Agenda packet — Folsom City Council, August 26, 2025 (part 4 of 4)

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Broadstone Crossing Phase II
Transportation Impact Study and Local Transportation Study

86 8.3 Emergency Vehicle Access
The Project’s internal drive isles have 25 -foot inner/50 -foot outer minimum turning radii to accommodate fire department access. In addition to the primary access, separate emergency vehicle access is also provided.

Finding: Emergency vehicle access is anticipated to be adequate.

8.4 Right-Turn Deceleration/Acceleration Lanes and Tapers for Driveways For driveways on minor or major arterials, City standards require a 60-foot right turn taper in conditions with ten or more peak-hour right turns into a driveway, and a 150-foot pocket plus 60- foot taper, with fifty or more peak-hour right turns18.

The Project’s Kilrush Dr driveway is anticipated to have up to 302 inbound right turns and a 150- foot pocket plus 60-foot taper. Kilrush Dr is not a minor or major arterial and therefore does not require any changes.

The Project’s Iron Point Rd driveway is anticipated to have up to 30 inbound right turns from Iron Point R oad. A right turn taper is required . The site plan’s depiction of a planned right turn deceleration lane and taper at this location does not require any changes.

Finding: Driveway access geometry is anticipated to be adequate.

8.5 Pedestrian Access
While traffic counts show relatively low demand for pedestrian crossings of East Bidwell St (6 or fewer crossings combined between the East Bidwell St/Iron Point Rd and East Bidwell St/Broadstone Pkwy intersections) , i t is anticipated the Project ’s 200,840 sqft of space will accommodate approximately 670 employees (1 employee per 300 sqft). Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation data (Section 5.2) estimates that the Project will generate 75 AM peak hour pedestrian trips and 109 PM peak hour pedestrian trips. This translates into enough demand to expect pedestrian phase calls to cro ss East Bidwell during nearly every cycle of the traffic signal at East Bidwell /Via Felice.

Microsimulation of the effect of those pedestrian crossings to the signal coordination on East Bidwell St was shown in Section 5 and Section 6. That analysis showed that level-of-service at East Bidwell St /Via Felice would fail to meet General Plan policy level- of-service D standard and that there would be extensive queue. The City and TKTPM believe that this creates a dangerous and frustrating environment for Pedestrians. Having adequate time and space to separate Pedestrian and vehicle traffic is particularly important near medical facilities which are frequented by the elderly and infirm.

18 Folsom Improvement Standards, section 12.5 and 12.6, https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/384/637466585843430000 .

Page 452 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Broadstone Crossing Phase II
Transportation Impact Study and Local Transportation Study

87 A pedestrian over crossing (bridge) of East Bidwell St is recommended to maintain a safe pedestrian environment. A pedestrian bridge is also a key part of the abatement strategy for Project vehicle traffic. The pedestrian bridge addresses both the increases in vehicle and pedestrian traffic associated with the Project, and vehicle traffic from other foreseeable Projects.

Therefore, it is appropriate that the Project pays for its fair share of the cost of the pedestrian bridge.

Fair share is typically based on the project’s percentage of growth in vehicle traffic, which in this case is 15% for the PM peak hour. This is calculated as the Project’s contribution to traffic on East Bidwell Street during the PM peak hour between Placerville Rd and Scholar Way (anticipated 589 project trips) divided by the anticipated 2024 to 2029 growth in PM peak hour traffic on the same segment of East Bidwell St (1 4,881 vehicle trips in 2024 and anticipated 18,828 vehicle trips in 2029).

The Applicant shall make land available to the City on each side of East Bidwell Street for the ends of the pedestrian bridge and provide environmental analysis and preliminary design to develop a bid-ready package for construction of the pedestrian bridge . The cost of the required land, environmental work, and design work shall be considered part of the Project ’s fair share contribution toward offsite improvements and may be subject to a fee credit/reimbursement agreement between the Applicant and City.

Page 453 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Broadstone Crossing Phase II
Transportation Impact Study and Local Transportation Study

88 (This page intentionally left blank)

Page 454 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Broadstone Crossing Phase II
Transportation Impact Study and Local Transportation Study

89 9. FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATIONS

9.1 Trip Generation
The Project is anticipated to generate 5571 daily vehicle trips, 541 AM peak-hour vehicle trips, and 718 PM peak-hour vehicle trips.

9.2 General Plan Consistency
The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning. The Project is anticipated to cause new or worsen existing deficiencies with respect to General Plan policy M 4.13 at eight locations:
• East Bidwell St/Scholar Way,
• East Bidwell St/Power Center Dr,
• East Bidwell St / Broadstone Pkwy,
• East Bidwell St/Via Sole,
• East Bidwell St/Kilrush Dr (Via Felice),
• East Bidwell St/Iron Point Rd,
• East Bidwell St/ Eastbound ramps,
• Iron Point Rd/Cavitt Dr,
Recommended abatement measures are located in Section 7 of this report.

9.3 CEQA Impacts and Mitigation
There are three categories of Project related CEQA impacts considered by this analysis: VMT; pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure; and safety.

Category 1 – VMT
With an anticipated 14.3 VMT per capita, The Project is anticipated to generate less than 70% of the regional baseline office VMT per capita of 20.9, and less than 74 % of the Folsom baseline office VMT per capita of 19.5.

CEQA Finding: The Project is therefore anticipated to have a less-than-significant VMT impact.

Category 2 – pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit infrastructure The Project does not i nhibit the use of bicycle , pedestrian, and/or transit facilities; eliminate existing bicycle, pedestrian, and/or transit facilities; or prevent the implementation of planned bicycle, pedestrian, and/or transit facilities. Note that pedestrian safety is discussed below under the under Category 3 – Safety.

CEQA Finding: The Project’s impact on bicycle, pedestrian, and/or transit facilities under CEQA is anticipated to be less-than-significant.

Page 455 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Broadstone Crossing Phase II
Transportation Impact Study and Local Transportation Study

90 Category 3 – Safety
The Project is not anticipated to worsen existing accident rates or create unsafe conditions. The Project’s impact on accident rates under CEQA is anticipated to be less-than-significant.

CEQA Finding: The Project is not anticipated to worsen existing accident rates or create unsafe conditions. The Project’s impact on accident rates under CEQA is anticipated to be less -than- significant.

9.4 Parking
The Project is anticipated to need a total of 570 parking spaces, with the Broadstone Unit No. 3 Specific Plan requiring 804 parking spaces. The proposed 858 spaces are both adequate and meet City of Folsom requirements.

9.5 Minimum Required Throat-Depth
The Project driveway throat-depth is anticipated to be adequate.

9.6 Emergency Vehicle Access
Emergency vehicle access is anticipated to be adequate.

9.7 Right-Turn Deceleration/Acceleration Lanes and Tapers for Driveways Driveway geometry is anticipated to be adequate.

9.8 Recommended Conditions of Approval
Apart from standard conditions there are several recommended conditions of approval provided:
• The applicant/owner shall execute a development agreement with City for a pedestrian overcrossing across East Bidwell Street located between Kilrush Drive and Iron Point Road prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project based on the project’s fair share contribution that includes the following commitments from the applicant/owner:
 Payment for the design,
 Payment for environmental review covering both CEQA and NEPA  Dedication of land necessary for a pedestrian overcrossing across East Bidwell from the project site to the Palladio.
 .

• Applicant/owner shall be responsible for the geometric and signal timing improvements described in Abatement #1 and #2, as described in Section 7 of this report, to address level-of-service and queueing deficiencies relative to General Plan policies.

Because the abatement strategy functions on a corridor level rather than an intersection -by- intersection level, the City may need to modify the recommended abatement to accommodate additional project approvals. The City Engineer may modify the proposed abatement as other project applications are processed. However, any such modifications shall not increase the Project’s abatement cost.

Page 456 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Ordinance No. 1354

EXHIBIT "F"

ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Document entitled to free recording
Government Code Section 6103

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630

(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE)

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
RELATIVE TO _____________________

THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (hereinafter, the "Agreement") is entered into this ________ day of __________, 20 ___, by and between Broadstone Crossing Phase II LLC, a California limited liability company and Elliott Homes, Inc., an Arizona corporation (collectively, "Developer"), and _______________________, a __________________________ (hereinafter "Assignee").

RECITALS

On ____________________, 20__, the City of Folsom and Developer entered into that certain agreement entitled "Development Agreement By and Between the City of Folsom and Broadstone Crossing Phase II LLC, a California limited liability company and Elliott Homes, Inc., an Arizona corporation (hereinafter the "Development Agreement"). Pursuant to the Development Agreement, Developer agreed to develop certain property more particularly described in the Development Agreement (hereinafter, the " Subject Property"), subject to certain conditions and obligations as set forth in the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement was recorded against the Subject Property in the Official Records of Sacramento County on _________________, 2025, as Instrument No. 2025-_____________________.

Developer intends to convey a portion of the Subject Property to Assignee, commonly referred to as Parcel _________, and more particularly identified and described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter the " Assigned Parcel").

Developer desires to assign and Assignee desires to assume all of Developer's right, title, interest, burdens and obligations under the Development Agreement with respect to and as related to the Assigned Parcel.

Page 457 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Ordinance No. 1354

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION

NOW, THEREFORE, Developer and Assignee hereby agree as follows:

Developer hereby assigns, effective as of Developer's conveyance of the Assigned Parcel to Assignee, all of the rights, title, interest, burdens and obligations of Developer under the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Parcel. Developer retains all the rights, title, interest, burdens and obligations under the Development Agreement with respect to all other property within the Subject Property owned by Developer.

Assignee hereby assumes all of the rights, title, interest, burdens and obligations of Developer under the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Parcel, and agrees to observe and fully perform all of the duties and obligations of Developer und er the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Parcel. The parties intend hereby that, upon the execution of this Agreement and conveyance of the Assigned Parcel to Assignee, Assignee shall become substituted for Developer as the "Developer" under the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Parcel and Developer shall be released of and from any obligations or liabilities under the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Parcel.

All of the covenants, terms and conditions set forth herein shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns.

The address described in Section 1.6 of the Development Agreement for Developer with respect to the Assigned Parcel shall be:

______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Attn: __________________________

[Signatures follow on next page]

Page 458 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Ordinance No. 1354

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. This Agreement may be signed in identical counterparts.

DEVELOPER:

____________________________________,
a ___________________________________

By: _________________________________
Print Name: __________________________
Title: ________________________________

ASSIGNEE:

____________________________________,
a ___________________________________

By: _________________________________
Print Name: __________________________
Title: ________________________________

DEVELOPER:

____________________________________,
a ___________________________________

By: _________________________________
Print Name: __________________________
Title: ________________________________

Page 459 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Ordinance No. 1354

EXHIBIT "G"

ESTIMATED COSTS OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS EXCLUDING PEDESTRIAN

OVERCROSSING

Page 460 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Estimated Cost of Construction Estimated Time to Complete Phase of Work with High Level Tasks
Environmental Phase (3%-5%) $51,000 $85,000
Preliminary Design (35% plans)
Technical Studies and Documentation
Final Design (8% - 12%) $136,000 $204,00018 months to 2 years after Environmental Document Complete 65% Design (Plans and Estimate)
90% Design (Plans, Specs, and Estimate)
100% (Final Bid Documents)
Right of Way (5%-10%) $85,000 $170,0006 to 18 months for regular acquisition, 2 years to 5 years with condemnation Right of Way Acquisition
Acquisition Services
Utility Relocations (5%-10%) $85,000 $170,00018 months to 3 years for processing, design and field work Construction
Hard Costs $1,700,000 $1,700,000
Construction Management (15%-20%) $255,000 $340,000
Construction Engineering (5%-7%) $85,000 $119,000
City Administration (10% - 18%) $170,000 $306,000For the duration of the project.

Contingency (10%-30%) $170,000.0 $510,00010% if at 100% plans/bid, 30% if just starting Environmental TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,737,000 $3,604,000
HARD COSTS OF PROJECT DELIVERY $1,700,000 $1,700,000
SOFT COSTS OF PROJECT DELIVERY $1,037,000 $1,904,000
$1,445,000
$2,159,000
Total Estimate $3,604,000
Depends on the volume of project, could be 6 months up to 3 years Initial Deposit at Sutter MOB Building Permit
Remaining Deposit Due at Certificate of Occupancy for Sutter *Initial Construction Estimate Provided by Elliott Homes and Prepared by Teichert for intersection improvements only as described in Condition of Approval No. 42. This estimate is conceptual in nature and does not reflect final design of the project. The Developer is responsible for compensating the City of Folsom for actual costs of the project delivery.

Exhibit G
Broadstone Crossing II - Developer Commitment Traffic Abatement Measures Concept to Construction Preliminary Engineer's Estimate Range of Cost
$1,700,000
Enter the Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate*
18 months to 5 years, depends on project and impacts as well as needing NEPA in addition to CEQA

Page 461 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Ordinance No. 1354

EXHIBIT "H"

PARCELS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION

Page 462 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Page 463 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

Page 464 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.10.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/26/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 1356 - An Uncodified Ordinance Adopting Prima Facie Speed Limits on East Bidwell Street, Westwood Drive, Alder Creek Parkway, Grand Prairie Road, and Mangini Parkway (Introduction and First Reading)

FROM: Public Works Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1356, an uncodified ordinance adopting prima facie speed limits on East Bidwell Street, Westwood Drive, Alder Creek Parkway, Grand Prairie Road, and Mangini Parkway (Introduction and First Reading).

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

California state law requires local agencies to establish speed limits on public streets based on an Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Zoning (ETS). Procedures are defined in both the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

A new ETS must be conducted when a roadway is newly opened or when traffic conditions have significantly changed. If the ETS recommends a speed limit above the statutory minimum (25 MPH) and below the maximum (65 MPH), the limit must be adopted by ordinance after a public hearing.

POLICY / RULE

Section 10.08.030 of the Folsom Municipal Code states that speed limits shall be established by an Engineering and Traffic Study and adopted by ordinance of the City Council.

Page 465 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.
2 ANALYSIS

Speed limits are set to establish a uniform speed that allows traffic to safely traverse a given road segment. The underlying theory is that a proper speed limit will improve traffic flow by reducing conflicts between vehicles traveling at greatly differing speeds. Artificially low limits can create safety problems (i.e., rear -end collisions, tailgating ), while artificially high limits can be unsafe under normal roadway and environmental conditions. If a proper speed l imit is posted, those motorists who significantly exceed the posted limit are considered unsafe compared to the general traffic flow and can be cited. Further, an ETS allows speed limits to be enforced with radar.

Speed surveys are necessary to determine speed limits in excess of the minimum speed limit of 25 MPH but less than the state maximum limit of either 55 or 65 MPH , depending on the roadway’s functional classification. Certain roadways or sections of roadway s have “prima facie” limits associated with them. A “prima facie” speed does not require a radar survey, as long as the road segment in question meets specific requirements. Some examples of “prima facie” limits are as follows:

1. 25 MPH on residential streets that are less than 40 feet wide, not more than one -half mile between traffic control devices, and only one lane of traffic per direction.

2. 25 MPH in business districts, as defined by the California Vehicle Code.

3. 25 MPH when passing a senior center or senior housing facility with proper signage posted.

4. 25 MPH when passing a children’s play area during times when children are typically present (usually dawn to dusk).

5. 25 MPH when passing a school while children are present, when the school is not separated from the roadway by a fence. When th e school is fenced, then the 25 MPH limit only applies when children are going to or coming from school, if the roadway is used by school age pedestrians to access the campus.

6. 15 MPH in alleys
On roadways that do not m eet these criteria, an ETS must be performed to determine the proper prima facie speed. An ETS evaluates existing roadway geometric conditions, collision history, and the land uses adjacent to a given road segment. A radar survey is conducted to determine the 85th-percentile speed (the speed that is not exceeded by 85 percent of vehicles surveyed), the average speed, and the 10 MPH pace (a 10 MPH range of speeds in which the majority of vehicles were traveling). The nearest 5 MPH increment to the 85th-percentile speed is typically deemed the appropriate speed limit, unless other conditions are present that, in the opinion of the traffic engineer, justify further reduction; in which case , the engineer may cite a one -time, downward zoning of an additional five miles per hour.

In accordance with the California Vehicle Code and the MUTCD, traffic engineers also retain the professional discretion to reduce the posted speed limit by an additional 5 MPH when specific roadway or environmental conditions exist that are not readily apparent to the average motorist.

Page 466 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.
3 Such conditions may include limited sight distance due to curves or hills, high pedestrian activity in areas without marked crosswalks, unexpected driveway or intersection density, or unique roadside development patterns. This provision intends to enhance safety where hazards may not be immediately visible, ensuring that the established speed limit reflects not just prevailing traffic speeds but also latent safety considerations. Justification for the applicable roadway segments is below

1. Westwood Drive (Alder Creek Parkway to Mangini Parkway)

Justification: Surrounding land uses include residential neighborhoods on both sides of the roadway. Sidewalks and bike lanes run along the majority of the road in bot h directions, supporting year-round pedestrian and bicycle activity. The roadway consists of a single lane in each direction separated by a planted median. Multiple residential driveways and intersecting local streets increase the number of potential confl ict points. Recommended speed limit is within the 10 MPH pace range.

