6,421 6.1% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 164 0.7% 146 0.5% (18) (1.2%) Accommodation and Food Services 1,423 5.8% 2,127 6.6% 704 4.1% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2,883 11.8% 653 2.0% (2,230) (13.8%) Public Administration 778 3.2% 1,296 4.0% 518 5.2%
Total 24,486 100.0% 32,193 100.0% 7,707 2.8%
Source: US Census LEHD OnTheMap, 2010 & 2020; EPS. Typical Office- Using Sectors Industry Trends
Southwest Sacramento
2010-2020
Average
Annual
Growth
2010 2020
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 D-2
Table D-3
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Market Area Resident Worker Trends (2010 and 2020)
Industry Sector No. % No. % Change
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 187 1.6% 145 1.0% (42) (2.5%) Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 6 0.1% 9 0.1% 3 4.1% Utilities 57 0.5% 82 0.6% 25 3.7%
Construction 409 3.5% 829 5.8% 420 7.3%
Manufacturing 644 5.4% 775 5.4% 131 1.9%
Wholesale Trade 342 2.9% 484 3.4% 142 3.5%
Retail Trade 1,155 9.8% 1,289 9.0% 134 1.1%
Transportation and Warehousing 405 3.4% 754 5.2% 349 6.4% Information 182 1.5% 182 1.3% 0 0.0%
Finance and Insurance 360 3.0% 365 2.5% 5 0.1%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 171 1.4% 189 1.3% 18 1.0% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 530 4.5% 709 4.9% 179 3.0% Management of Companies and Enterprises 164 1.4% 193 1.3% 29 1.6% Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 769 6.5% 1,150 8.0% 381 4.1% Educational Services 996 8.4% 1,017 7.1% 21 0.2%
Health Care and Social Assistance 1,441 12.2% 2,907 20.2% 1,466 7.3% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 197 1.7% 196 1.4% (1) (0.1%) Accommodation and Food Services 1,111 9.4% 1,128 7.8% 17 0.2% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 1,085 9.2% 410 2.9% (675) (9.3%) Public Administration 1,608 13.6% 1,559 10.8% (49) (0.3%) Total 11,819 100.0% 14,372 100.0% 2,553 2.0%
Source: US Census LEHD OnTheMap, 2010 & 2020; EPS. Typical Office- Using Sectors Resident Worker Trends
Market Area
2010-2020
Average
Annual
Growth
2010 2020
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 D-3
Table D-4
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Southwest Sacramento Resident Worker Trends (2010 and 2020) Industry Sector No. % No. % Change
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 635 1.3% 523 1.0% (112) (1.9%) Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 19 0.0% 29 0.1% 10 4.3% Utilities 325 0.7% 399 0.7% 74 2.1%
Construction 1,513 3.0% 2,979 5.4% 1,466 7.0%
Manufacturing 2,313 4.7% 2,587 4.7% 274 1.1%
Wholesale Trade 1,425 2.9% 1,755 3.2% 330 2.1%
Retail Trade 4,698 9.5% 4,941 9.0% 243 0.5%
Transportation and Warehousing 1,523 3.1% 2,438 4.4% 915 4.8% Information 877 1.8% 802 1.5% (75) (0.9%)
Finance and Insurance 1,578 3.2% 1,470 2.7% (108) (0.7%) Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 638 1.3% 709 1.3% 71 1.1% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 2,453 4.9% 2,820 5.1% 367 1.4% Management of Companies and Enterprises 702 1.4% 735 1.3% 33 0.5% Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 2,928 5.9% 4,192 7.6% 1,264 3.7% Educational Services 4,696 9.5% 4,304 7.8% (392) (0.9%) Health Care and Social Assistance 5,880 11.8% 10,380 18.9% 4,500 5.8% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 792 1.6% 720 1.3% (72) (0.9%) Accommodation and Food Services 4,159 8.4% 4,187 7.6% 28 0.1% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 3,665 7.4% 1,611 2.9% (2,054) (7.9%) Public Administration 8,802 17.7% 7,389 13.4% (1,413) (1.7%) Total 49,621 100.0% 54,970 100.0% 5,349 1.0%
Source: US Census LEHD OnTheMap, 2010 & 2020; EPS. Typical Office- Using Sectors Worker Trends
Southwest Sacramento
2010-2020
Average
Annual
Growth
2010 2020
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 D-4
Table D-5
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Office Market Summary (2013-2023)
Year
2013 16 283,675 - - $1.76 - 8.8% 95 1,522,033 - - $1.36 - 18.9% 2014 16 283,675 0.0% - $1.76 (0.4%) 8.8% 95 1,522,033 0.0% - $1.48 8.9% 9.9% 2015 16 283,675 0.0% - $1.62 (7.9%) 5.9% 95 1,522,033 0.0% - $1.59 7.7% 14.3% 2016 16 283,675 0.0% - $1.56 (3.5%) 4.7% 95 1,522,033 0.0% - $1.62 1.6% 14.8% 2017 16 283,675 0.0% - $1.53 (1.9%) 4.8% 95 1,522,033 0.0% - $1.55 -4.1% 13.9% 2018 16 283,675 0.0% - $1.54 0.7% 4.4% 95 1,522,033 0.0% - $1.69 8.9% 9.8% 2019 16 283,675 0.0% - $1.54 (0.2%) 3.7% 95 1,522,033 0.0% - $1.63 -3.4% 4.5% 2020 17 287,951 1.5% 4,276 $1.66 7.9% 2.4% 96 1,526,309 0.3% 4,276 $1.81 11.0% 4.0% 2021 17 287,951 0.0% - $1.65 (0.4%) 2.2% 96 1,526,309 0.0% - $1.83 0.9% 3.8% 2022 17 287,951 0.0% - $1.68 1.7% 7.6% 96 1,526,309 0.0% - $1.87 2.1% 4.2% 2023 18 322,951 12.2% 35,000 $1.77 5.5% 6.8% 97 1,561,309 2.3% 35,000 $1.83 -1.8% 3.9% Total Change 2 39,276 13.8% 39,276 $0.01 0.6% -2.0% 2 39,276 2.6% 39,276 $0.48 35.2% -15.0% Source: CoStar (May 2023); EPS.

Inventory
(sq.ft)
% Change,
Total sq.ft
New
inventory
(sq.ft)
Asking Rent
/ mo. / sq.ft
% Change,
Asking Rent
Vacancy
Rate
Market Area Southwest Sacramento
Total
Buildings
Inventory
(sq.ft)
% Change,
Total sq.ft
New
inventory
(sq.ft)
Asking Rent
/ mo. / sq.ft
% Change,
Asking Rent
Vacancy
Rate
Total
Buildings
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 D-5
Table D-6
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Medical Office Market Summary (2013-2023)
Year
2013 2 39,246 - - $1.65 - 34.4% 37 474,613 - - $1.72 - 15.3% 2014 2 39,246 0.0% - $1.65 0.1% 36.6% 37 474,613 0.0% - $1.72 0.1% 15.3% 2015 2 39,246 0.0% - $1.65 0.1% 34.4% 37 474,613 0.0% - $1.75 1.5% 15.4% 2016 2 39,246 0.0% - $1.70 2.9% 33.8% 37 474,613 0.0% - $1.73 -0.9% 18.1% 2017 2 39,246 0.0% - $1.71 0.5% 29.9% 37 474,613 0.0% - $1.58 -8.9% 17.3% 2018 2 39,246 0.0% - $1.74 1.8% 31.8% 37 474,613 0.0% - $1.70 7.5% 8.3% 2019 2 39,246 0.0% - $1.77 2.2% 27.0% 37 474,613 0.0% - $1.80 5.7% 9.6% 2020 3 43,522 10.9% 4,276 $1.80 1.4% 16.2% 38 478,889 0.9% 4,276 $1.87 4.3% 7.6% 2021 3 43,522 0.0% - $1.93 7.3% 5.8% 38 478,889 0.0% - $1.91 2.1% 5.0% 2022 3 43,522 0.0% - $1.99 3.2% 5.4% 38 478,889 0.0% - $2.01 5.3% 3.4% 2023 4 78,522 80.4% 35,000 $2.09 4.8% 3.0% 39 513,889 7.3% 35,000 $1.99 -1.4% 3.9% Total Change 2 39,276 100.1% 39,276 $0.44 26.7% -31.4% 2 39,276 8.3% 39,276 $0.27 15.5% -11.4% Source: CoStar (May 2023); EPS.

Inventory
(sq.ft)
% Change,
Total sq.ft
New
inventory
(sq.ft)
Asking Rent
/ mo. / sq.ft
% Change,
Asking Rent
Vacancy
Rate
Market Area Southwest Sacramento
Total
Buildings
Inventory
(sq.ft)
% Change,
Total sq.ft
New
inventory
(sq.ft)
Asking Rent
/ mo. / sq.ft
% Change,
Asking Rent
Vacancy
Rate
Total
Buildings
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 D-6
APPENDIX E:

Lodging Market
Table E-1 Upper Midscale Class Hotels
Built Since 1990 ............................................. E-1 Table E-2 Midscale Class Hotels Built Since 1990 .............. E-2 Table E-3 Upper Midscale Hotels Built Since 1990—
Market Summary ........................................... E-3 Table E-4 Midscale Class Hotels Built Since 1990—
Market Summary ........................................... E-4 Table E-1
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Upper Midscale Class Hotels Built Since 1990
Construction Year
Brand Property Address City Rooms Status Built
I-5 Corridor
Holiday Inn Express 2460 Maritime Dr Elk Grove 65 Existing 2003 Hampton by Hilton 2305 Longport Ct Elk Grove 110 Existing 2006 Home2 Suites by Hilton 3801 Gateway Park Blvd Sacramento 110 Deferred 2025 Comfort Suites 226 Jibboom St Sacramento 52 Existing 1999 Fairfield Inn 2730 El Centro Rd Sacramento 93 Existing 2005 Holiday Inn Express 2981 Advantage Way Sacramento 100 Existing 2006 Hampton by Hilton 3021 Advantage Way Sacramento 100 Existing 2006 Wyndham Garden 2298 Terracina Dr Sacramento 117 Existing 2019 TownePlace Suites 4090 E Commerce Way Sacramento 119 Existing 2020 Holiday Inn 3664 N Freeway Blvd Sacramento 120 Final Planning 2024 Fairfield Inn SEQ Del Paso Rd Sacramento 111 Final Planning 2024 La Quinta Inns & Suites W Elkhorn Blvd Sacramento 81 Final Planning 2024 Hampton by Hilton 1309 & 1315 I St Sacramento 136 Final Planning 2025 Home2 Suites by Hilton 1020 W Capitol Ave West Sacramento 115 Existing 2021 Rest of Sacramento and Surrounding Cities
Holiday Inn Express 9175 W Stockton Blvd Elk Grove 116 Existing 2002 Fairfield Inn 8058 Orchard Loop Ln Elk Grove 76 Existing 2007 TownePlace Suites 9320 E Stockton Blvd Elk Grove 96 Existing 2021 Home2 Suites by Hilton NEQ Laguna Springs Dr/W Stockton Bl Elk Grove 105 Proposed 2025 Comfort Suites Elk Grove Blvd Elk Grove 100 Proposed 2026 Best Western Plus 10713 White Rock Rd Rancho Cordova 105 Existing 1990 Hampton by Hilton 10755 Gold Center Dr Rancho Cordova 86 Existing 1999 Fairfield Inn 10745 Gold Center Dr Rancho Cordova 104 Existing 2003 Holiday Inn Express 11015 Folsom Blvd Rancho Cordova 125 Final Planning 2024 TownePlace Suites 11212 Point East Dr Rancho Cordova 117 Under Const. 2023 Hampton by Hilton 2230 Auburn Blvd Sacramento 71 Existing 2002 Comfort Inn 21 Howe Ave Sacramento 68 Existing 2002
Fairfield Inn 1780 Tribute Rd Sacramento 75 Existing 2006 TownePlace Suites 1784 Tribute Rd Sacramento 118 Existing 2007 Holiday Inn Express 2224 Auburn Blvd Sacramento 81 Existing 2009 Hampton by Hilton 1875 65th Ave Sacramento 116 Existing 2018 Home2 Suites by Hilton 2200 Harvard St Sacramento 107 Proposed 2026 Home2 Suites by Hilton 1865 65th St Sacramento 103 Under Const. 2023 Holiday Inn Express 2761 Evergreen Ave West Sacramento 55 Existing 2002 Hampton by Hilton 800 Stillwater Rd West Sacramento 110 Existing 2009 Source: CoStar (April 2023); EPS.

Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 E-1
Table E-2
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Midscale Class Hotels Built Since 1990
Construction Year
Brand Property Address City Rooms Status Built
I-5 Corridor
Extended Stay America Suites 2201 Longport Ct Elk Grove 92 Existing 2003 Extended Stay America Suites 2810 Gateway Oaks Dr Sacramento 144 Existing 1998 Candlewood Suites 4750 W Elkhorn Blvd Sacramento 97 Final Planning 2024 Tru by Hilton 4750 W Elkhorn Blvd Sacramento 98 Final Planning 2024 Hawthorn Suites by Wyndham W Elkhorn Blvd & Bear Paw Dr Sacramento 45 Final Planning 2024 Wingate by Wyndham I-5 and Metro Air Parkway Sacramento 100 Proposed 2024 Rest of Sacramento and Surrounding Cities
Sleep Inn 9155 Stockton Blvd Elk Grove 82 Proposed 2025 Extended Stay America Suites 10721 White Rock Rd Rancho Cordova 132 Existing 1997 Rodeway Inn 6610 Stockton Blvd Sacramento 31 Existing 1991 Best Western 15 Massie Ct Sacramento 58 Existing 1995
Extended Stay America Suites 795 Stillwater Rd West Sacramento 104 Existing 2004 Best Western 3980 Lake Rd West Sacramento 61 Proposed 2025 Source: CoStar (April 2023); EPS.

Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 E-2
Table E-3
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Upper Midscale [1] Hotels Built Since 1990 - Market Summary (2012-2022) Revenue per Revenue per
Year Avail. Room Avail. Room
2012 6 518 - $95.59 - $54.86 57.4% 18 1,581 - $95.35 - $54.24 56.9% 2013 6 517 (0.2%) $97.93 2.4% $59.68 60.9% 18 1,580 -0.1% $97.49 2.2% $58.80 60.3% 2014 6 517 0.0% $103.09 5.3% $65.74 63.8% 18 1,576 -0.3% $102.32 5.0% $65.13 63.7% 2015 6 517 0.0% $108.03 4.8% $74.69 69.1% 18 1,577 0.1% $107.42 5.0% $74.15 69.0% 2016 6 517 0.0% $113.70 5.2% $83.50 73.4% 18 1,577 0.0% $112.98 5.2% $82.87 73.4% 2017 6 517 0.0% $122.45 7.7% $95.56 78.0% 18 1,577 0.0% $121.37 7.4% $94.34 77.7% 2018 6 520 0.6% $127.84 4.4% $98.27 76.9% 19 1,696 7.5% $127.13 4.7% $97.39 76.6% 2019 7 636 22.3% $133.31 4.3% $103.59 77.7% 20 1,812 6.8% $132.72 4.4% $103.41 77.9% 2020 8 756 18.9% $108.52 (18.6%) $57.30 52.8% 21 1,932 6.6% $107.59 -18.9% $57.74 53.7% 2021 9 871 15.2% $124.23 14.5% $86.07 69.3% 23 2,143 10.9% $123.56 14.8% $86.02 69.6% 2022 9 871 0.0% $141.79 14.1% $99.49 70.2% 23 2,147 0.2% $140.62 13.8% $99.52 70.8% Total Change 3 353 68.1% $116.04 48.3% $44.63 68.1% 5 566 35.8% $115.32 47.5% $45.28 68.1% Source: CoStar (April 2023); EPS.
[1] The hotel industry's Upper Midscale class includes most of the prominent limited-service hotel brands that have occupied buildings constructed in Sacramento over the last few decades, including Wyndam Garden Inn, Fairfield Inn, Hampton Inn, TownPlace Suites, Home2Suites, Comfort Inn, Holiday Inn, and La Quinta. Data includes hotels built since 1990. [2] I-5 Corridor extends approximately 1 mile from the freeway, from Sacramento International Airport through Elk Grove. [3] Surrounding Jurisdictions include Elk Grove, West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, and adjacent unincorporated areas.

I-5 Corridor [2] Sacramento and Surrounding Cities [3]
Total
Buildings
Inventory
(Rooms)
% Change,
Rooms
Average
Daily Rate
% Change,
ADR
Occupancy
Rate
Total
Buildings
Inventory
(Rooms)
% Change,
Rooms
Average
Daily Rate
% Change,
ADR
Occupancy
Rate
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 E-3
Table E-4
City of Sacramento
Meadowview 102 Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Midscale Class [1] Hotels Built Since 1990 - Market Summary (2012-2022) Revenue per Revenue per
Year Avail. Room Avail. Room
2012 2 236 - $55.32 - $32.29 58.4% 6 561 - $55.30 - $32.32 58.4% 2013 2 236 0.0% $58.46 5.7% $36.28 62.1% 6 561 0.0% $58.45 5.7% $36.31 62.1% 2014 2 236 0.0% $64.95 11.1% $41.58 64.0% 6 561 0.0% $64.93 11.1% $41.61 64.1% 2015 2 236 0.0% $69.03 6.3% $48.79 70.7% 6 561 0.0% $69.03 6.3% $48.84 70.8% 2016 2 236 0.0% $74.31 7.6% $53.07 71.4% 6 561 0.0% $74.31 7.6% $53.19 71.6% 2017 2 236 0.0% $79.51 7.0% $59.16 74.4% 6 561 0.0% $79.52 7.0% $59.28 74.5% 2018 2 236 0.0% $81.85 2.9% $60.41 73.8% 6 561 0.0% $81.85 2.9% $60.50 73.9% 2019 2 236 0.0% $86.19 5.3% $64.39 74.7% 6 561 0.0% $86.19 5.3% $64.49 74.8% 2020 2 236 0.0% $78.46 (9.0%) $50.74 64.7% 6 561 0.0% $78.47 -9.0% $50.87 64.8% 2021 2 236 0.0% $90.49 15.3% $64.40 71.2% 6 561 0.0% $90.52 15.4% $64.56 71.3% 2022 2 236 0.0% $98.05 8.4% $65.70 67.0% 6 561 0.0% $98.08 8.4% $65.84 67.1% Total Change 0 0 0.0% $76.06 77.2% $33.41 68.4% 0 0 0.0% $76.06 77.4% $33.52 68.5% Source: CoStar (April 2023); EPS.
[1] The hotel industry's Midscale class includes Best Western, Rodeway Inn, Sleep Inn, Extended Stay America, Candlewood Suites, Wingate Suites, Hawthorn Suites, and other brands. [2] I-5 Corridor extends approximately 1 mile from the freeway, from Sacramento International Airport through Elk Grove. [3] Surrounding Jurisdictions include Elk Grove, West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, and adjacent unincorporated areas.

I-5 Corridor [2] Sacramento and Surrounding Cities [3]
Total
Buildings
Inventory
(Rooms)
% Change,
Rooms
Average
Daily Rate
% Change,
ADR
Occupancy
Rate
Total
Buildings
Inventory
(Rooms)
% Change,
Rooms
Average
Daily Rate
% Change,
ADR
Occupancy
Rate
Prepared by EPS 6/7/2023 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222163 Sac Meadowview 102 Opps and Constraints Analysis\Models\222163 Demand m1.1 6-01 E-4
ATTACHMENT C:

Sports Facility Demand

D R A F T M E M O R A N D U M
To: Alexi Wordell and Elizabeth Boyd,
City of Sacramento
From: Tom Martens and Amy Lapin
Subject: Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review;
EPS #222163
Date: November 1, 2023
As part of the Meadowview 102 market analysis conducted for the City of Sacramento (City), Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) has reviewed the November 2021 sports facility demand analysis, completed by Huddle Up Group (Huddle Up), on behalf of the Visit Sac Sports Commission (VSSC), along with supporting documentation supplied by the City. This
memorandum summarizes regional and local demand for flat fields at a potential sports facility complex at the Meadowview 102 site. In addition, the City requested EPS assess demand for an indoor sports facility also located at the potential complex, although specific uses have not yet been defined. Finally, this memorandum summarizes research and analysis conducted
thus far that will serve as inputs into the forthcoming financial feasibility analysis on potential land uses at the site.

O v e r v i ew
The Huddle Up report assesses existing sports facilities in the City and the surrounding area, lists the key competitive destination sports complexes across the United States, includes a discussion of threats and opportunities, and provides a recommendation for a new flat field complex in the City.

Supporting documentation provided by the City (from
VSSC/Huddle Up) included key data points for each of the local/regional tournaments that Sacramento would compete to host, as well as a culled listing of those national tournaments that Huddle Up determined Sacramento could potentially attract to a sports complex. Data for each tournament includes the number of teams, players, visitor days, and hotel room nights associated with each tournament.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 2
The supporting documentation also included estimates of daily visitor hotel room rates and overall visitor spending for overnight and day visitors, along with potential tax revenues under scenarios equating to tournament capture rates of 25 percent, 35 percent, and 50 percent.

While the Huddle Up report and supporting documentation do not provide sufficient data for other large sports complexes in the region to allow for extrapolation of demand in Sacramento, as requested by the City, the supporting tournament data was adjusted to test alternative capture scenarios and the resulting estimated City tax revenues and potential supportable hotel rooms.

Hardwood courts have been identified as an indoor facility type of strong interest for the Meadowview 102-acre site, as discussed below. As such, EPS conducted primary research to identify as many such comparable facilities in the region as possible, given the constraints of the overall Meadowview 102 project timeline.

Additionally, an indoor ice facility has been discussed as a candidate use. For ice facility data, EPS was able to leverage and adapt data the firm recently compiled for a detailed ice facility demand analysis.

Indoor aquatics facilities were omitted from further consideration due to the combination of local weather and the presence of new outdoor aquatics facilities in Natomas as well as an existing facility in Elk Grove. An indoor tennis complex was also omitted from further consideration at this time because of a lack of available data combined with no indication of need by either City Youth, Parks & Community Enrichment (YPCE) Department staff or the previously completed Huddle Up demand analysis. EPS understands VSSC has commissioned an additional study to further analyze indoor sports complex demand.

The remainder of this memorandum describes estimated local and regional demand for flat fields as well as tournament demand and impacts related to flat fields, provides a high-level assessment of indoor sports facilities, and summarizes overall sports facility findings.

F l a t F i e ld L o c a l a nd R e g i o n a l D em a nd A flat field complex has been identified as the most desired sports complex use for the Meadowview 102 site. Flat fields can accommodate a variety of sports but are most commonly used for soccer.

The Greater Sacramento Region includes several flat field sports complexes, with the largest local complex providing 10 fields. While most of the regional facilities are smaller than would be needed to attract many of the larger tournaments, which generally require 12 fields at a minimum, they appear to be mostly adequate to meet the needs of regional league play.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 3
The largest local complex is the Cherry Island Sports Park, operated by Sacramento County in Elverta, with 10 fields. The Woodland Sports Park and Davis Legacy Soccer Complex each include 8 fields, providing good regional-level tournament venues. The City’s Granite Regional Park, with 7 fields, rounds out the larger flat field complexes in the local area. Several complexes with 11 or 12 fields have been identified elsewhere in the larger region.

Table 1 lists the competitive flat field sports complexes in the Sacramento region, plus the major flat field sports complexes identified in the larger SacramentoCentral Valley-Bay Area region.

Figure 1 includes the major identified flat field sports parks in the larger Sacramento-Central Valley-Bay Area region, while Figure 2 focuses on each of the identified competitive flat field sports parks in the Sacramento region. The mapped circles surrounding each location indicate the relative sizing and therefore potential regional “pull” of each of the locations. However, individual facility characteristics such as turf quality, lighting, seating, restroom/locker room facilities, or concessions can also affect the attractiveness (and user cost) of each location for hosting leagues and tournaments. In addition to the existing field complexes shown below, the City of Roseville is currently developing a 10-field soccer complex.

