Sacramento City Council
October 22, 2024

APPENDIX B:

Future Demand: Housing and Retail
Table B-1 Aggie Square Planned Land Uses ........................... B-1 Table B-2 Summary of Current Pipeline Projects in the
Study Area ......................................................... B-2 Table B-3 Sacramento County Income Limits ......................... B-3 Table B-4 Estimated Housing Unit Value Based on Income and Housing Costs in Sacramento County ..................... B-4 Table B-5 Estimated Monthly Housing Costs by
Category in Sacramento County ............................ B-5 Table B-6 Estimated Study Area Household Retail Spending .... B-6 Table B-7 United States Consumer Expenditures .................... B-7 Table B-8 Total and Taxable Retail Sales per Square Feet ........ B-8 Table B-9 U.S. Household Income Spent on Retail .................. B-9 Table B-10 Consumer Expenditure Patterns by Income
Bracket Summary ............................................. B-10 Table B-11 Consumer Expenditure Patterns by
Income Bracket ................................................ B-11 Table B-12 Consumer Expenditure Patterns by
Retail Category ................................................. B-12 B-98

Table B-1
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Aggie Square Planned Land Uses
Item
Aggie Square Land Use Category
Science and Technology Use 743,657
Co-working Space 123,033 - -
University Research 472,414 - -
University Offices and Classrooms 129,412 - -
Data Sciences 120,924 - -
Community Serving Retail 24,000 - -
Alice Waters Education 12,000 - -
UC Catering 12,000 - -
Rehab Hospital 53,000 - -
Garage [2] 360,400 - -
On-site Residential 203,000 281 -
Off-site Residential - 300 -
Hotel 187,500 - 250
Total 2,441,340 581 250
Source: University of California, Davis; Wexford Science and Technology; EPS. [2] The Garage total does not include the square footage of a second 1,200-parking-stall garage. [1] Building square footages reflect the estimated net rentable square footage, totals may differ because of non-leasable space.

Total Dwelling
Units
Total Hotel
Rooms
Total Project Land Uses [1]
Total Building
Sq. Ft.

Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-1 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-2
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Summary of Current Pipeline Projects in the Study Area
Project
Dwelling
Units
Nonresidential
Square Feet Proposed Land Use Status

STUDY SUBAREA
Elmhurst
Aggie Square Mixed Use Project 581 2,238,340 See Table B-1 EIFD application in progress SMUD 59th Street Reuse 496 9,940
Single-unit Dwellings; Multi-unit
Dwellings; Commercial Preliminary Stages / Developer Selection The Gio 213 4,300 Multi-unit Dwellings; Retail; Office Completed in 2020 The Grounds at Tahoe Park 44 - Single-unit Dwellings Under Construction - built on spec 4315 V St 2 - Multi-unit Dwelling Review in progress
Subtotal Elmhurst 1,336 2,252,580
Oak Park
4601-4625 10th Ave 99 - Multi-unit Dwellings Proposed
3204-3206 Broadway Mixed Use 21 2,000 Multi-unit Dwellings; Commercial Approved 3/36 Mixed use 12 2,500 Multi-unit Dwellings; Commercial Plans submitted 4421 4th Ave 7 6,098 Multi-unit Dwellings; Commercial Review in progress Element Hotel 0 103,208 Hotel Review in progress
Subtotal Oak Park 139 113,806
Tahoe & Colonial
4722 Ninth Ave 130 3,300 Multi-unit Dwellings; Retail Proposed 4831 64th St 22 - Single-unit Dwellings Proposed
Subtotal Tahoe & Colonial 152 3,300
Lemon Hill
5700 Stockton Blvd Affordable Project 116 2,500
Multi-unit Dwellings; Single-unit
Dwellings; Commercial Proposed
South of Fruitridge
6450 Lemon Hill Mixed Use 28 20,000 Multi-unit Dwellings; Commercial Waiting for Review

TOTAL DWELLING UNITS /
NONRES. SQ FT 1,771 2,392,186

TOTAL DWELLING UNITS /
NONRES. SQ FT
(EXCLUDING THE GIO) 1,558 2,387,886
Source: City of Sacramento; Sacramento Business Journal; Sacramento Bee; EPS.

Project Size
Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-2 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-3
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Sacramento County Income Limits (2020 in 2020$)
Income Level % of AMI 2 3 [1] 4
Extremely Low ≤ 30% AMI $20,750 $23,350 $26,200
Very Low Income >30% to ≤50% AMI $34,550 $38,850 $43,150 Low Income >50% to ≤80% AMI $55,250 $62,150 $69,050
Median Income >80% to ≤100% AMI $69,050 $77,650 $86,300 Moderate Income >100% AMI to ≤120% AMI $82,950 $93,200 $103,550 limits
[1] The average persons per household for the City of Sacramento is 2.78 per the 2018 ACS.

Sacramento County Income Limits
Based on HH Size:

Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development FY 2020 Income Limits; State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, "State Income Limits for 2020"; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-3 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-4
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Estimated Housing Unit Value Based on Income and Housing Costs in Sacramento County (2020 in 2020$) Item Annual Monthly [2]
Assumptions
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost as % of Income [3] 35.00% A Mortgage Term (In Years) [4] 30 B
Mortgage Interest Rate [5] 4.00% C
Down Payment as a % of Unit Value 5.00% D
Formula E F = A * E G = F / 12 H = G * 61% J = I / (1 - D) Income Level
Extremely Low $23,350 $8,173 $681 $418 $87,534 $92,141
Very Low Income $38,850 $13,598 $1,133 $695 $145,639 $153,305 Low Income $62,150 $21,753 $1,813 $1,112 $232,986 $245,248 Median Income $77,650 $27,178 $2,265 $1,390 $291,092 $306,412 Moderate Income $93,200 $32,620 $2,718 $1,668 $349,385 $367,773 Source: Freddie Mac; City of Sacramento Municipal Code Chapter 17.712; EPS. [1] EPS assumes a household size of 3, rounding up the average persons per household for the City of Sacramento. Refer to Table B-3 for income limits. [2] Refer to Table B-5 for detailed monthly costs calculation. [3]
[4] Based on a 30-year fixed-rate conventional mortgage. [5] Interest rate are based on the average for 30-year fixed-rates from 2010 to 2020 per Freddie Mac.

I (see above assumptions B & C)
Per the City of Sacramento's Mixed Housing Income Ordinance in Municipal Code Chapter 17.712, qualification for affordable housing prices shall be based on no more than 35% of income being applied to housing expenses.

Annual
Income [1]
Monthly
Mortgage
Cost
Estimated Unit
Value
Estimated Housing Costs Loan
Amount
Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-4 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-5
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Estimated Monthly Housing Costs By Category in Sacramento County (2020 in 2020$) Item Assumptions Total
Annual Property Taxes and Homeowners Insurance 2.00%
Mortgage Insurance as a % of Loan Amt. [1] 1.50%
Income Level Annual Income [2]
Extremely Low $23,350 $418 $109 $154 $681
Very Low Income $38,850 $695 $182 $256 $1,133
Low Income $62,150 $1,112 $291 $409 $1,812
Median Income $77,650 $1,390 $364 $511 $2,265
Moderate Income $93,200 $1,668 $437 $613 $2,718
Source: Realtor.com; Zillow; bankrate.com; wellsfargo.com; chase.com; nerwallet.com; EPS. [1]
[2] Refer to Table 2 for income limits.

Mortgage insurance rate is based on an average of the estimated range of 0.55% - 2.25%. Rates are based on credit and down payment amounts.

Estimated Monthly Cost
Mortgage
Payment
Mortgage
Insurance
Taxes and
Insurance
Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-5 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-6
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Estimated Study Area Household Retail Spending (2018$)
Item
Assumptions
Median Household Income [3] $44,694
Estimated Percent of HH Income Spent in Retail Stores [4] 45% Estimated Annual HH Spending in Retail Stores $20,075
Retail and Food Services
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers [6] 4.1% $821
Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 7.8% $1,557
Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies 5.0% $995
Food and Beverage Stores 21.9% $4,397
Gasoline Stations 10.0% $2,000
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 7.5% $1,513
General Merchandise Stores 15.5% $3,119
Food Services and Drinking Places 19.5% $3,920
Other Retail 8.7% $1,754
Total Retail and Food Services 100.0% $20,075
Source: EPS.

NOTE: FIGURES MAY NOT TOTAL BECAUSE OF ROUNDING.
[1] See Table B-7 for estimated spending by retail category. [2]
[3] See Table 4-2.
[4] See Table B-9. Excludes spending on e-commerce retail goods and services. [5] Percentage spent on Motor Vehicles and Parts Dealers only pertains to motor vehicle parts. [6]
Current Study Area
Household Spending
Total Study Area spending is derived by multiplying the estimated Study Area average household income of $44,694 by the estimated percentage of hosuehold income spent on retail of 45% and then multiplied by the percentages spent on retail for Percentage Spent
on Retail
by Category [1]
Total Annual
Retail Spending
per Household [2]
Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-6 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-7
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
United States Consumer Expenditures (2019$)
Retail and Food Services
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers [3] $333,741,275 3.0% $323,681,589 4.1% Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $789,390,299 22.3% $613,528,249 7.8% Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies $406,735,421 3.6% $391,933,231 5.0% Food and Beverage Stores $1,746,968,141 0.8% $1,732,333,860 21.9% Gasoline Stations $787,885,265 0.0% $787,885,265 10.0%
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $708,494,725 15.9% $595,983,872 7.5% General Merchandise Stores $1,298,468,028 5.3% $1,229,032,975 15.5% Food Services and Drinking Places $1,544,541,077 0.0% $1,544,541,077 19.5% Other Retail $719,782,480 4.0% $691,043,377 8.7%
Total $8,336,006,712 $7,909,963,496 100.0%
[1] Data per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey 2019 released September 2020. See Table B-10 through Table B-12. [3] Motor vehicles and parts is based on the sales from auto parts stores only and excludes new and used motor vehicle dealers. See Table B-10 through Table B-12 for details on how motor vehicle sales were excluded. % Spent on
E-Commerce [2]
Adjusted Spending at
Retail Stores (in 000's)
Adj. % of Spending
at Retail Stores by
Retail Category
Total Spending
on Retail (in 000's) [1]
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Table 1203. Income before taxes: Annual expenditure means, shares, standard errors, and coefficients of variation, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2019"; U.S. Retail Trade Sales - Total and E-commerce (2017-2018); Sales for U.S. Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses (NAICS 4541) - Total and E-commerce by Primary Business Activity (2015-2018); EPS. [2] Based on the following 2018 U.S. Census reports regarding e-commerce: U.S. Retail Trade Sales - Total and E-commerce; and, Sales for U.S. Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses (NAICS 4541) - Total and E-commerce by Primary Business Activity (2015-2018).

Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-7 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-8
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Total and Taxable Retail Sales per Square Feet (2019$)
Item % [2] No. % [2] No. % [2] No.

Total Retail Sales per Square Foot
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers [3] $250 $273 3% $8 2% $5 1% $3 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $525 $573 0% $0 7% $40 10% $57 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies $356 $389 0% $0 15% $58 1% $4 Food and Beverage Stores [4] - $565 55% $311 24% $136 3% $17 Gasoline Stations [5] $1,321 $1,626 1% $16 2% $33 1% $16 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $370 $404 2% $8 5% $20 20% $81 General Merchandise Stores $360 $393 5% $20 20% $79 20% $79 Food Services and Drinking Places $492 $537 8% $43 10% $54 20% $107 Other Retail $209 $228 12% $27 7% $16 18% $41
Nonretail [6] NA $0 14% $0 8% $0 6% $0
Total 100% $430 100% $440 100% $410
Taxable Retail Sales per Square Foot by Retail Center Type Percent Taxable by Shopping Center Type [7] 44% 54% 98% Taxable Sales per Square Foot (Rounded) $190 $240 $400
Note: Original data is based on an average of multiple sources and is presented in 2016$ unless noted otherwise in footnotes. [1] Sales adjusted to year-end 2019 based on the Consumer Price Index, All items in West urban, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted:

Year CPI Adjustment to 2019$
2008 219.65 23.1%
2016 247.71 9.1%
2018 263.26 2.7%
2019 270.35 0.0%
[2] Reflects percentage of total square footage by retail category by retail center type, estimated based on ULI's Dollars & Cents 2008 [3] Reflects motor vehicle parts only; excludes taxable sales per square foot for dealerships. [4]
[5] Estimated using ULI's Dollars & Cents, 2008, escalated to 2019$. [6] Included to account for non-taxable retail space occupants, such as services. [7] Based on BOE Publication 61, March 2018.

Total Retail Sales per Square Foot
Original
Data
[see Note]
Escalated
Data
(2019$) [1]
Total Retail Sales by Shopping Center Type
Neighborhood Community Regional
Source: BizMiner 2016; ULI Dollars & Cents 2008; State of California Board of Equalization (BOE) Publication 61; Bureau of Labor Statistics, "CPI-All Urban Consumers (Current Series) - West Urban"; RetailSails http://retailsails.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/rs_spsf.pdf; eMarketer pulled February 2019; respective annual 10-K reports; EPS.

Sales per square foot for Food and Beverage stores estimated based on the averages from BizMiner, RetailSales, eMarketer, and annual 10-K reports, escalated to 2019$.

Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-8 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-9
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
U.S. Household Income Spent on Retail (2019 in 2019$)
Household Income Range
Formula A B C D = B * C E = B - D F = E /A
All Households $82,852 $26,549 8.2% $2,177 $24,372 29%
$30,000 - $39,999 $34,772 $18,698 5.8% $1,080 $17,618 51% $40,000 - $49,000 $44,831 $21,574 6.7% $1,438 $20,136 45% $50,000 - $69,999 $59,328 $24,461 7.6% $1,848 $22,613 38% $70,000 - $99,999 $83,558 $28,856 8.9% $2,572 $26,284 31% $100,000 - $149,999 $121,433 $35,369 10.9% $3,864 $31,505 26% $150,000 - $199,999 $171,061 $46,583 14.4% $6,702 $39,881 23% [1] Retail comprises the categories most closely matched with those given by the State of California Board of Equalization. [2]
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Table 1203. Income before taxes: Annual expenditure means, shares, standard errors, and coefficients of variation, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2017"; U.S. Census Bureau Monthly Retail Trade Survey, "Estimated Quarterly U.S. Retail Sales: Total and E-commerce"; EPS.

Based on the U.S. Census Bureau Monthly Retail Trade Survey, "Estimated Quarterly U.S. Retail Sales (Not Adjusted): Total and E-commerce." Similar e-commerce spending data by income level is not available at the State level or lower. Percentages for income spent on e-commerce are adjusted relative to average amount spent on retail for each income category.

Adjusted Amount
Spent at
Retail Stores
Adjusted %
of HH Income
Spent at
Retail Stores
Estimated Total
Amount Spent
on Retail [1]
% of Total
Spent on
E-Commerce [2]
Total Est.

Amount Spent on
E-Commerce
Average
HH Income
Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-9 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-10
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Consumer Expenditure Patterns by Income Bracket Summary (2019$) Item <$15K
$15K-
$30K
$30K-
$40K
$40K-
$50K
$50K-
$70K
$70K-
$100K
$100K-
$150K
$150K-
$200K >200K
Consumer Units in Survey (in thousands) 132,242 15,848 19,856 12,991 11,208 17,470 19,119 18,225 8,266 9,260 Percentage of Total 100% 12% 15% 10% 8% 13% 14% 14% 6% 7% Annual Income before Taxes $82,852 $7,574 $22,189 $34,772 $44,831 $59,328 $83,558 $121,433 $171,061 $343,498 Annual Income after Taxes $71,487 $7,743 $22,672 $34,981 $42,723 $55,500 $75,811 $106,439 $144,046 $258,975 Avg. Annual Expenditures $63,036 $26,194 $34,201 $40,942 $47,299 $54,212 $66,801 $84,994 $109,020 $160,318 Expenditures as a Percentage of Pretax Income 76% 346% 154% 118% 106% 91% 80% 70% 64% 47% Taxable Expenditures [1] $19,510 $8,155 $10,748 $13,087 $15,301 $17,987 $21,328 $26,374 $33,567 $43,497 Percentage of Total Expenditures 31% 31% 31% 32% 32% 33% 32% 31% 31% 27% Taxable Expenditures as a Percentage of Pretax
Income 24% 108% 48% 38% 34% 30% 26% 22% 20% 13%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey 2019, data released September 2020; EPS. [1] Taxable expenditures includes 100% of BLS reported average annual expenditures in Food away from home; Alcoholic beverages; Other household expenses; Housekeeping supplies; Household furnishings and equipment; Apparel and Services for Men and boys, Women and girls, Children under 2 and Footwear; Vehicle purchases; Gasoline and motor oil; Medical supplies; Audio & visual equipment & services; Pets, toys, and playground equipment; Reading; Tobacco products and smoking supplies; Miscellaneous; and 50% and 25% of average annual expenditures in Drugs and Personal care products/services, respectively.

All
Consumer
Units
Income Bracket
Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-10 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-11
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Consumer Expenditure Patterns by Income Bracket (2019$) Taxable Expenditures
Retail
Category
Total
Surveyed <$15K
$15K-
$30K
$30K-
$40K $40K-$50K $50K-$70K
$70K-
$100K
$100K-
$150K
$150K-
$200K >200K
100% Taxable
Food away from home FA $3,526 $1,389 $1,806 $2,155 $2,865 $3,051 $3,689 $4,725 $5,847 $9,148 Alcoholic beverages FA $579 $184 $229 $372 $410 $427 $616 $872 $1,042 $1,618 Other household expenses BM $1,081 $476 $687 $772 $859 $915 $1,109 $1,301 $1,672 $2,959 Housekeeping supplies GM $766 $410 $507 $568 $687 $697 $794 $982 $1,283 $1,381 Household furnishings and equipment HF $2,098 $764 $1,090 $1,224 $1,447 $1,761 $2,173 $2,858 $3,732 $5,899 Apparel and Services [1] CA $1,646 $769 $783 $1,045 $1,267 $1,420 $1,680 $2,284 $2,959 $3,971 Vehicle purchases MV $4,394 $1,607 $2,091 $2,728 $3,088 $4,379 $5,176 $6,191 $8,761 $8,996 Gasoline and motor oil GS $2,094 $970 $1,170 $1,699 $1,864 $2,153 $2,496 $2,927 $3,181 $3,283 Medical supplies OR $194 $70 $196 $140 $176 $146 $228 $224 $252 $397 Audio & visual equipment & services GM $1,000 $534 $725 $815 $821 $954 $1,061 $1,371 $1,421 $1,701 Pets, toys, and playground equipment OR $821 $285 $481 $563 $564 $754 $948 $1,210 $1,557 $1,473 Reading OR $92 $53 $78 $54 $96 $77 $94 $118 $117 $181
Tobacco products and smoking supplies OR $320 $291 $308 $338 $344 $376 $409 $320 $201 $155 Miscellaneous GM $899 $353 $597 $614 $813 $877 $855 $991 $1,542 $2,335 50% Taxable
Drugs OR $486 $273 $372 $516 $444 $473 $505 $557 $706 $725 25% Taxable
Personal care products/services GM $786 $340 $428 $584 $647 $718 $841 $1,052 $1,234 $1,796 0% Taxable
Food at home FH $4,643 $2,528 $3,185 $3,636 $4,329 $4,318 $4,983 $5,908 $6,917 $7,954 Other Apparel Products & Services CA $237 $93 $129 $148 $133 $166 $219 $281 $478 $835 Vehicle maintenance & repairs MV $887 $382 $553 $727 $720 $799 $980 $1,197 $1,474 $1,714 Total Retail expenditures $26,549 $11,771 $15,415 $18,698 $21,574 $24,461 $28,856 $35,369 $44,376 $56,521 Expenditures as a Percent of Pretax Income 36% 150% 69% 54% 48% 41% 34% 29% 26% 18% Total Retail expenditure excluding Vehicle Purchase $22,155 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey 2019, data released September 2020; EPS. [1] Excludes "other apparel products & services".

Income Bracket
Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-11 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table B-12
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Consumer Expenditure Patterns by Retail Category (2019$) Item
Table B-11 Table B-10 [1]
Retail Category
Motor Vehicle Parts Dealers 4.0% $333,741,275
Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 9.5% $789,390,299 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies 4.9% $406,735,421 Food and Beverage Stores 21.0% $1,746,968,141
Gasoline Stations 9.5% $787,885,265
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 8.5% $708,494,725 General Merchandise Stores 15.6% $1,298,468,028
Food Services and Drinking Places 18.5% $1,544,541,077
Other Retail 8.6% $719,782,480
Total 100.0% $8,336,006,712
Source: EPS.
[1] Total expenditures are consumer units multiplied by average annual expenditures in Table B-10.

Consumer
Expenditure
Pattern by %
Total Expenditures by
Retail Category
Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 B-12 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 APPENDIX C:

Geographic Boundaries in the Study Area
Table C-1 Study Area Census Tract Codes by Subarea ............ C-1 Table C-2 Study Area TAZ Estimates and Projections .............. C-2

Table C-1
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Study Area Census Tract Codes by Subarea
Subarea Census Tract Number
Elmhurst
6067001700
Oak Park
6067001800
6067002700
6067002800
6067003700
Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401
6067004402
Tahoe Park
6067002900
6067003000
6067003101
6067003102
Lemon Hill
6067004601
6067004602
6067004702
South of Fruitridge
6067003202
6067003203
6067003204
6067004801
tracts
Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 C-1 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Table C-2
Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan
Social and Economic Context
Study Area TAZ Estimates and Projections (2012-2036)
Study Subarea Population Population Population Population Population Study Area TAZ
475 Elmhurst 997 479 1,049 487 1,130 493 0.6% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 476 Elmhurst 470 260 806 434 1,749 991 7.0% 6.6% 5.0% 5.3% 477 Elmhurst 1,212 620 1,345 626 1,438 638 1.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 478 Elmhurst 83 44 115 44 97 44 4.2% 0.0% (1.1%) 0.1%
479 Oak Park 2,017 1,004 2,197 1,014 2,444 1,073 1.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.4% 480 Oak Park 2,776 1,361 2,928 1,370 3,526 1,452 0.7% 0.1% 1.2% 0.4% 481 Oak Park 3,293 1,441 3,351 1,458 3,557 1,536 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 482 Oak Park 2,655 1,177 2,816 1,190 3,102 1,325 0.7% 0.1% 0.6% 0.7% 483 Tahoe & Colonial 1,745 764 1,818 766 1,775 777 0.5% 0.0% (0.1%) 0.1% 484 Tahoe & Colonial 581 263 605 264 609 271 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 485 Tahoe & Colonial 2,790 1,293 3,034 1,295 3,247 1,314 1.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 486 Tahoe & Colonial 3,521 1,784 3,798 1,787 3,953 1,851 1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 487 Tahoe & Colonial 1,971 999 2,099 1,026 2,231 1,058 0.8% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 488 Tahoe & Colonial 2,927 1,241 3,068 1,242 3,058 1,248 0.6% 0.0% (0.0%) 0.0% 489 Tahoe & Colonial 3,063 1,052 3,295 1,170 4,402 1,693 0.9% 1.3% 1.8% 2.3% 490 South of Fruitridge 8,380 2,443 8,014 2,448 8,337 2,653 (0.6%) 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 491 South of Fruitridge 4,856 1,837 5,224 1,840 5,923 2,219 0.9% 0.0% 0.8% 1.2% 492 Oak Park 3,823 1,366 4,034 1,419 4,402 1,537 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 493 Fruitridge Pocket 3,341 1,474 3,553 1,490 3,774 1,573 0.8% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 494 Fruitridge Pocket 4,274 1,339 4,429 1,359 4,646 1,436 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 495 Lemon Hill 4,969 1,614 5,002 1,642 5,935 1,961 0.1% 0.2% 1.1% 1.1% 496 Lemon Hill 3,053 1,050 3,134 1,063 3,043 1,103 0.3% 0.1% (0.2%) 0.2% 497 Lemon Hill 5,211 1,697 5,309 1,787 6,447 2,073 0.2% 0.6% 1.2% 0.9% 500 South of Fruitridge 1,733 613 1,596 613 2,154 735 (1.0%) 0.0% 1.9% 1.1% 895 Lemon Hill 2,775 941 2,710 942 3,052 983 (0.3%) 0.0% 0.7% 0.3% 896 South of Fruitridge 3,978 1,287 4,140 1,290 4,247 1,324 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 1042 Elmhurst 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1163 Lemon Hill 1,664 595 1,695 596 1,826 674 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% 1174 Elmhurst 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1175 Elmhurst 982 605 1,068 605 1,143 625 1.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 1176 Elmhurst 1,271 618 1,380 619 1,342 633 1.0% 0.0% (0.2%) 0.1% Total 80,411 31,260 83,612 31,883 92,589 35,295 0.5% 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% City of Sacramento 456,367 191,749 488,639 201,810 630,597 263,609 1.4% 1.3% 1.6% 1.7% Study Area as % of City 17.6% 16.3% 17.1% 15.8% 14.7% 13.4% sa taz
Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2016 MTP/SCS Modeling Projections by Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) for 2012, 2020 and 2036; EPS.

Average Annual Growth
2012 2020 2036
Item
2012-2020 2020-2036
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Units
Prepared by EPS 2/9/2021 C-2 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\192166_StocktonBlvd_SP 2-8-21 Appendix C:

Residential and
Commercial
Gentrification
Assessment
C-1

M EMORANDUM
To: City of Sacramento, Elizabeth Boyd
From: Amy Lapin and Kate O’Beirne
Subject: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment Update;
EPS #192166
Date: September 2, 2022
Reader’s Note: This memorandum updates an initial
memorandum evaluating residential and commercial
gentrification in the Study Area, prepared in September 2021.

The analysis contained herein presents an update to the commercial gentrification analysis only, based on an expanded evaluation of commercial trends occurring citywide. More information related to the updated analysis and methodology can be found in the Commercial Gentrification Assessment section.

The City of Sacramento (City) initiated a planning process to prepare a specific plan and neighborhood action plan for the Stockton Boulevard corridor and surrounding neighborhoods. The process has encompassed robust stakeholder involvement and myriad technical analyses and will culminate in targeted strategies to guide development, prioritize funding, and facilitate investment in equitable social, financial, and health outcomes for existing residents and businesses.

As part of the planning process, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared a comprehensive economic context report in February 2021 (February 2021 Report) that summarized existing socioeconomic and real estate conditions in the broader Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Study Area surrounding the corridor (Specific Plan Area). See Map 1 for the boundaries of the Specific Plan Area and Neighborhood Study Area.1
1 The Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Economic Context Report, prepared by EPS for the City, can be found online: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/- /media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/Stockton-Blvd-Plan/Stockton-Blvd-SP-Economic-Context-Final-Report-02-09-2021.pdf?la=en Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 2
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Map 1. Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Area and Defined Neighborhood Study Area Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 3
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Building on historical and forecasted socioeconomic and real estate trends in the Neighborhood Study Area highlighted in the February 2021 Report and in response to concerns expressed by local stakeholders, the City requested EPS assess residential and commercial gentrification trends in the Neighborhood Study Area.

This memorandum summarizes the key findings and methodological approach used to conduct the gentrification assessment for the Specific Plan Area. Also included, in the appendices of this memorandum, are detailed methodological steps to conduct the gentrification assessment summarized in this document for other study areas in the City.

The findings from this assessment are intended to be used, in part, to establish actionable strategies to continue investing in the Neighborhood Study Area while minimizing gentrification-related displacement. These strategies will be vetted and prioritized with City staff and community stakeholders as part of the forthcoming Specific Plan Area neighborhood action plan.

Organization of this Memorandum
This memorandum provides context and salient socioeconomic and real estate findings about the Neighborhood Study Area from the February 2021 Report, before providing an overview of gentrification, and summarizing key findings from the residential and commercial gentrification assessments. Use the following links to directly access specific sections of this memorandum:
• Stockton Boulevard Plan Area and Neighborhood Study Area Context • Gentrification Overview
• Residential Gentrification Assessment
• Commercial Gentrification Assessment
• Next Steps and Policy Considerations
This memorandum also includes two appendices: Appendix A, which provides the detailed residential gentrification assessment methodology, and Appendix B, which provides the detailed commercial gentrification assessment methodology. These methodological approaches can be used by City staff to conduct gentrification assessments in other study areas in the City.

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 4
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Stockton Boulevard Plan Area and
Neighborhood Study Area Context
Plan Area Overview
Stockton Boulevard serves as an important five-lane corridor, connecting downtown to south Sacramento and adjacent neighborhoods, and accommodating one of Sacramento Regional Transit’s (RT) busiest bus routes. The Plan Area, which encompasses a 4.8-mile segment of Stockton Boulevard within the City, spans from Alhambra Boulevard to the north to the City’s southern boundary to the south.

The Plan Area is a predominantly commercial corridor comprising approximately 420 acres (424 parcels) in total, with about 280 acres (about 240 parcels) of commercially-zoned property. Table 1 provides a summary of land uses in both the Specific Plan Area and the broader Neighborhood Study Area, which is described in more detail in the next section.

Table 1. Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Area and Neighborhood Study Area by Current Land Use Designation
Item Parcels Acres Parcels Acres
Land Use
Residential 138 55.8 13.2% 24,854 4,240.2 73.4%
Commercial
Retail/Commercial 184 183.2 43.5% 573 335.2 5.8%
Office 43 68.7 16.3% 113 195.2 3.4%
Medical 12 31.1 7.4% 46 127.6 2.2%
Subtotal Commercial 239 283.0 67.2% 732 658.0 11.4%
Agriculture 0 0.0 0.0% 2 0.4 0.0%
Industrial 18 27.9 6.6% 110 192.8 3.3%
Public 10 40.7 9.7% 102 360.0 6.2%
Recreational 4 3.2 0.8% 9 7.5 0.1%
Other 15 10.8 2.6% 425 318.0 5.5%
Total 424 421.4 100.0% 26,234 5,776.9 100.0%
Source: Ascent Stockton Boulevard Plan Area; County of Sacramento; EPS. [1] Parcel and acreage information excludes Right-of-Way (ROW). [2]
Plan Area [1] [2] Study Area [1]
Land Use acreage in Plan Area includes an estimated 60 acres of vacant land with a range of residential and nonresidential zoning designations.
% of Total
Acreage
% of Total
Acreage
Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 5
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Neighborhood Study Area Overview
The Neighborhood Study Area includes the Specific Plan Area and multiple diverse neighborhoods to the east and west of the corridor. The Neighborhood Study Area is approximately 7,400 total acres (nearly 5,800 acres excluding Right-of-Way), over 70 percent of which is contained in the City with the remaining acreage located in unincorporated Sacramento County (County).2 The Neighborhood Study Area is bounded by U.S. Highway 50 (Hwy 50) and the Sacramento RT Light Rail Gold Line to the north, Power Inn Road to the east, Morrison Creek to the south, and Highway 99 to the west.

Similar to the approach used in the February 2021 Report, the gentrification assessment delineates the Neighborhood Study Area into the following six Subareas (see Map 2):
• Elmhurst • Tahoe & Colonial
• Oak Park • Lemon Hill
• Fruitridge Pocket • South of Fruitridge
Neighborhood Study Area Socioeconomic Context
As of 2018, the Neighborhood Study Area contained over 86,000 residents (17 percent of City residents), almost 31,900 housing units (16 percent of the City’s housing supply), and 31,300 jobs (10 percent of total jobs in the City).

Socioeconomic Trends
Many of the Neighborhood Study Area neighborhoods have been historically occupied by lower-income households and residents comprising “Communities of Color,” including residents that identify as Black or African American, Vietnamese American, Latino, and Hispanic.3 Between 2010 and 2018, the percentage of the Neighborhood Study Area’s population that identified as a race or ethnicity considered a community of color remained constant but there was a notable shift to the east and south, with percentage declines in Elmhurst and Oak Park Subareas and percentage increases in Tahoe & Colonial, Lemon Hill, and South of Fruitridge Subareas. Similarly, in reviewing trends about residents who identify as Black or African American only, the percentage of Neighborhood Study Area population remained steady between 2010 and 2018 but the historically Black and African American community of Oak Park experienced significant declines for this population in contrast to large increases in the Fruitridge Pocket Subarea. 2 Note that the Study Area does not align with the northern and southern boundaries of the Plan Area because the Study Area uses Census Tract boundaries whereas the Plan Area uses parcel boundaries. See Map 2.
3 For this analysis, “Communities of Color” include populations that identify as Black or African American, American Indian, and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders, Hispanic or Latino, Some other Race, and Two or More Races in the ACS.

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 6
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Map 2. Stockton Boulevard Neighborhood Study Area and Study Subareas Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 7
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
The February 2021 Report noted that, since 2010, the Neighborhood Study Area’s population has become wealthier and more educated, with Subareas in the northern portion of the Neighborhood Study Area comprising a greater concentration of higher-income households and greater levels of higher educational attainment. Further, nearly all Subareas in the Neighborhood Study Area experienced declines in the percentage of residents living under the poverty level, with the most significant declines occurring in the Oak Park and Fruitridge Pocket Subareas.

Employment Trends
The Neighborhood Study Area is a strong employment node within the City with employment concentrated in Health Care, Educational Services, and Utilities industries.

The Neighborhood Study Area is home to significant existing and planned medical facilities in the Elmhurst Subarea, including the existing UC Davis Medical Center (plus a planned expansion); the Shriners Hospital for Children; and the planned Aggie Square mixed-use innovation and research project. The Neighborhood Study Area is also home to the Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD) Offices in the Lemon Hill Subarea, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) headquarters also in the Elmhurst Subarea.

Real Estate and Cultural Trends
As Sacramento’s first suburb, the Oak Park neighborhood has undergone considerable change over the years, from a thriving, predominantly white working class community to a thriving, predominantly Black working class community, to a community with higher than average poverty, crime, and neglect.4 Redevelopment efforts in north Oak Park began in the 1970s but change was negligible until a surge of new commercial and residential revitalization projects commenced in the early 2000s.5 Thereafter, bolstered by continued job growth driven by the medical facilities and SMUD headquarters in the Oak Park and Elmhurst Subareas respectively, as well as consumer preferences for living in urban locations close to employment opportunities and services, several projects with a mix of residential and commercial uses were developed in the northern portion of the Neighborhood Study Area. Adjacent to northern Oak Park, the high-end, market-rate residential project, The Gio, was constructed in the Elmhurst Subarea and has primarily attracted nearby medical facility employees.

Along Stockton Boulevard in the center of the Neighborhood Study Area, the northern portion of the South of Fruitridge Subarea and the Fruitridge Pocket Subarea are experiencing increased development activity, with the redevelopment of two retail shopping centers. The north end of the Fruitridge Shopping Center includes the addition of national chains Starbucks and a CVS Pharmacy and Stockton Plaza includes the 4 Hooks, Kris, 2017. The Gentrification of Sacramento's Oak Park. KCET Public Media Group. https://www.kcet.org/shows/city-rising/the-gentrification-of-sacramentos-oak-park [Accessed June 2021]. 5 Ibid.

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 8
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
addition of national chains of Planet Fitness, Smart & Final, and Ross Dress for Less as well as smaller retail shops.

The southern portion of the Neighborhood Study Area contains the Little Saigon District, an Asian American and Pacific Islander district that spans 2 miles along Stockton Boulevard from Fruitridge to the southern City boundary. The Little Saigon District was officially designated as a business district in 2010, but its role as a cultural hub for the Vietnamese community emerged over 40 years ago.6 The district currently includes a concentration of Southeast Asian businesses in the Lemon Hill and South of Fruitridge Subareas.

With recent redevelopment efforts and significant forthcoming investment in the Neighborhood Study Area, including development projects (Aggie Square, UC Davis Medical Center Hospital expansion, several proposed and approved residential projects along the Boulevard) and public infrastructure projects (transportation improvements), and an objective of supporting inclusive economic development to improve prosperity for residents and businesses, it is imperative to understand the extent to which gentrification pressures exist in the Neighborhood Study Area.

Gentrification Overview
Although neighborhoods continually experience some degree of change, the concept of gentrification was first introduced in the 1960s, when an influx of “gentry,” a reference to middle-class residents, moved into a low-income neighborhood in London, England, displacing residents and changing the social character of the community.7 Since then, gentrification has been identified and studied in cities globally. In the United States, gentrification has tended to occur primarily in large coastal cities but has also appeared in smaller cities in neighborhoods with a high concentration of amenities near a central business district.8
In a review of relevant literature, however, there does not appear to be a universally accepted definition of gentrification. Many definitions focus on one or more of the impacts of gentrification but there is no consensus on which factors are the most salient. Some definitions focus on the displacement of existing residents, while other definitions highlight the change in a neighborhood’s character. Still other definitions reference 6 Mizes-Tan, Sarah, 2021. A Neighborhood IN Transition: Sacramento’s Little Saigon Grapples with Culture And The American Dream. Capital Public Radio. https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/02/11/a-neighborhood-in-transition-sacramentos-little-saigon-grapples-with-culture-and-the-american-dream/ [Accessed June 2021].
7 Solomon, Jane, 2014. When and Where Did the Word Gentrification Originate. KQED. https://www.kqed.org/news/136343/gentrification-a-word-from-another-place-and-time [Accessed July 2021].
8 Wiltse-Ahmad, Alyssa, 2019. Study: Gentrification and Cultural Displacement Most Intense in America’s Largest Cities, And Absent from Many Others. National Community Reinvestment Coalitions. https://ncrc.org/study-gentrification-and-cultural-displacement-most-intense-in-americas-largest-cities-and-absent-from-many-others/ [Accessed July 2021].

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 9
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
increased property values as the essential element signifying gentrification.9 Often, gentrification is described as a process of neighborhood renewal or revitalization without identifying specific impacts.

The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, adopted in August 2021, defines gentrification as “the process by which higher income households displace lower income residents of a neighborhood, changing the essential character of that neighborhood. Often, though not always, gentrification has a very clear racial component, as higher income white households replace lower income minority households.” The City’s definition emphasizes the process of change, noting the impacts consist of changes to the cultural and socioeconomic characteristics of the neighborhood.

Causes and Effects of Gentrification
As described above, gentrification is a complicated economic force that has been interpreted in myriad ways. The precise causes of gentrification have been widely debated but many academic studies have identified the primary causes as those that fall under the following three general, and sometimes overlapping, categories.10 • Private market forces, including commercial and residential investment; property value increases; conversion from rental to homeownership housing; the presence of amenities; rapid employment growth; a tight housing market. • Socioeconomic changes, including individual preferences for amenities and urban locales; an influx of higher-income households, college-educated residents, white residents, and non-family households.
• Public sector policies, including long-term cycles of public investment and disinvestment that cause property values to increase or decline; local and Federal financial incentives that encourage private investment; disposition of public-owned property; zoning and code enforcement.11
Causes that fall under the categories of “private market forces” and “socioeconomic changes” represent factors that have the potential to attract or deter wealthier residents from investing in a lower-income neighborhood. Causes that fall under the category of “public-sector policies” reflect the set of rules made by policymakers that make gentrification more or less likely to occur. There is evidence that the causes of 9 Chapple, Karen, 2009. Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit. https://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/mapping_susceptibility_to_gentrification.pdf [Accessed June 2021].
10 Holland, Steve, 2016. Gentrification: Causes and Consequences. Journal of Lutheran Ethics. https://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/1135#_edn12 [Accessed July 2021]. 11 Kennedy, Maureen; and Paul Leonard, 2001.Dealing With Neighborhood Change: A Primer On Gentrification and Policy Choices. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/gentrification.pdf [Accessed July 2021].

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 10
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
gentrification likely stem from some combination of these factors.12 Notably, many of the drivers of gentrification are also essential components for successful urban environments.

Gentrification can have positive or negative effects, depending on the circumstances of the neighborhood, city, or region, and on the constituency affected. Positive impacts may include increased commercial activity, improved economic opportunity, lower poverty and crime rates, and an increase in property values, which can benefit existing homeowners. The negative effects of gentrification can include increased rents and the loss of affordable residential and commercial space, which primarily impacts renters, the displacement of low-income households, and the transformation of a community’s cultural and social fabric. However, research on the impacts of gentrification has produced contradictory findings, resulting in challenges regarding clear-cut policy solutions.13
While displacement is often considered the primary negative consequence of gentrification, it may not be as causal as once thought. Several studies have suggested that displacement rates are no higher in gentrifying neighborhoods than they are elsewhere, supporting an approach of evaluating displacement separate from the leading drivers of gentrification (factors that are causing neighborhood change).14 15 16 A recent study distinguished between gentrification (the process of neighborhood change) and displacement (what happens to households in the neighborhood). The study highlighted the finding that low-income households move around frequently, regardless of whether the household is living in a gentrifying neighborhood, and regardless of their neighborhood location (in New York City), type of residence (market-rate or affordable housing), or demographic group (race). In short, the study concluded that lower-income households tend to be very residential unstable and can lose their housing or be forced to 12 Chapple, Karen, 2009. Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit. Center for Community Innovation at the Institute of Urban and Regional Development. https://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/mapping_susceptibility_to_gentrification.pdf [Accessed July 2021].
13 Kennedy, Maureen; and Paul Leonard, 2001. Dealing With Neighborhood Change: A Primer On Gentrification and Policy Choices. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/gentrification.pdf [Accessed July 2021]. 14 Brummet, Quentin; and Reed, Davine, 2019. The Effects of Gentrification on the Well-Being and Opportunity of Original Resident Adults and Children. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/working-papers/2019/wp19-30.pdf?la=en [Accessed July 2021].
15 Gould Ellen, Ingrid; and O’Regan, Kathy, 2010. How Low-Income Neighborhoods Change: Entry, Exit, and Enhancement. Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy. https://furmancenter.org/files/publications/How_Low_Income_Neighborhoods_Change_1.pdf [Accessed July 2021].
16 Refer to the Analysis Limitations section of this document for details on the components needed for a displacement study.

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 11
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
move for any number of reasons.17 As another study noted, low-income household rates of mobility tend to be uniformly high across all types of neighborhoods.18 The precise cause of residential instability is difficult to discern because multiple factors often coalesce resulting in both intended and unintended household movement. These factors include:
• Individual and household characteristics, including changes in household income and benefits, employment status, family composition, availability of childcare, and physical and mental health.
• Housing unit characteristics, including damage or disrepair, housing code violations, and conflicts with landlords.
• Neighborhood-level dynamics, including blight, vacant buildings and lots, an increase in violent crime, and socioeconomic changes.
• Local, regional, or broader housing market dynamics, including market-rate and affordable housing supply, and other economic factors that influence residential consumer (renters and buyers) and property owner behaviors (e.g., mortgage interest rates; consumer demand). Exclusionary zoning, racial and ethnic segregation, and housing and mortgage discrimination also can influence housing instability.
• Other local, State, and Federal systems, including the availability of housing assistance and other social welfare support, the criminal justice system, and changes in the labor market (including employment supply and wages).19 20 The findings regarding uniform residential instability, regardless of whether a neighborhood is gentrifying, may be surprising, as they run counter to prevailing notions of gentrification’s most concerning impact. One reason why displacement has been inextricably linked to gentrification may be that “displacement is simply more salient in gentrifying areas. People may be less likely to notice the evictions and forced moves in other neighborhoods, because in non-gentrifying neighborhoods newly entering tenants 17 Dragan, Kacie; Ellen, Ingrid; and Glied, Sherry A., 2019. Does Gentrification Displace Poor Children? New Evidence from New York City Medicaid Data. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25809/w25809.pdf [Accessed June 2021]. 18 Richardson, Jason, Bruce Mitchell, and Juan Franco. Shifting Neighborhoods, Gentrification and cultural displacement in American cities. National Community Reinvestment Coalition. https://ncrc.org/gentrification/ [Accessed June 2021].
19 Desmond, Matthew. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. New York: Crown Publishers, 2016.
20 Theodos, Brett, Sara McTarnaghan, and Claudia Coulton, 2018. Family Residential Instability: What Can States and Localities Do?
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98286/family_residential_instability_what_can_state s_and_localities_do_1.pdf [Accessed August 2021].

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 12
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
more closely resemble those exiting.”21 Another reason may be because of data limitations; U.S. Census data is the primary source of longitudinal socioeconomic data, but it doesn’t provide information about why households move or the location of their next residence.

That said, it is evident that a combination of market, demographic, and public policy factors can increase demand and pricing for real estate in some neighborhoods, in particular those neighborhoods that are proximal to employment opportunities, amenities, and other high-value neighborhoods. As a result, some households, primarily renters, will be priced out of their neighborhood and seek housing in more affordable locales. When displacement does occur, this change in residence can have detrimental impacts on residents, impeding access to healthy food, health care, recreation, and social networks and causing stress and mental health issues.22 23 Furthermore, residents who move out of a neighborhood because of price increases may find themselves unable to return, even more so if demand for location increases but the housing supply, both market rate and affordable, does not commensurately increase.

Commercial Gentrification
The overwhelming majority of discourse on gentrification relates to its impacts on residents. To the extent that residents experience rising housing costs and are forced to move to another neighborhood and in-migrating residents have different tastes and preferences, commercial businesses, in particular small businesses that catered to the original residents, may also be vulnerable to gentrification pressures. Commercial tenants in gentrifying neighborhoods also may be subject to predatory leasing practices, harassment from landlords, rising rents, and competition from new businesses.24 And, with less access to capital and credit than their white counterparts, small businesses owned by people of color can be at higher risk of business closure or displacement from gentrification. The primary signals of commercial gentrification include declines in 21 Richardson, Jason, Bruce Mitchell, and Juan Franco. Shifting Neighborhoods, Gentrification and cultural displacement in American cities. National Community Reinvestment Coalition. https://ncrc.org/gentrification/ [Accessed June 2021].
22 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009. Health Effects of Gentrification. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm [Accessed June 2021]. 23 Brummet, Quentin; and Reed, Davine, 2019. The Effects of Gentrification on the Well-Being and Opportunity of Original Resident Adults and Children. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/working-papers/2019/wp19-30.pdf?la=en [Accessed June 2021].
24 Lung-Amam, Willow, 2021. Businesses Are Victims of Gentrification, Too. Bloomberg CityLab. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-19/small-businesses-are-victims-of-gentrification-too [Accessed July 2021].

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 13
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
minority-owned and non-chain, small establishments as well as a higher churn rate of infrequent (not patronized often) and discretionary (optional spending) establishments.25 Residential Gentrification Assessment
Drawing from the extensive body of research and well-documented gentrification evaluation methodologies developed by the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project and the University of Texas at Austin’s The Uprooted Project, EPS prepared a similar but simplified, quantitative-based methodology for the purpose of assessing current conditions in the Neighborhood Study Area and creating a framework the City can replicate and modify, to continue to evaluate the Neighborhood Study Area and other neighborhoods in the City.26 27
Residential Gentrification Methodological Approach
The methodology used in this analysis relies on socioeconomic data obtained from the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) to measure gentrification conditions and estimated low-income household displacement as of 2018 in the Neighborhood Study Area Subareas.28 The methodology is based on metrics that are theorized to contribute to gentrification and displacement conditions as described further below.

1. Household income. This criterion categorizes the income-level of the households in each Census Tract in the Study Area based on the notion that tracts with a concentration of existing low-income households are susceptible to gentrification and displacement whereas tracts with a concentration of moderate- to high-income households are susceptible to increasing exclusivity (exclusion of low-income households). A Census Tract's household income category was assigned based on whether the majority of households had an income that fell within income categories defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Income Limits for Sacramento County (i.e., low-income, moderate-income, high-income). If the Census Tract did not contain a majority of households that fell within an income category, the tract was defined as containing a mixture of household 25 Chapple, Karen, UC Berkeley & Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, UC Los Angeles with Silvia R. González, Dov Kadin & Joseph Poirier. Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology. Urban Displacement Project.
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/commercial_gentrification_methodology._.pdf [Accessed May 2021].
26 For more information on the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project research and methodology, refer to the following publications on their Web site: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/publications. 27 For more information on University of Texas at Austin’s The Uprooted Project, refer to their Web site:
https://sites.utexas.edu/gentrificationproject/.
28 The U.S. Census ACS data for 2018 was the most current available data at the time this analysis was completed.

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 14
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
incomes and the income category was assigned based on the tract’s median household income (i.e., Mixed-Low; Mixed-Moderate; Mixed-High).

2. Change in low-income households. This criterion reflects the change in the number of low-income households in each Census Tract from 2010 to 2018. A decline in low-income households coupled with a Low-Income category assignment signals the potential for ongoing displacement as well as susceptibility to gentrification when coupled with other factors present in that tract. It should be noted that because of data limitations related to the specifics of the households being measured, it cannot be concluded with certainty if the declines represent displacement or other intended or unintended move.

3. Rental housing costs. This criterion measures the average annual change in median gross rent in the Census Tract or adjacent Census Tract, as high rent burdens (and significant changes in rental rates) are strongly associated with both gentrification and displacement. In combination with the low-income category status and other metrics, moderate to significant increases in rental housing costs in or near a Census Tract can signify early to advanced gentrification status.

4. The proportion of college-educated residents. This criterion measures the percentage of residents with an Associate’s degree or higher compared to the City as a whole in both 2010 and 2018. In combination with the household income category status and other metrics, a higher percentage of college-educated residents is strongly associated with susceptibility to gentrification and displacement of low-income households.

5. The proportion of White residents. This criterion measures the percentage of residents that identify as White compared to the City as a whole in both 2010 and 2018. In combination with the household income category status and other metrics, a higher percentage of White residents may be associated with susceptibility to gentrification and displacement of low-income households.

6. The proportion of Homeowner-residents. This criterion measures the percentage of residents that own their home compared to the City as a whole in both 2010 and 2018. In combination with the household income category status and other metrics, a higher percentage of homeowners may be associated with exclusivity of low-income households.

Using ACS data at the Census Tract geography level, Census Tracts in the Neighborhood Study Area were categorized, first by their predominant household income level, and then by the degree to which each Census Tract experienced leading indicators of gentrification between 2010 and 2018, as described above.

Similar to the Urban Displacement Project approach, the analysis defined household income profiles for each Census Tract as the basis for determining whether an area would be considered along the spectrum of either gentrification or exclusivity (i.e., higher-income and higher housing cost areas that likely provide limited housing opportunities for low-income households). Thus, each Census Tract was assigned a low-, moderate-, or Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 15
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
high-income profile designation which reflects estimated vulnerability to gentrification and displacement pressures (i.e., predominantly low-income household Census Tracts are more vulnerable than moderate- to high-income Census Tracts). Once an income profile was defined, EPS defined criteria for seven different categories related to gentrification or exclusivity, which are described in more detail below. The detailed residential gentrification methodology and gentrification category data and calculations is provided in Appendix A.

Low-Income Census Tract Gentrification Categories
• Susceptible to Displacement. A Census Tract was considered Susceptible to Displacement if it met a single criterion: whether it was categorized as a low-income Census tract as of 2018. This categorization acknowledges the findings in recent studies that indicate that lower-income households are residentially unstable for a variety of reasons, including gentrification pressures. • Susceptible to Gentrification. Building on the previous “Susceptible to Displacement” category, a Census Tract was considered Susceptible to Gentrification if it met two criteria: 1) it was determined to be a low-income Census Tract as of 2018; and 2) it contained rental housing that demonstrated a moderate to significant increase in pricing between 2010 and 2018 or was located adjacent to a Census Tract that contained rental housing that experienced a moderate to significant increase in pricing. These factors identify Census Tracts that are not currently determined to be gentrifying but exhibiting changing conditions in the rental housing market or adjacent to a neighborhood (Census Tract) with changing conditions in the rental housing market, which can have a geographical ripple effect and increase risk for gentrification in the Census Tract.
• Early Gentrification. Building on the previous “Susceptible to Gentrification” category, a Census Tract was considered to be experiencing Early Gentrification if it met the following four criteria: 1) it was determined to be a low-income Census Tract as of 2018; 2) it contained rental housing that demonstrated a significant increase in pricing between 2010 and 2018; 3) there was a decline in low-income households between 2010 and 2018; and 4) the Census Tract exhibited one of three key demographic trends that have been demonstrated to be an indicator of gentrification.

These factors are aligned with a combination of factors, as described earlier in this memorandum (private market forces; demographic changes) that suggest an early stage of gentrification.
• Advanced Gentrification. A Census Tract was considered to be experiencing Advanced Gentrification if it met the same criteria as the criteria described under the “Early Gentrification” category but instead of meeting only one of three key demographic trends, the Census Tract met two of three key demographic trends, exhibiting conditions aligning with advanced gentrification.