2. Alder Creek Parkway (Westwood Drive to Rustic Ridge Circle)

Justification: Land uses are primarily residential on both sides of the roadway. Sidewalks and bike lanes run along the majority of the road in both directions, and the segment includes a planted median. High pedestrian activity occurs due to nearby park access, with crossing activity at uncontrolled locations. Recommended speed limit is within the 10 MPH pace range.

3. Mangini Parkway (Savannah Parkway to Empire Ranch Road)

Justification: The roadway is flanked by residential neighborhoods on both sides. Sidewalks and bike lanes are present in both directions. Multiple driveways and unsignalized intersections contribute to potential turning conflicts. The corridor’s geometry, combined with residential access points, supports a lower posted limit while remaining within the 10 MPH pace range.

The Public Works Department conducts speed surveys on a road -by-road basis, establi shing logical segments along each roadway based on geometry and adjacent land use. The item before the Council focuses on six specific segments where speed limits are proposed or updated based on the results of recent traffic engineering surveys. The first recommendation is to establish a 30 mph speed limit on Westwood Drive between Alder Creek Parkway and Mangini Parkway. The second is to establish a 35 mph limit on Alder Creek Parkway between Westwood Drive and Rustic Ridge Circle. The third proposes a 35 mph limit on Mangini Parkway between Savannah Parkway and Empire Ranch Road. A fourth recommends a 35 mph limit on Grand Prairie Road between Summit Street/Rustic Ridge Circle and Alder Creek Parkway. The fifth recommendation is for Mangini Parkway between East Bidwell Street and Oak Avenue Parkway. Finally, a 45 mph speed limit is proposed for East Bidwell Street between the US -50 eastbound off-ramp and White Rock Road.

These recommended speed limits were developed through data analysis and thorough evalu ation of traffic conditions, roadway characteristics, and adjacent land uses on each surveyed segment.

Page 467 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.
4 This is the introduction and first reading of the ordinance. The table below shows the recommendation based on the speed surveys conducted.

Speed Survey Recommendations Table
Street Survey Limits
Speed (mph)
Existing
85th
Percentile

Recommended
East Bidwell Street US-50 Eastbound Off-Ramp to White Rock Road 45 47.8 45
Westwood Drive Alder Creek Parkway to Mangini Parkway Not Posted

35.9 30
Alder Creek Parkway Westwood Drive to Rustic Ridge Circle 30 42.5 35 Grand Prairie Road Summit Street/Rustic Ridge Drive to Alder Creek Parkway 35 38 35
Mangini Parkway Savannah Parkway to Empire Ranch Road 30 38 35 Mangini Parkway East Bidwell Street to Oak Avenue Parkway 40 41.6 35

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There are no financial impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. 1356 – An Uncodified Ordinance Adopting Prima Facie Speed Limits on East Bidwell Street, Westwood Drive, Alder Creek Parkway, Grand Prairie Road, and Mangini Parkway (Introduction and First Reading)

2. Map of Street Segments and Recommended Speed Limits

3. Draft Action Summary of the June 26, 2025, Traffic Safety Committee meeting

Page 468 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.
5 4. 2025 Folsom Plan Area Speed Survey Memorandum Produced by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.

Submitted,

___________________________________________________
Marcus Yasutake, INTERM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

Page 469 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

Attachment 1

Page 470 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

Ordinance No. 1356

Page 1 of 4 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1356

AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE ADOPTING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON

EAST BIDWELL STREET, WESTWOOD DRIVE, ALDER CREEK PARKWAY,

GRAND PRAIRIE ROAD, AND MANGINI PARKWAY

The City Council of the City of Folsom hereby does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. PURPOSE

A. State law requires that local agencies establish speed limits on public streets within their jurisdictions using criteria defined in the California Vehicle Code; and B. The roadways listed in this ordinance are newly created and have not h ad adopted speed limits; and
C. The Public Works Department has conducted valid Engineering and Traffic Studies for speed zoning to determine prima facie speeds on East Bidwell Street, Westwood Drive, Alder Creek Parkway, Grand Prairie Road, and Mangini Parkway; and D. The proposed speed limits were reviewed and approved by th e Traffic Safety Committee on June 26, 2025; and
E. Notice of hearing has been given in the form and the manner required by State law and the Folsom Municipal Code.

SECTION 2. DESIGNATION OF PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS

The Prima Facie speed limits on East Bidwell Street, Westwood Drive, Alder Creek Parkway, Grand Prairie Road, and Mangini Parkway, as shown under the “Recommended” column in Exhibit A attached to this Ordinance, are hereby adopted by the City Council.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage and adoption, provided it is published in full or in summary within twenty (20) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.

Page 471 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

Ordinance No. 1356

Page 2 of 4 ends

This Ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on August 26, 2025 and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on September 9, 2025.

On a motion by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom, State of California, this 9th day of September 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

_________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

__________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 472 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

Ordinance No. 1356

Page 3 of 4 ends

Exhibit A

CHART OF RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMITS

Page 473 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

Ordinance No. 1356

Page 4 of 4 ends

Speed Survey Recommendations Table

# Street Survey Limits
Speed (mph)
Existing
85th
Percentile

Recommended
1 East Bidwell Street US-50 Eastbound Off-Ramp to White Rock Road 45 47.8 45
2 Westwood Drive Alder Creek Parkway to Mangini Parkway Not Posted 35.9 30
3 Alder Creek Parkway Westwood Drive to Rustic Ridge Circle 30 42.5 35 4 Grand Prairie Road Summit Street/Rustic Ridge Drive to Alder Creek Parkway 35 38 35
5 Mangini Parkway Savannah Parkway to Empire Ranch Road 30 38 35 6 Mangini Parkway East Bidwell Street to Oak Avenue Parkway 40 41.6 35

Page 474 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

Attachment 2

Map of Street Segments and Recommended
Speed Limits

Page 475 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

1. East Bidwell Street between US-50 EB Off-Ramp and White Rock Road

2. Westwood Drive between Alder Creek Parkway and Mangini Parkway

3. Alder Creek Parkway between Westwood Drive and Rustic Ridge Circle

4. Grand Prairie Road between Summit Street/Rustic Ridge Circle and Alder Creek Parkway

5. Mangini Parkway between Savannah Parkway and Empire Ranch Road 30 mph 45 mph35 mph
LEGEND
Roadway Segments
Recommended Speed Limits
Savannah ParkwaySavannah Parkway
US 50
Westwood Drive
Mangini Parkway
East Bidwell Street
Alder Creek Parkway
Alder Creek Parkway
Grand Prairie Ro ad
Grand Prairie Ro ad
Rustic Ridge Dr
Rustic Ridge Dr
Em
pire Ranch Rd
Em
pire Ranch Rd
Oak Ave Pkwy
Oak Ave Pkwy
6 4
5 2
1 3
Exhibit 1
Project Vicinity Map and Recommended Speed Limits
2025 Folsom Plan Area Speed Surveys

NOT TO SCALE
Replace Existing
R2-1(40) with
new R2-1(35)
Install New R2-1(45)
Replace Existing
R2-1(40) with
new R2-1(35)
Replace Existing
R2-1(30) with
new R2-1(35)
Replace Existing
R2-1(30) with
new R2-1(35)
Install New R2-1(45)
Install New R2-1(35)
Install New R2-1(35)
Install New R2-1(30)
Install New R2-1(30)
Install New R2-1(35)
Install New R2-1(35)

Page 476 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

Attachment

Traffic Safety Committee Draft Meeting
Minutes from June 26, 2025

Page 477 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

1 DRAFT Traffic Safety Committee Meeting
Minutes

City Council Chambers | 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630 June 26, 2025
4:00 PM

Meeting minutes contain an action summary. A video recording of the meeting in its entirety can be found on the City of Folsom website on the Traffic Safety Committee webpage.

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Brausch called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL:

PRESENT: M. Austin (arrived at 4:03 p.m.), Z. Bosch, J. Brausch, R. Cogil, K. Goddard

ABSENT: M. McGee, M. Washburn

3. MINUTES

Approval of the Minutes of the April 24, 2025, Meeting.

Goddard motioned to accept the minutes.

Cogil seconded the motion.

Motion was carried with the following vote:

AYES: Austin, Bosch, Brausch, Cogil, Goddard
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: McGee, Washburn

4. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR/GOOD OF THE ORDER

No public comments were made.

5. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS

a. Pine Grove Way and Oakplace East/Oakplace West – Resident Request for All-Way Stop Sign Control

Public Comment made by David Hassin, Craig Burnett, Sharlotte Bennett, Alison Majer, Amanda Ross, Dale Alto, and Jann Jones.

Page 478 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

1 The Traffic Safety Committee did not recommend placing an all-way stop sign at the intersection of Pine Grove Way and Oakplace East/Oakplace West.

The Traffic Safety Committee recommends speed limit signs on Pine Grove Way in both directions, pavement paint with speed limit in both directions, pedestrian warning signage, intersection pedestrian warning signage, and installation of radar feedback signs on Pine Grove Way on approach. There will be a three-month evaluation of the effectiveness of the preventative measures, based on residential feedback and results from the radar feedback signs.

Cogil proposed the motion.

Goddard seconded the motion.

Motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Austin, Bosch, Brausch, Cogil, Goddard
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: McGee, Washburn

b. Westwood Drive and Needlegrass Drive – Resident Request for Traffic Calming/Intersection Control

The Traffic Safety Committee recommends radar feedback signs on north and south bound Needlegrass Drive, committee standard measures for speed reduction, dotted line paint markers for bike lanes across street entrances , encourage the residential speed watch program , and encourage the Folsom Police Department to increase enforcement of speed limits where possible. Six months after the future trail and crosswalk are completed, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) installed, and school resumes, the committee will evaluate the effectiveness, unless the speed watch program brings additional information sooner that needs to be addressed.

Brausch proposed the motion.

Cogil seconded the motion.

Motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Austin, Bosch, Brausch, Cogil, Goddard
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: McGee, Washburn

c. Speed Limit Adoption: Various Arterial and Collector Streets in the Folsom Plan Area

The Traffic Safety Committee recommends the approval of the speed limit recommendations for various arterial and collector streets in the Folsom Plan Area. Specifically, US-50 eastbound off- ramp to White Rock Road, Alder Creek Parkway to Mangini Parkway, Westwood Drive to Rustic Ridge Circle, Rustic Ridge Circle to Alder Creek Parkway , Savannah Parkway to Empire Ranch Road, and East Bidwell Street to Oak Avenue Parkway. The committee approves City staff to bring the speed limit adjustments to the City Council for adoption by ordinance.

Goddard proposed the motion.

Cogil seconded the motion.

Motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Austin, Bosch, Brausch, Cogil, Goddard

Page 479 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

1 ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: McGee, Washburn

5. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

a. Traffic Safety Committee Action Item Updates

Chair Brausch commented that Mangini Parkway RRFBs have been installed.

Chair Brausch requested to reconsider the yellow sanctions on North Lexington Drive on a future agenda due to residential complaints that they are not aiding in the traffic control. Bosch agreed to monitor the intersection after school resumes to get video on the situation before adding it to a future agenda.

Bosch will remove Natoma Station Drive and Ashcat Way from the tracker as RRFBs have been installed, the school district has confirmed RRFBs are working, and it has been two years since any outreach.

Bosch informed the committee that there has been no outreach from the public on the South Lexington Drive speeding issue, and there is no urgency to act.

Cogil brought to the committee’s attention that the bollards at Willow Creek Drive and Randall Drive have been run over and are bent. Bosch agreed to send City staff to replace the broken bollards.

b. Upcoming Traffic Safety Committee items
• Riley Street and Teceira Way – All Way Stop Control Request • East Natoma Street and Wesley Drive – All Way Stop Control Request • Oak Avenue and Vista Oak Drive – All Way Stop Request • Willow Creek Drive – Traffic Calming Request by Committee Member Cogil

Bosch received a request for a stop sign at American River Canyon Drive and Morning Dove Lane/Bobwhite Lane, which will be added to upcoming Traffic Safety Committee items.

Cogil requested that the Willow Creek Drive – Traffic Calming item be removed from upcoming agendas until the water project is completed. Bosch agreed and will be in contact with Cogil about when the item can be added back to the list.

6. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Page 480 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

Attachment 4

2025 Folsom Plan Area Speed Survey
Memorandum Produced by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.

Page 481 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

kimley-horn.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 916 858 5800

Memorandum

To: Zach Bosch, P.E.

City of Folsom

From: Robert Paderna, P.E., RSP1
Curtis Yee, PE

Re: 2025 Folsom Plan Area Speed Surveys

Date: June 23, 2025

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the results of the speed survey s conducted within the Folsom Plan Area. Additionally, this memorandum presents recommended speed limits based on the data collected and the evaluation completed.

Introduction and Background
An Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) was conducted to serve as the basis for the establishment and future enforcement of the speed limit along six project roadway segments within the Folsom Plan Area in the City of Folsom. The roadway segments include:

1. East Bidwell Street, from US-50 Eastbound Off-ramp to White Rock Road

2. Westwood Drive, from Alder Creek Parkway to Mangini Parkway

3. Alder Creek Parkway, from Westwood Drive to Eastern terminus of road (Summit Street/Rustic Ridge Drive)

4. Grand Prairie Road, from Summit Street/Rustic Ridge Drive to Alder Creek Parkway

5. Mangini Parkway, from Savannah Parkway to Empire Ranch Road

6. Mangini Parkway, from East Bidwell Street to Oak Avenue Parkway

Engineering and T raffic Surveys for establishment of speed limits are regularly conducted , at least once every five (5) years, by governing municipalities for the purpose of complying with Section 40802(a) of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the national Uniform Vehicle Code. E&TS s may be extended to every seven (7) years if criteria specified by CVC 40702(c)(1) are met, or every ten (1 4) years if a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred as specified in Section 40802(c) of the CVC. In addition, an E&TS should be conducted on newly constructed roadways or roadways where the roadway conditions have significantly changed, which is the case along the six study segments covered in this memorandum.

Regulations and Guidelines
Division 11, Chapter 7, of the 2018 CVC defines the California Speed Laws. Section 22352 of the CVC indicates that prima facie speed limits are 15 miles per hour (mph) at unprotected railroad grade crossings, highway intersections with site restrictions, and on any alley. In addition, the prima facie speed limit is 25 mph in residential and business districts, when approaching or passing a school building or grounds thereof or when passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens. Division 1 of the CVC defines a business district and residence district in Section 235 and 515, respectively.

“A "business district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for busin ess, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous

Page 482 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

2025 Folsom Plan Area Speed Surveys Page 2 of 6
City of Folsom June 23, 2025
property fronting thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings in use for business to the length of the highway exists.”

“A "residence district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or busi ness structures. A residence district may be longer than one-quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists.”

Section 22357(a) permits the establishment of speed limits greater than 25 mph based on the following text:

“Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe.”

Therefore, the CVC allows local authorities to increase or decrease the prima facie limits by ordinance or resolution to appropriate limits as determined by an E&TS. Posted speed limits not defined in the CVC or established by ordinance are not valid. The CVC requires that speed surveys must be performed with the use of radar or other electronic devices at locations where speed limits are to be enforced with the use of radar. The current survey must be completed within five years as specified in Section 40802(a); seven years as specified in Section 40802(c), or ten years as specified in Section 40802(c), of the date of the preceding survey. A survey allowed to expire passed the valid duration of the previous survey would constitute a speed trap as defined in Sections 40802(a) and 40802(b) of the CVC:

“(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.

(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

(b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as "local" on the "California Road System Maps," that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. When a street or road does not appear on the "California Road System Maps," it may be defined as a "local street or road" if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:

Page 483 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

2025 Folsom Plan Area Speed Surveys Page 3 of 6
City of Folsom June 23, 2025
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445. (C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.

(2) For purposes of this section "school zone" means that area approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. "School zone" also includes the area approaching or passing any school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children if that highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign.”

Assembly Bill 43 added Section 22358.7 to the CVC to read:

“(a) If a local authority, after completing an engineering and traffic survey, finds that the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit that has been reduced an additional five miles per hour for either of the following reasons:
(1) The portion of highway has been designated as a safety corridor. A local authority shall not deem more than one-fifth of their streets as safety corridors. (2) The portion of highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, especially those from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused.

(b) (1) As used in this section, “safety corridor” shall be defined by the Department of Transportation in the next revision of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In making this determination, the department shall consider highways t hat have the highest number of serious injuries and fatalities based on collision data that may be derived from, but not limited to, the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System.

(2) The Department of Transportation shall, in the next revision of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, determine what constitutes land or facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians, as used in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). In making this determination, the department shall consider density, road use type, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructur e present on a section of highway.”

Since the addition of 22358.7 to the CVC, the CA MUTCD has been revised to include the “safety corridor” definition requirements in Table 2B-105(CA).

