2025-01659 Workshop on the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (LR25-008) — Sacramento City Council, December 9, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2025-01659 12/9/2025
Workshop on the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (LR25-008) File ID: 2025-01659
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Review, comment, and provide direction on the proposed modifications to the City’s Mixed Income Housing Ordinance.

Contact: Greta Soos, AICP, Senior Planner, (916) 808-2027, [email protected]; Remi Mendoza, Long Range Planning Manager, (916) 808-5003, [email protected], Community Development Department
Presenter: Greta Soos, AICP, Senior Planner, (916) 808-2027, [email protected], Community Development Department
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Background
3-Proposed Modifications to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance 4-Presentation
5-Updated Financial Feasibility Analysis of Alternatives Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: The City of Sacramento is reviewing its Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (MIHO) (City Code Chapter 17.712) per Implementation Program H1 of the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element.

The ordinance, which was adopted in 2015, establishes requirements for how new residential development contributes to the production of affordable housing in the City. Most new market-rate housing developments, with some exceptions, are required to pay a per-square-foot Housing Impact Fee, which is deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund managed by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA). These funds are used to develop affordable housing for lower- income residents. In addition to paying the fee, residential projects larger than 100 gross acres must obtain City Council approval of a Mixed Income Housing Strategy that must demonstrate how the project will provide housing for a variety of incomes and family types.

Work began on the review of the ordinance in Summer 2022. A detailed history of this work, along

Page 1 of 3 ends

File ID: 2025-01659 12/9/2025
with links to previously released reports and recommendations, is included in Attachment 2- Background. Newly released materials include Attachment 3-Proposed Modifications to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance and Attachment 5-Updated Financial Feasibility Analysis of Alternatives.

The purpose of this Council workshop is for staff to provide an overview of the current ordinance, project history, and updated feasibility analysis findings (Attachment 5), present new proposed modifications to the ordinance (Attachment 3), and request City Council direction on the latest proposed modifications.

Policy Considerations: An update to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance is consistent with the following 2021-2029 Housing Element policies and implementation programs:

H-2.1 Provide Opportunities for Affordable Housing Throughout the City. The City shall ensure that there are sites zoned appropriately for affordable housing in each of the City’s 10 community plan areas, especially high resource areas.

H-2.3 Assist in the Development of Affordable Housing. The City and SHRA shall assist affordable housing developments through site identification, direct funding, supporting funding applications, land donation, expedited permit review, and other incentives.

H-4.3 Promote Mixed Income Neighborhoods. The City shall promote mixed income neighborhoods with an equitable distribution of housing types for people of all incomes throughout the City by encouraging new affordable housing in high resource areas and promoting homeownership opportunities throughout the City, particularly in low resource areas.

H1. Review Mixed Income Housing Ordinance
The City shall evaluate the effectiveness of the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (MIHO). The City shall conduct an economic feasibility study to guide any decisions on changes to the ordinance, including the consideration of a mandatory inclusionary housing component. In this evaluation of the ordinance, the City will engage a broad range of stakeholders to ensure a variety of voices and interests are heard and considered. Based on the findings of the evaluation and the study, the City shall consider amendments to the ordinance with the goal of increasing the amount of affordable housing built in the City while ensuring the requirements do not pose a constraint to overall housing production. · Implements which Policy(ies): H-2.1, H-4.3
· Timeframe: Initiate economic feasibility analysis in 2021, complete analysis by Spring 2022, and receive decision on ordinance from City Council by end of 2022. · Responsible Department or Agency: Community Development; SHRA · Objective: Increase the number of affordable housing units throughout the City.

Page 2 of 3 ends

File ID: 2025-01659 12/9/2025
Economic Impacts: Creating more housing opportunities for individuals and families of all income levels will promote equitable housing outcomes and economic stability for all Sacramentans.

Environmental Considerations: The informational update in this report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it is an administrative activity that does not have a potential for resulting in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15378(b)(2) and is therefore not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3). This informational update is also exempt from CEQA review consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the update may have a significant effect on the environment.

Sustainability: A sustainable community includes housing for current and future households of all income levels. Considering revisions to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance will help to implement the City’s Housing Element, which is designed to provide housing opportunities for all residents.

Commission/Committee Action: Not applicable.

Rationale for Recommendation: City Council direction is needed to complete Implementation Program H1 of the City’s adopted Housing Element.

Financial Considerations: Not applicable.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Attachment 2 – Background
Overview
Many jurisdictions in California have adopted affordable housing requirements to ensure that new residential development contributes toward meeting local housing needs. These requirements typically take the form of impact fees, which generate funding for affordable housing built elsewhere, or inclusionary housing provisions, which require developers to include affordable units within their projects or pay an in-lieu fee instead. Sacramento’s Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (City Code Chapter 17.712) serves as the City’s version of this policy.

The City’s ﬁrst Mixed Income Housing Ordinance was adopted on October 3, 2000. The Ordinance was signiﬁcantly revised by the new Mixed Income Housing Ordinance, which was adopted on September 1, 2015. A summary of the current ordinance is included below.

Summary of Current Ordinance

1. The ordinance applies citywide.

2. Housing Impact Fee: All market rate housing developments pay a Housing Impact Fee of $3.56 per square foot, indexed annually, with the following exceptions:
a. High density multi-unit dwellings (40 dwelling units an acre) - $0. b. High density single unit dwellings (20 dwelling units an acre) - $0. c. Conversion of nonresidential buildings to residential use - $0. d. Projects located in the Housing Development Incentive Zone - $1.54.

3. Mixed Income Housing Strategy Requirement: 100+ acre projects may either:
a. Comply with an existing approved inclusionary housing plan, OR b. Pay the fee AND develop a mixed income housing strategy to provide housing for a variety of incomes and family types that is consistent with Housing Element policy.
i. The mixed income housing strategy may provide for a fee credit for land dedication, construction of affordable dwelling units, or other mechanisms which lead to the provision of affordable housing. To receive a fee credit, the following standards apply:

1. No multi-unit dwelling development consisting of more than 50% affordable units may be located within 400 feet of another multi-unit dwelling development with more than 50%
affordable units.

2. The maximum amount of affordable units in any multi-unit dwelling produced per the ordinance shall be 150.

Attachment 2 – Background
ii. The mixed income housing strategy may provide for a fee credit for lots to be dedicated to a self-help/sweat equity housing developer.

The value of the ﬁnished lots can be credited toward the fee.

4. Exempt projects include:
a. Room additions.
b. Second residential units.
c. Developments with 10% regulated low income housing units (80% AMI1 or lower).
d. A new single-family home built by an owner-builder on his or her property. e. Projects with an in-force development agreement adopted prior to the current ordinance.
f. Mobilehome parks.
g. Development projects, not currently subject to the ordinance, which have received approval of site plan and design review and/or a tentative map prior to the effective date of the ordinance.
h. Multi-unit dwelling developments that have submitted an application for site plan and design review prior to the effective date of the ordinance. i. Uninhabitable square footage (space without conditioned air). j. Community rooms for residential developments.

Project History
Implementation Program H1 of the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element directed the City to review and consider amendments to the current ordinance. City staff began this work in the Summer of 2022. Below is a brief history of the work that has been completed to date.

Summer 2022 - Project Initiation and Draft Report Development The City initiated the project, received input on the project scope, and released two draft report components, a Historic Performance of the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (February 2023) and Case Studies and Surveys of Affordable Housing Requirements (Local and Non-Local) (June 2023).

Summer 2023 - Feasibility Analysis, Menu of Options, and Policy Objectives The City released the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance Draft Report in August 2023 along with a Staff Memorandum. This report brought together two previously released studies and a new ﬁnancial feasibility analysis of different potential requirements on housing

1 Area Median Income (AMI) is deﬁned as the midpoint of a speciﬁc area’s income distribution and is calculated on an annual basis by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sacramento County’s Area Median Income for a family of four in 2025 is $120,800. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2025.pdf Attachment 2 – Background
development projects. In addition to the draft report, the staff memorandum included draft policy objectives, a menu of potential ordinance options, and a summary tables of the case studies from the draft report. This memorandum, in conjunction with the draft report, served as the foundation for stakeholder, community, and decision-maker conversations regarding the update to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance.

Winter 2023/2024 – Preliminary and Revised Recommendations Staff released Preliminary Recommendations for the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance in October 2023 and conducted workshops with the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission and Planning and Design Commission. Staff then released Revised Recommendations in March 2024.

Spring 2024 – Present
Work was paused in early 2024 to review additional proposed policy alternatives that were brought forward by stakeholders and decisionmakers alike. Additionally, signiﬁcant inﬂation that had occurred over 2021-2023 and had since stabilized. Because the most recent ﬁnancial feasibility analysis was based off of Spring/Summer 2022 data and Winter/Spring 2023 data, it was decided that an update to the feasibility analysis was necessary. An update to the ﬁnancial feasibility analysis based on Spring/Summer 2025 data and interviews is provided in Attachment 5-Updated Financial Feasibility Analysis of Alternatives. The updated ﬁnancial feasibility analysis was used to develop new proposed modiﬁcations to the ordinance, which can be found in Attachment 3-Proposed Modiﬁcations to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance.

Attachment 3- Proposed Modiﬁcations to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance

1 Proposed Modiﬁcations to Mixed Income Housing Ordinance

Proposed Modiﬁcations
Minor changes to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance are proposed as outlined below.

Justiﬁcations for these modiﬁcations follow on pages 2-5 of this attachment.

Maintain current ordinance framework with the following adjustments:

1. Housing Impact Fee modiﬁcation:
a. Remove Housing Incentive Zone (reduced) fee rate areas (see Exhibit A) b. Remove $0 rate for high density projects (SFR 20 du/a and multiunit 40 du/a)

2. Mixed Income Housing Strategy modiﬁcation
a. Reduce acreage threshold from 100 acres or more to 50 acres or more in size b. Require a minimum of 10% affordable housing (80% AMI or lower) as part of the Mixed Income Housing Strategy

Exhibit A. Housing Incentive Zones

Attachment 3- Proposed Modiﬁcations to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance

2 Fee Rate Modiﬁcation Justiﬁcation
Current Housing Impact Fee revenues average approximately $1.3M per year (2016-2024).

The revenue generated from this fee has been used to assist with the development of 587 total units, 39 of which are attributable to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance Housing Impact Fee speciﬁcally (see Table 1).

Table 1. Mixed Income Housing Fund Expenditures
Project Name Capitol
Park
4995
Stockton
Mirasol
Block D
On
Broadway
39th &
Broadway
The
Sequoia
Combined
Total
Amount
Expended $2,300,000 $1,000,000 $1,400,000 $700,000 $750,000 $3,400,000 $7,250,000 Number of
MIHO Units 16 5 6 3 5 20 39
Total
Regulated
Affordable
Units
134 200 115 140 43 89 587

Approximately 800 units per year are exempted from paying the Housing Impact Fee due to meeting the high density $0 rate. From 2016-2023, $9.8 million in Housing Impact Fee revenue was forgone due to the $0 for high density projects1. While it is impossible to affirm that every project would have moved forward had the full fee rate applied, the ﬁndings of the previous feasibility analysis produced in the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance Draft Report 2 indicated that projects were generally feasible at the full HIF rate under prior more favorable market conditions (Spring/Summer 2022 data).

Rentals still remain largely infeasible. The dollar per square foot costs of alternative requirements such as on site unit provision has gone down since the Winter/Spring 2023 feasibility analysis data due to increases in affordable prices and rents that brought them closer to market rate. When compared to housing production trends, a study of requirements in other jurisdictions (local and non-local)3 showed that in most cases, housing production was driven by market conditions and was not solely attributable to change in program requirements. We can also see this trend replicated locally in Figure 1

1 See Table 3-9: Forgone Fee Revenue from $0 HIF Rate for High-Density Development:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/MIHO-Draft-Report-8-8-23.pdf 2 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/MIHO-Draft-Report-8-8-23.pdf 3 See Section 6.0 Requirements in Other Jurisdictions and Case Studies:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/MIHO-Draft-Report-8-8-23.pdf and August 2023 Staﬀ Memorandum: https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/Housing/mixed- income-housing-ordinance/Mixed-Income-Housing-Ordinance-Memorandum-August-15-2023.pdf Attachment 3- Proposed Modiﬁcations to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance

3 below by comparing housing production in the City of Sacramento to Statewide housing production.

By removing the $0 rate for high density housing and lower Housing Incentive Zone rate, it is likely that we would see an average increase of $1 million in Housing Impact Fee revenues annually.

Mixed Income Housing Strategy Modiﬁcation Justiﬁcation
The current Mixed Income Housing Strategy requirement allows for a fee credit for land dedication, construction of affordable dwelling units, or other mechanisms which leads to the provision of affordable housing. Table 2 below summarizes the current Mixed Income Housing Strategies approved under the 2015 Ordinance. The strategies include a mix of approaches including land dedication to SHRA, onsite units, a stand-alone affordable development, and HIF payment.

The proposed adjustment to the Mixed Income Housing Strategy requirement would simply require at least 10% of the proposed project including housing at 80% AMI or below. This would ensure that a higher percentage of affordable housing is provided on-site.

Additionally, while no major sites are currently available at this size, a reduction in the project size threshold from 100 acres or more to 50 acres or more would increase the opportunity for this requirement to apply to future projects that may arise in the future. 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
California Housing Units Permitted
City of Sacramento Housing Units Permtted
Figure 1. Comparison of Housing Production Trends,
City of Sacramento and State of California
Sacramento Units Permitted Under 2000 Ordinance Sacramento Units Permitted Under Current Ordinance California Units Permitted
Attachment 3- Proposed Modiﬁcations to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance

4 Table 2. 2015 Ordinance Large Sites - Mixed Income Housing Strategies Project Market Rate Units Affordable Units
Railyards 6,000 - 10,000 units 600 units @ 40% - 60% AMI. Half can be provided by land dedication.

Innovation Park
(Former Sleep
Train Arena Site)
Est. 3,000 units. High density
(20 -150 dua)
10% Low income units and 2.0 acre affordable site (150 units).

Delta Shores 5,921 market rate units Land dedication to SHRA for 429 affordable units.

Panhandle 1,662 single family units Housing impact fees ($7.7 million) and 16 affordable units.

Greenbriar 2,526 single family and
multifamily
189 affordable senior units plus two manager units.

Aspen 1/New
Brighton
1,365 total units, single family
and multifamily
10% of units (137 units)

Proposed Project Timeline
Pending City Council direction, below is a proposed project timeline to bring forward modiﬁcations to the City’s Mixed Income Housing Ordinance. • Outreach (January-February 2026)
o Housing Policy Working Group
o Focus Group Meetings
• Outreach Findings Report-Out + Final Ordinance Recommendations (March - May 2026)
o Planning and Design Commission
o Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission
o City Council
• Final Ordinance Adoption (July-August 2026)
o Planning and Design Commission
o Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission
o City Council

Mixed Income Housing
Ordinance Workshop
City Council
Greta Soos, AICP
12/09/2025

Background

Project
Overview and
Purpose
Purpose of Mixed Income Housing
Ordinance
 Aid in the provision of affordable housing options in the City
Housing Element Program H1. Review
Mixed Income Housing Ordinance
 Evaluate the effectiveness of the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (MIHO)
 Conduct an economic feasibility study
 Engage a broad range of stakeholders
 Consider ordinance changes with the goal of increasing the amount of affordable housing while not posing a
constraint to overall housing production
Project History
Project Initiation and Draft Report
Development
Summer 2022
Draft Report Release(Feasibility
Analysis, Historic Performance of
MIHO, Case Studies)
Input on Draft Policy Objectives and
Potential Program Options
Summer 2023
Preliminary and Revised
Recommendations
2023–2024
Alternatives Review and Feasibility
Analysis Update
2024-2025
Affordable Housing Requirements on
Market Rate Housing Development
Programs generally take two forms:

1. Affordable housing requirement (on-site/inclusionary) ◦ A certain % of affordable units must be included in the project ◦ Must be supported by feasibility study
◦ Per state law, alternatives must be available such as in -lieu fee payment options or land dedication

2. Impact Fee payment
◦ Supported by affordable housing nexus study that links new market rate housing development to the need for lower income housing
◦ Fee revenue is used to support affordable housing gap financing Previous Mixed Income
Housing Ordinance (2000)
•In Place from 2000 - 2015
•Applied to New Growth Areas only
•15% Inclusionary Requirement
•Projects generally either
• Provided site for a multi- family LIHTC project
within the development
• Provided inclusionary for -sale units within the
Project
6 Current Mixed Income Housing
Ordinance (2015)
•November 2015 to Current
•Citywide impact fee program
•FY 2025-26 Housing Impact Fee Rates:
$3.56/SF
$1.54/SF in Housing Incentive Zone
$0/SF for High Density Developments
•Projects with 10%+ low -income units (80% AMI) are exempt •Mixed Income Housing Strategy required for 100+ acre sites 7 MIHO Draft
Report Findings

MIHO Draft Report Findings:

Historical Analysis
Ordinances were developed under different
circumstances.
Similar affordable housing production resulted under
each ordinance.
City’s housing production generally followed statewide housing production trends.
Current ordinance should be reevaluated considering
current development trends, market feasibility, and
policy goals.

Historical Analysis Findings
2000 ORDINANCE ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Affordable Unit Production
◦ 1,985 affordable units ( 132/yr avg)
◦ 1,557 inclusionary units ( 104/yr avg)
◦ Most units within 14 LIHTC projects
◦ SHRA assisted 10 of 12 projects for which historic
funding data was identified.

Market Rate Projects Provided:
◦ Land (2/3 of affordable projects)
◦ Cash subsidy averaging ~$9,000 per affordable unit or ~5% of project cost
◦ Affordable costs borne by market rate projects about
the same as initial housing impact fee rate
2015 ORDINANCE ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Affordable Unit Production
◦ $11.6 Million fees collected through 2024
◦ 587 affordable units in projects assisted with fees, 39 units attributed to MIHO funding
◦ 407 affordable units produced under Mixed Income
Housing Strategies for Northlake and Railyards
◦ Average annual affordable production:
◦ 110 units/yr avg
based on all units = (587 + 407) / 9
years
◦ 49 units/yr avg based on MIHO units = (39 + 407) / 9
years
MIHO Draft Report Findings: Case Study Research
Menu of compliance choices
Variation by market area or AMI
In-lieu fee allowed
West Coast: per square foot fees
• density
• parking
• Impact fee reductions for affordable units
Incentives for on -site units:
10% affordable requirement or option
is most common
Fee payment allowed
Fee structures vary - per square foot,
per unit, % of sale price.

Incentives for higher density
Impact fee reductions for affordable
units
Sacramento Region Themes Large City Themes
Case Study Jurisdiction Requirements

PROGRAM STRUCTURE IN-LIEU FEE AMOUNT(S)
West
Sacramento
10% onsite requirement, in -lieu fee with approval $7,551 /market rate unit.

Roseville 10% onsite requirement, limited allowance of in -lieu fee payment
$278,849 /affordable unit
Folsom 10% onsite requirement, in -lieu fee option. (for sale only)
1% of lowest priced for sale units * total units.
(T ypically, $6,000 - $10,000 per market rate unit)
Davis 15% rental and 5-20% for sale onsite requirement, in-lieu fee with approval.
$78,150 /affordable unit
Portland 20% onsite requirement w/ fee option. $23 - $27 /SF Denver 8-15% inclusionary requirement w/ fee option $250,000- $478,000 /affordable unit San Jose 15% inclusionary w/fee option Rental: $19.68/SF - $45.26/SF For-Sale: $26.32/SF
Updated Financial Feasibility Analysis Findings
(Spring/Summer 2025 )
 For-sale Housing
 Generally feasible with following exceptions:
 Single -family homes in North Sacramento and South Natomas, identified as marginally feasible
 Townhomes in the Central City submarket, found to be infeasible  Rental housing
 Generally infeasible
Policy Objectives

1. Increase affordable housing production

2. Ensure long -term affordability

3. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

4. Anti-displacement

5. Mixed income
developments/communities

6. Do not pose a constraint to overall
housing production
Review of Previous
Recommendations
Previous Staff
Recommendations
(February 2024)
16 Previous Recommendation: Ordinance
Structure
 Citywide on-site affordability requirement with
in-lieu fee option
 In-lieu fees vary by market area
 In-lieu fee rates phased in (tied to housing
production)
 Incentives for on- site units
 Reduced fees, infrastructure costs, density bonus
 Large projects have higher on -site requirement
17 Previous Recommendation
In-Lieu Fee (per square foot)
Market Area Rental For-Sale
Central City $10 $10
Inner South &
East and West of
I-5
$7 $10
Southern
Neighborhoods $3.54 $6
North
Sacramento and
South Natomas
$3.54 $5
North Natomas $3.54 $7
Compliance Option 1:

On-site Affordable Unit Provision
Compliance Option 2:

In-lieu fee payment
Rental
7% @80% AMI
5% @60% AMI
For-Sale
7% @100% AMI
Example Affordable price/rents
• Studio rent @80% AMI: $1,801
• 2BR rent @80% AMI: $2,316
• 3BR sale price @100% AMI: $413,000
Previous
Recommendation:

Variable In-Lieu
Fee Rates
Market -based
adjustments to in- lieu
fee amount
25% lower fee rate for
projects that are
proximate to transit
Rental Fee Rate: Non-High-Frequency Transit-
Proximate Developments
Rental Fee Rate: High-Frequency Transit-Proximate
Developments
Market Area (see page 4) Step 1 Rate Per
SF (current HIF
Rate)
Step 2 Rate Per SF (50%
increase between $3.54
and final rate)
Step 3 Rate
Per SF
Central City $3.54 $6.77 $10
Inner South & East and
West of I-5 $3.54 $5.27 $7
Southern Neighborhoods $3.54 $3.54 $3.54
North Sacramento and
South Natomas $3.54 $3.54 $3.54
North Natomas $3.54 $3.54 $3.54
Market Area (see page 4) Step 1 Rate Per
SF (75% of
current HIF Rate)
Step 2 Rate Per SF (50%
increase between $2.66
and final rate)
Step 3
Rate Per
SF
Central City $2.66 $5.08 $7.50
Inner South & East and
West of I-5
$2.66 $3.95 $5.25
Southern Neighborhoods $2.66 $2.66 $2.66
North Sacramento and
South Natomas
$2.66 $2.66 $2.66
North Natomas $2.66 $2.66 $2.66
Previous
Recommendation:

In-Lieu Fee Phase
In and Reduced
Rates
Market -based
adjustments to in- lieu
fee amount
25% lower fee rate for
projects that are
proximate to transit
329 156
1,014
1,540
2,863
2,285
3,002
2,703
2,943
1,865 1774
1,455
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Market-rate Housing Units Permitted

MARKET RATE HOUSING UNITS PERMITTED (EXCLUDING

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS)
Fee Increase
Threshold (2,500)
Fee Decrease
Threshold (1,250)
Previous Recommendation: Large Projects
 Large scale development projects include p rojects with 750 or more units and a site size of 15 or more acres .
 Land dedication is the only available alternative
Proposed Large-Scale Developments Requirement
Option A 15% for-sale affordable at 80% AMI prices
Option B 20% affordable rental units at an average of 60% AMI rents or below
Option C A combination of the above two options
Option D Alternative mix that provides the same or greater affordability
New Proposed
Modifications
New Proposed
Modifications
Maintain current ordinance framework with
the following adjustments:
◦ Housing Impact Fee adjustment:
◦ Removal of Housing Incentive Zone (reduced) fee rate areas ◦ Removal of $0 rate for high density projects (SFR 20 du/a and multiunit 40 du/a)
◦ Mixed Income Housing Strategy adjustments
◦ Reduce acreage threshold from 100 acres to 50 acres or more in size
◦ Require a minimum of 10% affordable housing (80% AMI or lower)

Comparison of Recommendations
Current Previous Recommendation New Recommendation
Requirement Format Impact Fee -Based with
Exemption Option Inclusionary with In- Lieu Fee Impact Fee -Based with Exemption Option
Fee Amount $0 - 3.56 $2.66 - $10.00 (dependent on market performance and project location) $3.56
On-Site Requirement
or Exemption Option
Rental and For Sale: 10%
@ 80%AMI
Rental:
7% @ 80% AMI
5% @ 60% AMI
For Sale:
7% @100% AMI
Rental and For Sale:
10% @ 80%AMI
Large Site
Requirement
Mixed Income Housing
Strategy for sites greater
than 100 acres in size
Projects including 750 or more units
and a site size of 15 or more acres must
provide higher % of on- site units or
dedicate land
Mixed Income Housing Strategy
for sites greater than 50 acres in
size, including at least 10% @
80% AMI
Projected Average
Fee Revenue ~$1M ~$3-7M ~$2-3M
$0.0
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
$60.0
Central City - Med.