Table 1 Regional Sports Parks with Flat Fields
Map No. Complex City Flat Fields Owned By
1 Cherry Island Sports Park Elverta 10 Sacramento County 2 Granite Regional Park Sacramento, CA 7 City of Sacramento 3 Hal Bartholomew Sports Park Elk Grove, CA 4 Consumnes Community Service Dist 4 Davis Legacy Soccer Complex Davis, CA 8 Davis Legacy Soccer Club 5 Woodland Sports Park Woodland, CA 8 City of Woodland
6 San Juan Soccer Field Complex Rancho Cordova, CA 3 San Juan Soccer Club 7 Mather Sports Complex Mather, CA 3 Cordova Recreaction & Park Dist 8 Maidu Regional Park Roseville, CA 5 City of Roseville 9 Foskett Regional Park Lincoln, CA 4 City of Lincoln
10 Stockton Regional Sports Complex Stockton, CA 11 San Joaquin County 11 Legacy Fields Sports Complex Tracy, CA 8 City of Tracy 12 Mary Grogan Community Park Modesto, CA 8 City of Modesto 13 Mistlin Sports Park Ripon, CA 12 City of Ripon
14 Turlock Regional Sports Complex Turlock, CA 9 The City of Turlock 15 Ken Mercer Sports Park Pleasanton, CA 12 City of Pleasanton 16 Patelco Sports Complex Pleasanton, CA 3 City of Pleasanton 17 Central Park Sports Complex Fremont, CA 10 City of Fremont 18 Twin Creek Sports Complex Sunnyvale, CA 12 Global Sports Inc 19 Morgan Hill Outdoor Sports Center Morgan Hill, CA 11 City of Morgan Hill Source: EPS.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 4
Figure 1 Regional Sports Parks with Flat Fields
Mapped circles sized per number of fields to
be proportional to a 15-mile radius for a 16-
field complex.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5
Figure 2 Sacramento Area Sports Parks with Flat Fields
Based on conversations with City YPCE Department staff, existing facilities appear to be sufficient in meeting local demand for flat fields. Supporting qualitative information from YPCE is provided below:
 Requests for soccer fields are rarely denied in City Council District 8 (the district in which the Meadowview 102 site is located), suggesting a sufficient level to meet local District 8 needs.
 The majority of field requests in District 8 are for youth football and rugby.  One soccer group uses the fields at Steve Jones Park, Sam and Bonnie Pannell Community Center, and Shasta Park in District 8.
 Over the years, fewer soccer fields have been booked and remain available in District 8.

Mapped circles sized per number of fields to
be proportional to a 15-mile radius for a
16-field complex.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 6
 Jacinto Creek, North Laguna Creek Park, and Valley Hi in District 8 have each been used for soccer in the past and remain available for use; however, demand for these fields has declined over the years. Fields are allocated in September for the following year; according to YPCE staff, there is no indication of a shortage of available fields.

F l a t F i e ld T o u r n am e n t D em a nd a nd
Im p a c t s
As noted above, 12 fields is the minimum number of fields for a facility to be able to function as a tournament venue. However, based on discussions with sports marketing professionals contacted as part of this study, the ability to capture many of the larger tournaments will be limited for a facility with fewer than 16 fields, and the ability to capture the largest tournaments will be limited for a facility with fewer than 20 fields.

As a point of comparison, the San Diego region includes two 30-field complexes less than 30 minutes apart that can be used jointly to allow the region to host major national tournaments. The size of the complexes combined with San Diego’s myriad visitor attractions and amenities make the region a top national competitor for attracting sporting competition events.

VSSC hired Huddle Up to complete an assessment of the potential for a sports complex in Sacramento. Along with their recommendation for a flat field complex, Huddle Up provided a detailed matrix of the universe of potential sports tournaments, and related participant and visitor numbers and spending, that could potentially be captured by a flat field complex in Sacramento.

Using the Huddle Up potential tournament data, EPS developed a Base Case/ Optimistic scenario that applies a 30 percent capture rate to the universe of potential tournaments to estimate the number of players and visitors that could be attracted to Sacramento. The 30 percent capture was derived from conversations with Huddle Up, during which it was noted that a general rule is that a facility will tend to land about 1 out of 3 potential tournaments it is capable of hosting. The 30 percent capture rate also roughly corresponds with the midpoint between Huddle Up’s moderate and conservative scenarios.

To test the impact of a greater capture rate for regional tournaments but lower capture rates for national tournaments, EPS developed 2 alternative conservative scenarios, each with a higher capture of regional tournaments (40 percent) but a much lower capture of national tournaments (10 percent and 5 percent). EPS assumed an estimated 80 percent of the room nights and visitor spending brought to the region would occur within the city limits of Sacramento.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
Under the Base Case/Optimistic scenario, the estimated tournament capture and City visitor capture results in 303,000 visitor days and 65,000 room nights annually. The more conservative scenarios result in estimated annual City visitation numbers ranging from 173,000 to 223,000, with City room nights ranging from 36,000 to 46,000, as shown in Table 2.

Also summarized in Table 2 are the estimated Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Bradley-Burns local 1.0 percent sales tax and 1.0 percent Measure U revenues resulting from the potential visitor spending and room night data provided by Huddle Up.1 Note, EPS adjusted the estimated share of visitor spending that would be subject to sales tax and limited the tax to the combined local 2.0 percent tax revenue that would accrue to the City’s General Fund only, resulting in significantly lower sales tax estimates than the initial Huddle Up estimate, which included the full 8.75 percent sales tax rate in Sacramento, applied to 100 percent of visitor spending.2
1 In 2018, Sacramento voters approved a new version of the City’s Measure U sales tax, extending it and raising it from a half-cent to a full cent. The original Measure U was approved by voters in 2012 as a temporary tax. Its revenues have been used to restore essential City services that had been cut or scaled back since 2008, including those provided by Sacramento fire, police, parks and libraries. Measure U is a general tax and accrues to the City’s General Fund. 2 The remainder of the 8.75 percent sales tax revenue goes to the State of California and Sacramento County. Visitor spending on groceries/food not prepared for immediate consumption, entertainment admissions, and lodging is not subject to sales tax.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 8
Table 2 Sports Facility Demand and Impact Extrapolation 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
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
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] 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.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9
Table 3 translates the estimated captured room nights for each scenario into the number of hotel rooms potentially supported by tournaments in Sacramento.

It should be noted that the supported number of hotel rooms would likely be spread across several hotel properties throughout the City, supported by a variety of demand sources throughout the year.

As noted in the larger Meadowview 102 market study, the site’s location 1 mile from the Interstate 5/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange and without major thoroughfare frontage appears unlikely to attract development interest from hotel operators/developers. The seasonal and weekend nature of demand generated by a sports complex on its own would likely not provide sufficient occupancy throughout the year. However, a sports complex could provide supplemental demand to support a hotel near the Interstate 5/Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange, which would be a significantly more viable location for a hotel that could serve families attending a proposed sports complex but also serve a wider customer base during weekdays and throughout the year.

Table 3 City of Sacramento Tournament Supportable Hotel Rooms Category Base/Optimistic Conservative 1 Conservative 2
Total Roomnights 81,000 58,000 44,000
Estimated City of Sacramento Capture Rate 80% 80% 80%
City of Sacramento Roomnights 65,000 46,000 35,000
City of Sacramento Supportable Rooms [1] 220 160 120
Source: Huddle Up Group; Visit Sac; EPS.
[1] Assumes limited service with target occupancy rates of 80%.

Scenarios
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 roomnights and supportable rooms.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 10
I nd o o r S p o r t s F a c i l i t y A s s e s sm e n t Indoor sports facilities generally include:3
 Hardwood facilities, which often can be converted between basketball, volleyball, or other indoor sports using hardwood courts.  Ice facilities.
 Aquatics facilities.

Given the weather in Sacramento and the recently constructed aquatics center in North Natomas, as well as the existing aquatics center in Elk Grove, the research in this study focused on hardwood facilities and ice facilities.

Hardwood facilities have a wide range of uses and diverse appeal. In addition, based on a query with City YPCE staff, the greatest demand for indoor facilities is for hardwood courts. The most common indoor facility requests include volleyball, pickleball, and basketball courts for all abilities including wheelchair sports.

Ice facilities are often very popular in their host communities and can generate annual positive net operating revenues. However, they will typically require a larger upfront investment. In addition, most successful ice facilities in California are managed by operators that are affiliated with local/regional professional hockey teams, such as the San Jose Sharks, LA Kings, or other teams. Many are developed in conjunction with the team-affiliated operators.

The existing sports complex study and supporting documentation do not provide sufficient data to extrapolate demand for indoor uses. However, EPS has collected data on existing comparable indoor sports complexes, using internet searches and reaching out to various jurisdictions. In addition, EPS accessed indoor ice facility data compiled for a previously completed detailed ice facility market analysis from 2021.

Table 4 provides a summary of identified large hardwood and ice complexes.

The hardwood complexes focus more on comparable facilities within the region, while the ice facilities include a greater number of venues in Southern California, where many such facilities exist because of population density and local hockey fan bases, which are key drivers of their success.4 Currently, there are no municipally owned ice facilities located in the Sacramento region, with the closest facility located in Stockton. A privately-owned ice-skating facility in Roseville includes an indoor ice sheet capable of accommodating hockey play. 3 Indoor tracks can also be included, often combined with other uses. 4 At least 13 hockey team-affiliated ice centers exist in Southern California.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 11
Table 4 Indoor Sports Complex Comparative Examples
One of the larger indoor sports complexes in the Sacramento area is Andy Morin Sports Complex operated by the Folsom Parks & Recreation Department. This multi-use facility includes 2 convertible basketball courts, an indoor soccer field, and batting cages to meet community needs. However, the limited number of hardwood courts limit the ability to host larger tournament events. Two large, privately owned and operated hardwood facilities in Rocklin indicate there is likely strong demand for such facilities in the area; however, the profit and loss statements for these facilities are unknown.

Complex City Sq Ft Owner/Operator
Hardwood Facilities Basketball Volleyball
Andy Morin Sports Complex Folsom 63,000 2 3* Part of the Folsom Parks & Recreation Department.

Dignity Health Sports Complex Bakersfield 55,000 5 5* Partnership between Dignity Health, Basketball Universe Academy, ShePower Leadership
Academy and Gameday Sports Academy.

Managed by Gameday Sports Academy.

Courtside Sports Manteca Manteca 25,714 3 3* Privately owned/operated.

Hardwood Palace Rocklin 70,000 8 8* Privately owned/operated.

Courtside Basketball Center Rocklin 38,000 5 - Privately owned/operated.

Alameda Point Gym Alameda 64,298 4 4* Former Alameda NAS gym acquired by the city.

Currently available for private and league
rentals, community use, adult open gym.

Ice Facilities
Oak Park Ice Rink Stockton 30,000 Owned by City of Stockton; operated by ASM Global.

Skatetown Roseville 60,000 Privately owned and operated. Includes outdoor ice rink and indoor roller rink.

Great Park Ice & Fivepoint Arena Irvine 282,000 Private foundation affiliated with the Ducks owns building on land leased from City. Ducks
training facility.

The Cube Santa Clarita 93,000 City purchased and renovated private ice facility that was closing (likely for redevelopment);
contracts facility management to ASEC
(affiliated with LA Kings).

Solar4America Ice San Jose San Jose 400,000 Owned by City of San Jose; operated by Sharks Ice. Sharks training facility.

Solar4America Ice Fremont Fremont 44,000 Privately owned and operated by Sharks Ice.

Oakland Ice Center Oakland 87,000 Private developer-built rink with City-backed loan defaulted to the City. City contracted with
Sharks Ice to manage.

Valley Children's Ice Center Bakersfield 43,000 City contracts with AEG to manage the Ice Center along with municipally owned Arena,
Theater, Convention Center, and Amphiteatre
under one contract.
* Dual-use courts convert to volleyball or other hardwood courts.

Source: EPS.
1 2
1 1
Courts/Facilities
Sheets/Rinks
4 3
6 1
Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 12
Most municipally owned indoor sports complexes appear to be operated by the local parks and recreation department. Indoor ice facilities, many of which are municipally owned, appear to be operated exclusively by contracted management companies. While many ice facility management entities are affiliated with regional hockey team, non-affiliated venue managers also operate ice facilities, as found in Stockton.

S umm a r y o f F i nd i ng s
The key findings of the sports facility demand review include:

Flat Fields
 There does not appear to be a significant need for additional flat fields for use by local residents in District 8, according to YPCE staff. However, few existing facilities in the region provide lighting, all-weather turf, or amenities such as locker rooms, restrooms, and concessions space.
 The Huddle Up report recommends Sacramento develop a tournament-level flat field complex.
 While the Huddle Up report and backup data do not provide an estimate for the number of tournaments Sacramento would likely be able to capture, the backup data provide the basis for estimating an optimistic base case and testing more conservative scenarios, resulting in estimates ranging from 173,000 to 303,000 visitors and 35,000 to 65,000 room nights for the City of Sacramento.
 The potential City tax revenues from the visitation and room nights noted above range from about $200,000 to $400,000 in sales tax and about $600,000 to $1 million in City Transient Occupancy Tax annually.5 6  The estimated number of room nights captured within the City of Sacramento would support between 120 and 220 hotel rooms. However, these hotel rooms would be spread across several hotel properties around the City that are supported by a variety of demand sources throughout the year.