Moderate- to High-Income Census Tract Exclusivity Categories • At Risk of Becoming Exclusive. A Census Tract was categorized as being At Risk of Becoming Exclusive if it met the following criteria: 1) it was determined to be a Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
moderate-income Census Tract as of 2018; and, 2) the Census Tract exhibited at least one of three key demographic trends that demonstrate the area is trending towards potential exclusivity. Neighborhoods that are at risk of becoming exclusive pose a particular concern to adjacent lower-income neighborhoods, as proximity has been found to be a factor leading to gentrification in the adjacent low-income neighborhood.
• Early Exclusivity. A Census Tract was categorized as experiencing Early Exclusivity if it met the following three criteria: 1) it was determined to be a moderate- to high-income Census Tract as of 2018; 2) there was a decline in low-income households between 2010 and 2018; and 3) the Census Tract exhibited at least two of three key demographic trends that demonstrate the neighborhood has begun the process of becoming an exclusive, higher-income and higher-housing cost neighborhood. • Advanced Exclusivity. A Census Tract was categorized as experiencing Advanced Exclusivity if it met the following two criteria: 1) it was determined to be a high-income Census Tract as of 2018; and 3) the Census Tract exhibited at least two of three key demographic trends that demonstrate the neighborhood has become an exclusive, higher-income and higher-housing cost neighborhood.

Historical Decline of Low-Income Households (Potential for Ongoing Displacement) This analysis evaluates changes in the number of low-income households that occurred between 2010 and 2018 as a proxy for displacement. This analysis does not categorize the extent of the decline (i.e., minimal, moderate, or significant), primarily because the scope of the analysis was limited to the Neighborhood Study Area, which did not allow for conclusions within the context of a larger geography (i.e., City, County).

This analysis does not assume displacement is occurring along the continuum of gentrification and exclusivity designations. Rather, this analysis provides a metric for displacement as a separate overlay, reflecting evidence that suggests displacement of low-income households may be occurring in gentrifying and non-gentrifying neighborhoods alike.

Residential Gentrification Assessment Findings
Table 2 summarizes the gentrification and displacement assessment findings for the Neighborhood Study Area. The residential gentrification and displacement results are also displayed geographically by Census Tract by Subarea in Map 3. The data supporting these findings are provided in Appendix A:

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 17
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 2. Residential Gentrification Assessment Criteria Category Residential Gentrification Criteria
2018 Income Category Determination of the predominant household income level for households in a Census Tract to determine the extent of gentrification or exclusivity (Low, Moderate, High)
Susceptible to Displacement of Low Income Households 1. Predominantly low income CT or median household income < 80% AMI in 2018 Historical Decline of Low Income Households
(Potential for Ongoing Displacement)

1. Decline in low income households between 2010-2018

1. Predominantly low income CT or median household income < 80% AMI in 2018

2. Moderate to significant average, annual increase (2 to >5%) or adjacent to a CT with a moderate to significant average, annual increase in rental housing costs between 2010-2018
Early Gentrification 1. Predominantly low income CT or median household income < 80% AMI in 2018

2. Decline in low income households between 2010-2018

3. Significant average, annual increase (>5%) in rental housing costs between 2010- 2018

4. Meets 1 of 3 demographic gentrification criteria in 2018 Advanced Gentrification 1. Predominantly moderate income CT or median household income is between 80% and 120% AMI in 2018

2. Decline in low income households between 2010-2018

3. Significant average, annual increase (>5%) in rental housing costs between 2010- 2018

4. Meets 2 of 3 demographic gentrification criteria in 2010 and 2018

1. Predominantly moderate income CT or median household income is between 80% and 120% AMI in 2018

2. Meets at least 1 of 3 demographic gentrification criteria in 2010 and 2018

1. Predominantly moderate to high income CT or median household income is between 80% and 120% or > 120% AMI in 2018

2. Decline in low income households between 2010-2018

3. Meets at least 2 of 3 demographic gentrification criteria in 2010 and 2018

1. Predominantly high income CT or median household income is > 120% AMI in 2018

2. Meets at least 2 of 3 demographic gentrification criteria in 2010 and 2018 Susceptibility and Potential for Ongoing Displacement
Low-Income Census Tract Gentrification Categories
Moderate-to-High-Income Census Tract Exclusivity Categories Advanced Exclusivity (Stable High Income)
Source: City of Sacramento https://www.cityofsacramento.org/tpp; U.S Census ACS 2010 and 2018; State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Susceptible to Gentrification
At Risk for Becoming Exclusive (Stable Moderate Income) Early Exclusivity (Stable Moderate to High Income)
Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 18
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 2- A. Residential Gentrification Assessment Categories by Census Tract Study Subarea/
Census Tract
2018
Income Category
of Census Tract
Susceptible to
Displacement of
Low Income
Households
Historical Decline
of Low Income
HHs (Potential for
Ongoing
Displacement)
Susceptible to
Gentrification
Early
Gentrification
Advanced
Gentrification
At Risk of
Becoming
Exclusive
(Stable Moderate
Income)
Early Exclusivity
(Stable Moderate
to High Income)
Advanced
Exclusivity
(Stable High
Income)
Source Table A-1 Table A-2 Table A-2 Table A-3 Table A-3 Table A-3 Table A-4 Table A-4 Table A-4 Elmhurst
6067001700 Mixed-Moderate No Yes No No No No Yes No
Oak Park
6067001800 Mixed-Moderate No Yes No No No No Yes No
6067002700 Low Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
6067002800 Low Yes No Yes No No No No No
6067003700 Low Yes No Yes No No No No No
Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 Low Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
6067004402 Low Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 Mixed-Moderate No No No No No Yes No No
6067003000 Mixed-Moderate No Yes No No No No Yes No
6067003101 Low Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
6067003102 Low Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
Lemon Hill
6067004601 Low Yes No Yes No No No No No
6067004602 Low Yes No Yes No No No No No
6067004702 Low Yes No Yes No No No No No
South of Fruitridge
6067003202 Low Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
6067003203 Low Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
6067003204 Low Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
6067004801 Low Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
Source: City of Sacramento https://www.cityofsacramento.org/tpp; U.S Census ACS 2010 and 2018; State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Susceptibility and Potential for
Ongoing Displacement
Low-Income Census Tract
Gentrification Categories
Moderate-to-High-Income
Census Tract Exclusivity Categories
Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 19
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Map 3. Stockton Specific Plan Neighborhood Study Area Residential Gentrification Assessment Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 20
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
• Approximately one-third of Neighborhood Study Area households live in areas that are Becoming Exclusive or have the Potential to Become Exclusive to low-income households. The northern portion of the Neighborhood Study Area, comprising Elmhurst and North Oak Park and most of the Tahoe & Colonial Subarea are designated as moderate-income Census Tracts that are either Becoming Exclusive to low-income households (Elmhurst, the northern portion of the Oak Park Subarea, and the middle portion of the Tahoe & Colonial Subarea) or have the Potential to Become Exclusive to low-income households (northern Tahoe & Colonial Subarea).

This finding was not unexpected given various factors that have been identified as probable drivers of gentrification, including: close proximity to areas with abundant employment opportunities and amenities (midtown and downtown); close proximity to a high housing value neighborhood to the north of the Neighborhood Study Area (East Sacramento); a concentration of employment opportunities and amenities in these Census Tracts themselves (in Elmhurst and northern Oak Park) or adjacency to these employment opportunities and amenities (northern Tahoe & Colonial Subarea); and sustained public and private investment in the northern portion of the Neighborhood Study Area (northern Oak Park and Elmhurst). • The remaining two-thirds of Neighborhood Study Area households live in areas that are categorized as Susceptible to Gentrification. Households living in the southern portions of the Oak Park and Tahoe & Colonial Subareas, and the entirety of the Fruitridge Pocket, Lemon Hill, and South of Fruitridge Subareas met conditions that align with the “Susceptible to Gentrification” designation. That is, these Subareas or portions of subareas were predominantly low-income and experienced moderate to significant rental housing pricing increases or were located adjacent to Census Tracts that experienced moderate to significant rental housing pricing increases. It is important to note that the distinction between this designation and a more prominent gentrification designation (Early Gentrification and Advanced Gentrification) means that residents and households did not meet any of the three demographic criteria that often accompany gentrification (i.e., these Census Tracts did not contain a higher percentage of college educated residents, white residents, or homeowner households relative to the City average).
• Between 2010 and 2018, the Neighborhood Study Area experienced an estimated net decline in low-income households, although data limitations and comparisons to Citywide trends lead to mixed conclusions. The Neighborhood Study Area experienced a net loss of about 420 low-income households between 2010 and 2018, including declines in Census Tracts that were defined as having both moderate-income and low-income profiles. Unsurprisingly, declines were estimated in the northern portion of the Neighborhood Study Area (Elmhurst, and northern portion of Oak Park), where Census Tracts were identified as “Becoming Exclusive” to low-income
Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
households.29 Net declines also were estimated in subareas throughout the Neighborhood Study Area with the exception of the Lemon Hill Subarea, which experienced a substantial increase in low-income households. Notably, although there was a substantial decline in low-income households in the northern portion of Oak Park, there was a counterbalancing increase in the southern portion of the Oak Park Subarea resulting in a negligible change overall in the entire Oak Park Subarea.

These findings are complicated by the estimated net decline in low-income households that occurred Citywide during the same period. Between 2010 and 2018, the City experienced a net decline of about 980 low-income households. Without more detailed data regarding these households, one theory is that some low-income households throughout the City, including in the Neighborhood Study Area, were displaced to locations outside of the City. Because some Census Tracts in the Neighborhood Study Area (and presumably in Census Tracts throughout the City) experienced an increase of low-income households, one could conclude that some low-income households were displaced from one area of the City (or from locations outside the City) to these tracts. An alternative theory could be that the households that were defined as low-income at the beginning of the period (2010) experienced an increase in income that exceeded the low-income threshold at the end of the period (2018). The converse could also be true for other households, both hypotheses could be true, or other theories yet to be identified. The limitation of not knowing exactly which households moved where complicates the ability to determine how much displacement occurred in the Neighborhood Study Area (or throughout the City).

It is also worth noting that while some Census Tracts in the Neighborhood Study Area experienced declines in low-income households and residents who identify as a race or ethnicity considered a “community of color” (signaling evidence of gentrification) there were other Census Tracts that experienced declines in low-income households and substantial increases of residents who identify as a race or ethnicity considered a “community of color” (the three most southern Census Tracts in the Tahoe & Colonial Subarea and the two Census Tracts to the east of Stockton Boulevard in the South of Fruitridge Subarea).

While it is difficult to definitively conclude how much displacement has occurred in the Neighborhood Study Area, to the extent that Census Tracts in the Neighborhood Study Area have experienced myriad conditions correlated with gentrification, it is probable that some low-income households, which may have moved because of rental housing pricing increases or other reason, may find themselves unable to return to 29 One Census Tract in northern Oak Park identified as Susceptible to Gentrification (low-income profile) also had a significant decline in low-income households, but experienced a decline in rental housing pricing, met none of the demographic gentrification criteria in 2010, and met one of the demographic gentrification criteria in 2018.

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 22
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
their neighborhood without an increase in affordable housing supply and policies and programs that promote the economic prosperity of existing residents.

Another form of displacement, cultural displacement, results when the preferences and behaviors of new residents supplant those of the existing residents. Although difficult to measure, the demographic gentrification criteria—including increases in college educated and white residents—can be used as a proxy. Between 2010 and 2018, the largest increases in the percentage of college educated residents were in the northern portion of the Neighborhood Study Area (Elmhurst, north Oak Park, and north Tahoe & Colonial subareas), although it is important to note that the percentage of college-educated residents increased throughout the Neighborhood Study Area, with the exception of the Lemon Hill subarea, and throughout the entire City. Similarly, despite a decline in the percentage of residents that identify as white in the City overall between 2010 and 2018, the Neighborhood Study Area experienced increases in the percentage of white residents in the northern Subareas (Elmhurst and north Oak Park) with corresponding declines in the percentage of the population that identifies as a race or ethnicity considered a “community of color.” It can be surmised that based on this evaluation of socioeconomic data and known real estate and public investments, that the northern Census Tracts of the Neighborhood Study Area have experienced cultural displacement for at least the last decade.

Commercial Gentrification Assessment
Similar to the residential assessment methodology, EPS prepared a methodology to evaluate commercial gentrification in the Neighborhood Study Area. The methodological approach closely follows the approach developed by The Urban Displacement Project and measures gentrification based on metrics that are estimated to contribute to commercial gentrification. Per the reader’s note described in the beginning of this memorandum, it is important to note that the original assessment (described in the initial September 2021 memorandum) was limited to an evaluation of commercial establishments in the Neighborhood Study Area. This updated memorandum analyzes establishment data in the City, in addition to the Neighborhood Study Area, to provide a contextual understanding of commercial gentrification trends over two study periods (2000-2009 and 2010-2019) and to allow for specific findings occurring in the Neighborhood Study Area relative to broader (Citywide) trends.

Commercial Gentrification Methodological Approach
The initial step in evaluating commercial gentrification was to select only those Census Tracts that contained a commercial density greater than the Citywide median density, measured as the quantity of total establishments by Census Tract per Census Tract land area (acres). Commercial concentrations within Census Tracts were defined for all tracts in the City for the ending study period years of 2009 and 2019. Thus, commercial gentrification trends by Census Tract were evaluated further if the Census Tract met this threshold.

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 23
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Following the commercial density threshold analysis, the commercial gentrification methodological approach measured four criteria to assess commercial gentrification trends in the Neighborhood Study Area over two periods: 2000 to 2009; and 2010 to 2019. This approach relied on data from the National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database for 2019 and used geospatial analysis to develop a composite index of each of the four criteria, as described below:30

1. Minority-owned establishments. This criterion reflects the change in the share of minority-owned establishments in a Census Tract over the study periods. A decline in the percentage share of minority-owned establishments by Census Tract is assumed to indicate commercial gentrification.

2. Non-chain, small establishments. This criterion reflects the change in the share of non-chain, small establishments in a Census Tract over the study periods. A decline in the percentage share of non-chain, small establishments by Census Tract is assumed to indicate commercial gentrification.

3. Infrequently patronized establishments. This criterion reflects the churn rate at which infrequently patronized establishments move in and out of a Census Tract.31 An infrequent establishment is defined as an establishment that is not patronized often. Refer to Table B-10 for a list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that comprise the infrequently patronized establishments evaluated in this analysis. A higher churn rate is assumed to indicate commercial gentrification.

4. Discretionary establishments. This criterion reflects the churn rate at which discretionary, or optional spending, establishments move in and out of a Census Tract. Refer to Table B-11 for a list of NAICS codes that comprise the discretionary establishments evaluated in this analysis. A higher churn rate is assumed to indicate commercial gentrification.

The raw values were calculated for each criterion for the City’s Census Tracts and then indexed on a scale of 1-100 to align the values for ease of comparison and aggregation.

Following the Urban Displacement Project methodology, the rescaled index for the first two criteria—minority-owned establishments and non-chain, small establishments—were weighted with a factor of 3 to reflect the importance of these criteria in the overall composite index.32 The re-scaled index for the other two criteria—infrequently 30 The NETS database is a comprehensive time-series database, prepared annually by Walls & Associates, of over 63 million establishments throughout the United States from 1990 through 2019. This assessment evaluates changes in establishments in the Study Area from 2000 through 2019. 31 The churn rate is defined as number of establishments that cease operations move out of or cease, a Census Tract, divided by total number of establishments. 32 Chapple, Karen, UC Berkeley & Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, UC Los Angeles with Silvia R. González, Dov Kadin & Joseph Poirier. Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology. Urban Displacement Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 24
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
patronized establishment churn rates and discretionary establishment churn rates—were not weighted. The weighted and unweighted indices for each criterion were aggregated to determine an overall composite index for each Census Tract. The higher the composite index, the more a Census Tract is estimated to reflect commercial gentrification conditions.

A summary of the components of the commercial gentrification methodology is provided in Table 3. The detailed methodological approach and supporting data and calculations are provided in Appendix B.

Project.
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/commercial_gentrification_methodology._.pdf [Accessed May 2021].

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 25
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 3. Commercial Gentrification Assessment Methodological Components Description
Raw Value Interpretation
Indexed Value
Index Weighting
Index Weighting Factor 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00
Indexed Value Interpretation A higher indexed score denotes greater commercial gentrification.

Yes (0-100 Index)
Commercial Gentrification Criteria
This criterion reflects the share
difference in minority-owned
establishments as a percentage of total
establishments between time periods
analyzed: 2000-2009; and 2010-2019.

This criterion is indexed and weighted.

This criterion reflects the share difference
in non-chain small establishments as a
percentage of total establishments
between time periods analyzed: 2000-
2009; and 2010-2019. This criterion is
indexed and weighted.

This criterion reflects the churn rate of
infrequently-patronized establishments
between time periods analyzed: 2000-
2009; and 2010-2019. This criterion is
indexed and not weighted.

This criterion reflects the churn rate of
discretionary establishments between
time periods analyzed: 2000-2009; and
2010-2019. This criterion is indexed
and not weighted.

Criteria A
Minority-Owned Est. Share Diff.

Criteria B
Non-Chain Small Est. Share Diff.

Criteria C
Infrequent Est. Churn Rate
Criteria D
Discretionary Est. Churn Rate
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Yes (0-100 Index) Yes (0-100 Index)
A higher churn rate reflects greater
commercial gentrification.

A higher churn rate reflects greater
commercial gentrification.

No weighting applied to the indexed
value.

No weighting applied to the indexed
value.

Maximum value generates highest
indexed value; Minimum value
generates lowest indexed value.

Maximum value generates highest
indexed value; Minimum value
generates lowest indexed value.

A decline in minority-owned businesses
indicates greater commercial
gentrification.

Minimum value generates highest
indexed value; Maximum value
generates lowest indexed value.

A weighting factor was applied to the
indexed value to reflect the prominent
role minority-owned establishments plays
in commercial gentrification.

A decline in non-chain small businesses
indicates greater commercial
gentrification.

A weighting factor was applied to the
indexed value to reflect the prominent role
non-chain small establishments plays in
commercial gentrification.

Minimum value generates highest
indexed value; Maximum value
generates lowest indexed value.

Yes (0-100 Index)
Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 26
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Commercial Gentrification Assessment Findings
s shown in a ble , the commercial ge ntrification a sse ssment summarizes point-in-time result s for each e nsus ract in the eig hborhood tudy rea. y the e nd of the initial st udy period (-), about perce nt of e nsus racts in the tudy re a met the commercial density threshold, while two ensus racts – one in the ak ark uba rea and one in the outh of ruit ridge ubarea – qua li fie d as ex hibiting conditions of commercial ge ntri fication (e.g., decline s in minority-owned a nd non-chain, small esta blishme nts and hig her c hurn rates of infrequent ly-patronize d and discretionary e stablishme nts). ee ap .

By the end of the second study period (2010-2019), commercial density increased in the Study Area and Citywide, and commercial gentrification assessment results, relative to the 2009 findings, present several conclusions. As of 2019, only one Census Tract in the Study Area was identified as a commercially gentrifying tract (a different and adjacent Census Tract in the Oak Park Subarea). See Map 5. That is, the 2000-2009 Census Tracts that qualified as commercially gentrifying no longer met the Composite Index threshold in the latter study period, suggesting what appears to be improved conditions in the case of the Oak Park Subarea Census Tract or improved conditions relative to the Citywide threshold, in the case of the South of Fruitridge Subarea Census Tract. Related to this finding, the Citywide Gentrification Composite Index threshold increased over time, suggesting a greater amount of commercial gentrification is occurring in the City.

It is also important to note that, as of 2019, there are several Census Tracts that are not considered commercially concentrated tracts (i.e., commercial density and the number of establishments are low) but exhibit a high gentrification composite index, suggesting the need to monitor and intervene, as necessary, with strategies to mitigate further commercial gentrification.

In assessing the individual components of the composite index, there are several key conclusions regarding indicators of commercial gentrification in the Neighborhood Study Area. The data supporting these findings are provided in Appendix B:
• The percentage of minority-owned establishments in the Neighborhood Study Area has declined over time, despite an increase in total establishments in the Neighborhood Study Area. Between 2000 and 2019, the percentage of establishments in the City owned by minorities slowly declined from approximately 3.7 percent of total establishments down to 1.9 percent of total establishments (a loss of 20 minority-owned establishments), a proportional imbalance to the 92 percent increase in total establishments, an absolute increase of 17,122 establishments. Similarly the number of establishments in the Neighborhood Study Area increased over this same period from 1,480 to over 2,900, the percentage of minority-owned establishments declined from 4.0 percent in 2000 to 1.6 percent in 2019. In terms of absolute establishments, the Neighborhood Study Area contained 59 minority-owned establishments in 2000 and experienced a loss of 12 minority-owned establishments as of 2019, most of which were in the South of Fruitridge Subarea.

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 27
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 4. Commercial Gentrification Assessment Summary
Item
Citywide Threshold Values
Median Commercial Density 0.33 - 0.39 -
20th Pctl. of Composite Index - 367.8 - 432.7
Elmhurst
6067001710 0.31 No 316.2 No No [1] 0.40 Yes 367.3 No No [2] 6067001720 0.49 Yes 234.9 No No [2] 0.69 Yes 360.9 No No [2] Oak Park
6067001800 0.51 Yes 340.0 No No [2] 0.79 Yes 178.2 No No [2] 6067002700 0.65 Yes 373.6 Yes Yes Decrease in minority-owned establishments; high churn rates for both infrequent and discretionary
establishments

0.68 Yes 329.0 No No [2]
6067002800 0.43 Yes 353.1 No No [2] 0.52 Yes 477.7 Yes Yes Decrease in both minority-owned and small business establishments; high churn rates for both infrequent and discretionary establishments
6067003700 0.47 Yes 367.1 No No [2] 0.51 Yes 339.0 No No [2] Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 0.23 No 217.9 No No [1] 0.20 No 317.6 No No [1] 6067004402 0.07 No 193.4 No No [1] 0.12 No 59.5 No No [1] Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 0.45 Yes 255.5 No No [2] 0.53 Yes 266.3 No No [2] 6067003010 0.33 Yes 286.2 No No [2] 0.46 Yes 392.9 No No [2] 6067003020 0.52 Yes 326.0 No No [2] 0.45 Yes 363.5 No No [2] 6067003101 0.27 No 309.6 No No [1] 0.32 No 254.2 No No [1] 6067003102 0.34 Yes 256.5 No No [2] 0.33 No 483.4 Yes No Low commercial density, but noting decrease in minority-owned and small businesses establishments; high churn rates for both infrequent and discretionary establishments Lemon Hill
6067004602 0.26 No 639.6 Yes No Low commercial density, but noting decrease in minority-owned establishments; high churn rates for
both infrequent and discretionary establishments

0.26 No 385.5 No No [1]
6067004603 0.05 No 881.6 Yes No Low commercial density, but noting decrease in minority-owned establishments; high churn rates for
both infrequent and discretionary establishments

0.04 No 1,111.3 Yes No Low commercial density, but noting decrease in small businesses establishments; high churn rates for both
infrequent and discretionary establishments
6067004604 0.08 No 333.6 No No [1] 0.09 No 445.4 Yes No Low commercial density, but noting decrease in small businesses establishments; high churn rate for discretionary establishments
6067004702 0.07 No 298.3 No No [1] 0.06 No 447.8 Yes No Low commercial density, but noting decrease in minority-owned establishments South of Fruitridge
6067003202 0.49 Yes 369.9 Yes Yes Decrease in minority-owned establishments; high churn rates for both infrequent and discretionary
establishments

0.49 Yes 406.1 No No [2]
6067003203 0.24 No 271.8 No No [1] 0.21 No 541.2 Yes No Low commercial density, but noting decrease in both minority-owned and small business establishments 6067003204 0.31 No 503.6 Yes No Low commercial density, but noting decrease in minority-owned establishments; high churn rates for
both infrequent and discretionary establishments

0.34 No 364.6 No No [1]
6067004801 0.28 No 376.2 Yes No Low commercial density, but noting decrease in minority-owned establishments

0.30 No 408.7 No No [1]
Census Tracts Meeting Threshold
% of Study Area Census Tracts - 43% - 29% 10% - 48% - 29% 5% % of Total City Census Tracts [3] - 51% - 59% 10% - 50% - 60% 10% Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS. [1] Does not meet either threshold.
[2] Meets the Commercial Density threshold, but not the Gentrification Index threshold. [3] See Table B-5 and Table B-6.

Note
2000-2009 2010-2019
Gentrification
Composite Index
Gentrification
Commercially Composite Index
Gentrifying
Census Tracts
Commercially
Gentrifying
Note Census Tracts
Commercial Density
(2010)
Meets
Threshold
Est. per
Acre
Commercial Density
(2019)
Est. per
Acre
Meets
Threshold
Meets
Threshold
Meets
Threshold
Index
Score
Index
Score
Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 28
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Map 4. Study Area Commercial Displacement Risk: 2000 - 2009 Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment July 23, 2021
Page | 29
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Map 5. Study Area Commercial Displacement Risk: 2010 - 2019 Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 30
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
• Anecdotal evidence affirms that minority-owned, small businesses are prospering in Oak Park despite what the numeric data suggests. An article in the Sacramento Bee indicated that since 2020 minority-owned, small businesses are increasing, with 4 non-chain, small black-owned businesses that opened during the Pandemic and 2 more in the pipeline.34 This finding shows the limitation of the data analysis on a census tract level, which may obscure gentrification trends that are occurring at a smaller geography (i.e., block-level impacts). Another limitation of the numeric analysis is the self-assessment, whether business owners report if they identify as a minority or leave that section blank. The thriving businesses in Oak Park provides an example for one expanse of the Neighborhood Study Area at one point in time, additional outreach to stakeholders throughout the Neighborhood Study Area, especially stakeholders in the Lemon Hill Subarea, which is home to a portion of the Little Saigon district, is necessary to determine whether these findings reflect data limitations or the reality of commercial gentrification conditions, including the loss of minority-owned establishments and cultural changes in the community. • Retail establishments in the Neighborhood Study Area are predominantly characterized by non-chain, small establishments, with a higher proportion of total establishments than the proportion Citywide. Large retail chain establishments play a strong role in changing the culture of a commercial district.35 To its credit, as new residents and commercial businesses have grown in the Neighborhood Study Area, the proportional share of non-chain, small businesses have also increased, from 83.7 percent in 2000 to 90 percent of total establishments as of 2019. This increase was primarily driven by new small business growth in the northern portion of the Neighborhood Study Area (Elmhurst, Oak Park, and Tahoe & Colonial), although growth occurred throughout the Neighborhood Study Area. The City’s proportional share has been consistently lower than the Neighborhood Study Area, with non-chain, small establishments representing 78.8 percent of total establishments in 2000 increasing to 87 percent as of 2019. Although the Neighborhood Study Area has successfully maintained - and increased – a proportional share of non-chain, small establishments, this analysis does not evaluate the extent to which the types of non-chain, small businesses have changed over time, how these establishments might align with or diverge from the preferences of incumbent residents, and whether current establishments have changed the cultural dynamics of commercial districts in the Neighborhood Study Area. 34 Clift, Theresa. ‘A shift has occurred.’ How Oak Park’s diverse business community is thriving despite COVID. The Sacramento Bee. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article253403615.html [Accessed August 2021].
35 Chapple, Karen, UC Berkeley & Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, UC Los Angeles with Silvia R. González, Dov Kadin & Joseph Poirier. Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology. Urban Displacement Project.
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/commercial_gentrification_methodology._.pdf [Accessed May 2021].

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 31
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
• Although the total number of establishments increased, the proportional share of infrequently patronized and discretionary establishments in the Neighborhood Study Area declined between 2000 and 2010. In 2000, infrequently patronized establishments represented 7 percent of total establishments in the Neighborhood Study Area. While the absolute number increased (from 105 to 145), the proportional share declined to 6 percent by 2010. There was a similar trend with discretionary establishments. While the absolute number of discretionary establishments increased (from 169 to 230), the proportional share declined from 11 percent in 2000 to 9 percent by 2010. Over the 2-decade study periods, the Neighborhood Study Area experienced significant churn of infrequently patronized and discretionary establishments. The City followed a similar pattern with proportional declines in the infrequently and discretional establishments even with absolute increases and significant churn of both types of establishments over both time periods.

Analysis Limitations
The residential and commercial gentrification assessments documented in this memorandum are presented as an initial methodological approach and set of findings, subject to refinement, as new research and data become available, and supplemented by relevant qualitative data, including stakeholder input.

Residential Gentrification Assessment
As noted in the gentrification overview, defining and measuring gentrification and displacement is complicated. Many studies have used a variety of criteria and data sources to evaluate and arrive at gentrification and displacement conclusions. While other studies have employed rigorous, statistical methods to evaluate data and formulate conclusions, the objective of the approach used for this study was to develop a simple, generalized method of evaluating gentrification and displacement that could be replicated by the City in the future. This simplified approach and use of US Census data as the sole data source result in analytical limitations that warrant documentation.

While the use of US Census data improves the validity of the conclusions, it also confines the data analyzed to a specific timeframe that may not fully capture the process of neighborhood change. On one hand, the study period may be too short, obscuring the extent of low-income household loss following an influx of other socioeconomic factors that contribute to gentrification (i.e., increases in college-educated and white residents).

On another hand, the most recent Census data used in this analysis is from 2018, which will not reflect any recent socioeconomic changes. This becomes important in strong real estate market contexts (as has been the case for parts of the Neighborhood Study Area for the last several years), as above-average demand can accelerate neighborhood Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 32
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
change and potential displacement. Where local market conditions are more tepid, gentrification indicators may not have the same displacement impacts.36 Evaluating US Census data at the Census Tract level may obscure gentrification trends that are occurring at a smaller geography (i.e., block-level impacts). It is important to note the conclusions derived for Subareas or Census Tracts within the Subareas in this analysis may differ from the reality of existing residents at a smaller geography.

With respect to evaluating the extent of gentrification-related displacement, US Census data does not provide information about why households move or the location of their next residence. Evaluating the loss of low-income households alone is insufficient to formulating conclusions regarding displacement. Additional data, such as a stakeholder survey, could be used to further our understanding of gentrification-related displacement in the Neighborhood Study Area or other areas of the City.

Commercial Gentrification Assessment
As described previously, the commercial gentrification assessment relied on establishment data derived from the NETS database. The geographical information tied to each establishment in the database (i.e., addresses, latitude and longitude coordinates) required significant manual adjustment to clean up the data to be evaluated geospatially and aligned with Census Tract boundaries in the Neighborhood Study Area. While EPS made every effort to correct all geographical information, data errors may still exist.

The methodological approach employed in this assessment uses the context of composite indices for Census Tracts in a larger geography to make determinations regarding commercial gentrification in the Census Tracts of the Neighborhood Study Area. The analysis examines two study periods (2000-2009 and 2010-2019). Comparing the Study Area to the City provides a larger picture of the context of commercial establishments within the area and if Study Area establishments are following similar citywide trends or if the Study Area is experiencing more signs of gentrification than the rest of the City. For example, some of the Gentrification Composite Indices within the Study Area may have increased indicating signs of gentrification but fell below the 20th percentile of citywide trends in the latter study period and therefore would not be considered to be gentrifying.

These Census Tracts have been noted (in Table 4) as tracts the City should monitor for ongoing commercial gentrification.

A limitation of the commercial gentrification assessment is whether business owners report whether they identify as a minority. The composite index, and subsequent conclusions about commercial gentrification, rely heavily on business owners self-reporting as minorities, to the extent they do identify as a minority. For many establishments in the Neighborhood Study Area, the “minority owner” field was blank, 36 Chapple, Karen, Paul Waddell, Daniel Chatman, Miriam Zuk, Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Paul Ong, Silvia R. Gonzalez, Chhandara Pech, and Karolina Gorska, 2017. Developing a New Methodology for Analyzing Potential Displacement. Urban Displacement Project. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//research/apr/past/13-310.pdf [Accessed June 2021].

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 33
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
leading us to conclude that the establishment was not minority-owned. Potentially, there are establishments in the Neighborhood Study Area that are indeed minority-owned but the business owner intentionally or unintentionally left this field blank.

Finally, as described previously, the Neighborhood Study Area is predominantly characterized by non-chain, small businesses, and, in fact, has experienced an increase in these establishments over time. However, further research is warranted to evaluate how non-chain, small businesses have changed over time, how these establishments align with or diverge from the preferences of incumbent residents, and whether changes in non-chain, small establishments have transformed the cultural dynamics of commercial districts in the Neighborhood Study Area.

Next Steps and Policy Considerations
Gentrification has the potential to contribute to prosperity and an enhanced quality of life for residents and businesses in the Study Area. However, investment in the Study Area (as well as other local, regional, and Federal economic conditions) can cause real estate prices to rise, displacing existing residents and places of business and potentially changing the community’s cultural history and social structure. Programmatic and public policy interventions are necessary to mitigate gentrification and pressures on the most vulnerable populations.

This section identifies ways in which the City can establish actionable strategies to continue investing in the Neighborhood Study Area while minimizing gentrification-related displacement.
• Conduct stakeholder outreach to supplement the quantitative gentrification and displacement assessment. Given the data limitations described in the previous section, quantitative data analysis should be supplemented by qualitative data to confirm or refine conclusions. The quantitative analysis may not fully capture gentrification and displacement pressures at the block level. Further, changes to the neighborhood’s cultural fabric may be challenging to discern through quantitative methods. To supplement the quantitative analyses presented in this memorandum, a stakeholder survey could be used to further understand demographic, cultural, and socioeconomic changes for the purpose of crafting policies or developing programs to mitigate gentrification and displacement. The City’s Neighborhood Development Action Team (NDAT), a collaboration between City departments and partner agencies, could engage with residents and business owners directly to confirm quantitative-based findings. For example, outreach could be conducted to determine whether the types of non-chain small businesses, although indicative of inclusive economic development efforts, are meeting the needs of existing or new residents of the area. • Supplement existing City strategies that mitigate gentrification and displacement with additional policies to stabilize the Neighborhood Study Area. The City and other non-City organizations currently have a set of policies and programs in place in the Study Area. There are myriad programs and initiatives, Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 34
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
including the current Specific Plan effort, to improve neighborhood conditions relating to community engagement, culture, housing, inclusive economic development, transportation connections and safety, public health. In addition, the Neighborhood Study Area has and continues to experience an increase in proposed new residential and employment-generating uses. As considerable investment in the Neighborhood Study Area continues, there are several strategies that have been identified as effective in mitigating displacement in some communities, although these strategies should be vetted with City staff and community stakeholders to determine feasibility within the Study Area.37 38
• Facilitate production of both market-rate and affordable housing.

Housing production is an effective mitigating approach in the context of a strong housing market with high demand and limited supply. By increasing the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, in strong markets, housing costs can be moderated and relieve displacement pressures.39 Policies that further streamline the entitlement process, and reduce development costs and other risks to developers, should be contemplated. This strategy requires the presence of strong housing market conditions to be effective, and a long timeframe and significant costs to implement. Existing City policies that fall under the category of facilitating housing production include the City’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance and the Mixed Income Housing ordinance and associated Housing Impact Fee which generates revenues to develop affordable workforce housing; fee reductions on affordable housing projects; and development application streamlining.
• Preserve affordable rental housing. In contrast with housing production strategies, strategies that preserve both subsidized and unsubsidized affordable housing units do not require a strong housing market to be effective since they apply to existing units and can be implemented in the short-term. Preservation strategies found to be the most effective at mitigating gentrification and displacement include preserving naturally occurring affordable housing through rehabilitation programs that subsidize upgrades and other unit improvements in order to maintain steady rental rates. In addition, community land trusts (CLTs) or other policies that allow for collective ownership and tenant control of the land can not only mitigate displacement but provide opportunities for building wealth. 37 Chapple, Karen, and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, 2021. White Paper on Anti-Displacement Strategy Effectiveness. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/carb_anti-displacement_policy_white_paper_3.4.21_final_accessible.pdf [Accessed August 2021]. 38 Similar to research on the causes and effects of gentrification, research regarding the effectiveness of policies mitigating gentrification and displacement concluded a mix of findings and identified a need for further research to determine the factors or community characteristics that lead to desired outcomes. 39 Chapple, Karen, and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, 2021. White Paper on Anti-Displacement Strategy Effectiveness. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/carb_anti-displacement_policy_white_paper_3.4.21_final_accessible.pdf [Accessed August 2021].

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 35
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Research on CLTs caution that this type of initiative tends to help moderate-income households, rather than the most vulnerable populations.40 • Strengthen and supplement neighborhood stabilization policies. The City implemented the Tenant Protection Program in 2019, which establishes limits on annual rent increases and provides protection to longer-term tenants from unwarranted lease terminations. In addition, the City and other agencies and organizations provide homeownership and tenant resources. The Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) associated with the proposed Aggie Square project in the Elmhurst Subarea identified other neighborhood stabilization policies including: providing down payment and other buying assistance to low-income first-time homebuyers; expanding homelessness prevention programs; and contributing towards home repair programs. The City should consider strengthening these programs through communication to the community on available resources. The City should consider implementing additional strategies such as a foreclosure assistance and tenant right to counsel program.

Neighborhood stabilization strategies were found to have a direct and immediate impact to mitigating gentrification and displacement in particular when multiple programs are implemented simultaneously.41
• Strategies to mitigate commercial gentrification and displacement will need to be tailored to specific challenges local establishments in the Neighborhood Study Area are facing. Based on specific challenges to Neighborhood Study Area establishments, various strategies to mitigate commercial displacement, as derived through the Small Business Anti-Displacement Toolkit, include:42
• Establishing a heritage tourism program to preserve a neighborhood’s cultural identity by amplifying its heritage and creating more foot traffic for local businesses.
• Establishing a legacy business preservation program to preserve long-term businesses by providing long-standing small businesses with grants, technical assistance, or other marketing and branding services.
• Implementing a cooperative initiative. Consumer cooperatives, such as grocery stores, coffee shops, and hardware stores, meet community needs and are controlled by members/customers. Worker cooperatives operate in most industries and are democratically controlled by the workers. Real estate investment cooperatives are similar to consumer co-ops in which groups of community residents pool resources to purchase community-owned real estate.

A commercial real estate investment co-op is for-profit and allows residents to collectively invest in real estate, securing space for small businesses and other 40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Small Business Anti-Displacement Toolkit. https://antidisplacement.org/toolkit/. [Accessed August 2021].

Memorandum: Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Residential and Commercial Gentrification Assessment September 2022
Page | 36
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
democratically controlled uses. These mechanisms can help residents build equity and wealth via shared ownership in commercial real estate. • Imposing commercial rent control to limit the amount of rent landlords can charge existing businesses for new or renewed leases, thereby preserving affordability and mitigating displacement because of rapid rental rate increases. • Implementing a local hiring ordinance and purchasing program to promote the utilization of local residents and suppliers on City-led or City-funded projects. • Establishing a neighborhood business incubator to help startup businesses grow and succeed by providing free or low-cost workspace, mentorship, expertise, access to investors, and in some cases, working capital. • Enacting a neighborhood-serving retail zone to sustain small, local businesses by limiting the size and type of stores in certain districts. • Enacting a formula business ordinance to allow a certain number of chain stores in a particular district in order to maintain a diversity of services, methods of operation, and other features.

These actions and policy considerations, coupled with additional strategies derived through various methods throughout the Project, will be vetted and prioritized with City staff and community stakeholders as part of the forthcoming Specific Plan Area neighborhood action plan.

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Residential Gentrification
Assessment Methodology
Appendix B: Commercial Gentrification
Assessment Methodology

Appendix A: Residential Gentrification Assessment Methodology September 2022
Page | A-1
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Appendix A
Residential Gentrification Assessment
Methodology
To measure the different elements to displacement and gentrification the analysis measures 4 major criteria:
• Criteria A measures a Census Tract by their majority Income Category, • Criteria B measures Displacement,
• Criteria C measures Gentrification, and
• Criteria D measures Demographic drivers of Gentrification.

Income Category Criteria
The income category criterion, Criteria A, characterizes the overarching income category for each Census Tract in 2018. The Census Tracts are categorized by measuring the percentage of households by the income category using the 2018 California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) Income Limits in Sacramento County for a household size of 3, as well as examining the median household income for each Census Tract as shown in Table A-1. A Census Tract’s household income category is assigned based on whether there is a majority income category (the percentage of households in any of the income categories exceeds 50%). If there is no defined majority household income category (“NA”), the Census Tract is defined as containing a mixture of household incomes and the category is assigned based on median household income (i.e., Mixed-Low; Mixed-Moderate; Mixed-High).

Displacement Criteria
The displacement criterion combines the income category, Criteria A, with a measurement of the change in low-income households in each Census Tract between 2010 -2018, Criteria B, as shown in Table A-2.

A Census Tract that is measured as “Susceptible to Displacement” include the following criterion:
• A majority of low-income households, or a score of 1 for Criteria A. Moderate- and High-income Census Tracts score 2 or higher.

Appendix A: Residential Gentrification Assessment Methodology September 2022
Page | A-2
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
A Census Tract that is experiencing “Potential Ongoing Displacement” include the following criteria:
• A decline in low-income households between 2010-2018 in Census Tracts that experienced increased and decreased total households over this period. For Census Tracts that experienced a decline in total households, the decline in low-income households exceeded the decline in total households. In Table A-2 a decline in low-income households equates a score of 1 for Criteria B. Census Tracts with no decline in low-income households score zero.

Gentrification Criteria
The gentrification criterion in Table A-3 combines the income category, Criteria A, with a measurement of the change in low-income households Criteria B, with a measurement of the average annual change in median gross rent from 2010-2018, Criteria C.

Criteria C measures the magnitude of the average annual percentage change in rent for the Census Tract as well as adjacent Census Tracts.

A Census Tract considered “Susceptible to Gentrification” is measured as the following:
• “Susceptible to Displacement” reflecting a majority of low-income households, or a score of 1 for Criteria A.
--AND--
• An average, annual change in median rent greater than 2 percent and below 5 percent in the Census Tract for Criteria C, reflecting a score of 1 or more. --OR--
• An average annual change in median rent of greater than 2 percent and below 4 percent in adjacent Census Tracts for Criteria C, reflecting a score of 1.

Census Tracts that are categorized as “Susceptible to Gentrification” are also susceptible to displacement but not necessarily experiencing displacement of low-income households.

Appendix A: Residential Gentrification Assessment Methodology September 2022
Page | A-3
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
A Census Tract experiencing “Early Gentrification” reflects the following criteria:
• A majority of low-income households, a score of 1 for Criteria A. --AND--
• A decline in low-income households from 2010-2018, a score of 1 for Criteria B. --AND--
• An average annual change in median rent of greater than 5 percent in the Census Tract for Criteria C, reflecting a score of 2.43
--OR--
• An average annual change in median rent greater than 5 percent in the Census Tract for Criteria C, reflecting a score of 1.
--PLUS--
• An average annual change in median rent of greater than 5 percent in adjacent Census Tracts for Criteria C, reflecting a score of 1.
--AND--
• Criteria D reflects a score of 1 in 2018 (Criteria D is detailed in the next section).

A Census Tract experiencing “Advanced Gentrification” reflects the following criteria:
• A majority of moderate-income households, a score of 2 or greater for Criteria A. --AND--
• A decline in low-income households from 2010-2018, a score of 1 for Criteria B. --AND--
• An average annual change in median rent of greater than 5 percent in the Census Tract for Criteria C, reflecting a score of 2.
--OR--
• An average annual change in median rent of greater than 5 percent in adjacent Census Tracts for Criteria C, reflecting a score of 1.
• Criteria D reflects a score of 2 in 2018 (Criteria D is detailed in the next section).

Demographic Gentrification Criteria
The Demographic Gentrification criteria, Criteria D, measure the status of change for 3 demographic categories including the following:
• College-Educated population percentage compared to the City of Sacramento as a whole in 2010 and 2018. A Census Tract with a greater percentage of college-education population than the City reflects a score of 1. 43 A 5 percent threshold related to the average, annual change in median rent is based on the City of Sacramento’s Tenant Protection Program: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/tpp. Note: when the criterion was established for this gentrification assessment methodology, the program indicated the annual rental rate increase cannot exceed 5 percent plus the change in the CPI as calculated by the California Department of Industrial Relations. As of July 2021, the threshold is now 9 percent, but the methodology retains the previous 5 percent threshold.

Appendix A: Residential Gentrification Assessment Methodology September 2022
Page | A-4
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
• White population percentage compared to the City of Sacramento as a whole in 2010 and 2018. A Census Tract with a greater percentage of the white population than the City reflects a score of 1.
• Homeowner Households as a percentage of total households compared to the City of Sacramento as a whole in 2010 and 2018. A Census Tract with a greater percentage of homeowner households than the City reflects a score of 1.

These criteria are summarized in Table A-4 for the Neighborhood Study Area.

A Census Tract categorized as “Stable Moderate to High Income (At Risk of Becoming Exclusive)” reflects the following criteria:
• A majority of moderate-income households, a score of 2 or greater for Criteria A. --AND--
• At least one demographic gentrification category is met in Criteria D for 2010 and 2018.

A Census Tract categorized as “Stable Moderate to High Income (Early Exclusivity)” reflects the following criteria:
• A majority of moderate- to high-income households, a score of 2 or greater for Criteria A.
--AND--
• A decline in low-income households from 2010-2018, a score of 1 for Criteria B. --AND--
• At least 2 demographic gentrification categories are met in Criteria D for 2010 and 2018.

A Census Tract categorized as “Stable Moderate to High Income (Advanced Exclusivity)” reflects the following criteria:
• A majority of high-income households, a score of 3 for Criteria A. --AND--
• At least 2 demographic gentrification categories are met in Criteria D for 2010 and 2018.

Appendix B: Commercial Gentrification Assessment Methodology September 2022
Page | B-1
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Appendix B
Commercial Gentrification Assessment
Methodology
Commercial Concentration
The commercial concentration was defined for the Neighborhood Study Area and the City for each Census Tract for the study period years of 2000 and 2010, , see Table B-1 and B-2. Commercial establishment density is the quantity of total establishments by Census Tract/Census Tract land area. This exercise is completed to compare the commercial establishment density of the Neighborhood Study Area’s Census Tracts with the City’s Census Tracts and removes any City Census Tracts that fall below the citywide median commercial concentration density for each period
Commercial Gentrification Composite Index
To measure commercial gentrification, the Commercial Gentrification Index was established by developing aggregate scores for 4 indexed metrics, Criteria A, B, C, and D by Census Tract.

Tables B-2 through B-6 summarize the index, weight, and summarize Criteria A-D from 2000-2009 and 2010-2019, respectively. To index the values, the raw values are indexed on a scale of 0-100 using the minimum and maximum for each criterion within the City’s Census Tracts. The values for Criteria A and B are weighted and then the index scores for all four criteria are aggregated into the composite score.

Minority-Owned Establishments
Criteria A of the Gentrification Assessment, as shown in Tables B-7 and B-8, reflects the share difference of minority-owned establishment in the Neighborhood Study Area and the City. The total number of minority-owned establishments were divided by the total number of establishments from 2000 to 2019. The index reflects the change during two study periods from 2000 to 2009 and 2010 to 2019 with the City’s Census Tracts. A loss of minority-owned businesses indicates commercial gentrification. This index was weighted three times higher given the salience of minority-owned businesses within the theory of commercial gentrification.

Criteria A = (Current total M-O est./Current total est.) - (Start of study period total M-O est./Start of study period total est.)
Non-Chain Small Business Establishments
Criteria B of the Gentrification Assessment, as shown in Tables B-9 and B-10, reflects the share difference of Non-chain small businesses in the Neighborhood Study Area and the City. Small biz defined as and establishment with fewer than 20 employees and less Appendix B: Commercial Gentrification Assessment Methodology September 2022
Page | B-2
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
than 5 total establishments within the parent company. The total number of non-chain small business establishments were divided by the total number of establishments from 2000 to 2019. The index reflects the change during two study periods from 2000 to 2009 and 2010 to 2019. A loss of non-chain small business establishments indicates commercial gentrification. This index was also weighted three times higher given the importance of non-chain small businesses within the theory of commercial gentrification.

Current total NC-SB est./Current total est.) -
(Start of study period total NC-SB est./Start of study period total est.) Infrequent Establishment Churn
Criteria C of the Gentrification Risk Assessment, as shown in Tables B-11 through B-14, reflect the infrequent (not shopped at often) establishment churn in the Neighborhood Study Area. This index measures the rate at which infrequently patronized businesses move into and out of the census tract from 2000 to 2019. The index reflects the churn rate during two study periods from 2000 to 2009 and 2010 to 2019. Higher churn rate denotes more commercial gentrification. Infrequent establishments by NAICS are defined in Table B-19.
(Establishment Deaths + Out-Migration)/
(Total Est. at start of study period])
Discretionary Establishment Churn
Criteria D of the Gentrification Assessment, as shown in Tables B-15 through B-18, reflect the discretionary (optional spending for consumers) establishment churn, the rate at which discretionary businesses move into and out of the census tract. This index measures the rate at which discretionary patronized businesses move into and out of the census tract from 2000 to 2019. The index reflects the churn rate during two study periods from 2000 to 2009 and 2010 to 2019. Higher churn rate denotes more commercial gentrification. Discretionary establishments by NAICS are defined in Table B-20.
(Establishment Deaths + Out-Migration)/
(Total Est. at start of study period])
DRAFT
Table B-1
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Concentration: Study Area
Item Total Est. Total Est.

Elmhurst
6067001710 290.6 90 0.31 115 0.40
6067001720 579.3 284 0.49 398 0.69
Oak Park
6067001800 424.4 218 0.51 334 0.79
6067002700 318.3 206 0.65 216 0.68
6067002800 228.5 98 0.43 118 0.52
6067003700 352.8 167 0.47 180 0.51
Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 342.6 78 0.23 67 0.20
6067004402 306.5 22 0.07 37 0.12
Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 572.7 259 0.45 303 0.53
6067003010 276.1 91 0.33 128 0.46
6067003020 354.2 185 0.52 161 0.45
6067003101 316.4 85 0.27 101 0.32
6067003102 285.3 97 0.34 94 0.33
Lemon Hill
6067004602 325.4 85 0.26 85 0.26
6067004603 178.2 9 0.05 7 0.04
6067004604 382.1 32 0.08 35 0.09
6067004702 380.5 28 0.07 22 0.06
South of Fruitridge
6067003202 408.7 199 0.49 200 0.49
6067003203 243.5 59 0.24 51 0.21
6067003204 395.2 124 0.31 134 0.34
6067004801 462.6 129 0.28 140 0.30
Median 342.6 97 0.31 118 0.34
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS. 2010 2019
Density
(Est. per
Acre)
Total
Acreage
Density
(Est. per
Acre)
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Concentration: City of Sacramento
Item Total Est. Total Est.

City of Sacramento

1.00 548.4 153 0.28 188 0.34

2.00 373.4 290 0.78 305 0.82

3.00 353.6 210 0.59 288 0.81

4.00 240.2 266 1.11 297 1.24

5.01 97.7 119 1.22 159 1.63

5.02 116.3 96 0.83 130 1.12

6.00 100.4 245 2.44 244 2.43

7.00 127.0 790 6.22 693 5.46

8.00 142.7 328 2.30 397 2.78

11.02 97.7 438 4.48 594 6.08

11.03 290.1 2,203 7.59 2,418 8.33

12.01 97.7 193 1.98 283 2.90

12.02 69.4 159 2.29 200 2.88

13.00 195.9 357 1.82 478 2.44

14.00 196.2 938 4.78 997 5.08

15.00 431.5 690 1.60 859 1.99

16.01 469.0 420 0.90 534 1.14

16.02 285.7 233 0.82 289 1.01

17.01 290.6 90 0.31 115 0.40

17.02 579.3 284 0.49 398 0.69

18.00 424.4 218 0.51 334 0.79

19.00 273.1 303 1.11 351 1.29

20.00 255.3 408 1.60 508 1.99

21.00 380.7 262 0.69 331 0.87

22.00 674.7 170 0.25 208 0.31

23.00 299.8 228 0.76 266 0.89

24.00 796.8 279 0.35 411 0.52

25.00 243.2 93 0.38 119 0.49

26.00 231.7 174 0.75 231 1.00

27.00 318.3 206 0.65 216 0.68

28.00 228.5 98 0.43 118 0.52

29.00 572.7 259 0.45 303 0.53

30.01 276.1 91 0.33 128 0.46

30.02 354.2 185 0.52 161 0.45

31.01 316.4 85 0.27 101 0.32

31.02 285.3 97 0.34 94 0.33

32.02 408.7 199 0.49 200 0.49

32.03 243.5 59 0.24 51 0.21

32.04 395.2 124 0.31 134 0.34

33.00 587.6 255 0.43 326 0.55

34.00 566.0 351 0.62 380 0.67

35.01 296.0 200 0.68 264 0.89

35.02 311.4 185 0.59 212 0.68

36.00 313.7 183 0.58 180 0.57

37.00 352.8 167 0.47 180 0.51

38.00 1,210.4 265 0.22 266 0.22

39.00 606.4 132 0.22 138 0.23

40.05 547.2 220 0.40 241 0.44

40.06 472.6 150 0.32 155 0.33

40.08 412.8 123 0.30 160 0.39

40.11 302.3 162 0.54 221 0.73

40.12 492.1 141 0.29 147 0.30

40.13 583.0 192 0.33 220 0.38

40.14 258.7 70 0.27 78 0.30

40.15 421.2 212 0.50 234 0.56

40.16 350.1 94 0.27 106 0.30

40.17 242.1 140 0.58 149 0.62

40.18 220.9 156 0.71 169 0.76

40.19 216.8 86 0.40 118 0.54

40.20 190.5 205 1.08 265 1.39

41.00 502.5 203 0.40 177 0.35

42.01 469.1 114 0.24 127 0.27

42.02 405.8 123 0.30 136 0.34

42.03 404.5 108 0.27 135 0.33

43.01 274.7 69 0.25 91 0.33

43.02 658.9 100 0.15 112 0.17

44.01 342.6 78 0.23 67 0.20

44.02 306.5 22 0.07 37 0.12

45.01 445.4 99 0.22 89 0.20

45.02 667.7 125 0.19 117 0.18

46.02 325.4 85 0.26 85 0.26

46.03 178.2 9 0.05 7 0.04

46.04 382.1 32 0.08 35 0.09

47.01 346.3 25 0.07 23 0.07

47.02 380.5 28 0.07 22 0.06

48.01 462.6 129 0.28 140 0.30

48.02 351.7 37 0.11 41 0.12

49.04 612.1 29 0.05 35 0.06

49.06 236.8 47 0.20 70 0.30

49.07 78.3 20 0.26 22 0.28

49.08 360.4 115 0.32 144 0.40

49.09 212.8 105 0.49 91 0.43

49.10 212.0 116 0.55 90 0.42
Density
(Est. per
Acre)
Density
(Est. per
Acre)
2010 2019
Total
Acreage
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Concentration: City of Sacramento
Item Total Est. Total Est.