Requirements and Methodology of an Engineering and Traffic Study Speed zones are primarily established to protect the public from the unreasonable behavior of reckless, unreliable, or otherwise dangerous drivers. Speed limits are generally established at or near the 85th percentile speed, which is defined as the speed at or below which 85 percent of traffic is moving. Speed limits established on this basis conform to the consensus of those who drive on the roadways as to what speed is reasonable and safe, and are not dependent on the judgment of one or a few individuals.

The E&TS, as defined in Section 627 of the CVC, must consider the prevailing speeds, collision records, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and roadway traffic and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. Speed zones are also established to advise motorists of road conditions or hazards, which may not be readily apparent to a reasonable driver. For this reason, a field review of related road way and traffic variables was conducted which is considered in combination with the statistical data and c ollision history

Page 484 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

2025 Folsom Plan Area Speed Surveys Page 4 of 6
City of Folsom June 23, 2025
of a particular roadway segment to determine a safe and reasonable speed limit. The specific procedures used in the performance of an E&TS are outlined in the 2014 California MUTCD (CA MUTCD). The statistical factors used to analyze the collected speed survey data and additional factors as noted in the CA MUTCD to consider are defined in the following section.

Speed Survey Evaluation
The six (6) study segments within the Folsom Plan Area were evaluated by Kimley-Horn and are included in this memorandum. These roadway sections and limits of the sections are listed in Table 1 and presented in Exhibit 1.

Field Review
Speed data was collected using manual radar surveys performed by NDS, a subconsultant to Kimley-Horn.

Each of the radar speed surveys were conducted from an inconspicuously parked, unmarked vehicle. An effort was made to ensure that the presence of the vehicle in no way affected the speed of the traffic being surveyed. Field information from these speed surveys and other roadway characteristics were recorded on field data forms and utilized in this evaluation. Chapter 2B of the CA MUTCD indicates that it is desirable to have a minimum sample of 100 vehicles for a speed zone survey for an arterial street , or a minimum observation time of two hours if the minimum sample size cannot be met due to low traffic volumes . This requirement is acknowledged to result in excessive survey periods for low volume roadways . In addition, average daily traffic (ADT) counts were collected at all study locations and are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 – Survey Locations and Limits

No Street Limits ADT*
1 East Bidwell Street US-50 Eastbound Off-Ramp White Rock Road 14,120 2 Westwood Drive Alder Creek Parkway Mangini Parkway 2,890 3 Alder Creek Parkway Westwood Drive Rustic Ridge Circle 3,950 4 Grand Prairie Road
Summit Street/Rustic Ridge
Drive Alder Creek Parkway
1,730
5 Mangini Parkway Savannah Parkway Empire Ranch Road 1,870 6 Mangini Parkway East Bidwell Street Oak Avenue Parkway 1,280 * Source: ADT data collected on May 6, 2025

Examples of the field data observed and collected for the purposes of analyzing related roadway characteristics as they pertain to the determination of appropriate speed limits are listed below.

1. Segment length, width and alignment;

2. Level of pedestrian, bicycle, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV), and truck activity;

3. Traffic flow characteristics;

4. Number of lanes and other channelization/striping factors;

5. Frequency of intersections, driveways, uncontrolled crossings, on-street parking, bike/NEV lanes;

6. Locations of stop signs, traffic signals, and other regulatory traffic control devices;

7. Pavement condition;

8. Obstructions to driver/pedestrian visibility;

9. Land use and proximity of schools, parks/recreation areas, and senior centers;

10. Uniformity with existing speed zones in adjacent jurisdictions; and,

11. Any other unusual conditions or hazards not readily apparent to the driver.

Page 485 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

2025 Folsom Plan Area Speed Surveys Page 5 of 6
City of Folsom June 23, 2025
Statistical Analysis Factors
Significant factors used to analyze the collected survey data are summarized below:

1. 85th Percentile Speed. The Critical Speed, or the 85th Percentile Speed, is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. This factor is the primary guide in determining what speeds the majority of safe and reasonable drivers are traveling. Therefore, the practice is to set the speed limit to the nearest 5 mph increment from the critical speed unless other factors require a lower limit. Speed limits set on this basis provide law enforcement officials with a means of controlling reckless or unreliable drivers who will not conform to what the majority finds reasonable.

2. The 10-mph Pace. The 10-mph Pace is the 10 -mph increment range, which contains the largest number of recorded vehicles. The pace is a measure of the dispersion of speeds within the sample surveyed. Speed limits should normally be set to fall within the 10-mph pace. However, conditions not readily apparent to the driver or adhering to State mandated limits such as in Residence Districts may require setting speed limits below the 10-mph pace.

3. 50th Percentile Speed. The Median Speed, or 50th Percentile Speed, represents the mid -point value within the range of recorded speeds for a particular roadway location. In other words, 50 percent of the vehicles travel faster than and 50 percent travel slower than, the median speed. This value is another measure of the central tendency of the vehicle speed distribution. Typically speed limits should not be set below the 50th Percentile Speed, since it would result in greater than 50 - percent of the drivers exceeding the speed limit.

4. 15th Percentile Speed. The 15th Percentile Speed is that speed at or below which 15 percent of the vehicles are traveling. This value is important in determining the minimum allowable speed limit, given that the vehicles traveling below this speed tend to obstruct the flow of traffic, thereby increasing the collision potential.

5. Percent of Vehicles in Pace Speed. The percent of vehicles in the 10 -mph pace speed is an indication of the grouping of vehicular speeds. Ideally, if all vehicles were traveling at or about the same speed, there would be a reduced likelihood of vehicular collisions. In speed limit analysis, the higher the percent of vehicles within the pace speed, the more favorable the speed distribution.

The percent of the 10-mph pace is often between 60 and 90 percent.

Based on the 2014 CA MUTCD1, the guidance for establishing speed limits indicates that speed limits “shall be established at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th -percentile speed of free -flowing traffic.” In matching existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community, engineering judgment may indicate the need for a reduction of the posted speed limit by 5 mph due to specific factors such as road characteristics, adjacent land uses, presence of bike routes/lanes, the pace speed, roadside development and environment, parking practices and pedestrian activity, and collision history.

Collision History
The speed survey worksheet s summarize the available collision information for the study segments. The collision information for the segments was obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024.

1 2014 California MUTCD, Chapter 2B, 2025

Page 486 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

2025 Folsom Plan Area Speed Surveys Page 6 of 6
City of Folsom June 23, 2025
Results and Recommendations
The speed limit recommendations contained in this memo are intended to establish the appropriate posted speed limits along the study segment s. The recommended speed limit s w ere developed based on data analysis results of a thorough evaluation of the study segments which were surveyed. A summary of the data analysis, along with recommended speed limit, is presented in Table 2. The supporting speed survey worksheets are provided in Attachment 1.

Table 2 – Speed Survey Recommendations

Street Segment
Existing
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Recommended
Speed Limit
(mph)
85%
Speed
(mph)
Median
Speed
(mph)
10 mph
Pace Range
(mph)
% of Veh.

In Pace
East Bidwell Street between US-50
Eastbound Off-Ramp and White
Rock Road
45 45* 47.8 42.6 39-48 70%
Westwood Drive between Alder
Creek Parkway and Mangini
Parkway
Not
Posted 30* 35.9 30.7 27-36 76%
Alder Creek Parkway between
Westwood Drive and Rustic Ridge
Circle
30 35*+ 42.5 37.9 33-42 72%
Grand Prairie Road between
Summit Street/Rustic Ridge Drive
and Alder Creek Parkway
35 35* 38.0 32.8 29-38 77%
Mangini Parkway between
Savannah Parkway and Empire
Ranch Road
30 35* 38.0 34.6 29-38 81%
Mangini Parkway between East
Bidwell Street and Oak Avenue
Parkway
40 35* 41.6 35.4 32.41 62%
Notes:
* 5 MPH reduction applied per CVC 22358.6 consistent with CA MUTCD Table 2B-103 (CA). + 5 MPH reduction applied per CVC 22358.7 for facilities that generate high concentrations of pedestrians and bicyclists consistent with CA MUTCD Table 2B-104 (CA).

Bold denotes a change from the existing speed limit.

Attachments:

Exhibit 1 – Project Vicinity Map and Recommended Speed Limit Attachment 1 – Speed Survey Worksheets

Page 487 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

1. East Bidwell Street between US-50 EB Off-Ramp and White Rock Road

2. Westwood Drive between Alder Creek Parkway and Mangini Parkway

3. Alder Creek Parkway between Westwood Drive and Rustic Ridge Circle

4. Grand Prairie Road between Summit Street/Rustic Ridge Circle and Alder Creek Parkway

Page 488 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

Attachment 1

Speed Survey Worksheets

Page 489 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 1 234 5 6789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total
Volume
65 or higher 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
60 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
55 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
/ 00000000000000000000000000000 1
/ / 0000000000000000000000000000 2
XX / / / 0000000000000000000000000 5
50 X / 0000000000000000000000000000 2
X / / / 00000000000000000000000000 4
X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 XXXX / / 000000000000000000000000 6
XXXX / 0000000000000000000000000 5
45 XX / / / / / / / 000000000000000000000 9
44 XXX / / / / / / 000000000000000000000 9
43 XXXXXX / / 0000000000000000000000 8
42 XXXX / / / / / 000000000000000000000 9
41 XX / / / / / 00000000000000000000000 7
40 XXXX / / / / 0000000000000000000000 8
39 XXXX / 0000000000000000000000000 5
38 XX 0000000000000000000000000000 2
37 X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
36 XX / / 00000000000000000000000000 4
35 X / / 000000000000000000000000000 3
34 XX / 000000000000000000000000000 3
33 / / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 32 X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
3 1 000000000000000000000000000000 0
30 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 9 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 8 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 7 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 6 000000000000000000000000000000 0
25 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 4 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 3 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 2 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 1 000000000000000000000000000000 0
20 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 9 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 8 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 7 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
15 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
10 or lower 000000000000000000000000000000 0
100
Zach Bosch, PE DATE
Senior Civil Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:

TOTAL
NB/EB shown in Red, SB/WB shown in Blue Total Number of Vehicles:

DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH
012

ROADWAY CONDITIONS
Recommended Speed: 45 mph
(applied 5 mph decrease from 50 mph)
Roadway Segment Conditions:

Surrounding land uses consist of a mix
of residential and commercial areas on
both sides of the road. Continuous
sidewalks and bike lanes supporting
pedestrian and cyclist access on both
sides for a majority of the road.

Infrastructure project sites also present
on both sides. Recommended speed
limit is within 10 mph pace.

INJURY 012
FATAL 000
PDO 000
% Below
Pace: 16% MPH
% Above
Pace: 14% MPH

COLLISION HISTORY
YEAR 2022 2023 2024
Pace: 39-48 MPH
% in Pace: 70% MPH
85th %: 47.8 MPH
50th %: 42.6 MPH

SPEED DATA
Posted: 45 MPH
Weather: Clear/Dry Observer:

Segment #: 01 Direction: Northbound & Southbound
Date: 5/7/2025 Day: Wednesday Time: 12:56 - 13:25
Street: E Bidwell St Location: 410ft South of Orion Wy
Segment: Between U.S. 50/El Dorado Fwy EB off-Ramp & White Rock Rd

Page 490 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 1 234 5 6789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total
Volume
65 or higher 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
60 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
55 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
50 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
45 000000000000000000000000000000 0
4 4 000000000000000000000000000000 0
4 3 000000000000000000000000000000 0
42 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
4 1 000000000000000000000000000000 0
40 X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
39 X // 000000000000000000000000000 3
38 X X X 000000000000000000000000000 3
37 /// 000000000000000000000000000 3
36 X X /// 0000000000000000000000000 5
35 X X X //// 00000000000000000000000 7
34 X X X //// 00000000000000000000000 7
33 X X X X / / / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 32 X X X X X //// 000000000000000000000 9
31 X X X X X /////// 000000000000000000 12
30 X X X X X X X X X X X /// 0000000000000000 14
29 /////// 00000000000000000000000 7
28 X X X // 0000000000000000000000000 5
27 X X / 000000000000000000000000000 3
26 X X / 000000000000000000000000000 3
25 X X X /// 000000000000000000000000 6
24 X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
23 X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
22 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
21 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
20 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 9 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 8 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 7 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
15 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
10 or lower 000000000000000000000000000000 0
100
Zach Bosch, PE DATE
Senior Civil Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:

TOTAL
NB/EB shown in Red, SB/WB shown in Blue Total Number of Vehicles:

DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: 30 MPH
011

ROADWAY CONDITIONS
Recommended Speed: 30 mph
(applied 5 mph decrease from 35 mph)
Roadway Segment Conditions:

Surrounding land uses include residential
neighborhoods on both sides of the road.

Sidewalks and bike lanes run along the
majority of the road in both directions.

Road consists of a single lane in each
directionswith a planted median.

Recommended speed limit is within 10
mph pace.

INJURY 001
FATAL 000
PDO 010
% Below
Pace: 13% MPH
% Above
Pace: 11% MPH

COLLISION HISTORY
YEAR 2022 2023 2024
Pace: 27-36 MPH
% in Pace: 76% MPH
85th %: 35.9 MPH
50th %: 30.7 MPH

SPEED DATA
Posted: Not Posted MPH
Weather: Clear/Dry Observer:

Segment #: 02 Direction: Northbound & Southbound
Date: 5/7/2025 Day: Wednesday Time: 10:15-11:15
Street: Westwood Dr Location: 280ft North of Needlegrass Dr Segment: Between Alder Creek Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy

Page 491 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 1 234 5 6789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total
Volume
65 or higher 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
60 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
55 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
50 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
/ 00000000000000000000000000000 1
X / 0000000000000000000000000000 2
X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
45 X X X X / 0000000000000000000000000 5
44 X // 000000000000000000000000000 3
43 X /// 00000000000000000000000000 4
42 X X X X X //// 000000000000000000000 9
41 X X X X X //// 000000000000000000000 9
40 X X X X X X ///// 0000000000000000000 11
39 X // 000000000000000000000000000 3
38 X X X X X X X X ///// 00000000000000000 13
37 X X / 000000000000000000000000000 3
36 X X X X // 000000000000000000000000 6
35 X X X X /// 00000000000000000000000 7
34 X X X X /// 00000000000000000000000 7
33 X / / / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 32 X ////// 00000000000000000000000 7
31 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
30 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
29 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
28 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
2 7 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 6 000000000000000000000000000000 0
25 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 4 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 3 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 2 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 1 000000000000000000000000000000 0
20 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 9 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 8 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 7 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
15 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
10 or lower 000000000000000000000000000000 0
100
Zach Bosch, PE DATE
Senior Civil Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:

TOTAL
NB/EB shown in Red, SB/WB shown in Blue Total Number of Vehicles:

DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: 35 MPH
110

ROADWAY CONDITIONS
Recommended Speed: 35 mph
(applied 5 mph decrease from 40 mph)
Roadway Segment Conditions:

Surrounding land uses include residential
neighborhoods on both sides of the road.

Sidewalks and bike lanes run along the
majority of the road in both directions.

Road consists of a single lane in each
directionswith a planted median.

Recommended speed limit is within 10
mph pace.

INJURY 000
FATAL 000
PDO 110
% Below
Pace: 11% MPH
% Above
Pace: 17% MPH

COLLISION HISTORY
YEAR 2022 2023 2024
Pace: 33-42 MPH
% in Pace: 72% MPH
85th %: 42.5 MPH
50th %: 37.9 MPH

SPEED DATA
Posted: 30 MPH
Weather: Clear/Dry Observer:

Segment #: 03 Direction: Eastbound & Westbound
Date: 5/6/2025 Day: Tuesday Time: 9:00-9:40
Street: Alder Creek Parkway Location: 780ft West of Pleasant Ravine Dr Segment: Between Westwood Dr & Summit St/Rustic Ridge Cir

Page 492 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 1 234 5 6789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total
Volume
65 or higher 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
60 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
55 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
50 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
45 000000000000000000000000000000 0
44 X X 0000000000000000000000000000 2
43 X X // 00000000000000000000000000 4
4 2 000000000000000000000000000000 0
41 X X 0000000000000000000000000000 2
40 X X 0000000000000000000000000000 2
39 X X / 000000000000000000000000000 3
38 X X X X X X X X ///// 00000000000000000 13
37 X X // 00000000000000000000000000 4
36 X X X / 00000000000000000000000000 4
35 X X X X /// 00000000000000000000000 7
34 X X X /// 000000000000000000000000 6
33 X X X X X / / / / / / / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 32 X X X X // 000000000000000000000000 6
31 X X X X X ///// 00000000000000000000 10
30 X X /////// 000000000000000000000 9
29 X X //// 000000000000000000000000 6
28 /// 000000000000000000000000000 3
27 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
26 X / 0000000000000000000000000000 2
25 // 0000000000000000000000000000 2
2 4 000000000000000000000000000000 0
23 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
2 2 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 1 000000000000000000000000000000 0
20 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 9 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 8 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 7 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
15 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
10 or lower 000000000000000000000000000000 0
100
Zach Bosch, PE DATE
Senior Civil Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:

TOTAL
NB/EB shown in Red, SB/WB shown in Blue Total Number of Vehicles:

DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: 35 MPH
110

ROADWAY CONDITIONS
Recommended Speed: 35 mph
(applied 5 mph decrease from 40 mph)
Roadway Segment Conditions:

Surrounding land uses include residential
neighborhoods on both sides of the road.