Indoor Facilities
 The specific type of usage associated with an indoor facility has not yet been identified. Further, the Huddle Up study did not provide sufficient data to extrapolate demand for indoor uses. However, EPS has conducted a high-level assessment of potential indoor facility uses as part of this study. 5 Reflects a 2.0 percent sales tax rate consisting of the local Bradley Burns 1.0 percent rate and the City’s Measure U 1.0 percent rate which accrue to the City’s General Fund, applied to taxable visitor spending captured in the City.
6 City 12.0 percent TOT only. See Table 2 for additional hotel taxes.

Meadowview 102 Sports Facility Demand Review Memorandum November 1, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 13
 Tournament data for hardwood facilities was unavailable for this assessment; however, VSSC is currently in discussion with Huddle Up regarding an analysis of hardwood facilities.
 Hardwood facilities, with a wide range of uses and diverse appeal, are the indoor facility type with the greatest demand from local residents, according to City YPCE staff.
 Municipally owned hardwood facilities are generally municipally operated.  Ice facilities tend to be very popular, particularly for team-affiliated operations in areas with a strong hockey team following. It is unclear if the same level of support can be generated in areas without a strong team fan base.  While ice facilities require significant capital expenditure and higher operating costs, they can generate positive net operating revenue.  Management of municipally owned ice facilities is typically contracted, with many of the most successful facilities contracted to team-affiliated operators.  An indoor aquatics facility would compete with the recently constructed outdoor aquatics center in North Natomas, as well as the existing aquatics center in Elk Grove. Additionally, Sacramento weather generally does not necessitate indoor aquatics (with the exception of smoke emergency days).  Neither the Huddle Up study nor YCPE staff identified a need for a dedicated indoor racquet facility.

ATTACHMENT D:

Environmental Resource
Constraints Assessment
1 September 29, 2023
To: Tom Martens, Vice President
Economic and Planning Systems
City of Sacramento
455 Capitol Mall #701
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Meadowview Opportunity and Constraints Memorandum for the Meadowview Project in Sacramento, California.

Dear Mr. Martens:

As requested, Raney has prepared the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Opportunity and Constraints Memorandum for the 102-acre Meadowview Project site, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 053-0010-058, located in the City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, CA.

The purpose of the following memo is to identify the likely CEQA documentation, key environmental issues that may have the potential to be impacted and mitigation measures that would be required for the proposed project alternative site plans.

Introduction and Background
In January 2022, the City of Sacramento acquired the undeveloped project site to be developed as a short-term use safe parking location for the unhoused population. However, the City halted the environmental review process in October 2022 to conduct a more comprehensive examination of potential uses for the project site. Prior to pause of the environmental review process, a Cultural Resources Study and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) were prepared for the project site. Additionally, Raney began the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed project and Madrone Ecological Consulting (Madrone) began the preparation of an Aquatic Resources Delineation and Biological Resources Assessment (BRA).

The City of Sacramento is now considering four alternative land use plans and an interim land use concept for the potential development of the project site. Raney has been contracted to provide an initial assessment of on-site environmental conditions, as well as a recommendation for the level of environmental review and mitigation measures for each of the proposed land use alternatives. The following Memorandum consists of Raney’s preliminary findings after reviewing the provided project site planning information and proposed land use alternatives.

Project Location, Existing Conditions, and Surrounding Land Uses The 102-acre project site is generally located south of Meadowview Road and northeast of the intersection of Consumnes River Boulevard and Delta Shores Circle in the City of Sacramento, California (see Figure 1). The project site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of a paved oval track on the perimeter and a strip of pavement that runs diagonally across the site.

Additionally, according to the Environmental Resource Constraints Memorandum, prepared by Madrone, 6.92 acres of seasonal wetlands, 0.24 acre of ditch, and 3.31 acres of pond are present on the project site (see Attachment A).
2 FIGURE 1

REGIONAL PROJECT LOCATION
Project Location
3 Surrounding existing land uses include the City of Sacramento Solid Waste Division offices, the Sacramento Job Corps Center trade school, the Army National Guard Recruiter office, and the California Department of Food & Agriculture offices and laboratories to the north; Susan B.

Anthony Elementary School and Community Park, single-family residences, the Sacramento Regional Transit’s Blue Line light rail route, and Morrison Creek to the east; the approved, but not yet constructed, Stone Beetland Project, which will include development of 1,163 residential units, Consumnes River Boulevard, and Morrison Creek to the south; and single-family residences, undeveloped land, and Meadowview Park to the west (see Figure 2). Regional access is provided by Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west. In addition, the project site is approximately 1.5 miles east of the Sacramento River.

Existing Project Area Designations and Zoning
The City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan (Sacramento General Plan) designates the project site Public/Quasi-Public and the site is zoned as Standard Single Family (R-1-R).

Land Use Concept Plans
The following consists of descriptions of each of the proposed land use concept plans.

Alternative #1
Alternative #1 would be comprised of the development of a 60-acre sports complex with a 100,000-square-foot (sf) indoor sports complex and 20 outdoor multi-use sports fields (see Figure 3). Additionally, the project would include a 7,000-linear foot cross country course bordering the project site boundaries. A pedestrian pathway would bisect the site north to south and east to west to provide walking access to the proposed outdoor multi-use sports fields. Alternative #1 would also include a 3.8-acre storm drainage facility in the western portion of the site.

Approximately 1,350 parking stalls would be provided throughout the project and a portion of the northeast corner of the site would be preserved for additional overflow parking. Primary project site access would be provided by a new driveway to the west and secondary project site access would be provided by a new driveway to the south.

Alternative #2A
Alternative #2A would include the development of a 60-acre sports complex with a 100,000-sf indoor sports complex and 13 outdoor multi-use sports fields, as well as 13.6 acres of mediumdensity single-family residences, and 5.5 acres of high-density single-family residences (see Figure 4). Alternative #2A would also include a 6,500-linear foot cross country course surrounding the outdoor multi-use sports fields. A pedestrian pathway would bisect the site north to south and east to west to provide walking access to the proposed outdoor multi-use sports fields.

Additionally, the project would include 15.3 acres of wetland preserve and a 4.1-acre storm drainage detention basin. Approximately 650 parking stalls would be provided throughout the project and a portion of the site would be preserved for additional overflow parking. Primary project site access would be provided by a new driveway to the west and secondary project site access would be provided by a new driveway to the south.

Alternative #2B
Alternative #2B would include the development of a 60-acre sports complex with a 100,000-sf indoor sports complex and 16 outdoor multi-use sports fields, as well as 22.2 acres of mediumdensity single-family residences, and 10 acres of high-density single-family residences (see Figure 5). Alternative #2B would also include a 6,300-linear foot cross country course surrounding the outdoor multi-use sports fields. A pedestrian pathway would bisect the site north to south and east to west to provide walking access to the proposed outdoor multi-use sports fields. 4 FIGURE 2

PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Sacramento Job
Corps Center
Army National
Guard Recruiter
California Department of
Food and Agriculture
City of Sacramento
Solid Waste Division
Single-Family
Residences
Meadowview
Park
Morrison Creek
Single-Family
Residences Project
Site
Undeveloped
Land
Stone Beetland
Project Site
Blue Line
Light Rail
5 FIGURE 3
Conceptual Land Use Plan #1
6 FIGURE 4
Conceptual Land Use Plan #2A
7 FIGURE 5
Conceptual Land Use Plan #2B
8 The proposed project would also include a 5.5-acre storm drainage detention basin in the western portion of the site. Approximately 750 parking stalls would be provided throughout the project and a portion of the site would be preserved for additional overflow parking. Primary project site access would be provided by a new driveway to the west and secondary project site access would be provided by two new driveways to the south.

Alternative #3
Alternative #3 would include the development of 43.4 acres of medium density single-family residences; 14.4 acres of medium-high density single-family residences; and 19.5 acres of highdensity residences (see Figure 6). Alternative #3 would include an estimated total of 1,213 dwelling units. Alternative #3 would also include a 10-acre neighborhood park and 7.8 acres of open space/storm drainage detention basin in the central portion of the project site. Additionally, Alternative #3 would include two acres of landscape corridor. Primary project site access would be provided by a new driveway to the west and secondary project site access would be provided by two new driveways to the south.

Interim Land Use
All the alternatives would include an interim land use for approximately three to four acres of a tiny-home residential community consisting of 200 beds in the southwest corner of the project site. The community would be focused on providing temporary housing opportunities for the unhoused population in Sacramento and surrounding areas. Project site access for this interim use would be provided by a new driveway to the south.

Approach to CEQA Review of Alternative Land Use Plans
The following provides a discussion of the key issue areas to be addressed under CEQA in each of the alternatives and the likely environmental review documentation to be required. The proposed environmental review document would be prepared in accordance with the criteria, standards, and provisions of the CEQA, Section 21000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.), and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of the City of Sacramento.

Given the passage of AB 52, and the associated amendments to Public Resources Code (PRC) 21080.3.1, lead agencies are required to consult with Native American tribes early in the CEQA process. Raney understands that the City of Sacramento has received letters from tribes requesting notice pursuant to AB 52/PRC 21080.3.1, and the City will need to notify the tribes in writing of the proposed project within 14 days from the start of the CEQA process. Raney assumes the City will handle all requirements and formal consultation pursuant to AB 52. It should be noted, AB 52 tribal consultation would be required regardless of the alternative land use plan chosen.

Alternative #1
Based on Raney’s preliminary review of existing information for the project site and the surrounding vicinity, including available technical reports and the City of Sacramento General Plan and General Plan EIR, Raney recommends the preparation of a project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will provide a comprehensive analysis of the anticipated environmental effects of Alternative #1. Raney anticipates a project-level EIR would be the most appropriate environmental review document for Alternative #1, considering there would likely be significant and unavoidable impacts to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and on-site biological resources (i.e. wetlands). Raney anticipates that the EIR could be focused on a subset of the environmental topics identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. 10 FIGURE 6
Conceptual Land Use Plan #3
11 The topics anticipated for analysis within the EIR include Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Transportation. Below, Raney has included a description of the anticipated key issue areas to be included in the EIR and potential mitigation measures that may result from the future analysis.

Raney would estimate that an EIR for Alternative #1 would cost approximately $200,000. Raney anticipates the environmental review process would be completed within approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) months after a receipt of notice to proceed. It should be noted, the transportation technical report would be prepared by a consultant under contact with the Department of Public Works and thus, is not included in the estimate.

Anticipated Key Issue Areas:

The following consists of the potential chapters to be included within the EIR. Consistent with CEQA, each environmental chapter will include the following: an introduction; existing environmental setting; regulatory context; standards of significance; method of analysis; identification of environmental impacts; development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies; level of significance after mitigation; cumulative impacts and mitigation measures; significant impacts; and effects not found to be significant.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Air Quality and GHG Emissions chapter will describe the potential air quality impacts and GHG emissions associated with the project. The air quality and GHG analysis for the chapter should include modeling utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software program and follow the Sacramento Municipal Air Quality Management District (SMAQD) CEQA Guidelines.

Additionally, in cases where substantial use of heavy construction equipment is anticipated during the construction phase of a project, diesel particulate matter, a known toxic air contaminant (TAC), is produced, potentially exposing nearby sensitive receptors to such TACs. Therefore, Raney anticipates the alternatives would require the preparation of a construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA), with consideration to the project site’s proximity to Susan B. Anthony Elementary School to the east.

Biological Resources
The Biological Resources chapter of the EIR will summarize potential effects to plant communities, wildlife, and wetlands, including adverse effects on rare, endangered, candidate, sensitive, and other special-status species, from the development of the proposed project.