Density
Central City - Higher
Density
Inner South & East Southern
Neighborhoods
North Sac and South
Natomas
North Natomas
Rental Estimated Cost of Compliance:

New Recommendations Compared to Previous
Current/Proposed Impact Fee ($0 Rate for High Density and Housing Incentive Zone Rate Removed) Current/Proposed Fee Exemption Option (10% @80% AMI)
Previous Recommended In-Lieu Fee at Step 1 (High Frequency Transit Proximate) Previous Recommended In-Lieu Fee at Full Phase-in (Non-High Frequency Transit Proximate) Previous Recommended On-Site Requirement (7% @ 80% AMI) Housing Production Trends
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 California Housing Units Permitted
City of Sacramento Housing Units Permtted
Comparison of Housing Production Trends,
City of Sacramento and State of California
Sacramento Units Permitted Under 2000 Ordinance Sacramento Units Permitted Under Current Ordinance California Units Permitted (Department of Finance)
/
Housing Production Per Capita

28.6 25.5 24.9

17.0 15.3

10.3 0.0

5.0 10.0

15.0 20.0

25.0 30.0

35.0 Sacramento San Diego Los Angeles Fresno San Francisco San Jose Housing Units Permitted Per 1,000 Persons
Housing Production Per 1,000 Persons 2020-2024
(Top Six Housing Producing Jurisdictions)
Proposed Project Timeline
Outreach (January -February 2026)
◦ Housing Policy Working Group
◦ Focus Group Meetings
Outreach Findings Report-Out + Final Ordinance Recommendations (March - May 2026)
◦ Planning and Design Commission
◦ Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission
◦ City Council
Final Ordinance Adoption (July -August 2026)
◦ Planning and Design Commission
◦ Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission
◦ City Council
Thank you
Greta Soos, AICP
Senior Planner
Long Range Planning

30 DRAFT

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

Supporting Proposed Updates to the

MIXED INCOME HOUSING ORDINANCE

Prepared for
City of Sacramento

Prepared by
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

August 2025

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1 Feasibility With Existing Requirements 1

1.2 Feasibility of Alternative Mixed Income Housing Requirements 2

1.3 Change vs. 2023 Study 4

2.0 INTRODUCTION 6

2.1 MIHO History 6

2.2 Existing MIHO Requirements 7

2.3 Subareas Evaluated 7

2.4 Residential Prototypes 8

2.5 Household Income Categories 9

2.6 Affordable Rents and Home Prices 10

2.7 Household Income Needed to Afford Prototype Market Rate Units 11

2.8 Market Conditions 11

3.0 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 15

3.1 Analysis Limitations 15

3.2 Market Home Prices 15

3.3 Market Rents 19

3.4 Net Operating Income and Developer Investment Supported, Rental Projects 24

3.5 Residential Land Sales Values 25

3.6 Development Costs 28

3.7 Feasibility Criteria 30

3.8 Feasibility Findings: For-Sale Projects 31

3.9 Feasibility Findings: Rental Projects 32

3.10 Scenario Testing 33

4.0 MEASURES OF POTENTIAL INFLUENCE ON DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS 37

4.1 Compliance Cost Analysis 37

4.2 Changes in Prices and Rents Sufficient to Offset Cost of Requirement 41

4.3 Total Fees and Permits Cost 42

4.4 Potential Ways Development Projects May Respond to an Increased Requirement 43

5.0 DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY CONTACTS 46

List of Charts
Chart 2-1. Median Home Prices, Sacramento County .................................................................................................................... 12 Chart 2-2. Rents and Vacancy Rate Trends, City of Sacramento .................................................................................................. 14 Chart 3-1. Market Prices and Estimated Prototype Pricing, North Natomas .................................................................................. 16 Chart 3-2. Market Prices and Estimated Prototype Pricing, North Sacramento / South Natomas .................................................. 17 Chart 3-3. Market Prices and Estimated Prototype Pricing, Central City ........................................................................................ 17 Chart 3-4. Market Prices and Estimated Prototype Pricing, Inner South and East Neighborhoods ............................................... 18 Chart 3-5. Market Prices and Estimated Prototype Pricing, Southern Neighborhoods ................................................................... 18 Chart 3-6. North Natomas - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype ........................ 19 Chart 3-7. North Sacramento South Natomas - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Chart 3-8. Central City Medium Density - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype ... 21 Chart 3-9. Central City Higher Density - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype ..... 22 Chart 3-10. Inner South and East Neighborhoods - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Chart 3-11. Southern Neighborhoods - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype ... 24 Chart 4-1. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, For-Sale Projects, Central City ..................................................... 38 Chart 4-2. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, Inner South and East Neighborhoods ........................................... 38 Chart 4-3. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, Average of Three Submarkets: Southern Neighborhoods, N.

Natomas, and N. Sacramento / S. Natomas Submarkets, For-Sale ............................................................................................... 39 Chart 4-4. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, Rental Projects, Central City ......................................................... 39 Chart 4-5. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, Inner South and East Neighborhoods, Rental Projects ................ 40 Chart 4-6. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, Average of Three Submarkets: ..................................................... 40 Chart 4-7. Existing Fees and Permits Expense and Illustrative Increase with Affordable Housing Fee Alternatives ..................... 43

List of Tables
Table 1-1. Summary of Feasibility Findings with Existing HIF .......................................................................................................... 2 Table 1-2. Feasibility Testing of Alternative MIHO Requirements .................................................................................................... 4 Table 2-1. Submarkets Evaluated ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2-2. Prototype Residential Projects Evaluated ........................................................................................................................ 9 Table 2-3: 2025 Sacramento County Income Limits ....................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2-4: 2025 Affordable Prices .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Table 2-5: 2025 Affordable Rents (Monthly) ................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2-6. Estimated Household Income (% of AMI) Required to Afford Prototype Market Units .................................................. 11 Table 3-1. Estimated Home Prices ................................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 3-2. Market Rent Estimates .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Table 3-3. Net Operating Income and Investment Supported, 100% Market Rate ......................................................................... 25 Table 3-4. Residential Land Sale Transactions, 2019 to 2025 ....................................................................................................... 27 Table 3-5. For-Sale Lot Cost Estimate(1) ......................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 3-6. Rental Project Land Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................ 28 Table 3-7. Development Cost Per Unit ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 3-8. Feasibility Criteria .......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Table 3-9. Feasibility Findings, For-Sale, Existing HIF ................................................................................................................... 32 Table 3-10. Rental Feasibility Findings, Existing HIF ..................................................................................................................... 33 Table 3-11. For Sale Project Scenario Testing ............................................................................................................................... 35 Table 3-12. Rental Project Scenario Testing .................................................................................................................................. 36 Table 4-1. Market Price Increase Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of Affordable Housing Requirements ............................. 41 Table 4-2. Market Rent Increase Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of Affordable Housing Requirements ............................... 42

Appendix A Tables

Appendix B Tables

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Sacramento (“City”) is pursuing a comprehensive update to its Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (“MIHO”). This report presents a financial feasibility analysis (“Feasibility Study”) evaluating feasibility of new market rate residential development with existing and potential modified MIHO requirements. The Feasibility Study is updated from a previous draft published in August 2023 (“2023 Study”).

Under the existing MIHO, housing developers must pay of a Housing Impact Fee (HIF) of up to $3.56 per square foot, which is used to develop affordable housing units for very low and low- income workers. A $1.54 HIF rate applies in certain geographic areas, and a zero-dollar rate applies to single unit projects over 20 units per acre and multi-unit projects over 40 units per acre.

The Feasibility Study evaluates the financial feasibility of potential modified MIHO requirements on for-sale and rental residential development in five geographic subareas (“submarkets”) of Sacramento:
 Central City,
 Southern Neighborhoods,
 North Sacramento and South Natomas,
 North Natomas, and
 Inner South and East Neighborhoods.

Section 2.3 describes these submarkets and provides a map.

1.1 Feasibility With Existing Requirements

Feasibility findings are presented using three qualitative categories:
 Feasible - projects likely to develop under current market conditions.  Marginally feasible - projects approaching feasibility but that require some improvement in market conditions or reduced costs to develop.
 Infeasible - projects that are unlikely to develop without substantial improvement in market conditions or reduced costs.

Feasibility findings with existing MIHO requirements
1 are summarized in Table 1-1. Findings
reflect analysis of the representative prototype projects presented in Section 2.4. Feasibility of individual projects will vary based on project-specific and site-specific circumstances.

1 Incorporates $0 HIF rate for higher density projects and reduced HIF rates within the housing incentive zone.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Table 1-1. Summary of Feasibility Findings with Existing HIF Single Family Detached Feasible in most submarkets, ma rginally feasible in North Sacramento and South Natomas Small Lot SFD or Townhomes Feasible in most submarkets, infeasible in Central City Rentals Infeasible in all submarkets.

For-Sale Project Findings - For-sale housing was found to be generally feasible. Exceptions are single-family homes in North Sacramento and South Natomas, identified as marginally feasible, and townhomes in the Central City submarket, found to be infeasible.

For-sale prototypes were found to be generally feasible but still face challenges in the current market. Persistently high mortgage rates, the recent period of high inflation, and declining consumer confidence have affected homebuyers’ ability to qualify for a mortgage, accumulate a downpayment, price points they can afford, and confidence about entering the market.

Homebuilders have responded by providing incentives to buyers to help maintain the pace of home sales, such as interest rate buydowns, and by focusing on smaller more affordable homes. A potential decline in interest rates has been a basis for homebuilder optimism for multiple years now but is yet to materialize. The expectation remains that, if interest rates do moderate, it would release pent-up demand from homebuyers and result in a stronger market.

Rental Project Findings – Rental housing was found to be generally infeasible. All of the market rate rental project types were found to be infeasible under current market conditions.

Sacramento experienced a strong market cycle for development of new rental housing from approximately 2017 to 2022, producing approximately 8,000 new market rate rental units. Since 2022, feasibility has become substantially more challenging due to more limited rent growth as a wave of new supply is being absorbed, higher interest rates that increase the cost of construction financing and contributed to reduced market values for completed projects, increased operating expenses, and a spike in construction costs that occurred in the wake of the pandemic. A substantial gap has emerged between the cost of development and the developer investment that market rents are able to support. The gap is estimated at between 24% and 49% of costs, depending on the prototype and submarket. Despite challenging conditions, some rental projects in stronger locations or with unique factors that enhance feasibility may still move forward.

1.2 Feasibility of Alternative Mixed Income Housing Requirements

Feasibility is also evaluated with potential alternative MIHO Requirements, including affordable housing fee rates ranging from the current HIF rates up to $20 per square foot and on-site affordable unit requirements from 5% to 20% at a variety of income levels. Results are presented in Table 1-2. As shown:

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
 For-sale projects support an on-site affordable unit requirement of up to 10% at 100% of Area Median Income (“AMI”), or 7% at 90% AMI, in three of five submarkets. Lower density single unit projects in the North Sacramento and South Natomas submarket, where pricing is lower, and townhomes in the Central City, where land costs are higher, are exceptions.

Larger master plans able to deliver affordable units in a stand-alone multi-family affordable project leveraging tax credits support a greater on-site affordability requirement.

 For-sale projects support affordable housing fees from $5 to $20 per square foot depending on the prototype and submarket. Single unit projects in North Sacramento and South Natomas and townhomes in the Central City are exceptions due to weaker existing feasibility.

 Rental projects are generally infeasible with existing requirements and remain infeasible with increased MIHO requirements.

Section 4 presents additional metrics to gauge influence of potential modified MIHO requirements on development decisions. Metrics include the net cost of inclusionary requirements expressed on a per square foot basis, market rent and price increase sufficient to offset the cost of new requirements, and effect on total fees and permit costs.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

Table 1-2. Feasibility Testing of Alternative MIHO Requirements No. Description
App
A
Table
Central
City
Southern
Neighborhoods
North
Sacramento
and South
Natomas
North
Natomas
Inner South
and East
Neighborhoods
Townhome SF Sm lot SF Sm lot SF
Sm
lot SF Sm lot
For-Sale Projects:
1 Existing HIF (base case) 5A I F F M F F F F F
2 5% Mod @100% AMI 5B I F F M F F F F F
3 5% Mod @90% AMI 5C I F F M F F F F F
4 5% Low @70% AMI 5D I M F M F F F F F
5 7% Mod @100% AMI 5E I F F M F F F F F
6 7% Mod @90% AMI 5F I F F M F F F F F
7 7% Low @70% AMI 5G I M M I F F F F F
8 10% Mod @100% AMI 5H I F F M F F F F F
9 10% Mod @90% AMI 5I I M F M F F F F F
10 10% Low @70% AMI 5J I M M I F M F M F
11 15% Mod @100% AMI 5K I M F M F F F M F
12 15% Mod @90% AMI 5L I M F I F M F M F
13 15% Low @70% AMI 5M I I I I F I F I F
14 10% in LIHTC Project (1) 5N n/a F F M F F F n/a n/a
15 15% in LIHTC Project (1) 5O n/a F F M F F F n/a n/a
16 20% in LIHTC Project (1) 5P n/a F F M F F F n/a n/a
17 Existing HIF rate, with
removal of HIF incentives
5Q I F F M F F F F F
18 HIF @$5/SF 5R I F F M F F F F F
19 HIF @$7.50/SF 5S I M F M F F F F F
20 HIF @$10/SF 5T I M M I F F F F F
21 HIF @$15/SF 5U I M M I F M F F F
22 HIF @$20/SF 5V I I M I F M F F F
Rental Projects: infeasible in all submarkets and under all scenarios tested (1) Primarily an option for larger master plans. Would have an average affordability level of 60% AMI or less. This option is not likely to be practical for most projects in Central City and Inner South and East Neighborhoods based on typically smaller site / project size, thus lacking the scale to do a separate stand-alone Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project.

F= Feasible
M= Marginal Feasibility
I= Infeasible / Challenged

1.3 Change vs. 2023 Study

Feasibility results for for-sale developments are generally stronger than “current market 2” results
presented in the 2023 Study, based on market data available as of winter 2023. Stronger feasibility for for-sale projects is driven by an approximately 10% increase in market home prices since winter 2023 and analysis refinements based on subsequent developer feedback.

2 The 2023 Study also included an analysis of “prior more favorable market conditions,” that tested feasibility under stronger market conditions that prevailed prior to the rise in interest rates and recent construction cost spikes.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Affordable rents and prices also increased based on updated income limits, which reduces the gap associated with on-site affordable units. Rental projects were broadly infeasible based on market conditions as of spring 2023
3 and remain infeasible in the updated study.

3 Ibid.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

2.0 INTRODUCTION

This Feasibility Study was prepared to support potential updates to the MIHO. The Feasibility Study evaluates the ability of residential developments to sustain existing and modified affordable housing requirements. The Feasibility Study revises and updates a similar analysis published in 2023. Market data and key analysis inputs are updated as of late spring / early summer 2025.

2.1 MIHO History

The MIHO was established in 2000 (“2000 Ordinance”) as an inclusionary policy. The 2000 Ordinance was focused on new growth areas and required projects in these areas to provide 15% affordable units (mix of Very Low and Low). Most large-scale developments satisfied the inclusionary obligation by partnering with an affordable housing developer that provided affordable units in a stand-alone multifamily project financed using low income housing tax credits (LIHTC).

Market rate and affordable housing development under the 2000 Ordinance were robust during the period from 2000 to 2007. Then, from 2009 to 2014, the Great Recession brought housing development to a near halt. When Sacramento began to emerge from the Great Recession, the development landscape was significantly changed. There was a transition away from large- scale greenfield developments toward smaller infill residential development at higher densities, although still in its nascent stages.

The end of redevelopment in California substantially reduced availability of local funding for affordable housing. Legal authority to implement inclusionary programs was under scrutiny through a case before the California Supreme Court and a subsequent petition for U.S.

Supreme Court review. A separate ruling precluded the application of inclusionary programs to rental housing. These factors set the stage for amendments to the program in 2015 (“2015 Ordinance”), which included expansion of the program citywide and conversion to the current fee-based program in light of the uncertain legal environment and recent loss of redevelopment funding.

Since 2015, high density development has become well established through numerous built projects. Authority to implement inclusionary programs was re-affirmed and broadened to include rental developments. The City experienced a sustained period of strong housing development activity, although feasibility has become more challenging over the past several years. As the landscape for housing development and inclusionary programs has continued to evolve, the City is pursuing an update to the MIHO for the years ahead.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

2.2 Existing MIHO Requirements

The MIHO requires payment of a Housing Impact Fee (HIF) for all new housing units and large subdivisions to assist with the provision of housing for a variety of incomes and household types. The fee-generated revenue is placed in the citywide Housing Trust Fund administered by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA). Funds are used to develop affordable housing units with the goal of increasing the supply of housing for very low and low- income workers.

FY 2025-26 HIF rates are as follows:
 $3.56 per square foot for multifamily and single unit developments;  $1.54 per square foot in Housing Incentive Zones;
 $0 for multi-unit projects over 40 dwelling units per acre;  $0 for single-unit and duplex projects over 20 units per acre; and  $0 for projects that include at least 10% affordable units.

Projects over 100 gross acres in size are required to have an approved Mixed Income Housing Strategy that identifies how the project will provide housing for a variety of incomes and family types. The six projects with approved mixed income housing strategies all include on-site affordable units, typically provided by partnering with an affordable developer or dedicating a site for affordable housing. Provided affordable units are credited toward the HIF amount due.

2.3 Subareas Evaluated

The feasibility analysis provides separate findings for five geographic “subareas” or “submarkets” of Sacramento. The purpose is to capture differences in market and feasibility conditions by location, and to capture variation in the types of housing, unit sizes, and density of housing being built by area. The five submarkets are identified in Table 2-1 and on Map 1, below. Submarkets were selected based on a review of development activity and market data, with a goal of grouping areas that are seeing similar projects at similar prices and rents. City staff provided input on the submarket definitions and feedback was also solicited as part of a Housing Policy Working Group meeting in September 2022, with subsequent refinement based on stakeholder comments.

Table 2-1. Submarkets Evaluated
Submarket Description
1 Central City Includes Railyards, River District, Central City Specific Plan 2 Southern Neighborhoods Bounded by I-5, Fruitri dge, I-99, US. 50, southern City limits. 3 North Sacramento and South Natomas North of American River Except North Natomas 4 North Natomas North of I-80, West of Steelhead Creek
5 Inner South and East Neighborhoods South of American River East of Center City North of U.S. 50, West of I-99 to the North of Fruitridge, and West of the I-5 South of Fruitridge Note: See map on the following page.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

Map 1. Geographic Areas Addressed (Submarkets)

2.4 Residential Prototypes

The feasibility analysis evaluates “prototypical” or representative residential development types, including the following:
 Single Family Detached
 Small Lot Single Family
 Attached Townhomes

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
 Rental apartments
o Higher density (7-8 stories, wood frame over a podium) o Medium density rentals (4-5 stories, surface or tuck under parking) o Lower density rentals (3-4 stories, surface or tuck under parking)

Prototypes are intended as representative of the range of projects likely to be developed in the future. Prototypes are customized for each submarket in terms of average unit sizes and densities, as summarized in Table 2-2. The prototype projects are the same as were evaluated in the 2023 Study and were defined based on a review of projects in the City’s development pipeline at that time, summarized in Appendix B. Prototypes were reviewed as part of a Housing Policy Working Group meeting in September 2022 and were circulated by email for review and input at that time.

Table 2-2. Prototype Residential Projects Evaluated
For-Sale Rental

Single
Family
Detached
Small Lot
Detached and
Townhomes(1)
Higher
Density
Medium
Density Lower Density
Parking Type Attached
garage
Attached
garage
Podium
garage (0.75
spc/unit)
Surface /
Tuck Under
(0.5 spc/unit)
Surface / Tuck
Under (1-1.5
spc/unit)
No. of Stories one to two two to three 7 to 8 4 to 5 3 to 4

Density (units per acre)

North Natomas 9 dua 18 dua N/A N/A 30 dua
North Sacramento / South Natomas 9 dua 18 dua N/A N/A 30 dua Central City N/A 26 dua 200 dua 100 dua N/A
Inner South and East 8 dua 20 dua N/A N/A 37 dua
Southern Neighborhoods 11 dua 18 dua N/A N/A 30 dua

Average Unit Size (square feet)

North Natomas 2,100 sf 1,600 sf N/A N/A 900 sf
North Sacramento / South Natomas 1,900 sf 1,500 sf N/A N/A 900 sf Central City N/A 1,850 sf 690 sf 770 sf N/A
Inner South and East 2,300 sf 1,700 sf N/A N/A 770 sf
Southern Neighborhoods 1,750 sf 1,450 sf N/A N/A 900 sf (1) Analyzed as attached townhomes in Central City area and small lot detached homes in other locations.

2.5 Household Income Categories

The analysis addresses the following income categories defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in relation to the Area Median Income (AMI):
 Very Low Income: households earning up to 50% of AMI;  Low Income: households earning over 50% of AMI, up to 80% of AMI; and  Moderate Income: households earning over 80% of AMI, up to 120% of AMI.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

The 2025 median income for a family of four in Sacramento County is $120,800. Table 2-3 identifies income limits for each income category and household size.