Sidewalk and bike lanes run along the
north side of the road. A multi-use trail
runs along the south side of the road.

Road consists of a single lane in each
directionswith a planted median.

Recommended speed limit is within 10
mph pace.

INJURY 000
FATAL 000
PDO 110
% Below
Pace: 9% MPH
% Above
Pace: 14% MPH

COLLISION HISTORY
YEAR 2022 2023 2024
Pace: 29-38 MPH
% in Pace: 77% MPH
85th %: 38.0 MPH
50th %: 32.8 MPH

SPEED DATA
Posted: 35 MPH
Weather: Clear/Dry Observer:

Segment #: 04 Direction: Northbound & Southbound
Date: 5/6/2025 Day: Tuesday Time: 10:00 - 12:00
Street: Grand Prairie Road Location: 650ft North of Rustic Ridge Cir Segment: Between Summit St/Rustic Ridge Cir & Alder Creek Pwky

Page 493 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 1 234 5 6789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total
Volume
65 or higher 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
60 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
55 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
50 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
45 000000000000000000000000000000 0
4 4 000000000000000000000000000000 0
43 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
42 X X 0000000000000000000000000000 2
41 X X X / 00000000000000000000000000 4
40 X X / 000000000000000000000000000 3
39 X X X // 0000000000000000000000000 5
38 X X X X //// 0000000000000000000000 8
37 X X X X X X X X X X X X // 0000000000000000 14
36 X X X X X //// 000000000000000000000 9
35 X X X X ////// 00000000000000000000 10
34 X X X ///// 0000000000000000000000 8
33 X X X X / / / / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 32 X X //// 000000000000000000000000 6
31 X X ///// 00000000000000000000000 7
30 X //// 0000000000000000000000000 5
29 X X X /// 000000000000000000000000 6
28 // 0000000000000000000000000000 2
27 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
2 6 000000000000000000000000000000 0
25 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
2 4 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 3 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 2 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 1 000000000000000000000000000000 0
20 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 9 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 8 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 7 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
15 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
10 or lower 000000000000000000000000000000 0
100
Zach Bosch, PE DATE
Senior Civil Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:

TOTAL
NB/EB shown in Red, SB/WB shown in Blue Total Number of Vehicles:

DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: 35 MPH
002

ROADWAY CONDITIONS
Recommended Speed: 35 mph
(applied 5 mph decrease from 40 mph)
Roadway Segment Conditions:

Surrounding land uses include residential
neighborhoods on both sides of the road.

Sidewalks and bike lanes run along
roadway in both directions. Road consists
of a single lane in each directionswith a
planted median. Recommended speed
limit is within 10 mph pace.

INJURY 002
FATAL 000
PDO 000
% Below
Pace: 4% MPH
% Above
Pace: 15% MPH

COLLISION HISTORY
YEAR 2022 2023 2024
Pace: 29-38 MPH
% in Pace: 81% MPH
85th %: 38.0 MPH
50th %: 34.6 MPH

SPEED DATA
Posted: 30 MPH
Weather: Clear/Dry Observer:

Segment #: 05 Direction: Eastbound & Westbound
Date: 5/6/2025 Day: Tuesday Time: 12:15-13:30
Street: Mangini Parkway Location: 480ft West of Rock Springs Ranch Dr Segment: Between Savannah Pkwy & Empire Ranch Rd

Page 494 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

SPEED SURVEY
Number of Vehicles
Speed (mph) 1 234 5 6789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total
Volume
65 or higher 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
60 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
55 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
50 X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
000000000000000000000000000000 0
/ 00000000000000000000000000000 1
X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
X X / 000000000000000000000000000 3
45 X // 000000000000000000000000000 3
44 X X 0000000000000000000000000000 2
43 X / 0000000000000000000000000000 2
42 X X X // 0000000000000000000000000 5
41 X X X X X / 000000000000000000000000 6
40 X X X // 0000000000000000000000000 5
39 X X X /// 000000000000000000000000 6
38 /// 000000000000000000000000000 3
37 X X X X /// 00000000000000000000000 7
36 X X X ////// 000000000000000000000 9
35 X X X //// 00000000000000000000000 7
34 X X X // 0000000000000000000000000 5
33 X X X / / / / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 32 X X X X /// 00000000000000000000000 7
31 X / 0000000000000000000000000000 2
30 X X X X /// 00000000000000000000000 7
29 X /// 00000000000000000000000000 4
28 // 0000000000000000000000000000 2
27 X 00000000000000000000000000000 1
26 X / 0000000000000000000000000000 2
25 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
2 4 000000000000000000000000000000 0
23 / 00000000000000000000000000000 1
2 2 000000000000000000000000000000 0
2 1 000000000000000000000000000000 0
20 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 9 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 8 000000000000000000000000000000 0
1 7 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
15 000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
000000000000000000000000000000 0
10 or lower 000000000000000000000000000000 0
100
Zach Bosch, PE DATE
Senior Civil Engineer
Resolution # Adopted:

TOTAL
NB/EB shown in Red, SB/WB shown in Blue Total Number of Vehicles:

DECLARED SPEED LIMIT: 35 MPH
000

ROADWAY CONDITIONS
Recommended Speed: 35 mph
(applied 5 mph decrease from 40 mph)
Roadway Segment Conditions:

Surrounding land uses include residential
neighborhoods on both sides of the road.

Sidewalks and bike lanes run along the
south side of the road. Road consists of a
single lane in both directions with a
planted median. Recommended speed
limit is within 10 mph pace.

INJURY 000
FATAL 000
PDO 000
% Below
Pace: 20% MPH
% Above
Pace: 18% MPH

COLLISION HISTORY
YEAR 2022 2023 2024
Pace: 32-41 MPH
% in Pace: 62% MPH
85th %: 41.6 MPH
50th %: 35.4 MPH

SPEED DATA
Posted: 40 MPH
Weather: Clear/Dry Observer:

Segment #: 06 Direction: Eastbound & Westbound
Date: 5/7/2025 Day: Wednesday Time: 11:20 - 12:45
Street: Mangini Parkway Location: 380ft West of Timber Ln Segment: Between E Bidwell St & Oak Ave Pkwy

Page 495 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

Page 496 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.11.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/26/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Appointment of At-Large Planning Commissioner to Serve the Remainder of the Term Expiring in December 2026

FROM: City Clerk's Department

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council appoint a qualified individual to the vacant at-large Planning Commissioner position. This appointment will serve to complete the remainder of the current term, which is scheduled to expire in December 2026. This action is crucial for maintaining the full operational capacity of the Folsom Planning Commission.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The Folsom Planning Commission is established under both the City’s Charter and the Folsom Municipal Code. Its primary function involves advising the City Council on critical land use matters and exercising decision-making authority over a broad spectrum of planning and development issues within the city. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the review and approval of conditional use permits, variances, design reviews, and subdivision maps. The Commission is instrumental in ensuring that development projects and land use policies are consistent with the City's adopted General Plan and other municipal ordinances, thereby upholding the community's established vision for growth and development.

The Planning Commission consists of seven members appointed by the City Council. Five of these members are appointed directly by individual City Councilmembers, with their terms running concurrently with that of their appointing Councilmember. The remaining two members are designated as "at-large" positions, appointed by a majority vote of the full City Council.

To be eligible for appointment, Planning Commissioners must be residents and registered voters of the City of Folsom at the time of their appointment and throughout their term of office. These residency and registered voter requirements highlight the importance of local civic engagement and direct accountability to the Folsom electorate for those serving on the Planning Commission. This

Page 497 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.
2 provision ensures a vested interest in the community's well-being and reinforces the City's value for local knowledge and a personal stake in Folsom's future from its planning commissioners.

A vacancy currently exists in one of the two at-large Planning Commission seats. This vacancy arose due to the resignation of a commissioner prior to the natural expiration of their term. The unexpired portion of this term extends through December 2026.

POLICY

In the event of a vacancy in an at-large commission seat, such as the current Planning Commission vacancy, the City Council possesses the authority to appoint a qualified individual to serve the remainder of the unexpired term. This provision is explicitly outlined in Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.35.030(D) and further reinforced by Section 17.04.026, which specifically addresses vacancies within the Planning Commission. These sections stipulate that if an at-large seat becomes vacant before its term concludes, the City Council shall make an appointment for the remaining duration of that term.

For most at-large appointments, including those to the Planning Commission, terms are set to expire on the date of the first regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council in December of the even- numbered year in which the specific term concludes. The current vacant at-large seat's term aligns with this policy, expiring in December 2026.

As a general policy, no individual may concurrently hold more than one appointed commission, board, council, or committee seat within the City of Folsom. There are limited exceptions to this rule, such as appointments made by virtue of membership on another body, such as Planning Commissioners appointed to the Historic District Commission. This policy aims to ensure broad participation and prevent concentration of influence across multiple city entities. This general policy, while not directly related to the current vacancy's cause, reflects a broader governance principle of distributing civic engagement opportunities and promoting broader community involvement and ensures that various perspectives are brought to different city bodies.

ANALYSIS

To ensure a transparent, inclusive, and comprehensive selection process for the vacant at-large Planning Commissioner position, the City undertook a robust outreach campaign to solicit interest from qualified residents. The vacancy was widely advertised across multiple official City communication channels, including the City's official website, newsletters, and various City-managed social media platforms. Additionally, the opportunity was publicized in the Folsom Telegraph. This multi-channel advertising approach demonstrates a strategic effort by the City to maximize public awareness and attract a diverse pool of applicants, promoting equitable access to civic service opportunities. By utilizing the City's official website for formal announcements, social media for broader, more immediate reach, and a local newspaper to capture a traditional, community-focused audience, the City ensures that the vacancy is visible to a wide cross-section of Folsom residents. This proactive and inclusive outreach strategy aims to attract a diverse range of candidates, enriching the applicant pool and potentially leading to a more representative and effective Planning Commission.

The application period concluded on August 14, by which time a total of 23 applications were received. Applications were distributed to each member of the City Council on August 15 for their

Page 498 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.
3 advance review. This allows Councilmembers ample time to evaluate the qualifications and experience of each candidate prior to appointment discussions.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attached are applications from the following individuals (personal information, such as home address, telephone and email address has been redacted).

1. Bryce Becker

2. Solomon Chis

3. Linda Clifford

4. Ryan Ellis

5. Etienne Girard

6. David Hickok

7. Barbara Holly

8. Alane Loisel

9. Toby Magarian

10. Edwin (Aaron) Mann

11. Marko Mlikotin

12. Jag Nagendra

13. Chris Nwakobi

14. Kenneth Payne

15. Cici Robinson

16. Bill Romanelli

17. Amanda Ross

18. Rob Ross

19. Jaspal Sidhu

20. Patrick Stover

21. James Tedford

22. Stephen Williams

23. Farrah Wood

Respectfully submitted,

Christa Freemantle, CMC
City Clerk

Page 499 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Attachment 1

Page 500 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Planning Commission Applications
Application Review Packet
City Council Meeting: August 26, 2025
Appointment of At-Large Planning Commissioner
Term Ending December 2026
Submitt
ed Applications

1. Bryce Becker

2. Solomon Chis

3. Linda Clifford

4. Ryan Ellis

5. Etienne Girard

6. David Hickok

7. Barbara Holly

8. Alane Loisel

9. Toby Magarian

10. Edwin (Aaron) Mann

11. Marko Mlikotin

12. Jag Nagendra

13. Chris Nwakobi

14. Kenneth Payne

15. Cici Robinson

16. Bill Romanelli

17. Amanda Ross

18. Rob Ross

19. Jaspal Sidhu

20. Patrick Stover

21. James Tedford

22. Stephen Williams

23. Farrah Wood
This packe
t contains the applications and supporting documents for all candidates

Page 501 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 502 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 503 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 504 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 505 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 506 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 507 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 508 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 509 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 510 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 511 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 512 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 513 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 514 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 515 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 516 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 517 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 518 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 519 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 520 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 521 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 522 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 523 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 524 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 525 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 526 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 527 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 528 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 529 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 530 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 531 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 532 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 533 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 534 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 535 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 536 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 537 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 538 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 539 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 540 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 541 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 542 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 543 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 544 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 545 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 546 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 547 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 548 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 549 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 550 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 551 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 552 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 553 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 554 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 555 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 556 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 557 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 558 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 559 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 560 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 561 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 562 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 563 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 564 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 565 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 566 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 567 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 568 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 569 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 570 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 571 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 572 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 573 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 574 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 575 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 576 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 577 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 578 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 579 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 580 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 581 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 582 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 583 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 584 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 585 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 586 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 587 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 588 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 589 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 590 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 591 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 592 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 593 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 594 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 595 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 596 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 597 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 598 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 599 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 600 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 601 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 602 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Page 603 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

Page 604 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.12.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/26/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11449 - A Resolution of the City Council Declaring a Portion of APN 071-0190-076-0000 as Exempt
Surplus Land and Authorizing Disposition of Said Land through Property Exchange
FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 11449 - A Resolution of the City Council Declaring a Portion of Parcel APN 071-0190-076-0000 as Exempt Surplus Land and to Authorizing Disposition of Said Land through Property Exchange.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
In 1984, the City of Folsom purchased several parcels from the Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD) for $175,000 to extend Riley Street in the vicinity of Bidwell Street and Lembi Drive. In 2011, t he City was granted the parcel located at APN 071-0190-076-0000, which was included as part of the 1984 transaction, from FCUSD via Estoppel Certificate to clear u p conflicting Title issues with the property. The 0.58-acre site is located east of Comstock Drive and west of Riley Street, as shown in yellow on the aerial map in Figure 1 on the following page. The site has remained vacant since the City purchased the land. However, this land was identified in the Housing Element of the City of Folsom General Plan as a lower -income housing site to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirement for up to 17 units, including up to 16 lower-income units.

In 2019, an application (PN 19-122) was submitted by the owners of 814 Comstock Drive (Patricia and Asghar Agheli) to subdivide their land for additional residential units. As part of that process, the applicants later purchased the knife-shaped parcel (APN 071-0190-054-0000), located between the City-owned site and 814 Comstock Drive as shown in red in the aerial photo in Figure 1 on the following page. The applicant then approached the City with the intent of proposing a lot line adjustment between the City-owned parcel and the knife-shaped parcel to make both parcels more rectangular, and therefore better suited for development.

Page 605 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.
2 Figure 1- Aerial Image of Existing Parcels

This proposed land exchange was discussed by the Folsom City Council in May of 2022 during closed session.

Staff support this proposal in concept as it would make the City-owned land more suitable for housing development by creating a rectangular parcel, and the City would not be losing any square footage or be taking on any additional tree mitigation since the private property owner would pay for the difference in mitigation.

Since May of 2022 , the applicant reached out to an adjacent property owner at 822 Comstock Drive to take on a portion of the knife-shaped parcel that the City did not want to take on due to it being contiguous with the house on 82 2 Comstock Drive. The 822 Comstock owner stated that they were not interested in taking on this land. As such, the applicant is now proposing that the City take on 5,119 square feet of land in exchange for 3,094 squa re feet of City land and leaving the rest of the knife shaped parcel as a remainder, as shown in Figure 2 on the following page. The resultant parcels are shown in Figure 3 on the following page as well. Staff is supportive of this modified proposal.

Page 606 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.
3 Figure 2- Land to Be Exchanged

Figure 3- Resultant Parcels

Page 607 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.
4 While the applicant’s proposed parcel map for development will be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission, the land exchange will first need Council approval. As part of that action, the land proposed for disposition must go through the Surplus Land Act process or be declared Exempt from this process by the City Council. A determination that the land is Exempt from the Surplus Land Act would then be subject to approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

POLICY / RULE
Effective January 1, 2020, the Surplus Land Act (SLA) (AB 1486) was amended to address California’s shortage of affordable housing. It requires agencies to take formal action in a regular public meeting to declare land surplus. However, land declared to be “exempt surplus land” by the local agency is not subject to these requirements.

The governing board of a local agency must declare the property to be “exempt surplus land” at a regular public meeting and the declaration must be supported by written findings demonstrating that the land is of one or more of several types, including:

Exchange of Surplus Land. Surplus land that a local agency is exchanging for another property or easement necessary for the local agency’s use. [Government Code section 54221(f)(1)(C)]

Any determination by a local agency that its surplus lands are exempt from the SLA shall subsequently be provided to HCD for approval pursuant to section 400(e) of these Guidelines.

ANALYSIS
The City has updated its Housing Element consistent with the State mandated cycle and process for an eight-year planning period (2021 – 2029). One of the key challenges with this current update is accommodating Folsom’s share of the lower -income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) assigned by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). The City’s RHNA obligation for this cycle is 6,363 housing units, of which 3,567 units are to be affordable to very low-income and low-income households (collectively referred to as the “lower-income” RHNA).