City of Sacramento
Density
(Est. per
Acre)
Density
(Est. per
Acre)
2010 2019
Total
Acreage

50.02 757.3 15 0.02 19 0.03

52.01 485.7 141 0.29 162 0.33

52.02 457.7 93 0.20 111 0.24

52.04 917.9 318 0.35 372 0.41

52.05 2,195.8 725 0.33 845 0.38

53.01 1,599.2 359 0.22 448 0.28

54.02 1,413.3 881 0.62 912 0.65

54.03 343.7 692 2.01 674 1.96

54.04 1,026.5 305 0.30 308 0.30

55.02 708.7 593 0.84 607 0.86

62.02 402.1 181 0.45 179 0.45

63.00 694.0 252 0.36 222 0.32

64.00 852.5 301 0.35 291 0.34

65.01 414.9 106 0.26 114 0.27

65.02 539.4 94 0.17 111 0.21

66.00 554.3 126 0.23 132 0.24

67.03 517.9 246 0.47 261 0.50

67.04 303.8 79 0.26 82 0.27

67.05 596.4 145 0.24 148 0.25

67.06 368.6 74 0.20 103 0.28

68.01 182.1 27 0.15 23 0.13

68.02 145.6 79 0.54 64 0.44

68.03 269.6 37 0.14 42 0.16

69.01 903.3 277 0.31 310 0.34

69.02 389.3 306 0.79 324 0.83

70.01 838.8 219 0.26 296 0.35

70.07 928.9 177 0.19 199 0.21

70.10 652.5 525 0.80 573 0.88

70.11 501.5 281 0.56 345 0.69

70.12 262.0 125 0.48 118 0.45

70.13 166.2 61 0.37 68 0.41

70.16 1,256.9 200 0.16 336 0.27

70.17 1,906.4 49 0.03 111 0.06

70.19 1,403.0 204 0.15 369 0.26

70.20 640.3 158 0.25 186 0.29

70.21 585.6 92 0.16 113 0.19

70.22 125.1 37 0.30 55 0.44

70.23 313.8 129 0.41 132 0.42

70.24 171.1 150 0.88 179 1.05

70.25 305.0 142 0.47 225 0.74

70.26 1,049.6 30 0.03 109 0.10

70.27 631.5 148 0.23 223 0.35

70.28 589.3 279 0.47 380 0.64

71.01 18,907.0 0 0.00 1 0.00

71.03 541.4 217 0.40 329 0.61

71.05 477.4 154 0.32 235 0.49

71.06 1,601.5 288 0.18 373 0.23

71.07 3,397.5 159 0.05 271 0.08

71.08 699.2 105 0.15 219 0.31

71.09 413.4 113 0.27 151 0.37

71.10 287.5 163 0.57 186 0.65

71.11 272.6 135 0.50 196 0.72

72.04 2,000.9 216 0.11 283 0.14

74.13 1,403.3 30 0.02 33 0.02

75.04 847.4 4 0.00 3 0.00

92.01 13,842.3 794 0.06 904 0.07

96.01 1,527.9 128 0.08 204 0.13

96.08 942.0 170 0.18 295 0.31

96.09 349.3 118 0.34 139 0.40

96.10 461.5 154 0.33 138 0.30

96.14 556.6 30 0.05 33 0.06

96.33 173.9 47 0.27 52 0.30

96.34 291.6 111 0.38 127 0.44

96.40 163.0 81 0.50 106 0.65

96.41 505.7 274 0.54 392 0.78

99.00 65,916.9 0 0.00 0 0.00
Median 402.1 150.0 0.33 179.0 0.39
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-3
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Gentrification Assessment (2000-2009): Study Area Indexed Indexed Indexed Indexed All Criteria
Item Value Value Value Value Index Score
Assumptions [1]
Minimum Value for Index (0.16) 100.00 - (0.02) 100.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - Maximum Value for Index 0.04 0.00 - 0.20 0.00 - 8.00 100.00 - 5.00 100.00 - - Weighting Factor - - 3.00 - - 3.00 - - 1.00 - - 1.00 -
Elmhurst
6067001710 (0.02) 31.15 93.44 0.06 63.41 190.24 1.00 12.50 12.50 1.00 20.00 20.00 316.19 6067001720 (0.02) 28.37 85.10 0.13 33.28 99.84 2.00 25.00 25.00 1.25 25.00 25.00 234.93 Oak Park
6067001800 (0.01) 23.14 69.43 0.06 66.44 199.33 2.14 26.79 26.79 2.22 44.44 44.44 339.99 6067002700 (0.02) 29.02 87.06 0.02 82.25 246.74 1.00 12.50 12.50 1.36 27.27 27.27 373.57 6067002800 (0.02) 27.88 83.65 0.02 84.82 254.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 15.00 15.00 353.11 6067003700 (0.04) 42.01 126.03 0.04 73.68 221.04 0.63 7.81 7.81 0.61 12.22 12.22 367.11 Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 (0.03) 37.64 112.93 0.16 17.08 51.24 1.50 18.75 18.75 1.75 35.00 35.00 217.92 6067004402 0.00 19.67 59.02 0.10 44.80 134.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 193.41 Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 (0.01) 22.68 68.05 0.08 53.77 161.30 0.67 8.33 8.33 0.89 17.78 17.78 255.46 6067003010 (0.00) 20.06 60.18 0.05 70.70 212.09 0.20 2.50 2.50 0.57 11.43 11.43 286.19 6067003020 (0.00) 20.92 62.76 0.04 74.37 223.10 1.40 17.50 17.50 1.13 22.61 22.61 325.97 6067003101 (0.03) 35.43 106.30 0.07 61.10 183.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 20.00 20.00 309.61 6067003102 (0.01) 25.42 76.25 0.09 52.31 156.92 0.67 8.33 8.33 0.75 15.00 15.00 256.51 Lemon Hill
6067004602 (0.03) 35.11 105.34 0.06 63.18 189.54 13.50 168.75 168.75 8.80 176.00 176.00 639.63 6067004603 (0.20) 122.95 368.85 (0.11) 142.59 427.76 2.00 25.00 25.00 3.00 60.00 60.00 881.61 6067004604 (0.05) 43.14 129.43 0.06 63.62 190.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 13.33 13.33 333.64 6067004702 (0.06) 52.87 158.61 0.10 46.57 139.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 298.31 South of Fruitridge
6067003202 (0.00) 20.87 62.61 0.00 90.89 272.68 1.17 14.58 14.58 1.00 20.00 20.00 369.87 6067003203 0.02 10.19 30.57 0.04 73.74 221.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 20.00 20.00 271.80 6067003204 (0.07) 57.95 173.85 0.01 86.04 258.13 2.00 25.00 25.00 2.33 46.67 46.67 503.64 6067004801 (0.03) 36.45 109.34 0.03 77.28 231.83 1.20 15.00 15.00 1.00 20.00 20.00 376.17 Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS. [1] The minimum and maximum for indexing the values are the minimum and maximum values for the larger geography of the City of Sacramento for each Census Tract.

Raw
Value
Raw
Value
Criteria A
Minority-Owned Est. Share Diff.

Criteria B
Non-Chain Small Est. Share Diff.

Criteria C
Infrequent Est. Churn Rate
Criteria D
Discretionary Est. Churn Rate
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Value After
Weighting
Value After
Weighting
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-4
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Gentrification Assessment (2010-2019): Study Area Indexed Indexed Indexed Indexed All Criteria
Item Value Value Value Value Index Score
Assumptions [1]
Minimum Value for Index (0.05) 100.00 - (0.05) 100.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - Maximum Value for Index 0.03 0.00 - 0.08 0.00 - 12.00 100.00 - 10.50 100.00 - - Weighting Factor - - 3.00 - - 3.00 - - 1.00 - - 1.00 -
Elmhurst
6067001710 (0.01) 45.13 135.39 (0.00) 66.06 198.19 1.88 15.63 15.63 1.90 18.10 18.10 367.29 6067001720 (0.01) 46.07 138.21 (0.00) 64.06 192.18 1.67 13.89 13.89 1.75 16.67 16.67 360.95 Oak Park
6067001800 (0.01) 44.33 132.99 0.08 0.00 0.00 2.00 16.67 16.67 3.00 28.57 28.57 178.23 6067002700 0.00 32.52 97.57 (0.00) 62.27 186.80 2.67 22.22 22.22 2.36 22.45 22.45 329.04 6067002800 (0.02) 62.59 187.76 (0.02) 78.51 235.53 3.67 30.56 30.56 2.50 23.81 23.81 477.65 6067003700 (0.01) 44.67 134.00 0.01 57.96 173.89 1.71 14.29 14.29 1.77 16.85 16.85 339.03 Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 0.00 34.17 102.50 (0.00) 63.55 190.65 1.29 10.71 10.71 1.44 13.76 13.76 317.62 6067004402 0.03 4.95 14.85 0.07 2.59 7.76 1.00 8.33 8.33 3.00 28.57 28.57 59.52 Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 0.01 27.66 82.97 0.02 48.41 145.23 2.09 17.42 17.42 2.17 20.63 20.63 266.26 6067003010 0.00 34.92 104.77 (0.03) 83.46 250.38 2.13 17.71 17.71 2.10 20.00 20.00 392.85 6067003020 (0.01) 48.36 145.09 (0.00) 63.46 190.38 1.63 13.54 13.54 1.52 14.46 14.46 363.47 6067003101 0.01 29.40 88.19 0.02 42.11 126.32 2.25 18.75 18.75 2.20 20.95 20.95 254.21 6067003102 (0.02) 60.80 182.41 (0.04) 90.61 271.83 1.64 13.64 13.64 1.63 15.48 15.48 483.36 Lemon Hill
6067004602 0.01 22.84 68.53 0.02 43.14 129.42 7.83 65.28 65.28 12.83 122.22 122.22 385.45 6067004603 0.00 36.63 109.90 (0.32) 318.72 956.17 2.00 16.67 16.67 3.00 28.57 28.57 1,111.31 6067004604 0.00 36.63 109.90 (0.05) 101.12 303.37 1.00 8.33 8.33 2.50 23.81 23.81 445.41 6067004702 (0.04) 78.50 235.50 0.00 62.16 186.47 1.50 12.50 12.50 1.40 13.33 13.33 447.81 South of Fruitridge
6067003202 (0.02) 60.26 180.77 (0.00) 65.89 197.68 1.67 13.89 13.89 1.45 13.79 13.79 406.13 6067003203 (0.04) 86.89 260.67 (0.03) 88.75 266.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 14.29 14.29 541.20 6067003204 (0.01) 48.20 144.61 0.01 55.64 166.92 2.80 23.33 23.33 3.13 29.76 29.76 364.63 6067004801 (0.02) 64.61 193.83 0.00 60.19 180.57 1.90 15.83 15.83 1.94 18.45 18.45 408.68 Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS. [1] The minimum and maximum for indexing the values are the minimum and maximum values for the larger geography of the City of Sacramento for each Census Tract.

Criteria A
Minority-Owned Est. Share Diff.

Criteria B
Non-Chain Small Est. Share Diff.

Criteria C
Infrequent Est. Churn Rate
Criteria D
Discretionary Est. Churn Rate
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Value After
Weighting
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Raw
Value
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT Table B-5 Page 1 of 3
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Gentrification Assessment (2000-2009): City of Sacramento Indexed Indexed Indexed Indexed All Criteria
Item Value Value Value Value Index Score
Assumptions [2]
Minimum Value for Index - (0.16) 100.00 - (0.02) 100.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - Maximum Value for Index - 0.04 0.00 - 0.20 0.00 - 8.00 100.00 - 5.00 100.00 - - Weighting Factor - - - 3.00 - - 3.00 - - 1.00 - - 1.00 - City of Sacramento

1.00 0.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2.00 0.78 (0.02) 27.98 83.95 0.06 63.82 191.46 1.13 14.06 14.06 1.36 27.27 27.27 316.74

3.00 0.59 (0.01) 23.43 70.30 0.08 57.78 173.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 11.43 11.43 255.07

4.00 1.11 0.00 18.98 56.94 0.05 68.16 204.48 1.57 19.64 19.64 1.40 28.00 28.00 309.07

5.01 1.22 0.01 13.42 40.26 0.01 87.49 262.47 1.25 15.63 15.63 0.88 17.50 17.50 335.85

5.02 0.83 0.02 10.51 31.54 0.04 73.23 219.68 1.00 12.50 12.50 0.50 10.00 10.00 273.72

6.00 2.44 (0.01) 25.56 76.69 (0.02) 100.00 300.00 1.50 18.75 18.75 1.71 34.29 34.29 429.72

7.00 6.22 (0.01) 24.60 73.81 0.05 70.02 210.05 1.47 18.42 18.42 1.14 22.86 22.86 325.14

8.00 2.30 (0.02) 28.86 86.57 0.09 52.53 157.60 8.00 100.00 100.00 2.80 56.00 56.00 400.16

11.02 4.48 0.00 17.14 51.41 0.01 87.82 263.46 1.13 14.06 14.06 0.97 19.31 19.31 348.24

11.03 7.59 (0.00) 20.58 61.73 0.03 76.14 228.42 2.00 25.00 25.00 1.61 32.24 32.24 347.39

12.01 1.98 (0.00) 21.37 64.12 0.02 83.72 251.17 1.38 17.19 17.19 0.89 17.78 17.78 350.25

12.02 2.29 0.01 12.12 36.35 0.06 64.65 193.95 3.00 37.50 37.50 5.00 100.00 100.00 367.80

13.00 1.82 (0.00) 21.70 65.09 0.10 47.72 143.15 0.67 8.33 8.33 0.90 18.10 18.10 234.67

14.00 4.78 (0.01) 22.54 67.62 0.01 89.28 267.83 1.04 12.95 12.95 0.85 17.00 17.00 365.40

15.00 1.60 (0.01) 25.91 77.74 0.04 74.82 224.47 1.07 13.39 13.39 0.94 18.71 18.71 334.31

16.01 0.90 (0.01) 23.08 69.24 0.04 75.81 227.42 1.03 12.87 12.87 0.96 19.27 19.27 328.80

16.02 0.82 (0.01) 22.41 67.24 (0.01) 96.52 289.57 0.88 10.94 10.94 0.76 15.29 15.29 383.04

17.01 0.31 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

17.02 0.49 (0.02) 28.37 85.10 0.13 33.28 99.84 2.00 25.00 25.00 1.25 25.00 25.00 234.93

18.00 0.51 (0.01) 23.14 69.43 0.06 66.44 199.33 2.14 26.79 26.79 2.22 44.44 44.44 339.99

19.00 1.11 0.01 12.97 38.92 0.04 75.13 225.38 1.14 14.29 14.29 1.08 21.54 21.54 300.12

20.00 1.60 0.00 17.46 52.39 0.03 76.56 229.67 0.94 11.72 11.72 0.96 19.20 19.20 312.98

21.00 0.69 (0.01) 23.78 71.35 0.06 65.73 197.20 0.40 5.00 5.00 0.35 7.00 7.00 280.55

22.00 0.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

23.00 0.76 (0.01) 23.39 70.16 0.06 66.06 198.18 1.14 14.29 14.29 1.29 25.71 25.71 308.35

24.00 0.35 (0.01) 22.60 67.79 0.04 75.91 227.74 0.67 8.33 8.33 0.87 17.33 17.33 321.19

25.00 0.38 (0.04) 38.08 114.23 0.06 62.85 188.54 1.00 12.50 12.50 1.00 20.00 20.00 335.27

26.00 0.75 (0.04) 38.15 114.45 0.08 54.61 163.84 0.88 10.94 10.94 0.83 16.67 16.67 305.89

27.00 0.65 (0.02) 29.02 87.06 0.02 82.25 246.74 1.00 12.50 12.50 1.36 27.27 27.27 373.57

28.00 0.43 (0.02) 27.88 83.65 0.02 84.82 254.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 15.00 15.00 353.11

29.00 0.45 (0.01) 22.68 68.05 0.08 53.77 161.30 0.67 8.33 8.33 0.89 17.78 17.78 255.46

30.01 0.33 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

30.02 0.52 (0.00) 20.92 62.76 0.04 74.37 223.10 1.40 17.50 17.50 1.13 22.61 22.61 325.97

31.01 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

31.02 0.34 (0.01) 25.42 76.25 0.09 52.31 156.92 0.67 8.33 8.33 0.75 15.00 15.00 256.51

32.02 0.49 (0.00) 20.87 62.61 0.00 90.89 272.68 1.17 14.58 14.58 1.00 20.00 20.00 369.87

32.03 0.24 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

32.04 0.31 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

33.00 0.43 (0.01) 26.48 79.44 0.07 60.88 182.64 1.00 12.50 12.50 0.83 16.67 16.67 291.25

34.00 0.62 (0.03) 35.25 105.76 0.03 79.12 237.35 0.56 7.03 7.03 0.73 14.62 14.62 364.76

35.01 0.68 (0.01) 27.15 81.45 0.07 61.39 184.17 0.78 9.72 9.72 0.58 11.67 11.67 287.01

35.02 0.59 (0.03) 33.51 100.54 (0.00) 93.89 281.68 0.62 7.69 7.69 0.63 12.50 12.50 402.41

36.00 0.58 (0.04) 40.29 120.87 0.02 82.28 246.85 1.40 17.50 17.50 1.33 26.67 26.67 411.89

37.00 0.47 (0.04) 42.01 126.03 0.04 73.68 221.04 0.63 7.81 7.81 0.61 12.22 12.22 367.11

38.00 0.22 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

39.00 0.22 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.05 0.40 (0.04) 39.23 117.70 0.01 85.85 257.55 2.00 25.00 25.00 1.00 20.00 20.00 420.24

40.06 0.32 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.08 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.11 0.54 (0.06) 51.34 154.02 0.06 66.38 199.15 1.00 12.50 12.50 0.80 16.00 16.00 381.67

40.12 0.29 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Commercial
Density Threshold
(2010)
(Est. per Acre) [1]
Criteria A
Minority-Owned Est. Share Diff.

Criteria B
Non-Chain Small Est. Share Diff.

Criteria C
Infrequent Est. Churn Rate
Criteria D
Discretionary Est. Churn Rate
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT Table B-5 Page 2 of 3
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Gentrification Assessment (2000-2009): City of Sacramento Indexed Indexed Indexed Indexed All Criteria
Item Value Value Value Value Index Score
Commercial
Density Threshold
(2010)
(Est. per Acre) [1]
Criteria A
Minority-Owned Est. Share Diff.

Criteria B
Non-Chain Small Est. Share Diff.

Criteria C
Infrequent Est. Churn Rate
Criteria D
Discretionary Est. Churn Rate
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting

40.13 0.33 (0.03) 32.90 98.71 0.08 56.20 168.60 0.50 6.25 6.25 0.13 2.50 2.50 276.05

40.14 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.15 0.50 (0.03) 33.67 101.02 0.05 71.14 213.42 0.67 8.33 8.33 0.55 10.91 10.91 333.68

40.16 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.17 0.58 0.02 7.44 22.33 0.04 73.41 220.24 1.14 14.29 14.29 0.83 16.67 16.67 273.52

40.18 0.71 0.02 9.44 28.31 0.03 80.20 240.60 1.50 18.75 18.75 1.50 30.00 30.00 317.66

40.19 0.40 0.01 13.67 41.00 0.04 74.22 222.66 1.00 12.50 12.50 1.50 30.00 30.00 306.17

40.20 1.08 (0.01) 25.31 75.93 0.15 22.58 67.74 1.40 17.50 17.50 1.25 25.00 25.00 186.17

41.00 0.40 (0.02) 28.47 85.42 0.04 75.32 225.96 0.80 10.00 10.00 1.40 28.00 28.00 349.38

42.01 0.24 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

42.02 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

42.03 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

43.01 0.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

43.02 0.15 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

44.01 0.23 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

44.02 0.07 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

45.01 0.22 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

45.02 0.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

46.02 0.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

46.03 0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

46.04 0.08 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

47.01 0.07 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

47.02 0.07 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

48.01 0.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

48.02 0.11 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

49.04 0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

49.06 0.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

49.07 0.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

49.08 0.32 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

49.09 0.49 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.17 12.75 38.25 2.00 25.00 25.00 1.00 20.00 20.00 83.25

49.10 0.55 0.00 19.11 57.33 0.00 90.93 272.79 0.86 10.80 10.80 1.11 22.16 22.16 363.08

50.02 0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

52.01 0.29 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

52.02 0.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

52.04 0.35 0.00 19.62 58.86 0.10 44.94 134.83 1.25 15.63 15.63 1.29 25.88 25.88 235.20

52.05 0.33 (0.02) 29.90 89.71 0.06 64.10 192.30 1.31 16.37 16.37 1.28 25.60 25.60 323.99

53.01 0.22 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

54.02 0.62 (0.01) 23.38 70.14 0.13 32.34 97.03 1.45 18.18 18.18 1.45 29.00 29.00 214.35

54.03 2.01 0.00 19.19 57.56 0.06 66.66 199.98 2.50 31.25 31.25 3.50 70.00 70.00 358.79

54.04 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

55.02 0.84 (0.01) 22.39 67.16 0.14 30.39 91.17 0.95 11.85 11.85 1.00 20.00 20.00 190.19

62.02 0.45 (0.03) 34.46 103.38 0.03 79.78 239.33 1.29 16.07 16.07 1.11 22.22 22.22 381.00

63.00 0.36 (0.02) 27.87 83.61 0.08 56.86 170.57 1.69 21.15 21.15 1.73 34.67 34.67 310.00

64.00 0.35 (0.02) 30.39 91.18 0.10 45.32 135.95 1.23 15.38 15.38 1.00 20.00 20.00 262.51

65.01 0.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

65.02 0.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

66.00 0.23 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

67.03 0.47 0.01 16.63 49.88 0.13 34.21 102.63 0.60 7.50 7.50 0.78 15.56 15.56 175.56

67.04 0.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

67.05 0.24 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

67.06 0.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

68.01 0.15 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

68.02 0.54 0.00 19.67 59.02 0.09 52.90 158.71 0.56 6.94 6.94 0.69 13.85 13.85 238.51

68.03 0.14 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

69.01 0.31 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

69.02 0.79 0.00 19.04 57.12 0.05 68.01 204.02 1.39 17.38 17.38 1.42 28.30 28.30 306.82

70.01 0.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.07 0.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.10 0.80 0.00 17.81 53.42 0.20 0.00 0.00 8.00 100.00 100.00 1.67 33.33 33.33 186.76 Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT Table B-5 Page 3 of 3
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Gentrification Assessment (2000-2009): City of Sacramento Indexed Indexed Indexed Indexed All Criteria
Item Value Value Value Value Index Score
Commercial
Density Threshold
(2010)
(Est. per Acre) [1]
Criteria A
Minority-Owned Est. Share Diff.

Criteria B
Non-Chain Small Est. Share Diff.

Criteria C
Infrequent Est. Churn Rate
Criteria D
Discretionary Est. Churn Rate
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting

70.11 0.56 (0.02) 29.71 89.14 0.11 44.29 132.87 1.00 12.50 12.50 0.55 10.91 10.91 245.42

70.12 0.48 (0.02) 30.65 91.96 0.04 74.33 223.00 1.00 12.50 12.50 1.78 35.56 35.56 363.02

70.13 0.37 0.01 12.99 38.97 0.11 42.61 127.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 166.78

70.16 0.16 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.17 0.03 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.19 0.15 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.20 0.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.21 0.16 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.22 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.23 0.41 (0.02) 30.08 90.24 0.03 78.83 236.49 0.67 8.33 8.33 1.00 20.00 20.00 355.06

70.24 0.88 (0.04) 41.92 125.77 0.07 58.39 175.16 0.33 4.17 4.17 0.46 9.23 9.23 314.33

70.25 0.47 (0.06) 51.49 154.48 0.04 73.63 220.90 1.00 12.50 12.50 1.50 30.00 30.00 417.88

70.26 0.03 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.27 0.23 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.28 0.47 0.03 6.39 19.16 0.09 52.86 158.58 1.14 14.29 14.29 1.50 30.00 30.00 222.03

71.01 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.03 0.40 (0.11) 74.25 222.74 0.10 47.20 141.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 364.33

71.05 0.32 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.06 0.18 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.07 0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.08 0.15 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.09 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.10 0.57 (0.06) 51.48 154.44 (0.01) 94.84 284.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 40.00 40.00 478.96

71.11 0.50 (0.16) 100.00 300.00 0.00 92.05 276.15 6.00 75.00 75.00 4.50 90.00 90.00 741.15

72.04 0.11 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

74.13 0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

75.04 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

92.01 0.06 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.01 0.08 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.08 0.18 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.09 0.34 (0.04) 39.87 119.61 0.04 74.56 223.67 2.00 25.00 25.00 4.00 80.00 80.00 448.28

96.10 0.33 (0.06) 52.91 158.73 0.02 84.95 254.86 2.00 25.00 25.00 3.00 60.00 60.00 498.59

96.14 0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.33 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.34 0.38 (0.02) 31.54 94.61 0.14 28.85 86.54 2.00 25.00 25.00 0.86 17.14 17.14 223.29

96.40 0.50 (0.03) 35.09 105.27 0.16 19.16 57.47 0.75 9.38 9.38 1.20 24.00 24.00 196.11

96.41 0.54 (0.03) 32.70 98.11 0.08 57.11 171.33 1.08 13.46 13.46 0.83 16.67 16.67 299.57

99.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS. [1] Commercial concentration is the number of establishements per acre within the Census Tract. See Table B-2. [2] The assumptions include Census Tracts within the City of Sacramento that meet the commercial concentration threshold, which is more than or equal to the citywide median. If the density threshold was not met, no composite index value was calculated.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT Table B-6 Page 1 of 3
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Gentrification Assessment (2010-2019): City of Sacramento Indexed Indexed Indexed Indexed All Criteria
Item Value Value Value Value Index Score
Assumptions [1]
Minimum Value for Index - (0.05) 100.00 - (0.05) 100.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - Maximum Value for Index - 0.03 0.00 - 0.08 0.00 - 12.00 100.00 - 10.50 100.00 - - Weighting Factor - - - 3.00 - - 3.00 - - 1.00 - - 1.00 - City of Sacramento

1.00 0.34 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2.00 0.82 (0.01) 45.31 135.94 0.01 55.35 166.05 1.29 10.78 10.78 2.24 21.33 21.33 334.11

3.00 0.81 (0.00) 39.66 118.97 0.03 40.99 122.97 1.86 15.48 15.48 2.00 19.05 19.05 276.47

4.00 1.24 0.01 22.69 68.06 0.01 54.05 162.14 2.38 19.79 19.79 2.19 20.83 20.83 270.82

5.01 1.63 0.00 31.80 95.40 0.05 21.24 63.71 4.00 33.33 33.33 3.33 31.75 31.75 224.20

5.02 1.12 (0.02) 55.23 165.70 0.00 60.99 182.98 2.25 18.75 18.75 2.20 20.95 20.95 388.38

6.00 2.43 (0.00) 41.32 123.96 (0.00) 62.79 188.38 12.00 100.00 100.00 10.50 100.00 100.00 512.34

7.00 5.46 (0.01) 43.46 130.38 0.01 52.82 158.47 1.71 14.25 14.25 1.68 15.99 15.99 319.08

8.00 2.78 (0.00) 37.25 111.76 0.00 59.73 179.19 1.83 15.28 15.28 1.91 18.18 18.18 324.42

11.02 6.08 (0.00) 41.69 125.07 0.03 38.82 116.47 2.25 18.75 18.75 1.97 18.80 18.80 279.08

11.03 8.33 (0.01) 45.15 135.45 (0.01) 73.11 219.32 2.26 18.82 18.82 2.15 20.46 20.46 394.04

12.01 2.90 0.00 34.42 103.27 (0.01) 71.32 213.95 2.40 20.00 20.00 2.38 22.62 22.62 359.84

12.02 2.88 (0.02) 54.40 163.21 (0.05) 100.00 300.00 3.50 29.17 29.17 2.67 25.40 25.40 517.77

13.00 2.44 (0.02) 54.71 164.14 0.01 57.09 171.27 1.75 14.58 14.58 1.88 17.86 17.86 367.85

14.00 5.08 (0.00) 40.39 121.17 0.02 46.42 139.26 1.89 15.77 15.77 2.05 19.49 19.49 295.69

15.00 1.99 (0.00) 42.01 126.03 0.03 40.40 121.20 2.00 16.67 16.67 2.47 23.53 23.53 287.43

16.01 1.14 (0.01) 47.58 142.74 0.01 53.19 159.56 1.63 13.54 13.54 1.58 15.08 15.08 330.91

16.02 1.01 (0.01) 46.70 140.09 0.01 54.09 162.28 1.43 11.90 11.90 1.70 16.19 16.19 330.46

17.01 0.40 (0.01) 45.13 135.39 (0.00) 66.06 198.19 1.88 15.63 15.63 1.90 18.10 18.10 367.29

17.02 0.69 (0.01) 46.07 138.21 (0.00) 64.06 192.18 1.67 13.89 13.89 1.75 16.67 16.67 360.95

18.00 0.79 (0.01) 44.33 132.99 0.08 0.00 0.00 2.00 16.67 16.67 3.00 28.57 28.57 178.23

19.00 1.29 (0.03) 67.95 203.85 0.00 61.63 184.90 1.92 16.03 16.03 2.35 22.38 22.38 427.15

20.00 1.99 (0.01) 53.74 161.21 (0.00) 63.89 191.67 1.83 15.28 15.28 2.23 21.27 21.27 389.43

21.00 0.87 (0.01) 49.31 147.94 (0.01) 70.10 210.29 1.82 15.15 15.15 1.76 16.78 16.78 390.16

22.00 0.31 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

23.00 0.89 (0.02) 57.93 173.80 (0.01) 73.30 219.89 1.69 14.10 14.10 2.00 19.05 19.05 426.85

24.00 0.52 (0.00) 39.18 117.54 0.01 57.21 171.63 2.00 16.67 16.67 2.00 19.05 19.05 324.88

25.00 0.49 (0.01) 51.99 155.98 0.01 51.57 154.71 2.00 16.67 16.67 2.33 22.22 22.22 349.57

26.00 1.00 (0.02) 60.17 180.51 (0.02) 78.69 236.06 2.22 18.52 18.52 2.64 25.11 25.11 460.19

27.00 0.68 0.00 32.52 97.57 (0.00) 62.27 186.80 2.67 22.22 22.22 2.36 22.45 22.45 329.04

28.00 0.52 (0.02) 62.59 187.76 (0.02) 78.51 235.53 3.67 30.56 30.56 2.50 23.81 23.81 477.65

29.00 0.53 0.01 27.66 82.97 0.02 48.41 145.23 2.09 17.42 17.42 2.17 20.63 20.63 266.26

30.01 0.46 0.00 34.92 104.77 (0.03) 83.46 250.38 2.13 17.71 17.71 2.10 20.00 20.00 392.85

30.02 0.45 (0.01) 48.36 145.09 (0.00) 63.46 190.38 1.63 13.54 13.54 1.52 14.46 14.46 363.47

31.01 0.32 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

31.02 0.33 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

32.02 0.49 (0.02) 60.26 180.77 (0.00) 65.89 197.68 1.67 13.89 13.89 1.45 13.79 13.79 406.13

32.03 0.21 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

32.04 0.34 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

33.00 0.55 (0.04) 88.20 264.61 0.02 45.59 136.77 2.22 18.52 18.52 2.11 20.05 20.05 439.95

34.00 0.67 (0.02) 60.24 180.72 (0.00) 63.07 189.22 1.52 12.64 12.64 1.87 17.83 17.83 400.41

35.01 0.89 0.01 29.00 86.99 0.01 53.83 161.49 2.07 17.26 17.26 2.05 19.52 19.52 285.27

35.02 0.68 (0.05) 90.55 271.66 0.01 52.78 158.35 1.41 11.76 11.76 1.66 15.76 15.76 457.54

36.00 0.57 (0.02) 61.72 185.17 0.02 49.87 149.60 2.00 16.67 16.67 1.82 17.32 17.32 368.75

37.00 0.51 (0.01) 44.67 134.00 0.01 57.96 173.89 1.71 14.29 14.29 1.77 16.85 16.85 339.03

38.00 0.22 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

39.00 0.23 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Commercial
Density Threshold
(2019)
(Est. per Acre) [1]
Criteria A
Minority-Owned Est. Share Diff.

Criteria B
Non-Chain Small Est. Share Diff.

Criteria C
Infrequent Est. Churn Rate
Criteria D
Discretionary Est. Churn Rate
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT Table B-6 Page 2 of 3
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Gentrification Assessment (2010-2019): City of Sacramento Indexed Indexed Indexed Indexed All Criteria
Item Value Value Value Value Index Score
Commercial
Density Threshold
(2019)
(Est. per Acre) [1]
Criteria A
Minority-Owned Est. Share Diff.

Criteria B
Non-Chain Small Est. Share Diff.

Criteria C
Infrequent Est. Churn Rate
Criteria D
Discretionary Est. Churn Rate
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting

40.05 0.44 (0.01) 48.68 146.05 0.00 59.92 179.75 3.80 31.67 31.67 2.71 25.85 25.85 383.32

40.06 0.33 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.08 0.39 (0.01) 48.37 145.11 (0.00) 64.66 193.99 6.00 50.00 50.00 10.00 95.24 95.24 484.33

40.11 0.73 (0.03) 69.93 209.80 0.03 39.85 119.56 2.67 22.22 22.22 3.13 29.76 29.76 381.35

40.12 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.13 0.38 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.14 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.15 0.56 (0.02) 61.35 184.05 (0.00) 63.82 191.46 2.14 17.86 17.86 2.60 24.76 24.76 418.13

40.16 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40.17 0.62 (0.02) 63.78 191.33 (0.00) 64.44 193.33 1.75 14.58 14.58 2.14 20.41 20.41 419.65

40.18 0.76 (0.04) 77.67 233.02 0.00 59.77 179.30 2.50 20.83 20.83 2.60 24.76 24.76 457.92

40.19 0.54 (0.00) 40.33 120.99 (0.01) 72.51 217.53 4.00 33.33 33.33 5.00 47.62 47.62 419.48

40.20 1.39 (0.03) 67.28 201.83 0.04 30.02 90.07 1.83 15.28 15.28 2.30 21.90 21.90 329.08

41.00 0.35 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

42.01 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

42.02 0.34 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

42.03 0.33 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

43.01 0.33 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

43.02 0.17 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

44.01 0.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

44.02 0.12 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

45.01 0.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

45.02 0.18 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

46.02 0.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

46.03 0.04 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

46.04 0.09 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

47.01 0.07 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

47.02 0.06 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

48.01 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

48.02 0.12 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

49.04 0.06 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

49.06 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

49.07 0.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

49.08 0.40 0.01 30.55 91.64 0.00 62.06 186.18 3.25 27.08 27.08 3.40 32.38 32.38 337.28

49.09 0.43 (0.01) 42.65 127.94 (0.03) 87.62 262.85 2.25 18.75 18.75 2.00 19.05 19.05 428.58

49.10 0.42 (0.04) 87.16 261.49 (0.01) 69.28 207.84 1.31 10.90 10.90 1.47 14.01 14.01 494.23

50.02 0.03 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

52.01 0.33 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

52.02 0.24 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

52.04 0.41 0.00 36.16 108.47 (0.04) 92.37 277.10 2.06 17.13 17.13 2.00 19.05 19.05 421.76

52.05 0.38 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

53.01 0.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

54.02 0.65 0.00 35.89 107.67 0.01 51.93 155.78 1.55 12.88 12.88 1.84 17.56 17.56 293.89

54.03 1.96 (0.00) 37.88 113.63 0.00 61.51 184.52 2.86 23.81 23.81 3.50 33.33 33.33 355.29

54.04 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

55.02 0.86 0.00 33.27 99.82 (0.02) 80.06 240.17 1.97 16.38 16.38 1.86 17.67 17.67 374.04

62.02 0.45 (0.02) 62.32 186.97 0.00 58.44 175.32 2.37 19.74 19.74 2.43 23.13 23.13 405.16

63.00 0.32 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

64.00 0.34 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

65.01 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

65.02 0.21 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

66.00 0.24 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

67.03 0.50 (0.01) 47.53 142.60 0.00 60.99 182.96 1.90 15.83 15.83 1.71 16.25 16.25 357.64

67.04 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT Table B-6 Page 3 of 3
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Gentrification Assessment (2010-2019): City of Sacramento Indexed Indexed Indexed Indexed All Criteria
Item Value Value Value Value Index Score
Commercial
Density Threshold
(2019)
(Est. per Acre) [1]
Criteria A
Minority-Owned Est. Share Diff.

Criteria B
Non-Chain Small Est. Share Diff.

Criteria C
Infrequent Est. Churn Rate
Criteria D
Discretionary Est. Churn Rate
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting
Raw
Value
Value After
Weighting

67.05 0.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

67.06 0.28 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

68.01 0.13 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

68.02 0.44 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.04 33.23 99.68 1.33 11.11 11.11 1.33 12.70 12.70 123.49

68.03 0.16 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

69.01 0.34 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

69.02 0.83 (0.01) 49.19 147.57 (0.01) 66.56 199.68 1.84 15.32 15.32 1.97 18.79 18.79 381.36

70.01 0.35 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.07 0.21 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.10 0.88 (0.00) 40.18 120.53 0.04 32.56 97.69 5.67 47.22 47.22 3.17 30.16 30.16 295.60

70.11 0.69 (0.01) 47.00 140.99 0.03 35.87 107.62 3.33 27.78 27.78 1.79 17.01 17.01 293.39

70.12 0.45 0.00 35.52 106.56 (0.03) 85.01 255.02 1.50 12.50 12.50 2.33 22.22 22.22 396.30

70.13 0.41 (0.04) 79.03 237.08 0.01 58.07 174.20 6.00 50.00 50.00 5.50 52.38 52.38 513.66

70.16 0.27 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.17 0.06 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.19 0.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.20 0.29 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.21 0.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.22 0.44 (0.05) 100.00 300.00 0.00 62.16 186.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 486.47

70.23 0.42 (0.02) 64.52 193.55 0.01 55.04 165.12 1.56 12.96 12.96 1.70 16.19 16.19 387.82

70.24 1.05 (0.05) 93.87 281.62 0.00 58.82 176.45 2.33 19.44 19.44 1.86 17.69 17.69 495.20

70.25 0.74 (0.01) 53.62 160.86 0.04 33.37 100.12 3.67 30.56 30.56 5.00 47.62 47.62 339.15

70.26 0.10 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.27 0.35 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

70.28 0.64 (0.01) 48.92 146.75 0.01 54.68 164.04 2.50 20.83 20.83 2.86 27.21 27.21 358.84

71.01 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.03 0.61 (0.01) 44.10 132.31 (0.01) 66.20 198.60 2.89 24.07 24.07 2.71 25.77 25.77 380.76

71.05 0.49 (0.01) 52.38 157.13 (0.01) 67.23 201.68 2.25 18.75 18.75 2.75 26.19 26.19 403.75

71.06 0.23 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.07 0.08 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.08 0.31 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.09 0.37 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

71.10 0.65 0.00 33.00 99.00 (0.01) 70.23 210.70 9.00 75.00 75.00 5.00 47.62 47.62 432.32

71.11 0.72 (0.01) 52.85 158.55 (0.01) 70.40 211.21 5.00 41.67 41.67 2.40 22.86 22.86 434.28

72.04 0.14 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

74.13 0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

75.04 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

92.01 0.07 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.01 0.13 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.08 0.31 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.09 0.40 (0.03) 67.01 201.03 0.00 62.16 186.47 3.50 29.17 29.17 2.50 23.81 23.81 440.48

96.10 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.14 0.06 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.33 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

96.34 0.44 (0.02) 59.09 177.26 (0.02) 77.58 232.74 3.33 27.78 27.78 2.22 21.16 21.16 458.94

96.40 0.65 (0.02) 54.52 163.56 0.03 34.48 103.45 2.20 18.33 18.33 2.29 21.77 21.77 307.11

96.41 0.78 (0.02) 55.49 166.48 (0.00) 64.10 192.30 2.07 17.26 17.26 1.95 18.61 18.61 394.65

99.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS. [1] Commercial concentration is the number of establishements per acre within the Census Tract. See Table B-2. [2] The assumptions include Census Tracts within the City of Sacramento that meet the commercial concentration threshold, which is more than or equal to the citywide median. If the density threshold was not met, no composite index value was calculated.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-7
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Minority-Owned Establishments (2000, 2010, 2019): Study Area Item Total Est. Total Total Est. Total Total Est. Total 2000-2010 2010-2019 Formula a b c = b / a d e f = e / d g h i = h / g j = f - c k = i - f Elmhurst
6067001710 54 3 5.6% 90 3 3.3% 115 3 2.6% (2.2%) (0.7%) 6067001720 146 4 2.7% 284 3 1.1% 398 1 0.3% (1.7%) (0.8%) Subtotal Elmhurst 200 7 3.5% 374 6 1.6% 513 4 0.8% (1.9%) (0.8%) Oak Park
6067001800 146 5 3.4% 218 6 2.8% 334 7 2.1% (0.7%) (0.7%) 6067002700 118 5 4.2% 206 5 2.4% 216 6 2.8% (1.8%) 0.4% 6067002800 43 2 4.7% 98 3 3.1% 118 1 0.8% (1.6%) (2.2%) 6067003700 98 6 6.1% 167 3 1.8% 180 2 1.1% (4.3%) (0.7%) Subtotal Oak Park 405 18 4.4% 689 17 2.5% 848 16 1.9% (2.0%) (0.6%) Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 42 2 4.8% 78 1 1.3% 67 1 1.5% (3.5%) 0.2%
6067004402 14 0 0.0% 22 0 0.0% 37 1 2.7% 0.0% 2.7%
Subtotal Fruitridge Pocket 56 2 3.6% 100 1 1.0% 104 2 1.9% (2.6%) 0.9% Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 141 3 2.1% 259 4 1.5% 303 7 2.3% (0.6%) 0.8% 6067003010 44 1 2.3% 91 2 2.2% 128 3 2.3% (0.1%) 0.1%
6067003020 161 3 1.9% 185 3 1.6% 161 1 0.6% (0.2%) (1.0%) 6067003101 37 2 5.4% 85 2 2.4% 101 3 3.0% (3.1%) 0.6%
6067003102 63 2 3.2% 97 2 2.1% 94 0 0.0% (1.1%) (2.1%)
Subtotal Tahoe & Colonial 446 11 2.5% 717 13 1.8% 787 14 1.8% (0.7%) (0.0%) Lemon Hill
6067004602 48 2 4.2% 85 1 1.2% 85 2 2.4% (3.0%) 1.2%
6067004603 5 1 20.0% 9 0 0.0% 7 0 0.0% (20.0%) 0.0%
6067004604 22 1 4.5% 32 0 0.0% 35 0 0.0% (4.5%) 0.0%
6067004702 10 1 10.0% 28 1 3.6% 22 0 0.0% (6.4%) (3.6%) Subtotal Lemon Hill 85 5 5.9% 154 2 1.3% 149 2 1.3% (4.6%) 0.0% South of Fruitridge
6067003202 154 5 3.2% 199 6 3.0% 200 2 1.0% (0.2%) (2.0%) 6067003203 24 2 8.3% 59 6 10.2% 51 3 5.9% 1.8% (4.3%)
6067003204 47 5 10.6% 124 4 3.2% 134 3 2.2% (7.4%) (1.0%) 6067004801 63 4 6.3% 129 4 3.1% 140 1 0.7% (3.2%) (2.4%) Subtotal South of Fruitridge 288 16 5.6% 511 20 3.9% 525 9 1.7% (1.6%) (2.2%) Study Area 1,480 59 4.0% 2,545 59 2.3% 2,926 47 1.6% (1.7%) (0.7%) Share Difference of Minority-Owned Establishments
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

CRITERIA A
% of
Total
% of
Total
% of
Total
2019
Minority-Owned
2000
Minority-Owned
2010
Minority-Owned
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-8 Page 1 of 2
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Minority-Owned Establishments (2000, 2010, 2019): City of Sacramento Item Total Est. Total Total Est. Total Total Est. Total 2000-2010 2010-2019 Formula a b c = b / a d e f = e / d g h i = h / g j = f - c k = i - f City of Sacramento

1.00 73 2 2.7% 153 3 2.0% 188 3 1.6% (0.8%) (0.4%)

2.00 150 5 3.3% 290 5 1.7% 305 3 1.0% (1.6%) (0.7%)

3.00 119 2 1.7% 210 2 1.0% 288 2 0.7% (0.7%) (0.3%)

4.00 146 2 1.4% 266 4 1.5% 297 8 2.7% 0.1% 1.2%

5.01 93 2 2.2% 119 4 3.4% 159 6 3.8% 1.2% 0.4%

5.02 74 1 1.4% 96 3 3.1% 130 2 1.5% 1.8% (1.6%)

6.00 195 7 3.6% 245 6 2.4% 244 5 2.0% (1.1%) (0.4%)

7.00 604 18 3.0% 790 16 2.0% 693 10 1.4% (1.0%) (0.6%)

8.00 240 5 2.1% 328 1 0.3% 397 1 0.3% (1.8%) (0.1%)

11.02 279 5 1.8% 438 10 2.3% 594 11 1.9% 0.5% (0.4%)

11.03 1,665 46 2.8% 2,203 57 2.6% 2,418 45 1.9% (0.2%) (0.7%)

12.01 118 1 0.8% 193 1 0.5% 283 2 0.7% (0.3%) 0.2%

12.02 95 1 1.1% 159 4 2.5% 200 2 1.0% 1.5% (1.5%)

13.00 255 6 2.4% 357 7 2.0% 478 2 0.4% (0.4%) (1.5%)

14.00 775 20 2.6% 938 19 2.0% 997 17 1.7% (0.6%) (0.3%)

15.00 441 13 2.9% 690 12 1.7% 859 11 1.3% (1.2%) (0.5%)

16.01 366 12 3.3% 420 11 2.6% 534 9 1.7% (0.7%) (0.9%)

16.02 144 2 1.4% 233 2 0.9% 289 0 0.0% (0.5%) (0.9%)

17.01 54 3 5.6% 90 3 3.3% 115 3 2.6% (2.2%) (0.7%)

17.02 146 4 2.7% 284 3 1.1% 398 1 0.3% (1.7%) (0.8%)

18.00 146 5 3.4% 218 6 2.8% 334 7 2.1% (0.7%) (0.7%)

19.00 219 8 3.7% 303 15 5.0% 351 8 2.3% 1.3% (2.7%)

20.00 251 10 4.0% 408 18 4.4% 508 15 3.0% 0.4% (1.5%)

21.00 162 5 3.1% 262 6 2.3% 331 4 1.2% (0.8%) (1.1%)

22.00 101 6 5.9% 170 6 3.5% 208 5 2.4% (2.4%) (1.1%)

23.00 206 6 2.9% 228 5 2.2% 266 1 0.4% (0.7%) (1.8%)

24.00 150 3 2.0% 279 4 1.4% 411 5 1.2% (0.6%) (0.2%)

25.00 35 2 5.7% 93 2 2.2% 119 1 0.8% (3.6%) (1.3%)

26.00 93 6 6.5% 174 5 2.9% 231 2 0.9% (3.6%) (2.0%)

27.00 118 5 4.2% 206 5 2.4% 216 6 2.8% (1.8%) 0.4%

28.00 43 2 4.7% 98 3 3.1% 118 1 0.8% (1.6%) (2.2%)

29.00 141 3 2.1% 259 4 1.5% 303 7 2.3% (0.6%) 0.8%

30.01 44 1 2.3% 91 2 2.2% 128 3 2.3% (0.1%) 0.1%

30.02 161 3 1.9% 185 3 1.6% 161 1 0.6% (0.2%) (1.0%)

31.01 37 2 5.4% 85 2 2.4% 101 3 3.0% (3.1%) 0.6%

31.02 63 2 3.2% 97 2 2.1% 94 0 0.0% (1.1%) (2.1%)

32.02 154 5 3.2% 199 6 3.0% 200 2 1.0% (0.2%) (2.0%)

32.03 24 2 8.3% 59 6 10.2% 51 3 5.9% 1.8% (4.3%)

32.04 47 5 10.6% 124 4 3.2% 134 3 2.2% (7.4%) (1.0%)

33.00 166 10 6.0% 255 12 4.7% 326 1 0.3% (1.3%) (4.4%)

34.00 218 19 8.7% 351 20 5.7% 380 14 3.7% (3.0%) (2.0%)

35.01 116 4 3.4% 200 4 2.0% 264 7 2.7% (1.4%) 0.7%

35.02 120 11 9.2% 185 12 6.5% 212 4 1.9% (2.7%) (4.6%)

36.00 101 9 8.9% 183 9 4.9% 180 5 2.8% (4.0%) (2.1%)

37.00 98 6 6.1% 167 3 1.8% 180 2 1.1% (4.3%) (0.7%)

38.00 260 9 3.5% 265 8 3.0% 266 4 1.5% (0.4%) (1.5%)

39.00 67 3 4.5% 132 5 3.8% 138 3 2.2% (0.7%) (1.6%)

40.05 132 8 6.1% 220 5 2.3% 241 3 1.2% (3.8%) (1.0%)

40.06 68 2 2.9% 150 3 2.0% 155 3 1.9% (0.9%) (0.1%)

40.08 47 2 4.3% 123 2 1.6% 160 1 0.6% (2.6%) (1.0%)

40.11 77 9 11.7% 162 9 5.6% 221 6 2.7% (6.1%) (2.8%)

40.12 49 4 8.2% 141 4 2.8% 147 2 1.4% (5.3%) (1.5%)

40.13 111 4 3.6% 192 2 1.0% 220 4 1.8% (2.6%) 0.8%

40.14 34 0 0.0% 70 0 0.0% 78 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

40.15 115 8 7.0% 212 9 4.2% 234 5 2.1% (2.7%) (2.1%)

40.16 38 2 5.3% 94 2 2.1% 106 2 1.9% (3.1%) (0.2%)

40.17 76 2 2.6% 140 7 5.0% 149 4 2.7% 2.4% (2.3%)

40.18 217 11 5.1% 156 11 7.1% 169 6 3.6% 2.0% (3.5%)

40.19 35 0 0.0% 86 1 1.2% 118 1 0.8% 1.2% (0.3%)

40.20 134 8 6.0% 205 10 4.9% 265 6 2.3% (1.1%) (2.6%)

41.00 124 7 5.6% 203 8 3.9% 177 5 2.8% (1.7%) (1.1%)

42.01 48 0 0.0% 114 1 0.9% 127 0 0.0% 0.9% (0.9%)

42.02 53 2 3.8% 123 0 0.0% 136 2 1.5% (3.8%) 1.5%

42.03 47 3 6.4% 108 3 2.8% 135 6 4.4% (3.6%) 1.7%

43.01 23 1 4.3% 69 2 2.9% 91 2 2.2% (1.4%) (0.7%)

43.02 30 2 6.7% 100 3 3.0% 112 3 2.7% (3.7%) (0.3%)

44.01 42 2 4.8% 78 1 1.3% 67 1 1.5% (3.5%) 0.2%

44.02 14 0 0.0% 22 0 0.0% 37 1 2.7% 0.0% 2.7%

45.01 70 5 7.1% 99 4 4.0% 89 2 2.2% (3.1%) (1.8%)