Table 2-3: 2025 Sacramento County Income Limits
Household Size (Persons)
Income Category % of AMI 1 2 3 4 5 6
Very Low Income 50% AMI $45,050 $51,450 $57,900 $64,300 $69,450 $74,600 Low Income 80% AMI $72,050 $82,350 $92,650 $102,900 $111,150 $119,400 Median Income 100% AMI $84,550 $96,650 $108,700 $120,800 $130,450 $140,150 Moderate Income 120% AMI $101,450 $115,950 $130,450 $144,950 $156,550 $168,150 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2025 Income Limits.

AMI = Area Median Income

2.6 Affordable Rents and Home Prices

The affordable prices and rents for the income categories addressed in the analysis are shown in Table 2-4 and 2-5. Supporting calculations are provided in Appendix A Tables 11 and 12.

Table 2-4: 2025 Affordable Prices
2-BR 3-BR 4-BR
Low Income, 70% of AMI Prices $203,300 $223,800 $236,600 Moderate Income, 90% of AMI Prices $330,800 $365,700 $389,800 Moderate Income, 100% of AMI Prices $373,400 $413,000 $440,900 Based on 2025 Income Limits. See Appendix A Table 12 for supporting calculations.

Table 2-5: 2025 Affordable Rents (Monthly)

Studio 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR
Very Low Income, 50% of AMI Rents $1,126 $1,286 $1,448 $1,608 Low Income, 60% of AMI Rents $1,352 $1,544 $1,737 $1,929 Low Income, 70% of AMI Rents $1,576 $1,802 $2,027 $2,251 Low Income, 80% of AMI Rents $1,801 $2,059 $2,316 $2,573 Based on 2025 Income Limits. Affordable rents are net of utility allowance.

See Appendix A Table 11 for supporting calculations.

Moderate prices at 110% of AMI and Low income rents at 60% of AMI are near average market rate rents and sales prices in Sacramento
4, inclusive of both newer and older existing units. This is an indication that 110% AMI for-sale units and 60% AMI rental units provide limited affordability benefits in the Sacramento market relative to existing market rate housing. This may change depending on future changes in market rate and affordable prices and rents.

4 The average market rate rent in the City of Sacramento reported by Costar as of June 2025 is approximately $1,760 per month, near the 60% AMI rent for a two-bedroom of $1,737. Sacramento’s median home price was approximately $513,000 as of May 2025 according to Redfin, about $20,000 higher than the 110% AMI pricing for a three-bedroom home if a 20% downpayment is assumed.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

2.7 Household Income Needed to Afford Prototype New Market Rate Units

The estimated household income needed to afford prototype market rate units is identified in Table 2-6. Findings are based on market prices and rents from Section 3.2 and 3.3. As shown:
 For sale prototypes– households need between 99% and 239% of area median income to afford prototype market rate for-sale units, depending on location and whether the household has a 20% cash down payment

5.  Rental prototypes – households need between 95% and 106% of median, depending on location, to affordable prototype market rate rental units.

Market prices in the North Sacramento / South Natomas and Southern Neighborhoods submarkets are within a range that Moderate Income households can afford, depending on the prototype and whether the homebuyer has a 20% cash down payment. Market rents are affordable for Moderate Income households in all areas (up to 120% AMI).

Table 2-6. Estimated Household Income (% of AMI) Required to Afford Prototype Market Units Single Family Small Lot SFD and Attached Rentals

5% down
payment
20% down
payment
5% down
payment
20% down
payment
North Natomas 156% 136% 136% 119% 106%
North Sacramento / South Natomas 128% 111% 119% 103% 95% Central City* n/a 207% 180% 104%
Inner South and East Neighborhoods 239% 208% 194% 168% 104% Southern Neighborhoods 129% 112% 114% 99% 100%
* Estimate for rentals in the Central City area represents the average of the two rental prototypes.

2.8 Market Conditions

For-Sale Housing Market

Home prices escalated rapidly during the pandemic, driven by a confluence of factors, including historically low interest rates and increased demand, which drove a substantial escalation in prices. Median prices countywide rose 360% over a ten-year period from 2012 to their peak in mid-2022.

Mortgage rates rose rapidly in 2022, which led to a substantial cooling in the housing market. By early 2023, when the 2023 Study was prepared, prices were down approximately 13% from their peak. As of spring 2025, home prices had rebounded by approximately 10% from prices as of spring 2023 when the 2023 Study was prepared. Limited availability of existing homes as existing homeowners protect historically low mortgage rates, combined with pent-up demand, have muted the impact of rising interest rates on prices. However, persistently high interest

5 A 20% down payment reduces monthly mortgage payments and eliminates a need for mortgage insurance, this in turn reduces the income estimated to be needed to afford the unit, due to lower monthly housing costs.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
rates have made it challenging for potential homebuyers to qualify for a mortgage, made new home purchases more expensive, and dissuaded move up buyers who locked in prior low mortgage rates. Declining consumer confidence has impacted the willingness of some homebuyers to enter the market. These factors have limited the pool of homebuyers in the market and the pricing and sales pace homebuilders are able to achieve. Homebuilders are responding by providing incentives to buyers, such as interest rate buydowns, to help maintain the pace of home sales, and focusing on smaller homes.

Expectations of a decline in interest rates has been a cause for homebuilder optimism for multiple years, but such a decline is yet to materialize. The expectation remains that, if interest rates do moderate, it could release pent-up demand from homebuyers and create a strong period of demand for homebuilders.

Chart 2-1 shows the trend in median home prices since 2000.

Chart 2-1. Median Home Prices, Sacramento County

Source: California Association of Realtors

Rental Housing Market

Approximately 8,000 new rental units were produced in Sacramento during the most recent strong market cycle from approximately 2017 through 2022, with completion and lease-up of units financed during this period continuing through 2025. Feasibility was supported by rapid escalation in market rents; interest in living in the urban core; supportive City land use policies aimed at encouraging new housing such as flexibility on density and parking; and a favorable investment climate and low interest rate environment that put upward pressure on valuations of completed projects and downward pressure on the returns needed for feasibility.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Feasibility of new rentals has since eroded substantially and there are now few, if any, new market rate multifamily projects commencing construction today. Factors that have contributed to the current constrained feasibility of rentals include the following:

 High costs – Multifamily development costs are reported to have approximately doubled since 2018, while operating expenses are reported to have increased by approximately 30% to 35% since 2019, making it significantly more difficult for projects to pencil.

 Limited rent growth – A large number of recently completed rental units combined with increased price sensitivity among renters has limited market rent growth. Affordability constraints that limit entry into the for-sale housing market and a more limited new construction pipeline may result in increased rent growth in the coming years.

 Higher interest rates – Higher interest rates mean projects must achieve higher returns to justify development risk relative to safer investment alternatives. Higher borrowing costs means a given amount of rental income can no longer support the same level of debt, which puts downward pressure on building values, upward pressure on cap rates, and upward pressure on returns a project must generate to attract investors. Rising interest rates also increase the cost of construction financing.

 Reduced Market Values – The value of recently built multi-family units has declined as higher interest rates have put downward pressure on building values. Two recent multifamily property sales, the Eviva Midtown Apartments (built 2016) and the Strand in West Sacramento (built 2022) sold for $340,000 and $308,000 per unit, respectively.

This pricing is below the approximately $370,000 to $515,000 per unit development cost identified in the feasibility analysis, an indication of a significant feasibility gap.

Chart 2-2 shows trends in rents and vacancy rates since 2012. Average rents in Sacramento increased approximately 74% over the 2012 to 2024 period to approximately $1,760 per month.

Rents for newly built apartments reflect an approximately 37% premium over averages for existing units. As a large supply of new units has been delivered to the market over the last several years, vacancy rates rose from a low near 4% to over 8% before declining to 7% in 2025 as absorption of new units began to outpace new deliveries.

Vacancy rates for recently built rentals, many of which are still undergoing initial lease up and have not reached a stabilized occupancy level, are substantially higher than the overall market average at approximately 17% for units built since 2017, down from the recent peak in 2022 of 30% vacancy for newer units.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

Chart 2-2. Asking Rents and Vacancy Rate Trends, City of Sacramento

Source: CoStar

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

3.0 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

This section presents the financial feasibility analysis. The analysis evaluates the economics of the prototype residential development projects described in Section 2.4 and tests their ability to sustain alternative affordable housing fee rates and on-site inclusionary requirements.

The feasibility analysis estimates the costs to develop the new market rate residential projects and the sales revenues or rental income generated upon completion. If the sales revenues or rental income are sufficient to support the development costs and generate a sufficient profit margin, the prototype is considered feasible. This approach to evaluating financial feasibility, known as a pro forma approach or income approach, is standard practice in the real estate industry and is utilized in one form or another by all developers when analyzing new construction projects.

3.1 Analysis Limitations

This analysis, by its nature, can only provide an overview-level assessment of development economics because it is based on prototypical projects rather than specific projects. Every project has unique characteristics that will dictate rents or sale prices supported by the market as well as development costs and developer return requirements. Each developer will assess a project’s risks and returns and assemble project financing differently. The economics of actual projects may look better and some may look worse than those of the prototypes analyzed.

The feasibility analysis represents a snapshot of real estate market conditions as of the time this analysis was prepared in late spring / early summer 2025. Real estate development economics are fluid and are impacted by constantly changing conditions with regard to rent potential and sale prices, construction costs, land costs, and costs of financing. A year or two from now, conditions will undoubtedly be different than they are today.

3.2 Market Home Prices

Market home prices were estimated based upon a review of prices for new homes being marketed for sale and resales of newer existing homes using data as of May 2025. Pricing estimates are summarized in Table 3-1. Charts 3-1 to 3-5 present the market data used to estimate prototype pricing. See Appendix A, Table 15 for additional information.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

Table 3-1. Estimated Home Prices
Unit Size Price Price/SF
Single Family Detached

North Natomas 2,100 sf $670,000 $319
North Sacramento / South Natomas 1,900 sf $550,000 $289 Inner South and East Neighborhoods 2,300 sf $1,020,000 $443 Southern Neighborhoods 1,750 sf $540,000 $309

Small Lot SFD and Townhomes
North Natomas 1,600 sf $575,000 $359
North Sacramento / South Natomas 1,500 sf $500,000 $333 Central City 1,850 sf $840,000 $454
Inner South and East Neighborhoods 1,700 sf $800,000 $471 Southern Neighborhoods 1,450 sf $470,000 $324

Chart 3-1. Market Prices and Estimated Prototype Pricing, North Natomas

Sources: The Gregory Group for prices of new homes currently marketing; CoreLogic for prices of homes built since 2015 and resold from May 2024 to May 2025; KMA for estimated prototype prices.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Chart 3-2. Market Prices and Estimated Prototype Pricing, North Sacramento / South Natomas

Sources: The Gregory Group for prices of new homes currently marketing; CoreLogic for prices of homes built since 2015 and resold from May 2024 to May 2025; KMA for estimated prototype prices.

Chart 3-3. Market Prices and Estimated Prototype Pricing, Central City

Sources: CoreLogic for prices of homes built since 2015 and resold from May 2024 to May 2025; KMA for estimated prototype prices.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

Chart 3-4. Market Prices and Estimated Prototype Pricing, Inner South and East Neighborhoods

Sources: The Gregory Group for prices of new homes currently marketing; CoreLogic for prices of homes built since 2015 and resold from May 2024 to May 2025; KMA for estimated prototype prices.

Chart 3-5. Market Prices and Estimated Prototype Pricing, Southern Neighborhoods

Sources: The Gregory Group for prices of new homes currently marketing; CoreLogic for prices of homes built since 2015 and resold from May 2024 to May 2025; KMA for estimated prototype prices.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 19
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

3.3 Market Rents

Rental income for the apartment prototypes is estimated based on rental data for recently built apartments in Sacramento by geographic area. Estimated rents are summarized in Table 3-2.

Charts 3-7 to 3-11 present data on effective market rents (net of concessions) by bedroom size and submarket for newer market rate rental buildings built since 2018 and rent estimates by bedrooms size for the prototype projects. Supporting data is provided in Appendix A Table 14.

Table 3-2. Market Rent Estimates
Average Unit Size Average Rent/Mo Average Rent/SF/Mo
North Natomas 900 sf $2,580 $2.87
North Sacramento / South Natomas 900 sf $2,310 $2.57
Central City - Medium Density 770 sf $2,420 $3.14
Central City - Higher Density 690 sf $2,340 $3.39
Inner South and East Neighborhoods 770 sf $2,320 $3.01
Southern Neighborhoods 900 sf $2,290 $2.54

Chart 3-6. North Natomas - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype

Source: CoStar
Prototype Rents Unit Size (SF) Effective Rent Rent PSF % Mix Studio 500 $1,950 $3.90 5%
1 BR 730 $2,350 $3.22 45%
2 BR 1,055 $2,800 $2.65 45%
3 BR 1,440 $3,250 $2.26 5%
Weighted Average 900 $2,580 $2.87 100%

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 20
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

Chart 3-7. North Sacramento South Natomas - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype

Source: CoStar

Prototype Rents Unit Size (SF) Effective Rent Rent PSF % Mix Studio 500 $1,750 $3.50 5%
1 BR 730 $2,100 $2.88 45%
2 BR 1,055 $2,500 $2.37 45%
3 BR 1,440
$3,100 $2.15 5%
Weighted Average 900 $2,310 $2.57 100%

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 21
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Chart 3-8. Central City Medium Density - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype

Source: CoStar

Prototype Rents Unit Size (SF) Effective Rent Rent PSF % Mix Studio 490 $1,775 $3.62 30%
1 BR 720 $2,400 $3.33 40%
2 BR 1,055 $3,000 $2.84 25%
3 BR 1,420 $3,600 $2.54 5%
Weighted Average 770 $2,420 $3.14 100%

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 22
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Chart 3-9. Central City Higher Density - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype

Source: CoStar

Prototype Rents Unit Size (SF) Effective Rent Rent PSF % Mix Studio 490 $1,850 $3.78 35%
1 BR 720 $2,475 $3.44 50%
2 BR 1,055 $3,050 $2.89 15%
Weighted Average 690 $2,340 $3.39 100%

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 23
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Chart 3-10. Inner South and East Neighborhoods - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype

Source: CoStar

Prototype Rents Unit Size (SF) Effective Rent Rent PSF % Mix Studio 493 $1,800 $3.65 15%
1 BR 720 $2,200 $3.06 60%
2 BR 1,055 $2,900 $2.75 25%
Weighted Average 770 $2,320 $3.01 100%

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 24
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Chart 3-11. Southern Neighborhoods - Effective Market Rents for Apartments Built Since 2018 and Estimate for Prototype

Source: CoStar

3.4 Net Operating Income and Developer I nvestment Supported, Rental Projects

The first step in estimating the amount of developer investment that can be supported in a new rental development is to calculate Net Operating Income (NOI). NOI is equal to the annual rental income, minus operating expenses and a 5% allowance for credit loss and vacancy. As shown in Table 3-3, the NOI for market rate units is estimated to range from $16,400 to $19,700/unit/year depending on the submarket and average unit size.

NOI is divided by a return on cost (ROC)
6 to estimate the amount of developer investment (debt
and equity) that can be supported by the rental income from the project. A 6.75% threshold developer return on cost is used, which represents a 1.5% spread over a 5.25% estimated capitalization rate
7 based on a combination of published cap rate surveys and recent multifamily

6 Return on Cost (ROC) represents the ratio between net operating income and development cost of the project. 7 A capitalization rate or “cap rate” represents the ratio between net operating income and the market value of the completed project.

Prototype Rents Unit Size (SF) Effective Rent Rent PSF % Mix Studio 500 $1,600 $3.20 5%
1 BR 730 $2,050 $2.81 45%
2 BR 1,055 $2,500 $2.37 45%
3 BR 1,440 $3,200 $2.22 5%
Weighted Average 900 $2,290 $2.54 100%

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 25
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
property sales in Sacramento. This ROC assumption is generally consistent with feedback provided through the developer interviews summarized in Section 5. Rising interest rates have put upward pressure on cap rates, which in turn places upward pressure on the ROC that developers need to finance projects, which reflect a spread over market cap rates.

On this basis, the supported investment with 100% market rate units is estimated to range from $243,000 to $292,000 depending on the prototype and estimated rents by area, as shown in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Net Operating Income and Investment Supported, 100% Market Rate

Monthly
Rent
Gross
Rental
Income
Other
Income
5%
Vacancy
Operating
Expense,
Taxes
Net
Operating
Income
Threshold
Return on
Cost
Developer
Investment
Supported
North Natomas $2,580 $30,960 $2,100 ($1,653) ($11,700) $19,707 6.75% $292,000 North Sacramento / S. Natomas $2,310 $27,720 $2,100 ($1,491) ($11,700) $16,629 6.75% $246,400 Central City - Medium Density $2,420 $29,040 $3,300 ($1,617) ($12,800) $17,923 6.75% $265,500 Central City - Higher Density $2,340 $28,080 $4,100 ($1,609) ($12,700) $17,871 6.75% $264,800 Inner South and East $2,320 $27,840 $2,100 ($1,497) ($11,200) $17,243 6.75% $255,500 Southern Neighborhoods $2,290 $27,480 $2,100 ($1,479) ($11,700) $16,401 6.75% $243,000 Note: See Appendix A Table 6A to S for estimates for other scenarios. rent Market, Not Including Land

3.5 Residential Land Values

Data on residential land sales was accessed from sources including CoStar, a third-party vendor of market data, reporting by the Sacramento Business Times on land transactions, and comparable sales presented in appraisals. Table 3-4 provides a summary of the residential land sale transactions by type. Few land transactions for rental projects have occurred since the 2023 Study was prepared, likely due to constrained feasibility. Anecdotally, some of the participants in the interviews described in Section 5 suggested that land values have decreased.  Medium and High Density Residential Sites – Land targeted for higher density development in the Central City area, generally at densities of 100 units per acre or more (consistent with the medium and high density apartment prototypes) sold at an average price of $155 per land square foot and $32,000 per unit based on twelve transactions since 2019. Outside of the Central City, medium and high density sites were located mainly in the Inner South and East Neighborhoods subarea and had average pricing of $74 per land square foot or $44,000 per unit.  Lower Density Apartment Sites – Land targeted for lower density apartment development outside of the Central City area, ranging from 21 to 40 units per acre, (consistent with the lower density apartment prototype) sold at an average price of $16 per land square foot and $24,000 per unit based on 16 transactions since 2019.  Single Family and Attached For-Sale sites – The condition of lots at sale is an important consideration in pricing. Finished lots with necessary intract street and utility

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 26
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
improvements will sell for a premium over lots without these improvements in place.

Finished lots in Northlake sold for an average of $24 per square foot and $130,000 per unit in 2020 to 2022. Finished lots in Parkbridge Village sold for an average of $105,000 per unit and around $20 per square foot in 2019. Larger finished lots in Delta Shores sold for $260,000 while partially improved lots sold for approximately $44,000 to $52,000 per lot in 2024. A 2019 lot sale within the inner south and east neighborhoods was at $341,000 per lot.
 Raw and Partially Improved Land – raw or partially improved residential land, which generally lacks infrastructure necessary for development, has traded from under $1 per square foot to approximately $8 per square foot of land based on 18 sales. Appendix A Table 9 provides examples of horizontal land development costs for the Delta Shores and Northlake projects drawn from developer-reported information included in recent bond offering documents. For Delta Shores (2022 offering document), the expenditure represents a cost of $19 per land square foot, not including land purchase costs, and for Northlake (2024 offering document) $21 per land square foot. This, along with the sales data for unimproved land, demonstrates that most of the value associated with finished lots within larger master plans is represented by horizontal improvements by the developer, such as new streets and utilities, in creating buildable lots. A small share of finished lot values for greenfield development sites is represented by the underlying value of raw land prior to entitlements and infrastructure improvements.  Commercial and Industrial Land – since some residential sites in areas with limited land availability occur on former commercial and industrial properties, sales data for commercial land was also accessed. Prices averaged $30 per square foot based on twelve transactions in the inner south and east neighborhoods and spanned a wide range of pricing from $12 to $95 per square foot.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 27
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Table 3-4. Residential Land Sale Transactions, 2019 to 2025 No. of Average Sale Price
Development Type Sales Density Min. Max. Average (1)
Apartment Sites

Medium and High Density, Central City (99 - 208 du/ac)

Land Price/ sf land 12 149 dua $83 $201 $155
Land Price/ unit

$19,000 $64,000 $32,000

Medium Density, outside Central City (63-110 du/ac)

Land Price/ sf land 6 73 dua $62 $101 $74
Land Price/ unit

$28,000 $50,000 $44,000

Lower Density Apartment Sites

Land Price/ sf land 16 29 dua $8 $25 $16
Land Price/ unit

$13,000 $35,000 $24,000

For-Sale Residential Development Sites

Improved Residential Lot Sales (ranges from finished lots to partially improved) Land Price/ sf land 22 n/a $11 $41 $31
Land Price/ unit

$44,550 $341,000 $116,000

Raw Residential Land (lack infrastructure, etc) 18 n/a $1 $8 $4 Land Price/ sf land

Commercial / Industrial Land, Inner S&E
Neighborhoods Land Price/ sf land
12 n/a $12 $95 $30

(1) Averages weighted based on land area and unit count, for price per square foot and price per unit, respectively. dua = dwelling units per acre

The land sale data described above was used to identify the estimated land cost by prototype project presented in Tables 3-5 and 3-6.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 28
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Table 3-5. For-Sale Lot Cost Estimate
Submarket Prototype
Density
(du/ac)
Representa
tive Lot
Size (sf)
Site
Cost
PSF
Land
Site Cost
Per Unit
Intract
Improveme
nts Per Lot
Finished Lot
Cost
(before fees)
Central City Townhomes 26 attached $95 $159,000 $101,000 $260,000 Southern
Neighborhoods
Single Family 11 3,000 $17 $68,000 $59,000 $127,000 Small Lot Single Family 18 1,800 $19 $46,000 $56,000 $102,000 North Sacramento /
South Natomas
Single Family 9 3,600 $17 $82,000 $73,000 $155,000
Small Lot Single Family 18 1,800 $19 $46,000 $56,000 $102,000 North Natomas Single Family 9 3,600 $19 $92,000 $73,000 $165,000 Small Lot Single Family 18 1,800 $21 $51,000 $56,000 $107,000 Inner South and
East Neighborhoods
Single Family 8 4,100 $35 $191,000 $120,000 $311,000 Small Lot Single Family 20 1,600 $35 $76,000 $96,000 $172,000 Note: For-sale lot cost estimates reflect finished lots (not including cost of applicable fees and permits, accounted for separately). Variation in costs reflects both differences in land values and lot size/density.