Raney’s preliminary analysis of potential impacts to on-site biological resources from the development of the proposed project is based on the Environmental Resource Constraints Memorandum, prepared by Madrone, for the project site.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources chapter will describe the potential effects to historical and archaeological resources from build-out of the proposed project. A Cultural Resources Study has already been prepared that covered the project site. The Cultural Resources Study concluded no cultural resources are present in the project site area. However, a potential for impacts to unknown resources during constructions exists. Standard City mitigation measures would be required to address this potential.
12 Noise
The Noise chapter will address potential impacts associated with construction and traffic-related noise and vibration impacts. Raney anticipates that a project specific Noise Study would be prepared. The noise study should specifically address potential impacts associated with construction and operational noise and vibration impacts. Of particular concern for this alternative is noise associated with tournament events (e.g., crowd noise, public address systems, etc.).

Transportation
Raney anticipates that the City’s Public Works Department will provide a traffic analysis for use in the CEQA analysis, which includes an analysis of VMT and an evaluation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The analysis should address average daily operations as well as peak trip generating events (i.e., soccer tournaments). Raney anticipates that the analysis will identify potentially significant impacts.

Remaining CEQA Topics
The remaining CEQA topics will be evaluated at a lesser, but appropriate, level of detail in an Initial Study (IS). Remaining CEQA topics would likely include Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The IS would be included as an attachment to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) as well as the Draft EIR, thus ensuring that all CEQA topics are addressed at the appropriate level, and the information is provided to the public.

While other chapters would still be required in the EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (e.g., Project Description and Alternatives chapters), focusing the EIR analysis on the aforementioned issues would considerably reduce the amount of time that it would take to prepare the Draft EIR and release the document to the public for the required 45-day review period.

Impacts to the remaining CEQA topics of Agriculture and Forest Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire would likely be found to be less-thansignificant. The remaining CEQA topics of Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Material, and Geology and Soils would likely be found to be less-than-significant with implemented mitigation measures. As discussed below, mitigation for Aesthetics would include the preparation of a Stadium Lighting Plan demonstrating appropriate shielding and requirements. Additionally, Raney understands a Geotechnical Report has yet to be prepared for the project site; however, City of Sacramento requires a design-level Geotechnical Report to be prepared for all development projects. Lastly, the Phase I ESA previously prepared for the project site found there to be no known hazardous materials on-site; however, due to the proximity of the adjacent SMUD Substation, the project may potentially require PCB remediation.

Alternative #1 Potential Mitigation Measures
The following consists of potential mitigation measures for Alternative #1 based on Raney’s preliminary review of the existing project site information. Following preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR, for each significant impact, feasible mitigation measures, if available, will be identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be stated. As previously stated, these mitigation measures are based on preliminary reviews of the project site and are not definite. These mitigation measures would likely be adjusted and/or varied during the formal environmental review analysis.
13 Aesthetics:

AESTH-1 Stadium Lighting Plan shall be prepared showing appropriate shielding and requirements such that light does not trespass onto neighboring properties.

Air Quality:

AQ-1 The construction of project shall use SMAQMD’s Construction Mitigation Tool to adjust equipment and/or pay offset fees.

AQ-2 The construction of project shall use all Teir 4 Heavy Duty Off-road Equipment.

AQ-3 Project shall meet or exceed CALGreen Teir 1 water efficiency and conservation standards.

Biology:

Refer to Environmental Resource Constraints Memorandum prepared by Madrone (see Attachment A).

Cultural Resources:

The following includes the City’s standard mitigation measures for Cultural Resources.

CUL-1 In the Event that Cultural Resources are Discovered During Construction, Implement Procedures to Evaluate Cultural Resources and Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Avoid Significant Impact.
• If archaeological resources, or paleontological resources, are encountered in the project area during construction, the following performance standards shall be met prior to continuance of construction and associated activities that may result in damage to or destruction of cultural resources:
o Each resource will be evaluated for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility through application of established eligibility criteria (California Code of Regulations 15064.636), in consultation with consulting Native American Tribes.
• If a cultural resource is determined to be eligible for listing on the CRHR, the City will avoid damaging effects to the resource in accordance with California PRC Section 21084.3, if feasible. If the City determines that the project may cause a significant impact to a cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, the following are examples of mitigation capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to the resource. These measures may be considered to avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts and constitute the standard by which an impact conclusion of less-than significant may be reached:
14 o Avoid and preserve resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning
greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and
management criteria.
• Treat the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
o Protect the cultural character and integrity of the resource. o Protect the traditional use of the resource.
o Protect the confidentiality of the resource.
o Establish permanent conservation easements or other
interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or using the resources or places.
o Rebury the resource in place.
o Protect the resource.
• Avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological resources and paleontological resources will be accomplished, if feasible, by several alternative means, including:
o Planning construction to avoid cultural resources,
archaeological sites and/ or other resources; incorporating sites within parks, green-space or other open space;
covering archaeological sites; deeding a site to a permanent conservation easement; or other preservation and
protection methods agreeable to consulting parties and
regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over the activity. o The construction contractor(s) will install and maintain protective fencing throughout construction to avoid the site during all remaining phases of construction. The area will be demarcated as an “Environmentally Sensitive Area”.
• To implement these avoidance and minimization standards, the following procedures shall be followed in the event of the discovery of an archaeological or paleontological resource:
o At the developer’s expense, the City shall coordinate the investigation of the find with a qualified (meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification Standards for Archaeology) archaeologist approved by the City. As part of the site investigation and resource assessment, the City and the archaeologist shall assess the significance of the find, make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary and provide proper management
15 recommendations should potential impacts to the resources be determined by the City to be significant. A written report detailing the site assessment, coordination activities, and management recommendations shall be provided to the
City representative by the qualified archaeologist. These recommendations will be documented in the project record. o The City shall consider management recommendations for tribal cultural resources, including Native American
archaeological resources, that are deemed appropriate,
including resource avoidance or, where avoidance is
infeasible in light of project design or layout or is
unnecessary to avoid significant effects, preservation in place or other measures. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by the City to be necessary and
feasible to avoid or minimize significant impacts to the cultural resources.

Geology:

GEO-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall retain the services of a qualified geologist to prepare a design-level Geotechnical Report for the project site. The grading plans shall incorporate all geotechnical recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project. All grading and foundation plans for the development must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading and building permits in order to ensure that recommendations in the Geotechnical Report are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

GHG-1 The following requirements shall be noted on project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department:
• The proposed project shall be designed such that the project is built all-electric, and natural gas infrastructure shall be prohibited onsite; and • Future development on the project sites shall be constructed to include electric vehicle (EV) ready parking spaces, consistent with the current CALGreen Tier 2 standards and SMAQMD BMP 2
Standards.

Hazards:

Based on the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the project may potentially require PCB remediation associated with adjacent SMUD Substation. 16 HAZ-1 From the previously prepared Phase I ESA: SMUD PCB Substation Site #15: Because clean-up levels are at 50 ppm and the reported spill is at 7,800 ppm in soil, this site is an HREC for the Subject Property. The record states no clean-up was done. PCBs attach readily to and move with soils, so if soil particles are moved by water flow, the soil and PCBs will move together.

Because this site is upgradient from the Subject Property, and if the PCBs were not remediated, soil erosion could have moved PCB-contaminated soil to the Subject Property over time through drainage/irrigation ditches.

Noise:

NOISE-1 Mitigation measures would refer to the Noise Study prepared by a qualified technical firm; however, Noise-reduction measures typically include site design features that would shield outdoor activity areas from project-related noise sources, and increased setbacks from area roadways.

Public Services:

PUB-1 Alternative #1 would require the payment of Police Facilities Fees and Fire Protection Services and Facilities Fees.

Traffic:

TRAFFIC-1 Alternative #1 shall require intersection improvements subject to review and approval by the City of Sacramento Public Works Department.

TRAFFIC-2 Alternative #1 shall implement a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program.

Tribal Cultural Resources:

The following includes the City’s standard mitigation measures for Tribal Cultural Resources.

TRIBAL-1 Conduct Cultural Resources Sensitivity and Awareness Training Prior to Ground-Disturbing Activities
The City shall require the applicant/contractor to provide a tribal cultural resources sensitivity and awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers.

The WEAP will be developed in coordination with culturally affiliated Native American tribes. The WEAP shall be conducted before any project-related construction activities begin at the project site. The WEAP will include relevant information regarding sensitive tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations.

The WEAP will also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and will outline what to do and who to contact if any potential tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP will emphasize the 17 requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and will discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with Native American tribal values.

TRIBAL-2 In the Event that Tribal Cultural Resources are Discovered During Construction, Implement Procedures to Evaluate Tribal Cultural Resources and Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Avoid Significant Impact.

If tribal cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, or human remains) are encountered at the project site during construction, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find (based on the apparent distribution of cultural materials), and the construction contractor shall immediately notify the project’s City representative. Avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources. This will be accomplished, if feasible, by several alternative means, including:
• Planning construction to avoid tribal cultural resources, archaeological sites and/or other cultural resources; incorporating cultural resources within parks, green-space or other open space; covering archaeological resources; deeding a cultural resource to a permanent conservation easement; or other preservation and protection methods agreeable to consulting parties and regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over the activity.
• Recommendations for avoidance of tribal cultural resources will be reviewed by the City representative, interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes and other appropriate agencies, in light of factors such as costs, logistics, feasibility, design, technology and social, cultural and environmental considerations, and the extent to which avoidance is consistent with project objectives. Avoidance and design alternatives may include realignment within the project site to avoid tribal cultural resources, modification of the design to eliminate or reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources or modification or realignment to avoid highly significant features within a cultural resource or tribal cultural resource. • Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes will be notified to review and comment on these analyses and shall have the opportunity to meet with the City representative and its representatives who have technical expertise to identify and recommend feasible avoidance and design alternatives, so that appropriate and feasible avoidance and design alternatives can be identified.
• If the discovered tribal cultural resource can be avoided, the construction contractor(s), will install protective fencing outside the site boundary, including a 100-foot buffer area, before construction restarts. The boundary of a tribal cultural resource will be 18 determined in consultation with interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes and tribes will be notified to monitor the installation of fencing. Use of temporary and permanent forms of protective fencing will be determined in consultation with Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes.
• The construction contractor(s) will maintain the protective fencing throughout construction to avoid the site during all remaining phases of construction. The area will be demarcated as an “Environmentally Sensitive Area”.

If a tribal cultural resource cannot be avoided, the following performance standard shall be met prior to continuance of construction and associated activities that may result in damage to or destruction of tribal cultural resources:
• Each resource will be evaluated for California Register of Historical Resources- (CRHR) eligibility through application of established eligibility criteria (California Code of Regulations 15064.636), in consultation with consulting Native American Tribes, as applicable.

If a tribal cultural resource is determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, the City will avoid damaging effects to the resource in accordance with California PRC Section 21084.3, if feasible. The City shall coordinate the investigation of the find with a qualified archaeologist (meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology) approved by the City and with interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes that respond to the City’s notification. As part of the site investigation and resource assessment, the City and the archaeologist shall consult with interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary and provide proper management recommendations should potential impacts to the resources be determined by the City to be significant. A written report detailing the site assessment, coordination activities, and management recommendations shall be provided to the City representative by the qualified archaeologist. These recommendations will be documented in the project record. For any recommendations made by interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes that are not implemented, a justification for why the recommendation was not followed will be provided in the project record.

Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American Tribes and the City representative will also consult to develop measures for long-term management of any discovered tribal cultural resources. Consultation will be limited to actions consistent with the jurisdiction of the City and taking into account ownership of the subject property. To the extent that the City has jurisdiction, routine operation and maintenance within tribal cultural resources retaining tribal cultural integrity shall be consistent with the avoidance and minimization standards identified in this mitigation measure.
19 If the City determines that the project may cause a significant impact to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, the following are examples of mitigation capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to the resource. These measures may be considered to avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts and constitute the standard by which an impact conclusion of less-than significant may be reached:
• Avoid and preserve resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
• Treat the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the Tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
o Protect the cultural character and integrity of the resource. o Protect the traditional use of the resource.
o Protect the confidentiality of the resource.
o Establish permanent conservation easements or other
interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or using the resources or places.
o Protect the resource.

TRIBAL-3 Implement Procedures in the Event of the Inadvertent Discovery of Native American Human Remains.

If an inadvertent discovery of human remains is made at any time during project-related construction activities or project planning, the City the following performance standards shall be met prior to implementing or continuing actions such as construction, which may result in damage to or destruction of human remains. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), if human remains are encountered during grounddisturbing activities, the City shall immediately halt potentially damaging excavation in the area of the remains and notify the Sacramento County Coroner and a professional archaeologist to determine the nature of the remains. The Coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or State lands (HSC Section 7050.5[b]).