45.02 96 3 3.1% 125 9 7.2% 117 2 1.7% 4.1% (5.5%)

46.02 48 2 4.2% 85 1 1.2% 85 2 2.4% (3.0%) 1.2%

46.03 5 1 20.0% 9 0 0.0% 7 0 0.0% (20.0%) 0.0%

46.04 22 1 4.5% 32 0 0.0% 35 0 0.0% (4.5%) 0.0%

47.01 16 1 6.3% 25 0 0.0% 23 0 0.0% (6.3%) 0.0%

47.02 10 1 10.0% 28 1 3.6% 22 0 0.0% (6.4%) (3.6%)

48.01 63 4 6.3% 129 4 3.1% 140 1 0.7% (3.2%) (2.4%)

48.02 12 0 0.0% 37 0 0.0% 41 2 4.9% 0.0% 4.9%

49.04 11 0 0.0% 29 0 0.0% 35 1 2.9% 0.0% 2.9%

49.06 17 3 17.6% 47 2 4.3% 70 1 1.4% (13.4%) (2.8%)

49.07 4 0 0.0% 20 0 0.0% 22 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

49.08 45 4 8.9% 115 1 0.9% 144 2 1.4% (8.0%) 0.5%

49.09 52 0 0.0% 105 4 3.8% 91 3 3.3% 3.8% (0.5%)

49.10 238 10 4.2% 116 5 4.3% 90 0 0.0% 0.1% (4.3%)
Share Difference of Minority-Owned Establishments

CRITERIA A
2000 2010 2019
Minority-Owned Minority-Owned Minority-Owned
% of
Total
% of
Total
% of
Total
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-8 Page 2 of 2
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Minority-Owned Establishments (2000, 2010, 2019): City of Sacramento Item Total Est. Total Total Est. Total Total Est. Total 2000-2010 2010-2019 Formula a b c = b / a d e f = e / d g h i = h / g j = f - c k = i - f City of Sacramento
Share Difference of Minority-Owned Establishments

CRITERIA A
2000 2010 2019
Minority-Owned Minority-Owned Minority-Owned
% of
Total
% of
Total
% of
Total

50.02 12 0 0.0% 15 0 0.0% 19 2 10.5% 0.0% 10.5%

52.01 103 1 1.0% 141 0 0.0% 162 0 0.0% (1.0%) 0.0%

52.02 37 2 5.4% 93 4 4.3% 111 3 2.7% (1.1%) (1.6%)

52.04 192 3 1.6% 318 5 1.6% 372 6 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

52.05 560 25 4.5% 725 18 2.5% 845 16 1.9% (2.0%) (0.6%)

53.01 269 10 3.7% 359 15 4.2% 448 14 3.1% 0.5% (1.1%)

54.02 625 13 2.1% 881 12 1.4% 912 13 1.4% (0.7%) 0.1%

54.03 468 7 1.5% 692 11 1.6% 674 10 1.5% 0.1% (0.1%)

54.04 227 3 1.3% 305 4 1.3% 308 2 0.6% (0.0%) (0.7%)

55.02 462 11 2.4% 593 11 1.9% 607 13 2.1% (0.5%) 0.3%

62.02 104 7 6.7% 181 7 3.9% 179 3 1.7% (2.9%) (2.2%)

63.00 168 6 3.6% 252 5 2.0% 222 4 1.8% (1.6%) (0.2%)

64.00 169 8 4.7% 301 8 2.7% 291 9 3.1% (2.1%) 0.4%

65.01 132 2 1.5% 106 5 4.7% 114 3 2.6% 3.2% (2.1%)

65.02 49 2 4.1% 94 4 4.3% 111 1 0.9% 0.2% (3.4%)

66.00 74 2 2.7% 126 1 0.8% 132 0 0.0% (1.9%) (0.8%)

67.03 133 3 2.3% 246 7 2.8% 261 5 1.9% 0.6% (0.9%)

67.04 27 2 7.4% 79 4 5.1% 82 3 3.7% (2.3%) (1.4%)

67.05 81 5 6.2% 145 10 6.9% 148 10 6.8% 0.7% (0.1%)

67.06 33 1 3.0% 74 2 2.7% 103 1 1.0% (0.3%) (1.7%)

68.01 17 3 17.6% 27 2 7.4% 23 0 0.0% (10.2%) (7.4%)

68.02 50 0 0.0% 79 0 0.0% 64 2 3.1% 0.0% 3.1%

68.03 11 0 0.0% 37 1 2.7% 42 0 0.0% 2.7% (2.7%)

69.01 205 6 2.9% 277 4 1.4% 310 1 0.3% (1.5%) (1.1%)

69.02 321 8 2.5% 306 8 2.6% 324 5 1.5% 0.1% (1.1%)

70.01 135 8 5.9% 219 10 4.6% 296 3 1.0% (1.4%) (3.6%)

70.07 76 5 6.6% 177 7 4.0% 199 3 1.5% (2.6%) (2.4%)

70.10 258 3 1.2% 525 8 1.5% 573 7 1.2% 0.4% (0.3%)

70.11 136 7 5.1% 281 9 3.2% 345 8 2.3% (1.9%) (0.9%)

70.12 161 6 3.7% 125 2 1.6% 118 2 1.7% (2.1%) 0.1%

70.13 19 1 5.3% 61 4 6.6% 68 2 2.9% 1.3% (3.6%)

70.16 18 3 16.7% 200 9 4.5% 336 10 3.0% (12.2%) (1.5%)

70.17 7 1 14.3% 49 1 2.0% 111 4 3.6% (12.2%) 1.6%

70.19 38 2 5.3% 204 6 2.9% 369 10 2.7% (2.3%) (0.2%)

70.20 41 2 4.9% 158 4 2.5% 186 4 2.2% (2.3%) (0.4%)

70.21 40 2 5.0% 92 0 0.0% 113 1 0.9% (5.0%) 0.9%

70.22 11 1 9.1% 37 2 5.4% 55 0 0.0% (3.7%) (5.4%)

70.23 60 4 6.7% 129 6 4.7% 132 3 2.3% (2.0%) (2.4%)

70.24 97 10 10.3% 150 9 6.0% 179 2 1.1% (4.3%) (4.9%)

70.25 24 3 12.5% 142 9 6.3% 225 11 4.9% (6.2%) (1.4%)

70.26 7 0 0.0% 30 1 3.3% 109 3 2.8% 3.3% (0.6%)

70.27 23 1 4.3% 148 2 1.4% 223 0 0.0% (3.0%) (1.4%)

70.28 73 1 1.4% 279 11 3.9% 380 11 2.9% 2.6% (1.0%)

71.01 1 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

71.03 15 2 13.3% 217 6 2.8% 329 7 2.1% (10.6%) (0.6%)

71.05 12 1 8.3% 154 6 3.9% 235 6 2.6% (4.4%) (1.3%)

71.06 34 4 11.8% 288 14 4.9% 373 12 3.2% (6.9%) (1.6%)

71.07 14 1 7.1% 159 7 4.4% 271 15 5.5% (2.7%) 1.1%

71.08 8 0 0.0% 105 5 4.8% 219 5 2.3% 4.8% (2.5%)

71.09 27 2 7.4% 113 5 4.4% 151 4 2.6% (3.0%) (1.8%)

71.10 25 2 8.0% 163 3 1.8% 186 4 2.2% (6.2%) 0.3%

71.11 15 3 20.0% 135 6 4.4% 196 6 3.1% (15.6%) (1.4%)

72.04 99 4 4.0% 216 7 3.2% 283 6 2.1% (0.8%) (1.1%)

74.13 21 0 0.0% 30 0 0.0% 33 1 3.0% 0.0% 3.0%

75.04 5 0 0.0% 4 0 0.0% 3 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

92.01 557 27 4.8% 794 29 3.7% 904 22 2.4% (1.2%) (1.2%)

96.01 44 5 11.4% 128 4 3.1% 204 2 1.0% (8.2%) (2.1%)

96.08 37 0 0.0% 170 5 2.9% 295 3 1.0% 2.9% (1.9%)

96.09 26 3 11.5% 118 9 7.6% 139 7 5.0% (3.9%) (2.6%)

96.10 57 7 12.3% 154 9 5.8% 138 5 3.6% (6.4%) (2.2%)

96.14 6 0 0.0% 30 0 0.0% 33 1 3.0% 0.0% 3.0%

96.33 16 0 0.0% 47 1 2.1% 52 2 3.8% 2.1% 1.7%

96.34 40 2 5.0% 111 3 2.7% 127 1 0.8% (2.3%) (1.9%)

96.40 55 3 5.5% 81 2 2.5% 106 1 0.9% (3.0%) (1.5%)

96.41 162 10 6.2% 274 10 3.6% 392 8 2.0% (2.5%) (1.6%)

99.00 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
City of Sacramento 18,625 687 3.7% 30,496 843 2.8% 35,784 667 1.9% (0.9%) (0.9%) Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-9
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Non-Chain Small Business Establishments (2000, 2010, 2019): Study Area Item Total Est. Total
% of
Total Total Est. Total
% of
Total Total Est. Total
% of
Total 2000-2010 2010-2019
Formula a b c = b / a d e f = e / d g h i = h / g j = f - c k = i - f Elmhurst
6067001700 54 41 75.9% 90 74 82.2% 115 94 81.7% 6.3% (0.5%) 6067001720 146 104 71.2% 284 239 84.2% 398 334 83.9% 12.9% (0.2%) Subtotal Elmhurst 200 145 72.5% 374 313 83.7% 513 428 83.4% 11.2% (0.3%) Oak Park
6067001800 146 113 77.4% 218 181 83.0% 334 303 90.7% 5.6% 7.7% 6067002700 118 104 88.1% 206 186 90.3% 216 195 90.3% 2.2% (0.0%) 6067002800 43 41 95.3% 98 95 96.9% 118 112 94.9% 1.6% (2.0%) 6067003700 98 87 88.8% 167 155 92.8% 180 168 93.3% 4.0% 0.5% Subtotal Oak Park 405 345 85.2% 689 617 89.6% 848 778 91.7% 4.4% 2.2% Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 42 27 64.3% 78 63 80.8% 67 54 80.6% 16.5% (0.2%) 6067004402 14 10 71.4% 22 18 81.8% 37 33 89.2% 10.4% 7.4% Subtotal Fruitridge Pocket 56 37 66.1% 100 81 81.0% 104 87 83.7% 14.9% 2.7% Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 141 103 73.0% 259 211 81.5% 303 252 83.2% 8.4% 1.7% 6067003010 44 40 90.9% 91 87 95.6% 128 119 93.0% 4.7% (2.6%) 6067003020 161 153 95.0% 185 183 98.9% 161 159 98.8% 3.9% (0.2%) 6067003101 37 31 83.8% 85 77 90.6% 101 94 93.1% 6.8% 2.5% 6067003102 63 51 81.0% 97 87 89.7% 94 81 86.2% 8.7% (3.5%) Subtotal Tahoe & Colonial 446 378 84.8% 717 645 90.0% 787 705 89.6% 5.2% (0.4%) Lemon Hill
6067004602 48 41 85.4% 85 78 91.8% 85 80 94.1% 6.3% 2.4% 6067004603 5 5 100.0% 9 8 88.9% 7 4 57.1% (11.1%) (31.7%) 6067004604 22 11 50.0% 32 18 56.3% 35 18 51.4% 6.3% (4.8%) 6067004702 10 9 90.0% 28 28 100.0% 22 22 100.0% 10.0% 0.0% Subtotal Lemon Hill 85 66 77.6% 154 132 85.7% 149 124 83.2% 8.1% (2.5%) South of Fruitridge
6067003202 154 142 92.2% 199 184 92.5% 200 184 92.0% 0.3% (0.5%) 6067003203 24 21 87.5% 59 54 91.5% 51 45 88.2% 4.0% (3.3%) 6067003204 47 46 97.9% 124 123 99.2% 134 134 100.0% 1.3% 0.8% 6067004801 63 59 93.7% 129 125 96.9% 140 136 97.1% 3.2% 0.2% Subtotal South of Fruitridge 288 268 93.1% 511 486 95.1% 525 499 95.0% 2.1% (0.1%) Study Area 1,480 1,239 83.7% 2,545 2,274 89.4% 2,926 2,621 89.6% 5.6% 0.2% Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

CRITERIA B
2019
Non-Chain Small
Establishments
2000
Non-Chain Small
Establishments
2010
Non-Chain Small
Establishments
Share Difference of Non-Chain
Small Establishments
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-10 Page 1 of 2
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Non-Chain Small Business Establishments (2000, 2010, 2019): City of Sacramento Item Total Est. Total Total Est. Total Total Est. Total 2000-2010 2010-2019 Formula a b c = b / a d e f = e / d g h i = h / g j = f - c k = i - f City of Sacramento
1 73 66 90.4% 153 144 94.1% 188 182 96.8% 3.7% 2.7%
2 150 135 90.0% 290 279 96.2% 305 296 97.0% 6.2% 0.8%
3 119 97 81.5% 210 187 89.0% 288 264 91.7% 7.5% 2.6%
4 146 129 88.4% 266 249 93.6% 297 281 94.6% 5.3% 1.0%

5.01 93 78 83.9% 119 101 84.9% 159 143 89.9% 1.0% 5.1%

5.02 74 64 86.5% 96 87 90.6% 130 118 90.8% 4.1% 0.1%
6 195 161 82.6% 245 198 80.8% 244 197 80.7% (1.7%) (0.1%) 7 604 444 73.5% 790 619 78.4% 693 551 79.5% 4.8% 1.2%
8 240 135 56.3% 328 213 64.9% 397 259 65.2% 8.7% 0.3%

11.02 279 235 84.2% 438 373 85.2% 594 523 88.0% 0.9% 2.9%

11.03 1,665 1,117 67.1% 2,203 1,555 70.6% 2,418 1,674 69.2% 3.5% (1.4%)

12.01 118 103 87.3% 193 172 89.1% 283 249 88.0% 1.8% (1.1%)

12.02 95 60 63.2% 159 110 69.2% 200 129 64.5% 6.0% (4.7%) 13 255 188 73.7% 357 298 83.5% 478 402 84.1% 9.7% 0.6%
14 775 686 88.5% 938 836 89.1% 997 908 91.1% 0.6% 1.9%
15 441 377 85.5% 690 616 89.3% 859 790 92.0% 3.8% 2.7%

16.01 366 305 83.3% 420 365 86.9% 534 470 88.0% 3.6% 1.1%

16.02 144 138 95.8% 233 221 94.8% 289 277 95.8% (1.0%) 1.0%

17.01 54 41 75.9% 90 74 82.2% 115 94 81.7% 6.3% (0.5%)

17.02 146 104 71.2% 284 239 84.2% 398 334 83.9% 12.9% (0.2%) 18 146 113 77.4% 218 181 83.0% 334 303 90.7% 5.6% 7.7%
19 219 187 85.4% 303 270 89.1% 351 313 89.2% 3.7% 0.1%
20 251 200 79.7% 408 339 83.1% 508 421 82.9% 3.4% (0.2%) 21 162 118 72.8% 262 206 78.6% 331 257 77.6% 5.8% (1.0%) 22 101 76 75.2% 170 146 85.9% 208 180 86.5% 10.6% 0.7%
23 206 187 90.8% 228 220 96.5% 266 253 95.1% 5.7% (1.4%) 24 150 135 90.0% 279 261 93.5% 411 387 94.2% 3.5% 0.6%
25 35 32 91.4% 93 91 97.8% 119 118 99.2% 6.4% 1.3%
26 93 80 86.0% 174 164 94.3% 231 213 92.2% 8.2% (2.0%)
27 118 104 88.1% 206 186 90.3% 216 195 90.3% 2.2% (0.0%) 28 43 41 95.3% 98 95 96.9% 118 112 94.9% 1.6% (2.0%)
29 141 103 73.0% 259 211 81.5% 303 252 83.2% 8.4% 1.7%

30.01 44 40 90.9% 91 87 95.6% 128 119 93.0% 4.7% (2.6%)

30.02 161 153 95.0% 185 183 98.9% 161 159 98.8% 3.9% (0.2%)

31.01 37 31 83.8% 85 77 90.6% 101 94 93.1% 6.8% 2.5%

31.02 63 51 81.0% 97 87 89.7% 94 81 86.2% 8.7% (3.5%)

32.02 154 142 92.2% 199 184 92.5% 200 184 92.0% 0.3% (0.5%)

32.03 24 21 87.5% 59 54 91.5% 51 45 88.2% 4.0% (3.3%)

32.04 47 46 97.9% 124 123 99.2% 134 134 100.0% 1.3% 0.8% 33 166 139 83.7% 255 231 90.6% 326 302 92.6% 6.9% 2.0%
34 218 200 91.7% 351 332 94.6% 380 359 94.5% 2.8% (0.1%)

35.01 116 96 82.8% 200 179 89.5% 264 239 90.5% 6.7% 1.0%

35.02 120 114 95.0% 185 175 94.6% 212 203 95.8% (0.4%) 1.2% 36 101 90 89.1% 183 167 91.3% 180 167 92.8% 2.1% 1.5%
37 98 87 88.8% 167 155 92.8% 180 168 93.3% 4.0% 0.5%
38 260 235 90.4% 265 241 90.9% 266 248 93.2% 0.6% 2.3%
39 67 58 86.6% 132 124 93.9% 138 128 92.8% 7.4% (1.2%)

40.05 132 126 95.5% 220 213 96.8% 241 234 97.1% 1.4% 0.3%

40.06 68 54 79.4% 150 136 90.7% 155 144 92.9% 11.3% 2.2%

40.08 47 43 91.5% 123 118 95.9% 160 153 95.6% 4.4% (0.3%)

40.11 77 66 85.7% 162 148 91.4% 221 208 94.1% 5.6% 2.8%

40.12 49 45 91.8% 141 138 97.9% 147 145 98.6% 6.0% 0.8%

40.13 111 93 83.8% 192 176 91.7% 220 202 91.8% 7.9% 0.2%

40.14 34 34 100.0% 70 70 100.0% 78 78 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

40.15 115 107 93.0% 212 207 97.6% 234 228 97.4% 4.6% (0.2%)

40.16 38 34 89.5% 94 91 96.8% 106 104 98.1% 7.3% 1.3%

40.17 76 68 89.5% 140 131 93.6% 149 139 93.3% 4.1% (0.3%)

40.18 217 203 93.5% 156 150 96.2% 169 163 96.4% 2.6% 0.3%

40.19 35 32 91.4% 86 82 95.3% 118 111 94.1% 3.9% (1.3%)

40.2 134 90 67.2% 205 169 82.4% 265 229 86.4% 15.3% 4.0% 41 124 106 85.5% 203 181 89.2% 177 155 87.6% 3.7% (1.6%)

42.01 48 44 91.7% 114 106 93.0% 127 114 89.8% 1.3% (3.2%)

42.02 53 45 84.9% 123 115 93.5% 136 126 92.6% 8.6% (0.8%)

42.03 47 35 74.5% 108 94 87.0% 135 119 88.1% 12.6% 1.1%

43.01 23 21 91.3% 69 66 95.7% 91 89 97.8% 4.3% 2.2%

43.02 30 19 63.3% 100 85 85.0% 112 91 81.3% 21.7% (3.8%)

44.01 42 27 64.3% 78 63 80.8% 67 54 80.6% 16.5% (0.2%)

44.02 14 10 71.4% 22 18 81.8% 37 33 89.2% 10.4% 7.4%

45.01 70 67 95.7% 99 97 98.0% 89 86 96.6% 2.3% (1.4%)

45.02 96 72 75.0% 125 108 86.4% 117 99 84.6% 11.4% (1.8%)

46.02 48 41 85.4% 85 78 91.8% 85 80 94.1% 6.3% 2.4%

46.03 5 5 100.0% 9 8 88.9% 7 4 57.1% (11.1%) (31.7%)

46.04 22 11 50.0% 32 18 56.3% 35 18 51.4% 6.3% (4.8%)

47.01 16 15 93.8% 25 25 100.0% 23 23 100.0% 6.3% 0.0%

47.02 10 9 90.0% 28 28 100.0% 22 22 100.0% 10.0% 0.0%

48.01 63 59 93.7% 129 125 96.9% 140 136 97.1% 3.2% 0.2%

48.02 12 10 83.3% 37 36 97.3% 41 41 100.0% 14.0% 2.7%

49.04 11 10 90.9% 29 27 93.1% 35 33 94.3% 2.2% 1.2%

49.06 17 16 94.1% 47 44 93.6% 70 64 91.4% (0.5%) (2.2%)

49.07 4 4 100.0% 20 20 100.0% 22 22 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

49.08 45 36 80.0% 115 107 93.0% 144 134 93.1% 13.0% 0.0%

49.09 52 36 69.2% 105 91 86.7% 91 76 83.5% 17.4% (3.2%)

49.1 238 221 92.9% 116 108 93.1% 90 83 92.2% 0.2% (0.9%) Share Difference of Non-Chain
Small Establishments

CRITERIA B
2000 2010 2019
Non-Chain Small
Establishments
Non-Chain Small
Establishments
Non-Chain Small
Establishments
% of
Total
% of
Total
% of
Total
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-10 Page 2 of 2
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Non-Chain Small Business Establishments (2000, 2010, 2019): City of Sacramento Item Total Est. Total Total Est. Total Total Est. Total 2000-2010 2010-2019 Formula a b c = b / a d e f = e / d g h i = h / g j = f - c k = i - f City of Sacramento
Share Difference of Non-Chain
Small Establishments

CRITERIA B
2000 2010 2019
Non-Chain Small
Establishments
Non-Chain Small
Establishments
Non-Chain Small
Establishments
% of
Total
% of
Total
% of
Total

50.02 12 7 58.3% 15 11 73.3% 19 17 89.5% 15.0% 16.1%

52.01 103 70 68.0% 141 95 67.4% 162 114 70.4% (0.6%) 3.0%

52.02 37 34 91.9% 93 92 98.9% 111 110 99.1% 7.0% 0.2%

52.04 192 154 80.2% 318 288 90.6% 372 323 86.8% 10.4% (3.7%)

52.05 560 402 71.8% 725 565 77.9% 845 669 79.2% 6.1% 1.2%

53.01 269 163 60.6% 359 244 68.0% 448 313 69.9% 7.4% 1.9%

54.02 625 411 65.8% 881 695 78.9% 912 731 80.2% 13.1% 1.3%

54.03 468 404 86.3% 692 636 91.9% 674 620 92.0% 5.6% 0.1%

54.04 227 190 83.7% 305 276 90.5% 308 285 92.5% 6.8% 2.0%

55.02 462 249 53.9% 593 400 67.5% 607 396 65.2% 13.6% (2.2%)

62.02 104 92 88.5% 181 165 91.2% 179 164 91.6% 2.7% 0.5% 63 168 133 79.2% 252 219 86.9% 222 189 85.1% 7.7% (1.8%) 64 169 123 72.8% 301 250 83.1% 291 240 82.5% 10.3% (0.6%)

65.01 132 118 89.4% 106 93 87.7% 114 101 88.6% (1.7%) 0.9%

65.02 49 44 89.8% 94 89 94.7% 111 107 96.4% 4.9% 1.7%
66 74 70 94.6% 126 121 96.0% 132 128 97.0% 1.4% 0.9%

67.03 133 95 71.4% 246 207 84.1% 261 220 84.3% 12.7% 0.1%

67.04 27 19 70.4% 79 71 89.9% 82 72 87.8% 19.5% (2.1%)

67.05 81 54 66.7% 145 120 82.8% 148 125 84.5% 16.1% 1.7%

67.06 33 24 72.7% 74 64 86.5% 103 92 89.3% 13.8% 2.8%

68.01 17 13 76.5% 27 23 85.2% 23 19 82.6% 8.7% (2.6%)

68.02 50 40 80.0% 79 70 88.6% 64 59 92.2% 8.6% 3.6%

68.03 11 11 100.0% 37 35 94.6% 42 39 92.9% (5.4%) (1.7%)

69.01 205 153 74.6% 277 224 80.9% 310 247 79.7% 6.2% (1.2%)

69.02 321 282 87.9% 306 285 93.1% 324 300 92.6% 5.3% (0.5%)

70.01 135 96 71.1% 219 177 80.8% 296 243 82.1% 9.7% 1.3%

70.07 76 62 81.6% 177 164 92.7% 199 182 91.5% 11.1% (1.2%)

70.1 258 136 52.7% 525 383 73.0% 573 439 76.6% 20.2% 3.7%

70.11 136 83 61.0% 281 201 71.5% 345 258 74.8% 10.5% 3.3%

70.12 161 147 91.3% 125 119 95.2% 118 109 92.4% 3.9% (2.8%)

70.13 19 16 84.2% 61 58 95.1% 68 65 95.6% 10.9% 0.5%

70.16 18 14 77.8% 200 192 96.0% 336 323 96.1% 18.2% 0.1%

70.17 7 3 42.9% 49 46 93.9% 111 106 95.5% 51.0% 1.6%

70.19 38 22 57.9% 204 122 59.8% 369 275 74.5% 1.9% 14.7%

70.2 41 37 90.2% 158 154 97.5% 186 182 97.8% 7.2% 0.4%

70.21 40 35 87.5% 92 87 94.6% 113 106 93.8% 7.1% (0.8%)

70.22 11 11 100.0% 37 37 100.0% 55 55 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

70.23 60 55 91.7% 129 122 94.6% 132 126 95.5% 2.9% 0.9%

70.24 97 84 86.6% 150 141 94.0% 179 169 94.4% 7.4% 0.4%

70.25 24 21 87.5% 142 130 91.5% 225 214 95.1% 4.0% 3.6%

70.26 7 6 85.7% 30 29 96.7% 109 103 94.5% 11.0% (2.2%)

70.27 23 10 43.5% 148 115 77.7% 223 177 79.4% 34.2% 1.7%

70.28 73 62 84.9% 279 261 93.5% 380 359 94.5% 8.6% 0.9%

71.01 1 1 100.0% 0 0 0.0% 1 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

71.03 15 12 80.0% 217 195 89.9% 329 294 89.4% 9.9% (0.5%)

71.05 12 12 100.0% 154 153 99.4% 235 232 98.7% (0.6%) (0.6%)

71.06 34 30 88.2% 288 281 97.6% 373 366 98.1% 9.3% 0.6%

71.07 14 13 92.9% 159 156 98.1% 271 266 98.2% 5.3% 0.0%

71.08 8 8 100.0% 105 102 97.1% 219 215 98.2% (2.9%) 1.0%

71.09 27 26 96.3% 113 113 100.0% 151 149 98.7% 3.7% (1.3%)

71.1 25 25 100.0% 163 162 99.4% 186 183 98.4% (0.6%) (1.0%)

71.11 15 15 100.0% 135 135 100.0% 196 194 99.0% 0.0% (1.0%)

72.04 99 76 76.8% 216 185 85.6% 283 249 88.0% 8.9% 2.3%

74.13 21 12 57.1% 30 20 66.7% 33 21 63.6% 9.5% (3.0%)

75.04 5 2 40.0% 4 2 50.0% 3 1 33.3% 10.0% (16.7%)

92.01 557 371 66.6% 794 586 73.8% 904 687 76.0% 7.2% 2.2%

96.01 44 42 95.5% 128 126 98.4% 204 188 92.2% 3.0% (6.3%)

96.08 37 29 78.4% 170 153 90.0% 295 282 95.6% 11.6% 5.6%

96.09 26 25 96.2% 118 118 100.0% 139 139 100.0% 3.8% 0.0%

96.1 57 55 96.5% 154 151 98.1% 138 136 98.6% 1.6% 0.5%

96.14 6 5 83.3% 30 29 96.7% 33 33 100.0% 13.3% 3.3%

96.33 16 13 81.3% 47 45 95.7% 52 51 98.1% 14.5% 2.3%

96.34 40 33 82.5% 111 107 96.4% 127 120 94.5% 13.9% (1.9%)

96.4 55 36 65.5% 81 66 81.5% 106 90 84.9% 16.0% 3.4%

96.41 162 133 82.1% 274 246 89.8% 392 351 89.5% 7.7% (0.2%) 99 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
City of Sacramento 18,625 14,685 78.8% 30,496 26,189 85.9% 35,784 31,034 86.7% 7.0% 0.8% Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-11
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Infrequent Establishment Churn (2000-2009): Study Area
Total
Total
Item 2000 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
Elmhurst
6067001700 7 6 1 7 100.0%
6067001720 1 2 0 2 200.0%
Subtotal Elmhurst 8 8 1 9 112.5%
Oak Park
6067001800 7 15 0 15 214.3%
6067002700 4 4 0 4 100.0%
6067002800 2 0 0 0 0.0%
6067003700 16 10 0 10 62.5%
Subtotal Oak Park 29 29 0 29 100.0%
Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 2 3 0 3 150.0%
6067004402 1 0 0 0 0.0%
Subtotal Fruitridge Pocket 3 3 0 3 100.0%
Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 15 10 0 10 66.7%
6067003010 5 1 0 1 20.0%
6067003020 15 21 0 21 140.0%
6067003101 0 1 0 1 0.0%
6067003102 9 6 0 6 66.7%
Subtotal Tahoe & Colonial 44 39 0 39 88.6%
Lemon Hill
6067004602 2 27 0 27 1350.0%
6067004603 1 2 0 2 200.0%
6067004604 0 0 0 0 0.0%
6067004702 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Subtotal Lemon Hill 3 29 0 29 966.7%
South of Fruitridge
6067003202 12 14 0 14 116.7%
6067003203 0 1 0 1 0.0%
6067003204 1 2 0 2 200.0%
6067004801 5 6 0 6 120.0%
Subtotal South of Fruitridge 18 23 0 23 127.8%
Total Study Area 105 131 1 264 251.4%
Percentage of Total Est. 7%
City of Sacramento 1,008 1,178 2 1,180 117.1%

CRITERIA C
Infrequent Establishment Churn 2000-2009
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Infrequent Est.
[1]
[1] An infrequent establishment is defined as an establishment that is not shopped at often. This analysis uses the North American Industriy Classification System (NAICS) codes to define infrequent establishments, see Table B-19 for the complete list of Infrequent Establishment NAICS codes and their associated business type.

Infrequent
Establishment
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-12
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Infrequent Establishment Churn (2010-2019): Study Area
Total
Item 2010 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
Elmhurst
6067001700 8 15 0 15 187.5%
6067001720 6 10 0 10 166.7%
Subtotal Elmhurst 14 25 0 25 178.6%
Oak Park
6067001800 6 12 0 12 200.0%
6067002700 6 16 0 16 266.7%
6067002800 3 11 0 11 366.7%
6067003700 21 36 0 36 171.4%
Subtotal Oak Park 36 75 0 75 208.3%
Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 7 9 0 9 128.6%
6067004402 1 1 0 1 100.0%
Subtotal Fruitridge Pocket 8 10 0 10 125.0%
Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 11 23 0 23 209.1%
6067003010 8 17 0 17 212.5%
6067003020 16 26 0 26 162.5%
6067003101 4 9 0 9 225.0%
6067003102 11 18 0 18 163.6%
Subtotal Tahoe & Colonial 50 93 0 93 186.0%
Lemon Hill
6067004602 6 47 0 47 783.3%
6067004603 1 2 0 2 200.0%
6067004604 1 1 0 1 100.0%
6067004702 2 3 0 3 150.0%
Subtotal Lemon Hill 10 53 0 53 530.0%
South of Fruitridge
6067003202 12 20 0 20 166.7%
6067003203 0 0 0 0 0.0%
6067003204 5 14 0 14 280.0%
6067004801 10 19 0 19 190.0%
Subtotal South of Fruitridge 27 53 0 53 196.3%
Study Area 145 309 0 618 426.2%
Percentage of Total Est. 6%
City of Sacramento 1,286 2,749 1 2,750 213.8%

CRITERIA C
Infrequent Establishment Churn 2010-2019
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Total Infrequent
Est. [1]
[1] An infrequent establishment is defined as an establishment that is not shopped at often. This analysis uses the North American Industriy Classification System (NAICS) codes to define infrequent establishments, see for the complete list of Infrequent Establishment NAICS codes and their associated business type.

Infrequent
Establishment
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Infrequent Establishment Churn (2000-2009): City of Sacramento Total
Total
Item 2000 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
City of Sacramento
1 4 7 0 7 175.0%
2 8 9 0 9 112.5%
3 2 0 0 0 0.0%
4 7 11 0 11 157.1%

5.01 4 5 0 5 125.0%

5.02 4 4 0 4 100.0%
6 2 3 0 3 150.0%
7 38 56 0 56 147.4%
8 1 8 0 8 800.0%

11.02 16 18 0 18 112.5%

11.03 32 64 0 64 200.0%

12.01 8 11 0 11 137.5%

12.02 1 3 0 3 300.0%
13 12 8 0 8 66.7%
14 28 29 0 29 103.6%
15 14 15 0 15 107.1%

16.01 34 35 0 35 102.9%

16.02 8 7 0 7 87.5%

17.01 7 6 1 7 100.0%

17.02 1 2 0 2 200.0%
18 7 15 0 15 214.3%
19 7 8 0 8 114.3%
20 16 15 0 15 93.8%
21 10 4 0 4 40.0%
22 5 6 0 6 120.0%
23 14 16 0 16 114.3%
24 9 6 0 6 66.7%
25 2 2 0 2 100.0%
26 8 7 0 7 87.5%
27 4 4 0 4 100.0%
28 2 0 0 0 0.0%
29 15 10 0 10 66.7%

30.01 5 1 0 1 20.0%

30.02 15 21 0 21 140.0%

31.01 0 1 0 1 0.0%

31.02 9 6 0 6 66.7%

32.02 12 14 0 14 116.7%

32.03 0 1 0 1 0.0%

32.04 1 2 0 2 200.0%
33 8 8 0 8 100.0%
34 16 9 0 9 56.3%

35.01 9 7 0 7 77.8%

35.02 13 8 0 8 61.5%
36 10 14 0 14 140.0%
37 16 10 0 10 62.5%
38 12 13 0 13 108.3%
39 4 4 0 4 100.0%

40.05 3 6 0 6 200.0%

40.06 4 1 0 1 25.0%

40.08 4 1 0 1 25.0%

40.11 2 2 0 2 100.0%

40.12 3 3 0 3 100.0%

40.13 2 1 0 1 50.0%

40.14 1 0 0 0 0.0%

40.15 6 4 0 4 66.7%

40.16 0 0 0 0 0.0%

40.17 7 8 0 8 114.3%

CRITERIA C
Infrequent Est. Infrequent Establishment Churn 2000-2009 [1]
Infrequent
Establishment
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Infrequent Establishment Churn (2000-2009): City of Sacramento Total
Total
Item 2000 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a

CRITERIA C
Infrequent Est. Infrequent Establishment Churn 2000-2009 [1]
Infrequent
Establishment
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area

40.18 6 9 0 9 150.0%

40.19 1 1 0 1 100.0%

40.2 5 7 0 7 140.0%
41 5 4 0 4 80.0%

42.01 0 4 0 4 0.0%

42.02 3 3 0 3 100.0%

42.03 4 3 0 3 75.0%

43.01 2 2 0 2 100.0%

43.02 1 1 0 1 100.0%

44.01 2 3 0 3 150.0%

44.02 1 0 0 0 0.0%

45.01 9 11 0 11 122.2%

45.02 8 7 0 7 87.5%

46.02 2 27 0 27 1350.0%

46.03 1 2 0 2 200.0%

46.04 0 0 0 0 0.0%

47.01 0 1 0 1 0.0%

47.02 0 0 0 0 0.0%

48.01 5 6 0 6 120.0%

48.02 2 0 0 0 0.0%

49.04 1 0 0 0 0.0%

49.06 0 2 0 2 0.0%

49.07 0 0 0 0 0.0%

49.08 4 4 0 4 100.0%

49.09 3 6 0 6 200.0%

49.1 22 19 0 19 86.4%

50.02 2 1 0 1 50.0%

52.01 2 1 0 1 50.0%

52.02 0 2 0 2 0.0%

52.04 12 15 0 15 125.0%

52.05 42 55 0 55 131.0%

53.01 21 29 0 29 138.1%

54.02 11 16 0 16 145.5%

54.03 4 10 0 10 250.0%

54.04 6 4 0 4 66.7%

55.02 58 55 0 55 94.8%

62.02 14 18 0 18 128.6%
63 13 22 0 22 169.2%
64 13 16 0 16 123.1%

65.01 6 7 0 7 116.7%

65.02 6 5 0 5 83.3%
66 6 2 0 2 33.3%

67.03 5 3 0 3 60.0%

67.04 2 0 0 0 0.0%

67.05 4 8 0 8 200.0%

67.06 2 2 0 2 100.0%

68.01 0 0 0 0 0.0%

68.02 9 5 0 5 55.6%

68.03 1 3 0 3 300.0%

69.01 19 18 0 18 94.7%

69.02 41 57 0 57 139.0%

70.01 12 15 0 15 125.0%

70.07 5 11 0 11 220.0%

70.1 1 8 0 8 800.0%

70.11 2 2 0 2 100.0%

70.12 6 6 0 6 100.0%

70.13 0 1 0 1 0.0%

70.16 1 1 0 1 100.0%
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Infrequent Establishment Churn (2000-2009): City of Sacramento Total
Total
Item 2000 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a

CRITERIA C
Infrequent Est. Infrequent Establishment Churn 2000-2009 [1]
Infrequent
Establishment
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area

70.17 0 0 0 0 0.0%

70.19 6 6 0 6 100.0%

70.2 1 1 0 1 100.0%

70.21 4 2 0 2 50.0%

70.22 2 2 0 2 100.0%

70.23 3 2 0 2 66.7%

70.24 6 2 0 2 33.3%

70.25 1 1 0 1 100.0%

70.26 0 0 0 0 0.0%

70.27 0 1 0 1 0.0%

70.28 7 8 0 8 114.3%

71.01 1 1 0 1 100.0%

71.03 0 4 0 4 0.0%

71.05 2 0 0 0 0.0%

71.06 2 4 0 4 200.0%

71.07 1 3 0 3 300.0%

71.08 0 0 0 0 0.0%

71.09 4 2 0 2 50.0%

71.1 0 1 0 1 0.0%

71.11 1 6 0 6 600.0%

72.04 5 4 0 4 80.0%

74.13 1 0 0 0 0.0%

75.04 0 0 0 0 0.0%

92.01 31 40 0 40 129.0%

96.01 3 2 0 2 66.7%

96.08 1 1 0 1 100.0%

96.09 1 2 0 2 200.0%

96.1 1 2 0 2 200.0%

96.14 1 2 1 3 300.0%

96.33 0 1 0 1 0.0%

96.34 1 2 0 2 200.0%

96.4 4 3 0 3 75.0%

96.41 13 14 0 14 107.7%
99 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Total City of Sacramento 1,008 1,178 2 1,180 117.1%
Percentage of Total Est. 5%
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.
[1] An infrequent establishment is defined as an establishment that is not shopped at often. This analysis uses the North American Industriy Classification System (NAICS) codes to define infrequent establishments, see Table B-19 for the complete list of Infrequent Establishment NAICS codes and their associated business type.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Infrequent Establishment Churn (2010-2019): City of Sacramento Total
Item 2010 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
City of Sacramento
1 3 9 0 9 300.0%
2 17 22 0 22 129.4%
3 7 13 0 13 185.7%
4 8 19 0 19 237.5%

5.01 2 8 0 8 400.0%

5.02 4 9 0 9 225.0%
6 1 12 0 12 1200.0%
7 31 53 0 53 171.0%
8 6 11 0 11 183.3%

11.02 12 27 0 27 225.0%

11.03 31 70 0 70 225.8%

12.01 5 12 0 12 240.0%

12.02 2 7 0 7 350.0%
13 12 21 0 21 175.0%
14 28 53 0 53 189.3%
15 18 36 0 36 200.0%

16.01 32 52 0 52 162.5%

16.02 7 10 0 10 142.9%

17.01 8 15 0 15 187.5%

17.02 6 10 0 10 166.7%
18 6 12 0 12 200.0%
19 13 25 0 25 192.3%
20 18 33 0 33 183.3%
21 11 20 0 20 181.8%
22 7 21 0 21 300.0%
23 13 22 0 22 169.2%
24 11 22 0 22 200.0%
25 1 2 0 2 200.0%
26 9 20 0 20 222.2%
27 6 16 0 16 266.7%
28 3 11 0 11 366.7%
29 11 23 0 23 209.1%

30.01 8 17 0 17 212.5%

30.02 16 26 0 26 162.5%

31.01 4 9 0 9 225.0%

31.02 11 18 0 18 163.6%

32.02 12 20 0 20 166.7%

32.03 0 0 0 0 0.0%

32.04 5 14 0 14 280.0%
33 9 20 0 20 222.2%
34 29 44 0 44 151.7%

35.01 14 29 0 29 207.1%

35.02 17 24 0 24 141.2%
36 15 30 0 30 200.0%
37 21 36 0 36 171.4%
38 9 23 0 23 255.6%
39 2 5 0 5 250.0%

40.05 5 19 0 19 380.0%

40.06 8 17 0 17 212.5%

40.08 1 6 0 6 600.0%

40.11 3 8 0 8 266.7%

40.12 3 7 0 7 233.3%

40.13 4 8 0 8 200.0%

40.14 2 3 0 3 150.0%

40.15 7 15 0 15 214.3%

40.16 0 6 0 6 0.0%

CRITERIA C
Total Infrequent Infrequent Establishment Churn 2010-2019 Est. [1]
Infrequent
Establishment
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Infrequent Establishment Churn (2010-2019): City of Sacramento Total
Item 2010 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a

CRITERIA C
Total Infrequent Infrequent Establishment Churn 2010-2019 Est. [1]
Infrequent
Establishment
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area

40.17 8 14 0 14 175.0%

40.18 2 5 0 5 250.0%

40.19 1 4 0 4 400.0%

40.2 6 11 0 11 183.3%
41 8 20 0 20 250.0%

42.01 2 8 0 8 400.0%

42.02 10 24 0 24 240.0%

42.03 5 12 0 12 240.0%

43.01 5 9 0 9 180.0%

43.02 3 6 0 6 200.0%

44.01 7 9 0 9 128.6%

44.02 1 1 0 1 100.0%

45.01 10 17 0 17 170.0%

45.02 13 27 0 27 207.7%

46.02 6 47 0 47 783.3%

46.03 1 2 0 2 200.0%

46.04 1 1 0 1 100.0%

47.01 0 0 0 0 0.0%

47.02 2 3 0 3 150.0%

48.01 10 19 0 19 190.0%

48.02 2 6 0 6 300.0%

49.04 2 2 0 2 100.0%

49.06 0 5 0 5 0.0%

49.07 0 0 0 0 0.0%

49.08 8 26 0 26 325.0%

49.09 4 9 0 9 225.0%

49.1 13 17 0 17 130.8%

50.02 1 2 0 2 200.0%

52.01 5 6 0 6 120.0%

52.02 3 6 0 6 200.0%

52.04 18 37 0 37 205.6%

52.05 49 109 0 109 222.4%

53.01 28 51 0 51 182.1%

54.02 22 34 0 34 154.5%

54.03 7 20 0 20 285.7%

54.04 6 10 0 10 166.7%

55.02 58 114 0 114 196.6%

62.02 19 45 0 45 236.8%
63 6 14 0 14 233.3%
64 17 40 0 40 235.3%

65.01 3 8 0 8 266.7%

65.02 7 13 0 13 185.7%
66 3 14 0 14 466.7%

67.03 10 19 0 19 190.0%

67.04 7 9 0 9 128.6%

67.05 8 19 0 19 237.5%

67.06 0 9 0 9 0.0%

68.01 0 2 0 2 0.0%

68.02 9 12 0 12 133.3%

68.03 3 5 0 5 166.7%

69.01 21 36 0 36 171.4%

69.02 31 57 0 57 183.9%

70.01 18 42 0 42 233.3%

70.07 12 27 0 27 225.0%

70.1 3 17 0 17 566.7%

70.11 3 10 0 10 333.3%

70.12 8 12 0 12 150.0%

70.13 1 6 0 6 600.0%
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Infrequent Establishment Churn (2010-2019): City of Sacramento Total
Item 2010 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a

CRITERIA C
Total Infrequent Infrequent Establishment Churn 2010-2019 Est. [1]
Infrequent
Establishment
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area

70.16 3 14 0 14 466.7%

70.17 1 6 0 6 600.0%

70.19 14 29 0 29 207.1%

70.2 4 10 0 10 250.0%

70.21 5 10 0 10 200.0%

70.22 0 5 0 5 0.0%

70.23 9 14 0 14 155.6%

70.24 6 14 0 14 233.3%

70.25 3 11 0 11 366.7%

70.26 1 2 0 2 200.0%

70.27 2 11 0 11 550.0%

70.28 8 20 0 20 250.0%

71.01 0 0 0 0 0.0%

71.03 9 26 0 26 288.9%

71.05 8 18 0 18 225.0%

71.06 7 25 0 25 357.1%

71.07 4 17 0 17 425.0%

71.08 1 10 0 10 1000.0%

71.09 5 7 0 7 140.0%

71.1 1 9 0 9 900.0%

71.11 1 5 0 5 500.0%

72.04 11 31 0 31 281.8%

74.13 1 5 0 5 500.0%

75.04 0 1 0 1 0.0%

92.01 67 136 0 136 203.0%

96.01 8 15 0 15 187.5%

96.08 7 19 1 20 285.7%

96.09 2 7 0 7 350.0%

96.1 5 8 0 8 160.0%

96.14 1 4 0 4 400.0%

96.33 0 1 0 1 0.0%

96.34 3 10 0 10 333.3%

96.4 5 11 0 11 220.0%

96.41 14 29 0 29 207.1%
99 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Total City of Sacramento 1,286 2,749 1 2,750 213.8%
Percentage of Total Est. 4%
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.
[1] An infrequent establishment is defined as an establishment that is not shopped at often. This analysis uses the North American Industriy Classification System (NAICS) codes to define infrequent establishments, see Table B-19 for the complete list of Infrequent Establishment NAICS codes and their associated business type.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-15
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Discretionary Establishment Churn (2000-2009): Study Area Total
Item 2000 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
Elmhurst
6067001700 8 7 1 8 100.0%
6067001720 4 5 0 5 125.0%
Subtotal Elmhurst 12 12 1 13 108.3%
Oak Park
6067001800 9 20 0 20 222.2%
6067002700 11 15 0 15 136.4%
6067002800 4 3 0 3 75.0%
6067003700 18 11 0 11 61.1%
Subtotal Oak Park 42 49 0 49 116.7%
Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 4 7 0 7 175.0%
6067004402 1 0 0 0 0.0%
Subtotal Fruitridge Pocket 5 7 0 7 140.0%
Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 18 16 0 16 88.9%
6067003010 7 4 0 4 57.1%
6067003020 23 26 0 26 113.0%
6067003101 2 2 0 2 100.0%
6067003102 12 9 0 9 75.0%
Subtotal Tahoe & Colonial 62 57 0 57 91.9%
Lemon Hill
6067004602 5 44 0 44 880.0%
6067004603 1 3 0 3 300.0%
6067004604 3 2 0 2 66.7%
6067004702 1 0 0 0 0.0%
Subtotal Lemon Hill 10 49 0 49 490.0%
South of Fruitridge
6067003202 25 25 0 25 100.0%
6067003203 1 1 0 1 100.0%
6067003204 3 7 0 7 233.3%
6067004801 9 9 0 9 100.0%
Subtotal South of Fruitridge 38 42 0 42 110.5%
Study Area 169 216 1 217 128.4%
Percentage of Total Est. 11%
[1] A discretionary establishment is defined as an optional spending for consumers establishment. This analysis uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to define discretionary establishments. See Table B-20 for the complete list of Discretionary Establishment NAICS codes and their associated business type.

Total
Discretionary Est.
[1] Discretionary Churn
Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area

CRITERIA D
Discretionary Establishment Churn 2000-2009
Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-16
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Discretionary Establishment Churn (2010-2019): Study Area Total
Item 2010 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
Elmhurst
6067001700 10 19 0 19 190.0%
6067001720 8 14 0 14 175.0%
Subtotal Elmhurst 18 33 0 33 183.3%
Oak Park
6067001800 9 27 0 27 300.0%
6067002700 14 33 0 33 235.7%
6067002800 8 20 0 20 250.0%
6067003700 26 46 0 46 176.9%
Subtotal Oak Park 57 126 0 126 221.1%
Fruitridge Pocket
6067004401 9 13 0 13 144.4%
6067004402 1 3 0 3 300.0%
Subtotal Fruitridge Pocket 10 16 0 16 160.0%
Tahoe & Colonial
6067002900 18 39 0 39 216.7%
6067003010 10 21 0 21 210.0%
6067003020 27 41 0 41 151.9%
6067003101 5 11 0 11 220.0%
6067003102 16 26 0 26 162.5%
Subtotal Tahoe & Colonial 76 138 0 138 181.6%
Lemon Hill
6067004602 6 77 0 77 1283.3%
6067004603 1 3 0 3 300.0%
6067004604 2 5 0 5 250.0%
6067004702 5 7 0 7 140.0%
Subtotal Lemon Hill 14 92 0 92 657.1%
South of Fruitridge
6067003202 29 42 0 42 144.8%
6067003203 2 3 0 3 150.0%
6067003204 8 25 0 25 312.5%
6067004801 16 31 0 31 193.8%
Subtotal South of Fruitridge 55 101 0 101 183.6%
Study Area 230 506 0 506 220.0%
Percent of Total Est. 9%
[1] A discretionary establishment is defined as an optional spending for consumers establishment. This analysis uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to define discretionary establishments. See Table B-20 for the complete list of Discretionary Establishment NAICS codes and their associated business type.

Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Total
Discretionary
Est. [1] Discretionary Churn
Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area

CRITERIA D
Discretionary Establishment Churn 2010-2019
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 \\EgnyteDrive\epsys\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Discretionary Establishment Churn (2000-2009): City of Sacramento Total
Item 2000 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
City of Sacramento
1 6 8 0 8 133.3%
2 11 15 0 15 136.4%
3 7 4 0 4 57.1%
4 10 14 0 14 140.0%

5.01 8 7 0 7 87.5%

5.02 10 5 0 5 50.0%
6 7 12 0 12 171.4%
7 91 104 0 104 114.3%
8 5 14 0 14 280.0%

11.02 29 28 0 28 96.6%

11.03 67 108 0 108 161.2%

12.01 18 16 0 16 88.9%

12.02 1 5 0 5 500.0%
13 21 19 0 19 90.5%
14 60 51 0 51 85.0%
15 31 29 0 29 93.5%

16.01 55 53 0 53 96.4%

16.02 17 13 0 13 76.5%

17.01 8 7 1 8 100.0%

17.02 4 5 0 5 125.0%
18 9 20 0 20 222.2%
19 13 14 0 14 107.7%
20 25 24 0 24 96.0%
21 20 7 0 7 35.0%
22 8 11 0 11 137.5%
23 21 27 0 27 128.6%
24 15 13 0 13 86.7%
25 2 2 0 2 100.0%
26 12 10 0 10 83.3%
27 11 15 0 15 136.4%
28 4 3 0 3 75.0%
29 18 16 0 16 88.9%

30.01 7 4 0 4 57.1%

30.02 23 26 0 26 113.0%

31.01 2 2 0 2 100.0%

31.02 12 9 0 9 75.0%

32.02 25 25 0 25 100.0%

32.03 1 1 0 1 100.0%

32.04 3 7 0 7 233.3%
33 18 15 0 15 83.3%
34 26 19 0 19 73.1%

35.01 12 7 0 7 58.3%

35.02 24 15 0 15 62.5%
36 15 20 0 20 133.3%
37 18 11 0 11 61.1%
38 21 28 0 28 133.3%
39 8 5 0 5 62.5%

40.05 11 11 0 11 100.0%

40.06 7 5 0 5 71.4%

40.08 5 1 0 1 20.0%

40.11 5 4 0 4 80.0%

40.12 4 5 0 5 125.0%

40.13 8 1 0 1 12.5%

40.14 2 0 0 0 0.0%

40.15 11 6 0 6 54.5%

40.16 2 1 0 1 50.0%
Total
Discretionary
Est. [1] Discretionary
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area
Discretionary Establishment Churn 2000-2009

CRITERIA D
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 \\EgnyteDrive\epsys\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Discretionary Establishment Churn (2000-2009): City of Sacramento Total
Item 2000 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
Total
Discretionary
Est. [1] Discretionary
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area
Discretionary Establishment Churn 2000-2009

CRITERIA D

40.17 12 10 0 10 83.3%

40.18 10 15 0 15 150.0%

40.19 2 3 0 3 150.0%

40.2 8 10 0 10 125.0%
41 5 7 0 7 140.0%

42.01 2 7 0 7 350.0%

42.02 6 6 0 6 100.0%

42.03 4 4 0 4 100.0%

43.01 4 3 0 3 75.0%

43.02 2 3 0 3 150.0%

44.01 4 7 0 7 175.0%

44.02 1 0 0 0 0.0%

45.01 11 14 0 14 127.3%

45.02 9 11 0 11 122.2%

46.02 5 44 0 44 880.0%

46.03 1 3 0 3 300.0%

46.04 3 2 0 2 66.7%

47.01 3 4 0 4 133.3%

47.02 1 0 0 0 0.0%

48.01 9 9 0 9 100.0%

48.02 2 0 0 0 0.0%

49.04 1 0 0 0 0.0%

49.06 1 3 0 3 300.0%

49.07 0 0 0 0 0.0%

49.08 4 7 0 7 175.0%

49.09 9 9 0 9 100.0%

49.1 37 41 0 41 110.8%

50.02 4 2 0 2 50.0%

52.01 5 4 0 4 80.0%

52.02 2 4 0 4 200.0%

52.04 17 22 0 22 129.4%

52.05 50 64 0 64 128.0%

53.01 26 34 0 34 130.8%

54.02 20 29 0 29 145.0%

54.03 4 14 0 14 350.0%

54.04 9 11 0 11 122.2%

55.02 90 90 0 90 100.0%

62.02 18 20 0 20 111.1%
63 15 26 0 26 173.3%
64 18 18 0 18 100.0%

65.01 11 15 0 15 136.4%

65.02 10 12 0 12 120.0%
66 7 5 0 5 71.4%

67.03 9 7 0 7 77.8%

67.04 2 2 0 2 100.0%

67.05 4 11 0 11 275.0%

67.06 2 2 0 2 100.0%

68.01 1 1 0 1 100.0%

68.02 13 9 0 9 69.2%

68.03 2 4 0 4 200.0%

69.01 27 25 0 25 92.6%

69.02 53 75 0 75 141.5%

70.01 20 24 0 24 120.0%

70.07 9 19 0 19 211.1%

70.1 6 10 0 10 166.7%

70.11 11 6 0 6 54.5%

70.12 9 16 0 16 177.8%

70.13 0 2 0 2 0.0%
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 \\EgnyteDrive\epsys\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Discretionary Establishment Churn (2000-2009): City of Sacramento Total
Item 2000 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
Total
Discretionary
Est. [1] Discretionary
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area
Discretionary Establishment Churn 2000-2009

CRITERIA D

70.16 1 1 0 1 100.0%

70.17 0 0 0 0 0.0%

70.19 8 10 0 10 125.0%

70.2 2 3 0 3 150.0%

70.21 5 3 0 3 60.0%

70.22 1 1 0 1 100.0%

70.23 6 6 0 6 100.0%

70.24 13 6 0 6 46.2%

70.25 2 3 0 3 150.0%

70.26 0 0 0 0 0.0%

70.27 0 4 0 4 0.0%

70.28 10 15 0 15 150.0%

71.01 1 1 0 1 100.0%

71.03 0 6 0 6 0.0%

71.05 3 1 0 1 33.3%

71.06 3 7 0 7 233.3%

71.07 1 5 0 5 500.0%

71.08 2 0 0 0 0.0%

71.09 5 2 0 2 40.0%

71.1 1 2 0 2 200.0%

71.11 2 9 0 9 450.0%

72.04 7 8 0 8 114.3%

74.13 1 0 0 0 0.0%

75.04 0 0 0 0 0.0%

92.01 36 47 0 47 130.6%

96.01 7 6 0 6 85.7%

96.08 3 4 0 4 133.3%

96.09 1 4 0 4 400.0%

96.1 2 6 0 6 300.0%

96.14 1 2 1 3 300.0%

96.33 1 3 0 3 300.0%

96.34 7 6 0 6 85.7%

96.4 5 6 0 6 120.0%

96.41 18 15 0 15 83.3%
99 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Total City of Sacramento 1,679 1,904 2 1,906 113.5%
9%
[1] A discretionary establishment is defined as an optional spending for consumers establishment. This analysis uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to define discretionary establishments. See Table B-20 for the complete list of Discretionary Establishment NAICS codes and their associated business type.

Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology,Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 \\EgnyteDrive\epsys\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Discretionary Establishment Churn (2010-2019): City of Sacramento Item Total
2010 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
City of Sacramento
1 8 22 0 22 275.0%
2 25 56 0 56 224.0%
3 12 24 0 24 200.0%
4 16 35 0 35 218.8%

5.01 6 20 0 20 333.3%

5.02 10 22 0 22 220.0%
6 2 21 0 21 1050.0%
7 84 141 0 141 167.9%
8 11 21 0 21 190.9%

11.02 38 75 0 75 197.4%

11.03 81 174 0 174 214.8%

12.01 16 38 0 38 237.5%

12.02 6 16 0 16 266.7%
13 24 45 0 45 187.5%
14 65 133 0 133 204.6%
15 34 84 0 84 247.1%

16.01 60 95 0 95 158.3%

16.02 20 34 0 34 170.0%

17.01 10 19 0 19 190.0%

17.02 8 14 0 14 175.0%
18 9 27 0 27 300.0%
19 20 47 0 47 235.0%
20 30 67 0 67 223.3%
21 21 37 0 37 176.2%
22 12 32 0 32 266.7%
23 21 42 0 42 200.0%
24 22 44 0 44 200.0%
25 3 7 0 7 233.3%
26 11 29 0 29 263.6%
27 14 33 0 33 235.7%
28 8 20 0 20 250.0%
29 18 39 0 39 216.7%

30.01 10 21 0 21 210.0%

30.02 27 41 0 41 151.9%

31.01 5 11 0 11 220.0%

31.02 16 26 0 26 162.5%

32.02 29 42 0 42 144.8%

32.03 2 3 0 3 150.0%

32.04 8 25 0 25 312.5%
33 19 40 0 40 210.5%
34 39 73 0 73 187.2%

35.01 20 41 0 41 205.0%

35.02 29 48 0 48 165.5%
36 22 40 0 40 181.8%
37 26 46 0 46 176.9%
38 14 35 0 35 250.0%
39 6 12 0 12 200.0%

40.05 14 38 0 38 271.4%

40.06 12 29 0 29 241.7%

40.08 1 10 0 10 1000.0%

40.11 8 25 0 25 312.5%

40.12 4 11 0 11 275.0%

40.13 13 25 0 25 192.3%

40.14 3 5 0 5 166.7%

40.15 10 26 0 26 260.0%

40.16 2 12 0 12 600.0%
Total
Discretionary
Est. [1] Discretionary
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area

CRITERIA D
Discretionary Establishment Churn 2010-2019
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 \\EgnyteDrive\epsys\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Discretionary Establishment Churn (2010-2019): City of Sacramento Item Total
2010 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
Total
Discretionary
Est. [1] Discretionary
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area

CRITERIA D
Discretionary Establishment Churn 2010-2019

40.17 14 30 0 30 214.3%

40.18 5 13 0 13 260.0%

40.19 2 10 0 10 500.0%

40.2 10 23 0 23 230.0%
41 10 25 0 25 250.0%

42.01 4 14 0 14 350.0%

42.02 12 29 0 29 241.7%

42.03 7 17 0 17 242.9%

43.01 6 11 0 11 183.3%

43.02 7 12 0 12 171.4%

44.01 9 13 0 13 144.4%

44.02 1 3 0 3 300.0%

45.01 12 28 0 28 233.3%

45.02 16 33 0 33 206.3%

46.02 6 77 0 77 1283.3%

46.03 1 3 0 3 300.0%

46.04 2 5 0 5 250.0%

47.01 1 4 0 4 400.0%

47.02 5 7 0 7 140.0%

48.01 16 31 0 31 193.8%

48.02 4 9 0 9 225.0%

49.04 2 2 0 2 100.0%

49.06 1 7 0 7 700.0%

49.07 0 1 0 1 0.0%

49.08 10 34 0 34 340.0%

49.09 11 22 0 22 200.0%

49.1 17 25 0 25 147.1%

50.02 4 6 0 6 150.0%

52.01 12 16 0 16 133.3%

52.02 4 12 0 12 300.0%

52.04 33 66 0 66 200.0%

52.05 56 133 0 133 237.5%

53.01 34 64 0 64 188.2%

54.02 32 59 0 59 184.4%

54.03 8 28 0 28 350.0%

54.04 11 19 0 19 172.7%

55.02 83 154 0 154 185.5%

62.02 21 51 0 51 242.9%
63 13 28 0 28 215.4%
64 22 53 0 53 240.9%

65.01 3 13 0 13 433.3%

65.02 9 18 0 18 200.0%
66 4 20 0 20 500.0%

67.03 17 29 0 29 170.6%

67.04 7 9 0 9 128.6%

67.05 7 19 0 19 271.4%

67.06 2 12 0 12 600.0%

68.01 2 5 0 5 250.0%

68.02 15 20 0 20 133.3%

68.03 3 7 0 7 233.3%

69.01 27 53 0 53 196.3%

69.02 37 73 0 73 197.3%

70.01 27 58 0 58 214.8%

70.07 14 35 0 35 250.0%

70.1 12 38 0 38 316.7%

70.11 14 25 0 25 178.6%

70.12 9 21 0 21 233.3%

70.13 2 11 0 11 550.0%
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 \\EgnyteDrive\epsys\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment Stockton Boulevard
Discretionary Establishment Churn (2010-2019): City of Sacramento Item Total
2010 Churn
Formula a b c d = b+ c e = d / a
Total
Discretionary
Est. [1] Discretionary
Churn Rate
Went out of
Business
Moved Out
of the Area

CRITERIA D
Discretionary Establishment Churn 2010-2019

70.16 6 30 0 30 500.0%

70.17 1 11 0 11 1100.0%

70.19 34 67 0 67 197.1%

70.2 10 19 0 19 190.0%

70.21 6 12 0 12 200.0%

70.22 0 6 0 6 0.0%

70.23 10 17 0 17 170.0%

70.24 14 26 0 26 185.7%

70.25 4 20 0 20 500.0%

70.26 1 3 0 3 300.0%

70.27 11 31 0 31 281.8%

70.28 14 40 0 40 285.7%

71.01 0 0 0 0 0.0%

71.03 17 46 0 46 270.6%

71.05 8 22 0 22 275.0%

71.06 15 51 0 51 340.0%

71.07 7 30 0 30 428.6%

71.08 4 21 0 21 525.0%

71.09 9 20 0 20 222.2%

71.1 4 20 0 20 500.0%

71.11 5 12 0 12 240.0%

72.04 13 41 0 41 315.4%

74.13 1 5 0 5 500.0%

75.04 0 1 0 1 0.0%

92.01 72 150 0 150 208.3%

96.01 10 23 0 23 230.0%

96.08 16 39 2 41 256.3%

96.09 4 10 0 10 250.0%

96.1 13 20 0 20 153.8%

96.14 2 5 0 5 250.0%

96.33 0 3 0 3 0.0%

96.34 9 20 0 20 222.2%

96.4 7 16 0 16 228.6%

96.41 22 43 0 43 195.5%
99 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Total City of Sacramento 2,148 4,721 2 4,723 219.9%
7%
[1] A discretionary establishment is defined as an optional spending for consumers establishment. This analysis uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to define discretionary establishments. See Table B-20 for the complete list of Discretionary Establishment NAICS codes and their associated business type.

Source: 2019 National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database; Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 \\EgnyteDrive\epsys\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT
Table B-19
Stockton Boulevard
Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment NAICS Codes Used for Identifying Infrequent Establishments Item Infrequent Establishments: Business Type
NAICS
441110 New Car Dealers
441120 Used Car Dealers
441210 Recreational Vehicle Dealers
441221 Motorcycle, ATV, and Personal Watercraft Dealers 441222 Boat Dealers
441229 All Other Motor Vehicle Dealers
441310 Automotive Parts and Accessories Stores
441320 Tire Dealers
442110 Furniture Stores
442210 Floor Covering Stores
442291 Window Treatment Stores
442299 All Other Home Furnishing Stores
443111 Household Appliance Stores
443112 Radio, Television, and Other Electronics Stores
443120 Computer and Software Stores
443130 Camera and Photographic Supplies Stores
444110 Home Centers
444120 Paint and Wallpaper Stores
444130 Hardware Stores
444190 Other Building Material Dealers
444210 Outdoor Power Equipment Stores
444220 Nursery, Garden Center, and Farm Supply Stores
446199 All Other Health and Personal Care Stores
447190 Other Gasoline Stations
448310 Jewelry Stores
448320 Luggage and Leather Goods Stores
451110 Sporting Goods Stores
451120 Hobby, Toy and Game Stores
451130 Sewing, Needlework, and Piece Goods Stores
451140 Musical Instrument and Supplies Stores
453310 Used Merchandise Stores
453920 Art Dealers
453930 Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers
453991 Tobacco Stores
453998 All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except Tobacco Stores) 541940 Veterinary Services
713120 Amusement Arcades
713950 Bowling Centers
812910 Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services
Source: Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment 192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con.xlsx NAICS Codes Used for Identifying Discretionary Establishments Item Discretionary Establishments: Business Type
NAICS
441110 New Car Dealers
441120 Used Car Dealers
441210 Recreational Vehicle Dealers
441221 Motorcycle, ATV, and Personal Watercraft Dealers 441222 Boat Dealers
441229 All Other Motor Vehicle Dealers
441310 Automotive Parts and Accessories Stores
441320 Tire Dealers
442110 Furniture Stores
442210 Floor Covering Stores
442291 Window Treatment Stores
442299 All Other Home Furnishing Stores
443120 Computer and Software Stores
443130 Camera and Photographic Supplies Stores
444110 Home Centers
444120 Paint and Wallpaper Stores
444130 Hardware Stores
444190 Other Building Material Dealers
444210 Outdoor Power Equipment Stores
444220 Nursery, Garden Center, and Farm Supply Stores
445291 Baked Goods Stores
445292 Confectionery and Nut Stores
445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores
445310 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores
446120 Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies, and Perfume Stores
446191 Food (Health) Supplement Stores
447190 Other Gasoline Stations
448310 Jewelry Stores
448320 Luggage and Leather Goods Stores
451110 Sporting Goods Stores
451120 Hobby, Toy, and Game Stores
451130 Sewing, Needlework, and Piece Goods Stores
451140 Musical Instrument and Supplies Stores
Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con DRAFT

Commercial Displacement and Gentrification Risk Assessment 192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con.xlsx NAICS Codes Used for Identifying Discretionary Establishments Item Discretionary Establishments: Business Type
NAICS
451211 Book Stores
451212 News Dealers and Newsstands
451220 Prerecorded Tape, Compact Disc, and Record Stores 452111 Department Stores (Except Discount Department Stores) 452112 Discount Department Stores
453110 Florists
453210 Office Supplies and Stationery Stores
453220 Gift, Novelty, and Souvenir Stores
453310 Used Merchandise Stores
453910 Pet and Pet Supplies Stores
453920 Art Dealers
453930 Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers
453991 Tobacco Stores
453998 All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (Except Tobacco Stores) 532230 Video Tape and Disc Rental
541940 Veterinary Services
713120 Amusement Arcades
713940 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
713950 Bowling Centers
722110 Full-Service Restaurants
722211 Limited-Service Restaurants
722212 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets
722213 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars
722410 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
812113 Nail Salons
812199 Other Personal Care Services
812910 Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services
Source: Commercial Gentrification Analysis: Methodology, Urban Displacement Project; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 9/2/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192166 Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan\Model\Updated Commercial Gentrification Analysis\192166 Commercial Gentrification 09-01-22 SA Comm Con Appendix D:

Infrastructure Report
D-1
City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure

DRAFT REPORT FOR THE

STOCKTON BOULEVARD PLAN

UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
City Agreement #PRC000839
Lead Agency:

City of Sacramento
Community Development Department
Planning Division
300 Richards Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, California 95811
Lead Agency Contact:

Elizabeth Boyd
916.808.3540
Project Consultants:

Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
NV5, Inc.
2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95833
Project Consultant Contact:

Ascent NV5
Allen Folks Jay F. Radke
Principal-in-Charge Project Manager
916.732.3320 916.641.9139
April 2022
City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final i
226220-0000114.00

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2 WASTEWATER & STORM DRAINAGE ............................................................................... 4 WATER SUPPLY .................................................................................................................... 21 NATURAL GAS ...................................................................................................................... 34 ELECTRICAL......................................................................................................................... 45 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................. 55 PROBABLE ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS ................................................... 56

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Figure 1: Stockton Boulevard Plan Key Map ............................................................................ 3 Figures 2A – 2K: Wastewater & Storm Drainage .................................................................... 10 Figures 3A – 3I: Water Mains .................................................................................................. 25 Figures 4A – 4I: Natural Gas ................................................................................................... 36 Figures 5A – 5I: Electrical ....................................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A: LAND USE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 58 City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 2
226220-0000114.00

INTRODUCTION
This report is being prepared to support the Stockton Boulevard Plan, a specific plan and strategic neighborhood action plan (SNAP) aimed at transforming Stockton Blvd into a thriving corridor that expands opportunities for, and supports the cultures of, existing residents and small businesses while accommodating growth.

The Stockton Boulevard Plan (SBP) area encompasses approximately 458 acres of commercially zoned property along a 4.8 mile stretch of Stockton Boulevard from Alhambra Boulevard to the southern City boundary. The preliminary Stockton Boulevard SNAP Area generally includes neighborhoods within one mile of the Stockton Boulevard corridor, south of U.S. Highway 50, east of U.S. Highway 99, and north of 65th Avenue, and the City boundary. This Existing Utility Infrastructure report for the Stockton Boulevard Plan is limited to the immediate area of the corridor.

For purpose of planning the SBP area has been divided into five districts along the corridor. On the northerly end of the SBP is the Entry to Midtown (EM) district. Next along the corridor is the Medical Center Campus (MCC) district followed by the Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts (TNCS) district, then the Community Commercial Center (CCC) district, and lastly the Little Saigon (LS) district. There are six Pipeline Projects located within the SBP area that currently have submitted a development entitlement application with the City Planning Department. There are an additional 33 proposed Opportunity Sites that have been identified as being likely to redevelop. Each of these total 39 sites are identified with a specific identification number by district.

The redevelopment of the existing land uses for the Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites is anticipated to bring an additional 4,077 residential dwelling units (du) ranging in density between 18.5 to 95 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) together with 372,115 square feet (sf) of commercial uses to the SBP area. A complete land use and development assumption summary together with a comparison of the existing and planned potential land uses contained in Appendix A.

This Existing Utility Infrastructure report is the first step in understanding any known infrastructure deficiencies in the plan area. This analysis is a preliminary engineering, planning level effort that will ultimately aid the City and developers in creating a development fee structure to share the costs of improvements, attracting development funding assistance, and provide potential developers with information to evaluate their probable infrastructure costs.

The area is served by the City of Sacramento for sanitary sewer and storm drainage together with the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) for sanitary sewer. The northerly portion of the SBP area north of 14th Avenue is served by the City’s Combined Sewer System (CSS) for both sanitary sewer and stormwater collection. This legacy system generally works well except during heavy rainfall storm events. The southerly portion of the SBP area south of 14th Avenue is served by the City for storm drainage and the SASD for sanitary sewer.

The area is also served by the City of Sacramento for water supply and distribution. The City has sufficient water supply for development consistent with the growth assumptions envisioned by the City’s General Plan. While the existing water system in the Stockton Boulevard Plan is generally adequate, strategic upgrades may be required to serve proposed growth. Future development will most likely be required to upgrade the existing water main grid to provide adequate water for both domestic and fire suppression needs.

The area is served by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) for electrical, PG&E for natural gas, and a combination of AT&T & Comcast for telecommunications services. The majority of the SBP area is served with overhead utility lines. These lines are expected to remain in place.

April 2022
0 1000' 2000'
Figure A Figure B Figure C
Figure D
Figure E Figure F Figure G Figure H
Figure I
City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 4
226220-0000114.00

WASTEWATER & STORM DRAINAGE
General Information
The Stockton Boulevard Plan (SBP) is served by the Combined Sewer System (CSS) in the northerly half of the area northerly of 14th Avenue. The southerly half of the SBP area is served by collection systems conveying storm drainage and sanitary sewer flows separately.

The CSS is the legacy storm drain and sanitary sewer system that conveys both stormwater and sanitary sewer flows. It encompasses approximately 7,500 acres of the Downtown, East Sacramento, and Land Park areas. Another 3,700 acres including the River Park, California State University, and eastern Sacramento areas utilize the system for sanitary sewer only. The City discontinued constructing combined sewer and storm systems in 1946, although continued connections to the existing CSS were allowed.

There are several small drainage basins in the separated southerly half of the SBP area including Basins 5, 8, 19, 96, 147, G258, and G263. These basins generally discharge through pumped system directly or indirectly into Morrison Creek which flows east to west through the SBP area just south of 47th Avenue.

Morrison Creek is an urbanized drainage channel that is an important tributary of the Sacramento River and part of the Sacramento flood control system. Lake House Acres Creek is a tributary to Morrison Creek that is located at the southerly boundary of the City Limits and the SBP boundary. To the east of Stockton Boulevard the creek is an urbanized channel while to the west it is a piped drainage system in a large 120” diameter pipeline.

The southerly half of the SBP area is served by the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD). The SASD provides service to 1.2 million people in the Sacramento region including the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County, the cities of Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, and Elk Grove; portions of the cities of Folsom and Sacramento, and the communities of Courtland, and Walnut Grove.

The implementation of the sewer and storm drainage improvements necessary to serve a specific project site is typically the responsibility of future developers. City policy is to require the developer to construct any infrastructure necessary to support the project in question without compromising service to the project area. A project specific sanitary sewer and storm drainage studies will be required for any future development. If the existing sanitary sewer and/or storm drainage systems are sufficient to meet the project needs and are not deficient and meet current City standards, no infrastructure upgrades are necessary. If the existing infrastructure is found to be insufficient or deficient or does not meet current City standards for the project’s needs, the developer is required to construct necessary infrastructure improvements.

Combined Sewer System
The CSS is a collection system of pipes that convey both sanitary sewage and stormwater in a single pipeline. The piping system is greatly oversized for the sanitary sewer component, but inadequate for the City’s current storm drainage design standard of 10-year capacity.

In 2014, the Combined Sewer System Improvement Plan (CSSIP) Update Report was completed which identified several storage improvement projects that would help alleviate outflows and flooding in the CSS area during a 10-year storm event and prevent structure flooding (as well as outflows) during the 100-year event. Outflows happen when surcharges to the CSS flow onto the streets. Outflows can occur during a heavy rain event, such as a 10-year storm event, when the collection system has reached maximum capacity.

City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 5
226220-0000114.00
On August 14, 2020, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (Regional Board) issued the City’s Waste Discharge Requirements for the City’s Combined Wastewater Collection and Treatment System (Order R5-2020-0039) (Order). Among other items, the Order requires the City to update its Long-Term Control Program (LTCP) and continue implementation of the updated CSSIP. The LTCP has identified the most effective storage improvement projects form the CSSIP. The LTCP uses the adaptive management strategy and starts with implementation of the top 20 percent of prioritized projects form the CSSIP.

The Order also states that the City shall continue to implement the LTCP to manage the flow capacity of the CSS to minimize Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and CSS outflows as new development and redevelopment projects are implemented throughout the CSS service area that have the potential to increase combined sewer system flows. The City shall implement measures to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that new flows from growth within the CSS service area do not result in an increase in CSOs or CSS outflows or reduce the overall percentage of flow routed to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. CSOs are untreated and treated flows that discharge to the Sacramento River via Sump 2, Sump 1, Combined Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP), or Pioneer Reservoir Treatment Plant (Pioneer).

Currently all flows into the CSS are conveyed westerly to two pumping stations (Sump 2 and 1/1A) located on the Sacramento River. For secondary treatment and disinfection of the flow, the City has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) to convey 60 million gallons per day (mgd). This treatment capacity is currently sufficient for dry weather flows and small storm events.

During heavy storms where the capacity is exceeded, the CWTP at South Land Park Drive and 35th Avenue is utilized to provide primary treatment of an additional 130 mgd. Excess flows from SRWTP and CWTP are diverted to Pioneer which can provide primary treatment of 250 mgd and flow capacity of up to 500 mgd depending on the river stage. When all three treatment facilities (SRWTP, CWTP, and Pioneer) have exceeded their treatment capacity of 440 mgd, excess flows may be directly discharged into the Sacramento River without treatment via Sump 2. Sump 1 also has the ability to discharge flows directly to the river.

The City adopted the Combined Sewer Development Fee (City Code 13.08.490) which is an impact mitigation fee that requires mitigation of any increase in wastewater flows over the present level. If a proposed development project is determined to have an impact on the CSS, an acceptable mitigation plan is required by the City. The current CSS Development Fee (effective 7/1/2021) is $151.36 per Equivalent Single-Family Dwelling (ESD) for up to 25 ESD and $3,777.20 per ESD for more than 25 ESDs. The payment of the fees mitigates the project’s sewer impacts.

To address the stormwater runoff impacts from a proposed Project within the CSS, the City will consider the following approaches:

1. Pay the proposed CSS drainage impact fee. Contact DOU for current fees. An agreement establishing Project fee shall be required prior to adoption of the impact fee,

2. Directly mitigate the impacts utilizing low impact development BMPs per section 9.4.12,

3. Directly mitigate the impacts via public and/or private storage and other measures in accordance with Section 11 and the Onsite Design Manual. The setup of hydraulic models shall be in accordance with the CSS model user guide. Prior to hydraulic modeling, the Designer shall schedule a meeting with the DOU to review the Project, the modeling parameters, and discuss possible drainage solutions,
City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 6
226220-0000114.00

4. At the City’s discretion, the Project can share in a City sponsored Project that improves the system in the area that can be upsized to incorporate mitigation of the Project. A separate cost sharing agreement shall be executed for this option.

Sacramento Area Sewer District
The Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) levies a Sewer Impact Fee for any parcel connecting to the sewer system for the first time. Incremental sewer impact fees may also be due when a parcel size or use changes. These fees ensure that the capital costs invested by the public utilities in building the sewer system infrastructure are fairly distributed among and shared by all users.

The SBP area south of 14th Avenue is served by SASD for sanitary sewer. This portion of the SASD system is designated as a part of the Relief Area. The SASD Sewer Impact Fee for the Relief Area currently (effective 7/1/2021) is calculated by multiplying the project parcel net acreage by $4,664 for Single-Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, and Commercial Users.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San) levies a Facility Impact Fee associated with the sanitary sewer system. This fee pays for planning, designing, construction, and other related costs for wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities for system expansion.

The Regional San Facility Impact Fee currently (effective 7/1/2019) is calculated by multiplying the ESDs generated by the development by the fee of $3,602 per ESD for infill single-family projects and $2,701 per unit for multi-family projects. It is possible in certain cases to receive a credit of 1 ESD per parcel as credit for previously paid fees. Sacramento County (County) policy determines when the credit is allowed. The County has published the method of calculating the ESDs for the different types of development. Additional information is available online at http://www.regionalsan.com.

Existing Conditions
Combined Sewer System
In the SBP area northerly of US Highway 50, the CSS collection system generally flows westerly towards downtown with a large 66” pipeline located in Alhambra Boulevard that flows to the south out of the SBP area. Caltrans owns and operates a storm drainage collection system in the area of the US Highway 50 interchange with a 48-inch storm drainage pipeline along the south edge of the highway.

South of US Highway 50, the CSS generally collects the drainage and sewer flows in smaller 8-inch to 12-inch pipelines located in the street which then increase in size to larger collector pipelines 15-inch to as large as 30-inch and connect to larger diameter pipelines that generally convey the combined flows to the west out of the SBP area. There is a 63-inch pipeline at Sherman Way, a 45-inch and a 66-inch pipelines at Broadway, and a 48-inch pipeline at 13th Avenue.

Combined Sewer System Improvement Plan (CSSIP)
The current CSSIP identifies three projects within or directly adjacent to the SBP area. These recommended projects include:

1. WA2-3: 4th Avenue Park Storage
City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 7
226220-0000114.00

2. WA4-3: P Street Linear Storage

3. WA4-4: Casita Way Linear Storage
The City will be working on a future LTCP that may create projects in addition to the three listed above.

Separated Storm Drainage System
The SBP area to the south of 14th Avenue to 20th Avenue is served by a separated storm drain system that flow to the CSS. There are several small drainage basins in the separated southerly half of the SBP area including Basins 5, 8, 19, 96, 147, G258, and G263. The area between Fruitridge Road and 47th Avenue is collected and discharge into the County of Sacramento system to the west. Sump 19 gravity flows to Sump 96, but pumps to the CSS during large storm events.

The collection pipelines in the separated storm drainage system generally range in size from 8-inch to 15- inch with larger collector pipelines ranging in size from 18-inch to 36-inch. The pipelines generally follow the roadway alignment sometimes on both side of the road. Development within the SBP area will require the upsizing of the smaller drain lines and inlet leads to a minimum of 12-inch to 15- inch diameter and also replace drainage inlets if they do not meet the current City standards.

Separated Sanitary Sewer System
In the SBP area to the south of 14th Avenue is served by a separated sanitary sewer system served by the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD). The collection pipelines in the separated sanitary sewer system generally range in size from 6-inch to 12-inch with larger trunk pipelines ranging in size from 15-inch to 42-inch. The pipelines generally follow the roadway alignment sometimes on both side of the road.

There is a 24-inch sewer pipeline located in Fruitridge Road. The collection system has numerous locations where the pipelines enter and leave the SBP boundary along the alignment of Stockton Boulevard.

Stormwater Quality
The City adopted the Stormwater Quality Design Manual (SQDM) for the Sacramento Region (July 2018), a joint effort of the communities in the greater Sacramento region. This comprehensive manual outlines a consistent set of stormwater quality management design standards for many new and redevelopment and public improvement projects in the urbanized parts of Sacramento County. It provides planning and design tools for use by planners, architects, landscape architects, engineers, and environmental professionals. The manual outlines planning tools and requirements to reduce urban runoff pollution to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) from new development and redevelopment projects.

The SQDM uses locally-adapted information for design and selection of five categories of stormwater quality control measures: source control, hydromodification control, low impact development control, treatment control, and full capture trash control. Per the requirements, multi-family and commercial projects exceeding 1 acre or more of impervious surfaces are required to implement the first four categories, while projects less than one acre are only required to implement source control. Full capture trash control is required for all multi-family residential projects with a density greater than 10 dwelling units per acre and commercial projects were the primary activities involve the sale or transfer of goods or services to consumers.

The southerly portion of the SBP area is subject to the requirements of the SQDM only for those areas located with a separated storm drainage system outside of the CSS. All projects that result in creating or redeveloping 1 acre or more of impervious surface areas will be required to comply with the stormwater City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 8
226220-0000114.00
quality measures outlined in the SQMD. These measures may include treatment measures such as bioretention planters, bioswales, stormwater treatment vaults, green roofs, etc. – either used as a single treatment or as a combination of several measures. Developers are urged to discuss their project with the Stormwater Quality Section of the City DOU while in the planning stages so that proper permanent post-construction stormwater quality treatment measures can be effectively implemented into the project. A small portion of the southerly area of the SBP will be required to comply with applicable Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) requirements. This includes the SBP areas within drainage basins 147 and G258.

The northerly portion of the SBP area is located within the CSS, which is under separate permit regulations for stormwater discharges. The stormwater flows from the CSS are treated at the SRWTP, CWTP, and the Pioneer treatment facilities. Therefore, projects within the CSS are not required to have additional stormwater quality control measures.

Proposed Conditions
Anticipated future development in the SBP area is expected to increase sanitary sewer flows due to increases in development density for residential and non-residential uses. The Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites in this SBP study are estimated to contain a total of 4,077 new multi-family residential units and approximately 372,115 square feet of new non-residential development. This will affect the existing sewer systems.

Since the majority of the sites are previously developed with highly impervious surfaces (i.e. roof tops, larking lots, sidewalks, etc.), the stormwater runoff flows from the projects are not anticipate to increase with the new development. However, each redevelopment site will need to be evaluated on an individual basis to ensure there is no increase in the stormwater runoff. Any increase will need to be mitigated as described in the General Information section above.

The City of Sacramento Design and Procedures Manual contains standards for sewer generation rates (Section 9 – Sanitary Sewer Design Standards dated 7/24/18), average daily flow rates, and factors for residential and non-residential uses. The standard for sewer generation is 310 gallons per day (gpd) per ESD.

A factor of 0.75 Equivalent Single Family Dwelling Unit (ESD) per residential unit was selected based on the multi-family nature of the residential. This factor when multiplied by 310 gallons per day (gpd) per ESD yields a sewer generation rate of 232.5 gpd per residential unit. For the non-residential uses, a factor of 0.5 ESDs per 1,000 gross square feet is used as an average for anticipated uses.

Given the anticipated development of 4,077 new multi-family dwellings units and 372,115 square feet of new non-residential development in the SBP area and using the ESD factors stated above, this equates to 3,244 ESDs (= 0.75 x 4,077 units + 0.5/1000 x 372,1155 s.f.). The anticipated increase in the residential Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) based on 310 gpd per ESD is 1.01 mgd (= 3,244 ESDs x 310 gpd/ESD / 1,000,000 gals per million).

The majority of Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites are previously developed parcels with highly impervious structures and/or pavements. However, several of the parcels are now vacant. Current DOU policy requires developers to mitigate increased impervious surface areas from project sites. Credits for existing imperviousness may be given if it is located on the property within three years or less.

Implementation of storm drainage improvements necessary to serve a specific project site is typically the responsibility of future developers. City policy requires the developer to construct any infrastructure necessary to support the project in question. A project specific storm drainage study is required for any future development. If the existing storm drainage system is sufficient to meet the project needs and are not deficient and meet current City standards, no infrastructure upgrades are necessary. If the existing City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 9
226220-0000114.00
infrastructure is found to be insufficient for the project’s needs or deficient or does not meet current City standards, the developer is required to construct necessary infrastructure improvements.

Recommended System Improvements:

The anticipated development is spread out along the approximately 4.8 mile Stockton Boulevard corridor.

The majority of the anticipated development is within the southerly area of the SBP area in the Community Commercial Center and Little Saigon districts.

The SBP area north of 14th Avenue is well served by the existing CSS collection system. The existing collection mains within the SBP area is adequate to serve the area and the anticipated increase sewer flows with the redevelopment of the area with proper mitigation and contributions to improve the greater CSS system. Each development project will be required to mitigate any impacts to the CSS. There are three CSSIP projects that have currently been identified within or directly adjacent to the SBP area. These recommended projects include:

1. WA2-3: 4th Avenue Park Storage

2. WA4-3: P Street Linear Storage

3. WA4-4: Casita Way Linear Storage
The City will be working on a future LTCP that may create projects in addition to the three listed above.

The SBP area south of 14th Avenue is also well served by the existing SASD collection system. The existing collection mains within the SBP area is adequate to serve the area and the anticipated increase sewer flows with the redevelopment of the area with proper mitigation and contributions to improve the greater SASD system.
8"
12"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
60"
60"
60"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
48"
48"
48"
48"
18"
8"
6"
8"
8"
6"
8"
8"
8"
10"
24"
24"
12"
6"
10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
10"
10" 10"
10"
24"
12"
8"
12"
66"
36"
36"
36"
8"
8"
8"
8"
18"
48"
18"
48"
8"
48"
8"
48"
48"
10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
8"
36"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
8"
12"
8"
48"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
15"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
15"
15"
6"
21"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
8"
8"
10"
8"
8"
66"
66"
66"
66"
66"
10"
10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
48"
10"
8"8"
8"
8"
66"
21"
10" 10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
April 2022
0 200' 400'
12"
10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
4"
6"
4"
4"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8" 8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
48"
48"
48"
48"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6" 8" 6"
6"
6"
8"
6"
8"
8"
8"
10"
12"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
8"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
10"
10"
10"
12"
12"
6"
10"
15"
12"
8"
15"
63"
8"
63"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
4"
6"
8" 6"
10"
8"
10"
10"
63"
24"
54"
57"
8"
54"
6"
72"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"8"
8"
6"
8"
8" 6"
15"
6"
6"
8"
6"
6"
8"
8"
15"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
15"
63"
63"
63"
63"
63"
57"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
14"
63"
63"
63"
63"
63"
63"
4"
6"
8" 8" 8"
8"
8"6"
9"
14"
10"
8"
8"
8"
12"
18"
12"
48"
48"
8"
48"
48"
18"
8" 18"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
15"
8"
8"
24"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
April 2022
0 200' 400'
10"
10" 10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
24"
8"
24"
8"
8"
8"
24"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
8"
8"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
24"
10"
90"
8"
12"
8"
24"
8"
66"
66"
66"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
8"
10"
10"
14" 8"
8"
8"
14"
10" 8"
14"
8"
10"
10"
10"
8"
8"
42"
24"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
21"
8"
8"
15"
8"
15"
8"8"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
24"
6"
8"
24" 12"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
8"
8"
8"
51"
16"
66"
18"
66"
90"
66"
90"
90"
10"
6"
27"
6"
27"
45"
45"
45"
10"
10"
10"
10" 51"
66"
51"
45"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
8"
8"
8"
6"
12" 12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
4"
8"
8"6"
9"
10" 10"
6"
27"
8"
8"
27"
27"
27"
27"
10"
45"
27"
45"
10"
8"
18"
10"
8"
8"
12"
12"
18"
12"
12"
48"
48"
48"
48"
April 2022
0 200' 400'
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
6"
10"
10"
10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12" 8"
12" 12"
6"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
6"
10"
48"
48"
48"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
6"
8"
10"
8"
8"
8"
10"
10"
10"
8"
10" 8"
14"
8"
10" 10"
48"
48"
10"
48"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
12"
18"
18"
10"
10"
8"
8"
18"
42"
42"
42"
12"
8"
8"
30"
8"
30"
30"
8"
8"
8"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
15"
15"
15"
15"
8"
8"
30"
8"
8"
8"
42"
8" 8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
30" 30"8"
30"
12"
30"
14" 14"
12"
8"
8"
6"
6"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
6"
6"
8"
8"
15"
8"
8"
8"
15"
8"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
30"
10"
8"
12"
12"
12"
6"
15"
15" 6"
30"
15"
30" 15"
21"
8"
6"
6"
6"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
12"
8"
8"
8"
6"
6" 8"
6"
8"
8"
8"
6"
8"
12" 12"
6"
42"
8"
6"
6" 18"
21" 15"
6" 15"
8"
24"
24"
12"
April 2022
0 200' 400'
18"
6"
27"
27"
27"
6"
6"
6"
6"
12"
18"
15"
27"
6"
12"
12"
6"
18"
18"
24"
12"
12"
6"
12"
6"
6"
6"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12" 21" 21"
6"
21" 21" 21" 21"
12"
12"
12"
6"
12"
6"
6"
6"
12"
6"
21"
6"
6"
21" 21"
6"
6"
6"
6"
24"
24"
12"
12"
6"
21"
21"
15"
18"
24" 12"
12"
36"
36"
36"
15"
15"
36"
24" 24"
12"
15"12"
12" 6" 24"
6"
24"
12" 12"
6"
12" 6" 15"
12"
24"
12"
12"
12"
18"
6"
18"
12"
6"
12"
6"
10"
12"
12"
6" 6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
10"
10"
12"
12"
12"
36"
24"
24"
12"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
6"
12"
24" 24"
24"
24"
6"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
21"
12"
21"
21"
21"
21"
12"
12"
12"
10"
10"
10"
10"
8"
8"
6"
6"
15"
6"
24"
24"
6"
6"
8"
8"
18"
6"
6"
6"
6"
18"
6"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
8"
6"
6"
6"
12"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
18"
8"
6"
8"
8"
8"
6"
6"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
18"
18"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
18" 6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
12"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
12"
18"
6"
18"
8"
6"
6"
6" 18"
21" 15"
6" 15"
6"
8" 8" 8"
April 2022
0 200' 400'
10" 10" 15"
6"
15" 15" 15" 24"
12"
12"
12"
15"6" 15"
24" 24" 24" 24"
15"
24"
24"
12"
12"
24"
12" 6"
10"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
12"
6"
6"
12"
6"
6"
24"
24"
6"
10"
8"
24"
12"
8"
12"
6"
12"
12"
6"
6"
24"
12"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
48"
48"
48"
24"FM
6"
6"
6"
6"
8"
6"
6"
6"
8"
6"
24" 24"
24"
24"
12"
12"
12"
12"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
15"
6"
24"
24"
6"
6" 6"
6"
48"
24" 24"
15"
4"
15"
10" 10"
8"
8"
24"
24"
30"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
12" 12"
6"
10" 10"
8"
8"
8" 8"
15"
6" 6" 6"
6"
6"
6"
24"
24"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
24"
8"
8"
8"
24"
24"
24"
24"
8" 8" 8"
24"
24"
8"
6"
6"
6"
6"
12"
24"
10" 10" 10"
4"
24"
8"
8"
20"
24"
24"
24"
8"
42"
42"
42"
24"
30"
24"
8" 8"
24"
42"
42"
42"
42"
42"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
6"
8"
6"
24"
S219 FRUITRIDGE

CENTER PUMP STATION
24"FM
8"
April 2022
0 200' 400'
36" 36" 36"
6"
8"
36"
36"
36"
36"
8"
6"
6"
12" 12"
12"
12"
24"
8"
12"
12"
12"
24"
24"
24"
24"
12"
12"
12"
12" 12"
24"
12" 12"
12"
12"
12"
12" 12"
6"
8" 8" 8" 8"
6"
8" 8" 6"6"
24"
12"
12" 8"
8"
24"
8"
8"
8" 8" 8"
8"
8"
6"
8"
8" 8" 8"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
8"
24"
12"
24" 12"
24"
12"
8"
42"
10"
10"
10"
6"
6"
6"
10"
8"
6"
8"
8"
6"
15"
8"
8"
8"
6"
6"
6"
18"18"
15"
6"
6"
8"
6"
6"
6"
48"
48"
18"
18"
24"
6"
6"
6"
48"
14"
48"
6"
48"
30" 30"
20"
20"
20"
20"
14" 20"
20"
6"
36"
36"
6"
6"
36"
15"
15"
4"
15"
14"
15"
20"
20"
20"
20"
6"
30" 30" 30"
21" 21" 21" 21"
24" 24"
15"
15"
4"
15"
18"
18"
6"
4"
4"
10" 21" 21" 15"
8"
6"
12"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
8"
12"
6"
24"
8"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
April 2022
0 200' 400'
24"
24"
6"
8" 8"
36"
36"
36" 6"
6"
6"
36"
6"
36"
36"
6"
8"
8"
8"
12"
12"
6"
15"
6"
36"
6"
12"
15"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
6"
6"
6"
15"
12"
12"
6"
12"
6"
12"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
15" 6"
15" 6"
8"
6"
6"
6"
12"
12"
6"15"
6"
15" 24"
12"
6"
15"
15"
6"
15"
6"
15" 15"
15"
12"
6"
6"
15" 6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
12"
12"
12"
6"
12"
12"
24"
12"
24" 12"
12" 8"
24"
8"
12"
12"
8"
12"
8"
12"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
15"
15"
8" 15"
8" 18"
12"
8"
18"
8"
24"
18"
18"
8"
18"
April 2022
0 200' 400'
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
6"
6"
6"
8"
8"
12"
12"
12"
12" 12"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6" 6"
8"
8"
120"
120"
120"
120"
120"
8"
8"
8"
8"
84"
8"
8"
12"
6"
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
Stockton Boulevard Plan - Infrastructure Analysis
Figure 2J STORM DRAIN BASINS
0 1000' 2000'
Figure A Figure B Figure C
Figure D
Figure E Figure F Figure G Figure H
Figure I
April 2022
Stockton Boulevard Plan - Infrastructure Analysis
Figure 2K SANITARY SEWER BASINS
0 1000' 2000'
Figure A Figure B Figure C
Figure D
Figure E Figure F Figure G Figure H
Figure I
City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 21
226220-0000114.00

WATER SUPPLY
General Information
The City provides domestic water to the SBP area. The City utilizes both surface water and groundwater to meet the water demands. The City treats surface water diverted from the Sacramento River and American River through the Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant (SRWTP) and the E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant (FWTP), respectively. Additionally, the City extracts groundwater from both the North Sacramento and Central Sacramento basins. The current reliable water production capacity is approximately 280 mgd.

Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant: The SRWTP began operation in 1924 with an initial capacity of 32 mgd and treats water diverted from the Sacramento River approximately one-half mile downstream of the confluence of the American River. A new water intake structure, located approximately 700 feet downstream of the old intake structure, was completed in 2003. Other expansions and modifications completed by the City since the 1920s increased the treatment plant design capacity to 160 mgd. The most recent project was completed in 2016, which replaced many of the older facilities at the SRWTP in order maintain the 160 mgd capacity into the foreseeable future.

E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant: The FWTP is located adjacent the American River approximately seven miles upstream with the Sacramento River. The FWTP began operation in 1964 and has a current diversion limit of 200 mgd following an expansion completed in 2005. Currently, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has permitted a capacity of 160 mgd. However, the amount of water diverted is further limited by the so-called Hodge Flow Criteria which restricts diversions from the FWTP under certain low river flow conditions. Hodge conditions have historically occurred about 50% of the time, and can be present in any month of the year. During the time of peak demand, most often in June, July, or August, the Hodge Flow Criteria could limit the diversion rate at the FWTP to 100 mgd. As a result of this constraint, sufficient pipe capacity to move the 160 mgd into the distribution system has not been constructed. The current facility is physically constrained to approximately 130 mgd, when Hodge is not triggered.

Groundwater Wells: The City currently operates 27 municipal groundwater supply wells; 25 wells are located in the northern portion of the City, north of the American River, while the remaining two are located south of the American River. The total pumping capacity of the City’s municipal supply wells is approximately 20 mgd, assuming 90% of the production capacity is available. The City has recently completed a well rehabilitation program that improved capacity at a number of existing wells. Overall, the groundwater facilities operated by the City are known to be at or near the end of useful life, and the City is currently preparing a groundwater master plan to help determine the direction and anticipated future capacity of the collective groundwater facilities. The City is nearing completion on two new wells in the southern portion of the system at Shasta Park. The projects are anticipated to supply potable water by 2019-2020. The City anticipates the groundwater pumping capacity to increase to approximately 25 mgd after the activation of the rehabilitated wells and completion of the new groundwater wells.

Distributed Storage: The City maintains eleven enclosed distributed water storage reservoirs together with a total capacity of 45 million gallons (MG). This water is used to meet the water demand for fire flows, emergencies, and peak hours where demands exceed the maximum day supply rates. A new 4 MG distribution storage tank at the Shasta Park Site in the southern portion of the City is anticipated to be completed in 2019-2020, which will increase the total storage to 49 MG. In addition to the reservoirs, the SRWTP and FWTP together maintain a combined on-site storage of over 44 MG.

City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 22
226220-0000114.00
The City operates pumping facilities throughout the area. There are high lift service pumps at the SRWTP and FWTP to move the treated water from the facility reservoirs into the distribution system. The City also maintains pumping facilities at ten of the City’s storage reservoirs. These pump stations are of varying sizes and capacities.

The City differentiates the water mains into two distinct categories: water distribution mains and water transmission mains. Water distribution mains are smaller pipelines located in the streets and alleys utilized for water services. Water transmission mains are larger pipelines utilized to convey water to the distribution mains.

It is City policy to only utilize the water distribution mains for water services, fire services, and fire hydrants. These pipes are typically 4-inches to 12-inches in diameter. These pipes may be tapped only with the approval of the City DOU. Considering each service tap is a potential weakening of the water main, the City currently has the policy to restrict the installation of service taps until after a project has been reviewed and approved by the City. This is to restrict the number of taps to the mains to those that are in the ultimate location per an approved development plan. This reduces the number of service taps that are abandoned due to changes in the development plans.

Transmission mains are 14-inches and larger in diameter. They are used to convey large volumes of water from the treatment plants to selected points throughout the distribution system. They are also utilized to transfer water to and from the storage reservoirs to meet fluctuating daily and seasonal demands. These mains cannot be tapped for water services, fire services, or fire hydrants.

The City DOU has an active CIP for maintaining and upgrading the water supply system. The implementation of the water improvements necessary to serve a specific project site is typically the responsibility of future developers. City policy requires the developer to construct any infrastructure necessary to support the project in question. To determine if water needs for a project can be met, a water supply test is performed on the existing system. Depending on the location of the project, a water study may also be required of new development to determine if there is sufficient water supply to support the project. If the existing water system is sufficient to meet the needs, no infrastructure upgrades are necessary. If the existing infrastructure is found to be insufficient for the project’s needs, the developer is required to construct necessary infrastructure improvements.

The infrastructure improvements required for all new development will need to meet current City standards. Looped water main systems are typically required due to the unreliability of dead end mains, and the potential for water quality problems as a result of stagnant water. Additional water main installation may also be required depending on the existing system layout. All new water services are required to be metered.

The City’s Water Development Fees are based on the size of the water service(s) necessary for a project with separate fee schedules for either residential or commercial projects. The Water Development fees may be waived upon request only if the conditions of Resolution 87-322 (Residential Infill Lots) or Resolution No. 2018-0428 (Affordable Dwelling Units) are met. Mixed use projects that qualify for these waivers must have a separate water service connection for the residential portion of the project. The current City process for the determining if a project is eligible for the Residential Infill Lots waiver utilizes a GIS based layer and the City’s Accella (planning & building permit program) to automatically determine if a residential project (at building permit application) is in a Designated or Qualifying Water Fee Waiver Area. If the project is in a Designated area, the fee is automatically waived for the residential portion of the project. If the project is in a Qualifying area, planning staff reviews and determines if the fee should be waived per the requirements of the resolution.

Temporary source of water for construction is easily acquired two different ways. First, the contractor can purchase a construction service. This potentially could be the ultimate water service tap for the project.

Secondly, the contractor can arrange to purchase water from an adjacent fire hydrant.

City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 23
226220-0000114.00
The City Design Standards for water (Section 13 – Water Distribution System Design Standards dated 7/24/18) contains the planning and design criteria for water systems.

Existing Conditions
The SBP area is generally served by an extensive system of service mains ranging in size from 6-inches to 12-inches in diameter. These mains are a mixture of steel, PVC, and ductile iron pipelines. There are a few smaller 4-inch pipelines, one located in 32nd Street north of Stockton Blvd., one that crosses under Highway 50 just westerly of Stockton Blvd., one located in 3rd Avenue westerly of Stockton Blvd., and one located in the 51st/52nd Street Alley.

A 36-inch major transmission main serving the East Downtown Sacramento area from the SRWTP passes through the northerly SBP area located in R Street. A 24-inch transmission main connects to this pipeline and follows Stockton Blvd. southerly to 2nd Avenue where it then reduces in size to a 16-inch pipeline to Broadway. At this point the pipeline splits in three directions with 12-inch distribution pipelines to the west and south and a 14” pipeline to the east.

There is a second 36-inch major transmission main within the SBP located in 14th Avenue. An 18-inch transmission main connects to this pipeline and follows Stockton Blvd. southerly to Lawrence Drive where it then turns westerly and leaves the SBP area.

A third 30-inch major transmission main passes through the SBP area located in Fruitridge Road. A fourth 30-inch transmission main is located in Elder Creek Road easterly of Stockton Blvd.

There are no active wells or reservoirs within the limits of the SBP area. The nearest reservoirs outside of the SBP is the Alhambra Reservoir located just to the north of SMP area to the east of Alhambra Blvd. and south of J Street, and the UC Med Reservoir located at the UC Davis Medical Center to the south of V street and east of 45th Street.

The City of Sacramento Department of Utilities (DOU) prepared the Capital Improvement Programming Guide in July 2012. The report contains recommendations for improvements to the sewer, storm drainage, and water systems including a Priority List for 50 different Water Transmission Main projects identified to be replaced. Two of these 50 Water Transmission Mains projects are located within the SBP area:

1. Item #27 – Stockton Blvd from 2nd Avenue to Broadway: This is approximately 1672 feet of 16- inch water transmission main that is currently (2021) 105 years old.

2. Item #28 – Broadway from Stockton Blvd. to 53rd Street: This is approximately 2744 feet of 14- inch water transmission main that is currently (2021) 105 years old.

Proposed Conditions
The types of future development envisioned in the SBP Plan area are high-density urban infill type projects, with residential units consisting of townhomes, midrise multifamily/mixed use, urban walk-up mixed use, and garden-style apartments. Domestic water demands for these residential units is anticipated to be similar to the City’s typical multi-family water usage criteria. Fire flow demand for the SBP area is assumed to be 2,500 gpm. Ultimately, the minimum fire flow for a specific building is designated by the fire department during plan review. A Water Supply Test to determine the existing system available fire flow is required for all developing properties.