Table 3-6. Rental Project Land Cost Estimate
Location Prototype
Density
(du/ac)
Site Cost
PSF Land
Site Cost
Per Unit
Central City medium density 100 $101 $44,000
higher density 200 $152 $33,000
Inner South and East Neighborhoods lower density 37 $35 $41,000 North Natomas lower density 30 $17 $25,000
North Sacramento / South Natomas lower density 30 $17 $25,000 Southern Neighborhoods lower density 30 $17 $25,000

3.6 Development Costs

The direct costs of development include all contractor labor and material costs to construct the project including general requirements, contractor fees, and contingencies. As shown in Table 3-7, the direct construction costs are estimated between $189,000 to $361,500/unit depending upon the unit type and size. Key variables with respect to direct costs include the size of the unit, parking type, and overall density. In general, higher density prototypes are more costly on a per square foot basis than lower density prototypes. The cost estimates have been made based on cost figures for current and pipeline projects provided by development professionals active in the local market, cost figures sourced to local developers included in official statements for recent Community Facilities District bonds, developer pro formas for similar building types, and feedback provided in developer interviews described in Section 5.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 29
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Table 3-7. Development Cost Per Unit

Unit
Size
Land / Lot
Costs
Direct
Construction
Fees and
Permits (1)
Indirects,
Financing,
Sales,
Closing
Builder
Margin(2)
Total
Development
Cost +Builder
Margin
Single Family Detached

North Natomas 2,100 sf $165,100 $231,000 $89,700 $125,600 $53,600 $665,000 North Sacramento / South Natomas 1,900 sf $155,100 $209,000 $58,100 $107,700 $44,000 $573,900 Inner South and East Neighborhoods 2,300 sf $311,000 $334,000 $70,300 $192,400 $81,600 $989,300 Southern Neighborhoods 1,750 sf $126,500 $210,000 $60,100 $104,700 $43,200 $544,500

Small Lot SFD and Townhomes
North Natomas 1,600 sf $106,900 $200,000 $77,300 $105,700 $46,000 $535,900 North Sacramento / South Natomas 1,500 sf $101,900 $192,000 $51,900 $95,500 $40,000 $481,300 Central City 1,850 sf $260,000 $352,000 $64,800 $171,500 $67,200 $915,500 Inner South and East Neighborhoods 1,700 sf $172,000 $298,000 $54,100 $151,800 $64,000 $739,900 Southern Neighborhoods 1,450 sf $101,900 $189,000 $51,600 $91,600 $37,600 $471,700

Rentals

North Natomas 900 sf $25,000 $252,000 $40,900 $65,100 n/a $383,000 North Sacramento / South Natomas 900 sf $25,000 $252,000 $26,300 $65,100 n/a $368,400 Central City - Medium Density 770 sf $44,000 $272,900 $28,400 $72,100 n/a $417,400 Central City - Higher Density 690 sf $33,000 $361,500 $28,200 $93,200 n/a $515,900 Inner South and East Neighborhoods 770 sf $41,000 $237,800 $28,600 $63,100 n/a $370,500 Southern Neighborhoods 900 sf $25,000 $252,000 $28,000 $65,100 n/a $370,100

(1) Includes existing housing impact fee.
(2) Threshold net builder profit margin estimated at 8% of sales. For rentals, developer returns are reflected as part of the return on cost used to identify supported investment, described in Section 3.4.

See Appendix A Tables 5 and 6 for additional information.

Indirect costs of development include architecture and engineering (A&E), municipal fees and permits costs, taxes, insurance, overhead, debt financing costs, etc. The higher density prototypes tend to have higher indirect costs on a per square foot basis because they have more complex design and engineering issues than single family homes and because they take longer to build, which increases financing costs.

Estimated fees and permit costs reflect full phase-in of the utility fees that were adopted in 2023.

For scenarios that include affordable housing on-site, the City’s existing program of exempting affordable units from certain municipal fees is taken into consideration in the estimates.

Estimated financing costs reflect an interest rate of 9%.

The for-sale pro forma analyses reflect a threshold builder net profit margin of 8% of sales revenue (combined with estimated sales and general and administrative expenses, this results in a threshold gross margin of approximately 18% of sales revenue). For rental projects, profit to the developer is captured as part of the return on cost, discussed in section 3.4.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 30
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

Total development cost plus a threshold builder profit margin is estimated to range from roughly $368,000 to $989,000/unit depending on the prototype, as summarized in Table 3-7. See Appendix A Tables 5 and 6 for additional details.

Dev

3.7 Feasibility Criteria

The financial feasibility analysis is based on the relationship between the project’s revenue potential, estimated development costs, and a threshold developer return commensurate with the cost of funds and development risk. Each prototype project is placed into one of the following three categories based on the pro forma results for each scenario:

1) Feasible – includes projects that are generally feasible and expected to develop under current market conditions. For-sale projects are classified as feasible if sales revenues are in balance with development costs plus an 8% net profit to the homebuilder. Rental projects are classified as feasible if the developer investment supported by the project’s rental income, based on a threshold return on cost assumption of 6.75%, is in balance with the cost to develop the project. Projects are deemed to be in balance if revenues are within a 3% margin of costs including a threshold return. This 3% tolerance is in recognition of a margin for error in illustrative pro forma analyses, the fact that projects would be fully in balance with slightly more bullish revenue assumptions or minor changes in cost estimates, because some developers may be willing to move forward with slightly lower returns or have slightly lower overhead, there may be some ability to achieve concessions on land costs, and because in our experience developers may be interested in pursuing projects that fall slightly below targeted return thresholds at the predevelopment stage, depending on market conditions and other factors.

2) Marginal Feasibility – projects with weaker feasibility that require some improvement in economics to move forward. Projects classified as marginally feasible have development costs plus builder profit that are out of balance with revenues in excess of the 3% margin cited above, but by no more than 7%.

3) Infeasible / Challenged – projects that have feasibility challenges and are not likely to move forward without more significant improvements to the pro forma, such as higher prices and rents or lower costs. Projects classified as infeasible / challenged have development costs plus required builder profit that exceed revenues by more than 7%.

The above categories allow characterization of results in a systematic fashion to facilitate simple comparisons across scenarios. A limitation is that projects with economics that are narrowly separated might be placed in different feasibility categories, without capturing that nuance. A series of additional metrics are reported for each scenario in Section 4 to enable a quantitative understanding of differences between scenarios.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 31
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

Table 3-8 summarizes the criteria used to place projects into these three feasibility categories.

Table 3-8. Feasibility Criteria
Feasibility Category For-Sale Feasibility Cr iteria Rental Feasibility Criteria Feasible Sales revenues are in balance with the total
development cost of the project plus a
threshold developer return (within 3%).

Development costs including land are in
balance with the developer investment
supported by the project’s rental income
(within 3%).

Marginal Feasibility Total development cost plus a threshold developer return exceeds, by 3% to 7%, the
estimated sales revenues generated by the
project.

Development costs including land exceeds, by
3% to 7%, the developer investment that can
be supported by the project’s rental income.

Infeasible / Challenged Total development cost plus a threshold developer return exceeds estimated sales
revenues by more than 7%.

Development costs including land exceed the
developer investment supported by the
project’s rental income by more than 7%.

Factors that can improve project feasibility over time include increases in prices or rents, more competitive construction pricing, decreases in fees or other requirements, adjustments to land costs, more favorable investment conditions that reduce the cost of capital, or a combination of these factors. Of course, future changes could also move in the opposite direction and adversely affect feasibility.

Land prices can adjust in response to market or other factors affecting the economics of development projects, and in this way can sometimes help absorb the impact of these changes.

However, there are limits on the potential for adjustments to land values to improve the economics as sellers may prefer to hold out until they achieve pricing consistent with their expectations.

3.8 Feasibility Findings: For-Sale Projects

Table 3-9 summarizes feasibility conclusions for the for-sale prototypes under current market conditions assuming payment of the City’s existing housing impact fee (with all the existing incentives in place including the $0 fee for higher density). The analysis shows that most of the for-sale prototype projects are feasible, based on sales prices that are in line with development costs. The single family prototype in North Sacramento / South Natomas is marginally feasible, due to somewhat lower pricing. The Central City for-sale prototype is infeasible, primarily because the sales price, while high compared to other submarkets, is not sufficient to support higher estimated land costs in this location. The supporting pro forma table for this scenario is provided in Appendix A Table 5A.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 32
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Table 3-9. Feasibility Findings, For-Sale, Existing HIF

Unit
Size Sales Price
Development
Cost
Surplus /
(Gap)
Surplus /
(Gap) as % of
Total Dev
Cost
Feasibility
Conclusion
Single Family Detached

North Natomas 2,100 sf $670,000 ($665,000) $5,000 1% F North Sacramento / South Natomas 1,900 sf $550,000 ($573,900) ($23,900) -4% M Inner South and East Neighborhoods 2,300 sf $1,020,000 ($989,300) $30,700 3% F Southern Neighborhoods 1,750 sf $540,000 ($544,500) ($4,500) -1% F

Small Lot SFD and Townhomes

North Natomas 1,600 sf $575,000 ($535,900) $39,100 8% F North Sacramento / South Natomas 1,500 sf $500,000 ($481,300) $18,700 4% F Central City 1,850 sf $840,000 ($915,500) ($75,500) -9% I Inner South and East Neighborhoods 1,700 sf $800,000 ($739,900) $60,100 8% F Southern Neighborhoods 1,450 sf $470,000 ($471,700) ($1,700) 0% F F= Feasible
M= Marginal Feasibility
I= Infeasible / Challenged

For projects that have a surplus of revenues over total development cost plus a threshold builder profit margin, builder margins would either exceed the minimum threshold, higher lot values would be supported, and/or the project would have a greater ability to absorb additional costs. Where a gap is reflected, builder margins may fall under the threshold return and/or concessions on lot cost or other cost efficiencies would need to be identified.

3.9 Feasibility Findings: Rental Projects

Table 3-10 summarizes feasibility conclusions for the rental prototypes assuming payment of the City’s existing housing impact fee (with all existing incentives in place including the $0 fee for higher density). As shown, all rental projects were found to be infeasible based on development costs that significantly exceed the developer investment that is supported by existing market rents. The supporting pro forma is provided in Appendix A Table 6A.

The estimated gap between development costs and the supportable investment ranges from 24% to 49%. The feasibility gap for rentals is substantial enough that a significant change in the market is needed for projects to pencil again. A sensitivity test was performed to illustrate changes in market conditions sufficient for rental projects to return to feasibility. An increase in market rents of 11% to 49%, depending on the prototype, combined with a decrease in the required return on cost to 6%, without any escalation in costs, was found to restore feasibility.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 33
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Table 3-10. Rental Feasibility Findings, Existing HIF
Unit Size
Developer
Investment
Supported by
Rent Dev. Cost
Surplus /
(Gap)
Surplus /
(Gap) as % of
Total Dev
Cost
Feasibility
Finding
Rentals

North Natomas 900 sf $292,000 ($383,000) ($91,000) -24% I N. Sacramento / S. Natomas 900 sf $246,400 ($368,400) ($122,000) -33% I Central City - Med. Density 770 sf $265,500 ($417,400) ($151,900) -36% I Central City - High Density 690 sf $264,800 ($515,900) ($251,100) -49% I Inner South & East and W of I-5 770 sf $255,500 ($370,500) ($115,000) -31% I Southern Neighborhoods 900 sf $243,000 ($370,100) ($127,100) -34% I F= Feasible
M= Marginal Feasibility
I= Infeasible / Challenged

3.10 Scenario Testing

The pro forma summarized above was used to evaluate the ability of new residential development projects in Sacramento to sustain alternative inclusionary and affordable housing fee requirements, including the following scenarios:
 Base Case: existing housing impact fees.
 On-Site Affordable Units, with 5%, 7%, 10% and 15% affordable units o Affordable pricing at Low (70% of AMI) and Moderate at 90% and 100% of AMI; o Affordable rents at Very Low (50% AMI), and Low at 60%, 70%, and 80% of AMI.  Provision of affordable units in a stand-alone LIHTC affordable project was evaluated in certain subareas. This solution will likely be limited to larger master plans with adequate scale to set aside a site for a stand-alone affordable project.  Affordable Housing Fee Scenarios – fee levels ranging from retention of the existing housing impact fee up to an increased rate of $20 per square foot.

For-Sale Projects Scenario Testing

Results of the scenario testing for for-sale projects are summarized in Table 3-11.

The Central City prototype is infeasible in the base case analysis and in all scenarios with increased inclusionary requirements.

The North Sacramento and South Natomas single family prototype is marginally feasible in the base case scenario and is rendered infeasible by inclusionary requirements of 7% at 70% AMI, 15% at 90% AMI, or fees of $10 per square foot. The small lot single family project type remained in a feasible range in each scenario.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 34
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

The Southern Neighborhood prototypes remained in a feasible range with up to 10% Moderate units at 100% AMI, or 7% at 90% AMI, or increased fees of up to $5 per square foot.

The North Natomas prototypes remained in a feasible range with up to 10% Moderate units at 90% AMI or fees up to $10 per square foot.

The Inner South and East prototypes remained in a feasible range with up to 10% Moderate units at 90% AMI or fees up to $20 per square foot.

Providing affordable units in a separate stand-alone affordable project supported by tax credits and other funding sources in partnership with an affordable housing developer could reduce the cost of producing the affordable units and generally enhances feasibility relative to providing for- sale affordable units. However, this is mainly an option for larger master plans and most smaller projects will not have sufficient scale or an appropriate site for a standalone tax credit rental project to be a workable option.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 35
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Table 3-11. For Sale Project Scenario Testing
No. Description
App
A
Table
Central
City
Southern
Neighborhoods
North
Sacramento
and South
Natomas
North
Natomas
Inner South
and East
Neighborhoods
Townhome SF Sm lot SF Sm lot SF
Sm
lot SF Sm lot
1 Existing HIF (base case) 5A I F F M F F F F F
2 5% Mod @100% AMI 5B I F F M F F F F F
3 5% Mod @90% AMI 5C I F F M F F F F F
4 5% Low @70% AMI 5D I M F M F F F F F
5 7% Mod @100% AMI 5E I F F M F F F F F
6 7% Mod @90% AMI 5F I F F M F F F F F
7 7% Low @70% AMI 5G I M M I F F F F F
8 10% Mod @100% AMI 5H I F F M F F F F F
9 10% Mod @90% AMI 5I I M F M F F F F F
10 10% Low @70% AMI 5J I M M I F M F M F
11 15% Mod @100% AMI 5K I M F M F F F M F
12 15% Mod @90% AMI 5L I M F I F M F M F
13 15% Low @70% AMI 5M I I I I F I F I F
14 10% in LIHTC Project (1) 5N n/a F F M F F F n/a n/a
15 15% in LIHTC Project (1) 5O n/a F F M F F F n/a n/a
16 20% in LIHTC Project (1) 5P n/a F F M F F F n/a n/a
17 Existing HIF rate, with
removal of HIF incentives
5Q I F F M F F F F F
18 HIF @$5/SF 5R I F F M F F F F F
19 HIF @$7.50/SF 5S I M F M F F F F F
20 HIF @$10/SF 5T I M M I F F F F F
21 HIF @$15/SF 5U I M M I F M F F F
22 HIF @$20/SF 5V I I M I F M F F F
(1) Primarily an option for larger master plans. Would have an average affordability level of 60% AMI or less. This option is not likely to be practical for most projects in Central City and Inner South and East Neighborhoods based on typically smaller site / project size, thus lacking the scale to do a separate stand-alone Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project.

F= Feasible
M= Marginal Feasibility
I= Infeasible / Challenged

Supporting pro forma tables are included in Appendix A Table 5A to 5V.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 36
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Rental Project Scenario Testing

Results of the scenario testing for rental projects are summarized in Table 3-12. As discussed above, the base case scenario with existing MIHO requirements was found to be infeasible for all of the prototype rental projects evaluated. Accordingly, all of the scenarios with increased affordable housing requirements, which either add costs or reduce rental revenues, are also infeasible. Supporting pro forma tables are included in Appendix A Table 6A to 6S.

Table 3-12. Rental Project Scenario Testing

App A
Table
Central City Southern
Neighborhoods
North
Sacramento
and South
Natomas
North
Natomas
Inner
South
and East No. Description
Med
Den
High
Den
1 Existing HIF (base case) 6A I I I I I I
2 5% Low @80% AMI 6B I I I I I I
3 5% Low @70% AMI 6C I I I I I I
4 5% Low @60% AMI 6D I I I I I I
5 5% Very Low @50% AMI 6E I I I I I I
6 7% Low @80% AMI 6F I I I I I I
7 7% Low @70% AMI 6G I I I I I I
8 7% Low @60% AMI 6H I I I I I I
9 7% Very Low @50% AMI 6I I I I I I I
10 10% Low @80% AMI 6J I I I I I I
11 10% Low @70% AMI 6K I I I I I I
12 10% Low @60% AMI 6L I I I I I I
13 10% Very Low @50% AMI 6M I I I I I I
14 Existing HIF, remove incentives 6N I I I I I I
15 HIF @$5/SF 6O I I I I I I
16 HIF @$7.50/SF 6P I I I I I I
17 HIF @$10/SF 6Q I I I I I I
18 HIF @$15/SF 6R I I I I I I
19 HIF @$20/SF 6S I I I I I I
F= Feasible
M= Marginal Feasibility
I= Infeasible / Challenged

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 37
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

4.0 MEASURES OF POTENTIAL INFLUENCE ON DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS

This section provides a series of metrics to gauge the extent to which a new inclusionary requirement may affect residential development decisions in Sacramento. The metrics also provide a means to compare inclusionary and in-lieu fee scenarios quantitatively. The following metrics are presented:

 Compliance costs, representing the net cost of inclusionary requirements expressed per net square foot of building area.

 Market rent or price increase that is sufficient to offset the cost of a new inclusionary requirement.

 Change in the City’s total fee stack with illustrative increases in affordable housing fees.

Appendix A Tables presents two additional metrics:

 Change in land cost sufficient to offset the cost of the new requirement; and

 Aggregate fees, permits, and affordable housing requirement costs as a percentage of the total development cost of residential units.

4.1 Compliance Cost Analysis

The cost of complying with alternative affordable housing requirements was expressed as a cost per net square foot of livable area within the project. The purpose is to assist in understanding the relative effects of various alternatives on the economics of residential development projects.

The identified dollar per square foot costs of providing affordable units within the project is based on the net impact to the pro forma from setting aside a share of units at affordable prices and rents. The term “cost” is used, although technically the impact of an affordability restriction is forgone rent revenue or sales proceeds. Costs are higher where there is a larger difference between market rate and affordable prices and rents. For purposes of the compliance cost analysis, the base case pro forma model was adjusted to reflect a feasible scenario through increases in rents, home prices and a reduction in the return on cost for rental projects to 6%.

This was done to avoid understating the cost of on-site inclusionary units, which increases as market rents and prices increase.

Charts 4-1 through 4-3 present the results of the compliance cost analysis for for-sale projects.

Charts 4-4 through 4-6 present the compliance cost analysis for rental projects. Where there are multiple prototypes within a particular subarea, an average of the two prototypes is presented in the charts. The North Natomas, Southern Neighborhoods and North Sacramento and South

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 38
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Natomas submarkets are combined as an average given similar compliance cost. Supporting figures are provided in Appendix A Tables 2A and 2B.

Chart 4-1. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, For-Sale Projects, Central City

Chart 4-2. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, For-Sale Projects, Inner South and East Neighborhoods

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 39
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Chart 4-3. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, For-Sale Projects, Average of Three Submarkets: Southern Neighborhoods, N. Natomas, and N. Sacramento / S. Natomas Submarkets Char
t 4-4. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, Rental Projects, Central City

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 40
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
Chart 4-5. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, Rental Projects, Inner South and East Neighborhoods

Chart 4-6. Per Square Foot Costs, Alternative Requirements, Rentals, Average of Three Submarkets: Southern Neighborhoods, N. Natomas, and N. Sacramento / S. Natomas Submarkets

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 41
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

4.2 Changes in Prices and Rents Sufficient to Offset Cost of Requirement To the extent market prices and rents increase, it can help absorb the cost of a new or increased requirement. Tables 4-1
and 4-2 illustrate market price and rent increases that would be adequate on their own to fully offset the incremental cost of changes in affordable housing requirements.

Development costs are held constant for this illustration and adjustments would have been larger if costs were assumed to move in the same direction as prices and rents. Negative figures occur in limited cases where the cost of on-site units is estimated to be less than the cost of existing housing impact fees.

For purposes of this analysis in Table 4-1 and 4-2, the base case pro forma model was adjusted to reflect a feasible scenario through increases in rents, home prices and a reduction in the return on cost for rental projects to 6%. This was done to avoid understating the impact of on- site inclusionary units, which increases as market rents and prices increase.

Table 4-1. Market Price Increase Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of Affordable Housing Requirements Central
City
Southern
Neighborhoods
North
Sacramento
and South
Natomas North Natomas
Inner South and
East
Neighborhoods
Townhome SF SF sm lot SF
SF sm
lot SF
SF sm
lot SF SF sm lot
5% Mod @100% AMI 2.2% 0.4% -0.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% -0.2% 2.1% 2.6% 5% Mod @90% AMI 2.4% 0.9% 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4% 2.4% 3.0% 5% Low @70% AMI 3.3% 2.5% 2.2% 2.6% 2.3% 2.0% 1.8% 3.3% 4.0% 7% Mod @100% AMI 3.5% 0.8% 0.0% 1.2% 0.3% 1.0% 0.3% 3.5% 3.7% 7% Mod @90% AMI 3.9% 1.6% 0.8% 1.9% 1.1% 1.6% 1.0% 3.9% 4.2% 7% Low @70% AMI 5.2% 3.8% 3.4% 4.0% 3.6% 3.4% 3.1% 5.1% 5.7% 10% Mod @100% AMI 5.6% 1.5% 0.3% 2.0% 0.7% 2.1% 1.0% 5.7% 5.5% 10% Mod @90% AMI 6.2% 2.6% 1.6% 3.1% 1.9% 3.0% 2.1% 6.3% 6.3% 10% Low @70% AMI 8.0% 6.0% 5.2% 6.2% 5.6% 5.8% 5.2% 8.1% 8.5% 15% Mod @100% AMI 9.5% 2.9% 0.8% 3.6% 1.6% 4.2% 2.4% 9.7% 8.9% 15% Mod @90% AMI 10.5% 4.6% 2.8% 5.2% 3.5% 5.7% 4.1% 10.6% 10.0% 15% Low @70% AMI 13.4% 9.9% 8.8% 10.3% 9.2% 10.1% 9.1% 13.5% 13.5% 10% in Stand-Alone LIHTC Project (1) n/a 0.7% 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% -0.4% -0.1% n/a n/a 15% in Stand-Alone LIHTC Project (1) n/a 1.4% 1.7% 1.3% 1.6% 0.2% 0.6% n/a n/a 20% in Stand-Alone LIHTC Project (1) n/a 2.2% 2.7% 2.1% 2.5% 0.9% 1.4% n/a n/a Remove existing HIF incentives 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% HIF @$5/SF 0.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 1.3% HIF @$7.50/SF 1.0% 2.4% 2.3% 2.4% 2.2% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% 2.0% HIF @$10/SF 1.6% 3.4% 3.3% 3.5% 3.1% 2.5% 2.2% 1.8% 2.6% HIF @$15/SF 2.8% 5.4% 5.1% 5.5% 5.0% 4.4% 3.9% 3.2% 3.9% HIF @$20/SF 4.0% 7.4% 7.0% 7.5% 6.9% 6.4% 5.6% 4.6% 5.3% (1) Primarily an option for larger master plans. Would have an average affordability level of 60% AMI or less. This option is not likely to be practical for most projects in the Central City and Inner South and East neighborhoods based on typically smaller site / project size, thus lacking the scale to do a separate stand- alone LIHTC project.