A core assumption of the Housing Element is that th e higher the allowed density in a property’s zoning district, the more feasible it is to accommodate affordable housing. The City -owned property located on Comstock Drive was allocated for up to 16 lower income units based on its size and R-3 (Neighborhood Apartment) zoning district. However, the triangular shape of the parcel could make it challenging to develop. The proposed land exchange and lot line adjustment would create a more rectangular parcel that would be easier to develop. Staff notes that the parcel exchange would result in a net increase in square footage on the land designated for the RHNA units and therefore will not result in a net loss of allocated units in the RHNA inventory. Because the City would be taking on additional trees as part of this exchange, staff recommends a condition that the applicant pay for the difference in tree mitigation between the sites (most recently calculated in 2025 at 51.5 inches of protected trees) that would be exchanged to ensure that there is no monetary value lost by the City as part of this transaction. Furthermore, staff concluded that based on the similar slopes of each property, the land being taken on by the City would have a roughly equal potential for development as the land the City would be disposing.

Page 608 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.
5 Staff reached out to HCD to determine if Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(C) was appropriate to use to declare the City-owned land proposed for exchange as exempt surplus land.

As shown in the communication from HCD provided in Attachment 2 , they confirmed that this was the appropriate Government Code section for the proposed exchange because the resultant property is necessary for the City’s RHNA requirements. As such, staff has prepared a Resolution for the City Council to declare the portion of the City-owned land proposed for exchange as exempt surplus land and to authorize disposition of said land to the applicant. As part of this resolution, staff has added language for a waiver of valuation. This means that the City would be waiving the need to appraise the land exchanged as part of the transaction. Staff felt this was appropriate given the fact that the City would be taking on more land than we were giving up as well as getting paid for the difference in tree m itigation and roughly equal potential for development given the site slopes. l As such, a valuation was not seen as necessary to ensure that there is no monetary value lost by the City as part of this transaction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with the declaration of land as exempt from the S urplus Land Act. With regards to disposition of the property, the City is receiving more land than it is giving up, and the party acquiring the land being disposed of is paying for the costs of both the lot line adjustment processing as well as the recordation and the difference in tree mitigation.

Furthermore, the resulting City-owned lot would be easier to develop than the current land given its proposed rectangular s hape. As such, no negative financial impact to the City is anticipated with disposition of the property.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The declaration of land as exempt from the Surplus Land Act is not considered a project and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11449 - A Resolution of the City Council Declaring a Portion of APN 071- 0190-076-0000 as Exempt Surplus Land and Authorizing Disposition of Said Land through Property Exchange

2. Email exchange with California Department of Housing and Community Development regarding exempt surplus land initial determination, dated April 28, 2025

3. Photographs of the Properties Proposed for Exchange

Submitted,

Pam Johns
Community Development Director

Page 609 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Attachment 1

Page 610 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11449

Page 1 of 5 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 11449

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECLARING A PORTION OF PARCEL APN 071-0190-076-0000 AS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND AND AUTHORIZING

DISPOSITION OF SAID LAND THROUGH PROPERTY EXCHANGE

WHEREAS, the City acquired parcel APN 071-0190-076-0000 from the Folsom Unified School District in 2011; and
WHEREAS, this parcel is listed in the 2021-2029 Housing Element site inventory as suitable for development of affordable multi-family housing; and WHEREAS, the City received an entitlement application from Patricia and Asghar Agheli for development of the adjacent parcels (APNs 071-0190-054-0000 and 071-0190-062- 0000); and
WHEREAS, as part of their application, Patricia and Asghar Agheli requested to exchange approximately 3,094 square feet of the City’s land for approximately 5,119 square feet of their adjacent land to make both parcels a rectangular shapes more suitable for development; and
WHEREAS, Patricia and Asghar Agheli shall pay for both the processing and recordation of the lot line adjustment and the difference in tree mitigation costs between the land the City is acquiring from them and the land they are acquiring from the City; and WHEREAS, the City would be acquiring the same amount or more of developable land as part of this property exchange, and will not result in a net loss in lower income units designated in the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element sites inventory; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to a waiver of valuation of the land as part of the transaction; and
WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act (AB 1486) was amended in January 2020 to address California's shortage of affordable housing and requires agencies to take formal action in a regular public meeting to declare land surplus; and
WHEREAS, the identified land qualifies as exempt surplus land under Government Code section 54221(f)(1)C) - Exchange of Surplus Land, since it is surplus land that a local agency is exchanging for another property necessary for the City’s use, in this case to meet the City of Folsom’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and is not within a coastal zone, is not adjacent to a historical unit of the State Park System, is not listed on or determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and is not within the Lake Tahoe Region as defined by Government Code Section 66905.5; and

Page 611 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11449

Page 2 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act requires that exempt surplus land be declared as exempt surplus by the City Council at a public meeting and that the State Housing and Community Development Department verify the exempt determination prior to land disposition.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Folsom that approximately 3,094 square feet of City property identified as APN 071-0190-076-0000, shown in Exhibit 1, is hereby declared as exempt surplus land.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned exempt surplus property is not necessary or needed for City use.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned exempt surplus property shall be exchanged for 5,119 square feet of land located on APN 071-0190-062-0000, as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 and currently owned by Patricia and Asghar Agheli, free from any encumbrances.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Patricia and Asghar Agheli shall pay for both the processing and recordation of the property exchange, lot line adjustment, as well as the difference in tree mitigation costs between the land the City is acquiring from them and the land they are acquiring from the City. Said costs shall be paid prior to completion of the property exchange.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all documents necessary to effectuate disposition, transfer, and exchange of the aforementioned exempt surplus property for 5,119 square feet of land located on APN 071-0190-062-0000 as shown in Exhibit 1, in furtherance of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

____________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

Page 612 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11449

Page 3 of 5 ends

________________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 613 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11449

Page 4 of 5 ends

Exhibit 1
Land to be Exchanged

Page 614 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11449

Page 5 of 5 ends

Exhibit 2
Resultant Parcels

Page 615 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Attachment 2

Page 616 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.
1 Josh Kinkade
From: Mukasa, Sandra@HCD <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2025 4:27 PM
To: Josh Kinkade; Dept. of Housing & Community Development Subject: RE: SLA Case (SLA0001736)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Josh,

Thank you for the confirmation regarding these Gov Code section 54221(f)(2) characteristics. Since the document you submitted is a draft, I recommend that you include a line referencing that none of those characteristics apply and thus the property is eligible for the exemption.

I have completed my review and have concluded that the Property complies with and qualifies for Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(C). I will now close out this technical assistance ticket. (FYI: For internal workflow and data tracking purposes, we process draft exemption reviews separately from local agency approved formal actions that require a formal HCD findings letter.)

Please submit the approved city council resolution via a new SLA Portal ticket and we will process the formal findings letter. When submitting the adopted resolution, you may note in the new ticket that I previously reviewed a draft under case number 1736 so that it can be assigned to me for swift processing.

(When responding to me, please be sure to reply-all to include both my direct HCD email and the service-now email so that our correspondence is saved to the correct case file)

Thank you,

Sandra Mukasa
Senior Housing Policy Specialist
Housing Accountability Unit
Housing Policy Development Division
Phone: (916) 233-6926
Final Updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines: On August 1, 2024, HCD issued the final updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines .

Surplus Land Dashboard: View data here regarding homes "unlocked" via compliance with the SLA pathway.

From: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2025 4:15 PM
To: Dept. of Housing & Community Development <[email protected]> Cc: Mukasa, Sandra@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: SLA Case (SLA0001736)

Sandra, Thanks for getting back to m e so quickly. I can confirm that the land does not meet any of the A-D criteria you provided. And you are correct tha t no form al action has bee n taken. The res olution p rovided to you is a draft, and we would

Sandra,

Page 617 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.
2 Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I can confirm that the land does not meet any of the A-D criteria you provided. And you are correct that no formal action has been taken. The resolution provided to you is a draft, and we would take a version of it forward to City Council soon once we have a preliminary ruling from HCD regarding the exemption status.

Thanks,

Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
jkinkade @folsom.ca.us
o:916-461-6209
www.folsom.ca.us

From: Dept. of Housing & Community Development < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Josh Kinkade < [email protected] >
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: SLA Case (SLA0001736)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello, Josh Kinkade,
Thank you for submitting documentation of behalf of the City of Folsom in regard to a portion of property located at APN: 071-0190-076-0000 (Property). In general, the Property would be eligible for an exemption if certain characteristics don't apply to the property. Can you please confirm whether or not any of the characteristics listed under GC §, 54221(f)(2) apply to the Property (copied below)? You don't often get email from [email protected] . Learn why this is important [aka.ms]

Page 618 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.
3 (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a written notice of the availability of surplus land for open-space purposes shall be sent to the entities described in subdivision (b) of Section 54222 prior to disposing of the surplus land, provided the land does not meet the criteria in subparagraph (H) of paragraph (1), if the land is any of the following:
(A). Within a coastal zone.
(B). Adjacent to a historical unit of the State Parks System. (C). Listed on,or determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation to be eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places.
(D). Within the Lake Tahoe region as defined in Section 66905.5.

Furthermore, it's my understanding from the provided draft documentation that the City's governing body has yet to take a formal action in declaring the land exempt surplus. Is that correct? (When responding to me, please be sure to reply-all to include both my direct HCD email and the service- now email so that our correspondence is saved to the correct case file)

Thank you,

Sandra Mukasa (she/her)
Senior Housing Policy Specialist, Housing Accountability Unit Housing Policy Development Division
Housing & Community Development (HCD)
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400 | Sacramento, CA 95811
 916.233.6926 |  [email protected]

[twitter.com] [facebook.com]
Final Updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines: On August 1, 2024, HCD issued the final updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines .

Surplus Land Dashboard: View data here regarding homes "unlocked" via compliance with the SLA pathway.

Ref:MSG0219682_wFFurQus0DliUWAmV6Vs

Page 619 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Attachment 3

Page 620 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Land Proposed to be Disposed Of by the City

Page 621 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Land Proposed to be Acquired by the City

Page 622 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.13.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

8/26/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11427 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Approving the Affordable Housing Loan Program Guidelines to Establish a Clear Framework for Providing Financial Assistance to Affordable Housing Projects, Funded by Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) and Housing Trust Fund (Fund 221) FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends that the City Council move to adopt Resolution No. 11427 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Approving the Affordable Housing Loan Program Guidelines to Establish a Clear Framework for Providing Fi nancial Assistance to Affordable Housing Projects, Funded by Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) and Housing Trust Fund (Fund 221).

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Over the past 20 years, the City has utilized available housing funds to support the development of qualified affordable housing projects through the provision of loans. These funds have helped facilitate numerous affordable housing projects in the community as an important gap financing measure. A summary of funded projects and associated loan amounts is provided in Attachment 2.

Due to the technical nature of affordable housing finance and tax credit structures, City staff have relied on external consultants (primarily TDA, Inc.) to help evaluate affordable housing developer loan requests. Typically, these requests are submitted by developers as part of their project proposals, rather than being initiated by the City. As a result, the City reviews these requests reactively.

Page 623 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.
2 The evaluation process centers on two key f actors: (1) the availability of affordable housing funds at the time of the request, and (2) the reasonableness of the amount being requested and the proposed loan terms, as analyzed by the City’s affordable housing loan consultant. To assess a request, the City’s consultant conducts a thorough review of the developer’s updated financial pro forma and funding sources. This involves analyzing the project’s assumptions, methodologies, and calculations for accuracy and soundness. The consultant also uses secondary sources to verify data and may request additional documentation or clarification from the developer to support the financial analysis. Because most projects are subject to tax credit agency regulations and compliance standards, City staff and consulta nts generally assume that developers are following industry best practices.

In recent years, staff has made a concerted effort to standardize loan terms across affordable housing projects to enhance continuity, reduce inconsistencies, and improve overall efficiency.

This also helps the City better manage and track loans. Through our ongoing collaboration with TDA, Inc., staff has gained valuable insights into industry best practices related to the negotiation of term sheets and final loan documents.

Despite these improvements, the City’s approach remains largely reactive, with loan term negotiations typically taking place only after a developer has submitted a project proposal. By this stage, developers are often far along in structuring their project financing and face tight timelines to meet tax credit application deadlines. As a result, the City is placed in a less advantageous position during deliberations, while developers —often working under tight timelines driven by tax credit application deadlines—have limited flexibility to revise proposed terms. This timing dynamic reduces the City’s ability to proactively shape loan terms and/or conditions that reflect broader policy goals related to lasting affordability, community housing needs, and fiscal responsibility.

The purpose of creating and adopting Affordable Housing Loan (AHL) Program Guidelines is to bring more transparency and consistency to the City's approach to housing loan gap financing. By establishing clear and standardized funding criteria at the outset, the guidelines will provide developers and prospective applicants with a well -defined framework prior to submitting proposals. This proactive structure will shift the City’s role from reacting to individual proposals to setting uniform exp ectations for loan terms. While the guidelines introduce structure, they will also incorporate flexibility to accommodate unique project circumstances. This balanced approach will help the City use limited housing funding more fairly, protect long-term housing goals, and improve how the program is managed At this time, staff is requesting City Council approval of the Affordable Housing Loan Program Guidelines. Later this year, staff will be presenting to the City Council policy considerations and priorities for future use of the City’s Housing Funds, along with an analysis of the City’s current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as required by the Housing Element.

Page 624 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.
3 POLICY / RULE

All powers of the City shall be vested in the City Council pursuant to Section 2.02 of the City Charter.

ANALYSIS
The City of Folsom is committed to supporting both the rehabilitation and new construction of affordable housing for low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households. This effort is primarily funded through inclusionary in-lieu fees from new residential development (Folsom Housing Fund – Fund 238) and commercial development fees (Housing Trust Fund – Fund 221). These sources collectively finance the City’s Affordable Housing Loan (AHL) Program.

The AHL Program offers gap financing for affordable housing developments located within the City, serving households at or below established income thresholds. In exchange for this low-cost, long-term financing, property owners agree to implement and uphold income, rent, and affordability restrictions for a minimum of 55 years. Recognizing that most affordable housing developments are structured with multiple funding streams, the AHL Program is intentionally designed to align with state and federal resources such as Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).

The City’s involvement in affordable housing investments serves two primary and often interconnected purposes: protecting the financial viability of its loan portfolio and ensuring the long-term success of developments in delivering safe, high-quality housing throughout the full affordability period. To support these goals, the proposed AHL Program Guidelines establish consistent and transparent criteria to guide applicants and ensure that developments remain financially and physically sustainable over time.

Key components of the guidelines are described below.

1. Project Funding Requirements. The AHL Program Guidelines provide a structured and transparent framework for evaluating and supporting affordable housing developments in the Cit y of Folsom. They establish detailed eligibility criteria for applicants, requiring participation from nonprofit or for -profit housing developers, partnerships, or joint ventures with demonstrated experience in affordable housing. The Guidelines prioritize projects located outside concentrations of existing regulated affordable housing and those consistent with the City’s Housing Element goals.

Additionally, the Guidelines outline specific requirements related to cost eligibility, property standards, unit mix, income and rent restrictions, and permissible tenant fees.

This consistent regulatory framework is intended to promote fairness across applicants, while enhancing efficiency in both the project review and long -term monitoring processes carried out by City staff.

2. Underwriting and Compliance Standards . The AHL Program Guidelines set forth clear underwriting standards to ensure consistency, transparency, and administrative

Page 625 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.
4 efficiency for evaluating affordable housing projects. To align with best practices and reduce duplicative requirements, the City’s underwriting criteria is consistent with those established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). In addition, the Guidelines will align most affordability compliance requirements —such as tenant income verification, rent setting, and utility allowance calculations—with the standards used in the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. This alignment streamlines the funding process for project sponsors while supporting more effective and coordinated compliance monitoring across multiple funding sources.

3. Residual Cash Flow . To promote accountability and clarity in how City loans are repaid, which are gene rally structured to be repaid through annual payments equal to 50% of a project's residual cash flow, the AHL Program Guidelines include a clear definition of residual cash flow. These Guidelines identify allowable project expenses that may be deducted prior to calculating amounts owed to the City. To maintain fiscal oversight and ensure responsible use of public resources, the Guidelines require that any project expenses not specifically authorized must receive prior written approval from the City. This re quirement reinforces the City's authority in monitoring project - level financial activity and helps ensure that loan repayments align with program objectives.

4. Reserve Account Requirements to Ensure Long -Term Project Sustainability. To maintain the long-term viability of affordable housing developments financed through the AHL Program, the Guidelines require each project to establish and maintain both an Operating Reserve Account and a Replacement Reserve Account. These Reserve Accounts must rem ain in place for the full duration of the affordability restriction period (at least 55 years) to ensure the ongoing physical and financial sustainability of the property. The Replacement Reserve requirement, in particular, limits early cash distributions and ensures adequate funding for major capital repairs —such as roof replacement or system upgrades —thereby safeguarding project integrity well beyond repayment of the City’s loan. This requirement reflects the City’s long -term commitment to ensuring the du rability, habitability, and financial stability of its affordable housing investments.

5. Safeguards for Ensuring Long -Term Affordability. The AHL Program Guidelines include specific provisions designed to enhance the City’s long -term regulatory oversight of affordable housing projects. These include requirements for financial guarantees and the execution of declarations of restrictive covenants. To ensure the enforceability of affordability restrictions over the full term of the project, the Guidelines stipulate that all AHL covenants must be recorded in a senior position to any foreclosable liens, including those that would otherwise be senior to the City’s loan. These safeguards are intended to preserve the City’s regulatory and affordability interests throu ghout the life of the project, regardless of changes in ownership or financing structure.