The adoption by the State of California of SB7–“20 x 2020” Water Conservation Standards requiring a 20% reduction in urban water usage by the year 2020 and the CalGreen Building Code will require reductions in overall water usage through stricter indoor and outdoor usage. These requirements City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 24
226220-0000114.00
mandating water conservation will further justify the use of the reduced water rates for the future development in the SBP area.

The City Water Study Design Manual dated January 2018 contains the Water Distribution System Criteria (WDS Criteria) which is a summary of the recommended potable water system performance and operational criteria. The WDS Criteria provides a table of gross unit water use factors for various land uses. The demands are broken into two categories of water use factors, residential and non-residential.

The residential factors are based on the acre-feet per year per DU (afy/du) and the non-residential is based on acre-feet per year per employee (afy/employee). For the SBP, all of the anticipated dwelling units are anticipated to be the Residential High category which has a residential factor of 0.12 afy/du. The Non-Residential land use has a factor of 0.09 afy/employee.

With 4,077 new multi-family dwelling units expected in the SBP area, the anticipated increase in the residential average water demand is 489.2 afy (= 4,077 DUs x 0.12 afy/du). Assuming an average of 340 square feet per employee, the anticipated 372,115 square feet of non-residential development would equate to approximately 1,094 employees. The anticipated increase in the non-residential average water is

98.5 afy (= 1,094 Employees x 0.09 afy/employee). The total anticipated increase in the DPB average water demand is estimated to be 587.7 acre-feet per year.

Recommended System Improvements:

The SBP Plan Area is generally well served by the existing water transmission and distribution system.

To determine if water needs for a project can be met, a water supply test will need to be performed on the existing system. Depending on the location of the project, a water study may also be required of new development to determine if there is sufficient water supply to support the project. If the existing water system is sufficient to meet the needs, no infrastructure upgrades are necessary. If the existing infrastructure is found to be insufficient for the project’s needs, the developer is required to construct necessary infrastructure improvements.

The following improvements are necessary to facilitate development along the corridor:
• Smaller 6-inch water mains in the vicinity of the proposed Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites may need to be upsized to 8-inch minimum.
• Extend the existing 8-inch dead end water main located in Stockton Boulevard northerly of Southwest Avenue northerly to the 8-inch water main located in Stockton Boulevard. • Extend the existing 6-inch dead end water main located in Young Street easterly connect to the new 8” water main in Stockton Boulevard.
• Extend the existing 8-inch dead end water main located in Stockton Boulevard at El Paraiso Avenue northerly to the 12-inch water main located in Lemon Hill Avenue to loop the system.

April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 34
226220-0000114.00

NATURAL GAS
General Information
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) supplies natural gas to the Sacramento area. During the winter, approximately 70% is imported from Canada and the balance is supplied from California production wells. During the summer, this ratio is reversed. Also during the summer, gas prices are lower so gas is stored in underground reservoirs for use during winter peak use periods.

The PG&E gas distribution system has high and low pressure distribution systems. The high pressure system pipelines are generally 4-inch diameter and larger, carry gas at approximately 40 pounds per square inch (psi). Low pressure system pipelines, generally 2-inch diameter, carry gas at a pressure of 7- inch water column (about 0.25 psi). Service is generally provided from the low pressure system unless usage exceeds about 3,000 cubic feet per hour; however, in the SBP area the system is all high pressure.

Regulators are used to reduce high pressure to low pressure.

Existing Conditions
A 6-inch transmission main passes through the SBP area located in T Street to Stockton Blvd. to V Street serving the UCD Medical Center campus. A second major 16-inch gas transmission main passes through the SBP are located in 15th Avenue. A third major 12-inch gas transmission main passes through the SBP located in Fruitridge Road. There is also a 20” SMUD pipeline that passes through the SBP area located in Fruitridge Road.

The high pressure gas system generally is served by a grid system throughout the SBP area. The high pressure system pipelines range in size from 2-inch to 6-inch diameter. These mains are generally located in the streets or occasionally in an alley. There is a 4-inch pipeline located in Stockton Blvd. from Alhambra Blvd. to Broadway. A 2-inch pipeline is located in Stockton Blvd. from Broadway to 16th Avenue. There is a gap in the system along Stockton Boulevard from 16th Avenue to Yosemite Avenue.

There is a short approximately 200 foot section of 2-inch pipeline located south of Yosemite Avenue, but then there is another gap in system to mid-way between Parker Avenue and Roosevelt Avenue. From that point a 2-inch pipeline that increases to a 4-inch pipeline at Roosevelt Avenue. This 4-inch pipeline extends southerly along Stockton Boulevard to the SBP southern boundary.

Proposed Conditions
PG&E indicates they are currently making improvements to their system which may negate the need for future improvements when or if the new developments are constructed. PG&E will service the new developments and infrastructure as they are constructed and require service. PG&E would expand/upgrade the natural gas system to extend service to new development on a case-by-case basis with additional information on the actual development square footage and maximum and minimum gas loads.

PG&E was unable to provide a draft of necessary system improvements and/or review of their gas system without specific information regarding gas loads at each potential development site together with an application for service.

If the user is a core (non-interruptible) customer in the service area and will accept service at 7-inch water column pressure, the company is generally obligated by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulations to provide service without additional cost for service. If the user is a non-core (interruptible) customer or needs an elevated pressure service for large volume use, there are charges for service according to PG&E new business tariffs. Whether a project is a core (non-interruptible) user or a non-core (interruptible) user depends on the type of use for the facility or business. Projects in the DBP Plan Area are most likely to be core (non-interruptible) customers.

City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 35
226220-0000114.00
The City of Sacramento adopted the Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Ordinance on April 20, 2021 and the New Building Electrification Ordinance on June 1, 2021. The New Building Electrification Ordinance requires newly constructed buildings that are three stories or less to be all-electric with building permit applications filed on or after January 1, 2023, and newly constructed buildings that are four stories or more to be all-electric with building permit applications filed on or after January 1, 2026. These new requirements will likely lower the new development gas demand and the need for new services in the coming years. The following is a link to the City of Sacramento website with information on these recently adopted ordinances:
(http://www.cityofsacramento.org/SacElectrificationOrdinance) Recommended System Improvements:

There is an existing gap in the natural gas main line system along Stockton Boulevard between the existing 2” main at 16th Avenue and the existing 4” main at Roosevelt Avenue. However, the existing developed parcels in this gap area appear to receive gas service from the side streets. At PG&E’s discretion, it may be necessary to provide a main line connection between these two points in the system in order to serve future development demands. With the City’s newly adopted New Building Electrification Ordinance it may prove unnecessary to expand the existing natural gas system.

April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 45
226220-0000114.00

ELECTRICAL
General Information
SMUD provides electrical service to customers located within the SBP area. Power is transmitted to the SBP area by a 12kV and 21kV distribution system. There are 3 different 21kV substations that feed the Stockton Blvd. area. Specifically, SMUD Mid-City substation, East-City substation, and South-City substation. All of these substations step down 115kV to 21kV in order to feed the Stockton Blvd. area.

The Mid-City substation is situated along Stockton Blvd. and 34th Street in the northern end of the SBP area.

Of these three substations, there are five 21kV feeders serving the SBP area. The five feeders consist of Mid-City 2302, Mid-City 2305, South-City 2302, South-City 2303, and East-City 2302. The existing feeders will likely be used to serve new development located within the 21kV service area along Stockton Blvd.

Existing Conditions (Facilities)
The SBP area is served by the 12kV and 21kV distribution system consisting of mainly overhead facilities. The 21kV system is fed from Mid-City 2302, Mid-City 2305, South-City 2302, South-City 2303, and East-City 2302. The five 21kV feeders total approximately 23MVA of load carrying capacity.

The 12kV distribution system is served with three feeders on the different distribution substations: 14th Ave. & 52nd feeder 1203, Fruitridge 44th St. feeder 1202, and Wire & 4th feeder 1203. There is an existing 69kV underbuilt with 12kV overhead facilities along Stockton Blvd between of 15th Avenue and Fruitridge Road. There is 12kV overhead facilities between Fruitridge Road and Riza Avenue. There are 12kV underground facilities along Stockton Blvd. from Riza Avenue to the SBP southerly boundary.

The existing public utility easements (PUEs) along Stockton Blvd. need to be maintained for the existing and future 12/69kV overhead electrical facilities. New PUEs will need to be provided if the SMUD facilities are relocated.

The amount of available capacity is solely determined by the location of the new development and the available circuits that feed that area. SMUD requires the customer to provide the load usage to forecast the future facilities upgrade to serve the customer proposed project.

Proposed Conditions
The amount of available capacity is determined by the location of the new development and the available circuits that feed that area. SMUD requires the customer to provide the load usage to forecast the future facilities upgrade to serve the customer proposed project.

The City of Sacramento adopted the Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Ordinance on April 20, 2021 and the New Building Electrification Ordinance on June 1, 2021. The New Building Electrification Ordinance requires newly constructed buildings that are three stories or less to be all-electric with building permit applications filed on or after January 1, 2023, and newly constructed buildings that are four stories or more to be all-electric with building permit applications filed on or after January 1, 2026. These new requirements will greatly affect the new development electric demand in the coming years. The following is a link to the City of Sacramento website with information on these recently adopted ordinances: (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/SacElectrificationOrdinance) D-47

DETAILED COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY

APPENDIX A

COMMUNITY WORKING VERSION
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
April 2022
0 200' 400'
City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 55
226220-0000114.00

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
General
Within the SBP area there are numerous telecommunications providers. The following are the main providers for telephone and cable services.

AT&T – Telecommunications
AT&T supplies local and long distance telephone service, and also data communications, in most of the Sacramento area. The SBP area is served by the Main Wire Center at 14th and J Streets.

AT&T serves the SBP area with a combination of overhead and underground conduit systems. The main lines are generally located in the streets.

Recently-developed properties often place the aerial facilities underground, generally in a joint trench with other dry utilities along the street frontage or in an alley. Cabling in underground conduits can be either copper wire or fiber optic cable.

Comcast/AT&T Broadband
Comcast provides cable television service in the Sacramento area. AT&T Broadband leases conduit space and fiber optic cable capacity from Comcast in the SBP area.

Comcast serves the Sacramento area with a combination of underground and overhead fiber optic and copper coaxial cable. The signal is generated at a downtown site on N Street near the Capitol and is distributed to hub sites throughout the service area, from which local service is distributed.

City of Sacramento
The City currently owns an existing fiber network that provides Municipal and Smart City services. The network provides connections between various traffic signals, utility sumps, reservoirs, and City facilities spread throughout the City. The network consists of approximately 160 miles of underground fiber optic cables and conduits that transverse the main corridors of the City. The fiber network currently enables the City to run efficient operations and reduces operational costs, while expanding capabilities. The telecommunications system consists of single or multiple underground conduits, pull boxes, and utility vaults that are interconnected with the traffic signals, utility services, and various City facilities. Within the SBP area this system is located along the length of the Stockton Boulevard corridor.

The following link shows how the Public Works - Transportation Division utilizes this infrastructure:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/Traffic-Signals/Traffic-Operations-Center Proposed Telecommunications
Telecommunications providers have indicated the existing system within the SBP area should be sufficient to serve the proposed projects and opportunity sites with relatively minor additions. In general, service to each of the new sites will be coordinated with the main electrical service in a common joint trench. Typically, a few 2-inch conduits will be added to the joint utility trench for service to the projects.

City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 56
226220-0000114.00

PROBABLE ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
The costs presented here to construct the infrastructure necessary for the DPB Plan Area are intended for planning level only. They include the general costs for infrastructure to support the overall buildout of the catalyst sites in the DPB Plan Area using today’s (2021) dollars.

This estimate is not intended to be utilized for the actual costs for specific projects. The final costs for each specific project will need to be estimated separately and could be considerably different than those shown here due to the uncertainty of the order, timing and scope of the actual development to be constructed. The estimates have been developed solely to give interested parties a magnitude of the scale of the costs of improvements.

The unit costs for the other infrastructure items were based on actual costs of recent development within the Sacramento, planning level costs utilized by various City departments as well as engineering judgment. Final unit costs for each specific project will depend on the actual labor and materials costs for the conditions at the time of construction. These conditions might include the scope of the development and scheduled project completion.

The estimates are generally separated into the corresponding infrastructure report for the different utilities.

For each utility the estimates have been divided either along the major boundaries as for sewer and storm drainage, or by the corresponding Station area. Assumptions and clarifications for the costs are noted at the bottom of the individual sheets.

City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 57
226220-0000114.00

PROBABLE ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS

WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM COSTS

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT

PRICE AMOUNT

WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

1. Water, 8" (Incl. fittings) 1,753 LF $210.00 $368,130 Subtotal $368,130
Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $18,407
Subtotal $386,537
Contingency 25% $96,634
Estimated Construction Cost $483,171
Project Delivery 15% $72,476
TOTAL WATER DISTRIBUTION $555,646
City of Sacramento
Stockton Boulevard Plan – Utility Infrastructure
April 2022 – Final 58
226220-0000114.00
APPENDIX A: LAND USE SUMMARY
Subarea Site ID APN(s) Assumed Development Type TOTAL #Units TOTAL Commercial SF GIS (Acres) Max FAR Density
Assumption (du/ac)
% of Site
Acreage #Units
Average Unit
Size (SF) FAR Implication
Density
Assumption
(du/ac) % of Site Acreage #Units
Average Unit
Size (SF) FAR Implication
Density
Assumption
(du/ac)
% of Site
Acreage #Units
Average Unit
Size (SF) FAR Implication
Density
Assumption
(du/ac)
% of Site
Acreage #Units
Average Unit
Size (SF) Commercial SF FAR Implication Commercial SF % of Site Acreage FAR Assumption Entry to Midtown EM-1 007-0362-001 Townhouses 9- 0.49 4.0 18 100% 9 2000 0.83 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Entry to Midtown EM-2
007-0363-027
007-0363-028 Urban Walk-up Multifamily 0 22,353 0.68 4.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 22353 100% 0.75 Medical Center Campus MCC-1
014-0013-003
014-0013-026 Urban Walk-up Multifamily 25 0.68 4.0 - 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 100% 25 900 0.83 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Medical Center Campus MCC-2
014-0031-011
014-0031-039 Townhouses 181 7,370 2.82 4.0 18 40% 20 2000 0.33 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 60% 161 1000 7370 1.60 0 0% 1.25 Medical Center Campus MCC-3
014-0121-030
014-0121-031 Midrise Multifamily/Mixed Use 167 7,655 1.76 4.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 100% 167 1000 7655 2.67 0 0% 0.25 Medical Center Campus MCC-4
011-0191-013
011-0191-015
011-0193-003
011-0193-004
011-0200-057 Pipeline Project 200 7.85 4.0 -
Medical Center Campus MCC-5
014-0123-004
014-0123-005 Townhouses 4- 0.22 4.0 18 100% 4 2000 0.83 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-1 014-0194-002
014-0194-004
014-0194-005
014-0194-006
014-0194-012
014-0194-013
014-0194-014 Midrise Multifamily/Mixed Use 138 6,337 1.45 4.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 100% 138 1000 6337 2.67 0 0% 0.25 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-2 015-0041-017 (part) Townhouses 3- 0.17 4.0 18 100% 3 2000 0.83 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-3 014-0223-004 Pipeline Project 67 1.23 4.0 - Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-4 015-0113-055 Townhouses 4- 0.23 4.0 18 100% 4 2000 0.83 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-5 014-0222-069 Pipeline Project 130 1.52 4.0 - Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-6 015-0181-052 (part) Pipeline Project 99 1,250 0.64 4.0 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-7 014-025-2022 Townhouses 2- 0.10 4.0 18 100% 2 2000 0.83 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-8 014-0293-005
014-0293-006
014-0293-007
014-0293-008
014-0293-009
014-0293-010
014-0293-011
014-0293-012 Midrise Multifamily/Mixed Use 105 12,000 1.11 4.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 100% 105 1000 12000 2.82 0 0% 0.25 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-9 014-0294-021
014-0294-022 Mix of Townhouses, Urban Walk-up, Vertical MU 14 4,000 0.47 4.0 18 30% 3 2000 0.24 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 70% 12 900 0.58 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 4000 N/A 0.19 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-10 021-0021-023
021-0021-024
021-0021-025 Urban Walk-up Mixed Use 16 3,000 0.45 4.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 100% 16 900 0.83 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 3000 N/A 0.15 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-11 021-0023-001 Urban Walk-up Mixed Use 15 3,000 0.42 4.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 100% 15 900 0.83 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 3000 N/A 0.17 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-12 021-0023-047
021-0023-052
021-0023-053 Urban Walk-up Mixed Use 24 3,000 0.66 4.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 100% 24 900 0.83 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 3000 N/A 0.10 Traditional Neighborhoods Commercial Storefronts TNCS-13 021-0201-025
021-0201-034 (part)
021-0201-035 Midrise Multifamily/Mixed Use 149 6,838 1.57 4.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 100% 149 1000 6838 2.67 0 0% 0.25 Community Commercial Center CCC-1 022-0280-029 No Development/Keep on List 0 0.71 4.0 - 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Community Commercial Center CCC-2
022-0310-001 (part)
022-0310-003 (part)
022-0310-004 Midrise Multifamily/Mixed Use 257 11,761 2.70 4.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 95 100% 257 1000 11761 2.67 0 0% 0.25 Community Commercial Center CCC-3 023-0026-026 Pipeline Project 200 7.96 4.0 - Community Commercial Center CCC-4
023-0026-027
023-0111-025
023-0111-026
023-0111-028
023-0111-029
023-0111-030
023-0111-031
023-0211-001 Urban Mixed Use Village 686 136,866 15.71 4.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 33% 189 900 0.28 95 33% 497 1000 22811 0.89 114055 33% 0.50 Little Saigon LS-1
026-0073-004
026-0073-005
026-0073-006
026-0073-007
026-0073-008
026-0073-003 (County)
026-0073-014 (County)
026-0073-017 (County) Pipeline Project 116 11,400 5.80 2.0 Little Saigon LS-2
027-0181-011
027-0181-014 Horizontal Mixed Use (Townhomes, Retail) 22 4,440 1.63 2.0 18 75% 22 2000 0.62 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 4440 25% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-3 027-0271-012 Midrise Multifamily/Mixed Use 174 15,000 2.67 2.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 65 100% 174 1000 15000 1.89 0 0% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-4 038-0011-096 Townhouses 25 1.39 2.0 - 18 100% 25 2000 0.83 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-5
038-0081-007
038-0081-008
038-0081-019
038-0081-020
038-0161-005
038-0161-008 Horizontal MU (garden apartment, retail) 68 31,038 5.70 2.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 50% 68 1000 0.28 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 31038 50% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-6 037-0310-002 Horizontal MU (garden apartment, retail) 71 17,310 4.54 2.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 65% 71 1000 0.36 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 17310 35% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-7
037-0310-023
037-0310-026 Midrise Multifamily/Mixed Use 221 13,777 3.16 2.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 100% 221 1000 13777 2.00 0 0% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-8
038-0191-001
038-0191-002
038-0191-025
038-0191-028 Midrise Multifamily/Mixed Use 217 10,718 4.92 2.0 18 50% 44 2000 0.41 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 50% 172 1000 10718 1.00 0 0% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-9 039-0241-025 Midrise Multifamily/Mixed Use 42 2,628 0.60 2.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 100% 42 1000 2628 2.00 0 0% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-10
040-0021-001
040-0021-003
040-0021-030
040-0021-031
040-0021-032 Midrise Multifamily/Mixed Use 168 7,530 4.32 2.0 18 60% 47 2000 0.50 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 40% 121 1000 7530 0.80 0 0% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-11
039-0241-021
039-0241-023 Garden-style Apartments 91 3.79 2.0 - 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 100% 91 1000 0.55 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-12 040-0031-024 (part) Garden-style Apartments 33 1.37 2.0 - 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 100% 33 1000 0.55 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-13
039-0171-019
039-0171-024
039-0171-025
039-0171-031
039-0171-046 Garden-style Apartments 190 7.90 2.0 - 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 100% 190 1000 0.55 36 0% 0 1000 0.00 70 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 0 0% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-14 039-0171-033 Commercial Retail 0 4,683 0.43 2.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 0% 0 1000 0.00 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 4683 100% 0.25 Little Saigon LS-15 039-0201-012 (part) Horizontal MU (garden apartment, retail) 145 28,162 8.62 2.0 18 0% 0 2000 0.00 24 70% 145 1000 0.39 36 0% 0 900 0.00 70 0% 0 1000 0 0.00 28162 30% 0.25 TOTAL 4,077 372,115 108.47 183 598 280 2205 124425 235039 TOTAL - PIPELINE 3,265 359,465 83.47
Scenario 1
Townhouses or Multi-plex
Scenario 2
Garden Style MF
Scenario 3
Urban walk-up MF
Scenario 4
Midrise MF
Scenario 5
Commercial Only
Appendix E:

Facilities Financing
Options
E-1
Introduction
The Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan (Project)
establishes a long-term vision and strategy for
redeveloping and transforming Stockton Boulevard
into a thriving corridor with equitable outcomes for
existing residents and businesses.

This chapter provides an overview of identified
Facility improvements necessary to serve
projected growth in the Specific Plan Area. In
addition, this chapter identifies the estimated
cost of Facility improvements and describes both
existing and potential new funding sources that
may be used to fund Facility improvements.

Specific Plan Area Land Uses
The Specific Plan Area comprises approximately
420 acres (424 parcels), with about 280 acres
of commercially zoned property along a 4.8-
mile segment of Stockton Boulevard in the City,
spanning from Alhambra Boulevard to the north
to the City’s southern boundary to the south.

The Specific Plan Area is estimated to include
60 vacant parcels totaling almost 49 acres, or 14
percent of the total acreage.

There are 6 development Pipeline projects
located in the Specific Plan Area and an additional
33 proposed Opportunity Sites that have been
identified as being likely to redevelop. Among
these Pipeline Projects and Opportunity Sites, the
Specific Plan Area is anticipated to accommodate
an additional 4,077 residential dwelling units,
ranging in density between 18.5 and 95 dwelling
units per acre, and up to 372,115 square feet of
commercial uses. For an explanation of these land
uses, refer to Chapter 2 Land Use and Community
Character.

Development of the Specific Plan Area is expected
to proceed irregularly and on a project-by-project basis as individual development projects move forward with development plans. There
may be variations from this land use program as
development actually occurs. As such, land uses,
and associated infrastructure needs, may require
periodic review.

Facilities Definitions
The term “Backbone Infrastructure” often is used
to describe all publicly owned facilities. This
chapter uses the following definitions to define
these items more precisely:
• Backbone Infrastructure includes most of the
essential public service-based infrastructure
including roadways and improvements
underneath public roadways (such as storm
drainage, sanitary sewer, and water facilities).

Backbone Infrastructure is sized to serve
numerous individual development projects and,
in some cases, serves adjacent development
areas. The definition of Backbone Infrastructure
excludes infrastructure improvements
necessary to serve individual project sites;
these improvements are typically funded
privately by project developers.
• Public Facilities include amenities to the
Project (e.g., parks) or house employees and
equipment providing services to the area (e.g.,
police and fire facilities).
• Facilities generically refers to Backbone
Infrastructure and Public Facilities when a
precise breakdown is not required.

E-1

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
Facilities Funding Principles
To achieve the goal of ensuring the public infrastructure in the Specific Plan Area will be funded and delivered in time to meet Specific Plan Area needs, the City has established the following funding principles to guide a future Financing Strategy for funding Facilities:

1. A Funding Strategy will provide the framework
to ensure all backbone infrastructure and
public facilities necessary for public health,
safety, and welfare are constructed in
accordance with the City’s development
standards in a timely manner to support
development in the Specific Plan Area.

2. A Funding Strategy will identify the specific
maintenance services required in the Specific
Plan Area and identify appropriate funding
sources, both existing and proposed.

3. New development will fund the proportionate
share of Facility improvements traditionally
funded in new development projects and
carried costs exceeding respective fair
shares will be subject to various credit and
reimbursement mechanisms.

4. Developers may be required to advance fund
or construct significant portions of Facility
improvements exceeding their proportionate
share. Such developers may seek private
financing necessary to carry such improvement
costs to the extent public financing is not
available and to fund the developers’ own
share of such costs.

5. Because it is impossible to precisely predict
the manner in which development of the
Specific Plan Area will unfold, absorption of the
projected land uses, and therefore the timing
of improvement requirements, the various
components of a Funding Strategy may require
regular updates to reflect changes in land use
and improvement assumptions.

6. The City may, in accordance with prudent
fiscal judgment, provide tax-exempt municipal
financing to defray financing costs for public
facilities. Any public debt issued by the City
must meet all City debt policies and not
adversely affect the City’s credit rating.

7. The actions contemplated herein by the City
are subject to the legislative discretion of
the City at the time of approval and must be
in compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations.

E-2

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
Specific Plan Area Facilities
The Specific Plan Area contains a variety of existing and planned future Backbone Infrastructure, including roads, sewer, storm drainage, water, dry utilities, and various other Public Facilities. Table E-1 provides a preliminary summary of these Facilities and the responsible agencies.

Table E-1. Summary of Specific Plan Area Facilities and Service Providers Public Facility/Service Service Provider
Backbone Infrastructure
Roadways City of Sacramento
Wastewater and Storm Drainage
City of Sacramento
Regional County Sanitation District
Sacramento Area Sewer District
Water City of Sacramento
Dry Utilities: Natural Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Dry Utilities: Electricity Sacramento Municipal Utility District Dry Utilities: Telecommunications AT&T; Comcast; City of Sacramento Public Facilities
Parks and Open Space City of Sacramento
Law Enforcement City of Sacramento Police Department
Fire Protection City of Sacramento Fire Department
Library Sacramento Public Library Authority
Schools Sacramento City Unified School District
Transit Regional Transit (RT)
Backbone Infrastructure
Utilities
A preliminary planning-level assessment of utility
infrastructure in the Specific Plan Area evaluated
whether the Specific Plan Area contained any
known infrastructure deficiencies and offered
recommended system improvements based
on the level of projected growth in the Specific
Plan Area. The utility infrastructure assessment
evaluated the following Backbone Infrastructure:
• Wastewater and storm drainage facilities.
• Water facilities.
• Dry utilities (natural gas, electrical, and
telecommunications).

Based on an assessment of utility infrastructure in
the Specific Plan Area, the area is generally well-served by existing Backbone Infrastructure. At this time, projected new development in the Specific
Plan Area will require minimal, new Backbone
Infrastructure improvements. A summary of
existing conditions and recommended system
improvements is described in Appendix D.

Transportation
The City recently completed a Corridor Study
to establish a vision, set of improvements,
and preliminary costs related to transportation
investments along Stockton Boulevard. The City
approved the Stockton Boulevard Corridor Plan in
September 2021, which includes improvements to
safety, mobility, and the community as identified
in Table E-1 and described in more detail in the
Stockton Boulevard Corridor Plan (Appendix F).

E-3

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
Public Facilities
Parks
The City has identified park improvements for the
Specific Plan Area, as described below:
• 21st Avenue Median. The City is leading a
master plan process and engaging with the
community in ongoing discussions related to
the planning and analysis of converting the 21st
Avenue median into a recreational amenity.
• Lawrence Park. The City’s Park CIP includes
renovations to Lawrence Park, including a
shade canopy over the playground, new
access pathway through the park for ADA
accessibility, additional picnic stations, outdoor
seating, 35 new trees, and volleyball courts,
table tennis, and corn hole.

The City may identify additional parks and open
space improvements to serve Specific Plan Area
residents.

Other Public Facilities
Through subsequent implementation steps, the
City may identify other Public Facilities, including
police, fire, transit, and library facilities, needed to serve Specific Plan Area residents.

Summary of Estimated Planning-Level
Facility Costs
Utilities
Cost estimates for improvements with an identified
funding source (i.e., development impact fee
program revenue) have been identified as part of
the City’s CIP or will be prepared by the City or a
licensed civil engineer.

Unfunded water improvements identified to serve
projected development in the Specific Plan Area
are estimated to be $556,000 (2022 dollars)
and include a 25 percent cost contingency on
all improvements. The improvements and costs
described in this study are based on a preliminary
1 Original Corridor Study cost estimates of $81.1 million, escalated to current dollars using the California State Department of General Services California Construction Cost Index percentage change from December 2020 to December 2021. Original cost estimate prepared by Nelson\Nygaard, November 2020. planning-level utilities assessment, prepared
by NV5 (February 2022). These unfunded
improvements will require a new funding source
from the options listed later in this chapter.

Transportation
As described in the City Corridor Study,
transportation improvements are estimated to
be $92.0 million (2020 dollar cost estimates,
escalated to 2022 dollars) and include a 35
percent cost contingency on all improvements.1
Corridor Study improvements will rely on State and
federal grants to implement, although competition
is strong, and grants require matching local funds.

Typical awards for corridor improvements range
from $3 million to $9 million, depending on the
administering agency. When the grant programs
become available, the City identifies a segment for
which to request funding based on the program
and its typical award amounts. If successful in
receiving grant awards, it can take between 4
and 7 years to perform the design, environmental
clearance, and right of way and be ready for
construction.

Public Facilities
Cost estimates for needed Public Facilities in the
Specific Plan Area have been identified as part of
the City’s CIP or will be prepared by the City or a
licensed civil engineer.

Facilities Funding Options
The funding of needed Facilities will rely on a
combination of private and public sources. Most
improvements identified in the utility assessment
prepared for the Specific Plan Area are site-specific and will be the funding responsibility of the developer moving forward with a development
project. Other funding may be available from
the City or other public sources to defray these
improvement costs, although no sources have
been identified at this time.

E-4

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
There are improvements that are not anticipated to
be funded through private development but rather
through public sources (i.e., City, State, and federal
sources) or other sources to be determined. These
include the water and transportation improvements
described previously.

An overview of available funding sources to fund
Specific Plan Area Facilities is provided below:
• Specific Plan Area Developer Funding.

Funding and financing sources originating from
private development in the Specific Plan Area
include the following subcategories: developer
funding via payment of existing development
impact fees and private developer funding.
• Local Funding. This category includes
funding sources that are under the control of
the City and may include City development
impact fee programs to the extent that fee
payments generated by development outside
the Specific Plan Area are available to fund
related Facilities. The City may consider other
funding options, including the formation of a
land-secured financing district, an Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), or other
source.
• Regional, State, and Federal Funding.

Funding sources, such as grants or loans, from
State, federal, or other agencies to which the
City may have to apply.
2 City building permit and other processing fees are excluded from this list. 3 City of Sacramento, Reduction of Development Impact Fees for New Affordable Dwelling Units. https://www. cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Resources/Reduction-of-Development-Impact-Fees-for-New-Affordable-Dwelling-Units. Accessed March 2022.

Specific Plan Area Developer Funding
Existing Development Impact Fee Programs and
Charges
• Private development projects in the Specific
Plan Area will be subject to applicable City
and Other Agency development impact fees in
place at the time of acceptance of the building
permit application. Revenues generated
through existing fee programs may be available
to directly fund Backbone Infrastructure and
Public Facilities identified for the Specific Plan
Area, to the extent improvements have been or
will be identified in CIPs. Existing City and other
agency fee programs are described in Table
E-2.2
Development projects in the Specific Plan Area
with new affordable dwelling units may qualify
for reduced or a $0 rate for City impact fees,
including water, CSS, park, and housing impact
fees. In addition, accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
are not subject to the City’s housing impact fee,
and smaller ADUs (<750 square feet) are not
subject to any impact fees. While development
impact fees are necessary to support public
infrastructure, payment of development impact
fees may constitute a barrier for the construction of
affordable housing and ADUs.3
E-5

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
Table E-2. Summary of Existing City and Other Agency Fee Programs Applicable to Specific Plan Area Development
City Fees Other Agency Fees
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD) School Mitigation Fee
CSS Development Impact Fee Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) Development Impact Fee
Water Development Fee SASD Sewer Impact Fee
Park Impact Fee (PIF) Regional San Impact Fee
Standard PIF (For Neighborhood/ Community Park
Development)
Sacramento Transportation Au-thority (STA)
Measure A Fee
• Citywide PIF (For citywide-serving parks,
including regional parks, community centers,
and aquatic centers)
• Housing Impact Fee/Housing Trust Fund Fee
Private Financing, Agreements, and Partnerships
Developers commonly fund infrastructure
requirements privately. Private funding includes
capital provided by private developers through
debt financing, equity, or a combination of both.

In some cases, area-serving infrastructure (not
fully the responsibility of a particular developer)
can be privately financed. These cooperative
arrangements are typically structured in
development agreements or reimbursement
agreements. This upfront infrastructure
development may be fully or partially refunded,
using subsequently collected development
impact fees, special tax bond proceeds, or other
city funding sources. These arrangements tend
to be available during times of strong market
performance. In weaker markets or locales, it may
be difficult to obtain such private financing.

Local Funding
General Obligation Bond
A general obligation (GO) bond is a type of
municipal bond that is secured by a state or local
government’s pledge to use legally available
resources, most typically including property tax
revenues, to repay bond holders. GO bonds
are restricted to defined capital improvements.

Creation of general obligation bonds requires
two-thirds voter approval if the issuance is for non-educational purposes.

The incidence of burden of general obligation
bonds is upon all property owners in the issuing
jurisdiction proportional to the value of their
property. Because property owners are usually
reluctant to risk losses because of unpaid property
tax bills, credit rating agencies often consider a
GO pledge to have very strong credit quality and
frequently assign them investment grade ratings.

If local property owners do not pay their property
taxes on time in any given year, a government
entity is required to increase its property tax rate
by as much as is legally allowable in a following
year to make up for delinquencies. In the interim
between the taxpayer delinquency and the higher
property tax rate in the following year, the GO
pledge requires the local government to pay debt
service coming due with its available resources.

In California, cities must secure a two-thirds voter
approval to issue GO bonds.

Economic Considerations
General obligation bonds allow public entities
to finance at a low fixed rate over the useful life
of the asset. However, general obligation bonds
are limited to capital improvement expenditures
E-6

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
and also are limited in their use to the precise
purposes outlined in the authorizing ballot
measure. General obligation bonds are commonly
restricted to particular capital uses (e.g., street
improvements, drainage improvements, parks and
recreation).

Revenue Bond
Revenue bonds are payable solely from net or
gross non-ad valorem tax revenues derived from
General Fund revenues, tax increment revenues,
rates or tolls, fees or charges, or rents paid by
users of the facility constructed with the proceeds
of the bond issue. However, it should be noted
that governments typically pay higher rates when
they borrow through revenue bonds rather than
GO bonds.

Economic Considerations
Revenue bonds are limited to enterprise-related
expenditures and to the precise purposes outlined
in the authorizing bond instrument. Revenue
bonds also are limited by the rate base, as utility
rates must conform to Constitutional and statutory
requirements (e.g., Proposition 218).

New Sales Tax Measure
Under California Sales and Use Tax Law, State and
local sales taxes are imposed on retailers—and
typically passed along to the consumer—for the
privilege of selling tangible personal property
in the State. The authority to levy local sales
taxes was established through the Bradley-Burns
Uniform Sales and Use Tax Law (Bradley-Burns)
passed by the State legislature in 1955 (taking
effect January 1, 1956).4 The Bradley-Burns law
created a uniform local sales tax rate of 1.25
percent among cities and counties choosing
to levy the tax and required that sales taxes be
collected by the State and distributed on a situs
basis. As of January 2022, the State imposes a
combined State and local sales tax rate of 7.25
4 For statutory provisions regarding the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, refer to Revenue and Taxation Code §7200 et seq.; for the provisions regarding State sales and use taxes, refer to Revenue and Taxation Code §6001 et seq.
percent and allows municipalities and districts
to assess an additional local tax rate of up to 3.0
percent (for a total tax rate of 10.25 percent).

The City’s sales tax rate is 8.75 percent. The City
may consider a citywide sales tax rate increase
(typically 0.25 to 0.50 percent) to fund Project-specific infrastructure. Because the sales tax revenues would be used to fund a specific project,
this would be considered a special tax and would
require two-thirds voter approval. If a sales tax
measure is approved, funding can be used to fund
infrastructure using a “pay-as-you-go” approach,
as a source of reimbursement, or to support a
municipal bond issuance.

Economic Considerations
Use of various general fund sources to support
infrastructure investments including repair and
replacement of existing infrastructure, as well
infrastructure that serves new development,
requires little additional administrative effort and is typically secure given the broad range of revenue
sources pledged to the financing. However, the
use of existing General Fund revenue is limited by
current demands to support ongoing operations.

The incidence of burden falls to those paying
the taxes or rates. That is, sales taxes are paid by
residents, businesses, employees, and visitors.

The rationale for this payer burden is that these
residents, businesses, employees, and visitors will
benefit from the investments made in infrastructure
and development.

Parcel Tax
Parcel taxes are a form of property tax, which must
be paid by the owners of parcels of real estate.

However, unlike standard property taxes, which
are based on the value of the property, a parcel
tax is an assessment based on the characteristics
of the parcel. Taxing districts have created
assessments that range from flat amounts per
parcel to assessments based on parcel lot square
E-7

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
footage or building square foot. Some taxing
districts have assessed residential parcels using
one method and nonresidential parcels using
another method.

Based on Proposition 218 (approved by State
voters in 1996), local taxing districts can levy this
type of non-ad valorem tax if a super majority of
two-thirds of the voters approve.5 If a parcel tax is
approved, a GO bond could be issued against the
future revenue stream to generate upfront funding.

Economic Considerations
Parcel taxes (and special taxes) create an
opportunity for voters to decide to pay for
municipal services or facilities that they deem
important. With a broad funding base and strict
allocation rules, the taxpayers can assure that
funding will be used as intended. However,
parcel taxes (and special taxes) are limited to the
purposes for which they were approved. They also
are commonly subject to a “sunset” date, and must
be re-authorized periodically to maintain funding.

Capitalizing Leases (Certificates of Participation)
Capitalizing leases, most commonly Certificates
of Participation (COP), are typically used by
government agencies for construction or
improvement of public facilities. By use of a lease-type repayment structure, the monies needed to fund these building projects do not (by California
State law) constitute public debt and do not
require voter approval. Usually, a public entity
enters into a tax-exempt lease-purchase with a
lessor and the lessor provides the agreed-on
public facility. As new financing needs emerge and
market conditions change, government agencies
often find that their leasing powers provide more
expedient access to the capital markets than the
more restricted powers to incur debt.

Economic Considerations
Cities can use capitalizing leases to provide
upfront funding for projects needed to facilitate
economic development, for example providing
5 A non-ad valorem tax is one that is not based on the value of the property that is being taxed. “bridge” financing for an infrastructure project,
through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds.

However, the arrangement present in COPs
between a public entity and a lessor is complex
and issuance costs are higher than those for
general obligation bonds.

Land-Secured Funding and Financing
There is a long history in California and elsewhere
in the United States of using land-secured
financing methods to fund local infrastructure or
provide services that benefit a particular area
(ranging from an entire jurisdiction to subareas
of all sizes), including special benefit assessment
districts and Mello-Roos Community Facilities
Districts (CFDs).

Special Benefit Assessment Districts
Special benefit assessment districts are a way
of creating a property-based assessment on
properties that benefit from a specific public
improvement. The formation of assessment
districts requires majority approval of the affected
property owners. Benefit assessments can fund
a wide range of infrastructure improvements as
long as a direct and measurable benefit can be
identified for the benefitting properties. There are
numerous forms of special benefit assessments
in the California statutes, including the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913, Lighting and Landscape
Maintenance Districts, and others. In 1996,
Proposition 218 effectively eliminated the use of
Assessment Districts in California by limiting the
methods by which local governments may exact
revenues from taxpayers without their consent.

In addition, recent court rulings (Silicon Valley
Taxpayers’ Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open
Space Authority, 44 Cal. 4th 431 (Cal. 2008)) have
tightened the requirements for demonstration of
“special benefit,” thus further reducing the flexibility and utility of assessment districts. Most recent
land-secured financings have been Mello-Roos
CFDs.

Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
E-8

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of
1982 (authorized by Section 53311 et seq. of the
Government Code) enables the formation of a CFD
by local agencies with two-thirds voter approval
(or landowner approval when there are fewer than
12 registered voters in the proposed district) for
the purpose of imposing special taxes on property
owners. The resulting special tax revenue can
be used to fund capital costs or operations and
maintenance expenses directly, or they may be
used to secure a bond issuance, the proceeds
of which are used to fund capital costs. Because
the levy is a tax rather than an assessment, the
standard for demonstrating the benefit received
is lower, thus creating more flexibility. CFDs have
become the most common form of land-secured
financing in California.

As special taxes and tax overrides approach or
exceed ½ percent of assessed value annually, on
top of the basic 1 percent property tax rate, there is
a heightened risk of value impacts shifting to home
and land prices (which offsets benefits associated
with the additional special taxes). Cities using
CFDs often adopt policies that regulate how they
are used and the various limits and considerations
to be applied in creating CFDs.

Economic Considerations
Land-secured financing provides a well-established method of securing relatively low-cost tax exempt, long-term, fixed rate, fully-assumable debt financing. However, there can be challenges associated with establishing
measurable and specific benefits to particular
properties. In addition, land-secured financing
adds financing costs (e.g., cost of issuance and
program administration). Further, the financing
capacity of a district may be limited in early phases
of development and it may be necessary to rely
on other sources of infrastructure funding during
initial years. Finally, while land-secured financing
has been widely used in greenfield development
where landowner approval is the norm, achieving
a two-thirds voter approval in infill areas typically
can be a barrier to use of the tool.

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
Senate Bill 628 (2014) created the ability for
jurisdictions to form Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFDs), and it is the most used
form of tax increment financing (TIF) in California.

The EIFD bill expanded the scope of eligible uses
of funds considerably and lowered the voter/
landowner threshold to pass a bond from two-thirds to 55 percent. More recently, legislation streamlined the process for issuing bonds by
removing the 55 percent vote initially required of
EIFDs (Assembly Bill 116 (2019)). Other legislative
amendments have improved EIFDs, including
Assembly Bill 733 (2017), which allows EIFDs to
fund climate change adaptation projects, and
Senate Bill 1145 (2018), which allows EIFDs to fund
infrastructure maintenance costs.

EIFDs may be initiated by any affected taxing
authority, including a city, a county, or a special
district, and are governed by an Infrastructure
Financing Plan (IFP). Taxing authorities can devote
a portion of their share of property taxes, as well
as property tax received in lieu of vehicle license
fees (VLF). EIFDs may be used for the purchase,
construction, or improvement of any real property
with a useful life of at least 15 years inside or
outside the district. Eligible uses of EIFD funding
must be public capital facilities or other specified
projects of “communitywide significance” that
provide significant benefits to the district or the
surrounding community. These are some examples
of allowable projects:
• Highways, interchanges, ramps and bridges,
arterial streets, parking facilities, and transit
facilities.
• Sewage treatment and water reclamation
plants and interceptor pipes.
• Facilities for the collection and treatment of
water for urban uses.
• Flood control levees and dams, retention
basins, and drainage channels.
• Childcare facilities, libraries, parks, recreational
facilities, and open space.

E-9

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
• Facilities for the transfer and disposal of solid
waste, including transfer stations and vehicles.
• Brownfield restoration and other environmental
mitigation.
• Acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of
housing for persons of low and moderate
income.
• Acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial
structures for private use.

In 2018, the State passed amending legislation
to also allow ongoing maintenance costs to
be funded with EIFDs. Senate Bill 1145 (2018)
authorizes a district to finance the ongoing or
capitalized costs to maintain public capital facilities financed in whole or in part by the district but
prohibits the use of proceeds of bonds issued
to finance maintenance (i.e., maintenance if
funded pay-as-you-go). In addition, a district may
not finance the costs of ongoing operations or
providing services of any kind.

Economic Considerations
EIFDs redirect property taxes otherwise accruing
to the General Fund. The value created by the
project is captured and invested in the District.

However, only specific types of public investments
of community-wide significance may be financed
through an EIFDs. EIFDs cannot be used to finance
operations and maintenance expenses.

Regional, State, and Federal Funding
There are many potential federal, State, regional,
and private sources of grants or loans to fund
Facilities in the Specific Plan Area. The City should
aggressively pursue all available funding sources
from federal, State, regional, and other funding
sources. A summary of key funding opportunities is
provided below.

Federal Funding Sources
Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
Since 2015, one of the primary federal sources
of surface transportation funding has been the
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act,
which provided surface transportation funding for
Fiscal Year 2016 through Fiscal Year 2020. The
FAST Act was extended through September 30,
2021, but expired at that date. On November 15,
2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Bill, was signed into law, which includes funding
for surface transportation. Congress passed an
updated transportation bill on November 8, 2021,
which both secured funding for continuing existing
programs and created dozens of new grant
programs.

Federal Housing and Urban Development Promise
Zones
The Specific Plan Area is located in a designated
federal “Promise Zone” and will therefore have
priority for federal housing grants.

Federal Community Development Block Grants
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds are distributed by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The
City manages and identifies funding priorities for
projects in the City. Although most of the funding
is reserved for the acquisition and rehabilitation of
affordable housing, some funding also is available
for public improvements (i.e., roads, parks).

State and Regional Funding Sources
State Transportation Improvement Program
State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) funds are derived from a combination of
federal and State sources, including taxes and
fees. These funds are divided into 2 programs:
the Interregional Transportation Improvement
Program (ITIP) and the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP). To be eligible for
RTIP funding, projects must be included in the
transportation improvement plan prepared by
the regional agency (Sacramento Area Council
of Governments), which are submitted to the
California Transportation Commission every
E-10

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
other December (odd years). RTIP funding, which
represents 75 percent of total STIP funding, goes
to local regions through a formulaic process.

California Transportation Commission Local
Programs
California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), enacted in 2017,
created several programs for the distribution of
funds raised by the imposition of new gas and
diesel taxes and vehicle registration fees. The
Local Partnership Program appropriates $200
million annually, with 40 percent distributed
through a competitive process, and 60 percent
distributed through a formulaic process. The
Local Streets and Roads program dedicates
approximately $1.5 billion annually for road
maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety
projects.

State Strategic Growth Council Funding
The Strategic Growth Council’s Affordable
Housing and Sustainable Communities Program
and Transformative Climate Communities
Program provide competitive grants to support
affordable housing and related transit and active
transportation projects.

Statewide Community Infrastructure Program
Financing
The City participates in the Statewide Community
Infrastructure Program (SCIP), which is a program
provided by the California Statewide Communities
Development Authority (CSCDA) to help finance
development projects. The SCIP is a pooled
tax-exempt bond financing program that can
finance impact fees and public improvements
for private developments. The bonds are issued
by the CSCDA, which is a Joint Powers Authority
sponsored by the League of California Cities and
the California State Association of Counties.

The SCIP allows property owners to finance
certain development impact fees and public
improvements through tax-exempt bonds for up
to 30 years. Improvements eligible for the SCIP
are the following types of facilities: streets and
roadways, street lighting, freeway interchanges,
parking, pedestrian malls, landscaping,
sidewalks, sewer and pipelines, storm drainage,
parks and parkways, flood control, bridges
and thoroughfares, water supply, bicycle and
pedestrian trails, gas supply, and open space and
greenbelts. The SCIP is not eligible to be used to
support the payment of school, affordable housing
in-lieu, fire, and police fees.

State Infrastructure Bank
The I-Bank was created in 1994 to finance public
infrastructure and private development that
promote a healthy climate for jobs, contribute to
a strong economy, and improve the quality of life
in California communities. The I-Bank operates
pursuant to the Bergeson-Peace Infrastructure and
Economic Development Bank Act (Government
Code Sections 63000 et seq.).

The I-Bank has broad authority to issue tax-exempt
and taxable revenue bonds, provide financing to
public agencies, provide credit enhancements,
acquire or lease facilities, and leverage State
and federal funds. The I-Bank’s current programs
include the Infrastructure State Revolving Fund
(ISRF) Program, 501(c)(3) Revenue Bond Program,
Industrial Development Revenue Bond Program,
Exempt Facility Revenue Bond Program, and
Governmental Bond Program. The ISRF Program
provides very low-interest rate loans up to $25
million (per applicant) to municipal governments for
a wide variety of municipal infrastructure, including
infrastructure needed to serve new development.

An application is required for these loans, and
loans require a stable and reliable source of
repayment. If approved, loan repayment can be
funded through a commitment of city general
fund revenues or a pledge of a particular revenue
source, including a citywide tax, land-secured
assessment, or special tax levied on a particular
area.

Recent changes to the program may increase
I-Bank lending to cities without other credit
options. Pursuing further opportunities to modify or
expand the program, or to create an entirely new
E-11

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
program, could make State-sponsored lending
a useful tool for assisting and incentivizing infill
development.

Potential Facilities Funding Strategy
Table E-3 provides a conceptual summary of costs
and possible funding sources and mechanisms.

The ultimate mix of financing mechanisms will be
determined in the implementation process, based
on final technical analyses of costs, benefits and
Facilities Funding Implementation
The following section outlines the steps to
be followed by the City, in cooperation with
development interests, to establish the preferred
financing mechanisms in a formal Financing
Strategy.

The implementation actions have been designed
to respond to varying circumstances, including
variations in the infrastructure financed and land
use development in the Specific Plan Area.

Step 1: Finalize Cost and Phasing Assumptions
Action 1.1: Identify Final Set of Facilities
Before a Financing Strategy can be implemented,
the City must provide direction concerning the
Backbone Infrastructure and Public Facilities to
be financed as part of the Specific Plan Area. A
decision regarding the inclusion of one facility or
another may have consequences on the financial
feasibility of development in the Specific Plan Area
or the potential to provide other needed Facilities
in the Specific Plan Area.

Table E-3. Summary of Potential Facilities Funding Sources and Uses Facility
Potential Funding Sources
Existing Fee
Programs
New Local
Funding
Regional, State,
and Federal
Funding
Private or Other
Funding
Backbone Infrastructure
Roadways X X
Wastewater/Storm Drain. X
Water X X X X
Dry Utilities X
Public Facilities
Parks and Open Space X X
Law Enforcement X
Fire Protection X
Library X
Schools X X
Transit X X
E-12

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
Action 1.2: Complete Final Cost Estimates
The City and other interested parties also must
establish a final set of Facilities costs that will
be financed in the Specific Plan Area. The cost
estimates included in this chapter must be
considered preliminary and for planning purposes
only.

Action 1.3: Establish Infrastructure Phasing Based
on Development Priorities
This action serves to ensure that a financially
feasible and acceptable Financing Strategy can
be created to support development in the Specific
Plan Area.

Step 2: Approve a Financing Strategy
Action 2.1: Establish Extent of City and Other
Agency Funding Commitments
The City should determine to what extent it will
be able to contribute citywide funds to finance
new infrastructure in the Specific Plan Area.

In particular, the City and other parties should
determine which funds are available, including
State and federal grants and City impact fee funds.

Action 2.2: Consider and Assemble Financing
Mechanisms
The overall logic and premise of the Financing
Strategy should be considered and tested to
ensure that it is sound and feasible, given the
perspective of the involved parties, including the
City, landowners, developers, and other agencies.

Action 2.3: Determine the Magnitude and Timing
of Funding Needed
The timing and magnitude of costs will determine
to what extent land-secured financing or other
financing is required and the degree to which it
will be possible to fund improvements on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Action 2.4: Prepare and Adopt Preferred
Financing Strategy
Based on the outcomes of previous actions, the
City should select a preferred Financing Strategy
and prepare a Financing Strategy document. The
Financing Strategy will provide a framework for
funding and implementing need Facilities to serve
the Specific Plan Area. Selection of the preferred
strategy should be consistent with the policies
and principles of the Specific Plan document and
provide assurance that necessary funding will
be available to fund Facilities, based on financial
feasibility analyses that account for industry
standards and market conditions and include input
from Specific Plan Area developers who will be
affected by the strategy.

Step 3: Establish Financing Mechanisms
Implementing the Financing Strategy within
the context of overall Specific Plan Area
implementation may require that the City establish
financing districts. Depending on the strategy
developed in concert with property owners, one or
more of the following actions may be necessary:
• Prepare and adopt an ordinance for a specific
plan development impact fee.
• Prepare and establish one or more CFDs,
Assessment Districts, or EIFDs.
• Prepare and establish maintenance and
services funding mechanisms.
• Prepare Development Agreements with all
developers in the Specific Plan Area.

A Development Agreement may be offered to all
developers in the Specific Plan Area and modified
to meet each developer’s particular circumstances.

The Development Agreement is viewed to be
necessary to convey development program
entitlements commensurate with the Specific Plan
Area in trade for the financial commitments that will
be asked of the developers (including participation
in a financing district and acceptance of the area
development impact fees).

Establishing new financing mechanisms typically
is required to be completed before approval of
the first final small lot subdivision map in a specific plan.

E-13

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
Step 4: Update Financing Strategy
Updates to the Financing Strategy may occur if
significant new information becomes available
regarding Backbone Infrastructure and other
Public Facilities cost estimates, land uses, funding
mechanisms, or funding strategies. In many
cases, any necessary updates to the Financing
Strategy are accomplished through updates and
revisions to documents that are required as part
of Financing Strategy implementation. An ongoing
administration and monitoring process should be
established to provide for implementation and
updating, if necessary, the Financing Strategy and
implementing documents.