Note: negative figures reflect estimated compliance cost that is less than the existing HIF.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 42
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

Table 4-2. Market Rent Increase Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of Affordable Housing Requirements Scenario Central City
Southern
Neighborhoods
North
Sacramento
and South
Natomas
North
Natomas
Inner South and
East
Neighborhoods
Med
Density
High
Density
5% Low @80% AMI 2.3% 3.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.0% 1.1%
5% Low @70% AMI 2.8% 3.4% 1.9% 1.8% 1.5% 1.6%
5% Low @60% AMI 3.2% 3.8% 2.4% 2.3% 2.0% 2.1%
5% Very Low @50% AMI 3.7% 4.2% 2.9% 2.9% 2.5% 2.6%
7% Low @80% AMI 3.1% 4.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.5% 1.7%
7% Low @70% AMI 3.7% 4.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.3% 2.4%
7% Low @60% AMI 4.4% 5.1% 3.4% 3.3% 3.0% 3.2%
7% Very Low @50% AMI 5.0% 5.7% 4.1% 4.1% 3.7% 3.9%
10% Low @80% AMI 4.6% 6.1% 3.1% 3.1% 2.7% 3.0%
10% Low @70% AMI 5.6% 6.9% 4.2% 4.2% 3.8% 4.1%
10% Low @60% AMI 6.5% 7.7% 5.3% 5.2% 4.9% 5.1%
10% Very Low @50% AMI 7.4% 8.5% 6.4% 6.3% 5.9% 6.2%
Remove existing HIF incentives 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% HIF @$5/SF 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2%
HIF @$7.50/SF 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6%
HIF @$10/SF 1.3% 1.0% 1.4% 1.4% 1.1% 1.0%
HIF @$15/SF 2.0% 1.6% 2.3% 2.3% 1.9% 1.7%
HIF @$20/SF 2.7% 2.1% 3.1% 3.1% 2.7% 2.4%

4.3 Total Fees and Permits Cost

Chart 4-7 illustrates how potential in-lieu fees would affect the total fees and permits costs for projects. Figures reflect simple averages for the residential prototypes included in the analysis, expressed on a per square foot basis. Figures assume full phase in of increased utility fees adopted in 2023.

 For single family homes, existing fees inclusive of those charged by other agencies total approximately $64,000, which equates to approximately $36 per square foot based on the average single family prototype unit size of 1,790 square feet. Eliminating existing housing impact fee incentives would result in an average increase of approximately $2,300 per home (4%). Increasing housing fees to $10 per square foot results in an approximately $13,800 per home increase in average permit costs, an approximately 22% increase.

 For rentals, existing fees inclusive of those charged by other agencies total approximately $30,000, which equates to approximately $37 per square foot based on the 820 square foot average of the prototype unit sizes. Eliminating existing housing impact fee incentives would result in an increase of approximately $1,500 per unit (5%), Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 43
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
on average. Increasing housing fees to $10 per square foot results in an approximately $6,800 per home increase in average permit costs, an approximately 23% increase.

Chart 4-7. Existing Fees and Permits Expense and Illustrative Increase with Affordable Housing Fee Alternatives

4.4 Potential Development Project Responses to Increased Requirement There are a variety of ways development projects could potentially respond to a new or significantly increased requirement, just as projects adapt to fluctuations in home prices, rents, construction costs and other factors. A minor change in costs may not result in a substantive adjustment to the economics of projects and may not lead to material effects, while a more substantive change might elicit one or more of the following possible outcomes:
 Adjustments to Land Costs – Developers purchase development sites at values that will
allow for fin
ancially feasible projects. When a housing fee or inclusionary housing requirement is in pla
ce, developers “price in” the requirement when evaluating a project’s e
conomics and negotiating the purchase price for development sites. When affordable housing fees or inclusionary requirements are increased, it is possible that downward p
ressure on land costs could result as developers adjust what they can afford to pay for la
nd. This downward pressure on land prices can, to some degree, bring costs back into be
tter balance with the overall economics supported by projects. While adjustments to land cost
s are possible, several factors limit the extent to which

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 44
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
adjustments can occur. Existing uses on a site that generate income or alternative land uses that compete for a site will tend to dampen the potential for downward adjustments to land price. Landowners have expectations regarding the value of their property and may hold the property off the market rather than accept a less attractive price, especially if the property is generating income, or it may take time for pricing expectations to adjust.

For larger master plan developments with substantial infrastructure requirements, a reduction in the value supported by the residential units affects the resources available to fund infrastructure and constrains the ability to absorb reduced land values while maintaining a viable financing plan for required infrastructure. As indicated in the analysis in Appendix A Tables 3A and 3B, adjustments to land values needed to absorb potential modified requirements can be quite substantial depending on the scenario, suggesting that adjustments to land values are unlikely to be the only shock absorber needed for projects to adapt to a substantial increase in requirements.  Improving Market Condit
ions Sustain Feasibility – When prices and rents are rising, it can help absorb the cost of a new requirement and allow projects to move forward despite an added cost.
 Narrower Range of Market Conditions where Projects Pencil – If a new requirement makes projects sign
ificantly more challenging, projects may only move forward under a narrower range of market condition
s, or in the extreme case, not at all. For example,
following a d
ownturn in the market, once conditions begin to improve again and new development projects
start to move forward, a significant new requirement could increase the
length of time for projects to begin moving again. In effect, projects may wait for market condit
ions to support somewhat higher market prices or rents before they move forward. In the extr
eme case, projects may not develop at all if requirements are too high for
any market condition the jurisdiction is likely to see.  Shift in Development to Other Communities – If a new requirement makes it substantially more costly
to build in the City of Sacramento relative to other nearby communities, projects in
nearby communities may “pencil” before projects in the City of Sacramento do. This cou
ld result in other communities absorbing a larger share of new residential development compared to the City of
Sacramento. Of course, decisions about where to
live often ba
lance a complex set of considerations, personnel preferences, and connection
s to place and family. As the urban core of the region and capital of California, Sacramento will always
have something special to offer. These factors may mitigate, to some degree, the potent
ial that development would shift elsewhere.

Changes that represent
a tiny fraction of the overall development cost of a project may not have a material effect. For more substantive changes, a combination of all the above adjustments may occur, or changes may be weighted toward one type of adjustment or another, depending on conditions specific to the jurisdiction. For example, a community or neighborhood where market conditions are strong and supply is very limited may see new requirements absorbed

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 45
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
mainly through adjustments to land values, while a community where market conditions are not as strong and potential purchasers of new units tend to be more cost sensitive may be more likely to see projects shift toward other jurisdictions or move forward under a narrower set of market conditions.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 46
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

5.0 DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY CONTACTS
KMA reached out to developers active in the Sacramento market to help inform the feasibility analysis and to supplement available market data. Professionals with the following organizations were interviewed:
 SKK Developments*
 Anthem
Properties
 Signature Homes
 Urban Capital*

Shea Homes*
 Brown
Construction*
 FPI
Management*
 Reynen and Bardis Homes*
 Jamboree
Housing
 Mutual Housing*
 29th Street Capital
 Next Generation Capital
 Capital Area Development Authority*
 St. Anton Communities
Contacts de
noted with an asterisk were interviewed in 2025 as part of this updated Feasibility Study while remaining contacts were interviewed in 2023. In addition to the organizations listed above, KMA contacted approximately ten additional development professionals who declined or did not respond to one or more requests for an interview.

The developers we spoke with provided a wide range of insights on topics including market conditions, construction and development cost estimates, multifamily operating expenses, how affordable housing obligations affect their pro forma, preferences regarding on-site units versus fee payment, among other topics.

The following themes emerged from these developer interviews:

1. For-sale Housing Market Conditions
– market conditions for for-sale builders are described as broadly
challenging. High interest rates, increases in the cost of living, and uncertainty regarding th
e economy have priced out potential buyers and made others reluctant to purchase in
the current market. Existing homeowners who locked in historically low interest rates before
substantially increases in interest rates in 2022 have little incentive to move.

These factor
s constrain the pool of buyers and affect the sales pace that can be achieved by builders. So
me builders have responded by focusing on smaller more affordable home types that may use lower cost
materials or finishes, and by offering incentives such as interest rate buy downs t
o buyers. Smaller infill projects in well-established neighborhoods in attractive locations ar
e somewhat more insulated from these broader market challenges due to very limited new supply in
these areas.

2. Market Rate Rentals have Substantia
l Feasibility Challenges - Feasibility of rentals has
become very challeng
ing. Factors constraining feasibility of rentals include:

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 47
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
 High construction costs - Construction costs escalated dramatically during the pandemic reaching a p
eak around 2022 as contractors, already operating at capacity, had little incentive
to offer competitive pricing. One developer indicated that, over the period from 2011 through 2022, multifamily const
ruction costs more than tripled. Since their peak in
2022, constr
uction costs have now decreased by roughly 10% but remain substantially above pre-covid leve
ls. Recent decreases in costs are driven by more competitive bidding by
contractors as the pace of construction slows.

Increases in multifamily operating expenses - Operating expenses for multi-family units have escalated rapidly. Increases of 10 to 15% year-over-year during the post-covid period were cited by one interviewee, and 30 to 35% cumulative increases since 2019 were cited b
y another. Insurance costs have experienced outsized increases, as much as triple o
ver the last five years, and have become more difficult to reliably estimate. 
A substantial new supply of units added to the urban core has increased competition for tenants and
induced projects to increase concessions offered to attract tenants, dampened rent growth, and resulted
in increased marketing expenditures. The new
supply is being absorbed
, and few new projects are starting, which may result in increased rent growth in the coming years.

Debt and equity financing for projects has become generally more expensive. Rising interest rates mean projects must achieve higher returns to justify development risk relative to
safer investment alternatives such as U.S. treasuries.

There is some uncertainty regarding market values and cap rates as few projects have sold recent
ly.

Despite broader feasibility challenges, some projects in the best locations supporting the highest rent
s may still pencil, along with projects with unique factors that support feasibility, such as a pro
perty tax exemption (see no. 4 below).

3. Adverse con
ditions are viewed as cyclical – Current feasibility challenges for rentals are viewed as cyclical in nat
ure. Some rental developers expressed greater optimism regarding the medium- to longer-te
rm time horizon and were continuing to invest in land acquisition and pre-development for future proje
cts. Examples of adjustments that would potentially
enable proje
cts to move forward include changes in expectations for land prices, more competitive
bidding by contractors, rent growth, or some combination of these. Land values have decrea
sed from the market peak, although some landowners are unwilling to recognize re
duced values, preferring to wait rather than transacting at a reduced price.

4. Low Income Units Receiving Propert
y Tax Exemption – multiple developers have been able
to make projects with sm
all units at 80% AMI rents pencil. Feasibility is made possible by

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 48
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
the following factors a) eligibility for a welfare property tax exemption, which requires a non- profit to hold title, b) impact fee waivers from the City for affordable units, c) a relatively nominal public agency contribution / loan needed to qualify for a welfare exemption, and d) use of the lowest cost project type, a three-story walk-up, with small unit sizes. Units at 80% to 120% have been included as part of the affordability mix, although not eligible for a property tax exemption, so that the project can accommodate a larger pool of renters and/or because public agencies providing funding request income restrictions at 120% AMI be placed on units that might otherwise be at market rate. The requirement that a non-profit hold title constrains options for sale after the project is built and stabilized. The model is seen as a niche approach that cannot be replicated at scale.

5. Opposition to Inclusionary Policy - Several market rate developers expressed opposition to an inclusionary requirement or housing impact fee, recommending the City focus on incentive-based approaches or financing tools to support the private sector in meeting affordability goals. Inclusionary policies were described as inefficient tools for delivery of affordable housing that adversely affect market rate projects and cut against other measures Sacramento has taken to support housing development. A focus on market-based solutions, incentives or financing tools, and missing middle housing was urged by some market rate developer interviewees.

6. Desire For Use of City Financing Tools – One interviewee suggested funding off-site improvements for market rate projects to reduce overall housing development costs; or use of public funds to finance upfront off-site public improvement costs with repayment from impact fees as the development builds out. Another interviewee suggested using financing backed by a credit guarantee from the City’s General Fund to provide developers with access to low cost financing for affordable units and support deeper affordability in projects such as those described in No. 4, above.

7. Fees versus on-site requirements – Several developers expressed a strong preference to have a fee option and strongly encouraged the City to consider retention of the fee option rather than move toward a mandatory requirement to include affordable units within the project. One developer cited greater uncertainty regarding the ultimate cost of an affordable housing obligation compared to a fee requirement that makes the fee much easier to evaluate during the predevelopment stage. One developer cited very high gaps between market prices and affordable prices for an on-site for-sale product. Providing a site for an affordable project financed with Low Income Housing Tax Credits within a larger master plan community was seen as a more favorable solution that would not present the same challenges as a mixed income on-site requirement would, and several developers had experience with this approach. One developer indicated that proposed changes to the MIHO are viewed as a “threat” and expressed concerns an on-site requirement or significantly increased fee would substantially impair the feasibility of projects, particularly given a more challenging feasibility environment at this time.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 49
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

8. Property management considerations – Several developers cited property management and service delivery challenges with including a limited number of on-site affordable units dispersed within a larger market rate rental project. The reason is that market rate property managers and owners do not have experience qualifying households for occupancy of affordable units and are not equipped to provide supportive services to those who need it.

With only a small number of affordable units, projects would likely lack the scale needed to hire a dedicated property manager with the relevant expertise.

9. Potential Incentives to offset the cost of affordable units

a. Density Bonus – Several developers suggested that a density bonus, which is available through State law, would be unlikely to encourage them to include affordable units on-site in the Sacramento market. In part, this is due to sufficient flexibility in zoning regulations, such that a density bonus was not seen as necessary. Another factor was the expectation that including affordable units on-site would be challenging financially.

b. Height and setbacks – one interviewee cited flexibility on development heights, setbacks, or other code requirements as a potential incentive for projects providing on-site units.

c. Off-site improvements – Providing funding for off-site improvements was cited as a potential incentive to offset the cost of affordable units.

10. Impact of New Requirements - Several developers indicated that the cost of affordable housing requirements comes out of residual land value while several other developers suggested that costs are passed on to market rate home buyers and renters.

11. Affordable Housing Projects Financed with LIHTCs – At least four of the developers interviewed had experience with 100% affordable projects. The following summarizes feedback that relates to 100% affordable projects financed with tax credits:

 Land is one of the most important factors for an affordable project to move forward. Not all sites are equal; sites in areas where projects are able to earn the required points for access to amenities is important and location in a high resource area is also a benefit. If land is dedicated under the MIHO, sites should be rough graded with all curb, gutter, sidewalks in place and utilities stubbed to the property line. A combination of land and fees provided through the MIHO would be beneficial as free land is insufficient on its own to enable affordable developers to deliver affordable units.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 50
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
 A minimum project size of 50 to 80 units was cited while a project size of 120 to 150 units was cited as preferable. Smaller projects are more of a challenge as they lack operating economies of scale for property management and services.

 In recent years there has been more funding for affordable housing available through the State, but the private activity bond volume cap has been reached, which has made securing tax exempt bonds and 4% tax credit financing competitive and resulted in a backlog of projects

8.  The ordinance should allow sufficient flexibility so that 100% affordable projects can respond to how funding is prioritized at the State level, which changes over time.

 Fee waivers for affordable units that the City provides are very helpful. Expediting plan check or putting affordable units at the front of the line would also be helpful.

 Providing a seamless or more coordinated process between the City, County and SHRA would be helpful for supporting affordable projects.

 Advantages of in-lieu fees over mandatory on-site inclusionary units is that fees can support 100% affordable projects that typically provide a deeper level of affordability, more services to residents, and leverage non-local subsidy sources. A per unit local subsidy in the range of $100,000 to $150,000 per unit was cited as necessary for delivery of affordable units, as a general guide, recognizing there will be differences from project to project and depending on what non-local sources can be secured.

 One affordable developer raised concerns regarding SHRA fees and requirements as adding cost and time to affordable projects relative to other jurisdictions. One example cited was requiring affordable units to use more costly materials for countertops.

 State subsidy sources typically require payment of prevailing wage, which results in higher development costs in the range of 20% to 40%. Some affordable developers have a model of avoiding the payment of prevailing wage by structuring projects in a manner that avoids pursuing certain subsidy sources that would trigger prevailing wage, but this approach also drives what affordability levels the project is able to serve.

 Affordable developers were asked to provide feedback on whether or how an inclusionary requirement affects their financing, given concerns raised by building industry representatives to that effect. In response, it was clarified that, if a LIHTC affordable project is being built to meet an inclusionary requirement for a market rate project, there can be scoring implications for certain project types in certain locations under the 9% tax credit program but not the 4% tax credit program. Under the 9% tax

8 Changes to the program adopted in July 2025 are expected to increase availability of LIHTC financing.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 51
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT
credit program, large family projects located in a High or Highest Resource area9 are eligible to receive a scoring boost that can help them secure financing, but only if the project is not also satisfying an inclusionary requirement. In contrast, with the 4% tax credit and tax exempt bond program, projects meeting an inclusionary requirement are eligible for the same scoring boost as other projects in a High or Highest Resource Area.

While there are provisions related to adjustments to threshold basis limits as well, which place upper limits on amounts considered for calculation of tax credits, we were advised threshold basis limits are generally not an operative constraint in the Sacramento market because the eligible basis on which tax credits are calculated is generally below threshold basis limits.

9 A map showing the location of these areas is available here: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2025-ctcachcd-affh-mapping-tool-nc.

The North Natomas, Inner South and East and Central City submarkets include areas designated as High or Highest Resource, but designations vary by U.S. Census tract.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 52
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx DRAFT

APPENDIX TABLES

Part A - Summary Tables Appendix A
Summary of Scenario Testing, For-Sale Table 1A
Summary of Scenario Testing, Rentals Table 1B
Equivalent Dollar Per Square Foot Cost of Alternative Requirements: For-Sale Table 2A Equivalent Dollar Per Square Foot Cost of Alternative Requirements: Rental Table 2B Percent Decrease in Land Cost Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of New Requirement: For-Sale Table 3A Percent Decrease in Land Cost Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of New Requirement: Rental Table 3B Total Fees/Permits/Affordable Housing Costs as % of Total Development Cost of Unit: For-Sale Table 4A Total Fees/Permits/Affordable Housing Costs as % of Total Development Cost of Unit: Rental Table 4B

Part B - For-Sale Pro Forma Tables
For-Sale Pro Forma Tables, Scenarios 1 to 22 Table 5A to 5V

Part C - Rental Pro Forma Tables
Rental Pro Forma Tables, Scenarios 1 to 19 Table 6A to 6S

Part D - Supporting Analysis and Data
Multifamily Residential Property Transactions Table 7 Residential Land Sales Table 8
Infrastructure Costs Comps, Master Plan Developments Table 9 Estimated Cost, Provision of Units in Stand Alone LIHTC Project Table 10 Affordable Rents Table 11
Affordable Home Price Calculation Table 12
Estimated Fees and Permit Cost Detail Table 13
Effective Rents, Apartments Built Since 2017 Table 14
New Homes for Sale May 2025 Table 15
Published Cap Rate Surveys Table 16

Appendix B - Prototype Projects and Pipeline Project Summaries Appendix B Prototype Projects Table 1
Projects: Central City Area Table 2A
Projects: South Neighborhoods Table 2B
Projects: North Sacramento and South Natomas Table 2C
Projects: North Natomas Table 2D
Projects: Inner South and East Neighborhoods Table 2E

APPENDIX A - PART A

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLES

Page 53 ends

Appendix A Table 1A
Summary of Scenario Testing, For-Sale
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT
Appendix A
Table
Central
City
Townhome SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot 1 Existing HIF (base case) Table 5A IF FMFF FF F
5% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
2 5% Mod @100% AMI Table 5B IF FMFF FF F
3 5% Mod @90% AMI Table 5C IF FMFF FF F
4 5% Low @70% AMI Table 5D IM FM FFF F F
7% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
5 7% Mod @100% AMI Table 5E IF FMFF FF F
6 7% Mod @90% AMI Table 5F IF FMFF FF F
7 7% Low @70% AMI Table 5G IM M I FFF F F
10% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
8 10% Mod @100% AMI Table 5H IF FMFF FF F
9 10% Mod @90% AMI Table 5I IM FM FFF F F
10 10% Low @70% AMI Table 5J IM M I FM FM F
15% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
11 15% Mod @100% AMI Table 5K IM FM FF FM F
12 15% Mod @90% AMI Table 5L IM F I FM FM F
13 15% Low @70% AMI Table 5M III I FI FI F
Include Stand-Alone LIHTC Affordable Project (primarily an option for larger master plans) 14 10% in LIHTC Project Table 5N n/a F F M F F F n/a n/a 15 15% in LIHTC Project Table 5O n/a F F M F F F n/a n/a 16 20% in LIHTC Project Table 5P n/a F F M F F F n/a n/a n/a = not likely to be practical based on typically smaller site / project size Affordable Housing Fee Scenarios
17 Existing HIF rate, remove HIF incentives Table 5Q IF FMFF FF F 18 HIF @$5/SF Table 5R IF FMFF FF F
19 HIF @$7.50/SF Table 5S IM FM FFF F F
20 HIF @$10/SF Table 5T IM M I FFF F F
21 HIF @$15/SF Table 5U IM M I FM F F F
22 HIF @$20/SF Table 5V II MI F M FF F
F= Feasible
M= Marginal Feasibility
I= Infeasible / Challenged
Scenario
Southern
Neighborhoods
North Sacramento
and South Natomas North Natomas
Inner South and
East Neighborhoods
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename:Sac City Feas 7-31-25; FSsum

Page 54 ends

Appendix A Table 1B
Summary of Scenario Testing, Rentals
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT
Appendix A
Table
Southern
Neighborhoods
North Sacramento
and South
Natomas
North
Natomas
Inner South and
East
Neighborhoods
Med Density High Density
1 Existing HIF (base case) Table 6A II I I I I
5% On-Site Affordable Units
2 5% Low @80% AMI Table 6B II I I I I
3 5% Low @70% AMI Table 6C II I I I I
4 5% Low @60% AMI Table 6D II I I I I
5 5% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6E II I I I I
7% On-Site Affordable Units
6 7% Low @80% AMI Table 6F II I I I I
7 7% Low @70% AMI Table 6G II I I I I
8 7% Low @60% AMI Table 6H II I I I I
9 7% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6I II I I I I
10% On-Site Affordable Units
10 10% Low @80% AMI Table 6J II I I I I
11 10% Low @70% AMI Table 6K II I I I I
12 10% Low @60% AMI Table 6L II I I I I
13 10% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6M II I I I I
Affordable Housing Fee Scenarios
14 Existing HIF, remove incentives and exemptions Table 6N II I I I I 15 HIF @$5/SF Table 6O II I I I I
16 HIF @$7.50/SF Table 6P II I I I I
17 HIF @$10/SF Table 6Q II I I I I
18 HIF @$15/SF Table 6R II I I I I
19 HIF @$20/SF Table 6S II I I I I
F= Feasible
M= Marginal Feasibility
I= Infeasible / Challenged
Central CityScenario
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename:Sac City Feas 7-31-25; Rsum

Page 55 ends

Appendix A Table 2A
Equivalent Dollar Per Square Foot Cost of Alternative Requirements: For-Sale Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT
Appendix A
Table
Central
City
Townhome SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot 1 Existing HIF (base case) Table 5A $4 $2 $2 $2 $2 $4 $4 $4 $0 5% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
2 5% Mod @100% AMI Table 5B $12 $2 $1 $3 $2 $4 $3 $11 $9 3 5% Mod @90% AMI Table 5C $13 $4 $3 $4 $3 $5 $5 $12 $11 4 5% Low @70% AMI Table 5D $16 $7 $7 $8 $7 $8 $9 $15 $14 7% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
5 7% Mod @100% AMI Table 5E $17 $3 $2 $4 $2 $6 $4 $15 $13 6 7% Mod @90% AMI Table 5F $18 $5 $4 $6 $4 $7 $6 $17 $15 7 7% Low @70% AMI Table 5G $23 $10 $10 $11 $10 $12 $12 $21 $20 10% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
8 10% Mod @100% AMI Table 5H $24 $5 $2 $6 $3 $8 $6 $22 $19 9 10% Mod @90% AMI Table 5I $26 $7 $5 $8 $6 $11 $9 $24 $21 10 10% Low @70% AMI Table 5J $33 $15 $14 $15 $15 $17 $17 $29 $29 15% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
11 15% Mod @100% AMI Table 5K $36 $7 $3 $9 $5 $13 $10 $33 $28 12 15% Mod @90% AMI Table 5L $39 $11 $8 $12 $9 $16 $14 $35 $32 13 15% Low @70% AMI Table 5M $49 $22 $21 $23 $22 $25 $26 $44 $43 Include Stand-Alone LIHTC Affordable Project (primarily an option for larger master plans) 14 10% in LIHTC Project Table 5N n/a $3 $4 $3 $4 $3 $4 n/a n/a 15 15% in LIHTC Project Table 5O n/a $5 $6 $5 $6 $4 $6 n/a n/a 16 20% in LIHTC Project Table 5P n/a $7 $9 $7 $8 $6 $8 n/a n/a n/a = not likely to be practical based on typically smaller site / project size Affordable Housing Fee Scenarios
17 Existing HIF rate, remove HIF incentives Table 5Q $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 18 HIF @$5/SF Table 5R $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5
19 HIF @$7.50/SF Table 5S $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8
20 HIF @$10/SF Table 5T $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 21 HIF @$15/SF Table 5U $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 22 HIF @$20/SF Table 5V $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 Note: Figures are calculated using the pro forma results adjusted such to a feasible base case (to avoid understating compliance cost).

