CITY COUNCIL
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor
Lisa Kaplan, District 1
Shoun Thao, District 2
Karina Talamantes, Mayor Pro Tem, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Caity Maple, Vice Mayor, District 5
Eric Guerra, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney
Farishta Ahrary, Interim City Auditor
Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency Successor Agency
City Hall Complex
915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 80
8-7200
SU
PPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Description: Attached is supplemental material received after publishing the agenda for Item 20, the addition of Attachment 4.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Discussion Item 20
20. 102-Acre City-Owned Meadowview Site Opportunities and Constraints Analysis F
ile ID: 2023-00357
Loc
ation: District 8, Represented by Councilmember Vang
R
ecommendation: Review and comment.
C
ontact: Alexi Wordell, Associate Planner, 916-808-7856, [email protected], Community Development Department; Elizabeth Boyd, Senior Planner, 916-808-3540, [email protected], Community Development Department.
City of Sacramento Page 1
102-Acres: Frequently Asked Ques�ons
What is the 102-acre site?
The 102-acre site is a vacant parcel of land in South Sacramento, as shown in the map below. The City owns the land and is trying to decide how the site should be used in both the short- and long-term.
How did the City acquire the site?
The City purchased the site from the U.S. Department of Labor for $12.3 million in January 2022.
Why did the City purchase the site?
The City purchased the site because Council saw there was short-term poten�al for the site to provide for a safe parking site for unhoused neighbors in the short-term and a long-term poten�al to develop in a way that served the surrounding community.
Why is the City analyzing opportuni�es and constraints before the site is developed? The City is conduc�ng this site analysis to inform both the public and City Council about poten�al development op�ons and constraints. Before City Council makes a decision, it is important to know as much about the site as possible. The analysis is meant to provide informa�on about the exis�ng condi�ons, a broad overview of poten�al ways to use the site, and what considera�ons Council would
need to keep in mind as they make their decisions. The goal for the analysis would be to provide enough informa�on to help City Council answer two key ques�ons:
1. How should the site be developed?
2. What are the general land uses to be developed at the site? What was included in the opportuni�es and constraints analysis? Analysis considered input on desired land uses from community listening sessions, and included:
1. Ini�al condi�ons assessment.
2. Site constraints (e.g. environmental, circula�on, infrastructure).
3. Market demand assessment of land use types.
4. Feasibility tes�ng of land use scenarios.
5. Cost and revenue es�mates.
What did the analysis discover about the ini�al condi�ons of the site?
1. Past users disturbed the site, having moved soil around to build a driving track for the California Highway Patrol and dug a stormwater catchment pond, both of which are present today.
2. While past users disturbed the site from a “natural” condi�on, the man-made stormwater pond and seasonal wetlands trigger State and/or federal oversight.
3. The site provides suitable habitat for some special status species, including Swainson’s hawk and vernal pool fairy shrimp, though it is unclear if these species are present at the site at this �me.
Below are a few photos of the site showing the driving track and seasonal wetlands.
What are the results from the market study regarding feasible land uses that could be developed on the site?
The market study found that some uses had more demand than others, due to the site’s loca�on and proximity to other exis�ng and planned uses. Table 1, below, indicates the uses (with stars) that were included in the land use concepts for addi�onal inves�ga�on.
Table 1 Land Use Market Study Findings
What land use concepts were studied in more detail?
Based on community input on desirable land uses as well as a planning charete and a market study, the following concepts were created.
1. Concept 1: All sports/recrea�on uses.
2. Concept 2a: A mix of sports/recrea�on, residen�al, and wetland preserva�on uses.
3. Concept 2b: A mix of sports/recrea�on and residen�al uses, but no wetland preserva�on.
4. Concept 3: All residen�al uses.
Please note that these concepts are not the only ones possible; however, the goal was to provide concepts that represented the most likely land use types as well as being conserva�ve in terms of what scenarios would have the highest costs to the City. The propor�on and placement of the land uses may change; however, due to State law regarding the sale or lease of City-owned land1 as well as the findings of the market study, it’s likely that the final use for the site would include one or more of the represented land uses: residen�al, sports/recrea�on, parks, and open space.