Operations and Maintenance
This chapter addresses funding options for the
construction of Facilities with the purpose of
ensuring that sufficient funding is available to
cover the costs of improvements required to
implement the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan
Area also will require funding sources for ongoing
services and operations and maintenance costs.

There are several existing funding sources
available to fund ongoing services and operations
and maintenance costs throughout the Specific
Plan Area, including City General Fund revenues,
other regional and State taxes, user charges, and
Regional Transit (RT) fare revenue. In addition,
the City may determine that a Services CFD, a
district established to fund ongoing operations
and maintenance costs for Facilities, may be
implemented in the Specific Plan Area.

E-14

FACILITIES FINANCING OPTIONS

APPENDIX E
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
Appendix F:

Stockton Boulevard
Corridor Plan
View the Stockton Boulevard Corridor Plan online at:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/pw/Transportation/Stockton-Blvd-Corridor-Plan.pdf F-1
Appendix G:

Historic Resources
Analysis Report
G-1
Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL i August 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................1 II. HISTORIC CONTEXT........................................................................................................................................3 FOUNDING OF SACRAMENTO ..........................................................................................................................3 EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE UPPER STOCKTON ROAD.............................................................................5 LATE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY ..............................................................................................................6 WORLD WAR II & THE POSTWAR PERIOD......................................................................................................19 LATE 20TH CENTURY..........................................................................................................................................25 III. REGULATORY SETTING ...............................................................................................................................29 IV. DESIGNATED, ELIGIBLE, AND POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCES ...................................38 V. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................47 VI. APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................................48 Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 1 August 2023
I. INTRODUCTION
This Historic Resources Analysis Report has been prepared to inform the cultural resources chapter of a program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) and Specific Plan (Stockton Boulevard Plan). The Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan area consists of a 4.8-mile stretch of Stockton Boulevard from Alhambra Boulevard to the southern border of the City of Sacramento. The Stockton Boulevard SNAP area (Neighborhood Study Area) generally includes neighborhoods within one mile of the Stockton Boulevard corridor, south of U.S. Highway 50, east of U.S. Highway 99, and north of 65th Avenue and the City boundary (Figure 1).

The Specific Plan area contains a variety of commercial, institutional, and residential buildings constructed between approximately 1900 and the present.

METHODOLOGY
In order to analyze impacts to historical and cultural resources in the Specific Plan Area, Page & Turnbull prepared a historic context, summarizing the development of the Stockton Boulevard corridor and surrounding neighborhoods, roughly from the founding of the City of Sacramento in the mid-19th century to the present. This historic context was developed using research gathered from various local repositories and online sources – including the Center for Sacramento History, the Sacramento Public Library, the Sacramento County Clerk/Recorder, Newspapers.com, the California Digital Newspaper Collection, Ancestry.com, the David Rumsey Map Collection, and SacMaps.com. Key primary sources consulted and cited in this report include city directories, census records, and historical newspapers.

The following documents and reports from the City of Sacramento were also reviewed for information regarding cultural resources in the Plan Area:
 Sacramento Historic District Plans (Page & Turnbull, 2019)  Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento Historic Context Statement and Survey Results (GEI Consultants, Mead & Hunt, 2017)
 Fruitridge Broadway Community Plan (2015)
 An Advisory Services Panel Report, Stockton Boulevard, Sacramento California (Urban Land Institute, 2009)
 Broadway/Stockton Urban Design Plan (Broadway/Stockton Urban Design Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, undated) Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 2 August 2023
Figure 1. Map of the Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Area and larger Neighborhood Study Area boundary.

Source: Ascent Environmental, 2022.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 3 August 2023
Potential impacts to historical and cultural resources were further analyzed based on the results of a data search conducted by City of Sacramento Preservation Planning and GIS staff for properties within the Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Area. Nearly all of the Specific Plan Area was developed more than 50 years ago, and many of the immediately adjacent neighborhoods in the larger Neighborhood Study Area consist of postwar tract housing. As such, the City of Sacramento’s property data search focused on the parcels in the Specific Plan Area, immediately facing Stockton Boulevard. Property data provided by the City of Sacramento included a list of properties within the Specific Plan Area that are listed in the California Historical Resources Information System’s Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for Sacramento County, as well as GIS mapping data, showing dates of construction for buildings within the Specific Plan Area. Page & Turnbull used this data to identify properties that are listed or have been previously determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or California Register of (California Register). To supplement this list, Page & Turnbull conducted a search of properties located on Stockton Boulevard that are listed on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources.

In January 2022, Page & Turnbull completed a reconnaissance-level field survey to photograph and note the ages and general characteristics of buildings in the Neighborhood Study Area and Specific Plan Area. The field survey also helped identify areas where potential additional historic resources may exist. All photographs in this report were taken by Page & Turnbull in January 2022, unless otherwise noted.

II. HISTORIC CONTEXT

FOUNDING OF SACRAMENTO
Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, the Sacramento area was home to the Nisenan (also known as the southern Maidu). The territory of the Nisenan included the southern Sacramento Valley and stretched from the Sacramento River to the west, the North Fork Yuba River to the north, Consumnes River to the south, and the crest of the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east. The Nisenan established central villages and smaller satellite villages along principal waterways. Two major villages, Sama and Momol, were located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers within the present-day boundaries the City of Sacramento. A smaller satellite village, called Sa’cum, was located on a knoll at what is today Cesar Chavez Plaza.

The traditional ways of life of the Nisenan were disrupted by the arrival of Euro-American explorers.1 In 1808, Spanish explorer Gabriel Moraga became the first European to see Sacramento.2Moraga 1 Ascent Environmental, Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Capitol Annex Project, January 2020, 4.12-8. 2 Thor Severson, Sacramento, An Illustrated History: 1839 to 1874, From Sutter’s Fort to Capital City ([San Francisco]:

California Historical Society, 1973), 21.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 4 August 2023
named the area Sacramento after the Spanish word for sacrament, but deemed the area uninhabitable for a mission despite the existence of two major rivers. Spanish missionaries and early American explorers further investigated the area, but it remained unsettled for thirty more years.Diseases introduced by the newcomers in the 1830s decimated the native populations, wiping out entire villages.
3 In 1839, Swiss immigrant John Sutter established a settlement called New Helvetia (Helvetia being the Latin word for Switzerland) near the convergence of the Sacramento and American Rivers. 4 Mexican governor Juan Bautista Alvarado had given Sutter seventy-six square miles of land to establish a foothold on the frontier and discourage American encroachment. In order to be eligible for the land grant, Sutter became a citizen of Mexico in 1840 and was appointed as judge and representative of “Government at the Frontiers of the Rio Sacramento.”5 The remote location led Sutter to build a fort at New Helvetia for protection.

In an attempt to expand his valley empire, Sutter erected a sawmill at Coloma, which led to the accidental discovery of gold in the area in 1848. The subsequent Gold Rush brought a massive influx of miners and other immigrants to California. This event quickly overturned Sacramento’s ranch economy and contributed to the settlement’s rapid growth into a city.6 The proximity to the mouth of the American River made Sacramento an ideal port for goods coming upriver from San Francisco en route to the gold fields.7
By 1848, Sutter had amassed substantial debts and was at risk of losing his rancho. His son, John August Sutter, Jr., commissioned the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers to survey and plat the land between the embarcadero and the fort into lots that he could sell off to repay his father’s debts. The plan worked and established the city’s numbered and lettered gridiron plan.8 The lots sold quickly, and the city’s population rose rapidly from 150 in 1849 to 9,087 in the following year.

On February 27, 1850, the California Legislature offered a charter to Sacramento City, officially establishing the new municipality.9
3 Ascent Environmental, 4.12-8. 4 This settlement is also referred to in some sources as “New Helvetia.” 5 Severson, 33.
6 Albert L. Hurtado, “John A. Sutter and the Indian Business,” in River City and Valley Life: An Environmental History of the Sacramento Region, Christopher J. Castaneda and Lee M.A. Simpson, ed. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013), 26. 7 William Burg, Sacramento’s K Street: Where Our City Was Born (Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2012), 18-20. 8 Nathan Hallam, “’We Must Give the World Confidence in the Stability and Permanence of the Place:’ Planning Sacramento’s Townsite, 1853-1870,” in River City and Valley Life: An Environmental History of the Sacramento Region, Christopher J. Castaneda and Lee M.A. Simpson, ed. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013), 64. 9 Severson, 66. 89.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 5 August 2023
Later that year, California was admitted to the Union, and for the first several years of statehood, the state government moved from city to city as various municipalities - including San Jose, Vallejo, Benicia, and Sacramento - vied to become the new state’s capital. Sacramento emerged as the logical choice because of its rising population and potential as an economic and transportation hub; it was chosen as the permanent capital city of California in 1854.10 But while the city’s location offered many advantages, it also exhibited a host of problems that threatened the city’s success and position as the state capital. Between 1850 and 1893, ten major floods devastated the city.11 Fires were a constant worry as well. The most devastating fire occurred in 1852 when 55 blocks of the city’s business district, approximately 70 percent the city’s building stock, went up in smoke. Another fire in 1854 destroyed 12 city blocks. These conflagrations led to the reconstruction of much of the city using fireproof brick or stone.12
Despite these events, Sacramento thrived. The combination of the Gold Rush and designation as the new state capital propelled Sacramento from a small frontier settlement into a rapidly growing city in less than a decade. The city was well connected by steamboat, stagecoaches, freight wagons, and the Pony Express. In 1856, Sacramento completed the first railroad in California with the construction of the Sacramento Valley Railroad, and in 1869 became the terminus of the Transcontinental Railroad. The arrival of the railroad attracted more merchants, making Sacramento the nexus of a thriving agricultural and food processing industry.

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE UPPER STOCKTON ROAD
Stockton Boulevard traces its roots back to the California Gold Rush. In addition to spurring the development of Sacramento, the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in Coloma in 1848 spurred the development of numerous cities, towns, and smaller communities across the state, including Stockton, roughly 50 miles to the south. Stockton Boulevard, or the Upper Stockton Road as it was called in the 19th and early 20th centuries, served as one of two primary roads that connected Sacramento and Stockton. The Lower Stockton Road (now Franklin Boulevard) connected the two cities along a second route to the west (Figure 2).

Sacramento’s population expanded rapidly following the onset of the Gold Rush, first with the initial influx of prospective miners hoping to strike it rich in the nearby goldfields, and later as many of these individuals chose to permanently settle in the area. Sacramento’s growing population 10 Hallam, 68-69. 11 Karen Wilson, A Century of Protecting Natomas: The History of Reclamation District 1000, 1911-2011 (Virginia Beach, VA:

Donning Company Publishers, 2011), 9-14. 12 Kenneth N. Owens, “River City: Sacramento’s Gold Rush Birth and Transfiguration,” in River City and Valley Life: An Environmental History of the Sacramento Region, Christopher J. Castaneda and Lee M.A. Simpson, ed. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013), 50.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 6 August 2023
prompted the creation of new civic institutions. Recognizing a need for facilities to care for the growing city’s sick, injured, and dying, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors purchased 60 acres of land just outside Sacramento’s city limits along the Upper Stockton Road in 1869 for a county hospital and poorhouse. The original buildings were completed in 1871 and were replaced by newer facilities several times from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century (Figure 3). 13 LATE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY
Taking advantage of the Sacramento region’s fertile soil, much of the area immediately to the southeast of Sacramento’s original city boundaries was developed into farmland during the latter half of the 19th century. Orchards full of fruit trees and alfalfa farms dominated the landscape surrounding the Upper Stockton Road by the 1890s.14 Crops grown in the area included table and wine grapes, apples, pears, figs, peaches, plums, cherries, strawberries, raspberries, and almonds.

Houses and estates of the men and women who owned these farms, as well as the smaller outbuildings associated with them, dotted the rural landscape. The area’s agrarian character attracted agricultural businesses to the Upper Stockton Road, such as the Harelson Food Company, which was located along the road between S and T Streets and sold feed supplies to local ranchers and farmers.15
13 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America: Sacramento’s Elmhurst, Tahoe Park and Colonial Heights (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2008), 95-100. 14 “Map of Sacramento County showing uses of the soils,” James McClatchy & Co. Publishers, 1894, Center for Sacramento History.
15 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America: Sacramento’s Elmhurst, Tahoe Park and Colonial Heights, 13.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 7 August 2023
Figure 2. Topographic map of the Stockton Boulevard area in 1911. Stockton Boulevard (Upper Stockton Road) is colored red. Source: United States Geological Survey. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 8 August 2023
Figure 3. Undated photograph of the Sacramento County Hospital. Source: California State Library.

Streetcar Suburbs
Development along the Upper Stockton Road corridor continued to be dominated by agricultural uses through the early 20th century. The area’s transformation into a patchwork of built-up residential subdivisions began with the introduction of the first streetcar lines into the area at the end of the 19th century. In 1887, real estate developer Edwin K. Alsip, owner of the Central Street Railway Company, purchased the 230-acre William Doyle ranch and extended his streetcar line into it with the intention of developing the area into a new residential subdivision, called Oak Park. The streetcar line ran from Sacramento’s main business district along Sacramento Boulevard (now Broadway) and 35th Street to a new public park, also known as Oak Park (now James McClatchy Park), less than one mile to the west of the Upper Stockton Road. In order to attract more residents to the new subdivision, an amusement park called Joyland was built in the park in 1894.16 Many of the early streetcar suburbs developed at the outskirts of Sacramento and relied on the area’s agricultural character and fertile soil to attract residents. The neighborhood east of Stockton Boulevard along present-day T Street was initially platted as the suburb of Fruit Vale in 1892. The subdivision was planned to feature individual lots that could each accommodate a small farm with a house and 20 to 40 fruit trees. The subdivision was never realized, and the area remained farmland 16 Page & Turnbull, “Sacramento Historic District Plans,” 2019, 283; Niki Kangas, “Joyland,” Midtown Monthly, February 1, 1010. .

A fire destroyed much of Joyland in 1920. The site was donated to the city in 1927 and subsequently converted into James McClatchy Park.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 9 August 2023
until 1908, when 250 acres of land in the same area were purchased by H. A. McClelland and developed into a new subdivision, called Elmhurst. The subdivision incorporated some of the concepts of the City Beautiful movement. Lots were arranged along a wide central boulevard with two central parks, Sunset Park and Sierra Vista Park, running down the middle and rows of elm trees that gave the neighborhood its name.17 Many of the single-family houses that were eventually built in Elmhurst were modest in scale and exhibited the subtle influence of the popular architectural styles of the first half of the 20th century, including the Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, Colonial Revival, and Minimal Traditional styles. The surviving Elmhurst neighborhood retains much of its original landscape design and homes.

Figure 4. The Upper Stockton Road (now Stockton Boulevard) in 1913. Source: California Department of Transportation.

Around roughly the same time, the Central Electric Realty Company began acquiring land between Sacramento and the town of Florin to the south with the intention of developing new residential suburbs along a planned electric rail line with freight and passenger service. In 1906, the company purchased an area of elevated agricultural land that had been previously owned by the Rich family on the east side of the Upper Stockton Road, approximately three and one-half miles from the Sacramento city limit at the time. Reportedly home to some of the oldest lemon trees in California, the Central Electric Realty Company and Brand-McClelland Company platted it into a subdivision called Lemon Hill.18 Advertisements promoted the fertility of the area’s soil and proximity to Sacramento as the perfect location to establish a small farm. The area “will grow almost anything,” 17 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 7-8. 18 “A Big Real Estate Deal,” Sacramento Star, 26 September 1906: 3.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 10 August 2023
the advertisements read. “You may never have such another opportunity for securing a farm almost at the gates of the City at such low prices and reasonable terms.”19 Developers continued to use the agricultural potential of the area south of Sacramento’s city limits to advertise new subdivisions, particularly in the area south of Fruitridge Boulevard, into the 1920s.20 Additional streetcar lines attracted the development of more residential subdivisions in the second decade of the 20th century. In 1910, George Peltier, a banker and real estate developer involved in the construction of interurban streetcar lines for the Central California Traction Company, developed the Colonial Heights subdivision. Located on the site of a former 240-acre vineyard owned by German immigrant Peter Roemer, the subdivision featured a palm tree-lined boulevard, called San Francisco Boulevard, at its main entrance.
21 Roemer’s estate, known locally as Roemer
Park, remained in its parklike grounds until 1952, when it was replaced by the Greenbrier Motel (now the Greens Motel). One house from the Roemer Estate, known locally as Roemer Castle or Loddick Castle, survives near the intersection of Stockton Boulevard and Roemer Lane.22 Colonial Acres, immediately adjacent to Colonial Heights, was subdivided shortly afterward in 1915 by the J.C.

Carly Company, a prominent local developer (Figure 5).
23 The California State Fair & Agricultural Park
The abundance of open agricultural land to the southwest of Sacramento’s city limits appears to have attracted one of the state’s most prominent institutions and a major economic driver to Upper Stockton Road at the start of the 20th century. In 1909, the California State Fair relocated from its previous location in Capitol Park to a new site at the intersection of the Upper Stockton Road and Y Street (now Broadway).24 Intended for the annual exhibition of California’s abundant agricultural products, the State Fair’s new fairgrounds, known as Agricultural Park, included a racetrack and numerous buildings for the display of livestock and produce from across the state. 25 19 “Watch for Coupons Lemon Hill,” Sacramento Bee, 18 October 1906: 8. 20 “Map of Home Garden Acres,” Sacramento Public Library, Sacramento Room, 1923. 21 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 45-47. 22 Melisa Mourkas, Historic American Landscape Survey, “San Francisco Boulevard,” 2019. 23 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 45-47. 24 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 109. 25 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 119.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 11 August 2023
Figure 5. Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map showing early development of the Colonial Heights subdivision (1915). Source: Sacramento Public Library.

The announcement of the fair’s relocation to the Upper Stockton Road spurred the development of additional streetcar and freight rail lines into the area. One year after the new fairgrounds opened, the Central California Traction Company completed a new interurban streetcar line with passenger and freight service running down 2nd Avenue and the Upper Stockton Road from the Sacramento city center to Stockton (Figure 6). The Sacramento Electric Gas and Railway Company (later taken over by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company) added additional tracks to its existing lines that ran to the fairgrounds. Spur tracks from the main freight line of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which ran east-west along R Street to the north of the new fairgrounds, were also extended into the area.26 Attracted by the fair, streetcar lines, and increasing residential development, a few one- or two-story commercial and small industrial businesses were built along the Upper Stockton Road by the early 20th century. These included garages, automobile repair shops, saloons, liquor stores, wood sheds, and other shops and storage facilities.27
26 “Grand Transportation Next Year to the Fair,” Sacramento Star, 12 September 1908: 8. 27 Sanborn Map Company, “Sacramento, Calif.,” Volume 2, 1915, Library of Congress.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 12 August 2023
Figure 6. Map of streetcar lines in the Plan area in 1930. Source: Theodore Ditsek, Historic Reference Maps.

Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 13 August 2023
Figure 7. Aerial photograph showing the California State Fair site (top) and Sacramento County Hospital (bottom) next to the Upper Stockton Road (now Stockton Boulevard) (right), circa 1940. The Elmhurst neighborhood is at the lower left. Source: California State Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Continued Growth & Annexation
The extension of streetcars and rail lines to the southeast of the City of Sacramento encouraged further residential development as well as commercial and industrial diversification. By 1911, the Southern Pacific Railroad ran east-west along R Street, while an interurban streetcar line ran north-south down 28th Street (Figure 8). Attracted by easy access to both transportation routes, Chicago-based canning company Libby, McNeil & Libby built a large new cannery at a site between the Upper Stockton Road, 31st Street (now Alhambra Boulevard), and R Street between 1912 and 1913 (Figure 9). Designed as the main distribution center for five of the company’s canneries in California, the cannery became one of Sacramento’s major employers and provided a stimulus for the local Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 14 August 2023
agricultural industry, which began to grow more olives and tomatoes to serve the cannery.28 The cannery survives and has been rehabilitated as leasable office and commercial space.

Figure 8. Undated map showing the location of freight tracks and interurban streetcar lines in the Plan area in the early 20th century. Source: Railfan Guides of the U.S. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 28 “Libby McNeill & Libby Fruit & Vegetable Cannery,” National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form, 1982.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 15 August 2023
Figure 9. Libby, McNeil, and Libby Cannery (1922). Source: California State Library.

Recognizing the enormous growth just outside its city limits, the City of Sacramento officially annexed the neighborhoods to the east and south of its original city boundary in 1911. This included neighborhoods in the Plan area as far south as 14th Avenue and as far east as 65th Street. It was the first time the city had expanded its boundaries since its founding in the mid-19th century. Following annexation, many street names in the newly annexed area were changed to align with Sacramento’s numbered and lettered street system.29 It was around this time that the Upper Stockton Road was renamed Stockton Boulevard.30
29 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 7-8. 30 Sacramento City Directory, 1918.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 16 August 2023
Figure 10. Map of subdivisions in the Neighborhood Study Area (1908). Stockton Boulevard is indicated by a red line. Source: Center for Sacramento History. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 17 August 2023
The Great Depression
Like most of the United States, development along Stockton Boulevard slowed but did not completely stop during the Great Depression. Federal New Deal programs, such as the Works Progress Administration (WPA), helped keep the local economy afloat through numerous projects it carried out in the Sacramento area. Much of the WPA’s work during this period took place at the California State Fairgrounds on Stockton Boulevard, including the construction of 14 new exhibit and administrative buildings, improvements to the fair’s grandstand, construction of new roads, and completion of landscaping and infrastructural improvements. The WPA’s work helped the California State Fair grow into the largest state fair in the United States during the 1930s. 31 Some private
construction continued in the area as well. In 1936, the Coca-Cola Bottling Company opened a new bottling plant near the State Fairgrounds at 2200 Stockton Boulevard (Figure 11). 32 The plant
became a prominent employer for the area. Although now vacant and significantly altered, the building survives in its original location.

Revenues and ridership of interurban rail service declined, partially as the result of the rising popularity of the automobile. This led the Central California Traction Company to end its service between Sacramento and Stockton in 1933.33 Passenger streetcar service running through the Colonial Heights neighborhood continued through the 1940s. 34 31 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 112-113; Christopher J. Castaneda and Lee M.A.

Simpson, eds., River City and Valley Life: An Environmental History of the Sacramento Region (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013), 189. 32 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 68. 33 “Central Traction Will Cut Service,” Sacramento Bee, 28 September 1932: 6. 34 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 83-85; “Historic Highway 99, Sacramento to Stockton,” Stockton Boulevard Partnership, accessed December 2, 2021, https://stocktonblvdpartnership.org/historic-highway-99-sacramento-to-stockton/.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 18 August 2023
Late 19th and Early 20th Century Period: Associated Property Types & Architectural Styles
The following list summarizes property types and architectural styles that were developed in the Neighborhood Study Area during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and which may still be extant:

Common Property Types:
• Farms and ranches
• Single-family residences
• Hospital buildings
• State Fair buildings
• Small commercial buildings and automobile garages
• Canneries and other industrial facilities
• Cemeteries
• Churches
• Schools
• Libraries and community centers
Figure 11. The Coca-Cola Bottling Company building (1936). Source: California State Library.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 19 August 2023
Common Architectural Styles:
• Folk Victorian
• Queen Anne
• Craftsman
• Spanish Colonial Revival
• Mediterranean Revival
• Tudor Revival
• Colonial Revival
• Art Deco
• Streamline Moderne
• Minimal Traditional
• Vernacular

WORLD WAR II & THE POSTWAR PERIOD
World War II brought Sacramento out of the Great Depression and introduced a new era of growth to the Stockton Boulevard corridor and surrounding areas. The war shifted the focus of Sacramento’s economy from the agricultural and railroad industries to one based on state and federal employment, military bases, and transportation. It also brought thousands of new residents to Sacramento, including veterans who were stationed in the area during the war and large numbers of African Americans from Southern states who were attracted to the availability to jobs at the area’s military bases and factories. Meanwhile, the increasing shift from streetcars to the automobile as the primary mode of transportation allowed workers at the major employment centers to live further from the city center.35 Streetcar service throughout Sacramento ended in 1946, and planning began shortly afterward on a system of highways and freeways crisscrossing the city, though they were not completed until the 1960s and 1970s.36
After World War II ended, Sacramento’s military bases continued to serve as a major source of employment for the city’s residents in the postwar period. In 1945, the U.S. Army Signal Depot (extant), responsible for repairing and maintaining high-tech military electronic equipment, relocated from its previous location at the Bercut-Richards Cannery on North 7th Street to a new site near the California State Fair grounds on Fruitridge Road between Power Inn Road and Florin Perkins Road. The depot – with its warehouses, administrative offices, barracks, shops, and other 35 Page & Turnbull, Historic District Plans, 29.
36 GEI Consultants, Inc., “Mid-Century Modern Context Statement and Survey Results,” 2-13 – 2-14.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 20 August 2023
facilities – employed thousands of workers and brought new residents to the area southeast of Sacramento’s city center.37
Completion of a new factory for the Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing Company on the northeast side of Fruitridge Road and Power Inn Road, immediately to the north of the U.S. Army Signal Depot, brought another major employer in 1953. One of the company’s only two factories in the United States, it brought hundreds of new jobs to the area, further aiding the growth of Sacramento’s southeastern suburbs.38 Proctor & Gamble continues to operate out of the same location.

Postwar Housing Subdivisions
Sacramento’s booming postwar population, increasing housing demand, growing reliance on the automobile, and relocation of major employment bases from the city center led to development of much of the agricultural land in outlying areas, including those to the east and west of Stockton Boulevard, into sprawling new residential subdivisions. In the immediate postwar period, many of these new subdivisions were built out with small one-story Minimal Traditional houses that could be built quickly to meet the demand for housing. By the 1950s, as the immediate demand began to wane, larger houses, such as one-story Ranch style houses with rambling floorplans, increased in popularity. In contrast to early 20th-century subdivisions that were designed with a traditional gridiron of streets, these new subdivisions, such as Tallac Village and Colonial Village, often featured winding, curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs. Many of these postwar neighborhoods functioned as miniature cities and had their own schools, parks, libraries, and community centers to serve residents.39
As the population within these new subdivisions grew, the City of Sacramento annexed these new areas into the city limits, expanding its size at a rapid pace. By the late 1940s, subdivisions south of 14th Avenue, roughly as far south as 45th Avenue – such as Colonial Heights, Colonial Village, Tallac Village, Fruitridge Manor, and Lemon Hill – were annexed into the City of Sacramento (Figure 12).

Subdivisions south of 45th Avenue to Florin Road – such as Glen Elder and Lindale – were annexed in the 1950s.40
37 Castaneda and Simpson, River City and Valley Life, 212-215. 38 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 74-75. 39 GEI Consultants, Inc., “Mid-Century Modern Context Statement and Survey Results,” 2-15. 40 City of Sacramento Historical Growth by Annexation, map, December 2013.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 21 August 2023
Figure 12. Map showing the years neighborhoods in the Plan area were annexed into the City of Sacramento.

Source: City of Sacramento. Edited by Page & Turnbull.

Auto-Oriented Commercial Development
To serve the expanding population in Sacramento’s southeastern neighborhoods, new shopping centers, restaurants, and entertainment options sprang up along Stockton Boulevard, particularly where the street intersected major east-west thoroughfares that passed through adjacent neighborhoods, such as Fruitridge Road, Lemon Hill Avenue, Elder Creek Road, and Florin Road.

Shopping centers, including the Fruitridge Shopping Center on Stockton Boulevard and Fruitridge Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 22 August 2023
Road (demolished in 2019) and Tallac Village Square Shops at 14th Avenue and 60th Street (extant), were frequently anchored by a large supermarket surrounded by several smaller shops. Many supermarkets, including Loverde’s Market and Loverde’s Variety and the Bel-Air owned by the Wong family, were located along Fruitridge Road.41 Reflecting the growth of car-culture following World War II, many of the postwar commercial establishments constructed during this period often featured large parking lots, drive-thrus, large plate glass windows, Modernist architectural designs, and eye-catching illuminated signage to appeal to passing drivers. Such establishments along the Stockton Boulevard corridor included the Fruitridge drive-in movie theater at the northwest corner of the intersection of Stockton Boulevard and Fruitridge Road, Burich’s Grill and Charcoal Broiler at 4217 Stockton Boulevard, and the Leaning Tower of Pizza at 2033 Stockton Boulevard.42 Many of these postwar commercial developments have been demolished or significantly remodeled since their construction.

Shifting Demographics
During the postwar period, the demographics of many of the neighborhoods along Stockton Boulevard shifted dramatically. While many of the neighborhoods on the east side of the street remained predominately white during this period, those on the west side of the street to Franklin Boulevard became increasingly racially diverse.

In 1950, less than one percent of the residents living in most of the neighborhoods along Stockton Boulevard, particularly on the east side of the street, were not white, and some neighborhoods – such as Tahoe Park, Tallac Village, and Fruitridge Manor – had no African American residents.

However, African Americans, many of whom worked at the area’s military bases, had begun to establish a small foothold in the Oak Park neighborhood, making up approximately eight percent of the neighborhood’s population in 1950.
43 Over the next decade, many of Sacramento’s middle-class families and businesses relocated from older neighborhoods in and near the central city to the new subdivisions emerging at the city’s outskirts. The migration of middle-class residents from older neighborhoods near the Stockton Boulevard corridor, such as Oak Park, opened the door to African American residents, many of 41 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 34, 70. Both Loverde’s Variety and Loverde’s Market appear to have been demolished or altered beyond recognition. The Bel-Air on Fruitridge Road has also been significantly remodeled since its original construction and no longer appears as it did during the postwar period. 42 The Fruitridge Drive-in movie theater was demolished at an unknown date. Burich’s Grill and Charcoal Broiler survives but has been significantly remodeled and bears little resemblance to its appearance in the postwar period. The Leaning Tower of Pizza restaurant survives and has been somewhat altered. 43 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing: 1950, Volume III, Census Tracts, Sacramento, Calif.,” 1950.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 23 August 2023
whom had been pushed out of Sacramento’s downtown area by urban renewal projects and were prohibited from settling in most newer neighborhoods by discriminatory housing practices. 44 By 1960, although many of the neighborhoods on the east side of Stockton Boulevard remained predominately white, neighborhoods on the west side of the street continued to become increasingly racially mixed. The concentration of non-white residents in these areas ranged from approximately 20 percent in North Oak Park and nearly 50 percent of the population in Central Oak Park to over 80 percent in the area southeast of Fruitridge Boulevard and Stockton Boulevard. 45 One of the predominately Black neighborhoods that emerged during this period was the Glen Elder subdivision, located to the southwest of the intersection of Elder Creek Road and Power Inn Road.

Developed in 1954 by Alcan Pacific Corporation and Sun River Homes, Glen Elder was the first and only subdivision in Sacramento County to be developed specifically as an interracial neighborhood where residents of all racial backgrounds were welcome.46 Advertisements for the modest Ranch style houses in the subdivision promoted the sale of “homes for all vets.”47 Nevertheless, residents still felt the impacts of discriminatory planning practices. Access to Glen Elder was limited. Few roads entered or exited the subdivision so that residents were forced to take a roundabout route to reach the main shopping and business areas nearby on Florin Road. In addition, a fence separated Glen Elder and the predominantly white neighborhood of Lindale to the south until 1975.48 44 Page & Turnbull, “Sacramento Historic District Plans,” 2019, 283. 45 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing: 1960, Census Tracts, Sacramento, Calif.,” 1960. 46 GEI Consultants, Inc., “Mid-Century Modern Context Statement and Survey Results,” 2-31. 47 Advertisement, Sacramento Bee, 24 August 1955: 40. 48 “Fence Parting Glen Elder, Lindale Areas Will Go,” Sacramento Bee, 21 January 1975: 14.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 24 August 2023
Figure 13. Aerial photograph taken in 1971, showing the Glen Elder subdivision. Source: UC Santa Barbara FrameFinder.

World War II & The Postwar Period: Associated Property Types & Architectural Styles
The following list summarizes property types and architectural styles that were developed in the Neighborhood Study Area during World War II and the postwar period that may still be extant:

Common Property Types:
• Single-family residences
• Drive-thru restaurants and commercial businesses surrounded by large parking lots • Motels
• Shopping centers and strip malls
• Grocery stores
• Movie theaters
• Schools
• Churches
• Libraries and community centers
Glen Elder Road
Power Inn Road
Glen Elder
subdivision
Lindale
subdivision
chain link fence
Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 25 August 2023
Common Architectural Styles:
• Late Moderne
• Minimal Traditional
• Ranch
• Mid-Century Modern
• Contemporary
• Vernacular
LATE 20TH CENTURY
Stockton Boulevard and the adjacent neighborhoods continued to evolve in the late 20th century. In 1961, Highway 99 was completed to the east of Stockton Boulevard. The new highway replaced Stockton Boulevard as the primary north-south route between the cities of Sacramento and Stockton and diverted traffic away from the old overland corridor.49 Along with Interstate 50, which was completed to the north of the Plan area in 1972, Highway 99 created a barrier that cut the southeast area of Sacramento off from the rest of the city (Figure 13 and Figure 14). 50 Although passenger streetcar service along Stockton Boulevard had ended in 1946, freight rail service continued until the 1960s. All streetcar service along Stockton Boulevard ceased by 1966, when the tracks running down the street were removed.51 49 Historic Highway 99, Sacramento to Stockton,” Stockton Boulevard Partnership, accessed December 2, 2021, https://stocktonblvdpartnership.org/historic-highway-99-sacramento-to-stockton/. 50 William Burg, “A Brief History of Oak Park,” Midtown Monthly, February 1, 2010, http://www.midtownmonthly.net/life/a-brief-history-of-oak-park/; “U.S. Highway 50,” California Highways, accessed December 22, 2021, https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE050.html. 51 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 83-85; William Burg, Sacramento: Then & Now (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2008), 70.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 26 August 2023
Figure 14. Aerial photograph, showing the north
section of Stockton Boulevard and the State Fair
grounds (1952). Source: UC Santa Barbara Frame
Finder.

Figure 15. Aerial photograph, showing Highway 99
(left) and Interstate 50 (top) constructed to the west
and north of the Stockton Boulevard area (1981).

Source: UC Santa Barbara Frame Finder.

Further changes to the Stockton Boulevard corridor’s economic base took place in the 1960s. By this period, the California State Fair had become landlocked as the neighborhoods surrounding it filled out. Needing more space, the California State Fair relocated to a new site at Cal Expo to the north of the Capitol City Freeway in 1968.
52 While the relocation of the fair removed one of the area’s most prominent economic drivers, it also enabled the growth of another. The same year, the Sacramento County Hospital transitioned into a teaching hospital for the University of California, Davis. A few years later, in 1973, the University took over ownership of the hospital and began expanding its medical facilities into the former state fairgrounds.53 Although most of the fair buildings were demolished, two buildings, Governor’s Hall and the Agricultural Pavilion, survive at the intersection of Stockton Boulevard and Broadway.54 The UC Davis Medical Center subsequently developed the site into a nationally recognized academic medical center and a major employment base for Sacramento. 52 “Take Me to the Fair: Then and Now,” Stockton Boulevard Partnership, October 5, 2021, accessed December 22, 2021, https://stocktonblvdpartnership.org/take-me-to-the-fair-then-and-now/. 53 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 105-106. 54 “Take Me to the Fair: Then and Now,” Stockton Boulevard Partnership, October 5, 2021, accessed December 22, 2021, https://stocktonblvdpartnership.org/take-me-to-the-fair-then-and-now/.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 27 August 2023
Figure 16. The Sacramento Medical Center, later the UC Davis Medical Center (1970). Source: Sacramento Public Library.

Changes were also underway in Oak Park. Social tensions erupted in confrontations between local residents and the police, first in riots in 1969 and again in 1970 after the shooting of a police officer resulted in the arrest of four Black Panther Party members.55 After the riots, several of Oak Park’s long-standing businesses closed down and never reopened. A series of urban renewal projects after the riots led to the demolition of portions of Oak Park’s main business district along 35th Street.56 The neighborhood has more recently experienced a period of urban revitalization. An influx of Latino and Asian residents and an increase in white collar jobs, especially at the nearby U.C. Davis Medical Center, have shifted the neighborhood’s demographics and brought new residents and businesses to the area.57
Further to the south, a vibrant Vietnamese community developed along a roughly two-mile stretch of Stockton Boulevard near its intersection with Fruitridge Road, as refugees fleeing the Vietnam War settled in the area in the 1970s. Businesses catering to Sacramento’s Vietnamese-American community soon lined the street. Among the first of the Vietnamese commercial developments in the area were the Pacific Rim Plaza at 65th Street and Stockton Boulevard and the Vinh Phat 55 Burg, “A Brief History of Oak Park.” 56 Burg, “A Brief History of Oak Park.” 57 Robin Datel, “Central Oak Park Walking Tour, Sacramento, California,” (brochure, California State University Sacramento, Department of Geography), 5.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 28 August 2023
Supermarket at 6105 Stockton Boulevard.
58 In 2010, the local community asked the Sacramento City Council to formally designate the area as “Little Saigon.” The retail district contains businesses that specialize in goods and services not only from Vietnam but from countries throughout Asia, including China, India, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Korea.59 The businesses are typically located in strip malls with large parking lots.

Additional changes to the economic base of the area surrounding Stockton Boulevard took place in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1980, the Libby, McNeil and Libby Cannery closed. 60 The U.S. Army Signal
Depot was leased to Packard Bell in 1995. At the time, it was the company’s only manufacturing plant in United States.61
The primary transportation thoroughfares in the Plan area – including Stockton Boulevard, Fruitridge Road, and Florin Road – remain dominated by strip malls and auto-centric development in the 21st century. Many of the post-war and mid-century commercial developments have been demolished and replaced with new strip malls or big box stores or significantly altered. This includes the Fruitridge Shopping Center, which was demolished between 2019 and 2020 and replaced with a new strip mall.62 Remaining undeveloped pockets of the Plan area to the east and west of Stockton Boulevard continue to be filled in with new residential developments. Small subdivisions of modern two-story single-family residences have been constructed, particularly along Lemon Hill Avenue, Morrison Creek, and Elder Creek Avenue to the east of the 65th Street Expressway. A few multi-family developments have also been completed, such as the Mutual Housing at Lemon Hill development at 6000 Lemon Hill Avenue.

Late 20th Century: Associated Property Types & Architectural Styles The following list summarizes property types and architectural styles that were developed in the Neighborhood Study Area during the late 20th century and which may still be extant:

Common Property Types
• Single-family residences
• Multi-family apartments
• Institutional buildings
58 Google Street View indicates that the Vinh Phat Supermarket was remodeled between 2011 and 2014 and no longer appears as it did in the 1970s. The Pacific Rim Plaza shopping center is extant; however, research did not reveal the extent to which it has been altered since its original construction. 59 Sara Mizes-Tan, “A Neighborhood in Transition: Sacramento’s Little Saigon Grapples with Culture and the American Dream,” Capitol Public Radio, 11 February 2021, https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/02/11/a-neighborhood-in-transition-sacramentos-little-saigon-grapples-with-culture-and-the-american-dream/. 60 Steven M. Avella, Sacramento: Indomitable City (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2003), 148. 61 Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Images of America, 77. 62 Google Street View, 2019-2020.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 29 August 2023
• Shopping centers
• Restaurants and other commercial businesses
Common Architectural Styles
• Ranch
• Contemporary
• Postmodern
• New Traditional
• Vernacular
III. REGULATORY SETTING
This section examines the national, state, and local regulatory frameworks for the evaluation, designation, and design review of historic resources in Sacramento.

National Regulations

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 915, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., as amended, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to expand and maintain a National Register of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture. The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.

A “historic property” is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. Historic properties include artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800 Protection of Historic Properties, Section 800.16 Definitions l 1).

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 30 August 2023

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Overseen by the National Park Service (NPS), under the Department of the Interior, the National Register was authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act as amended. Its listings encompass all National Historic Landmarks as well as historic areas administered by NPS.

National Register guidelines for evaluation of significance were developed to be flexible and to recognize accomplishments of all who have made significant contributions to the nation’s history and heritage. Its criteria were designed to guide State and local governments, Federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the National Register. For a property to be listed or determined eligible for listing, it must be demonstrated as possessing integrity and meeting at least one of the following criteria. It must be demonstrated that:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, as “the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register…a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity” (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995). The seven aspects of integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

The National Register guidance asserts that properties be at least 50 years old to be considered for eligibility. Properties completed less than 50 years before evaluation must be “exceptionally important” (Criteria Consideration G) to be considered eligible for listing.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 31 August 2023
State Regulations

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.

To be eligible for the California Register, a cultural resource must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to being significant under one or more of these criteria, a resource must retain enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and be able to convey the reasons for its significance (CCR Title 14 Section 4852(c)). According to California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Bulletin No. 6, “In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance” (California Office of Historic Preservation, 2011).

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDMARKS
Designated California Historical Landmarks are numbered sequentially as they are listed by the State Historical Resources Commission. California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and above are automatically listed in the California Register. According to PRC Section 5031(a), to be eligible for California Historical Landmark designation, a property must be of statewide historical importance Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 32 August 2023
and must demonstrate its statewide significance by meeting one of the following three requirements:

1. The property is the first, last, only, or most significant historical property of its type in the region. The regions are Southern California, Central California, and Northern California. If a property has lost its historic appearance (integrity), it may still be listed as a site.

2. The property is associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California.

3. The property is a prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.

An architectural landmark must have excellent physical integrity, including integrity of location. An architectural landmark generally will be considered on its original site, particularly if its significance is basically derived from its design relationship to its site.

CALIFORNIA POINT OF HISTORICAL INTEREST
California Points of Historical Interest are “sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value.” The effects of designation as a California Point of Historical Interest are limited protection and environmental review under CEQA, eligibility for property tax reduction through Mills Act, eligibility under the State Historic Building Code and a small enamel directional sign through Caltrans district office. To be eligible for designation, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within the local geographic region (City or County).

2. Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area.

3. A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.

No historical resource may be designated as both a California State Landmark and a California Point of Historical Interest. If the resource qualifies as a State Landmark, then the Point designation is removed.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 33 August 2023
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, SECTIONS 5024 AND 5024.5
Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 5024 and 5024.5 are part of a state program to preserve state-owned historical resources and apply to properties owned by California state agencies.

PRC Section 5024 requires state agencies to evaluate whether buildings owned by the State and under their operation are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or eligible for designation as a California Historical Landmark. State agencies are also responsible for maintaining an inventory of any eligible or listed resources and providing annual updates to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) so that newly evaluated and/or listed properties may be included in the Master List of State-Owned Historical Resources. PRC Section 5024 also requires state agencies to manage all historical resources in a way that retains their defining historic characteristics.

PRC Section 5024.5 requires state agencies to consult with the SHPO before proceeding with a project that involves any state-owned building listed on the Master List of State-Owned Historical Resources. The SHPO must comment on a project and must state whether the proposed action will adversely affect the properties. If a substantial adverse effect in the significance of a historical resource is identified, the SHPO and the head of the state agency with jurisdiction over the resource must consult on “prudent and feasible measures that will eliminate or mitigate the adverse effects.” Mediation by the Office of Planning and Research is possible, if the SHPO and the affected state agency cannot agree.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is State legislation (codified in Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000 et seq.) which provides for the development and maintenance of a high quality environment for the present-day and future through the identification of significant environmental effects. CEQA applies to projects proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval from State or local government agencies. CEQA requires the government agency, also called the lead agency, to determine if a project would have a significant effect on historical resources, unique archaeological resources, or tribal cultural resources.

A building may qualify as a historic resource if it falls within at least one of four categories listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). The four categories are:

1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 34 August 2023

2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).

The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Pub. Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Pub. Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Pub. Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Local Regulations

SACRAMENTO GENERAL PLAN
The Historic and Cultural Resources Element of the 2035 Sacramento General Plan identifies citywide goals and policies related to historic and cultural resources in the City of Sacramento.

Relevant goals and policies include the following:

Goal
HCR 2.1 Identification and Preservation of Historic and Cultural Resources. Identify and preserve the city’s historic and cultural resources to enrich our sense of place and our understanding of the city’s prehistory and history.

Policies
HCR 2.1.1 Identification. The City shall identify historic and cultural resources, including individual properties, districts, and sites (e.g., archaeological sites), to ensure adequate protection of these resources. (PSR)
Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 35 August 2023
HCR 2.1.2 Applicable Laws and Regulations. The City shall ensure compliance with City, State, and Federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes to protect and assist in the preservation of historic and archaeological resources, including the use of the California Historical Building Code as applicable. Unless listed in the Sacramento, California, or National registers, the City shall require discretionary projects involving resources 50 years and older to evaluate their eligibility for inclusion on the California or Sacramento registers for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. (RDR)
HCR 2.1.3 Consultation. The City shall consult with appropriate organizations and individuals (e.g., California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Information Centers, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the CA Office of Planning and Research (OPR) “Tribal Consultation Guidelines”, etc.,) and shall establish a public outreach policy to minimize potential impacts to historic and cultural resources. (IGC/JP)
HCR 2.1.5 National, California, and Sacramento Registers. The City shall support efforts to pursue eligibility and listing for qualified resources including historic districts and individual resources under the appropriate National, California, or Sacramento registers. (RDR/IGC/JP)
HCR 2.1.6 Planning. The City shall take historical and cultural resources into consideration in the development of planning studies and documents. (MPSP/PSR) HCR 2.1.10 Early Project Consultation. The City shall minimize potential impacts to historic and cultural resources by consulting with property owners, land developers, and the building industry early in the development review process. (RDR/JP/PI) HCR 2.1.11 Compatibility with Historic Context. The City shall review proposed new development, alterations, and rehabilitation/remodels for compatibility with the surrounding historic context. The City shall pay special attention to the scale, massing, and relationship of proposed new development to surrounding historic resources. (RDR)
HCR 2.1.12 Contextual Features. The City shall promote the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/or reconstruction, as appropriate, of contextual features (e.g., structures, landscapes, street lamps, signs) related to historic resources. (RDR) Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 36 August 2023
HCR 2.1.13 Historic Surveys and Context Statements. Where historic resource surveys may no longer be valid, or for areas that have not been surveyed, the City shall seek funding to prepare new historic context surveys. In these surveys, the potential eligibility of all properties 45 years and older for listing in National, California or Sacramento registers shall be evaluated. (RDR)
HCR 2.1.14 Adaptive Reuse. The City shall encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources when the original use of the resource is no longer feasible. (RDR/SO) HCR 2.1.15 Demolition. The City shall consider demolition of historic resources as a last resort, to be permitted only if rehabilitation of the resource is not feasible, demolition is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, or the public benefits outweigh the loss of the historic resource. (RDR) HCR 2.1.16 Archaeological & Cultural Resources. The City shall develop or ensure compliance with protocols that protect or mitigate impacts to archaeological and cultural resources including prehistoric resources. (RDR)
HCR 2.1.17 Preservation Project Review. The City shall review and evaluate proposed development projects to minimize impacts on identified historic and cultural resources, including projects on Landmark parcels and parcels within Historic Districts, based on applicable adopted criteria and standards. (RDR)

CITY OF SACRAMENTO HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
The City of Sacramento enacted its first preservation ordinance in 1975. The ordinance established the City’s historic preservation program, including the establishment of a preservation commission, preservation director, and preservation staff responsible for implementing the preservation element of the City’s general plan. It also established the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (the Sacramento Register), a local inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources.

Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources
The evaluative criteria used to determine a property’s eligibility for listing on the Sacramento Register are stated in section 17.604.210 of the City’s municipal code and are closely based on the eligibility criteria developed for the National Register and California Register. To be eligible for individual listing on the Sacramento Register, an individual property must meet the following requirements:

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 37 August 2023

1. Requirements.
a. The nominated resource meets one or more of the following criteria:
i. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the city, the region, the state or the nation; ii. It is associated with the lives of persons significant in the city’s past; iii. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction;
iv. It represents the work of an important creative individual or master; v. It possesses high artistic values; or
vi. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of the city, the region, the state or the nation; b. The nominated resource has integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship and association. Integrity shall be judged with reference to the particular criterion or criteria specified in subsection A.1.a of this section;
c. The nominated resource has significant historic or architectural worth, and its designation as a landmark is reasonable, appropriate and necessary to promote, protect and further the goals and purposes of this chapter.

Preservation Site Plan and Design Review Process
Projects proposed for properties that are listed or nominated to the Sacramento Register are subject to the City’s Preservation Site Plan and Design Review Process. If a property has been designated as a historic Landmark, or is located within a Historic District, City preservation staff are responsible for overseeing the Site Plan and Design Review and process prior to an applicant applying for a building permit. Preservation staff may also be involved reviewing potentially eligible properties as part of the city-wide Site Plan and Design Review process.

If the work involves the exterior of a building, construction on the site, or involves significant, publicly accessible interiors, then a Planning Entitlement Application for Preservation, Site Plan and Design Review will likely be required from the City’s Planning Division. Many small projects, such as maintenance, are exempt from Site Plan & Design Review.63 63 “Historic Preservation,” City of Sacramento, accessed February 11, 2022, https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Urban-Design/Preservation.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 38 August 2023
IV. DESIGNATED, ELIGIBLE, AND POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE

HISTORIC RESOURCES
This section provides a summary of properties in the Specific Plan Area that are designated or eligible for listing in national, state, or local historic registers. It also provides a high-level analysis of potentially eligible properties identified in the Specific Plan Area and Neighborhood Study Area.

Listed & Eligible Historic Resources in the Specific Plan Area According to Sacramento County BERD records provided by the City, one property inside the Plan Area, the Libby, McNeil, and Libby Fruit and Vegetable Cannery at 1724 Stockton Boulevard, is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). All properties listed on the National Register are also automatically listed on the California Register. One property within the Plan Area, the Colonial Theater at 3522 Stockton Boulevard, is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), but not the National Register. Six buildings at the CalTrans Equipment Headquarters at 3400 R Street are listed on the Master List of State-owned Historical Resources. To supplement the list of properties listed in the BERD, Page & Turnbull conducted a search of properties located on Stockton Boulevard that are listed on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (Sacramento Register). Only one property, the Libby, McNeil, and Libby Fruit and Vegetable Cannery, is listed on the Sacramento Register. In total, there are eight individual historic resources in the Specific Plan Area that are listed on local, state, and/or national registers.

Listed Historic Resources within the Stockton Boulevard Plan Area are summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Listed Historic Resources in the Specific Plan Area Resource Location Designation
Libby, McNeil, and Libby
Fruit and Vegetable Cannery
1724 Stockton Boulevard National Register of Historic Places California Register of National Historical
Resources
Sacramento Register of Historic and
Cultural Resources
Colonial Theatre 3522 Stockton Boulevard California Register of Historical Resources
CalTrans Equipment
Headquarters Auto Repair
Shop
3400 R Street State Master List
CalTrans Equipment
Headquarters Paint Shop
3400 R Street State Master List
Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 39 August 2023
Resource Location Designation
CalTrans Equipment
Headquarters Yard
3400 R Street State Master List
CalTrans Equipment
Headquarters
Administrative Building
3400 R Street State Master List
CalTrans Equipment
Headquarters Shop A
3400 R Street State Master List
CalTrans Equipment
Headquarters Truck Repair
Shop
3400 R Street State Master List
Source: Sacramento County BERD, March 2020.

According to the data provided by the City, several properties within the Specific Plan Area have also been determined to be eligible for individual listing on the local, state, or national registers. Two properties, the Colonial Theatre at 3522 Stockton Boulevard and Coca Cola Bottling Plant at 2200 Stockton Boulevard, are eligible for listing on the National Register. Three properties have been determined eligible for local listing; however, one of these, the Rotas Grocery/Cake Art Bakery at 2330 Stockton Boulevard, does not appear to be extant. In total, four properties, in addition to the California Register-listed Colonial Theatre, have been determined eligible for listing on the local, state, and/or national registers.

Eligible Historic Resources within the Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Area are summarized in Table

3.2. Table 3.2 Eligible Historic Resources in the Specific Plan Area Resource Location Eligible for Designation
Colonial Theatre 3522 Stockton Boulevard National Register of Historic Places Coca Cola Bottling Plant 2200 Stockton Boulevard National Register of Historic Places Rotas Grocery/Cake Art
Bakery (does not appear to
be extant)
2330 Stockton Boulevard Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources
Sacramento Fire
Department Engine
Company #9
3101 Stockton Boulevard Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources
Loddick Castle 4311 Stockton Boulevard Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources
Source: Sacramento County BERD, March 2020.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 40 August 2023
Potentially Eligible Historic Resources within the Neighborhood Study Area The following analysis of potential areas where historic resources could exist within the Stockton Boulevard Specific Plan Area is based on data received from the City of Sacramento and a reconnaissance survey conducted by Page & Turnbull in January 2022. Data provided by the City primarily consisted of the previously described BERD records for Sacramento County and dates of construction, sourced from the City’s GIS database, for properties located within the Specific Plan Area. This information was then mapped to show when individual buildings in the area were constructed (Figure 16).