Inner South and
East Neighborhoods
Equivalent Dollar Per Square Foot Cost
Scenario
Southern
Neighborhoods
North Sacramento
and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename:Sac City Feas 7-31-25; FSCC

Page 56 ends

Appendix A Table 2B
Equivalent Dollar Per Square Foot Cost of Alternative Requirements: Rental Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT
Appendix A
Table
Southern
Neighborhoods
North Sacramento
and South
Natomas
North
Natomas
Inner South and
East
Neighborhoods
Med Density High Density
1 Existing HIF (base case) Table 6A $0 $0 $2 $2 $4 $4
5% On-Site Affordable Units
2 5% Low @80% AMI Table 6B $17 $28 $9 $9 $9 $11
3 5% Low @70% AMI Table 6C $20 $31 $12 $12 $12 $14
4 5% Low @60% AMI Table 6D $23 $35 $15 $15 $15 $17
5 5% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6E $26 $38 $18 $18 $18 $21 7% On-Site Affordable Units
6 7% Low @80% AMI Table 6F $22 $36 $12 $12 $12 $14
7 7% Low @70% AMI Table 6G $26 $41 $16 $16 $16 $19
8 7% Low @60% AMI Table 6H $31 $46 $20 $20 $20 $23
9 7% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6I $35 $51 $24 $24 $24 $28 10% On-Site Affordable Units
10 10% Low @80% AMI Table 6J $31 $53 $18 $18 $19 $22
11 10% Low @70% AMI Table 6K $38 $60 $24 $24 $24 $28
12 10% Low @60% AMI Table 6L $44 $67 $30 $29 $30 $35
13 10% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6M $50 $74 $35 $35 $36 $41 Affordable Housing Fee Scenarios
14 Existing HIF, remove incentives and exemptions Table 6N $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 15 HIF @$5/SF Table 6O $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5
16 HIF @$7.50/SF Table 6P $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8
17 HIF @$10/SF Table 6Q $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10
18 HIF @$15/SF Table 6R $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15
19 HIF @$20/SF Table 6S $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20
Note: Figures are calculated using the pro forma results adjusted such to a feasible base case (to avoid understating compliance cost).

Scenario Central City
Equivalent Dollar Per Square Foot Cost
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename:Sac City Feas 7-31-25; RCC

Page 57 ends

Appendix A Table 3A
Percent Decrease in Land Cost Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of New Requirement: For-Sale Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT
Appendix A
Table
Central
City
Townhome SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot Estimated Land Cost Per Unit (finished lot) $260,000 $126,500 $101,900 $155,100 $101,900 $165,100 $106,900 $311,000 $172,000 Percent Decrease in Land Cost Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of New Requirement: For-Sale 1 Existing HIF (base case) Table 5A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
2 5% Mod @100% AMI Table 5B -4% -1% 1% -1% 0% -1% 1% -5% -9% 3 5% Mod @90% AMI Table 5C -5% -3% -1% -2% -2% -2% -1% -6% -11% 4 5% Low @70% AMI Table 5D -8% -8% -8% -7% -9% -6% -7% -8% -14% 7% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
5 7% Mod @100% AMI Table 5E -7% -3% 0% -2% -1% -3% -1% -9% -13% 6 7% Mod @90% AMI Table 5F -8% -5% -3% -4% -4% -5% -4% -10% -15% 7 7% Low @70% AMI Table 5G -12% -12% -12% -10% -13% -10% -13% -13% -20% 10% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
8 10% Mod @100% AMI Table 5H -11% -5% -1% -4% -3% -6% -4% -13% -19% 9 10% Mod @90% AMI Table 5I -13% -8% -5% -6% -7% -9% -8% -15% -21% 10 10% Low @70% AMI Table 5J -18% -18% -18% -15% -20% -17% -20% -19% -28% 15% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
11 15% Mod @100% AMI Table 5K -18% -8% -3% -6% -5% -12% -9% -21% -28% 12 15% Mod @90% AMI Table 5L -21% -13% -9% -11% -11% -16% -15% -24% -32% 13 15% Low @70% AMI Table 5M -28% -28% -27% -23% -30% -27% -33% -30% -43% Include Stand-Alone LIHTC Affordable Project (primarily an option for larger master plans) 14 10% in LIHTC Project Table 5N n/a -2% -3% -2% -3% 1% 0% n/a n/a 15 15% in LIHTC Project Table 5O n/a -5% -6% -4% -6% -1% -3% n/a n/a 16 20% in LIHTC Project Table 5P n/a -8% -10% -6% -10% -3% -6% n/a n/a n/a = not likely to be practical based on typically smaller site / project size Affordable Housing Fee Scenarios
17 Existing HIF rate, remove HIF incentives Table 5Q 0% -3% -3% -3% -3% 0% 0% 0% -4% 18 HIF @$5/SF Table 5R -1% -5% -5% -4% -5% -2% -2% -1% -5% 19 HIF @$7.50/SF Table 5S -3% -8% -9% -7% -9% -5% -6% -3% -7% 20 HIF @$10/SF Table 5T -5% -12% -12% -10% -12% -8% -10% -5% -10% 21 HIF @$15/SF Table 5U -8% -19% -19% -17% -20% -15% -17% -8% -15% 22 HIF @$20/SF Table 5V -12% -26% -26% -23% -27% -21% -25% -12% -20% Inner South and
East NeighborhoodsScenario
Southern
Neighborhoods
North Sacramento
and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename:Sac City Feas 7-31-25; FSRLV

Page 58 ends

Appendix A Table 3B
Percent Decrease in Land Cost Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of New Requirement: Rental Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT
Appendix A
Table
Southern
Neighborhoods
North Sacramento
and South
Natomas
North
Natomas
Inner South and
East
Neighborhoods
Med Density High Density
Estimated Land Cost/Unit $44,000 $33,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $41,000 Percent Decrease in Land Cost Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of New Requirement: Rental 1 Existing HIF (base case) Table 6A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5% On-Site Affordable Units
2 5% Low @80% AMI Table 6B -13% -21% -6% -5% -10% -4%
3 5% Low @70% AMI Table 6C -20% -26% -12% -19% -17% -8% 4 5% Low @60% AMI Table 6D -24% -37% -26% -26% -24% -12% 5 5% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6E -28% -42% -33% -32% -37% -20% 7% On-Site Affordable Units
6 7% Low @80% AMI Table 6F -16% -25% -12% -11% -15% -3% 7 7% Low @70% AMI Table 6G -23% -36% -18% -25% -22% -11% 8 7% Low @60% AMI Table 6H -31% -46% -32% -32% -36% -20% 9 7% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6I -39% -51% -46% -45% -49% -28% 10% On-Site Affordable Units
10 10% Low @80% AMI Table 6J -26% -38% -16% -16% -26% -10% 11 10% Low @70% AMI Table 6K -33% -53% -37% -36% -46% -22% 12 10% Low @60% AMI Table 6L -45% -64% -57% -57% -66% -35% 13 10% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6M -53% -79% -70% -77% -80% -43% Affordable Housing Fee Scenarios
14 Existing HIF, remove incentives and exemptions Table 6N -6% -8% -7% -7% 0% 0% 15 HIF @$5/SF Table 6O -9% -10% -12% -12% -5% -3%
16 HIF @$7.50/SF Table 6P -13% -16% -21% -21% -14% -8%
17 HIF @$10/SF Table 6Q -18% -21% -30% -30% -23% -12%
18 HIF @$15/SF Table 6R -26% -31% -48% -48% -41% -22%
19 HIF @$20/SF Table 6S -35% -42% -66% -66% -59% -31%
Scenario Central City
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename:Sac City Feas 7-31-25; RRLV

Page 59 ends

Appendix A Table 4A
Total Fees/Permits/Affordable Housing Costs as % of Total Development Cost of Unit: For-Sale Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT
Appendix
A Table
Central
City
Townhome SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot SF SF sm lot 1 Existing HIF (base case) Table 5A 7.9% 12.4% 12.3% 11.3% 12.2% 15.2% 16.4% 8.0% 8.3% 5% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
2 5% Mod @100% AMI Table 5B 8.4% 12.1% 11.5% 10.9% 11.5% 14.1% 14.9% 8.9% 10.6% 3 5% Mod @90% AMI Table 5C 8.6% 12.5% 12.0% 11.3% 12.0% 14.5% 15.4% 9.2% 10.9% 4 5% Low @70% AMI Table 5D 9.4% 13.9% 13.5% 12.7% 13.6% 15.6% 16.8% 10.0% 11.9% 7% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
5 7% Mod @100% AMI Table 5E 9.2% 12.4% 11.6% 11.2% 11.7% 14.6% 15.2% 10.1% 11.5% 6 7% Mod @90% AMI Table 5F 9.6% 13.0% 12.3% 11.8% 12.4% 15.1% 15.9% 10.4% 12.0% 7 7% Low @70% AMI Table 5G 10.6% 14.9% 14.4% 13.6% 14.6% 16.7% 17.9% 11.5% 13.3% 10% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
8 10% Mod @100% AMI Table 5H 10.4% 12.8% 11.7% 11.6% 11.9% 15.4% 15.7% 11.7% 12.9% 9 10% Mod @90% AMI Table 5I 10.9% 13.7% 12.7% 12.4% 13.0% 16.1% 16.6% 12.2% 13.6% 10 10% Low @70% AMI Table 5J 12.5% 16.4% 15.8% 15.0% 16.0% 18.4% 19.4% 13.7% 15.5% 15% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units
11 15% Mod @100% AMI Table 5K 12.5% 13.6% 11.9% 12.2% 12.3% 16.6% 16.5% 14.5% 15.2% 12 15% Mod @90% AMI Table 5L 13.3% 14.9% 13.5% 13.5% 13.8% 17.8% 17.9% 15.2% 16.2% 13 15% Low @70% AMI Table 5M 15.5% 18.9% 18.0% 17.5% 18.5% 21.2% 22.1% 17.5% 19.1% Include Stand-Alone LIHTC Affordable Project (primarily an option for larger master plans) 14 10% in LIHTC Project Table 5N n/a 13.5% 13.8% 12.3% 13.7% 14.6% 16.4% n/a n/a 15 15% in LIHTC Project Table 5O n/a 14.8% 15.2% 13.5% 15.0% 15.6% 17.6% n/a n/a 16 20% in LIHTC Project Table 5P n/a 16.1% 16.8% 14.8% 16.6% 16.8% 19.0% n/a n/a n/a = not likely to be practical based on typically smaller site / project size Affordable Housing Fee Scenarios
17 Existing HIF rate, remove HIF incentives Table 5Q 7.9% 13.8% 13.7% 12.8% 13.5% 15.2% 16.4% 8.0% 10.1% 18 HIF @$5/SF Table 5R 8.5% 14.8% 14.6% 13.7% 14.5% 16.1% 17.3% 8.8% 10.8% 19 HIF @$7.50/SF Table 5S 9.6% 16.4% 16.1% 15.5% 16.1% 17.8% 18.8% 10.0% 12.0% 20 HIF @$10/SF Table 5T 10.6% 18.0% 17.7% 17.1% 17.7% 19.4% 20.3% 11.2% 13.2% 21 HIF @$15/SF Table 5U 12.7% 21.2% 20.7% 20.3% 20.7% 22.4% 23.3% 13.6% 15.6% 22 HIF @$20/SF Table 5V 14.8% 24.2% 23.6% 23.5% 23.7% 25.4% 26.1% 16.0% 17.9% Inner South and
East
NeighborhoodsScenario
Southern
Neighborhoods
North Sacramento
and South
Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename:Sac City Feas 7-31-25; FS%TDC

Page 60 ends

Appendix A Table 4B
Total Fees/Permits/Affordable Housing Costs as % of Total Development Cost of Unit: Rental Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT
Appendix
A Table
Southern
Neighborhoods
North
Sacramento and
South Natomas
North
Natomas
Inner South and
East
Neighborhoods
Med Density High Density
1 Existing HIF (base case) Table 6A 6.8% 5.5% 7.6% 7.1% 10.7% 7.7% 5% On-Site Affordable Units
2 5% Low @80% AMI Table 6B 8.0% 6.7% 7.5% 7.0% 10.4% 7.3% 3 5% Low @70% AMI Table 6C 8.8% 7.0% 8.0% 8.0% 10.8% 7.8% 4 5% Low @60% AMI Table 6D 9.2% 7.7% 8.9% 8.4% 11.3% 8.2% 5 5% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6E 9.6% 8.0% 9.4% 8.9% 12.2% 9.2% 7% On-Site Affordable Units
6 7% Low @80% AMI Table 6F 8.3% 6.9% 7.9% 7.4% 10.6% 7.2% 7 7% Low @70% AMI Table 6G 9.1% 7.6% 8.3% 8.3% 11.1% 8.1% 8 7% Low @60% AMI Table 6H 9.9% 8.3% 9.3% 8.8% 12.0% 9.0% 9 7% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6I 10.7% 8.6% 10.2% 9.7% 12.9% 10.0% 10% On-Site Affordable Units
10 10% Low @80% AMI Table 6J 9.2% 7.7% 8.2% 7.7% 11.3% 7.9% 11 10% Low @70% AMI Table 6K 10.0% 8.6% 9.5% 9.1% 12.6% 9.3% 12 10% Low @60% AMI Table 6L 11.3% 9.3% 10.9% 10.5% 13.9% 10.7% 13 10% Very Low @50% AMI Table 6M 12.1% 10.3% 11.8% 11.8% 14.8% 11.6% Affordable Housing Fee Scenarios
14 Existing HIF, remove incentives and exemptions Table 6N 8.0% 6.4% 8.5% 8.1% 10.7% 7.7% 15 HIF @$5/SF Table 6O 8.6% 6.8% 9.2% 8.7% 11.3% 8.3%
16 HIF @$7.50/SF Table 6P 9.4% 7.4% 10.3% 9.9% 12.4% 9.3% 17 HIF @$10/SF Table 6Q 10.3% 8.0% 11.4% 11.0% 13.5% 10.3% 18 HIF @$15/SF Table 6R 12.0% 9.3% 13.7% 13.3% 15.6% 12.2% 19 HIF @$20/SF Table 6S 13.7% 10.5% 15.8% 15.5% 17.7% 14.1% Scenario Central City
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename:Sac City Feas 7-31-25; R%TDC

Page 61 ends

APPENDIX A - PART B

FOR-SALE PRO FORMA TABLES

Page 62 ends

Appendix A Table 5A
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis Existing HIF Requirement
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 100% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 0% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 0% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($15) ($27,300) ($10) ($17,600) ($11) ($15,300) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $439 $812,700 $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55 $101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000 Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $31 $58,200 $33 $57,400 $34 $49,400 Housing Impact Fee $4 $6,600 $2 $2,700 $2 $2,200
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $303 $561,000 $204 $357,200 $218 $316,900 Total Development Cost $444 $821,000 $276 $483,700 $289 $418,800 Net Sales Revenue $439 $812,700 $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 <Less> Development Costs ($444) ($821,000) ($276) ($483,700) ($289) ($418,800) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($36) ($67,200) ($25) ($43,200) ($26) ($37,600) Surplus / (Gap) ($41) ($75,500) ($3) ($4,500) ($1) ($1,700) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -9% -1% 0%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Small Lot Detached
Central City
Single Family Detached
Southern Neighborhoods
Infeasible / Challenged Feasible Feasible
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 63 ends

Appendix A Table 5A
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

3.25% sales
Revenue Net of Sales Expense
Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad)
Site / Intract Improvements
Subtotal Lot Cost
House Construction
Direct House Costs
Fees & Permits, excl. hsg
Housing Impact Fee
Marketing

1.5% sales
Warranty 1% sales
Other Indirects 9% directs
Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales
Financing
Subtotal Home Construction
Total Development Cost
Net Sales Revenue
<Less> Development Costs
<Less> Net Builder Profit
8% sales
Surplus / (Gap)
Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Existing HIF Requirement

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 ($9) ($17,900) ($11) ($16,300) ($10) ($21,800) ($12) ($18,700) $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $29 $55,200 $33 $49,600 $39 $82,200 $45 $71,600
$2 $2,900 $2 $2,300 $4 $7,500 $4 $5,700
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$188 $356,900 $215 $323,100 $202 $424,500 $228 $364,300 $269 $512,000 $283 $425,000 $281 $589,600 $295 $471,200 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 ($269) ($512,000) ($283) ($425,000) ($281) ($589,600) ($295) ($471,200) ($23) ($44,000) ($27) ($40,000) ($26) ($53,600) ($29) ($46,000) ($13) ($23,900) $12 $18,700 $2 $5,000 $24 $39,100
-5% 4% 1% 8%
Single Family Detached
Marginal Feasibility
Small Lot Detached
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Small Lot Detached Sin gle Family Detached
Feasible Feasible Feasible
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 64 ends

Appendix A Table 5A
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
($14) ($33,200) ($15) ($26,000)
$429 $986,800 $455 $774,000
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$27 $62,100 $32 $54,100
$4 $8,200 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$245 $563,500 $281 $477,900
$380 $874,500 $382 $649,900
$429 $986,800 $455 $774,000
($380) ($874,500) ($382) ($649,900)
($35) ($81,600) ($38) ($64,000)
$13 $30,700 $35 $60,100
4% 9%
Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Feasible Feasible
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 65 ends

Appendix A Table 5B
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 5% Moderate @100% AMI Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 95% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 0% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 5% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $442 $818,254 $305 $533,999 $322 $467,150 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($26,600) ($10) ($17,400) ($10) ($15,200) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $428 $791,654 $295 $516,599 $312 $451,950 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $31 $56,800 $32 $56,400 $33 $48,500 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $299 $553,000 $202 $353,500 $216 $313,800 Total Development Cost $439 $813,000 $274 $480,000 $287 $415,700 Net Sales Revenue $428 $791,654 $295 $516,599 $312 $451,950 <Less> Development Costs ($439) ($813,000) ($274) ($480,000) ($287) ($415,700) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($35) ($65,460) ($24) ($42,720) ($26) ($37,372) Surplus / (Gap) ($47) ($86,800) ($3) ($6,100) ($1) ($1,100) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -11% -1% 0%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Feasible Feasible
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 66 ends

Appendix A Table 5B
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
95%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 5%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$286 $543,987 $331 $496,069 $313 $657,987 $355 $567,319 ($9) ($17,700) ($11) ($16,100) ($10) ($21,400) ($12) ($18,400) $277 $526,287 $320 $479,969 $303 $636,587 $343 $548,919 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $28 $54,100 $32 $48,600 $38 $80,400 $44 $69,900
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$186 $352,900 $213 $319,800 $198 $415,200 $223 $356,900 $267 $508,000 $281 $421,700 $276 $580,300 $290 $463,800 $277 $526,287 $320 $479,969 $303 $636,587 $343 $548,919 ($267) ($508,000) ($281) ($421,700) ($276) ($580,300) ($290) ($463,800) ($23) ($43,519) ($26) ($39,685) ($25) ($52,639) ($28) ($45,385) ($13) ($25,200) $12 $18,600 $2 $3,600 $25 $39,700
-5% 4% 1% 9%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Marginal Feasibility Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 67 ends

Appendix A Table 5B
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
95%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 5%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$431 $990,348 $459 $780,650
($14) ($32,200) ($15) ($25,400)
$417 $958,148 $444 $755,250
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$26 $60,700 $31 $52,900
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$241 $553,900 $280 $476,700
$376 $864,900 $382 $648,700
$417 $958,148 $444 $755,250
($376) ($864,900) ($382) ($648,700)
($34) ($79,228) ($37) ($62,452)
$6 $14,000 $26 $44,100
2% 7%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 68 ends