If the human remains are of historic age and are determined to be not of Native American origin, the City will follow the provisions of the HSC Section 7000 (et seq.) regarding the disinterment and removal of nonNative American human remains.

If the Coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) 20 by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (HSC Section 7050[c]). After the Coroner’s findings have been made, the archaeologist and the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant (MLD), in consultation with the landowner, shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains. The responsibilities of the City for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in California PRC Section 5097.9 et seq.

Utilities and Service Systems:

UTL-1 The City’s Department of Utilities would require payment of sewer impact fees for all future development on-site.

Alternative #2A and Alternative #2B
Based on Raney’s preliminary review of existing information for the project site and the surrounding vicinity, including available technical reports and the City of Sacramento General Plan and General Plan EIR, Raney recommends the preparation of a project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will provide a comprehensive analysis of the anticipated environmental effects of Alternative #2A and Alternative #2B. Raney anticipates a project-level EIR would be the most appropriate environmental review document for Alternative #2A, considering there would likely be significant and unavoidable impacts to VMT. Raney anticipates a project-level EIR would be the most appropriate environmental review document for Alternative #2B, considering there would likely be significant and unavoidable impacts to VMT and on-site biological resources (i.e. wetlands). Raney anticipates that the EIR could be focused on a subset of the environmental topics identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The topics anticipated for analysis within the EIR include Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Transportation. Below, Raney has included a description of the anticipated key issue areas to be included in the EIR and potential mitigation measures that may result from the future analysis.

Raney would estimate that an EIR for Alternative #2A and Alternative #2B would cost approximately $200,000. Raney anticipates the environmental review process would be completed within approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) months after a receipt of notice to proceed.

It should be noted, the transportation technical report would be prepared by a consultant under contact with the Department of Public Works and thus, is not included in the estimate.

Anticipated Key Issue Areas:

The following consists of the potential chapters to be included within the EIR. Consistent with CEQA, each environmental chapter will include the following: an introduction; existing environmental setting; regulatory context; standards of significance; method of analysis; identification of environmental impacts; development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies; level of significance after mitigation; cumulative impacts and mitigation measures; significant impacts; and effects not found to be significant.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Air Quality and GHG Emissions chapter will describe the potential air quality impacts and GHG emissions associated with the project. The air quality and GHG analysis for the chapter should include modeling utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software program and follow the Sacramento Municipal Air Quality Management District (SMAQD) CEQA Guidelines.
21 Additionally, in cases where substantial use of heavy construction equipment is anticipated during the construction phase of a project, diesel particulate matter, a known toxic air contaminant (TAC), is produced, potentially exposing nearby sensitive receptors to such TACs. Therefore, Raney anticipates the alternatives would require the preparation of a construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA), with consideration to the project site’s proximity to Susan B. Anthony Elementary School to the east.

Biological Resources
The Biological Resources chapter of the EIR will summarize potential effects to plant communities, wildlife, and wetlands, including adverse effects on rare, endangered, candidate, sensitive, and other special-status species, from the development of the proposed project.

Raney’s preliminary analysis of potential impacts to on-site biological resources from the development of the proposed project is based on the Environmental Resource Constraints Memorandum, prepared by Madrone, for the project site.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources chapter will describe the potential effects to historical and archaeological resources from build-out of the proposed project. A Cultural Resources Study has already been prepared that covered the project site. The Cultural Resources Study concluded no cultural resources are present in the project site area. However, a potential for impacts to unknown resources during constructions exists. Standard City mitigation measures would be required to address this potential.

Noise
The Noise chapter will address potential impacts associated with construction and traffic-related noise and vibration impacts. Raney anticipates that a project specific Noise Study would be prepared. The noise study should specifically address potential impacts associated with construction and operational noise and vibration impacts. Of particular concern for this alternative is noise associated with tournament events (e.g., crowd noise, public address systems, etc.).

Transportation
Raney anticipates that the City’s Public Works Department will provide a traffic analysis for use in the CEQA analysis, which includes an analysis of VMT and an evaluation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The analysis should address average daily operations as well as peak trip generating events (i.e., soccer tournaments). Raney anticipates that the analysis will identify potentially significant impacts.

It should be noted, Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, with other relevant considerations consisting of the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.

VMT is the total miles of travel by personal motorized vehicles a project is expected to generate in a day. VMT measures the full distance of personal motorized vehicle-trips, with one end within the project site. Based on current practices from the City of Sacramento for residential projects, transportation impacts for CEQA purposes are considered significant if the proposed project would generate Household VMT per capita figures that exceed 85 percent of the regional average for Household VMT per capita, consistent with technical advisory guidance published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in 2018. Based on Raney’s review of the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG) Residential VMT Screening Map, the project site is located in a zone with less VMT per capita than the 85 percent threshold of 22 significance and therefore, the residential portion of Alternative #2A and Alternative #2B could qualify for Map-Based Screening. However, the sports complex/park portion of Alternative #2A and Alternative #2B would likely trigger potentially significant impacts.

Remaining CEQA Topics
The remaining CEQA topics will be evaluated at a lesser, but appropriate, level of detail in an IS.

Remaining CEQA topics would likely include Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The IS would be included as an attachment to the NOP as well as the Draft EIR, thus ensuring that all CEQA topics are addressed at the appropriate level, and the information is provided to the public. While other chapters would still be required in the EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (e.g., Project Description and Alternatives chapters), focusing the EIR analysis on the aforementioned issues would considerably reduce the amount of time that it would take to prepare the Draft EIR and release the document to the public for the required 45-day review period.

Impacts to the remaining CEQA topics of Agriculture and Forest Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire would likely be found to be less-thansignificant. The remaining CEQA topics of Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Material, and Geology and Soils would likely be found to be less-than-significant with implemented mitigation measures. As discussed below, mitigation for Aesthetics would include the preparation of a Stadium Lighting Plan demonstrating appropriate shielding and requirements. Additionally, Raney understands a Geotechnical Report has yet to be prepared for the project site; however, City of Sacramento requires a design-level Geotechnical Report to be prepared for all development projects. Lastly, the Phase I ESA previously prepared for the project site found there to be no known hazardous materials on-site; however, due to the proximity of the adjacent SMUD Substation, the project may potentially require PCB remediation.

Alternative #2A Potential Mitigation Measures
The following consists of potential mitigation measures for Alternative #2A based on Raney’s preliminary review of the existing project site information. Following preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR, for each significant impact, feasible mitigation measures, if available, will be identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be stated. As previously stated, these mitigation measures are based on preliminary reviews of the project site and are not definite. These mitigation measures would likely be adjusted and/or varied during the formal environmental review analysis.

Aesthetics:

See mitigation for Aesthetics as mentioned in Alternative #1 (AESTH-1).

Air Quality:

See mitigation for Air Quality as mentioned in Alternative #1 (AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3).

Biology:

Refer to Environmental Resource Constraints Memorandum prepared by Madrone (see Attachment A).
23 Cultural Resources:

See mitigation for Cultural Resources as mentioned in Alternative #1 (CUL-1).

Geology:

See mitigation for Geology and Soils as mentioned in Alternative #1 (GEO-1).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

See mitigation for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as mentioned in Alternative #1 (GHG-1).

Hazards:

See mitigation for Hazards and Hazardous Materials as mentioned in Alternative #1 (HAZ-1).

Noise:

See mitigation for Noise as mentioned in Alternative #1 (NOISE-1).

NOISE-2 Alternative #2A shall include noise-reduction features in the site design including increased setback from area roadways and the incorporation of building components that would provide increased exterior-to-interior noise attenuation.

Public Services:

See mitigation for Public Services as mentioned in Alternative #1 (PUB-1).

PUB-2 Alternative #2A would require the payment of SB50 Fees.

Traffic:

See mitigation for Traffic as mentioned in Alternative #1 (TRAFFIC-1 and TRAFFIC-2).

Tribal Cultural Resources:

See mitigation for Tribal Cultural Resources as mentioned in Alternative #1 (TRIBAL-1, TRIBAL2, and TRIBAL-3).

Utilities and Service Systems:

See mitigation for Utilities and Service Systems as mentioned in Alternative #1 (UTL-1).

Alternative #2B Potential Mitigation Measures
The following consists of potential mitigation measures for Alternative #2B based on Raney’s preliminary review of the existing project site information. Following preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR, each significant impact, feasible mitigation measures, if available, will be identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be stated.

Aesthetics:

See mitigation for Aesthetics as mentioned in Alternative #1 (AESTH-1).

Air Quality:

See mitigation for Air Quality as mentioned in Alternative #1 (AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3). 24 Biology:

Refer to Environmental Resource Constraints Memorandum prepared by Madrone (see Attachment A).

Cultural Resources:

See mitigation for Cultural Resources as mentioned in Alternative #1 (CUL-1).

Geology:

See mitigation for Geology and Soils as mentioned in Alternative #1 (GEO-1).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

See mitigation for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as mentioned in Alternative #1 (GHG-1).

Hazards:

See mitigation for Hazards and Hazardous Materials as mentioned in Alternative #1 (HAZ-1).

Noise:

See mitigation for Noise as mentioned in Alternative #1 and Alternative #2A (NOISE-1 and NOISE-2).

Public Services:

See mitigation for Public Services as mentioned in Alternative #1 and Alternative #2A (PUB-1 and PUB-2).

Traffic:

See mitigation for Traffic as mentioned in Alternative #1 (TRAFFIC-1 and TRAFFIC-2).

Tribal Cultural Resources:

See mitigation for Tribal Cultural Resources as mentioned in Alternative #1 (TRIBAL-1, TRIBAL2, and TRIBAL-3).

Utilities and Service Systems:

See mitigation for Utilities and Service Systems as mentioned in Alternative #1 (UTL-1).

Alternative #3
Based on Raney’s preliminary review of existing information for the project site and the surrounding vicinity, including available technical reports and the City of Sacramento General Plan and General Plan EIR, Raney recommends the preparation of a project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will provide a comprehensive analysis of the anticipated environmental effects of Alternative #3. Raney anticipates a project-level EIR would be the most appropriate environmental review document for Alternative #3, considering there would likely be significant and unavoidable impacts to on-site biological resources (i.e. wetlands). Raney anticipates that the EIR could be focused on a subset of the environmental topics identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The topics anticipated for analysis within the EIR include Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems. Below, Raney has included a description of the anticipated key issue areas to be included in the EIR and potential mitigation measures that may result from the future analysis.
25 Raney would estimate that an EIR for Alternative #3 would cost approximately $200,000. Raney anticipates the environmental review process would be completed within approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) months after a receipt of notice to proceed. It should be noted, the transportation technical report would be prepared by a consultant under contact with the Department of Public Works and thus, is not included in the estimate.

Anticipated Key Issue Areas:

The following consists of the potential chapters to be included within the EIR. Consistent with CEQA, each environmental chapter will include the following: an introduction; existing environmental setting; regulatory context; standards of significance; method of analysis; identification of environmental impacts; development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies; level of significance after mitigation; cumulative impacts and mitigation measures; significant impacts; and effects not found to be significant.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Air Quality and GHG Emissions chapter will describe the potential air quality impacts and GHG emissions associated with the project. The air quality and GHG analysis for the chapter should include modeling utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software program and follow the Sacramento Municipal Air Quality Management District (SMAQD) CEQA Guidelines.

Additionally, in cases where substantial use of heavy construction equipment is anticipated during the construction phase of a project, diesel particulate matter, a known toxic air contaminant (TAC), is produced, potentially exposing nearby sensitive receptors to such TACs. Therefore, Raney anticipates the alternatives would require the preparation of a construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA), with consideration to the project site’s proximity to Susan B. Anthony Elementary School to the east.

Biological Resources
The Biological Resources chapter of the EIR will summarize potential effects to plant communities, wildlife, and wetlands, including adverse effects on rare, endangered, candidate, sensitive, and other special-status species, from the development of the proposed project.

Raney’s preliminary analysis of potential impacts to on-site biological resources from the development of the proposed project is based on the Environmental Resource Constraints Memorandum, prepared by Madrone, for the project site.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources chapter will describe the potential effects to historical and archaeological resources from build-out of the proposed project. A Cultural Resources Study has already been prepared that covered the project site. The Cultural Resources Study concluded no cultural resources are present in the project site area. However, a potential for impacts to unknown resources during constructions exists. Standard City mitigation measures would be required to address this potential.