Page 626 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.
5 In addition to these components, the Guidelines include numerous other provisions that define essential program requirements and reflect the City’s broader objectives for the responsible use of affordable housing resources.

As outlined in the background section of this report, the City’s current approach to negotiating affordable housing loan terms remains largely reactive, despite recent process improvements.

Typically, loan discussions begin only after a developer has submitted a full project proposal and assembled key financing components. By that stage, developers are often operating under compressed timelines (particularly those tied to competitive tax credit appli cation cycles ) which significantly limits flexibility in revising financial terms. This situation limits the City’s ability to shape loan terms that fully align with broader policy objectives, including long-term affordability, responsiveness to community housing needs, and prudent fiscal management.

The AHL Program Guidelines are designed to address these limitations by establishing a consistent, transparent, and proactive framework for evaluating and funding affordable housing developments. By articula ting clear funding criteria and expectations up front, the Guidelines provide prospective applicants with a defined process well in advance of project submission. Additionally, the formalization of loan policies through the AHL Program Guidelines establish es a structured foundation for issuing Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) in a proactive and strategic manner. This approach enables the City to solicit a broad range of proposals when resources become available and to direct funding toward projects that best align with Housing Element priorities. These may include developments in preferred locations or those serving high -need populations (such as seniors, large families, and individuals with special needs ) while maintaining a transparent, equitable, a nd accountable allocation process.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact on the General Fund. The Affordable Housing Loan Program is supported by Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) and Housing Trust Fund (Fund 221) . By establishing clear AHL P rogram Guidelines, the City is likely to reduce expenditures on consultant services currently required for evaluation of affordable housing project loan requests, resulting in more efficient use of housing funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed City Coun cil action to approve Affordable Housing Loan Program Guidelines is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Section 15061(b)(3). Under Section 15378, the action does not constitute a “project” under CEQA, as it pertains solely to administrative or procedural matters that do not result in direct physical environmental changes. Furthermore, Section 15061(b)(3) - the “common sense exemption” -applies because it can be determined with certainty that the adoption of this updated document will not lead to significant effects on the environment.

Page 627 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.
6 ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11427 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Approving the Affordable Housing Loan Program Guidelines to Establish a Clear Framework for Providing Financial Assistance to Affordable Housing Projects, Funded by Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) and Housing Trust Fund (Fund 221).

2. List of City-funded Affordable Housing Projects

3. Summary of Affordable Housing Funds

4. Affordable Housing Loan Program Guidelines

Submitted,

Pam Johns, Community Development Director

Page 628 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 1

Page 629 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11427

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 11427

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM APPROVING

THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM GUIDELINES

TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR FRAMEWORK FOR

PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS,

FUNDED BY
FOLSOM HOUSING FUND (FUND 238) AND HOUSING TRUST FUND (FUND 221)

WHEREAS, for over 20 years, the City of Folsom has utilized available housing funds to support the development of affordable housing through the issuance of loans, facilitating numerous projects that provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households; and

WHEREAS, the City relies on a combination of in -lieu residential development fees (Folsom Housing Fund – Fund 238) and commercial development fees (Housing Trust Fund – Fund 221) to fund the Affordable Housing Loan (AHL) Program; and

WHEREAS, the technical complexity of affordable housing finance and tax credit programs has historically required the City to engage external consultants to evaluate developer loan requests on a project-by-project basis; and

WHEREAS, the City’s current process for evaluating and negotiating affordable housing loans is largely reactive, typically beginning only after developers have submitted full project proposals and assembled key sources of financing, often under time constraints dictated by competitive tax credit cycles; and

WHEREAS, this reactive structure has limited the City’s ability to proactively shape loan terms and ensure alignment with broader housing policy goals related to long -term affordability, responsiveness to community housing needs, and prudent fiscal oversight; and

WHEREAS, staff, in collaboration with the City’s affordable housing loan consultant, TDA, Inc., has worked to standardize loan terms, improve efficiency, and a lign funding decisions with industry best practices; and

WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Loan Program Guidelines are intended to establish a transparent, consistent, and proactive framework that sets clear expectations for project funding requirements, ev aluation criteria, and loan terms, while preserving flexibility to accommodate varying project needs; and

WHEREAS the adoption of the AHL Program Guidelines will enable the City to issue Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) more strategically, enhancin g the City’s ability to direct limited housing funds to projects that best align with Housing Element goals and community priorities, and

Page 630 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11427

Page 2 of 2 ends

WHEREAS the Affordable Housing Loan Program is funded through Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) and Housing Trust Fund (Fund 221), resulting in no impact to the General Fund, and
WHEREAS, the adoption of clear and consistent Affordable Housing Loan P rogram Guidelines is anticipated to reduce reliance on consultant services for evaluating loan requests, thereby promoting more efficient use of limited housing resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby approves the Affordable Housing Loan Program Guidelines and authorizes staff to implement the guidelines in support of the City’s affordable housing goals.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

______________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 631 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 2

Page 632 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

List of City-funded Affordable Housing Projects

Over the past 20 years, the City has provided Affordable Housing Loans to Eleven (11) affordable housing developments, as summarized in Table 1 below.

Project Year
Number of
Affordable
Units
Total Funding
Amount
Funding Amount
per Affordable
Unit

Harrington
Grove
Apartments 2025 51 $2,700,000 $52,941
Mangini Place 2021 150 $6,860,000 $45,733
Sage at Folsom 2021 110 $2,750,000 $25,000
Bidwell Place 2021 75 $4,150,000 $55,333
Petersen Place 2019 71 $4,680,000 $65,915
Bidwell Pointe 2019 100 $5,300,000 $53,000
Granite City 2012 80 $2,830,272 $51,000
Forestwood 2011 55 $3,000,000 $54,545
Mercy Village
(remodel) 2009 81 $1,215,000 $15,000
Creekview
Manor 2007 138 $1,400,000 $10,144
Vintage Willow
Creek 2005 184 $1,176,486 $6,393
TOTAL 1095 units $36,061,758

Page 633 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 3

Page 634 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Summary of Affordable Housing Funds

As of June 2025, the City ’s total unencumbered housing fund balance available for affordable housing projects is approximately, $23.8 million and is comprised of four separate funds, as summarized in Table 2 below:

Table 2 – Folsom Housing Funds
Housing Fund Name Source Fund Balance
Housing Trust Fund (Fund 221) Commercial Fees $917,451
Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) Inclusionary In-lieu Fees $22,705,461 Oaks at Willow Springs (Fund 274) Willow Springs Inclusionary Fee $25,762 Bonds Fund (Fund 280) Former Redevelopment Bonds $149,695 Total $23,798,369
*In addition to providing affordable housing financial subsidies, Total includes funds utilized for consulting services, special reports, and other housing related activities.

It is important to note, of the four types of housing funds, only the Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) and the Housing Trust Fund (Fund 221) are expected to generate future City housing funds. During the past year, the City collected over $4.2 million in inclusionary in-lieu fees as a result of the thriving new single- family housing development (primarily in the Folsom Plan Area) and approximately $170,000 in housing trust fund fees associated with new commercial development. In addition to providing affordable housing loans, these funds are used for other housing related activities such as the Housing Element Update and housing financing consulting services.

Page 635 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 4

Page 636 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Affordable Housing Loan
Program Guidelines

Version 1.0
08/26/2025

Page 637 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 1
Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3

2. Application and Evaluation Procedure ...................................................................................................... 3 A. Funding Availability ............................................................................................................................... 3 B. Submission of Materials ........................................................................................................................ 4

3. Structure of Transaction ........................................................................................................................... 4 A. Loan Types and Terms .......................................................................................................................... 4 B. Reserves Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 5 C. Annual Payments & Distributions ......................................................................................................... 6 D. Guarantees ........................................................................................................................................... 7 E. Declaration of Restrictive Covenants .................................................................................................... 7 F. AHL Agreement ..................................................................................................................................... 8

4. Underwriting & Subsidy Layering Reviews ............................................................................................... 8 A. Project Underwriting Standards ........................................................................................................... 8 B. Proforma Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 10 C. City Fees .............................................................................................................................................. 11 D. Cost Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 12 E. Other Public Funding Sources ............................................................................................................. 12

5. Project Funding Requirements ............................................................................................................... 13 A. Eligibility Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 13 I. Eligible Applicants ............................................................................................................................ 13 II. Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 13 III. Project Types .................................................................................................................................. 13 IV. Funding Parameters ....................................................................................................................... 13 B. Eligible Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 13 I. General ............................................................................................................................................. 13 II. City Project-Related Soft Costs ....................................................................................................... 13 III. Cost Reasonableness ...................................................................................................................... 14 IV. Identity of Interest ......................................................................................................................... 14 C. Property Standards ............................................................................................................................. 14 D. Unit Allocation .................................................................................................................................... 15

Page 638 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 2
E. Income and Rent Restrictions ............................................................................................................. 15 I. Income Limits ................................................................................................................................... 15 II. Rent Limits....................................................................................................................................... 15 III. Utility Allowances ........................................................................................................................... 16 IV. Prohibition on Certain Fees to Tenants ......................................................................................... 16 IV. Income Verification ........................................................................................................................ 16 V. Rent Adjustments ........................................................................................................................... 16 F. Environmental Requirements ............................................................................................................. 17 G. Other Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 17 I. Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity ...................................................................................... 17 II. Relocation and Displacement ......................................................................................................... 17 III. Prevailing Wages ............................................................................................................................ 18 IV. Excluded Parties ............................................................................................................................. 18

6. Ongoing Project Requirements ............................................................................................................... 18 A. Marketing and Leasing ........................................................................................................................ 18 B. Reporting and Recordkeeping ............................................................................................................ 19 C. Capital Needs Assessment .................................................................................................................. 19 D. Conflicts of Interest and Identities of Interest ................................................................................... 20

7. Construction Process .............................................................................................................................. 20 A. City Construction Inspections ............................................................................................................. 20 B. Drawing Funds .................................................................................................................................... 20 I. Conditions of Final Disbursement .................................................................................................... 21 II. Limitation on Draw Requests ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

8. Monitoring During Affordability Period .................................................................................................. 21

9. Exceptions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22

Page 639 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 3

1. Introduction
The City of Folsom (the “ City”) supports the rehabilitation and new construction of affordable rental housing for low-income, very low-income, and extremely low -income households with funding from inclusionary in-lieu fees for new residential development (Folsom Housing Fund/Fund 238) and fees associated with new commercial development (Housing Trust Fund/Fund 221). Together, these sources are used to fund the City’s Affordable Housing Loan ( “AHL”) program. The purpose of these Guidelines is to provide transparency and direction to potential applicants for AHL program funds.

AHL program funds will be used to provide gap financing to projects located in the City that are affordable to people who are at or below applicable income limits. In exchange for low‐cost permanent financing, property owners will agree to income, rent, and other restrictions for an affordability period of at least 55 years. Projects are monitored for compliance during the affordability period.

Since project developers, owners, and sponsors must coordinate funders’ req uirements when there are multiple funding sources, in general, the AHL Program is structured to be layered with other State and Federal financing (including, but not limited to LIHTC, HOME, and CDBG) and is intended to expand the supply of decent, safe, sa nitary, and affordable housing. The AHL program is focused on low-income households at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (“AMI”) with additional emphasis on producing units affordable to low -income households at or below 60% AMI, very low-income households at or below 50% AMI, and extremely low-income households at or below 30% AMI.

2. Application and Evaluation Procedure
The City will periodically issue a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Affordable Rental Housing Development when funds are available, and the City seeks to establish funding priorities and determine how the funds will be allocated. The NOFA will outline specific application deadlines, any funding focus goals (e.g., by project type, population served, etc.), and other special considerations applied to any given funding round (i.e., not all NOFAs will be the same and the City’s areas of funding emphasis may change between or across NOFAs).

A. Funding Availability
Upon submission of a proposal for AHL funds, City staff will conduct a review and analysis of the project and developer(s) as presented in the proposal. Proposals submitted in response to a NOFA will be scored based on criteria outlined in the NOFA. Regardless of strict numerical ranking, the scoring does not operate to vest in an applicant or project any right to a reservation or commitment of AHL funds. The City will, in all instances, commit AHL funds consistent with sound and reasonable judgment, prudent business practices, and the exercise of its inherent discretion.

Projects seeking AHL funds prior to the receipt of all other funding sources, including federal tax credit reservations, may be provided with non‐binding Letters of Intent. Among other items, the Letter of Intent will be contingent upon 1) the then current balance of Funds 238 and 221 and/or 2) the applicant’s award from the California Tax Credit Allocating Committee (“ CTCAC”) and/or the California Debt Limit

Page 640 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 4
Allocation Committee (“CDLAC”) for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”), if applicable, and all other necessary project financing.

B. Submission of Materials
All applicants are required to comply with the submission criteria set forth in these guidelines or within a particular NOFA.. The City reserves the right to require the submission of additional information as needed to complete project underwriting.

3. Structure of Transaction
A. Loan Types and Terms
The City will provide AHL funds in the form of a loan to the entity that owns the property. No AHL funds will be awarded, and funding commitments are not transferable without prior written City approval.

The City ’s AHL Program loan is intended as construction/ permanent financing. Proceeds of the AHL Program loan will only be released in conjunction with approved con struction draw requests and/or submission of invoices for approved soft costs and satisfaction of all requirements outlined below.

In all cases, the AHL Program loan will:

 Have a term of 35 years1;
 Be repayable in full upon sale, refinancing, or transfer of the property or upon maturity, whichever occurs first;
 Be secured with a deed of trust, promissory note, and appropriate UCC liens. Mortgages will be recorded in Sacramento County and may be subordinate only to an amortizing permanent first mortgage and a temporary bank construction loan, all of which must be approved by the City, if applicable.

The City will offer one of two potential repayment structures:

 For projects with senior amortizing loans (i.e ., “must pay” debt), AHL program loans will be structured with annual payments equal to 50% of Surplus Cash (aka Cash Flow, Residual Cash Flow, Residual Receipts) as further defined below.

As discussed below, the City may consider deferring payments on its AHL until cumulative distributions of Surplus Cash are equal to a project’s deferred developer fee.

 For projects without senior amortizing loans, AHL Program loans will be structured as an amortizing loan with a 35-year term and an interest rate of 3% simple interest. Payments may be

1 When necessary for tax analysis purposes, the City may consider a longer loan term (e.g., 55 years to match the period of affordability).

Page 641 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 5
deferred for th e first year following completion of construction. Based upon the City’s underwriting evaluation, payments may be based on a longer amortization period with a balloon due at maturity if a project cannot be expected to fully amortize the loan.

B. Reserves Requirements
To preserve the ongoing viability of projects, the City will require the establishment and maintenance of an Operating Reserve Account and a Replacement Reserve Account (collectively, the Reserve Accounts) consistent with then current CDLAC/ CTCAC requirements. All Reserve Accounts shall be held in interest-bearing segregated accounts at banks or credit unions fully licensed to do business in the State of California and insured to the maximum limit of either the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or the National Credit Union Association (NCUA) as applicable. Any interest earned on the Reserve Accounts shall remain within the Reserve Accounts.

All Reserve Accounts shall remain in place through the restriction period (i.e., 55 years) not withstanding any change in ownership and in no circumstances may Reserve Account funds be disbursed for “exit taxes” upon any future transfer of limited partner interests.

Owners must report any withdrawal or other use of Reserve Accounts to the City within 10 days, providing information on the conditions leading to the withdrawal and the use of those funds. Initially, the City will not require the Owner to obtain permission prior to making withdrawals from the Reserve Accounts but reserves the right to require Reserve Accounts be established subject to a depositary control agreement such that withdrawals may not be taken without the City’s specific authorization to the financial institution (e.g., if the Owner has taken un-approved withdrawals or for other good cause as determined by the City). Owners must also authorize the financial institutions in which reserves are held to provide to the City, when requested, verified statements reflecting account balances and transactions.

 An Operating Reserve intended to protect against unexpected operating deficits which must be fully funded at or before permanent loan conversion in an amount equal to three (3) months of estimated operating expenses and debt service under stabilized occupancy;  A Replacement R eserve intended to fund future capital and rehabilitation needs . For rehabilitation projects an initial capitalized replacement reserve of the greater of i) $1,000 per unit; or ii) the amount determined by a CNA approved by the City must be established as of initial closing. For all projects, ongoing deposits to the replacement reserve of not less than $300 per unit per year must be made beginning no later than the date of permanent loan closing (or a date certain established by the City). Thereafter, annual deposits will be increased at an annual rate of

3.5%. The City also reserves the right to modify reserve requirements during the period of affordability based on periodic CNAs.
 For projects where the City’s underwriting anticipates operating deficits dur ing the affordability period, an additional Operating Deficit Reserve must be capitalized as of the initial closing;  As may be required based on specific or unique project features, additional specialty reserves may be required, such as for tenant services, abnormal security costs, etc.