Appendix A Table 5C
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 5% Moderate @90% AMI Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 95% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 5% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 0% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $441 $815,936 $304 $531,586 $321 $464,785 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($26,500) ($10) ($17,300) ($10) ($15,100) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $427 $789,436 $294 $514,286 $310 $449,685 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $31 $56,800 $32 $56,400 $33 $48,500 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $299 $553,000 $202 $353,500 $216 $313,800 Total Development Cost $439 $813,000 $274 $480,000 $287 $415,700 Net Sales Revenue $427 $789,436 $294 $514,286 $310 $449,685 <Less> Development Costs ($439) ($813,000) ($274) ($480,000) ($287) ($415,700) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($35) ($65,275) ($24) ($42,527) ($26) ($37,183) Surplus / (Gap) ($48) ($88,800) ($5) ($8,200) ($2) ($3,200) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -11% -2% -1%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Feasible Feasible
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 69 ends

Appendix A Table 5C
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
95%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 5%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$285 $541,508 $329 $493,647 $312 $655,508 $353 $564,897 ($9) ($17,600) ($11) ($16,000) ($10) ($21,300) ($12) ($18,400) $276 $523,908 $318 $477,647 $302 $634,208 $342 $546,497 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $28 $54,100 $32 $48,600 $38 $80,400 $44 $69,900
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$186 $352,900 $213 $319,800 $198 $415,200 $223 $356,900 $267 $508,000 $281 $421,700 $276 $580,300 $290 $463,800 $276 $523,908 $318 $477,647 $302 $634,208 $342 $546,497 ($267) ($508,000) ($281) ($421,700) ($276) ($580,300) ($290) ($463,800) ($23) ($43,321) ($26) ($39,492) ($25) ($52,441) ($28) ($45,192) ($14) ($27,400) $11 $16,500 $1 $1,500 $23 $37,500
-5% 4% 0% 8%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Marginal Feasibility Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 70 ends

Appendix A Table 5C
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
95%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 5%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$430 $987,888 $458 $778,285
($14) ($32,100) ($15) ($25,300)
$416 $955,788 $443 $752,985
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$26 $60,700 $31 $52,900
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$241 $553,900 $280 $476,700
$376 $864,900 $382 $648,700
$416 $955,788 $443 $752,985
($376) ($864,900) ($382) ($648,700)
($34) ($79,031) ($37) ($62,263)
$5 $11,900 $25 $42,000
1% 6%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 71 ends

Appendix A Table 5D
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 5% Low Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 95% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 5% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 0% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 0% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $437 $808,985 $300 $524,350 $316 $457,690 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($26,300) ($10) ($17,000) ($10) ($14,900) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $423 $782,685 $290 $507,350 $305 $442,790 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $31 $56,800 $32 $56,400 $33 $48,500 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $299 $553,000 $202 $353,500 $216 $313,800 Total Development Cost $439 $813,000 $274 $480,000 $287 $415,700 Net Sales Revenue $423 $782,685 $290 $507,350 $305 $442,790 <Less> Development Costs ($439) ($813,000) ($274) ($480,000) ($287) ($415,700) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($35) ($64,719) ($24) ($41,948) ($25) ($36,615) Surplus / (Gap) ($51) ($95,000) ($8) ($14,600) ($7) ($9,500) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -12% -3% -2%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 72 ends

Appendix A Table 5D
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
95%
Low@70% AMI 5%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$281 $534,074 $324 $486,382 $309 $648,074 $349 $557,632 ($9) ($17,400) ($11) ($15,800) ($10) ($21,100) ($11) ($18,100) $272 $516,674 $314 $470,582 $299 $626,974 $337 $539,532 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $28 $54,100 $32 $48,600 $38 $80,400 $44 $69,900
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$186 $352,900 $213 $319,800 $198 $415,200 $223 $356,900 $267 $508,000 $281 $421,700 $276 $580,300 $290 $463,800 $272 $516,674 $314 $470,582 $299 $626,974 $337 $539,532 ($267) ($508,000) ($281) ($421,700) ($276) ($580,300) ($290) ($463,800) ($22) ($42,726) ($26) ($38,911) ($25) ($51,846) ($28) ($44,611) ($18) ($34,100) $7 $10,000 ($2) ($5,200) $19 $31,100
-7% 2% -1% 7%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Marginal Feasibility Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 73 ends

Appendix A Table 5D
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
95%
Low@70% AMI 5%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$426 $980,510 $454 $771,190
($14) ($31,900) ($15) ($25,100)
$412 $948,610 $439 $746,090
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$26 $60,700 $31 $52,900
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$241 $553,900 $280 $476,700
$376 $864,900 $382 $648,700
$412 $948,610 $439 $746,090
($376) ($864,900) ($382) ($648,700)
($34) ($78,441) ($36) ($61,695)
$2 $5,300 $21 $35,700
1% 6%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 74 ends

Appendix A Table 5E
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 7% Moderate @100% AMI Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 93% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 0% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 7% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $438 $809,556 $304 $531,598 $321 $466,010 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($26,300) ($10) ($17,300) ($10) ($15,100) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $423 $783,256 $294 $514,298 $311 $450,910 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $30 $56,300 $32 $56,000 $33 $48,100 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $298 $552,500 $202 $353,100 $216 $313,400 Total Development Cost $439 $812,500 $274 $479,600 $286 $415,300 Net Sales Revenue $423 $783,256 $294 $514,298 $311 $450,910 <Less> Development Costs ($439) ($812,500) ($274) ($479,600) ($286) ($415,300) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($35) ($64,764) ($24) ($42,528) ($26) ($37,281) Surplus / (Gap) ($51) ($94,000) ($4) ($7,800) ($1) ($1,700) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -12% -2% 0%
Feasibility Finding
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Infeasible / Challenged Feasible Feasible
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 75 ends

Appendix A Table 5E
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
93%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 7%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$285 $541,582 $330 $494,496 $311 $653,182 $353 $564,246 ($9) ($17,600) ($11) ($16,100) ($10) ($21,200) ($11) ($18,300) $276 $523,982 $319 $478,396 $301 $631,982 $341 $545,946 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $28 $53,700 $32 $48,200 $38 $79,700 $43 $69,200
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$186 $352,500 $213 $319,400 $197 $414,500 $223 $356,200 $267 $507,600 $281 $421,300 $276 $579,600 $289 $463,100 $276 $523,982 $319 $478,396 $301 $631,982 $341 $545,946 ($267) ($507,600) ($281) ($421,300) ($276) ($579,600) ($289) ($463,100) ($23) ($43,327) ($26) ($39,560) ($25) ($52,255) ($28) ($45,140) ($14) ($26,900) $12 $17,500 $0 $100 $24 $37,700
-5% 4% 0% 8%
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Feasible Feasible
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 76 ends

Appendix A Table 5E
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
93%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 7%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$425 $978,487 $455 $772,910
($14) ($31,800) ($15) ($25,100)
$412 $946,687 $440 $747,810
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$26 $60,200 $31 $52,400
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$240 $553,400 $280 $476,200
$376 $864,400 $381 $648,200
$412 $946,687 $440 $747,810
($376) ($864,400) ($381) ($648,200)
($34) ($78,279) ($36) ($61,833)
$2 $4,000 $22 $37,800
0% 6%
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Feasible Feasible
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 77 ends

Appendix A Table 5F
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 7% Moderate @90% AMI Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 93% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 7% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 0% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $436 $806,310 $302 $528,221 $319 $462,699 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($26,200) ($10) ($17,200) ($10) ($15,000) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $422 $780,110 $292 $511,021 $309 $447,699 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $30 $56,300 $32 $56,000 $33 $48,100 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $298 $552,500 $202 $353,100 $216 $313,400 Total Development Cost $439 $812,500 $274 $479,600 $286 $415,300 Net Sales Revenue $422 $780,110 $292 $511,021 $309 $447,699 <Less> Development Costs ($439) ($812,500) ($274) ($479,600) ($286) ($415,300) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($35) ($64,505) ($24) ($42,258) ($26) ($37,016) Surplus / (Gap) ($52) ($96,900) ($6) ($10,800) ($3) ($4,600) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -12% -2% -1%
Feasibility Finding
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Infeasible / Challenged Feasible Feasible
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 78 ends

Appendix A Table 5F
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
93%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 7%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$283 $538,111 $327 $491,105 $309 $649,711 $351 $560,855 ($9) ($17,500) ($11) ($16,000) ($10) ($21,100) ($11) ($18,200) $274 $520,611 $317 $475,105 $299 $628,611 $339 $542,655 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $28 $53,700 $32 $48,200 $38 $79,700 $43 $69,200
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$186 $352,500 $213 $319,400 $197 $414,500 $223 $356,200 $267 $507,600 $281 $421,300 $276 $579,600 $289 $463,100 $274 $520,611 $317 $475,105 $299 $628,611 $339 $542,655 ($267) ($507,600) ($281) ($421,300) ($276) ($579,600) ($289) ($463,100) ($23) ($43,049) ($26) ($39,288) ($25) ($51,977) ($28) ($44,868) ($16) ($30,000) $10 $14,500 ($1) ($3,000) $22 $34,700
-6% 3% -1% 7%
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Feasible Feasible
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 79 ends

Appendix A Table 5F
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
93%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 7%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$424 $975,043 $453 $769,599
($14) ($31,700) ($15) ($25,000)
$410 $943,343 $438 $744,599
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$26 $60,200 $31 $52,400
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$240 $553,400 $280 $476,200
$376 $864,400 $381 $648,200
$410 $943,343 $438 $744,599
($376) ($864,400) ($381) ($648,200)
($34) ($78,003) ($36) ($61,568)
$0 $900 $20 $34,800
0% 5%
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Feasible Feasible
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 80 ends

Appendix A Table 5G
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 7% Low Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 93% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 7% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 0% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 0% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $431 $796,579 $296 $518,090 $312 $452,766 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($25,900) ($10) ($16,800) ($10) ($14,700) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $417 $770,679 $286 $501,290 $302 $438,066 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $30 $56,300 $32 $56,000 $33 $48,100 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $298 $552,500 $202 $353,100 $216 $313,400 Total Development Cost $439 $812,500 $274 $479,600 $286 $415,300 Net Sales Revenue $417 $770,679 $286 $501,290 $302 $438,066 <Less> Development Costs ($439) ($812,500) ($274) ($479,600) ($286) ($415,300) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($34) ($63,726) ($24) ($41,447) ($25) ($36,221) Surplus / (Gap) ($57) ($105,500) ($11) ($19,800) ($9) ($13,500) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -13% -4% -3%
Feasibility Finding
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Infeasible / Challenged Marginal Feasibility Marginal Feasibility Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 81 ends

Appendix A Table 5G
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
93%
Low@70% AMI 7%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$278 $527,704 $321 $480,935 $304 $639,304 $344 $550,685 ($9) ($17,200) ($10) ($15,600) ($10) ($20,800) ($11) ($17,900) $269 $510,504 $310 $465,335 $295 $618,504 $333 $532,785 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $28 $53,700 $32 $48,200 $38 $79,700 $43 $69,200
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$186 $352,500 $213 $319,400 $197 $414,500 $223 $356,200 $267 $507,600 $281 $421,300 $276 $579,600 $289 $463,100 $269 $510,504 $310 $465,335 $295 $618,504 $333 $532,785 ($267) ($507,600) ($281) ($421,300) ($276) ($579,600) ($289) ($463,100) ($22) ($42,216) ($26) ($38,475) ($24) ($51,144) ($28) ($44,055) ($21) ($39,300) $4 $5,600 ($6) ($12,200) $16 $25,600
-8% 1% -2% 6%
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Infeasible / Challenged Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Feasible Feasible
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 82 ends

Appendix A Table 5G
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
93%
Low@70% AMI 7%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$419 $964,714 $447 $759,666
($14) ($31,400) ($15) ($24,700)
$406 $933,314 $432 $734,966
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$26 $60,200 $31 $52,400
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$240 $553,400 $280 $476,200
$376 $864,400 $381 $648,200
$406 $933,314 $432 $734,966
($376) ($864,400) ($381) ($648,200)
($34) ($77,177) ($36) ($60,773)
($4) ($8,300) $15 $26,000
-1% 4%
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Feasible Feasible
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 83 ends

Appendix A Table 5H
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 10% Moderate @100% AMI Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 90% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 0% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 10% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $431 $796,508 $302 $527,998 $320 $464,300 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($25,900) ($10) ($17,200) ($10) ($15,100) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $417 $770,608 $292 $510,798 $310 $449,200 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $30 $55,400 $32 $55,500 $33 $47,600 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $298 $551,600 $201 $352,600 $215 $312,900 Total Development Cost $439 $811,600 $274 $479,100 $286 $414,800 Net Sales Revenue $417 $770,608 $292 $510,798 $310 $449,200 <Less> Development Costs ($439) ($811,600) ($274) ($479,100) ($286) ($414,800) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($34) ($63,721) ($24) ($42,240) ($26) ($37,144) Surplus / (Gap) ($57) ($104,700) ($6) ($10,500) ($2) ($2,700) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -13% -2% -1%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Feasible Feasible
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 84 ends

Appendix A Table 5H
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
90%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 10%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$283 $537,974 $328 $492,137 $308 $645,974 $350 $559,637 ($9) ($17,500) ($11) ($16,000) ($10) ($21,000) ($11) ($18,200) $274 $520,474 $317 $476,137 $298 $624,974 $338 $541,437 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $28 $53,100 $32 $47,600 $37 $78,600 $43 $68,100
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$185 $351,900 $213 $318,800 $197 $413,400 $222 $355,100 $267 $507,000 $280 $420,700 $275 $578,500 $289 $462,000 $274 $520,474 $317 $476,137 $298 $624,974 $338 $541,437 ($267) ($507,000) ($280) ($420,700) ($275) ($578,500) ($289) ($462,000) ($23) ($43,038) ($26) ($39,371) ($25) ($51,678) ($28) ($44,771) ($16) ($29,600) $11 $16,100 ($2) ($5,200) $22 $34,700
-6% 4% -1% 8%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Marginal Feasibility Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 85 ends

Appendix A Table 5H
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
90%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 10%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$418 $960,695 $448 $761,300
($14) ($31,200) ($15) ($24,700)
$404 $929,495 $433 $736,600
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$26 $59,400 $30 $51,700
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$240 $552,600 $279 $475,500
$375 $863,600 $381 $647,500
$404 $929,495 $433 $736,600
($375) ($863,600) ($381) ($647,500)
($33) ($76,856) ($36) ($60,904)
($5) ($11,000) $17 $28,200
-1% 4%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 86 ends

Appendix A Table 5I
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 10% Moderate @90% AMI Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 90% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 10% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 0% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $428 $791,872 $299 $523,173 $317 $459,570 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($25,700) ($10) ($17,000) ($10) ($14,900) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $414 $766,172 $289 $506,173 $307 $444,670 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $30 $55,400 $32 $55,500 $33 $47,600 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $298 $551,600 $201 $352,600 $215 $312,900 Total Development Cost $439 $811,600 $274 $479,100 $286 $414,800 Net Sales Revenue $414 $766,172 $289 $506,173 $307 $444,670 <Less> Development Costs ($439) ($811,600) ($274) ($479,100) ($286) ($414,800) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($34) ($63,350) ($24) ($41,854) ($25) ($36,766) Surplus / (Gap) ($59) ($108,800) ($8) ($14,800) ($5) ($6,900) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -13% -3% -2%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 87 ends

Appendix A Table 5I
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
90%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 10%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$281 $533,016 $325 $487,293 $305 $641,016 $347 $554,793 ($9) ($17,300) ($11) ($15,800) ($10) ($20,800) ($11) ($18,000) $271 $515,716 $314 $471,493 $295 $620,216 $335 $536,793 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $28 $53,100 $32 $47,600 $37 $78,600 $43 $68,100
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$185 $351,900 $213 $318,800 $197 $413,400 $222 $355,100 $267 $507,000 $280 $420,700 $275 $578,500 $289 $462,000 $271 $515,716 $314 $471,493 $295 $620,216 $335 $536,793 ($267) ($507,000) ($280) ($420,700) ($275) ($578,500) ($289) ($462,000) ($22) ($42,641) ($26) ($38,983) ($24) ($51,281) ($28) ($44,383) ($18) ($33,900) $8 $11,800 ($5) ($9,600) $19 $30,400
-7% 3% -2% 7%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Marginal Feasibility Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 88 ends

Appendix A Table 5I
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
90%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 10%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$416 $955,775 $445 $756,570
($14) ($31,100) ($14) ($24,600)
$402 $924,675 $431 $731,970
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$26 $59,400 $30 $51,700
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$240 $552,600 $279 $475,500
$375 $863,600 $381 $647,500
$402 $924,675 $431 $731,970
($375) ($863,600) ($381) ($647,500)
($33) ($76,462) ($36) ($60,526)
($7) ($15,400) $14 $23,900
-2% 4%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 89 ends

Appendix A Table 5J
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 10% Low Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 90% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 10% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 0% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 0% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $421 $777,970 $291 $508,700 $307 $445,380 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($25,300) ($9) ($16,500) ($10) ($14,500) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $407 $752,670 $281 $492,200 $297 $430,880 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $30 $55,400 $32 $55,500 $33 $47,600 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $298 $551,600 $201 $352,600 $215 $312,900 Total Development Cost $439 $811,600 $274 $479,100 $286 $414,800 Net Sales Revenue $407 $752,670 $281 $492,200 $297 $430,880 <Less> Development Costs ($439) ($811,600) ($274) ($479,100) ($286) ($414,800) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($34) ($62,238) ($23) ($40,696) ($25) ($35,630) Surplus / (Gap) ($66) ($121,200) ($16) ($27,600) ($14) ($19,600) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -15% -6% -5%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Marginal Feasibility Marginal Feasibility Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 90 ends

Appendix A Table 5J
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
90%
Low@70% AMI 10%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$273 $518,148 $315 $472,764 $298 $626,148 $338 $540,264 ($9) ($16,800) ($10) ($15,400) ($10) ($20,300) ($11) ($17,600) $264 $501,348 $305 $457,364 $288 $605,848 $327 $522,664 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $28 $53,100 $32 $47,600 $37 $78,600 $43 $68,100
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$185 $351,900 $213 $318,800 $197 $413,400 $222 $355,100 $267 $507,000 $280 $420,700 $275 $578,500 $289 $462,000 $264 $501,348 $305 $457,364 $288 $605,848 $327 $522,664 ($267) ($507,000) ($280) ($420,700) ($275) ($578,500) ($289) ($462,000) ($22) ($41,452) ($25) ($37,821) ($24) ($50,092) ($27) ($43,221) ($25) ($47,100) ($1) ($1,200) ($11) ($22,700) $11 $17,400 -9% 0% -4% 4%
Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 91 ends

Appendix A Table 5J
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
90%
Low@70% AMI 10%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$409 $941,020 $437 $742,380
($13) ($30,600) ($14) ($24,100)
$396 $910,420 $423 $718,280
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$26 $59,400 $30 $51,700
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$240 $552,600 $279 $475,500
$375 $863,600 $381 $647,500
$396 $910,420 $423 $718,280
($375) ($863,600) ($381) ($647,500)
($33) ($75,282) ($35) ($59,390)
($12) ($28,500) $7 $11,400
-3% 2%
Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 92 ends

Appendix A Table 5K
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 15% Moderate @100% AMI Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 85% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 0% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 15% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $419 $774,762 $298 $521,996 $318 $461,450 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($25,200) ($10) ($17,000) ($10) ($15,000) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $405 $749,562 $289 $504,996 $308 $446,450 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $29 $54,100 $31 $54,500 $32 $46,700 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $297 $550,300 $201 $351,600 $215 $312,000 Total Development Cost $438 $810,300 $273 $478,100 $285 $413,900 Net Sales Revenue $405 $749,562 $289 $504,996 $308 $446,450 <Less> Development Costs ($438) ($810,300) ($273) ($478,100) ($285) ($413,900) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($34) ($61,981) ($24) ($41,760) ($25) ($36,916) Surplus / (Gap) ($66) ($122,700) ($9) ($14,900) ($3) ($4,400) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -15% -3% -1%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 93 ends

Appendix A Table 5K
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
85%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 15%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$280 $531,961 $325 $488,206 $302 $633,961 $345 $551,956 ($9) ($17,300) ($11) ($15,900) ($10) ($20,600) ($11) ($17,900) $271 $514,661 $315 $472,306 $292 $613,361 $334 $534,056 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $27 $52,000 $31 $46,600 $37 $76,800 $42 $66,400
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$185 $350,800 $212 $317,800 $196 $411,600 $221 $353,400 $266 $505,900 $280 $419,700 $275 $576,700 $288 $460,300 $271 $514,661 $315 $472,306 $292 $613,361 $334 $534,056 ($266) ($505,900) ($280) ($419,700) ($275) ($576,700) ($288) ($460,300) ($22) ($42,557) ($26) ($39,056) ($24) ($50,717) ($28) ($44,156) ($18) ($33,800) $9 $13,500 ($7) ($14,100) $19 $29,600
-7% 3% -2% 6%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Marginal Feasibility Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 94 ends

Appendix A Table 5K
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
85%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 15%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$405 $931,043 $436 $741,950
($13) ($30,300) ($14) ($24,100)
$392 $900,743 $422 $717,850
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$25 $58,000 $30 $50,500
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$239 $551,200 $279 $474,300
$375 $862,200 $380 $646,300
$392 $900,743 $422 $717,850
($375) ($862,200) ($380) ($646,300)
($32) ($74,483) ($35) ($59,356)
($16) ($35,900) $7 $12,200
-4% 2%
Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 95 ends

Appendix A Table 5L
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 15% Moderate @90% AMI Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 85% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 15% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 0% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $415 $767,808 $294 $514,759 $313 $454,355 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($14) ($25,000) ($10) ($16,700) ($10) ($14,800) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $402 $742,808 $285 $498,059 $303 $439,555 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $29 $54,100 $31 $54,500 $32 $46,700 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $297 $550,300 $201 $351,600 $215 $312,000 Total Development Cost $438 $810,300 $273 $478,100 $285 $413,900 Net Sales Revenue $402 $742,808 $285 $498,059 $303 $439,555 <Less> Development Costs ($438) ($810,300) ($273) ($478,100) ($285) ($413,900) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($33) ($61,425) ($24) ($41,181) ($25) ($36,348) Surplus / (Gap) ($70) ($128,900) ($12) ($21,200) ($7) ($10,700) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -16% -4% -3%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 96 ends

Appendix A Table 5L
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
85%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 15%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$276 $524,524 $321 $480,940 $298 $626,524 $340 $544,690 ($9) ($17,000) ($10) ($15,600) ($10) ($20,400) ($11) ($17,700) $267 $507,524 $310 $465,340 $289 $606,124 $329 $526,990 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $27 $52,000 $31 $46,600 $37 $76,800 $42 $66,400
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$185 $350,800 $212 $317,800 $196 $411,600 $221 $353,400 $266 $505,900 $280 $419,700 $275 $576,700 $288 $460,300 $267 $507,524 $310 $465,340 $289 $606,124 $329 $526,990 ($266) ($505,900) ($280) ($419,700) ($275) ($576,700) ($288) ($460,300) ($22) ($41,962) ($26) ($38,475) ($24) ($50,122) ($27) ($43,575) ($21) ($40,300) $5 $7,200 ($10) ($20,700) $14 $23,100
-8% 2% -4% 5%
Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 97 ends