Noise
The Noise chapter will address potential impacts associated with construction and traffic-related noise and vibration impacts. Raney anticipates that a project specific Noise Study would be prepared. The noise study should specifically address potential impacts associated with construction and operational noise and vibration impacts. 26 Transportation
Raney anticipates that the City’s Public Works Department will provide a traffic analysis for use in the CEQA analysis, which includes an analysis of VMT and an evaluation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.

It should be noted, Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, with other relevant considerations consisting of the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.

VMT is the total miles of travel by personal motorized vehicles a project is expected to generate in a day. VMT measures the full distance of personal motorized vehicle-trips, with one end within the project site. Based on current practices from the City of Sacramento for residential projects, transportation impacts for CEQA purposes are considered significant if the proposed project would generate Household VMT per capita figures that exceed 85 percent of the regional average for Household VMT per capita, consistent with technical advisory guidance published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in 2018. Based on Raney’s review of the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG) Residential VMT Screening Map, the project site is located in a zone with less VMT per capita than the 85 percent threshold of significance and therefore, Alternative #3 could qualify for Map-Based Screening.

Utilities and Service Systems
The Utilities and Service Systems chapter will evaluate the project’s increase in water supply demand and wastewater generation, and whether the existing water and sewer infrastructure systems can accommodate the demands from the project, or whether upgrades to the systems would be required. Raney will rely on utility information provided for use in the analysis.

Remaining CEQA Topics
The remaining CEQA topics will be evaluated at a lesser, but appropriate, level of detail in an IS.

Remaining CEQA topics would likely include Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Wildfire. The IS would be included as an attachment to the NOP as well as the Draft EIR, thus ensuring that all CEQA topics are addressed at the appropriate level, and the information is provided to the public. While other chapters would still be required in the EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (e.g., Project Description and Alternatives chapters), focusing the EIR analysis on the aforementioned issues would considerably reduce the amount of time that it would take to prepare the Draft EIR and release the document to the public for the required 45-day review period.

Impacts to the remaining CEQA topics of Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire would likely be found to be less-than-significant. The remaining CEQA topics of Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Geology and Soils would likely be found to be less-than-significant with implemented mitigation measures. Raney understands a Geotechnical Report has yet to be prepared for the project site; however, City of Sacramento requires a design-level Geotechnical Report to be prepared for all development projects. Lastly, the Phase I ESA previously prepared for the project site found there to be no known hazardous materials on-site; however, due to the proximity of the adjacent SMUD Substation, the project may potentially require PCB remediation. 27 Alternative #3 Potential Mitigation Measures
The following consists of potential mitigation measures for Alternative #3 based on Raney’s preliminary review of the existing project site information. Following preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR, for each significant impact, feasible mitigation measures, if available, will be identified and the level of significance after mitigation will be stated. As previously stated, these mitigation measures are based on preliminary reviews of the project site and are not definite. These mitigation measures would likely be adjusted and/or varied during the formal environmental review analysis.

Air Quality:

See mitigation for Air Quality as mentioned in Alternative #1 (AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3).

Biology:

Refer to Environmental Resource Constraints Memorandum prepared by Madrone (see Attachment A).

Cultural Resources:

See mitigation for Cultural Resources as mentioned in Alternative #1 (CUL-1).

Geology:

See mitigation for Geology and Soils as mentioned in Alternative #1 (GEO-1).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

See mitigation for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as mentioned in Alternative #1 (GHG-1).

Hazards:

See mitigation for Hazards and Hazardous Materials as mentioned in Alternative #1 (HAZ-1).

Noise:

See mitigation for Noise as mentioned in Alternative #1 and Alternative #2A (NOISE-1 and NOISE-2).

Public Services:

See mitigation for Public Services as mentioned in Alternative #1 and Alternative #2A (PUB-1 and PUB-2).

Traffic:

See mitigation for Traffic as mentioned in Alternative #1 (TRAFFIC-1).

Tribal Cultural Resources:

See mitigation for Tribal Cultural Resources as mentioned in Alternative #1 (TRIBAL-1, TRIBAL2, and TRIBAL-3).

Utilities and Service Systems:

See mitigation for Utilities and Service Systems as mentioned in Alternative #1 (UTL-1).

Conclusion
In conclusion, Raney anticipates Alternative #1, Alternative #2A, Alternative #2B, and Alternative #3 would result in the preparation of an EIR. Assumptions and conclusions included in this 28 memorandum are based on Raney’s preliminary review of existing information for the project site and the surrounding vicinity, as well as review of the proposed alternative land use plans. The analysis for the project site up to present is limited to biological resources, cultural resources, and hazards. Therefore, the potential environmental issues and mitigation measures discussed in this memorandum are not definite and would likely be adjusted and/or amended during the environmental review process. Environmental issues where there are significant and unavoidable impacts, as well as the necessary mitigation measures to be implemented prior to development of the proposed project, would be determined during the preparation of the environmental review document following a formal analysis of the project site.

Raney anticipates refining this memorandum in consultation with the project team. This memorandum is not a formal scope of work and/or a formal environmental review document.

However, if requested, Raney will provide the City of Sacramento with a complete scope of services, including schedule and budget for review and approval.

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 372-6100, or via email at [email protected].

Rod Stinson, Vice President/Air Quality Specialist
Raney Planning & Management
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95834
Office: (916) 372-6100
www.raneymanagement.com
Attachment A: Madrone Environmental Resource Constraints Memorandum

ATTACHMENT A

MADRONE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS MEMORANDUM
8421 Auburn Blvd., Suite 248 | Citrus Heights, CA 95610 | (916) 822-3230 | madroneeco.com Memo
To: Tom Martens, Vice President, Economic & Planning Systems From: Sarah VonderOhe, Principal
Date: 25 September 2023
Subject: Environmental Resource Constraints Associated with the Meadowview 102 Acre Project Site, City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California At your request, Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone) has reviewed information regarding the Meadowview 102 Acre site (referred to as “Study Area” in this memo) to identify potential environmental resource constraints associated with the identified site development scenarios. For the purposes of this memo, environmental resources include fish and wildlife resources, sensitive vegetation resources, and aquatic resources. This memo also provides an estimate of potential environmental resource impacts associated with different site development scenarios; summarizes mitigation measures and/or compensatory measures likely to be required as a result of potential environmental resource impacts; provides an estimate of mitigation costs associated with the different scenarios; summarizes expected timelines associated with the anticipated regulatory processes; and provides an estimate of costs associated with the resource-related regulatory processes.

Setting
The 101.9-acre Study Area is generally located east of Interstate 5 (I-5), north of Cosumnes River Boulevard, south of Meadowview Road, and west of the Sacramento Regional Transit Blue Line light rail corridor within the city of Sacramento (City; Figure 1). The Study Area, which is assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number 053- 0010-078, is adjacent to vacant areas to the west and south that are planned for residential development, existing residential development and a community park and elementary school to the east, and vacant federally-owned land and commercial/light industrial development to the north (Figure 2). The northwest corner of the site is located at latitude 38.473205, longitude -121.475756.

Madrone biologists have visited the site on multiple occasions beginning in February 2022 with an initial site visit to assess conditions. Madrone completed an aquatic resources delineation of the Study Area in 2022, during which we mapped 6.92 acres of seasonal wetlands, 0.24 acre of ditch, and 3.31 acres of pond.

A copy of the delineation map is included as Attachment A.

The Study Area is primarily comprised of non-native annual grassland habitat. Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) windbreaks are planted along the eastern and western property boundaries. The Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

property was the first California Highway Patrol training academy, established in 1954, before becoming the home of the Federal Job Corps. Historic aerial imagery shows that, between 1957 and 1964, a cantilevered track was constructed along the Study Area perimeter and that regular site disturbance in the forms of vehicular use (dirt roads), grading, disking have continued to the present (NETROnline 2023, Google Earth 2023). A detention basin, which was built in the northwestern corner of the Study Area in 2007, receives storm water from the north via a constructed ditch. The ditch appears to have been present for many years (NETROnline 2023, Google Earth 2023) but has recently been reworked as a trapezoidal channel.

The ditch has minimal vegetation. The pond is a seasonal feature that may have some groundwater influence as the pond margins support willows (Salix spp.) and cottonwoods (Populus fremontii). The pond dries completely by late spring/early summer.

Proposals for Site Development
The City has developed four potential land use plans for site development (Attachment B). The potential land use plans include:
 Alternative 1: Full development as a park and sports complex; this alternative does not have any area dedicated to residential development or wetland preserve open space. This alternative would dedicate an approximate 3.8-acre area to storm drainage open space.  Alternative 2A: Development of 60.5 acres as a park and sports complex in the northern portion,

13.6 acres of medium-density residential in the southwest portion, 5.5 acres of high-density residential along the southern boundary, and 19.1 acres of open space in the south-central portion,

15.3 acres of which would be a dedicated wetland preserve and 4.1 acres dedicated to storm drainage.
 Alternative 2B: Development of 60 acres as a park and sports complex in the northern portion and a mixed area of medium-density residential (22.2 acres), high-density residential (10.0) and open space (5.5 acres) in the southern portion; the open space area would be established for storm drainage; this alternative does not have any area dedicated to wetland preserve.  Alternative 3: Development of 10 acres as a neighborhood park in the center of the site surrounded by medium-density residential (43.4 acres), medium/high-density residential (14.4 acres), highdensity residential (19.5 acres) on the north, east, and west; a 7.8-acre open space area would be situated south of the neighborhood park and would be established for storm drainage; this alternative does not have any area dedicated to wetland preserve.

For the purposes of identifying potential environmental constraints, this memo evaluates two general categories of land use plan: full development (Alternatives 1, 2B, and 3) and development with wetland preserve (Alternative 2A).

Environmental Resources in the Study Area
Madrone reviewed publicly-available information about the site and nearby areas and used its professional experience in the area to identify environmental resources that could be present in and potentially impacted by development of the Study Area. Sources consulted include:

Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) query for the Study Area and all areas within three (3) miles (CNDDB 2023)
 Confirmed records from Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology’s eBird database (Cornell Lab 2023)  Delta Shores Environmental Impact Report (Delta Shores EIR; PBS&J 2008)  Stone Beetland Project Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study (Stone Beetland IS; City of Sacramento 2023)
 Biological Resources Assessment, Stone Beetland (Madrone 2021) Based on our review of these materials and Madrone’s experience with the Study Area, we have identified the following sensitive resources that could most likely be affected by site development:
 Aquatic resources (seasonal wetlands, ditch, and pond)  Special-status plants
 Special-status invertebrates (vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchi, federal threatened] and vernal pool tadpole shrimp [Lepidurus packardi, federal endangered])  Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii, state species of concern) breeding habitat (seasonal wetlands) and upland habitat (annual grassland)
 Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni, state threatened) foraging habitat (annual grassland) and nesting habitat (mature eucalyptus trees)
 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, state species of concern) nesting/wintering and foraging habitat (annual grassland)
 Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor, state threatened) foraging and nesting habitat (annual grassland)
 Other protected raptor species and migratory bird nesting habitat  Roosting bats (some species are state species of concern)  City trees (blue gum eucalyptus > 24 inches in diameter) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
Table 1 summarizes the potential impacts associated with each development scenario (full development or development with wetland preserve).