Page 642 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 6

C. Annual Payments & Distributions
Following completion of construction and conversion to permanent financing , the City loan will require annual payments equal to 50% of Surplus Cash.2

Surplus Cash will be defined as all rental and other operating income generated by the Project after:

1. Payment of the reasonable and customary operating expenses for such the Project (see Sections

5.B.IV. and 6D):
a. Property management fee not to exceed 4% of the Project’s effective gross income; b. Advertising, legal, accounting, security, and other general office administration expenses; c. Utilities;
d. Payroll expenses, benefits, and payroll taxes;
e. Maintenance, repairs, grounds, pool, and turnover costs; f. Property insurance;
g. Property taxes and assessments;

2. Costs of social service programs offered to residents (as necessary and only as appropriately determined by the City on a case-by-case basis);

3. Cash deposited into Project Reserves (including the Replacement Reserve and/or Opera ting Reserve) in such amounts as are required by the Project lenders (including the City) and/or tax credit investor ( further including a requirement that if drawn, operating reserves must be replenished prior to any distributions of cash flow);

4. Cash deposited into any escrow for property taxes and/or insurance as may be required by any of the Project Lenders;

5. Payment of debt service on other “hard payment” loans approved by the City (including principal, interest, and any applicable mortgage insurance premium);

6. Payment of asset management fees to the tax credit investor limited partner in an amount no greater than $7,500 per annum starting in the first year the Project receives a certificate of occupancy; and

7. Payment of asset management fees to the nonprofit managing general partner or managing member of the owner in an amount no greater than $100 per unit per year with payments starting in the first year the Project receives a certificate of occupancy.

Other than those specifically provided for above, any payments not specified above made to the partners, members, other underlying ownership entities or individuals, and any of their related parties , including but not limited to other or additional asset management fees, incentive fees, performance fees, owner’s representative, compliance management, consulting, or oversight fees may only be paid from Surplus Cash remaining after payment on the City AHL Loan.

2 Surplus Cash is also varyingly referred to as – cash flow, residual cash flow, residual receipts – for purposes of this document, shall generally have the same meaning.

Page 643 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 7
In addition, the City will generally agree to defer annual payments on the AHL Loan until the earlier of i) 12 years from the date upon which the project is placed in service or ii) the point at which cumulative distributions of Surplus Cash are equal to a project’s deferred developer fee as approved by the City as of the final closing and cost certif ication. In all cases, the deferral period will be determined based on cumulative Surplus Cash distributions regardless of how any items described above as payable only from Surplus Cash are characterized within an owner’s operating or partnership agreemen t. As way of example, insomuch as an owner’s partnership agreement requires some or all cash flows to be distributed to the investor for any tax credit adjustors or investor loans not specifically anticipated in the project’s financing plan, those distributions will still be counted toward the cumulative Surplus Cash distributions for purposes of any deferral period on the City’s loan.

Further, any identity of interest costs (e.g. , use of a related party management company, vendor, or the like) included within the Project’s annual operating budget must be disclosed and approved by the City as necessary and reasonable.

D. Guarantees
The City will require joint and several corporate guarantees from the underlying individual and corporate owners of the general partner(s), member(s), or other controlling entities of the Owner, and from any other guarantors required by the other financing sources investing in the Project.

Required guarantees will include:

1. A guaranty of project completion and initial funding of reserves;

2. A guaranty of replacement reserve deposits; and

3. A guaranty for full and prompt payment of any loss, damage, liability, action, cause of action, cost, or expense incurred by City as a result of, and to the extent of, i) fra ud or material gross misrepresentation, ii) intentional bad faith waste, iii) losses resulting from Owner/Developer’s failure to properly maintain insurance, iv) gross misappropriation of any of the rents, security deposits, loan proceeds, insurance procee ds, condemnation awards, or any other proceeds derived from the collateral security; and/or v) unauthorized disbursements of surplus cash.

E. Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
Each AHL-funded project must maintain restrictions and covenants running wi th the land enforcing City guidelines, as applicable. The Declaration of Restrictive Covenants will be separately recorded and will remain in place for the 55-year period of affordability even if the AHL program loan is prepaid prior to that date. Among other items, the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants will address:

 Restrictions on the transfer of title to the property or underlying ownership interest s in the property owner;
 Restrictions on further encumbrances on the Property without the City’s prior permission;  Operational and performance requirements, including maintenance of various reserves, restrictions on the distributions of surplus cash, approval of property management, and insurance expectations;

Page 644 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 8
 Provisions to enforce ongoing requ irements for project c ompliance th rough the period of affordability, including:
o The length of the period of affordability;
o Applicable income and rent restrictions;
o Property standards to be enforced;
o Marketing and leasing requirements; and
o Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

While the City ’s AHL program loan(s) will generally be subordinate to conventional debt, the AHL Declaration of Restrictive Covenants must be recorded senior to all foreclosable liens associated with the project financing, including any loans senior to the City’s AHL program loan, and structured to survive any foreclosure by a senior lien . The AHL covenant may be recorded junior to any similar restrictions related to federal funding, LIHTC, or other public funding.

F. AHL Agreement
In addition to any financing documents, owners of AHL‐financed projects must sign an AHL Agreement with the City. The Agreement will identify requirements for compliance with City’s Rental Housing Program and will remain in effect in the event of any prepayment of the AHL program loan.

4. Underwriting & Subsidy Layering Reviews

A. Project Underwriting Standards
The City anticipates that in most cases, projects seeking AHL funding will be seeking awards of federal LIHTC as administered by CTCAC. In general, for administrative efficiency, the City anticipates using underwriting standards consistent with those adopted by CTCAC. Further, the City expects to align most affordability requirements with those of the LIHTC program (e.g., the definition of and processes for verifying tenant income, the calculation of rent limits, determination of utility allowances, etc.). However, in all cases, the City reserves the right to impose more restrictive underwriting or compliance requirements based upon its assessment of risk within a given project or specific policy goals outlined in these guidelines or within a particular NOFA. Insomuch as an applicant identifies disconnects between any of the specific underwriting, affordability, or other requirements outli ned herein, it is their responsibility to discuss those with the City prior to submitting an application and seek any needed clarification.

Market Study. For a ll AHL project applications the City will require the submission of a professionally prepared market study meeting the market study requirements of CTCAC. If more than 12 months old at the time of closing, the City may require an updated market study. Proposed rent levels must be supported by the applicant’s market study and within applicable regulatory limits.

Developer/Guarantor Financial Capacity . Collectively and on an unduplicated basis, guarantor(s) must demonstrate minimum financial capacity as follows:

Page 645 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 9
 Minimum liquidity (current assets less current liabilities) of at least the greater of $1M or 5% of the total development costs of all pipeline projects (i.e., projects for which initial funding awards have been issued, that are under construction or in lease -up/stabilization, and for which permanent loan conversion has not yet occurred).
 Minimum net worth of the greater of $5M or 10% of the total development costs of all pipeline projects.

All applications must include the three (3) most recent audited annual financial statements and current (less than 90 days) interim financial statements of all developer(s), underlying ownership entities, guarantors, and, in the case of rehabilitation, the project, as applicable, and will be subject to the City’s evaluation of fiscal soundness. For entities that are not audited, the City may, in its discretion, accept CPA reviewed financial statements. In the case of individual guarantors, current personal financial statements (less than 90 days) and three (3) years of individual tax returns are required.

Vacancy factor of at least 7% for family (i.e., not age-restricted) developments and at least 5% for senior (i.e., age-restricted) developments, unless the third-party market study indicates a higher vacancy factor is needed. For family projects where subst antially all units are supported by project -based rental assistance, a 5% vacancy rate will be permitted.

Inflation factors. In general alignment with CTCAC guidelines, City staff will use a maximum inflation factor of 2.5% for all sources of income and a minimum inflation factor of 3.5% for all operating expenses and reserve deposits.

All AHL Program funded projects must maintain a Debt Coverage Ratio (“DCR”) of at least 1.15 for at least 20 years on all amortized, must-pay debt. In some cases, for projects with small levels of mortgage debt or where long-term cash flow projections suggest declining annual cash flows, this may require a higher initial DCR but generally not greater than 1.25 for year 1 . The City reserves the right, during the affordability period or any extended commitment period, to disapprove or reduce proposed rent increases for projects with actual debt coverage ratios of more than 1.35.

Operating Margin. In addition to considering DCR, the City will review the operating margin ( cash flow divided by the sum of operating expenses and replacement reserve deposits). The operating margin must remain at or above 7% for the period of affordability. Like the DCR standards above, if operating margins exceed 10%, the City may require the project to take on additional amortizing debt or, following project completion, may disapprove or reduce proposed rent increases.

Operating Costs. Proposals must include justification of operating costs that includes a comparison to similar projects in the local market. Whenever possible, comparable properties should be operated by the proposed management company. The City may establish minimum annual per unit operating costs as part of a NOFA, generally in alignment with any published CTCAC standard.

Projects must include a capitalized operating reserve equal to three (3) months of underwritten operating

Page 646 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 10
expenses, amortizing debt service, and required reserve deposits. If drawn, the operating reserve must be replenished prior to distributions of Surplus Cash. The operating reserve is intended to protect against unplanned operating deficits. If the City’s underwriting projections anticipate deficits within the applicable affordability period, a separate operating deficit reserve must be capitalized as well.

To substantiate LIHTC equity pricing, if applicable, applicants must submit documentation (e.g., a term sheet or LOI) indicating that a syndicator or investor has reviewed the proposal and indicated preliminary pricing along with their interest in the project.

Pre-conversion NOI from project operations prior to the conversion of construction to permanent financing must be shown as a source of income in the applicants proforma using a factor of 75%.

Other Financing . Applicants must provide the amounts and terms for the construction financing, permanent financing, and if applicable, owner equity information. Amortizing permanent financing that will be senior to the City’s AHL Program loan must have a term of at least 15 years.

Deferred Developer Fee s. It is common for projects to include deferred developer fees as a financing source. The City will generally require:

 That following the initial application to the City:
o The level of deferred developer fee may not be reduced (in nominal dollar terms) unless the City’s underwriting determines that the deferred fee cannot be retired within 15 years. In the event City underwriting identifies net cost reductions, increases in other funding sources, or other changes that result in a net reduction of the “gap” needed for the project, the City’s AHL Program award will be reduced accordingly; o In the case of projects with 9% LIHTC, the gross Developer Fee may not be increased; and o In the case of projects with 4% LIHTC, any increase in the g ross Developer Fee must be offset with a corresponding increase in the deferred developer fee;  That any net savings (or increased funding sources including but not limited to upward adjusters for tax credit equity) at project completion and cost certificat ion will be used in equal parts to reduce the deferred developer fee and the City’s permanent loan. In the event savings are sufficient to eliminate the deferred fee in this manner, any remaining net savings will be used to further reduce the City’s loan, or in the sole discretion of the City, to increase the operating or replacement reserves; and
 The deferred fee to be structured as an unsecured loan subordinate in priority to the City’s lien; and
 Insomuch as payments on the City loan are deferred prior to the retirement of the deferred fee, the deferred fee must carry no interest.

B. Proforma Requirements
Applicants must submit an unlocked proforma, containing all underlying formulas, in a Microsoft Excel

Page 647 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 11
format as a part of their application. The proforma must, at minimum, include:

 An itemized breakdown of units by bedroom size, square footage, income restriction, and both gross and net rent levels (i.e., net rents are those actually charged after adjusting rents for tenant paid utilities);
 Operating cost assumptions should be itemized and show costs on both a total development and per unit basis;
 Total development costs showing breakdowns by those included in LIHTC basis and identifying which specific line items the applicant proposes to use AHL funds towards. o In particular, the development costs should separately itemize t he hard costs of any stand-alone accessory buildings (including leasing offices, community buildings, laundry facilities, free -standing garages or carports, or maintenance buildings), off-site infrastructure costs, and organizational costs such as partnership or syndication expenses associated with establishing the ownership entity and/or equity investment; FF&E, start- up costs and capitalized reserves.
 For projects using LIHTCs, net ta x credit equity projections should be supported by calculations clearly showing eligible basis, any basis boost, actual credit sought (i.e., if limited by the state QAP or competitive factors), and anticipated pricing;
 Construction and stabilization period cash flows, showing the timing of sources and uses prior to conversion to permanent debt , including but not limited to the specific timing of equity installments;
 Projections of unit delivery and lease up estimating the need for any initial lease up reserve (prior to break even operations) and the availability of pre -conversion net operating income available as a development source; and
 At least a 20-year operating projection show ing inflation assumptions for all revenues and expenses, including increases in replacement reserve funding , and modeling the distribution of surplus cash/cash flow (e.g., toward deferred fees, payments due the City, and any “waterfall” of distributions anticipated by the operating/partnership agreement).

Failure to provide an adequate proforma may result in increased underwriting costs due from the applicant.

C. City Fees
Any NOFA issued by the City will include an allowance for the City’s costs associated with reviewing the application for funding, underwriting the project, closing the transaction, and monitoring performance during the construction and stabilization period. These may includ e but are not limited to third -party consulting, legal, or inspection costs and direct staff costs associated with reviewing, processing, and monitoring award of funds to a project. Following the issuance of any preliminary award, applicants will be responsible for all such City costs whether or not the transaction ultimately closes.

Page 648 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 12
D. Cost Limitations
All project costs must be reasonable and necessary whether directly paid with AHL Program funding or another source. The City reserves the right to review any line‐item cost to ensure that both itemized and total project costs are not excessive. Additionally, AHL funded projects will be subject to the following specific cost limitations:

 For projects utilizing LIHTC, the maximum developer fee may be calculated pursuant to the QAP.

In all cases, however, consultant fees and any interest on predevelopment financing are payable only from proceeds of the developer fee.
 For LIHTC developments, developers shall defer the maximum developer fee allowable under tax law and LIHTC regulations and, insomuch as payments on the City loan are deferred, the deferred developer fee shall bear no interest.
 Maximum allowable builder/general contractor General Requirements, Overhead, and Profit are 6%/2%/6%, respectively. The builder line -item percentages are calculated on the construction contract price which cannot include construction contingency. If change orders use the contingency for construction costs, the same percentages for builder line items apply.  When there is an identity of interest between the developer /owner and the builder/general contractor, in addition to the fee limits stated above, the combined balance of developer fee, general requirements, overhead, and profit may not exceed 20% o f the total development cost less reserves and start-up costs and the developer fee, general requirements, overhead, and profit themselves.3
 Generally, Architectural, including Engineering fees, may not exceed 7% of total project hard costs (excluding builder’s fee line items) unless the City has approved a larger fee (e.g., in response to specific project characteristics such as a requirement for historic rehabilitation or unusual site conditions requiring additional engineering).
 Acquisition costs may not exceed the lesser of the appraised value of a property, the purchase price negotiated with an arms-length seller, or the cost basis of an identity of interest seller.

E. Other Public Funding Sources
Owners must disclose all other commitments for funding with the initial AHL Program application to the City at the time of application and upon receiving any additional commitments of funding. Using its underwriting criteria, the City will assess the project and may require changes to the transaction to ensure that cash flows to the owner/developer are not excessive. Changes may include reductions of the AHL Program award, reductions in the rents being charged to tenants, requirements that excess cash flow is deposited to project reserves, or increased annual payments due on the AHL Program loan.

The City may consider adjusting its underwriting in consultation with other funders to the project.

However, the City retains, at its sole discretion, the right to determine whether to accept alternative

3 Generally, the City considers there to be an identity of interest concern when the owner or developer is an affiliate of, or related party to, the builder/general contractor.

Page 649 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 13
standards.

5. Project Funding Requirements

A. Eligibility Criteria

I. Eligible Applicants
Applications are accepted from non -profit and for -profit housing corporations, joint ventures, limited liability companies, and partnerships. In general, a pplicants must have previous experience owning affordable housing projects or partner with an entity that does have the required experience.

II. Project Location
Projects must be located in the City of Folsom . The City will encourage sites not adjacent to existing regulated affordable housing. In addition, preference may be considered for development of sites identified as being appropriate for affordable housing in the Housing Element, or developments that meet specific needs outlined in a given NOFA.

III. Project Types
Funds will be provided for acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of multifamily residential rental projects. While the City will enterta in any proposals meeting its criteria (e.g., small-scale and/or transitional housing projects), in practice most projects will also require other public investment to be economically feasible (i.e., large-scale multifamily projects with LIHTC). Within a given NOFA, the City may include scoring preferences for projects meeting certain criteria (e.g., senior, large family units, deep income targeting, special needs housing, etc.).

IV. Funding Parameters
Typically, the City will also establish a maximum cap on its investment in a single development. Such a limit will be based on the availability of funding and other City priorities and will be addressed in any NOFA issued by the City.

B. Eligible Costs
I. General
Subject to any other limitations based on state law, the City will allow AHL funds to be used for any project cost otherwise included in the City-approved project budget. In all cases, any specific cost funded by the City as well as all project costs must be reasonable and properly allocable to the project.