Appendix A Table 5L
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
85%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 15%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$402 $923,663 $432 $734,855
($13) ($30,000) ($14) ($23,900)
$389 $893,663 $418 $710,955
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$25 $58,000 $30 $50,500
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$239 $551,200 $279 $474,300
$375 $862,200 $380 $646,300
$389 $893,663 $418 $710,955
($375) ($862,200) ($380) ($646,300)
($32) ($73,893) ($35) ($58,788)
($18) ($42,400) $3 $5,900
-5% 1%
Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 98 ends

Appendix A Table 5M
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis 15% Low Units
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 85% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 15% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 0% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 0% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $404 $746,955 $282 $493,050 $299 $433,070 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($13) ($24,300) ($9) ($16,000) ($10) ($14,100) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $391 $722,655 $273 $477,050 $289 $418,970 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55
$101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000
Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $29 $54,100 $31 $54,500 $32 $46,700 Housing Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $297 $550,300 $201 $351,600 $215 $312,000 Total Development Cost $438 $810,300 $273 $478,100 $285 $413,900 Net Sales Revenue $391 $722,655 $273 $477,050 $289 $418,970 <Less> Development Costs ($438) ($810,300) ($273) ($478,100) ($285) ($413,900) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($32) ($59,756) ($23) ($39,444) ($24) ($34,646) Surplus / (Gap) ($80) ($147,400) ($23) ($40,500) ($20) ($29,600) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -18% -8% -7%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Infeasible / Challenged Infeasible / Challenged Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 99 ends

Appendix A Table 5M
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
85%
Low@70% AMI 15%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$264 $502,222 $306 $459,146 $288 $604,222 $327 $522,896 ($9) ($16,300) ($10) ($14,900) ($9) ($19,600) ($11) ($17,000) $256 $485,922 $296 $444,246 $278 $584,622 $316 $505,896 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $27 $52,000 $31 $46,600 $37 $76,800 $42 $66,400
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$185 $350,800 $212 $317,800 $196 $411,600 $221 $353,400 $266 $505,900 $280 $419,700 $275 $576,700 $288 $460,300 $256 $485,922 $296 $444,246 $278 $584,622 $316 $505,896 ($266) ($505,900) ($280) ($419,700) ($275) ($576,700) ($288) ($460,300) ($21) ($40,178) ($24) ($36,732) ($23) ($48,338) ($26) ($41,832) ($32) ($60,200) ($8) ($12,200) ($19) ($40,400) $2 $3,800 -12% -3% -7% 1%
Infeasible / Challenged Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 100 ends

Appendix A Table 5M
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
85%
Low@70% AMI 15%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$392 $901,530 $420 $713,570
($13) ($29,300) ($14) ($23,200)
$379 $872,230 $406 $690,370
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$25 $58,000 $30 $50,500
$0 $0 $0 $0
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$239 $551,200 $279 $474,300
$375 $862,200 $380 $646,300
$379 $872,230 $406 $690,370
($375) ($862,200) ($380) ($646,300)
($31) ($72,122) ($34) ($57,086)
($27) ($62,100) ($8) ($13,000)
-7% -2%
Infeasible / Challenged Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 101 ends

Appendix A Table 5N
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis Include Standalone LIHTC Project Equiv to 10% of Units Include Standalone LIHTC Project Equiv to 10% of Units Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT DRAFT

Living Area 1,750 sf 1,450 sf 1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf Lot Size 3,000 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms Density 11 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 100% $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 Mod@90% AMI 0% $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 Mod@100% AMI 0% $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 $226 $429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370 Average Gross Sales Price $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($10) ($17,600) ($11) ($15,300) ($9) ($17,900) ($11) ($16,300) ($10) ($21,800) ($12) ($18,700) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900 Site / Intract Improvements $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000 $38 $73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000 Subtotal Lot Cost $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 $82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 $110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $33 $57,400 $34 $49,400 $29 $55,200 $33 $49,600 $39 $82,200 $45 $71,600 LIHTC Site/Cash Contrib. $3 $5,600 $4 $5,600 $3 $5,600 $4 $5,600 $3 $5,600 $4 $5,600 Marketing 1.5% sales $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100 $4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600 Warranty 1% sales $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700 $3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800 Other Indirects 9% directs $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 $10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 $14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800 Financing $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000 $16 $29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800 Subtotal Home Construction $206 $360,100 $221 $320,300 $189 $359,600 $218 $326,400 $201 $422,600 $228 $364,200 Total Development Cost $278 $486,600 $291 $422,200 $271 $514,700 $286 $428,300 $280 $587,700 $294 $471,100 Net Sales Revenue $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 <Less> Development Costs ($278) ($486,600) ($291) ($422,200) ($271) ($514,700) ($286) ($428,300) ($280) ($587,700) ($294) ($471,100) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($25) ($43,200) ($26) ($37,600) ($23) ($44,000) ($27) ($40,000) ($26) ($53,600) ($29) ($46,000) Surplus / (Gap) ($4) ($7,400) ($4) ($5,100) ($14) ($26,600) $10 $15,400 $3 $6,900 $25 $39,200 Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -2% -1% -5% 4% 1% 8%
Feasibility Finding Feasible Feasible
Appendix A Table 10
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Appendix A Table 13
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Feasible Feasible Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Southern Neighborhoods North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 102 ends

Appendix A Table 5O
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis Include Standalone LIHTC Project Equiv to 15% of Units Include Standalone LIHTC Project Equiv to 15% of Units Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT DRAFT

Living Area 1,750 sf 1,450 sf 1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf Lot Size 3,000 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms Density 11 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 100% $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 Mod@90% AMI 0% $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 Mod@100% AMI 0% $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 $226 $429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370 Average Gross Sales Price $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($10) ($17,600) ($11) ($15,300) ($9) ($17,900) ($11) ($16,300) ($10) ($21,800) ($12) ($18,700) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900 Site / Intract Improvements $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000 $38 $73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000 Subtotal Lot Cost $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 $82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 $110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $33 $57,400 $34 $49,400 $29 $55,200 $33 $49,600 $39 $82,200 $45 $71,600 LIHTC Site/Cash Contrib. $5 $8,800 $6 $8,800 $5 $8,800 $6 $8,800 $4 $8,800 $6 $8,800 Marketing 1.5% sales $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100 $4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600 Warranty 1% sales $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700 $3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800 Other Indirects 9% directs $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 $10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 $14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800 Financing $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000 $16 $29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800 Subtotal Home Construction $208 $363,300 $223 $323,500 $191 $362,800 $220 $329,600 $203 $425,800 $230 $367,400 Total Development Cost $280 $489,800 $293 $425,400 $273 $517,900 $288 $431,500 $281 $590,900 $296 $474,300 Net Sales Revenue $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 <Less> Development Costs ($280) ($489,800) ($293) ($425,400) ($273) ($517,900) ($288) ($431,500) ($281) ($590,900) ($296) ($474,300) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($25) ($43,200) ($26) ($37,600) ($23) ($44,000) ($27) ($40,000) ($26) ($53,600) ($29) ($46,000) Surplus / (Gap) ($6) ($10,600) ($6) ($8,300) ($16) ($29,800) $8 $12,200 $2 $3,700 $23 $36,000 Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -2% -2% -6% 3% 1% 8%
Feasibility Finding Feasible Feasible
Appendix A Table 10
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Appendix A Table 13
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Feasible Feasible Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Southern Neighborhoods North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 103 ends

Appendix A Table 5P
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis Include Standalone LIHTC Project Equiv to 20% of Units Include Standalone LIHTC Project Equiv to 20% of Units Sacramento MIHO Review DRAFT DRAFT

Living Area 1,750 sf 1,450 sf 1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf Lot Size 3,000 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms Density 11 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 100% $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 Mod@90% AMI 0% $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 Mod@100% AMI 0% $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 $226 $429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370 Average Gross Sales Price $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($10) ($17,600) ($11) ($15,300) ($9) ($17,900) ($11) ($16,300) ($10) ($21,800) ($12) ($18,700) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900 Site / Intract Improvements $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000 $38 $73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000 Subtotal Lot Cost $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 $82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 $110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $33 $57,400 $34 $49,400 $29 $55,200 $33 $49,600 $39 $82,200 $45 $71,600 LIHTC Site/Cash Contrib. $7 $12,500 $9 $12,500 $7 $12,500 $8 $12,500 $6 $12,500 $8 $12,500 Marketing 1.5% sales $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100 $4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600 Warranty 1% sales $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700 $3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800 Other Indirects 9% directs $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 $10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 $14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800 Financing $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000 $16 $29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800 Subtotal Home Construction $210 $367,000 $225 $327,200 $193 $366,500 $222 $333,300 $205 $429,500 $232 $371,100 Total Development Cost $282 $493,500 $296 $429,100 $275 $521,600 $290 $435,200 $283 $594,600 $299 $478,000 Net Sales Revenue $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 <Less> Development Costs ($282) ($493,500) ($296) ($429,100) ($275) ($521,600) ($290) ($435,200) ($283) ($594,600) ($299) ($478,000) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($25) ($43,200) ($26) ($37,600) ($23) ($44,000) ($27) ($40,000) ($26) ($53,600) ($29) ($46,000) Surplus / (Gap) ($8) ($14,300) ($8) ($12,000) ($18) ($33,500) $6 $8,500 $0 $0 $20 $32,300 Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -3% -3% -6% 2% 0% 7%
Feasibility Finding Feasible Feasible
Appendix A Table 10
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Appendix A Table 13
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Feasible Feasible Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Southern Neighborhoods North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 104 ends

Appendix A Table 5Q
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis HIF (existing rate, no incentives) Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

Living Area 1,850 sf 1,750 sf 1,450 sf
Lot Size 1,300 sf 3,000 sf 1,800 sf
Average Number of Bedrooms 2.8 bedrooms 3.25 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms Density 26 du/acre 11 du/acre 18 du/acre
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Market Rate Units 100% $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 Low@70% AMI 0% $119 $219,700 $130 $227,000 $154 $223,800 Mod@90% AMI 0% $194 $358,720 $212 $371,725 $252 $365,700 Mod@100% AMI 0% $219 $405,080 $240 $419,975 $285 $413,000 Average Gross Sales Price $454 $840,000 $309 $540,000 $324 $470,000 <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($15) ($27,300) ($10) ($17,600) ($11) ($15,300) Revenue Net of Sales Expense $439 $812,700 $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 Land and Lot Development
Site cost (pad) $86 $159,000 $39 $67,500 $32 $45,900
Site / Intract Improvements $55 $101,000 $34 $59,000 $39 $56,000 Subtotal Lot Cost $141 $260,000 $72 $126,500 $70 $101,900 House Construction
Direct House Costs $190 $352,000 $120 $210,000 $130 $189,000 Fees & Permits, excl. hsg $31 $58,200 $33 $57,400 $34 $49,400 HIF (existing rate, no incentives) $4 $6,600 $4 $6,200 $4 $5,200 Marketing

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $303 $561,000 $206 $360,700 $220 $319,900 Total Development Cost $444 $821,000 $278 $487,200 $291 $421,800 Net Sales Revenue $439 $812,700 $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 <Less> Development Costs ($444) ($821,000) ($278) ($487,200) ($291) ($421,800) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($36) ($67,200) ($25) ($43,200) ($26) ($37,600) Surplus / (Gap) ($41) ($75,500) ($5) ($8,000) ($3) ($4,700) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -9% -2% -1%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Feasible Feasible
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 105 ends

Appendix A Table 5Q
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 ($9) ($17,900) ($11) ($16,300) ($10) ($21,800) ($12) ($18,700) $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $29 $55,200 $33 $49,600 $39 $82,200 $45 $71,600
$4 $6,800 $4 $5,300 $4 $7,500 $4 $5,700
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$190 $360,800 $217 $326,100 $202 $424,500 $228 $364,300 $272 $515,900 $285 $428,000 $281 $589,600 $295 $471,200 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 ($272) ($515,900) ($285) ($428,000) ($281) ($589,600) ($295) ($471,200) ($23) ($44,000) ($27) ($40,000) ($26) ($53,600) ($29) ($46,000) ($15) ($27,800) $10 $15,700 $2 $5,000 $24 $39,100
-5% 4% 1% 8%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Marginal Feasibility Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 106 ends

Appendix A Table 5Q
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
($14) ($33,200) ($15) ($26,000)
$429 $986,800 $455 $774,000
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$27 $62,100 $32 $54,100
$4 $8,200 $4 $6,100
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$245 $563,500 $284 $484,000
$380 $874,500 $386 $656,000
$429 $986,800 $455 $774,000
($380) ($874,500) ($386) ($656,000)
($35) ($81,600) ($38) ($64,000)
$13 $30,700 $32 $54,000
4% 8%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 107 ends

Appendix A Table 5R
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis Housing Fee @ $5/SF
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $304 $563,700 $208 $363,300 $222 $322,000 Total Development Cost $445 $823,700 $280 $489,800 $292 $423,900 Net Sales Revenue $439 $812,700 $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 <Less> Development Costs ($445) ($823,700) ($280) ($489,800) ($292) ($423,900) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($36) ($67,200) ($25) ($43,200) ($26) ($37,600) Surplus / (Gap) ($42) ($78,200) ($6) ($10,600) ($5) ($6,800) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -9% -2% -2%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Feasible Feasible
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 108 ends

Appendix A Table 5R
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 ($9) ($17,900) ($11) ($16,300) ($10) ($21,800) ($12) ($18,700) $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $29 $55,200 $33 $49,600 $39 $82,200 $45 $71,600
$5 $9,500 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,500 $5 $8,000
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$191 $363,500 $219 $328,300 $204 $427,500 $229 $366,600 $273 $518,600 $287 $430,200 $282 $592,600 $296 $473,500 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 ($273) ($518,600) ($287) ($430,200) ($282) ($592,600) ($296) ($473,500) ($23) ($44,000) ($27) ($40,000) ($26) ($53,600) ($29) ($46,000) ($16) ($30,500) $9 $13,500 $1 $2,000 $23 $36,800
-6% 3% 0% 8%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Marginal Feasibility Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 109 ends

Appendix A Table 5R
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
($14) ($33,200) ($15) ($26,000)
$429 $986,800 $455 $774,000
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$27 $62,100 $32 $54,100
$5 $11,500 $5 $8,500
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$246 $566,800 $286 $486,400
$382 $877,800 $387 $658,400
$429 $986,800 $455 $774,000
($382) ($877,800) ($387) ($658,400)
($35) ($81,600) ($38) ($64,000)
$12 $27,400 $30 $51,600
3% 8%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 110 ends

Appendix A Table 5S
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis Housing Fee @ $7.5/SF
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $307 $568,300 $210 $367,600 $224 $325,600 Total Development Cost $448 $828,300 $282 $494,100 $295 $427,500 Net Sales Revenue $439 $812,700 $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 <Less> Development Costs ($448) ($828,300) ($282) ($494,100) ($295) ($427,500) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($36) ($67,200) ($25) ($43,200) ($26) ($37,600) Surplus / (Gap) ($45) ($82,800) ($9) ($14,900) ($7) ($10,400) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -10% -3% -2%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 111 ends

Appendix A Table 5S
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 ($9) ($17,900) ($11) ($16,300) ($10) ($21,800) ($12) ($18,700) $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $29 $55,200 $33 $49,600 $39 $82,200 $45 $71,600
$8 $14,300 $8 $11,300 $8 $15,800 $8 $12,000
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$194 $368,300 $221 $332,100 $206 $432,800 $232 $370,600 $275 $523,400 $289 $434,000 $285 $597,900 $298 $477,500 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 ($275) ($523,400) ($289) ($434,000) ($285) ($597,900) ($298) ($477,500) ($23) ($44,000) ($27) ($40,000) ($26) ($53,600) ($29) ($46,000) ($19) ($35,300) $6 $9,700 ($2) ($3,300) $21 $32,800
-7% 2% -1% 7%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Marginal Feasibility Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 112 ends

Appendix A Table 5S
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
($14) ($33,200) ($15) ($26,000)
$429 $986,800 $455 $774,000
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$27 $62,100 $32 $54,100
$8 $17,300 $8 $12,800
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$249 $572,600 $288 $490,700
$384 $883,600 $390 $662,700
$429 $986,800 $455 $774,000
($384) ($883,600) ($390) ($662,700)
($35) ($81,600) ($38) ($64,000)
$9 $21,600 $28 $47,300
2% 7%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 113 ends

Appendix A Table 5T
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis Housing Fee @ $10/SF
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $309 $572,900 $213 $372,000 $227 $329,200 Total Development Cost $450 $832,900 $285 $498,500 $297 $431,100 Net Sales Revenue $439 $812,700 $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 <Less> Development Costs ($450) ($832,900) ($285) ($498,500) ($297) ($431,100) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($36) ($67,200) ($25) ($43,200) ($26) ($37,600) Surplus / (Gap) ($47) ($87,400) ($11) ($19,300) ($10) ($14,000) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -10% -4% -3%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Marginal Feasibility Marginal Feasibility Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 114 ends

Appendix A Table 5T
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 ($9) ($17,900) ($11) ($16,300) ($10) ($21,800) ($12) ($18,700) $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $29 $55,200 $33 $49,600 $39 $82,200 $45 $71,600
$10 $19,000 $10 $15,000 $10 $21,000 $10 $16,000
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$196 $373,000 $224 $335,800 $209 $438,000 $234 $374,600 $278 $528,100 $292 $437,700 $287 $603,100 $301 $481,500 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 ($278) ($528,100) ($292) ($437,700) ($287) ($603,100) ($301) ($481,500) ($23) ($44,000) ($27) ($40,000) ($26) ($53,600) ($29) ($46,000) ($21) ($40,000) $4 $6,000 ($4) ($8,500) $18 $28,800
-8% 1% -1% 6%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 115 ends

Appendix A Table 5T
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 3 of 3 ends

2,300 sf 1,700 sf
4,100 sf 1,600 sf

3.5 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms
8 du/acre 20 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
$100 $230,200 $132 $223,800
$164 $377,750 $215 $365,700
$186
$426,950 $243 $413,000
$443 $1,020,000 $471 $800,000
($14) ($33,200) ($15) ($26,000)
$429 $986,800 $455 $774,000
$83 $191,000 $45 $76,000
$52
$120,000 $56 $96,000
$135 $311,000 $101 $172,000
$145 $334,000 $175 $298,000
$27 $62,100 $32 $54,100
$10 $23,000 $10 $17,000
$7 $15,300 $7 $12,000
$4 $10,200 $5 $8,000
$13 $30,100 $16 $26,800
$22 $51,000 $24 $40,000
$23
$52,600 $23 $39,000
$251 $578,300 $291 $494,900
$387 $889,300 $392 $666,900
$429 $986,800 $455 $774,000
($387) ($889,300) ($392) ($666,900)
($35) ($81,600) ($38) ($64,000)
$7 $15,900 $25 $43,100
2% 6%
Feasible Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached
Inner South and East Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 116 ends

Appendix A Table 5U
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis Housing Fee @ $15/SF
Sacramento MIHO Review Page 1 of 3 DRAFT

1.5% sales $7 $12,600 $5 $8,100 $5 $7,100
Warranty 1% sales $5 $8,400 $3 $5,400 $3 $4,700
Other Indirects 9% directs $17 $31,700 $11 $18,900 $12 $17,000 Builder Overhead/G&A 5% sales $23 $42,000 $15 $27,000 $16 $23,500 Financing $27 $49,500 $16 $27,700 $17 $24,000
Subtotal Home Construction $314 $582,200 $218 $380,800 $232 $336,500 Total Development Cost $455 $842,200 $290 $507,300 $302 $438,400 Net Sales Revenue $439 $812,700 $299 $522,400 $314 $454,700 <Less> Development Costs ($455) ($842,200) ($290) ($507,300) ($302) ($438,400) <Less> Net Builder Profit 8% sales ($36) ($67,200) ($25) ($43,200) ($26) ($37,600) Surplus / (Gap) ($52) ($96,700) ($16) ($28,100) ($15) ($21,300) Suplus / (Gap) %Total Dev Cost -11% -6% -5%
Feasibility Finding
Appendix A Table 13
Attached Townhomes Sin gle Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Marginal Feasibility Marginal Feasibility Central City Southern Neighborhoods
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 117 ends

Appendix A Table 5U
For-Sale Pro Forma
Feasibility Analysis
Sacramento MIHO Review

Living Area
Lot Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Density
Revenue
Market Rate Units
100%
Low@70% AMI 0%
Mod@90% AMI 0%
Mod@100% AMI 0%
Average Gross Sales Price
<Less> Sales, Closing

Page 2 of 3 ends

1,900 sf 1,500 sf 2,100 sf 1,600 sf
3,600 sf 1,800 sf 3,600 sf 1,800 sf

3.60 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms 3.6 bedrooms 3.3 bedrooms
9 du/acre 18 du/acre 9 du/acre 18 du/acre
Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit Per SF Per Unit $289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 $122 $231,480 $152 $227,640 $110 $231,480 $142 $227,640 $200 $380,160 $249 $372,930 $181 $380,160 $233 $372,930 $226
$429,740 $281 $421,370 $205 $429,740 $263 $421,370
$289 $550,000 $333 $500,000 $319 $670,000 $359 $575,000 ($9) ($17,900) ($11) ($16,300) ($10) ($21,800) ($12) ($18,700) $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 $43 $82,100 $31 $45,900 $44 $92,100 $32 $50,900
$38
$73,000 $37 $56,000 $35 $73,000 $35 $56,000
$82 $155,100 $68 $101,900 $79 $165,100 $67 $106,900
$110 $209,000 $128 $192,000 $110 $231,000 $125 $200,000 $29 $55,200 $33 $49,600 $39 $82,200 $45 $71,600
$15 $28,500 $15 $22,500 $15 $31,500 $15 $24,000
$4 $8,300 $5 $7,500 $5 $10,100 $5 $8,600
$3 $5,500 $3 $5,000 $3 $6,700 $4 $5,800
$10 $18,800 $12 $17,300 $10 $20,800 $11 $18,000
$14 $27,500 $17 $25,000 $16 $33,500 $18 $28,800
$16
$29,700 $16 $24,400 $16 $32,700 $16 $25,800
$201 $382,500 $229 $343,300 $214 $448,500 $239 $382,600 $283 $537,600 $297 $445,200 $292 $613,600 $306 $489,500 $280 $532,100 $322 $483,700 $309 $648,200 $348 $556,300 ($283) ($537,600) ($297) ($445,200) ($292) ($613,600) ($306) ($489,500) ($23) ($44,000) ($27) ($40,000) ($26) ($53,600) ($29) ($46,000) ($26) ($49,500) ($1) ($1,500) ($9) ($19,000) $13 $20,800 -9% 0% -3% 4%
Marginal Feasibility Feasible
Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Single Family Detached Small Lot Detached Infeasible / Challenged Feasible
North Sacramento and South Natomas North Natomas
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Sac City Feas 7-31-25

Page 118 ends

Sacramento City CouncilDecember 9, 2025

Sacramento City Council
December 9, 2025