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 41 August 2023
Figure 17. Map showing approximate dates of construction for buildings along Stockton Boulevard within the Plan area. Source: City of Sacramento and Page & Turnbull.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 42 August 2023
The City’s data indicates that the existing buildings within the Specific Plan Area were constructed between roughly 1900 and the present. The vast majority are commercial buildings, although a few small residential buildings exist along some areas of Stockton Boulevard. Two buildings constructed for the California State Fair, Governor’s Hall and the Agricultural Pavilion, survive at the intersection of Stockton Boulevard and Broadway (Figure 17 and Figure 18). A grouping of smaller commercial and residential buildings, dating to between 1900 and 1940, is located between Broadway and 20th Avenue, with the highest concentration located between 10th Ave and 14th Avenue and centered around the Colonial Theater (Figure 19 and Figure 20). This concentration reflects the development of the adjacent neighborhoods of Tahoe Park and Colonial Heights as streetcar suburbs in the early 20th century. Commercial development along this stretch of Stockton Boulevard mostly consists of rows of small one-story buildings with zero lot line setbacks from the street. South of 20th Avenue, properties along Stockton Boulevard appear to have been primarily built after World War II and are generally larger in scale. Many consist of strip malls, shopping centers, auto-related businesses, and other commercial establishments with large, paved parking lots, again reflecting the development of the adjacent areas during the more automobile-centric postwar period. A few intact motels and roadside signs survive along the corridor as well (Figure 21 to Figure 24).

Figure 18. The Agricultural Pavilion at the
intersection of Stockton Boulevard and Broadway.

Figure 19. Governor's Hall at the intersection of
Stockton Boulevard and Broadway.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 43 August 2023
Figure 20. The Colonial Theatre with adjacent early
20th century commercial development.

Figure 21. Early 20th-century development near the
Colonial Theatre.

Figure 22. Auto-related commercial building at 5670
Stockton Boulevard.

Figure 23. New shopping center on the site of the
demolished Fruitridge Shopping Center.

Figure 24. Motel at 5969 Stockton Boulevard. Figure 25. Motel roadside signage next to a vacant lot on Stockton Boulevard between Young Street and
Southwest Avenue.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 44 August 2023
The reconnaissance survey conducted by Page & Turnbull, however, showed that many of the commercial buildings built along Stockton Boulevard, prior to the 1970s, have been highly altered or demolished. Such physical alterations and recent demolitions are not reflected in the City’s data. For example, City property records show several properties dating to between the 1940s and 1960s located on the southeast side of the intersection of Stockton Boulevard and Fruitridge Road (historically the site of the Fruitridge Shopping Center). Field surveys showed that these properties were recently demolished and replaced with a new shopping center (Figure 22). Other individual properties along the street that are over 50 years old have been remodeled, so that they no longer reflect their original style and design. As a result of such changes over time, well-preserved examples of commercial buildings constructed along Stockton Boulevard that were built more than 50 years ago appear to be relatively rare, particularly south of 20th Street.

Based on Page & Turnbull’s reconnaissance survey and a review of other documents provided by the City of Sacramento, additional historic resources likely exist in the wider Neighborhood Study Area to the east and west of Stockton Boulevard. The neighborhoods north of 21st Avenue – including Elmhurst, Oak Park, Tahoe Park, and Colonial Heights – contain a rich variety of single-family houses dating to their development as streetcar suburbs in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The locally designated Oak Park Historic District, to the west of Stockton Boulevard, preserved Oak Park neighborhood’s commercial center along Broadway.

However, the streets to the north and south of Broadway also contain a large collection of houses dating to the neighborhood’s original period of development in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Figure 25). The Elmhurst neighborhood, along T Street between Stockton Boulevard and approximately 53rd Street, contains a cohesive grouping of early 20th century houses arranged around a wide boulevard with two parks forming a landscaped central median (Figure 26). Another cohesive neighborhood of early 20th-century houses planned around a wide landscaped boulevard exists in the Colonial Heights neighborhood along San Francisco Boulevard between Stockton Boulevard and 55th Street (Figure 27). In 2013, San Francisco Boulevard was recorded and evaluated for historic significance in a California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 form and determined to be eligible for listing on the Sacramento Register and California Register for its association with the pattern of early 20th century development that evolved from the New City Planning Movement and as a representation of 20th century residential development. 64 A few early 20th-century institutional buildings, such as the Wesley United Methodist Church at 5010 15th Avenue, also remain within the Neighborhood Study Area (Figure 28). A concentration of well-64 Melisa Mourkas, “San Francisco Boulevard,” California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object Record, 2013.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 45 August 2023
preserved postwar commercial and residential development survives in the Tallac Village neighborhood, near the intersection of 14th Avenue and 60th Street, including the Tallac Village shopping center, Village Drive-In restaurant, and surrounding collection of Minimal Traditional houses (Figure 28 and Figure 29). This concentration reflects the type of residential development that characterized many subdivisions in the postwar period, but which has become increasingly rare as similar developments have been demolished or remodeled.

Figure 26. Late 19th-century/early 20th-century
houses in the Oak Park neighborhood.

Figure 27. View down T Street in the Elmhurst
neighborhood.

Figure 28. View down San Francisco Boulevard in the
Colonial Heights neighborhood.

Figure 29. Wesley United Methodist Church at 5010
15th Avenue.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 46 August 2023
Figure 30. Tallac Village Shopping center at 14th
Avenue and 60th Street.

Figure 31. The Village Drive-in at 3810 60th Street.

Research conducted to inform the historic context in an earlier section of this report also indicated that greater study should be undertaken to determine if there are potential historic districts or individual historic resources in neighborhoods, such as Glen Elder and Little Saigon, that appear to have social or cultural significance to the history of ethnic communities in Sacramento.

Summary
In total, there are eight individual historic resources in the Specific Plan Area that are listed on local, state, and/or national registers.

According to City property data and lists of existing eligible and designated historic resources, there are a total of eight individual historic resources within the Specific Plan Area that are listed on the local, state, and/or national registers and an additional four properties, that have been determined eligible for listing. City data, locations of existing eligible and designated historic resources, historic research, and reconnaissance survey efforts indicate that the highest concentration of potential historic resources is likely located immediately along Stockton Boulevard, north of 20th Street. Some well-preserved residential neighborhoods that were developed as streetcar suburbs survive at the north end of the broader Neighborhood Study Area. Due to the existence of large expanses of tract housing in the neighborhoods roughly one mile on either side of Stockton Boulevard, particularly south of 21st Avenue, individual historic resources east and west of Stockton Boulevard are expected to be relatively rare. They will likely consist of individual commercial buildings located along secondary east-west commercial arteries, such as 14th Avenue, 21st Avenue, or Fruitridge Road, or individual properties that predate the development of the existing residential subdivisions.

However, due the accumulation of exterior alterations over time, the historic integrity of these properties will need to be closely considered.

Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 47 August 2023
V. REFERENCES
Published Works & Reports
California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001.

California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory. Sacramento:

California Office of State Publishing. November 2004. Accessed October 22, 2018, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf.

CEQA Guidelines. Accessed May 10, 2018. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/.

Newspapers & Periodicals
Public Records
Archival Records
Internet Sources
Historic Resources Analysis Report – Final Stockton Boulevard Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) Project Number 19415 and Specific Plan
PAGE & TURNBULL 48 August 2023
VI. APPENDICES
Appendix A – Preparer Qualifications
This Historic Resources Analysis Report was prepared by Page & Turnbull of Sacramento, California.

Page & Turnbull staff responsible for this report include: Ruth Todd, FAIA, Principal-in-charge; Christina Dikas Associate Principal and project manager; and Clare Flynn, Cultural Resources Planner, primary author, all of whom meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture, Architectural History, or History.

Appendix H:

Other Potential Actions
Identified by the
Community
H-1
This appendix includes additional actions identified by community members during the engagement phase that did not garner widespread support during the engagement process as the Neighborhood Action Plan Priorities. These actions are included for informational purposes only and to acknowledge additional input received on this topic. These actions could be referred to by individuals, groups, organizations, businesses, and City staff and leadership for future implementation in the Neighborhood Study Area and, in some cases, may be implemented by other plans or programs. These are not required to implement the Specific Plan.

Land Use
Other Potential Actions Identified by the Community
• Update design standards to require that new development to be located at or near the front setback line to provide a consistent streetscape condition. • Allow more housing types in single-family zoning.
• Improve existing parking lots including, paving, landscaping, and pedestrian access. • Prioritize the construction of “pocket parks” with seating and rest areas in underutilized spaces. • Encourage urban design and architecture that complements the existing corridor and neighborhood contexts.
• Cut down emissions and pollution by promoting mixed-use development that is walkable and enjoyable to pedestrians.
• Look for sites that could support more concerts and performances.

Housing
Other Potential Actions Identified by the Community
• Partner with residents and local organizations to support existing, and create new community land trusts and cooperatives that provide affordable housing and increase community ownership. • Work in partnership with other government agencies, non-profits and community-based organizations, affordable housing developers, and affordable housing advocates to pursue private philanthropic funding streams and opportunities for affordable rental and ownership housing for residents of the Neighborhood Study Area.
• Explore options for an initial residency preference for new affordable housing units. • Explore alternatives to traditional cash security deposits to reduce the upfront burden on renters. • Study effective ways to limit large companies’ ability to purchase, flip, and resell properties. • Develop short-term property rental restrictions that remove units from the housing market.

H-2

OTHER POTENTIAL ACTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY

APPENDIX H
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
• Hire and train Black, Indigenous, and non-Black people of color (BIPOC) building inspectors to inspect residential dwelling units.
• Partner with organizations to provide wrap-around services for new housing developments. • Develop expedited development review and/or reduction in fees for small, local developers that propose to construct affordable housing.
• Develop programs that help people with disabilities receive services, find homes, and stay housed, regardless of ownership or tenancy status.
• Establish a pilot program to provide financial and technical assistance to support capacity building of collective ownership models.
• Explore rental equity models.
• Encourage safe ways to share homes (e.g., room shares, boarders, roommates, etc.) • Establish a Black Homeowners Alliance to connect residents of the Black community with wealth building opportunities and resources.
• Develop a Resale Inspection Program that would require homes to be inspected and unpermitted code violations to be corrected prior to homes being sold. • Convene a group of interested individuals and organizations interested in implementing collective ownership models.
• Consider ways to promote and construct Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) affordable and accessible to seniors and people with disabilities.
• Help people without rental or credit history find homes. • Provide restorative transitional housing for the formally incarcerated. • Support and partner with the Sacramento Tenants Union.

Culture, Arts, and Community Character
Other Potential Actions Identified by the Community
• Incentivize the rehabilitation of commercial storefronts to their original period to strengthen the sense of place along the boulevard.
• Identify spaces in the Neighborhood Study Area to be used for art, exhibits, and events. • Commission, create, and install more public art that reflects the various cultures along Stockton Boulevard.
• Support tourism of Stockton Boulevard and Little Saigon by working with Visit Sacramento and local organizations or community members to provide tours and increase cultural competency.

H-3

OTHER POTENTIAL ACTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY

APPENDIX H
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
• Enhance Little Saigon’s marketing and promotional collateral and activities in partnership among various organizations.
• Develop a program to identify, locate, commission, and build monumental-scaled art installations at key intersections along Stockton Boulevard.
• Partner with the Sacramento Museum, Sacramento Library of Special Collections, Sacramento State, Sacramento City College, and others to collect, document, preserve, and share the stories and histories of the various cultures in the Neighborhood Study Area. • Beautify waste and recycling bins with art.
• Support local artists and galleries.
• Attract tourist to visit local businesses and attend events. • Explore acquiring a community center operated by and for youth. • Develop a Stockton Boulevard bus tour highlighting the ethnic and cultural diversity of the corridor.
• Explore expansion or rehabilitation of existing venues, or development of a new event venues, in Little Saigon.
• Close streets to vehicles for performances and events. • Preserve and revitalize Colonial Theatre.
• Develop a skate park.
• Help local artists apply for and receive grant funding.

Inclusive Economic Development
Other Potential Actions Identified by the Community
• Create a business community working group to provide capacity building and facilitate open communication with organizations that support small and micro business stakeholders in the Neighborhood Study Area.
• Focus efforts on strengthening the local construction workforce pipeline. • Promote free, professional, one-on-one financial coaching through the City’s Financial Empowerment Center (FEC).
• Strengthen partnerships with local banks to serve and provide specialized programs for the unbanked population.
• Create a targeted recruitment strategy for attracting and retaining new retail establishments that add to the diversity of businesses, types of services and products available, and support under-represented retail categories.

H-4

OTHER POTENTIAL ACTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY

APPENDIX H
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
• Develop a Legacy Business Program to highlight longstanding businesses that are iconic and cherished community enterprises.
• Create a local hire campaign or strategy that encourages and promotes the hiring of local residents and assists businesses to hire local residents. • Develop a Universal Basic Income (UBI) program that serves historically disadvantaged populations within the Neighborhood Study Area.
• Create a directory of women- and BIPOC-owned businesses. • Identify a menu of tools for residents to invest in local development projects to build wealth and benefit from future development in their neighborhoods. • Create a local community-owned back where loans serve the neighborhood and help local businesses and community groups.
• Develop a local community-based crowdfunding platform that could provide money for local developments and increase community ownership opportunities. • Engage banks in their Community Reinvestment Act and other community development investments to increase resources in the local community. • Pursue funding opportunities and connect with City, State, and Federal resources to provide digital access and infrastructure improvements for under-resourced residents and businesses. • Establish a Black arts and business center.
• Promote local restaurants to hospital staff.
• Increase lodging options for visitors and hospital patients.

Environment, Public Health, and Safety
Other Potential Actions Identified by the Community
• Increase corridor maintenance.
• Integrate exercise equipment in public parks, parkways, and other frequent activity areas and expand culturally specific programming for ongoing neighborhood use. • Support reducing food waste by promoting food recovery programs and expanding opportunities for community composting.

Community Engagement and Capacity Building
Other Potential Actions Identified by the Community
• Create opportunities to increase volunteerism with local community-based organizations.

H-5

OTHER POTENTIAL ACTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY

APPENDIX H
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
• Design and develop a designated space where information can be consistently shared, and community members can gather to receive and spread information. • Increase resources for outreach, especially for community-based organizations that serve residents and businesses within the Neighborhood Study Area. • Develop easy-to-use guides that are understandable by community members and avoid acronyms and other technical jargon.
• Improve mass communications that can consistently, easily, and efficiently spread the word to residents and businesses and keep community members current on development projects and resources.
• Train children and youth to canvass and engage residents about programs and resources. • Improve transparency in City processes by creating a mechanism that ensure feedback is received and acted upon, especially in communities of color. • Deploy outreach strategies that are generational, so community members can tap into trustworthy and accountable networks.
• Hold more in-person conversations with community members. • Hire culturally sensitive facilitators and translators to guide community meetings. • Engage businesses associated with the Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. • Create community engagement subcommittees that meet on a regular basis to discuss topics such as safety, beautification, transportation, business, etc.

H-6

OTHER POTENTIAL ACTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY

APPENDIX H
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
Appendix I:

Specific Plan Boundary
Detail Maps
I-1
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
00703630320000
00703620160000
01000100050000
00703620020000
00703610240000
00703710360000
00703620050000
00703620060000
00703630280000
00703630080000
00703530070000
00703710010000
00703620170000
00703710020000
01000810330000
00703620070000
01000720310000
00703530050000
00703620010000
00703620030000
00703630270000
00703530060000
00702830070000
00703530040000
00703630250000
00703630310000
00702830060000
00703620040000
01000710270000
00703630290000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 212 feet
0 100 200 400
Feet
I-2

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
01101020280000
01400130070000
01000100050000
01101030010000
00703710360000
01400120010000
01400130020000
01101020260000
01000720280000
01101020010000
01400130260000
00703710010000
01400130270000
00703710020000
01000810330000
01000730080000
01000720310000
01101020270000
01400130280000
01400130080000
00703630270000
00703530040000
01000820010000
01400110010000
01000720300000
01000710270000
01000820060000
01400130030000
00703630290000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 212 feet
0 100 200 400
Feet
I-3

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
01101020280000
01400310380000
01400130070000
01101030010000
01400640060000
01400310110000
01101020260000
01400130260000
01400640010000
01400630080000
01400130270000
01400640170000
01400630290000
01101020270000
01400320120000
01400320260000
01400130080000
01400310140000
01400230190000
01400310390000
01101040010000
01400630040000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 212 feet
0 100 200 400
Feet
I-4

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
01400850270000
01101830030000
01102000780000
01401230280000
01400640060000
01401210300000
01101910150000
01101910240000
01401230050000
01400850410000
01400640010000
01400850280000
01102000760000
01101910130000
01101930030000
01102000790000
01400630080000
01400640170000
01101830150000
01400850100000
01102000800000
01400850420000
01401230350000
01400850450000
01101910250000
01401230330000
01102000560000
01102000770000
01401210290000
01101830020000
01401210010000
01401230070000
01401230320000
01400850460000
01401230080000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 212 feet
0 100 200 400
Feet
I-5

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
01401630350000
01401940140000
01402230030000
01102000710000
01402220690000
01401630660000
01401950120000
01501810520000
01401630650000
01401230050000
01401940130000
01401950240000
01501130530000
01102000700000
01401230350000
01401940060000
01501130010000
01401960260000
01500410180000
01401940120000
01402230020000
01501120010000
01102000560000
01501120540000
01401940040000
01500410170000
01401960250000
01401940050000
01401230070000
01401630600000
01402230040000
01401940020000
01501130550000
01401230080000
01402510220000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 212 feet
0 100 200 400
Feet
I-6

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
01402520240000
01402930120000
01402930090000
01402940210000
01502410310000
02100210250000
02100230540000
02100210240000
01402940090000
01402510230000
01402940060000
01501820400000
01501820350000
01502420290000
01402930080000
01402940010000 01402940030000
01402520250000
01501820390000
02100210260000
01501820370000
01501820410000
01402510500000
01402520230000
01402930070000
01402930110000
01402940230000
01402930140000
01502410270000
01402930100000
01502410300000
02100210020000
01502420270000
01502410290000
01402520220000
01402930150000
01402940070000
01402940220000
01502430190000
02100210230000
01402930010000
01502410320000
01402930050000
01502410330000
01502420240000
01402930060000
01402940200000
01502410280000
01402940080000
01402940100000
01501820360000
01502420260000
01502420280000
01502420250000
02100230010000
01502420230000
01501820380000
01402510220000
02100210010000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 156 feet
0 70 140 280
Feet
I-7

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
02100230410000
02100230540000
02102010240000
02102010250000
02100230500000
0210023044000002101110020000
02102010350000
02102010340000
02101110180000
02101120190000
02100230470000
02100230530000
02101110190000
02100230420000
02101120170000
02100230520000
02101120160000
02101110010000
02101110170000
02101120180000
02100230010000
02100230430000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 156 feet
0 70 140 280
Feet
I-8

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
02300210030000
02203100010000
02102010170000
02102010240000
02300260240000
02102010220000 02102010330000
02203100040000
02102820070000
02202800290000
02102010250000
02202800280000
02202800030000
02102010230000
02202800250000
02300260260000
02300210230000
02300260250000
02102820140000
02102010180000
02300210250000
02203100030000
02102010210000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 156 feet
0 70 140 280
Feet
I-9

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
02302210150000
02203100010000
02700110240000
02202800320000
02202800360000
02202800150000
02600710060000
02202800370000
02700110230000
02202800350000
02203100040000
02302110250000
02202800220000
02301110250000
02301110260000
02301110310000
02302210200000
02202800030000 02202800330000
02302110240000
02202800340000
02302210160000
02300260260000
02300260270000
02301110300000
02302210190000
02202800170000
02300260250000
02301110280000
02302110010000
02600720220000
02202800310000
02202800430000
02600720100000
02302210180000
02202800400000
02301110290000
02202800130000
02202800300000
02203100030000
02302210090000
02600720090000
02202800440000
02302110260000
02600710070000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 244 feet
0 115 230 460
Feet
I-10

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
02701810130000
02700110240000
02600710060000
02700110230000
02700110270000
02701810110000
02600730180000 02700110250000
02701710110000
02701810120000
02600720220000
02700110260000
02600720100000
02600730120000
02600730130000
02700110280000
02701810140000
02702710120000
02600720090000
02600730090000
02600710070000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 244 feet
0 115 230 460
Feet
I-11

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
02701810130000
03701610010000
03800810150000
03800810190000
03700810150000
03700810090000
03700810180000
03700810130000
03700810230000
03800110120000
03800810020000
03800810110000
02701810110000
02702710110000
03700810250000
03801610050000
03800110960000
03800810130000
03800110320000
03700810200000
03800810210000
03800110310000
03800810080000
03800110150000
03700810220000
03800110010000
03800810070000
03800810200000
02701810140000
02702710120000
03700810070000
03700810260000
03800110110000
03700810210000
03800110210000
03700810240000
03700810160000
03701610020000
03800810160000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 215 feet
0 100 200 400
Feet
I-12

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
03701610010000
03801910010000
03901710450000
03703100290000
03902410260000
03901710250000
03703100170000
03901710340000
03901710310000
03901710440000
03801610070000
03703100230000
03801610050000 03901710240000
04000210010000
04000310290000
03901710190000
03902410210000
04000210300000
03901710460000
03901710370000 04000210310000
03801910220000
03703100180000
03801910280000
03901710330000
04000310240000
03902410230000
04000310190000
03801910030000
04000210470000
03703100260000
04000210030000
03801610080000
03901710280000
03902410240000
04000210320000
03801910020000
03902410250000
03801910250000
04000310280000
03901710320000
03701610020000
03703100280000
03703100020000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 293 feet
0 140 280 560
Feet
I-13

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
03901710420000
04000320190000
03901710450000
03901710250000
03901710340000
03901710310000
03901710440000
03901710240000
04000310290000
03901710430000
03901710190000
03901710460000
03901710370000
03901710330000
04000310240000
03902410230000
04000310190000
04000210470000
03902010120000
03901710280000
03901710360000
03902010070000
03902410240000
04000310280000
03901710320000
04000320200000
Specific Plan Area
Sacramento City Limits
19010203.01 GIS 027
1 inch = 221 feet
0 105 210 420
Feet
I-14

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024
page intentionally left blank
I-15

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY DETAIL MAPS

APPENDIX I
HEARING DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2024

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Stockton Boulevard Plan
State Clearinghouse No.: 2021070139
PREPARED FOR:

City of Sacramento
ATTENTION:

Elizabeth Boyd, AICP
Senior Planner
SEPTEMBER 2024

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Stockton Boulevard Plan
State Clearinghouse No.: 2021070139
PREPARED FOR:

City of Sacramento
300 Richards Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95811
CONTACT:

Elizabeth Boyd, AICP
Senior Planner
916.808.3540
[email protected]
PREPARED BY:

Ascent Environmental
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
September 2024
19010203.01
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................... II 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 CEQA Requirements ................................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 Use of the Final EIR..................................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Project Under Review.................................................................................................. 1-3

1.6 Summary of Text Changes .......................................................................................... 1-3

1.7 Responses to Comments............................................................................................. 1-4

1.8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.............................................................. 1-4

1.9 Review of the Final EIR ............................................................................................... 1-4

1.10 Overview of the Public Participation and Draft EIR Review Process ............................ 1-4

1.11 Organization of the Final EIR....................................................................................... 1-5 2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES............................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 List of Commenters on the Draft EIR ........................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Comments and Responses.......................................................................................... 2-1 3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR........................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Revisions to the Executive Summary........................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Revisions to Chapter 1, “Introduction”.......................................................................... 3-8

3.3 Revisions to Chapter 2, “Project Description”............................................................... 3-9

3.4 Revisions to Section 3.1, “Air Quality”.......................................................................... 3-9

3.5 Revisions to Section 3.3, “Cultural Resources”.......................................................... 3-10

3.6 Revisions to Section 3.6, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials”................................... 3-11

3.7 Revisions to Section 3.9, “Transportation and Circulation”......................................... 3-12

3.8 Revisions to Section 3.10, “Tribal Cultural Resources” .............................................. 3-12

3.9 Revisions to Section 3.11, “Utilities and Service Systems”......................................... 3-15 4 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 4-1 5 REPORT PREPARERS.......................................................................................................... 5-1 6 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EIR................................................................................................ 6-1 List of Abbreviations Ascent
City of Sacramento
ii Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
City City of Sacramento
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
EchoWater Facility EchoWater Resource Recovery Facility Final EIR final environmental impact report
MMP Mitigation Monitoring Program
NOP notice of preparation
project City of Sacramento Stockton Boulevard Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SacRT Sacramento Regional Transit
SacSewer Sacramento Area Sewer District
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District TDM Transportation Demand Management
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW
This final environmental impact report (Final EIR) contains the public and agency comments received during the public review comment period for the City of Sacramento Stockton Boulevard Plan (project) Draft EIR.

The EIR is an informational document intended to disclose to the Lead Agency, the City of Sacramento (City), and the public the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Stockton Boulevard Plan or one of the alternatives to the project described in the Draft EIR. All written comments received during the public review period (June 21 through August 7, 2024) are addressed in this Final EIR. During the public review period, the City received a total of six comment letters from public agencies.

The responses in this Final EIR clarify, correct, and/or amplify text in the Draft EIR, as appropriate. Also included are text changes made at the initiative of the Lead Agency. These changes (summarized in Chapter 3) do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR.

1.2 BACKGROUND
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City released a notice of preparation (NOP) on July 8, 2021, for the required 30-day review period. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR for the project was being prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document. The City held a public scoping meeting on July 20, 2021, to solicit comments regarding the scope of the EIR. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days from June 21 through August 7, 2024.

Two public agencies, the California Department of Transportation and the Airport Land Use Commission, provided written comments on issues evaluated in the Draft EIR. This Final EIR has been prepared to respond to all comments received, consistent with Sections 15089 and 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Responses to each of the comments received are provided in Chapter 2, “Comments and Responses,” of this Final EIR.

The comments and responses that make up the Final EIR, in combination with the Draft EIR, as amended by the text changes, constitute the “EIR” that will be considered for certification by the City Planning and Design Commission and City Council.

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Sections 15089 and 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that the Final EIR shall consist of:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.

Introduction Ascent
City of Sacramento
1-2 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
e) Any other information added by the lead agency.

The Lead Agency must provide each agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the Lead Agency’s response to their comments a minimum of 10 days before certifying the Final EIR.

Section 15088.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that a lead agency must recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. The Guidelines clarify that “[n]ew information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.” Examples of significant new information requiring recirculation include:
a) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
b) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. c) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
d) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).

Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

1.4 USE OF THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to inform the Lead Agency’s consideration of approval of the Stockton Boulevard Plan, either in whole or in part, or one of the alternatives to the project discussed in the Draft EIR.

As required by Section 15090 (a) (1)-(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency, in certifying a Final EIR, must make the following three determinations:

1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

2. The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project.

3. The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

As required by Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental Ascent Introduction
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 1-3
effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record. The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the EIR, the agency must state in writing the reasons supporting the action. The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the Lead Agency’s administrative record.

The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the project and is available as part of the staff report prepared as part of the hearing process.

1.5 PROJECT UNDER REVIEW
The Stockton Boulevard Plan covers a developed area of the City of Sacramento southeast of downtown, which is centrally located within the greater Sacramento region. There are two components to the Stockton Boulevard Plan: a Specific Plan and a Neighborhood Action Plan.

The Specific Plan provides a planning framework for making decisions about development and other activities within the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area is approximately 353 acres, consisting of properties along a 4.5-mile-long stretch of the Stockton Boulevard corridor, from Alhambra Boulevard to 65th Street. The Specific Plan includes land use regulations and policies designed to streamline the development process within the Specific Plan Area and that are consistent with the City of Sacramento’s 2040 General Plan.

The Neighborhood Action Plan, which covers the Specific Plan Area and 23 surrounding residential neighborhoods (referred to as the Neighborhood Study Area), includes desired “Priority Actions.” Priority Actions are measures, procedures, or programs that are consistent with the 2040 General Plan and may, but not necessarily would, be carried forward by the community, the City, or a combination of the two. The Neighborhood Action Plan acts as an information resource for future planning and decision making, but does not mandate any one action nor include any specific project commitments.

Adoption of the Neighborhood Action Plan does not authorize development or any other improvements that would not otherwise be allowed within the Neighborhood Study Area. As a result, the Neighborhood Action Plan does not have the potential to result in physical environmental effects.

Accordingly, the Draft EIR’s analysis focused on the Specific Plan.

1.6 SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES
Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of this Final EIR identifies all changes made to the document by section. These text changes provide additional clarity in response to comments received on the Draft EIR, but do not change the significance of the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

Introduction Ascent
City of Sacramento
1-4 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR

1.7 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
A list of public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR is included in Chapter 2 in this Final EIR. During the public comment period, the City received six letters from public agencies. Section 15088(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that the focus of the responses to comments shall be on the disposition of significant environmental issues. Responses are not required on comments regarding the merits of the Specific Plan or on issues not related to environmental impacts. Comments on the merits or other comments that do not raise environmental issues are noted in the responses and will be reviewed by the City Council before any action on whether to approve the Stockton Boulevard Plan.

When a comment does not directly pertain to the environmental issues analyzed in the Draft EIR, does not address the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, or does not challenge a conclusion of the Draft EIR, the response will note the comment and provide additional information where possible. Responses to comments received appear in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR. Each comment letter is numbered and presented with brackets indicating how the letter has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is given a binomial with the number of the comment letter appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, comments in Letter 1 are numbered 1- 1, 1-2, 1-3, and so on. Immediately following the letter are responses, each with binomials that correspond to the bracketed comments.

1.8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires mitigation monitoring plans for any mitigation measures. These plans, which are generally adopted upon approval of a project, describe the actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, and the entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions.

The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) includes all of the mitigation measures required of the project included in the Draft EIR. A copy of the MMP is provided as an attachment to the Findings of Fact. If the City chooses to approve the Stockton Boulevard Plan or one of the alternatives described in the Draft EIR, then the City Council will adopt the MMP at the same time it adopts its CEQA Findings of Fact, as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

1.9 REVIEW OF THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR and associated appendices are available for review on the City website at:
• https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/environmental/impact-reports.

A hard copy of the document is available at the following location:
• City of Sacramento Community Development Department, 300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor, Sacramento, California 95811, between 9:00am and 4:00pm (except weekends and holidays).

1.10 OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DRAFT

EIR REVIEW PROCESS
On June 19, 2024, the City released the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review and comment period. The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies; posted on the City’s website (https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community- Ascent Introduction
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 1-5
development/planning/environmental/impact-reports); and was made available at the Community Development Department, 300 Richards Boulevards, Third Floor, Sacramento, California 95811. A notice of availability of the Draft EIR was published in the Sacramento Bee and distributed by the City to a project-specific mailing list.

As a result of these notification efforts, written comments were received from six public agencies on the content of the Draft EIR. Chapter 2, “Comments and Responses,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15088.5).

1.11 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR is organized as follows:

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” describes the purpose of the Final EIR, summarizes the proposed City of Sacramento Stockton Boulevard Plan, provides an overview of the CEQA public review process, and describes the content of the Final EIR.

Chapter 2, “Comments and Responses,” contains a list of all parties who submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period, copies of the comment letters received, and responses to the comments.

Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” presents revisions to the Draft EIR text made in response to comments, or to amplify, clarify or make minor modifications or corrections. Changes in the text are signified by strikeouts where text is removed and by underline where text is added.

Chapter 4, “References,” identifies the documents used as sources for the analysis.

Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” identifies the Lead Agency contacts as well as the preparers of this Final EIR.

Introduction Ascent
City of Sacramento
1-6 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-1
2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This chapter contains comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft EIR, which concluded on August 7, 2024. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, written responses were prepared addressing comments on environmental issues received from reviewers of the Draft EIR.

2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Table 2-1 presents the list of commenters, including the numerical designation for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter.

Table 2-1 List of Comment Letter
Letter No. Entity Author of Comment Letter/Email Date of Comment Letter/Email

STATE AGENCIES
1 California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) District 3
Gary Arnold, Branch Chief July 25, 2024
2 California Water Boards, Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
Peter Minkel, Engineering Geologist August 7, 2024

LOCAL AGENCIES
3 Sacramento Area Council of Governments
(SACOG) serving as the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC)
Gregory Chew, Senior Planer July 26, 2024
4 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District
(SMAQMD)
Carolyn Tran, Assistant Air Quality
Planner
July 29, 2024
5 Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) Robb Armstrong, Policy & Planning August 6, 2024 6 Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) Sarah Poe, Senior Planner August 7, 2024

2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The written individual comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments are provided below. Each comment letter is numbered, each comment is bracketed, and responses are provided to each comment. The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the Draft EIR and/or refer to the reader to the appropriate place in the document where the requested information may be found.

Comments that are not directly related to the environmental issues are noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Where text changes in the Draft EIR are warranted based on comments received, updated project information, or changes initiated by City of Sacramento staff are listed om Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR.” The changes to the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, provided in Chapter 3, represent only minor clarifications/amplifications and do not constitute significant new information. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-2 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Comment Letter 1
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-3
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-4 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-5
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 1
1-1 The comment is an introductory remark and does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
1-2 The comment provides a summary of the project and does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required. 1-3 The comment suggests completion of an Intersection Control Evaluation Report that analyzes providing controlled southbound Stockton Boulevard to eastbound Highway 50 movement because the injury rate at this location is higher than the statewide average. City Staff will be initiating the evaluation of Stockton Boulevard for Complete Street and Bus Rapid Transit implementation in 2025. These recommendations from Caltrans for an Intersection Control Evaluation Report will be considered in that effort.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.
1-4 The comment notes that the Specific Plan improvements oriented toward meeting the needs of pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit riders are in agreement with Caltrans’ complete streets goals.

The comment also suggests reference documents for future projects to consider to promote consistency of transportation facilities design throughout the region. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; no further response is required. 1-5 The comment provides information about encroachment permit requirements. Coordination with Caltrans and acquisition of any necessary permits for future development under the Specific Plan would occur, as needed and as individual developments are proposed. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; no further response is required. 1-6 The comment asks the City to provide information about any further actions for Caltrans review.

The City will provide documents to Caltrans for review if any changes related to the project occur.
1-7 The comment provides a closing remark and does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-6 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Comment Letter 2
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-7
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-8 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-9
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-10 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-11
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 2
2-1 The comment provides introductory text and outlines the Central Valley RWQCB’s responsibilities/authority. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
2-2 The comment provides background on the Basin Plan and states that the environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality. Impacts related to water quality are discussed in Section 1.3.1, “Environmental Issue Areas Not Evaluated in Detail,” of the Draft EIR (pages 1-5 and 1-6). Development within the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with several regulations designed to reduce or eliminate construction-related water quality effects, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit and General Order for Dewatering. These regulations would include a water pollution control plan and a stormwater pollution prevention plan. The Specific Plan Area is highly developed and projects under the Specific Plan would not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces. The operation of development within the Specific Plan Area would not substantially increase runoff that would result in significant impacts to water quality. Because the Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
2-3 The comment provides an overview of potential permitting requirements related to maintaining water quality that may apply to the development within the Specific Plan. Applicable regulatory requirements are provided as part of the hydrology and water quality impacts discussion in Section 1.3.1, “Environmental Issue Areas Not Evaluated in Detail,” of the Draft EIR (pages 1-5 and 1-6). Coordination with Central Valley RWQCB and acquisition of any necessary permits for future development under the Specific Plan would occur, as needed and as individual developments are proposed. The comment provides general statements regarding potential requirements but does not raise specific issues regarding the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR’s analysis or identify applicable requirements that were not included as part of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
2-4 The comment provides a closing remark and does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-12 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Comment Letter 3
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-13
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-14 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-15
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 3
3-1 The comment provides introductory text and indicates that the Specific Plan Area extends into the influence area of Executive Airport. The Draft EIR Section 3.6, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” identifies the Executive Airport as the nearest public airport to the Specific Plan Area.

However, the Specific Plan Area is not within the height, noise, or safety restriction areas outlined in the Sacramento Executive Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) (Draft EIR page 3.6-9).
3-2 The comment outlines ALUC’s responsibility/authority and states that the City is obligated to refer the Specific Plan to the ALUC for a consistency review prior to adoption of the plan. The comment also indicates that ALUC conducted a preliminary review of the Specific Plan but does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required. 3-3 The comment states that the Specific Plan boundaries overlap the Executive Airport influence area and indicates that the Specific Plan text on page 10 and the text on page 3.6-11 of the Draft EIR need clarification regarding the Specific Plan location in relation to the airport.

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the Draft EIR, the Stockton Boulevard Plan consists of two components: a Specific Plan and a Neighborhood Action Plan. The Specific Plan provides a planning framework for making decisions about development and other activities within the Specific Plan Area. The Neighborhood Action Plan covers the Specific Plan Area and 23 surrounding residential neighborhoods (referred to as the Neighborhood Study Area).

The Neighborhood Action Plan acts as an information resource for future planning and decision making but does not mandate any one action nor include any specific project commitments.

Adoption of the Neighborhood Action Plan does not authorize development or any other improvements that would not otherwise be allowed within the Neighborhood Study Area. As a result, the Neighborhood Action Plan does not have the potential to result in physical environmental effects. Accordingly, the Draft EIR focuses on the Specific Plan and development anticipated within the Specific Plan Area not the Neighborhood Study Area.

As indicated in the comment, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as most recently amended in 1999, establishes height, noise, and safety restriction zones but published documents do not identify the limits of the airport influence area. Page 3.6-9 of the Draft EIR explains:

The Sacramento Executive Airport is the nearest public airport to the Specific Plan Area and is located at 6151 Freeport Boulevard, approximately 3 miles west of the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area is not located within the height, noise, or safety restriction areas outlined in the Sacramento Executive Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (SACOG 1999).

As stated on page 3.6-11, the threshold for evaluation of potential impacts is:
for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; Therefore, the 2-mile distance applies in instances where there is not an adopted CLUP. Where a CLUP has been adopted, the specific hazards zones (rather than location in the airport influence area in general) determine the potential for impacts. In evaluating whether there is a potential for the project to generate a hazard, the Draft EIR (page 3.6-11) states:

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-16 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
The Specific Plan Area is not located within 2 miles of an airport or within a height, noise, or safety restriction area identified in a land use compatibility plan. As a result, no potential impacts related to safety hazards or excessive airport-related noise are anticipated.

Therefore, although the map provided as an attachment to the comment letter illustrates that the Specific Plan Area is within the conical surface area (defined in the CLUP as a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet), the statement in the Draft EIR that the Specific Plan Area is outside of the established height, noise, or safety restriction areas remains accurate.

Therefore, no revisions have been made in response to this comment. 3-4 The comment states that ALUC’s preliminary analysis of the September 2023 Public Review Draft of the Stockton Boulevard Plan reveals no apparent conflicts with the CLUP, although very tall structures will be limited. This finding is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIR and is incorporated into the record for the project.
3-5 The comment indicates that the northeastern edge of the airport safety zones is in close proximity to the western side of the Specific Plan Area and provides an overview of development restrictions and compatibility concern related to development within the airport influence area. The comment also states that the Specific Plan should include a discussion and the Draft EIR should be corrected regarding the geographic relationship between the Specific Plan Area and the Executive Airport influence area.

Please refer to Response 3-3 above regarding the distinction between Neighborhood Study Area and Specific Plan Area. As discussed in Section 1.1, “Project Requiring Environmental Analysis,” the adoption of the Neighborhood Action Plan would not authorize development or any other improvements that would not otherwise be allowed. Therefore, no development would occur on the western edge of the Neighborhood Study Area near the airport safety zones as a result of the Specific Plan. Development within the Specific Plan Area would be consistent with the City’s development standards, including height limits adopted in the zoning code. 3-6 The comment requests that the City submit the draft Stockton Boulevard Plan for formal ALUC review. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-17
Comment Letter 4
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-18 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-19
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 4
4-1 The comment provides a summary of the project and states that SMAQMD staff does not have any comments for the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-20 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Comment Letter 5
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-21
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-22 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-23
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-24 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-25
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-26 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 5
5-1 The comment provides an introductory remark and does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
5-2 The comment provides a summary of the project and does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required. 5-3 The comment provides a list of project objectives that SacRT supports. The comment also provides suggestion to revise the objective related to enhancing the pedestrian and bicyclist environment. The support for explicit mention of “safe routes to transit” is noted. The City acknowledges the importance of safe routes to transit in a broader program to increase transit use and reduce VMT. Although not a stated objective of the plan, this consideration will be included in future transit study and programming.
5-4 The comment provides correction for Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR regarding existing bus routes in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. The text of the Draft EIR has been updated in response to the comment and is provided in Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR.” 5-5 The comment acknowledges that the Specific Plan’s mobility and transportation are addressed through the adopted transportation-specific documents. The comment provides a summary of the project and does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
5-6 The comment expresses support for Stockton Boulevard Plan Policy I-1 and Implementing Actions H-1, E-1, I-2, and I-3. The comment provides a summary of the project and does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is required. 5-7 The comment agrees with the impact conclusion and mitigation measures identified for Impact

3.5-1. The comment also states that SacRT is prepared to work alongside the City to implement the identified mitigation measures. The City appreciates the comment and is committed to working with SacRT in the future. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 5-8 The comment acknowledges the regulatory and environmental setting related to transportation and circulation included in Section 3.9, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
5-9 The comment provides a summary of the Stockton Boulevard Corridor Plan. The Stockton Boulevard Corridor Plan is discussed in Section 3.9, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR (page 3.9-6). The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
5-10 The comment provides correction for the transit system setting information on Section 3.9.2 of the Draft EIR. The text of the Draft EIR has been updated in response to the comment and is provided in Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR.”
5-11 The comment acknowledges the assessment used to determine the VMT impact and expresses support for the identified mitigation measures. The comment also indicates that Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in Mitigation Measures 3.9-1a cannot be accomplished by one agency alone and requests the City to consider these comments during review and Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-27
approval of project-specific transportation analyses and/or TDM Plan. The comment regarding TDM strategies will be considered when project-specific TDM Plan is being developed. 5-12 The comment agrees with the analysis and conclusion of Impact 3.9-2 and notes that SacRT could implement the strategies identified in Mitigation Measures 3.9-2a and 3.9-2b to avoid the identified significant impacts if transit funding is guaranteed. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 5-13 The comment reiterates Comments 5-11 and 5-12 and notes that SacRT’s goals are aligned with the City’s goals related to mitigating VMT and GHG impacts in the region. City staff will continue to reach out to SacRT staff and work collaboratively on implementation of transit improvements measures. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
5-14 The comment expresses support for Alternative 2. The City appreciates the comments and looks forward to working with SacRT. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-28 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Comment Letter 6
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 2-29
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Sacramento
2-30 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 6
6-1 The comment indicates that SacSewer has reviewed the Draft EIR and provides a summary of the project. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
6-2 The comment request revisions throughout the Draft EIR to accurately reflect the service provider. The text of the Draft EIR has been updated to reflect the edits provided in the comment. Please see Chapter 3, “Changes to the Draft EIR,” for the revised text. 6-3 The comment notes that the local sewer collection system provides wastewater service to portions of the plan area that would be conveyed to the EchoWater Facility, via the Sump 2/2A and SacSewer City Interceptor system. The comment also requests a quantitative analysis for potential cumulative impacts related to the capacity of the Sump 2/2A and Interceptor system be provided.

The impact analysis of buildout of the Specific Plan on wastewater treatment is evaluated in the Draft EIR under Impact 3.11-2 (pages 3.11-19 to 3.11-21). The methodology for wastewater analysis is described on pages 3.11-16 and 3.11-17 of the Draft EIR. Impact 3.11-2 includes quantitative discussion of wastewater generation anticipated from buildout of the Specific Plan based on the wastewater generation rate identified in Stockton Boulevard Plan Infrastructure Utility Report. As discussed under Impact 3.11-2, implementation of the Specific Plan would generate approximately 1.01 million gallons per day of dry weather flow in total. Wastewater flows to EchoWater Facility in 2014 were approximately 141 million gallons per day, compared to the capacity of 181 million gallons per day. Therefore, it is anticipated that the EchoWater Facility would have available capacity to serve the development associated with the Specific Plan.

The cumulative impact of any one future project within the Specific Plan on wet and dry weather capacity is not known at this time and would depend, in part, upon the generation rates of other projects in the Sump 2 and Sump 2A service areas. However, given that the projected flows from full buildout of the Specific Plan are a relatively small fraction (1/60th) of the capacity of the combined system, the potential for cumulative effects on capacity to result from implementation of the plan is low. As described in Response 6-6, below, additional evaluation of effects on sewer capacity would be conducted at the project-level. 6-4 The comment notes that SacSewer approved the Wastewater Operating Agreement between SacSewer and the City in 2013 and provides flow rate information for the service area. As described above, this capacity information illustrates that the Specific Plan is unlikely to generate substantial contributions to the capacity of the relevant systems at buildout. 6-5 The comment clarifies that SacSewer does not have any land use authority but plans and design its infrastructure based on growth projections from land-use authorities. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 6-6 The comment notes that project proponents must complete Sewer Master Plans and Sewer Studies to receive sewer service. Impact 3.11-2 of the Draft EIR includes discussion of the requirement of project-specific sanitary sewer and storm drainage studies on an individual basis (page 3.11-20).
6-7 The comment notes the applicable SacSewer planning document and study. The comment also states all customers of SacSewer are responsible for complying with the requirements for payment of fees for service and for new connection fees. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR 3-1
3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
This chapter presents specific text changes made to the Draft EIR since its publication and public review. The changes are presented in the order in which they appear in the original Draft EIR and are identified by the Draft EIR page number. Text deletions are shown in strikethrough, and text additions are shown in underline.

The information contained within this chapter clarifies and expands on information in the Draft EIR and does not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation. (See Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.)

3.1 REVISIONS TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A minor correction is made to Table ES-1 on page ES-6 of the Draft EIR as follows:

Impact 3.1-2: Cause Construction-Generated
Criteria Air Pollutant or Precursor Emissions
to Exceed SMAQMD-Recommended
Thresholds
Construction of the project would result in
emissions that would exceed SMAQMD
thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5. Because
SMAQMD’s construction BMPs are not included
as part of the project, the thresholds for both
PM10 and PM2.5 are 0 lb/day and 0 tpy. With
implementation of the feasible SMAQMD’s BMPs
identified in Mitigation Measure 3.1-2, the PM10
and PM2.5 emissions resulting from construction
would not exceed applicable thresholds.

Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant with mitigation.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Implement 2040 General
Plan Policy
The City shall ensure that construction and grading
activities minimize short-term impacts to air quality by employing appropriate measures and best practices.

Refer to Basic Construction Emissions Control
Practices (BMPs) recommended by the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
(SMAQMDSMAWMD) (2040 General Plan Policy
ERC-4.5).

LTS
Minor corrections are made to Table ES-1 on page ES-7 of the Draft EIR as follows:

Impact 3.1-3: Result in a Net Increase in
Long-Term Operational Criteria Air Pollutant
and Precursor Emissions That Exceed
SMAQMD-Recommended Thresholds
Development in the Specific Plan Area would
result in operational emissions of ROG and
PM10 that would exceed SMAQMD thresholds
due to the use of consumer products and
operational vehicle emissions. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b Measures 3.1-3a and

3.1-3b would reduce PM emissions associated
with future development through the
implementation of measures to reduce exhaust
and fugitive dust, inclusion of low-emission
vehicles, and electric development. However, at
this level of analysis, it cannot be guaranteed
that these measures would sufficiently reduce
PM emissions. Thus, this impact would be
significant and unavoidable
SU Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b. SU
Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Sacramento
3-2 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
Minor corrections are made to Table ES-1 on page ES-8 of the Draft EIR as follows:

Impact 3.1-6: Potential for the Implementation
of the Specific Plan, in Combination with
Other Development, to Contribute to a
Significant Cumulative Air Quality or Odor
Impact
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, in
combination with other cumulative development
in the area, would involve development and
redevelopment activities within the Specific Plan
Area. Through adherence to applicable
regulatory requirements and implementation of
project-specific mitigation, the contributions of
individual projects under the Specific Plan within
the cumulative context would be less than
cumulatively considerable. However, the Specific
Plan would have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to impacts related to operational
emissions even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.5-1b Measures 3.1-3a and 3.1-3b.

Therefore, impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.

SU No additional mitigation is feasible to reduce the
Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts
other than Mitigation Measures 3.1-2, 3.5-1b 3.1-3a,

3.1-3b, and 3.1-4.

SU
Minor corrections are made to Table ES-1 on pages ES-11 through ES-13 of the Draft EIR as follows:

Mitigation Measure 3.3-1e: Assessing Impacts
The City shall include the following implementing
action in the Specific Plan:
• Action X: Assess Project Impacts on Eligible
Properties. Projects proposing to alter buildings,
structures, or landscape features found through
evaluation to be eligible for listing on the
California Register or National Register of Historic
Places shall, at the direction of the City’s
Preservation Director, be evaluated for adherence
to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties. Potential direct
and/or indirect effects on the identified historic
resources shall be assessed according to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). Mitigation
Measure 3.3-1f: Design Consistency
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1f: Design Consistency
The City shall implement 2040 General Plan Policy
HCR-1.3:
• Compatibility with Historic Context. The City will
continue to review new development, alterations,
and rehabilitation/remodels for compatibility with
the surrounding historic context and consistency
with design guidelines/standards, including the
Historic District Plans. The City shall pay special
attention to the scale, massing, and relationship
of proposed new development to complement
surrounding historic environments. (2040 General
Plan Policy HCR-1.3)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1fg: Demolition Mitigation
Ascen
t Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Sacramento
Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR3-3
The City shall implement 2040 General Plan Policy
HCR-1.10:
• Demolition. Consistent with Secretary of the
Interior Standards, the City shall consider
demolition of historic resources as a last resort, to
be permitted only if rehabilitation or adaptive
reuse of the resource is not feasible; demolition is
necessary to protect the health, safety, and
welfare of its residents; or the public benefits
outweigh the loss of the historic resource. (2040
General Plan Policy HCR-1.10)
The City shall include the following implementing
actions in the Specific Plan:
• Action X: Documentation of Identified Historic
Resources. In cases where impacts to historic
resources cannot be reduced through avoidance
or project redesign to a less-than-significant level,
the project applicant shall undertake historic
documentation prior to issuance of building
permits. Documentation may include completion
of a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)
Historical Report and accompanying HABS-style
photographs. The appropriate level of
photographic and narrative HABS documentation
shall be determined by City Preservation Director
based on the significance and associations of the
resource.
• Action XX: Interpretive Program. If a proposed
project within the Plan Area would cause a
significant impact to a historic resource, and the
City Preservation Director deems that an
interpretive program would be effective and
feasible, the project applicant shall hire a qualified
professional to develop an on-site interpretive
program. An interpretive program would likely be
deemed effective in cases where the resource(s)
planned for alteration or demolition has particular
significance to the history of Sacramento or within
the community. The development of interpretive
program content shall be conducted or overseen
by a qualified professional who meets Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards for history, architectural history, or
architecture (as appropriate), and approved by
the City of Sacramento Planning Division staff.

The interpretive program shall include, at a
minimum, an on-site, publicly accessible exhibit
with information about the property’s history,
contribution to the history of the neighborhood
and/or city, and relevant historic photographs or
drawings.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-1gh: Protection during
Construction
The City shall include the following implementing
actions in the Specific Plan: • Action X: Protection of Historic Resources During Construction. If a project within the Plan
Area proposes demolition, alteration, or new
Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Sacramento
3-4 Stockton Blvd Plan Final EIR
construction within 25 feet of a building, structure,
or feature which has been listed on the
Sacramento Register, California Register, or
National Register, or found eligible through
evaluation for listing on the California Register or
National Register, the project applicant shall
incorporate into construction specifications for the
proposed project a requirement that construction
contractors use all feasible means to avoid
damage to adjacent and nearby historic
resources. Such methods may include
maintaining a safe distance between the
construction site and the historic resource, using
construction techniques that reduce vibration
(including alternatives to jackhammers and hoe-
rams where possible), appropriate excavation
shoring methods to prevent movement of
adjacent structures, and adequate site security to
minimize risks of vandalism and fire. This
measure shall apply to historic buildings,
structures, and site or landscape features both
within and outside of the proposed project parcel.
• Action XX: Construction Monitoring Program for
Historical Resources. If a project within the Plan
Area proposes demolition, alteration, or new
construction within 25 feet of a building, structure,
or feature which has been listed on the
Sacramento Register, California Register, or
National Register, or found eligible through
evaluation for listing on the California Register or
National Register, the project applicant shall
undertake a monitoring program to document and
minimize damage to adjacent historic resources.