II. City Project-Related Soft Costs and ongoing Monitoring Fee The City will include, as project costs, its internal soft costs specifically attributable to an AHL funded project. These may include consulting, legal, inspection, and staff costs associated with reviewing, processing, and overseeing the award of funds to the project. Within any NOFA., the City will provide a

Page 650 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 14
budget allowance for “City Due Diligence & Legal Costs” to be included in the project’s total development costs.

III. Cost Reasonableness
All project costs must be reasonable, whether or not paid directly with AHL funds. The City will review all project costs, including hard and soft costs, to evaluate their reasonableness and may, at its option, require applicants to obtain additional quotes, bids, or estimates of costs.

Acquisition costs must be supported by an independent appraisal of the property. Appraisals must be completed by an MAI certified appraiser, licensed to do business in California. The appraisal must meet USPAP standards. Acquisition costs exceeding the appraised value of the property will be ineligible for AHL funding. When a project’s sources include HUD funding, appraisal methodologies required by federal authorities, insomuch as they are more proscriptive, will apply.

In general, to avoid unnecessary duplication and for administrative ease, the City anticipates relying on various third-party reports (including appraisals and A&E plan and cost reviews) ordered by or certified to other sources of project financing. In all cases, however, the City reserves the right to require an applicant, at its own cost, to provide third-party reports separately from those obtained by or for other financing sources and /or specifically certified to the City. The se may include but are not necessarily limited to market studies, appraisals, environmental reports, and/or plan and cost reviews.

Insomuch as it may use third-party reports initially prepared for other project funders, the City or its representatives must be provided reasonable time to review the information, analysis and conclusions therein and, as necessary, permitted access to the professionals preparing such reports. In addition, the City’s staff, or its agents, must be allowed access to the proper ty as necessary to evaluate the cost projections associated with a project’s plans and specifications . Applications may be determined ineligible if access is not granted or costs are determined to be unreasonable.

IV. Identity of Interest
Applicants must disclose any identity of interest situations that may occur when contracting with related parties during either the development (e.g., related-party general contractor) or ongoing operation (e.g., affiliated property management company) of the project. This includes any identity of interest with the seller of the property . The City must approve the use of any identity of interest contractor, service provider, supplier, or vender and reserves the right to withdraw approval for cause upon notice to the owner.

C. Property Standards
To meet AHL program and City goals, all projects must meet certain physical standards intended to provide quality affordable housing that is durable and energy efficient.

 Construction must meet all applicable local building and fire codes (including related electrical,

Page 651 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 15
mechanical, and plumbing codes).
 If not otherwise required by another funding source, notwithstanding the AHL is not federally funded, the City will require that all projects meet the federal standards associated with Section 504 and the associated Uni form Federal Accessibility Standards (“ UFAS”) requirements. New construction or substantial rehabilitation projects with five or more total units must provide 5% of the project’s units (but not less than one) for physically disabled occupants and another 2% of units (but not less than one) designed to be accessible to those with visual or hearing impairments.  “Covered multifamily dwellings,” as defined at 24 CFR 100.201, must also meet the design and construction requirements required by the Fair Housing Act as outlined in 24 CFR 100.205.

D. Unit Allocation
In the case of mixed -income projects that include a market rate component, in no case may the sum of the City’s funding, along with other public funding such as that from HOME, CDBG, the national Housing Trust Fund (“HTF”), etc. exceed the project’s “applicable fraction” for purposes of LIHTC.

In general, the City expects to provide additional consideration to projects that provide a higher percentage of deeply income-targeted units.

E. Income and Rent Restrictions
Affordable units in City-assisted projects will be income and rent restricted in the same manner as units designated as LIHTC units. A specific matrix of income restrictions defined by the percentage of AMI will be applied, with units at or below 80% AMI being counted as “affordable.” When combined with other federal funding sources, the City may consider alternative definitions of income and rent limits for the purpose of aligning restrictions to another public source.

In general, the City expects to defer to annual approvals of rent schedules and utility allowances to other public funders or oversight agencies, especially CTCAC. Owners will be expected to provide copies to the City concurrently with required submissions to any other oversight agency . Owners must also provide copies of approvals received from other public oversight agencies. The City reserves the right, as necessary (for example, following any determination that an owner has failed to comply with City requirements) to require affirmative City approvals of rent and/or utility schedules.

I. Income Limits
Income limits will be set based upon HUD-published Multifamily Tax Subsidy Program (“MTSP”) limits. The MTSP limits establish income limits for LIHTC and form the basis of the rent limits. They are updated annually, and projects will be required to always use the most current limits published by HUD.

II. Rent Limits

Consistent with LIHTC requirements, rents on affordable units may not exceed 30% of the monthly income of a household at the identified income level, using HUD’s methodology that assumes one and one -half

Page 652 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 16
persons per bedroom (except for efficiency units which are based on a one-person household).

For all AHL funded projects, the owner (or property management agent) must submit the project’s rent schedule on an annual basis , including utility allowances and any tenant fees as described in the sections below. In most cases, the City anticipates deferring to annual rent approvals by other public funders (e.g., CTCAC, CDLAC).

III. Utility Allowances
Rent limits are gross rent limits. The actual rent collected from a tenant must be adjusted considering an allowance for tenant paid utilities. The City encourages the use of project-specific methods of determining the utility allowance, but any method allowed by the LIHTC program may be used by the owner. The City anticipates deferring to annual approvals of the UA by other public funders (e.g., CTCAC, CDLAC).

IV. Prohibition on Certain Fees to Tenants
AHL program participants (i.e., owners) may not charge mandatory fees in addition to rent . Specifically, rental project owners may not charge tenants fees that are not customarily charged to tenants of rental housing (e.g., laundry room access fees). However, owners may charge fees approved by the City or other public funders for the following:

 Reasonable application fees to prospective tenants;4
 Fees or penalties related to the late payment of rent, non-sufficient funds or returned checks, or the like provided such fees are determined by the City to be customary for rental housing projects in the area and not excessive;
 Parking fees to t enants only if such fees are determined by the City, in its sole discretion, to be customary for rental housing projects in the neighborhood (that it is common for even market rate projects not to provide a parking space for each unit); and  Fees for optional services such as supportive services for special needs tenants or general services such as bus transportation or meals, as long as the services are voluntary and fees are charged only for services provided.

IV. Income Verification
For purposes of income restrictions, projects shall use the definition of “annual income” from 24 CFR

5.609 for determining income eligibility. Prior to signing a lease, income must be verified for all new tenants with documentation otherwise acceptable under LIHTC requirements. On an annual basis thereafter, income of renewing tenants must be re -evaluated as required by the LIHTC program.

V. Rent Adjustments
HUD publishes MTSP Income Limits on an annual basis. Unless shorter notice is required (but not if shorter

4 “Nominal” application f ees only for the purpose of discouraging frivolous applications. Application fees are not intended to cover the cost of processing an application and should not be set with that in mind.

Page 653 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 17
notice is merely permitted), the rent for in-place tenants may only be increased with lease renewal and upon no less than 60 days’ written notice to renewing tenants. Further, except for tenants whose incomes have increased b eyond the applicable income lim it for their unit , the year -on-year increase in rent for any renewing tenant may not exceed 5%, absent specific prior approval from the City.

For tenants whose incomes have increased beyond 80% AMI, the City will expect owners to take steps to replace those units with the next available market rate unit in the project (if any) while limiting any rent increase to the over-income tenant to a maximum of 30% of that tenant’s household income.

F. Environmental Requirements
In general, the City expects that all projects will fully comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Applicants must provide a Phase I Environmental Assessment to the City along with any further assessments, testing, or other environmental reports. Insomuch as environmental concerns are identified, they must be mitigated to the City’s satisfaction in order to receive AHL program funding. This may include various clean -up activities or specific design or construction elements to protect occupants (e.g., v apor barriers and/or air exchange systems). If the City determines that a given site ’s environmental risks cannot be adequately mitigated, it may rescind any preliminary award of AHL program funding. Additionally, the City will not fund any project in a 100-year flood zone.

G. Other Requirements
I. Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity
In addition to being the law, it is the City’s policy that all projects comply with all applicable fair housing and equal opportunity statutes, laws, ordinances, and/or regulations, including but not limited to:

 The requirements of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 -20) including prohibitions against discrimination or disparate treatment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity) , disability, and familial status and applicable California statutes which prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status, military/veteran status, political affiliation, and status as victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;

 The prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101-07) and implementing Regulations at 24 CFR Part 146; and

 The requirements that owners make reasonable accommodations in order to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to lease and occupy a unit in the project as required by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or, as may be applicable, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).

II. Relocation and Displacement
In general, the City discourages projects that will result in the permanent displacement of existing tenants.

Insomuch as a project will result in the temporary or permanent relocation of existing tenants, applicants

Page 654 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 18
will be expected to provide benefits which are substantially similar to those provided under the federal Uniform Relocation Act (“URA”) to federally funded projects even if the project is not, due to another source, already specifically subject to these requirements.

III. Prevailing Wages
In general, the City does not expect the receipt of an AHL program loan to require the payment of prevailing wages. However, applicants are responsible for carefully assessing whether other project funding sources require compliance with federal (e.g., Davis -Bacon) or state prevailing wage or related labor standards compliance.

IV. Excluded Parties
The City will not fund projects owned, developed, or otherwise sponsored by any individual, corporation, or other entity that is suspended, debarred, or otherwise prec luded from receiving federal or state awards. Nor may the owner contract with any other entity (including but not limited to builders/general contractors, property management companies, or other members of the development team) that are suspended, debarred, or otherwise so precluded. Similarly, the general contractor will be required to determine that subcontractors are not so precluded.

The System for Award Management ( “SAM”) database should be used by applicants to confirm that development team members are not excluded. The SAM database is available at www.sam.gov.

6. Ongoing Project Requirements
At all times during the term of the AHL program loan or for an affordability period of 55 years, whichever is longer, AHL projects are subject to ongoing monitoring activities to be coordinated by the City and/or any third-party designee assigned by the City, in the City’s sole discretion. During such time, the project must continue to comply with applicable income and rent restrictions, be maintained in compliance with all applicable federal, state, or local codes or regulations related to the physical condition of the property and otherwise meet performance requireme nts outlined in the project’s AHL Agreement with the City (including any other financing documents or regulatory or use restrictions).

A. Marketing and Leasing
The owner/developer must establish a written tenant selection plan outlining any criteria other than income that tenants must meet to be approved for residency as well as any preferences or limitations that will be used to select applicants from the project’s waiting list. Owners may not reject an applicant based on that household’s receipt of a Housing Choice Voucher or other similar form of publicly funded tenant-based rental assistance. The City requires that the owner (or owner’s agent) provide written notification to any rejected applicant of the reason for their rejection.

Leases between the tenant and owner shall be for one year, unless by mutual agreement between the tenant and the owner.

Page 655 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 19
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping
To allow effective oversight of funded projects and document compliance with applicable AHL program requirements, all projects must submit periodic reports to the City. In most cases the City expects to accept reports made in the format required by and submitted to other public funders or oversight agencies (e.g., CTCAC). However, the City reserves the right to require additional reporting or to alter the reporting format or frequency based on future changes to City policy. Additionally, the City reserves the right to require additional or more frequent reporting for projects with compliance deficiencies. In general, reports will be accepted via email.

 Owners may be required to report quarterly during the development phase and lease‐up phase.

Quarterly reports will be due on the 15th of the month following the end of the prior quarter (e.g., by April 15th reports on the first quarter are due).
 Owners must submit any annual reports due to other public oversight agencies (e.g., CTCAC, the housing authority, etc.) to the City. In most cases the City expects such reports will be adequate for its purposes, but upon request by the City owners are required to provide any additional performance information the City may reasonably require. By way of illustration, this may include occupancy reports (showing turnover and management of the unit mix), current rent roles, utility allowance documentation, and examples of marketing materials.  All AHL funded projects are required to submit annual operating budgets to the City including comparisons against trailing 12 -month budget and actuals . Additionally, all projects will be required to submit an audit prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant within 180 days of the end of its fiscal year . For small-scale projects (generally defined to be projects with fewer than 20 total units not involving LIHTC) where the cost of a project-specific audit is deemed by the City to be burdensome, the City may accept a statement of financial condition with prior approval by the City’s Finance Director.
 Within 10 days of receipt, owners mu st submit to the City copies of any monitoring reports, findings, 8823s, inspection reports or deficiency notices , or oth er similar documents issued by other public oversight authorities including but not limited to CTCAC or any other similar state agency; the provider of any HOME, HTF, or federal financing; and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (including as the provider of either project or tenant based vouchers or other financing).

In all cases, t he City may require additional and/or more frequent reporting due to concerns identified whether from reports submitted to the City or otherwise (e.g., from public complaints, media, information from other public agencies or City departments, etc.).

Owners shall allow the City, all other pertinent federal or state agencies, or their designated representatives the right to inspect records and property.

C. Capital Needs Assessment
The City may periodically require owners to obtain a capital needs assessment (“CNA” – sometimes also

Page 656 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 20
referred to as a physical needs assessment “PNA” ) prepared by an independent third-party architect, engineer, or other qualified firm approved by the City. Such CNAs shall be used for the purposes of determining the adequacy of the Replacement Reserve, considering its existing balance, planned deposits, and anticipated future capital replacement costs for the project.

If the CNA indicates the Replacement Reserve is not sufficient to address anticipated capital costs during the period of affordability , the owner must, at the City’s option, either make an additional deposit or increase its annual deposits sufficient to meet any underfunding. If an additional deposit is required by the City, the owner (or the guarantors) must replenish the Replacement Reserve Account within six months.

In general, the City anticipates requiring a CNA eight (8) years after a project has been placed in service and every fifth (5th) year thereafter. However, the City reserves the right, for cause, to require an additional CNA outside of this general cycle (e.g., following significant damage due to a casualty event, if components are regularly failing prior to their expected useful life, etc.).

D. Conflicts of Interest and Identities of Interest
To maintain a high standard of accountability to the public, conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts of interest must be avoided.

 Developers and o wners with employees, family members, consultants, or agents that are otherwise eligible to occupy AHL-funded units must receive approval from the City before entering into a lease with AHL eligible employees, family members, consultants, or agents.  As noted earlier, all identity of interest relationships with contractors, service providers, suppliers, or venders must be disclosed to and approved by the City.

7. Construction Process
A. City Construction Inspections
In addition to any City inspections related to a project’s building or other related permits, Owners will be required to provide copies of consolidated monthly draw requests, including supporting documentation, showing the sources and uses of funds during the construction period. Owner must provide reasonable notice of any scheduled draw inspections during the construction period. Even when not disbursing toward a specific draw, the City will have the right to participate in all draw reviews and conduct inspections to ensure that the project is progressing and that work completed is consistent with all applicable AHL Program requirements.

B. Drawing Funds
The City’s AHL Program loan is intended as construction and/or permanent financing. Proceeds of the AHL Program loan will only be released as reimbursement for eligible project costs.

Page 657 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 21
I. Conditions of Final Disbursement
In addition to the requirements set forth above, the City will hold back ten percent 10% of the AHL proceeds until completion of the Project, including all landscape requirements and offsite utilities and streets and correction of defects in workmanship and/or materials and the following:

 A certificate of occupancy, if applicable, or a final approved construction repo rt from the City’s Community Development Department for the Project.
 Evidence satisfactory to the City that the Project has been completed lien free and substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications.
 Review and acceptance of the cost certification.
 Such other supporting evidence as may be requested by the City or its agent to substantiate all payments which are to be made out of the final disbursement and/or to substantiate all payments then made with respect to the Project.
 A lease-up report showing the demographics of tenants at initial lease up.  Achievement of stabilized occupancy and conversion to permanent financing.

II. Limitations on Draw Requests
Within any NOFA, the City may specify the draw schedule in the form of controlled disbursements. A typical disbursement schedule may include the following milestones:

1. 40% upon the close of construction financing.

2. 30% upon certification by the City’s Building Official that framing inspections for all buildings are complete.

3. 20% upon issuance of final Certificates of Occupancy for all buildings.

4. 10% upon satisfaction that all required documentation for final disbursement has been submitted and approved.

8. Monitoring During Affordability Period
As noted in Sections 5 and 6, the City generally expects to align its compliance monitoring practices to those of other project funders (i.e., CTCAC or CDLAC) . Following project closeout, the City and/or any third-party designee assigned by the City, in the City’s sole discretion, may monitor the project for ongoing compliance with AHL program requirements, including but not limited to income and rent restrictions, property standards, tenant protections, and mar keting and fair h ousing requirements. In addition to periodic reporting outlined herein, the City and/or any third -party designee will conduct on‐site monitoring visits. The purpose of these visits will inc lude, at minimum, reviews of project records and inspection of the premises including common areas and residential units.

In most cases, the City may conduct such reviews annually. However, the City reserves the right to conduct any reviews or site visits more or less frequently based on changes to City policy or based on evidence of compliance deficiencies.

Page 658 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Page | 22

9. Exceptions
The City reserves all rights to make exceptions to the Guidelines and/or deny any affordable housing loan request if doing so would further the purpose and intent of the City’s Affordable Housing Loan Program.

Page 659 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

Page 660 ends

08/26/2025 Item No.14.

Folsom City CouncilAugust 26, 2025

Folsom City Council
August 26, 2025