What assump�ons did the analysis consider in order to evaluate the costs and revenues associated with each poten�al concept?
To calculate the poten�al costs and revenues, the analysis had to make certain assump�ons. If any of these assump�ons were to change, the costs and revenues would also change.
1. Development Process. The analysis assumed:
a. City provides necessary approvals2 for a development plan before sale. b. City mi�gates for environmental impacts.
1 The Surplus Land Act governs the process the City must follow if it is to sell or lease City-owned property. This law also provides guidance for what uses the City must priori�ze when selling or leasing property. Housing and parks/ recrea�on/open space are both uses that are priori�zed under this law. 2 Commonly referred to as “en�tlements”.
c. City develops the main (backbone) infrastructure, such as key roadways, sewer and water mains, and deten�on basins.
d. City develops and operates a sports/recrea�on complex or a neighborhood park.
2. Costs. The analysis assumed:
a. One-�me development costs, including backbone infrastructure, mi�ga�on costs, and construc�on of public ameni�es.
b. Cost sharing of off-site infrastructure with adjacent developments. c. Ongoing opera�ons and maintenance over a 30-year period.
3. Revenues. The analysis included:
a. One-�me land sale of residen�al.
b. Sports/recrea�on complex revenue from Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), sales tax, and use fees over a 30-year period.
What are the results for costs and revenues for each concept and how should these findings be interpreted?
1. Concept 1: All sports/recrea�on uses results in nega�ve net revenue.
2. Concept 2a: A mix of sports/recrea�on, residen�al, and wetland preserva�on uses results in nega�ve net revenue; however, this would be less nega�ve than Concept 1.
3. Concept 2b: A mix of sports/recrea�on and residen�al uses, but no wetland preserva�on results in nega�ve net revenue; however, this would be less nega�ve than either Concept 1 or Concept 2a.
4. Concept 3: All residen�al uses results in posi�ve net revenue.
Concepts 1, 2a, and 2b assume the City would develop and operate a sports/recrea�on complex, whereas Concept 3 assumes the City would develop and maintain a neighborhood park. If the size of the complex was different or if there were a private developer or operator, the costs and revenues could change substan�ally.
What are the es�mated costs and revenues for each concept? Depending on the land use scenario, the following costs and revenues were es�mated (in 2023 dollars):
1. The es�mated costs for on-site development3 range from approximately $40 million to $123 million depending on the mix of land uses and the intensity of their infrastructure demands.
Residen�al uses require more infrastructure than sports and recrea�on uses.
2. The es�mated costs for off-site u�li�es, roadways, and storm drainage range from approximately $4 million to $13 million depending on the mix of land uses and the intensity of their infrastructure demands. Residen�al uses require more infrastructure than sports and recrea�on uses.
3. The es�mated revenue over 30 years from a City-owned and -operated sports/recrea�on complex ranges from approximately $3 million to $8 million, depending on the size of the complex.
4. The es�mated revenue from the sale of en�tled residen�al land ranges from approximately $23 million to $86 million, depending on the amount of residen�al land.
3 Includes on-site infrastructure, environmental mi�ga�on costs, and development of a sports/recrea�on complex or neighborhood park.
5. The overall net revenue over 30 years is es�mated to range from a loss of approximately $120 million to a gain of up to $34 million depending on whether there is a sports complex, the size of the sports complex, and the amount of residen�al land.
What will the site be used for?
The site could include homes, parks and recrea�on, businesses, open space, trails, or other uses, guided by City Council’s direc�on on the general types of uses; however, the specific uses that end up on the site will depend on several factors, including policy direc�on from City Council, market feasibility, and available funding.
The City is responsible for regula�ng private development, determining the general types of uses, such as residen�al, commercial, and parks, on a site and providing a framework for what specific types of uses would be allowed. The City may build infrastructure and community ameni�es, such as parks or community centers. The City may encourage or incen�vize specific uses on the site.