Table 1. Summary of Potential Sensitive Resource Impacts for the Meadowview 102 Acre Study Area
Resource Full Development Development with Wetland Preserve Aquatic resources − Permanent impacts to 10.47 acres of aquatic resources
− No wetland preservation
− Permanent impacts to 6.32 acres of
aquatic resources
− Preservation of 4.15 acres of
seasonal wetland within a 15.3-acre
preserve area (see Figure 3)
Special-status plants − Potential impacts to wetlanddependent plants that may occur in the seasonal wetlands impacted by
development (6.92 acres)
− Potential impacts to wetlanddependent plants that may occur in the seasonal wetlands impacted by
development (2.77 acres)
Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Table 1. Summary of Potential Sensitive Resource Impacts for the Meadowview 102 Acre Study Area
Resource Full Development Development with Wetland Preserve Special-status invertebrates − Potential impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS) and vernal pool
tadpole shrimp (VPTS), which may
occur in seasonal wetlands impacted
by development (6.92 acres)
− Potential impacts to VPFS and VPTS,
which may occur in seasonal
wetlands impacted by development
(2.77 acres)
Western spadefoot breeding
and foraging habitat
− Impacts to 6.92 acres of seasonal
wetland, which may be used for
breeding
− Impacts to between approximately
98 acres (Alternative 1) and 94.1
acres (Alternative 3) of annual brome
grassland habitat, which may be
used for dispersal and refugia (totals
do not include areas that would be
designated as open space following
construction)
− Impacts to 2.77 acres of seasonal
wetland, which may be used for
breeding
− Impacts to approximately 83 acres of
annual brome grassland habitat,
which may be used for dispersal and
refugia
Swainson’s hawk foraging
and nesting habitat
− Impacts to between approximately
98 acres (Alternative 1) and 94.1
acres (Alternative 3) of annual brome
grassland habitat, which may be
used by Swainson’s hawk for
foraging (totals do not include areas
that would be designated as open
space following construction)
− Impacts to an unknown number of
mature eucalyptus trees that may
provide suitable nesting habitat for
Swainson’s hawks
− Impacts to approximately 83 acres of
annual brome grassland habitat,
which may be used by Swainson’s
hawk for foraging (total does not
include any of the open space area)
− Nesting habitat impacts the same as
full development option
Burrowing owl
nesting/wintering and
foraging habitat
− Impacts to between approximately
98 acres (Alternative 1) and 94.1
acres (Alternative 3) of annual brome
grassland habitat, which may be
used by burrowing owl for
nesting/wintering and foraging
(totals do not include areas that
would be designated as open space
following construction)
− Impacts to approximately 83 acres of
annual brome grassland habitat,
which may be used by burrowing
owl for nesting/wintering and
foraging (total does not include any
of the open space area)
Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Table 1. Summary of Potential Sensitive Resource Impacts for the Meadowview 102 Acre Study Area
Resource Full Development Development with Wetland Preserve Tricolored blackbird
foraging and nesting habitat
− Impacts to between approximately
98 acres (Alternative 1) and 94.1
acres (Alternative 3) of annual brome
grassland habitat, which may be
used by tricolored blackbird for
foraging; this area includes scrubby
vegetation that may be used by
tricolored blackbird for nesting
(totals do not include areas that
would be designated as open space
following construction)
− Impacts to approximately 83 acres of
annual brome grassland habitat,
which may be used by tricolored
blackbird for foraging; this area
includes scrubby vegetation that
may be used by tricolored blackbird
for nesting
Other protected raptor
species and migratory birds
− Impacts to approximately 102 acres
that may be used by migratory birds
(including other protected raptors)
for nesting; total includes annual
grassland areas and eucalyptus trees
along eastern and western property
limits
− Impacts to approximately 83 acres
that may be used by migratory birds
(including other protected raptors)
for nesting; total includes annual
grassland areas and eucalyptus trees
along eastern and western property
limits
Roosting bats − Potential impacts to roosting bats if
eucalyptus trees are removed
− Same as full development option
Private protected trees − Permit required if eucalyptus trees >24 inches in diameter are removed
− Same as full development option
The following outlines the expected mitigation and/or regulatory considerations for impacts identified in Table 1.

Aquatic Resources
Potential Waters of the U.S.

Both of the development scenarios would result in impacts to aquatic resources. Table 2 provides a full summary of the impacts associated with each.

Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Table 2. Aquatic Resource Impacts Associated with the Meadowview 102 Acre Development Scenarios
Full Development
Development with Wetland
Preserve
Resource Type
Permanent
Impact
(acres)
Preserved
(acres)
Permanent
Impact
(acres)
Preserved
(acres)
Seasonal Wetland 6.92 0.00 2.77 4.15
Ditch 0.24
(409 LF)

0.00 0.24
(409 LF)

0.00 Pond 3.31 0.00 3.31 0.00
Total 10.47 0.00 6.32 4.15
LF = Linear Feet
While Madrone completed an aquatic resources delineation for the site, the delineation has not been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the USACE has not issued a jurisdictional determination. Recent changes to the definition of waters of the United States (waters of the U.S.) imply that the seasonal wetlands in the Study Area would not be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Section 404) because the wetlands do not appear to have a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, or interstate waters, as defined under 40 CFR 120.2. While we believe that, under the current definition, the wetlands are not jurisdictional under Section 404, the USACE will need to make a jurisdictional determination to confirm whether the wetlands are waters of the U.S. However, the USACE has not issued formal guidance regarding jurisdictional determinations under the revised definition, though guidance is supposed to be forthcoming. Regardless, the USACE determination will also be used by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) to determine state jurisdiction over the aquatic resources pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (State Policy). The Regional Board confirms State jurisdiction based on the results of the USACE’s jurisdictional determination.

The ditch that is present in the northern portion of the Study Area has been present on-site since at least the early 1990s (NETROnline 2023). The ditch appears to have been constructed to carry storm water from development areas to the north. Historic U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Florin, California 7.5-minute quadrangle maps from 1909 to 2018 never show the ditch as a “blue line” stream and the ditch does not show as a blue line stream on the current USGS quadrangle map (2021). The current definition of waters of the U.S. includes a list of aquatic features not considered to be waters of the U.S., including “Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water” (40 CFR 120.2[b][3]).

As noted above, the pond was excavated in 2007. It appears that the pond was established to serve as a detention area for water flowing out of developed areas to the north via the constructed ditch. The list of Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

aquatic features not considered to be waters of the U.S. cited in 40 CFR 120.2(b) includes “Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing” (40 CFR 120.2[b][5]). While we believe that the ditch and pond in the Study Area are covered by these exceptions, the USACE would need to verify that the pond and ditch described in the paragraph above are not jurisdictional, a finding of no jurisdiction via a jurisdictional determination would be needed as confirmation.

USACE Jurisdiction and Permitting
We recommend that the aquatic resources delineation be submitted to the USACE with a request for verification when the formal guidance regarding the application of the new waters of the U.S. definition is provided by the USACE. This will allow the City to fully consider its options and make a fully informed request. In response, the USACE can issue an approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), where the USACE makes a firm determination regarding jurisdiction under Section 404. Under the prior definition of waters of the U.S., the USACE could also issue preliminary jurisdictional determinations (PJDs), where the USACE evaluates the data and confirms that it is accurate and true but does not otherwise issue an opinion or determination regarding whether the mapped features are jurisdictional. Until the formal guidance regarding verifications under the new definition of waters of the U.S. is released, it is unknown if the USACE will continue to issue PJDs for areas supporting resources that are clearly not currently within Section 404 jurisdiction.

Under either development scenario, if the aquatic resources on-site are considered to be or determined to be subject to jurisdiction under Section 404, then filling of the resources would require an individual permit (IP) from the USACE. The IP process, which includes a full analysis of on- and off-site alternatives that may result in lesser impact to waters of the U.S. as compared to the proposed project, generally takes about 12 to 18 months, depending on the complexity of the project. The alternatives analysis must identify the least environmental damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The associated Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC), which is issued by the Regional Board must be issued within a “Reasonable Period of Time” (RPOT) established by the USACE. Currently, USACE guidelines state that an RPOT for an IP is 90 days for projects that do not require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act. Because the USACE cannot issue a Section 404 authorization prior to the WQC, the WQC process is entirely enveloped in the IP process. Note that the alternatives analysis is also used by the Regional Board as part of its Section 401 WQC process.

Although we think it is unlikely that an EIS would be required, please note that it is possible due to the high impact to waters of the U.S. acreage associated with the full development scenario. This would only be the case if the wetlands on the site are ultimately considered USACE jurisdictional.

As noted above, we do not believe that the aquatic resources in the Project area are Section 404 jurisdictional. If the Meadowview 102 Acre Project were to receive an AJD, an IP would not be required and the USACE would not be involved in the Project. However, without USACE involvement, consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) would then be the responsibility of the Project proponent (see further discussion regarding FESA consultation in the section titled Special-Status Invertebrates below).

Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Note that, in California, compensatory mitigation for impacts to aquatic features is required regardless of whether such features are subject to federal jurisdiction (California’s requirements and process are described in the subsection titled Waters of the State of California below), so while the USACE may not be involved, compensatory mitigation would still be required.

Compensatory Mitigation
If the USACE determines that the aquatic resources are jurisdictional (or they are assumed to be jurisdictional pursuant to a PJD) and an IP is required, the application would include a compensatory mitigation plan.

Compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. could be accomplished through purchase of appropriate credits at a USACE-approved mitigation bank, payment into a USACE approved in-lieu fee fund (such as the Sacramento District California In-Lieu Fee [ILF] Program), or permittee responsible on-site and/or off-site establishment, re-establishment, enhancement, rehabilitation, and/or preservation.

Generally, the use of approved mitigation banks is preferred. Ultimately, the appropriate method, type, and amount of compensatory mitigation required to off-set unavoidable adverse effects to the aquatic environment is determined by the USACE on a project-by-project basis.

If mitigation is required, we recommend purchase of mitigation credits or payment into the ILF Program or a combination of the two. It is possible that the City could enter into an agreement with a wetland mitigation firm to create project specific mitigation (that is, permittee-responsible mitigation) for a lower cost, but exploring that option and its costs are beyond the scope of this memo. Because the Project could affect VPFS and/or VPTS, we recommend purchase of wetland mitigation credits from a bank that is both Section 404 approved and approved for VPFS/VPTS credits. Mitigation for impacts to the ditch and pond, if necessary, could be accomplished though payment into the in-lieu fee program. Given the current per-acre rates for Section 404 and VPFS/VPTS credits and current rates for the in-lieu fee program, we estimate that Section 404 compensatory mitigation would range as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Estimated Aquatic Resource Mitigation for Section 404 Waters of the U.S.

Impact
Mitigation Source and Cost for
Full Development
Mitigation Source and Cost for
Development with Wetland
Preserve
Aquatic Resources1
Seasonal wetland Antonio Mountain Ranch (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 Sacramento District ILF Program
$1.51 million for 3.55 ac of impact
(combined for ditch and pond3)
Sacramento District ILF Program
$1.51 million for 3.55 ac of impact
(combined for ditch and pond3)
Pond
Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023

Table 3. Estimated Aquatic Resource Mitigation for Section 404 Waters of the U.S.

Listed Species2
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Bryte Ranch
$4.15 million for 6.92 ac of impact
(combined for VPFS and VPTS4)
Bryte Ranch
$4.15 million for 2.77 ac of direct
impact and 4.15 ac of indirect impact
(combined for VPFS and VPTS4)
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Application and Project Fee for
CWA Section 401 WQC5
$237,190 $153,993
Estimated Total $11.78 million
(with 10% contingency: $12.96 million)
$8.17 million
(with 10% contingency $8.99 million)
1 Assumes mitigation ratio of 2:1 for seasonal wetland and 1:1 for ditch and pond. Appropriate ratios will be determined by USACE; final ratios may be higher than those assumed here. 2:1 for seasonal wetland are assumed because AMR is not within the same watershed as the Meadowview Project.
2 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.
3 The ILF program fee would be based on the combined acreage of ditch and pond impact under the ILF’s “aquatic resources” category.
4 Assumes species are present one "set“ of credits can be used for both species. If USFWS determines compensatory mitigation is not required, this obligation would not apply.
5 Based on current State Water Board fee schedule.

Waters of the State of California
If the USACE issues an AJD that states the aquatic resources are jurisdictional, then compensation for impacts to waters of the U.S. would also suffice as compensation for impacts to waters of the State. However, if the USACE determines that the aquatic resources are not jurisdictional under Section 404 (and are therefore not subject to WQC under Section 401), the impacts would require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) issued by the Regional Board in compliance with the WDRs are issued in response to a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) application submitted to the Regional Board. Like the Section 401 WQC process, the WDR process also requires an alternatives analysis that considers on- and off-site alternatives to the proposed project and identifies the LEDPA. After a ROWD is submitted, the Regional Board staff reviews and processes the application. Final WDRs must go before the Regional Board for approval, the timing of which is dictated by the quarterly agendas set by the Board. We estimate that this process could take from 9 to 12 months; delays within and beyond this time frame are typically the result of timing related to Board meeting dates and required lead time to get on the Board’s agenda.

Compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters of the State is typically completed by either purchase of mitigation credits from a bank in the same service area as a project or permittee-responsible mitigation.

Again, we recommend credit purchase for aquatic resource impacts. If VPFS and/or VPTS are determined to be present, mitigation for impacts to FESA-listed species would still be required and would be at the rates shown in Table 3 above.

Meadowview 102 Acre Project
25 September2023