How much �me will development take?
Development of a large site with environmental constraints and lack of infrastructure and roadways takes many years. The 102-acre site is an�cipated to take at least six years. At minimum, the following steps would need to occur:
1. Council decision on the types of uses allowed on the site and the preferred development process.
2. Planning and en�tlement of the site (at least two years). This means figuring out exactly how the site would be designed and making sure that all the necessary requirements are completed.
3. Reviewing the poten�al impact on the environment related to the governmental decisions for the site (at least one year but could happen during Step 2).
4. Council approval on the plan for the site.
5. Obtaining permission from the State and/or federal government to work in areas that are protected by environmental laws (at least two years).
6. Construc�ng infrastructure and buildings (at least two years).
Depending on the development process, the City may sell the en�re property at one �me or sell por�ons of the property to private developers at different �mes. Each �me there is a sale, addi�onal �me would be needed to nego�ate how the development would address community priori�es.
I no�ced that the site does not have any roadways to it. How will the development be accessed?
The site is surrounded by federally owned property to the north. No permanent roadway access is available through the federal property. To the east, there are a few poten�al loca�ons for pedestrian and bicycle access, and poten�ally for emergency vehicle access. To the south, is a planned development called Stone Beetland, which includes a plan for an east-west roadway that could poten�ally connect the 102-acre site through north-south roadways. Lastly, to the west, the planned development called Delta Shores that is expected to include a north-south extension of 24th Street, could provide a poten�al connec�on point to the 102-acre site, assuming that an east-west connec�on is established with Delta Shores.
Will the site provide shelter space for people experiencing homelessness? Immediately a�er purchasing the site, City staff inves�gated how the site could be used in the near term to provide a safe parking loca�on for unhoused residents. A�er ini�al inves�ga�ons, it was found that the cost to build temporary access, grade the site, and provide other basic features for a safe parking site was es�mated to be greater than $11 million. This cost does not account for environmental review, which would likely be required prior to use of the site and could add up to two years to the �meline.
The site may be able to be used in an emergency situa�on; however, legal access and a method to provide safe and sanitary temporary housing remain concerns. At a minimum, a suitable site for safe and sanitary temporary housing should have roadway access, u�li�es, and other necessary infrastructure, such as ADA standards and ligh�ng.
It is possible that the site could accommodate temporary housing a�er basic infrastructure is developed and before the site is fully developed.
Are there any restric�ons on the sale or use of the site? The City must comply with the Surplus Land Act if it sells or leases the land. Under the Surplus Land Act, the City must priori�ze housing and/or parks/recrea�on/open space uses.
While there are no deed restric�ons on the property, it is likely that the City would nego�ate use restric�ons in any future sale or lease agreements. In addi�on, any future development on the site would need to be consistent with the City’s general plan, zoning regula�ons, and other applicable regula�ons.
What are the immediate next steps for the site?
Based on the findings of the opportuni�es and constraints analysis and community feedback, City staff an�cipates providing a recommenda�on for Council’s considera�on in late Summer of 2024. This recommenda�on will include poten�al answers to:
1. What is a feasible development process for the site?
2. What are the broad land uses that should be considered for the site based on community priori�es and available resources?
Once Council has made a decision, it is likely that staff will be asked to use Council’s guidance to further inves�gate what is possible for the site based on the community priori�es, resources available, and market condi�ons.
What can residents do to express their needs/wants related to the development of the site?
Advocate to City Council to support the priori�es that are most important to you—housing, inclusive economic development opportuni�es, community ameni�es, services/shelter for unhoused neighbors, and/or other priori�es. You can do that by:
- Providing a comment through the website: htps://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community- development/planning/major-projects/102-acre-site.
- Signing up for our email list to get no�fica�ons about upcoming mee�ngs, including City Council through the website: htps://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community- development/planning/major-projects/102-acre-site.
Ul�mately, City Council, informed by resident input, will decide the future direc�on of the site’s development and will need to determine what kind of resources, including funding, are available to realize their direc�on for the site.